KNUST

PREDICTING THE SEVERITY OF ROAD ACCIDENTS IN GHANA

USING MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS
Reindorf Nartey Borkor1,† , Salomey Osei1 , Bernard Opoku2 , Kwame Owusu Edusei2,3 , Prince Mensah4,∗ , Miheso Juanita Afi4,5 ,
Lowor Divine Adjogli5,6 and Effah Ebenezer Danso6,7
† Department of Mathematics, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana.

∗ Corresponding author: Dr. Reindorf Nartey Borkor

Department of Mathematics
KNUST, Ghana
Email: reinbork@gmail.com.

1 Abstract
2 In Ghana, traffic safety has always been a major concern in terms of sustainable transportation development, and predicting the severity of traffic
3 accidents remains an important challenging issue. Predicting crash injury severity is an important constituent of reducing the consequences of
4 traffic crashes. This study developed machine learning (ML) models including; Random Forest (RF), Logistic Regression (LG) and Artificial
5 Neural Network to predict crash injury severity using several crash-related parameters. The input parameters mainly include vehicle attributes,
6 road condition and light condition attributes. This study employed the crash database of Ghana for the years 1998–2011. The performance of
7 the various algorithms was measured and compared based on accident severity prediction accuracy, precision, recall, F1-scores, Receiver
8 Operating Characteristics (ROC) scores, and the confusion matrix, while the relevance of the feature attributes was determined using feature
9 selection technique. RF and ANN classifiers performed beyond the acceptable threshold of 70% for Precision, Recall, F-score and Accuracy.
10 After building the predictive model, the RF classifier predicted an accuracy of 87.97%. The ANN classifier was the second-best performing
11 classifier followed by the LR classifier which yielded an overall accuracies of 70.80% and 48.68% respectively. The study has demonstrated the
12 potential of machine learning (ML) as a reliable accident forecasting technique, based on predicted performance and accuracy. The findings of
13 this study are expected to be useful in the establishment or improvement of an effective traffic safety system within a sustainable transportation
14 system, which is critical in assisting government managers in developing timely proactive traffic accident prevention strategies and effectively
15 improving road traffic safety.

16 Keywords: machine learning; logistic regression model; random forest model; artificial neural network; accident severity; feature importance.

Background
Road traffic accident has been one of the leading causes of in-
juries and deaths. More than 1.2 million people die each year
on the world’s roads, according to the World Health Organiza-
tion Organization (2015).
In Ghana, studies have shown that one of the leading causes
of death and injury is road traffic crashes most of which occur in
urban areas. Over the last decade, 72 people per 100,000 have
experienced a serious bodily injury, 2,080 people have died in
traffic accidents, and over 8% of the population has died as a
result of traffic accidents Blankson and Lartey (2020). According
to the Statista Research Department, there were almost 12,100
road traffic accidents in Ghana from January to October 2020,
involving over 20,400 vehicles.
Furthermore, the collisions resulted in 2,080 deaths and
12,380 injuries. According to the source, more males than girls
were involved in traffic accidents in 2016. The source further
indicated that buses and mini-busses were the leading vehicles
involved in accidents of this nature, after cars. In Ghana, road
accidents are still a major public safety concern. Traffic crashes
incur enormous expenses to people and society, including pro-
ductivity loss, medical bills, legal and judicial costs, emergency
costs, insurance fees, property damage, congestion costs, and
employment loss Blincoe et al. (2015).
Road traffic accidents affect a huge number of countries each
year, including Ghana. Several factors influence road accidents
in Ghana, resulting in the severity of the incidents being pre-
dicted. Statistical modeling techniques have traditionally been
used to forecast crashes and categorize their severity Savolainen
et al. (2011), Kidando et al. (2019). However, estimating the sever-
ity of a road traffic accident using statistical modeling techniques
is not very accurate Wahab and Jiang (2019). For example, the as-
sumptions related to data distribution and a linear relationship
between explanatory and dependent variables can be untrue
and lead to inaccurate inferences, an innovative approach (ma-
chine learning and deep learning) based on supervised learning
is proposed to improve the performances of accident severity
prediction and to overcome such limitations.
The National Road Safety Commission (NRSC) and the Motor
Traffic and Transport Unit (MTTU) have taken many measures
and have made significant commitments to improve travel safety.
However, traffic accident may occur at any time and in any
2 Journal of ...
location. Drivers, on the other hand, might be given important
information to help them prevent or lessen their chances of
being involved in an accident. For preventing and reducing
the incidence of traffic accidents, forecasting and identifying
associated components under varied situations are critical. As a
result, traffic accident prediction models have been developed
to disclose the important factors that influence traffic accidents
so that traffic safety can be enhanced.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Chapter 2
introduces some previous studies which are closely related to
traffic accident severity prediction. Chapter 3 identifies the key
crash types and investigates the impacts of risk factors on differ-
ent types of crashes using the data resources obtained from the
motor traffic and transport unit. Also, the proposed model is
introduced for predicting the crash severity. Chapter 4 presents
results and discussion on the proposed model and compares
it with some other models. Chapter 5 outlines the main con-
clusions and explains the limitations and recommendations for
future study.
Literature Reviews
Road safety managers and researchers have looked at a variety
of strategies and data to improve road traffic safety. A thorough
understanding of the factors that contribute to road traffic acci-
dents is demanded of effective road safety management. Over
the years, experts have worked hard to uncover some of the
elements that influence the severity and frequency of accidents.
This chapter covers a summary of the adopted models, such as
statistical models, machine learning models, and the progress of
deep learning, as well as accident severity prediction.
Statistical Model in Accident Severity Prediction
According to previous studies, the most prevalent methods of lin-
ear and nonlinear regression analysis utilized for traffic severity
prediction include linear regression modeling, logistic regres-
sion modeling, and negative binomial regression. A statistical
model is a mathematical model that encapsulates a set of sta-
tistical assumptions about the generation of sample data, with
the modeling processes largely depicted in idealized form Cox
(2006). The methods are not only limited in their applicability
because some are not always viable, such as when the conclusion
is discrete, but they also demand strong assumptions about data
distribution. James and Kim (1996).
Models such as simple multiple linear regression and negative
binomial regression were some of the early models of traffic acci-
dent prediction which were based on the approach that assumes
normal distribution of errors. The general form of the linear
accident prediction model can be expressed as follows:
y|θ Dist(θ )withθ = f ( X, β, ϵ)
where,
Y: the response variable (i.e accident frequency)
θ : the accident dataset
Dist(θ ): the model distribution.
X: represent the vector of different explanatory variables.
β: represents the vector of regression coefficient.
Machine Learning Model in Accident Severity Predic-
tion.
Machine learning models have been employed for traffic acci-
dent severity prediction and have proved to have some advan-
tages over statistical models.
ML can model the non-linear relationship that exists between
target variable and related explanatory variables Assi et al. (2020).
Also, because some level of assumptions exist between the ex-
planatory variables and the target variables in statistical models,
there would be a model failure if the assumptions are violated,
machine learning methods do not depend on inherent assump-
tions. Machine learning models can help model the complexity
between the explanatory variables and are able to capture non-
linear relationships while it could be difficult to be achieved
using statistical models Chang (2005). The study of Lord and
Mannering (2010) and Mannering and Bhat (2014) indicates that
the growth of research with regards to transportation could be
greatly elevated by new dataset resources provided by the rise
of current technologies.
Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), K Nearest
Neighbor (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Decision
tree models are known to be the most widely employed models
that were conducted to uncover the significance of machine
learning (ML) model in predicting crash severity over Statistical
models Delen et al. (2017).
Neural Network Model in Accident Severity Prediction.
Neural Networks have been utilized in the past as computer-
based models for knowledge processing and prediction in a
variety of domains Mussone et al. (1999).
Neural networks have been successfully used to learn and
memorize feature datasets, analyze data, and draw comparisons
between new and old data Ertugrul and Hizal (2005) and to teach
the dynamics of non-linear system without any form of math-
ematical modeling Singh and Deo (2007). Many studies have
employed neural network models to predict traffic accidents and
severity in transportation research Alkheder et al. (2017), and
these models have demonstrated high accuracy in predicting
accident severity as compared to other Statistical Models Abdel-
Aty and Abdelwahab (2004)
A comprehensive study conducted byChang (2005) compared
a 3-layer Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model with the Neg-
ative Binomial model for the prediction of crash frequency. The
results indicated that the ANN model performed better than
the Negative Binomial model. Research conducted by Xie et al.
(2007) compared the Back Propagation Neural Network (BPNN)
and Bayesian Neural Network (BNN) and the Negative Bino-
mial model for predicting the frequency of traffic accident on
rural roads. The study indicated that both of the neural network
models had better prediction performance than the Negative
Binomial model. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) can ex-
amine spatial information and have been extensively employed
in image classification problems Wenqi et al. (2017). The study
of Ren et al. (2018) used a traffic accident dataset and a GPS
dataset to construct a deep learning model in order to better un-
derstand the relationship between human movement and traffic
accidents. Given real-time GPS data, the model could assess the
likelihood of accidents and their position on a map.
While the multiple studies and significant contribution of
the surveyed model to road safety should not be overlooked,
it is very important to undertake different types of accident
prediction so that specific countermeasures can be made.

Methodology
In this section, we review the Logistic Regression (LR) Random
forest (RF), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and discuss
their application for predicting traffic accident severity. The
models were implemented using the python programming lan-
guage.
Logistic Regression
Logistic regression is a model employed to examine and to fit
accident systems. This technique has been used to model prob-
abilistic systems and as well as to predict future events. This
model is a direct probability model that has no requirements on
the distributions of the independent variables or predictors Har-
rell Jr (2015). In this study, the model is used to predict the
severity of traffic accidents. It finds the model that best de-
scribes the relationship between a response variable and a set of
explanatory variables.
The logistic regression model has been used over the years
to analyze binary dependent variable. The dependent variable
used in logistic regression model takes the form of true/false
(1/0), where ‘1’ usually represents true, and ‘0′ represents false.
The true/false form can be converted to match any binary re-
sponse Abdel-Aty and Abdelwahab (2004). Generally, the linear
model assumes that responses and the loss terms are normally
Gaussian distribution, and the outcomes are independent Hilbe
(2011). When binary data are modeled using this technique, the
first two assumptions are violated because the binary response
variable is a derivative of the Bernoulli distribution, whiles nor-
mal regression is centered entirely on the Gaussian probability
distribution function.
The natural logarithm or logit of an odds ratio, is the basic
mathematical concept about the logistic regression. The logistic
technique predicts the logit of Y from X. The odds can be ex-
pressed as the ratios of probabilities (π) of True events of Y to
probabilities of false events of Y. The simple logistic regression
model can be expressed in the form:
π
logit(Y ) = ln( ) = β 0 + β 1 x1 + β 2 x2 + β n x n = β 0 + ∑ β i x i
1−π
(1)
where;
π : is the probability of True or success
x . . . xn : denotes explanatory variables in the model
β : denotes the regression coefficient for each variable. Once both
sides of the equation are changed with antilog, the expression
now the the form:
e β 0 + β 1 x1 + β 2 x2 + β n x n
π = P (Y = 1 ) =
1 + e β 0 + β 1 x1 + β 2 x2 + β n x n
where:
π : is the probability of or True success (Y = 1). Even though
Equation 1 shows a linear relationship between logit (Y ) and
( X ), Equation (2) shows that the relationship between Y and
X is nonlinear. Hence, the natural log transformation of the
odds must be employed to make a linear relationship between
categorical response variables and predictor variables. The role
of the β coefficient is to interpret the direction of the relationship
that exit between X and logit (Y ). A bigger β value (ie.β > 0)
indicates that the large logit (Y ) is associated with large X values
and vice versa. On the other hand, small ( β < 0) indicates
that small logit (Y ) is associated with bigger X values and vice
versa. The maximum likelihood technique is mostly deployed
Borkor et al. 3
to predict β in a logistic regression model in order to maximize
the likelihood of reproducing the data given the estimates of
the parameters. The null hypothesis for full models shows that
all available number of β S are zero. If the null hypothesis is
rejected, then it means at least one β is not zero, which indicates
that the logistic regression model predicts the probability of the
outcome better than the mean of the response variables.
Final interpretations of the outcomes are evaluated using the
odds ratio of the predictors Peng et al. (2002). The odds ratio
defined as a measure of the association between an exposure
and an output Szumilas (2010), as derived from exp( β); if an
explanatory variable experience a unit increase whiles other fac-
tors remain constant, then we say the odds ratio has increased
by a factor of exp () β). An odds ratio greater than 1 or less than
1 indicates exposure associated with higher or lower odds of
output for a unit increase in the explanatory variable. A confi-
dence interval of 95% of the odds ratio is mostly employed to
evaluate the result; when the confidence interval is low it repre-
sents a lower level of precision. It can be used as a proxy to find
statistical significance if the confidence interval does not include
an odds ratio of 1 in the interval. The odds ratio can be used
to compare levels of individual explanatory variables Szumilas
(2010) Hosmer Jr et al. (2013).
Random Forest
The Random forests method was first proposed by Ho (1995).
He discovered that if forests of trees splitting with oblique hy-
perplanes are arbitrarily constrained to be sensitive to only a few
feature dimensions, they can gain accuracy as they grow without
overtraining, as long as the forests are randomly restricted to
be sensitive to only selected feature dimensions. The model is a
widely used extension of bagged trees Lee et al. (2020), it’s able
to make predictions after it has been trained on a dataset.
The random forest model evaluates each class separately and
compiles the prediction that receives the most votes as the cho-
sen prediction. Initially, each tree in the classifiers takes data
from samples in the dataset and then selects features at random
to employ in the tree’s growth at each node. The bagging tech-
nique is used in the random forest’s training algorithm. Bagging,
also known as bootstrap aggregation, is a technique for reduc-
ing variances in estimated prediction functions that works well
for high-variance, low-bias techniques like trees Breiman (2001).
The bagging technique fits many trees by using several random
sampling of records in the dataset. The training examples used
in this study were K1 = ( xn , yn ) = ( x1 , y1 ), . . . , Kn . An input
value x was then applied to the prediction problem and a func-
tion θ̂ = t( x; K1∗ , . . . , Kn∗ ) termed as the base learner is utilized. If
t( x; Ki ) is a decision tree trained on dataset, then the predicted
(2)
output of the tree with input x would be the quantity θ ( x ). In
applying the bagging technique, it is required to help stabilize
the base learner t by resampling the training data. The bagged
version of the base learner is defined below:
θ̂ ∞ ( x ) = E∗ [t( x; K1∗ , . . . , Kn∗ )] (3)
where:
Ki∗ series represents sampling with replacement, which is drawn
independently from the original dataset when applying the boot-
strap method.
E∗ is the expectation obtained in terms of the bootstrap measure.
Because we are focused on evaluating exact values, the monte
Carlo bagged estimator was adopted. The concepts of Monte
Carlo algorithms was provided by Brassard and Bratley (1988),
4 Journal of ...
the algorithm terminates answers which may be occasionally
incorrect and avoids the output of two distinct correct answers
for the same problem Esposito and Saitta (2004). In the equation
bellow;
1 B ∗
B b∑
θ̂ B ( x ) = tb ( x ) (4)
=1
where:
t∗b ( x ) = t( x; Kb1
∗ , . . . , K∗
bn
B represents the number of trees grown.
Kbi∗ represents an element i in the bth bootstrap sample.
Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
The first step toward artificial neural networks came in 1943
when Warren McCulloch, a neurophysiologist, and a young
mathematician, Walter Pitts, wrote a paper on how neurons
might work. They modeled a simple neural network with elec-
trical circuits. It is based on the structure and functions of bio-
logical neural networks which works like the way the human
brain processes information. Figure ?? illustrates the structure
of the ANN model. ANN includes a large number of connected
processing units that work together to process information. It
manually learns from examples and experiences it-self and then
apply the learning on tests.
There are several kinds of ANNs, but the most widely used
is the multilayer perceptron (MLP), which consists of the input
layers, hidden layer and output layer, each of which has nodes
and activation functions Delen et al. (2006). This study captures a
neural network with MLP architecture which was designed and
implemented using the python programming language (soft-
ware). The Perceptron - proposed by Frank Rosenblatt in 1958,
accepts input, moderates them with certain weight values, then
applies the transformation function to output the final result.
The structure of the Perceptron is presented in Figure 1. It con-
sists of inputs ( x ), weights (wi ), a summing function (∑), an
activation function ϕ(·), a bias (bk ), and an output (yk ). This
can be expressed mathematically as:
 N 
yk = ϕ ∑ w i x i + bk
i =1
In the Perceptron structure represented in Figure 1, x1 , x2 . . . xm
denote the model inputs. The obtained inputs are then mul-
tiplied by the weights (wi ), and the net input is obtained by
summing with the biases which varies between −1 and +1. The
role of the activation function is to introduce non-linearity into
the neural network, this is useful because it helps the neural
network to learn more complex information. For each layer in
the network, number of units of neuron and the preferred acti-
vation function must be specified. The rectified linear activation
unit (ReLU), Sigmoid, Tangent hyperbolic (Tanh) and softmax
are some of the most widely used activation functions. The
tanh activation function is employed mainly for binary classifi-
cation Sharma (2019). However, when handling complex and
high-dimensional datast, the ReLU has proved to be fast and
more effective than tanh and sigmoid Liu et al. (2021). softmax ac-
tivation function is mostly used as the output layer for multiclass
classification Sharma (2019). In this study, the target variable is
multiclass, and our dataset is high-dimensional, so we adopted
the ReLU activation function for input and hidden layer whiles
softmax was used for the output layer as the activation function.
It is desired to have a continuous and differentiable activation
function Lee et al. (2020). The ReLU activation function is a
Figure 1 Structure of a Perceptron. Pal and Mitra (1992)
piecewise linear function that will output the input directly if it
is positive and outputs zero otherwise, it’s defined as follows:
f ( x ) = max (0, x )
. The neural network is trained using the backpropagation (BP)
in python package program. backpropagation is a method em-
ployed to calculate the gradient of the loss function with regards
to the weights in the network. It’s a widely used method for
optimizing the network’s performance by adjusting the weights.
Classifiers Evaluation
The machine learning algorithms utilised in this study were
evaluated according to their predictive strength. As a result,
we calculated the algorithms’ Precision, Recall, F1-score, and
overall Accuracy. Precision is the proportion of the identified
instances of the data that were successfully predicted by the
algorithms, Recall is the proportion of the test data instances
that were correctly identified by the classifier model based on
the trained data. The F1-score or F-measure is the harmonic
mean of Precision and Recall. The precision, recall and F1 score
is indicated in equation (5 - 7).
tp
Precision = (5)
tp + f p
tp
Recall = (6)
tp + f n
2 ∗ ( Recall ∗ Precision)
F1 Score = (7)
Recall + Precision
Additionally, we computed the Area Under Receiver Operating
Characteristics (AROC), training and validation curve and the
confusion matrix of the algorithms.
The confusion matrix, also called the error matrix, is a tabular
representation of the performance of an algorithm. The compu-
tation of the confusion matrix shows the number of instances
that were correctly predicted and incorrectly predicted. As il-
lustrated, figure (2-4) shows confusion matrix for each of the
algorithm. From the confusion matrix tables, the predicted class
is on the row while the actual class is at the column. The ROC
curve which depict the predictive ability of each algorithm typ-
ically features true positive (sensitivity) rate on the y-axis and
false positive rate (1-specificity) on the x-axis. Figure (6-9) shows
the predictive strength of the various algorithms.

Figure 2 Confusion Matrix of Random Forest Algorithm
Figure 3 Confusion Matrix of Logistic Regression Algorithm
Feature Selection
We deploy this technique to manually select features which
would contribute enormously to the prediction performance of
our models. Redundant or irrelevant features in the dataset can
decrease the model’s accuracy and make the model learn based
on unnecessary features. The reality is, in building a machine
learning model, not all the features present in a dataset would be
suitable. A generalized dataset usually contains multiple proper-
ties; related features, irrelevant features and redundant features.
Thus, only the related features will enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of our learning algorithm. Mostly, dimensional
errors often occur in our algorithms since we are not always in-
formed about feature that would be effective for our prediction.
So, it is very necessary to select relevant feature that are suitable
for the efficiency of the learning algorithm, particularly when
handling complex dataset. Several methods have been deployed
for feature selection in different fields Cai et al. (2018),Ou et al.
(2017),Hall (1999). In this work, we proposed the Correlation-
based feature selection (CFS). Correlation-based feature selection
(CFS) ranks attributes according to a heuristic evaluation func-
tion based on correlations. The function examines subsets made
of feature vectors, which are correlated with the labeled class,
but independent of each other. The CFS technique assumes that
Borkor et al. 5
Figure 4 Confusion Matrix of Artificial Neural Network Algo-
rithm
Figure 5 The Correlation Matrix of all Features
unwanted features show a low correlation with the class and
therefore should be ignored by the algorithm. However, it ex-
amines excess, as they are usually strongly correlated with one
or more of the other features Czarnowski et al. (2018). figure 5
depicts the correlation of the features. For the models proposed
to classify accident severity, the features considered to be most
suitable in our work are; road type, Age of Driver, Crash type,
road class, weather conditions, Light conditions, road surface
conditions, and the number of vehicles involved in the crash.
Results and Discussion
In this section, the results of the models developed to predict traf-
fic accident severity will be thoroughly discussed. The response
variable "Accident Severity" was classified as fatal, serious, or
slight, and 18 independent variables were used to predict the
severity of a road traffic accident, including road type, road class,
number of vehicles, light conditions, weather conditions, road
surface conditions, number of casualties, crash type, and so on.
Finally, the respective performance measure and methodologies
are examined, interpreted, and compared to demonstrate per-
formance accuracy. In comparing the Random Forest model,
6 Journal of ...
Figure 6 Receiver operating characteristics of the Random
Forest Algorithm
Figure 7 Receiver operating characteristics of the Logistic Re-
gression Algorithm
Logistic Regression and the Artificial Neural Network Model
for accident severity prediction, averagely, the proposed meth-
ods achieved a good performance. The models were able to
classify almost all the severity classes correctly. However, for
each prediction the performance varies from model to model.
The overall accuracy and the performance measure of the three
models are listed in table 1 and table 2
The result in table 1 and table 2 indicates that, the Random
Forest Model achieved the best prediction performance with
an overall accuracy of 87.97% and an F1 score of 87.88%, fol-
lowed by the Artificial Neural Network (with overall accuracy
of 70.80% and F1 score of 70.41%) and Logistic regression Model
(with and overall accuracy of 48.68% and F1 score of 47.78%).
Even though the Logistic Regression is considered as one of the
simplest machine learning models and is easy to implement yet
inferior in the the entire prediction, which shows that the sim-
plest model cannot capture accurately the complex relationships
that exist between risk factors. Although the overall accuracy of
the ANN model was great but not really impressive as compared
to the Random Forest, it still has room for improvement. Thus,
it is worth noticing that both models performed well in terms of
sensing the differences that exist between the classes.
Figure 8 Training and Validation loss of the Artificial Neural
Network
Figure 9 Training and validation of the Artificial Neural Net-
work
Conclusion
This study focused on deploying machine learning algorithm to
predict the severity of road traffic accident, the study has shown
that ML can generate accurate predictions of accident severity
and provide potentially meaningful information. We identi-
fied the RF algorithm as the best algorithm in predicating the
severity of road accidents when compared with LG, and ANN.
It is hoped that the findings of this study will guide the selec-
tion of appropriate ML algorithm for the prediction of accident
severity, and help decision-makers, transportation engineers
and other road safety agencies to make well-informed and better
decisions to improve road traffic safety in Ghana. Moreover,
strategic crash forecast would be extremely important for im-
proving travel safety, so an interesting future study would be
to develop visualization techniques by feeding our model with
real-time data and forecasting the probabilities of a road traffic
accident in real-time while showing potential hotspots or areas
progressively under different conditions.

Acknowledgments
We fully recognize with appreciation, the tremendous help and
incredible support from ...
Funding
This study was supported by ...
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Abdel-Aty MA, Abdelwahab HT. 2004. Predicting injury severity
levels in traffic crashes: a modeling comparison. Journal of
transportation engineering. 130:204–210.
Alkheder S, Taamneh M, Taamneh S. 2017. Severity prediction
of traffic accident using an artificial neural network. Journal
of Forecasting. 36:100–108.
Assi K, Rahman SM, Mansoor U, Ratrout N. 2020. Predicting
crash injury severity with machine learning algorithm syner-
gized with clustering technique: A promising protocol. Inter-
national journal of environmental research and public health.
17:5497.
Blankson PK, Lartey M. 2020. Road traffic accidents in ghana:
contributing factors and economic consequences. Ghana med-
ical journal. 54:131–131.
Blincoe L, Miller TR, Zaloshnja E, Lawrence BA. 2015. The eco-
nomic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2010 (re-
vised). Technical report.
Brassard G, Bratley P. 1988. Algorithmics: theory & practice.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Breiman L. 2001. Random forests. Machine learning. 45:5–32.
Cai J, Luo J, Wang S, Yang S. 2018. Feature selection in machine
learning: A new perspective. Neurocomputing. 300:70–79.
Chang LY. 2005. Analysis of freeway accident frequencies: neg-
ative binomial regression versus artificial neural network.
Safety science. 43:541–557.
Cox DR. 2006. Principles of statistical inference. Cambridge univer-
sity press.
Czarnowski I, Jedrzejowicz P, Chao KM, Yildirim T. 2018. Over-
coming “big data” barriers in machine learning techniques for
the real-life applications.
Delen D, Sharda R, Bessonov M. 2006. Identifying significant
predictors of injury severity in traffic accidents using a series
of artificial neural networks. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
38:434–444.
Delen D, Tomak L, Topuz K, Eryarsoy E. 2017. Investigating
injury severity risk factors in automobile crashes with pre-
dictive analytics and sensitivity analysis methods. Journal of
Transport & Health. 4:118–131.
Ertugrul S, Hizal NA. 2005. Neuro-fuzzy controller design via
modeling human operator actions. Journal of Intelligent &
Fuzzy Systems. 16:133–140.
Esposito R, Saitta L. 2004. A monte carlo analysis of ensemble
classification. In: . p. 34.
Hall MA. 1999. Correlation-based feature selection for machine
learning. .
Harrell Jr FE. 2015. Regression modeling strategies: with applica-
tions to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival
analysis. springer.
Borkor et al. 7
Hilbe JM. 2011. Logistic regression. International encyclopedia
of statistical science. 1:15–32.
Ho TK. 1995. Random decision forests. In: . volume 1. pp. 278–
282. IEEE.
Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. 2013. Applied logistic
regression. volume 398. John Wiley & Sons.
James JL, Kim KE. 1996. Restraint use by children involved in
crashes in hawaii, 1986–1991. Transportation research record.
1560:8–12.
Kidando E, Moses R, Sando T. 2019. Bayesian regression ap-
proach to estimate speed threshold under uncertainty for traf-
fic breakdown event identification. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Part A: Systems. 145:04019013.
Lee J, Yoon T, Kwon S, Lee J. 2020. Model evaluation for fore-
casting traffic accident severity in rainy seasons using ma-
chine learning algorithms: Seoul city study. Applied Sciences.
10:129.
Liu YC, Ma CY, He Z, Kuo CW, Chen K, Zhang P, Wu B, Kira
Z, Vajda P. 2021. Unbiased teacher for semi-supervised object
detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.09480. .
Lord D, Mannering F. 2010. The statistical analysis of crash-
frequency data: A review and assessment of methodological
alternatives. Transportation research part A: policy and prac-
tice. 44:291–305.
Mannering FL, Bhat CR. 2014. Analytic methods in accident
research: Methodological frontier and future directions. Ana-
lytic methods in accident research. 1:1–22.
Mussone L, Ferrari A, Oneta M. 1999. An analysis of urban colli-
sions using an artificial intelligence model. Accident Analysis
& Prevention. 31:705–718.
Organization WH. 2015. Global status report on road safety 2015.
World Health Organization.
Ou J, Xia J, Wu YJ, Rao W. 2017. Short-term traffic flow fore-
casting for urban roads using data-driven feature selection
strategy and bias-corrected random forests. Transportation
Research Record. 2645:157–167.
Pal SK, Mitra S. 1992. Multilayer perceptron, fuzzy sets, classifi-
action. .
Peng CYJ et al. 2002. An introduction to logistic regression anal-
ysis and reporting 96 j. Educ. Res. 3.
Ren H, Song Y, Wang J, Hu Y, Lei J. 2018. A deep learning ap-
proach to the citywide traffic accident risk prediction. In: . pp.
3346–3351. IEEE.
Savolainen PT, Mannering FL, Lord D, Quddus MA. 2011. The
statistical analysis of highway crash-injury severities: a re-
view and assessment of methodological alternatives. Accident
Analysis & Prevention. 43:1666–1676.
Sharma S. 2019. Towards Data and Model Confidentiality in Out-
sourced Machine Learning. Ph.D. thesis. Wright State University.
Singh P, Deo M. 2007. Suitability of different neural networks in
daily flow forecasting. Applied Soft Computing. 7:968–978.
Szumilas M. 2010. Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Cana-
dian academy of child and adolescent psychiatry. 19:227.
Wahab L, Jiang H. 2019. A comparative study on machine learn-
ing based algorithms for prediction of motorcycle crash sever-
ity. PLoS ONE. 14:1–20.
Wenqi L, Dongyu L, Menghua Y. 2017. A model of traffic acci-
dent prediction based on convolutional neural network. In: .
pp. 198–202. IEEE.
Xie Y, Lord D, Zhang Y. 2007. Predicting motor vehicle collisions
using bayesian neural network models: An empirical analysis.
Accident Analysis & Prevention. 39:922–933.
8 Journal of ...

Table 1 Performance Accuracy for all Classifiers

Model Training Accuracya Testing Accuracy
Random Forest 92.27 87.97
Artificial Neural Network 70.41 70.80
Logistic Regression 48.74 48.68
a

Table 2 Performance measure for all Classifiers

Model Precisiona Recall F1 Score
Random Forest 87.90 87.97 87.88
Artificial Neural Network 70.31 70.80 70.41
Logistic Regression 47.84 48.66 47.78
a