Lecture 9-Traffic Safety Annotated

Lecture 9
Traffic Safety
By: Daba S. Gedafa, Ph.D., P.E., ENV SP

Traffic Safety
 In the US, every:
 5 seconds a crash occurs
 7 seconds a property damage crash occurs
 10 seconds there is a traffic related injury
 2 minutes there is an alcohol-related injury
 12 minutes someone dies in a traffic crash
 31 minutes an alcohol-related crash fatality occurs
 113 minutes a pedestrian is killed in a crash
 4 days an employee dies in a work-related crash
CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 2

Cost of Crashes
 $170 billion overall price tag
 $16,500 per crash
 $76,300 per injury crash
 $504,400 per fatal injury

What Causes Most Crashes?
 Not the road
 Not the vehicle
 Not weather conditions
 Most crashes are caused by driver error

Top 7 Unsafe Driving Behaviors
1. Speeding
2. Right of way
3. Drifting left of center
4. Improper turning
5. Passing or overtaking improperly
6. Following too closely
7. Backing
Dangerous Behaviors

Traffic Safety Issues
 Not using seat belt
 Impaired driving
 Red light running
 Speeding
 Aggressive driving
 Distracted driving

Type of Distraction
 More than 16 people die each day and 1300 are injured due
to crashes involving a distracted driver
 There are 3 form of distraction:

 Manual/Physical (hands off the wheel)
 Visual (eyes off the road)
 Cognitive (mind off the road)
 Texting includes all three forms of distraction
 The odds of being involved in a crash are approximately

doubled when driving aggressively or when looking away
from the road for longer than 2 seconds
Distracted Driving
 Distracted Driving is defined as diversion of attention
away from activities critical for safe driving toward a
competing activity
 It could be as simple as changing the radio
 A Virginia Tech study reported that

 80% of all crashes and
 65% of all near-crashes
involved a distracted driving incident within 3 seconds of the
crash

Distracted Driving Resources
 DRIVESMARTVA.org
 Distraction.gov
 DOT.gov (distracted driving)
 AAAfoundation.org
 Focusdriven.org
 www.nsc.org

Pop Quiz
 What percent of people think texting or e-mailing while
driving is a serious safety threat?
 88 percent
 75 percent
 62 percent
 50
 30 percent

Alarming Facts
 Twenty percent of drivers text while driving
 Cell phones cause 1.4 million crashes each year
 18 percent of fatalities are distraction-related
 Using a phone while driving makes drivers four times more

likely to crash
 risks are even higher with texting and e-mails

Types of Employer Policies
 Three types of policies:
 Restrictive
 Bans calls, texts, e-mails
 Requires drivers to pull over to make even emergency calls
 Supported by the National Safety Council
 Balanced
 Acknowledges that employees may not always be able to stop
driving
 Bans texting, e-mailing, and web browsing
 Allows the use of hands-free phone for priority contacts and
emergencies
 Permissive
 Permits calls, texts, and e-mails with hands-free or in-vehicle
devices

Sample Cell Phone Policies
 www.nsc.org
 http://
www.csoonline.com/article/486687/sample-cell-phone-p
da-use-while-traveling-policy-

Understanding the Brain
 Can we truly multi-task?
 Brains juggle tasks, performing only one task at a time
 We screen out information to deal with distraction

overload
 Inattention blindness is big risk: look but don’t see
 Results: missed exits, running red lights & stop signs, and
missing important signage

SMART Goal Setting
 Specific
 Measurable
 Achievable
 Realistic
 Timely

Occupant Protection
 60% of fatal crashes – victim is not buckled
 Seatbelts when worn correctly, reduce the risk of fatal

injury to front seat passengers by 45%
 35% unrestrained vehicle occupants ejected

 75% chance of being killed
 2% of restrained occupants ejected

North Dakota’s Case
ND People, Drivers, and Vehicles, 2009-2018

ND Motor Vehicle Crashes, Fatalities, and Injuries, 2009-2018

ND vs. US Motor Vehicle Fatalities and Vehicle Fatality Rate, 2009-2018

ND Motor Vehicle Fatalities by Month, 2009-2018

ND Motor Vehicle Fatalities by Age, 2009-2018

ND Age of Drivers Involved in Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2009-2018

ND Unbelted Motor Vehicle Fatalities, 2009-2018

ND vs. US Seat Belt Use Rate, 2009-2018

ND Motor Vehicle Crashes, Fatalities, and Injuries Involving Alcohol, 2009-2018

ND Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes Involving Speed/Aggressive Driving, 2014-2018

ND Teen Driver Involvement in Fatal Crashes, 2014-2018

ND Crashes, Fatalities, and Injuries Involving Bicycles, 2014-2018

ND Crashes, Fatalities, and Injuries Involving Pedestrians, 2014-2018

ND Crashes, Fatalities, and Injuries Involving Motorcycles, 2014-2018

ND Crashes, Fatalities, and Injuries Involving Off-Highway Vehicles, 2014-2018

North Dakota Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Crashes by AASHTO Safety Emphasis Area

North Dakota Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Crashes by AASHTO Safety Emphasis Area (Continued)

Severe Crashes from 2007-2011

North Dakota Highway Safety Plan

Preventing Vehicle Crashes, Fatalities, and Injuries
 Education
 Environment
 Enforcement
 Engineering
 Emergency Medical Services

Minnesota’s Case
Safety Analysis Diagram

Monetized Crash Costs

Gedafa et al. Study
Daba S. Gedafa, Ph.D., P.E.
University of North Dakota
Impacts of Alternative Yield Sign Placement on Pedestrian Safety
Co-authors:
Bryan Kaemingk
Brian Mager
Jeffrey Pape
Mark Tupa
Taryn Bohan
Outline
Introduction
Problem Statement
Objectives
Test Sections
Data Collections
Methodology
Results and Discussions
Conclusions
44
CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety
Introduction
Pedestrians are at a higher risk of fatalities than
automobile operators
Marked crosswalks are usually used to:

 increase pedestrian safety
 alert drivers
 increase pedestrians’ level of service
“Yield to Pedestrian Signs” placed in-roadway can

increase the percentage of motorists yielding for
pedestrians
45
Problem Statement
MUTCD does not specify where yield signs should be
located in relation to the crosswalks
Relationship between in-roadway sign placement relative

to the crosswalk and yielding behavior has not been
systematically and widely evaluated
46
Objectives
Study the effect of yield sign on yielding for pedestrians
Determine the most effective location to place the sign

relative to the crosswalks
Analyze the effect of yield sign on traffic speed and its

implication on pedestrian safety
47
Test Sections
Total Number AADT PSL
Intersection Name of Lanes (mph)
(a) On-campus Locations
University Ave and Hamline St Two and TL* 8195 20
University Ave and Oxford St Two 9655 20
University Ave and Yale Dr Two 8870 25
6th Ave N and Cambridge St Two and TL* 8235 25
6th Ave N and State St Two and TL* 5920 25
(a) Off-campus Locations
13th Ave S and S 11th St Two 4650 20
32nd Ave S and S 10th St Two 4135 25
Demers Ave before Sorlie Bridge Two and TL* 16645 25
Note: *Turning Lane (TL)
48
Data Collections
49
Yield to Pedestrian Data
Yielding for pedestrian data was collected without and
with the yield sign
 Yield sign was placed at five different locations
Four different types of behaviors have been collected:

 the number of drivers who yielded for pedestrians
 the number of drivers who did not yield for pedestrians
 the number of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
 the number of pedestrians trapped at the centerline
50
Traffic Speed Data
Decatur Doppler hand held traffic radar speed gun has
been used to collect traffic speed data without and with
the yield sign
Yield sign was placed at the centerline of the crosswalk
51
Methodology
Two-proportion z-test was used for significant difference
test of yielding for pedestrian
An independent t-test was used to examine the significant

difference between the traffic speed without and with the
yield sign
52
Results and Discussions
Yield Data Analysis Results
Yielding Percentage Comparison
Hamline St Oxford St Yale Dr

Sign
Loc.
(ft) EB WB Both EB WB Both EB WB Both
None 79 86 83 85 88 86 60 63 62
0 100 98 98 98 97 97 94 100 97
30 82 94 90 92 93 93 50 90 72
60 96 88 91 92 88 90 100 80 87
90 90 85 87 99 98 98 73 89 80
120 70 87 84 94 92 93 85 80 82
55
Proportion Significant Difference
Yielding Significant Difference Test
Sign
Location Yielding
(ft) Yielding Total 0 30 60 90 120
(%)
-5.37 -2.023 -2.295 -3.98 -2.493
None 183 225 81.3
(<.0002) (0.0431) (0.0217) (<.0002) (0.0127)
3.287 3.098 2.167 3.324

0 199 204 97.5 -
(0.001) (0.0019) (0.0302) (0.0009)
-0.216 -1.434 -0.138

30 131 147 89.1 -
(0.829) (0.1516) (0.8902)
-1.209 0.098
60 142 158 89.9 -
(0.2267) (0.9219)
1.438
90 246 264 93.2 -
(0.1504)
120 206 230 89.6 -
56
Percent not Yielding and Pedestrian-Driver Conflict
Eastbound Westbound Overall
Sign
Location Not Not Not
(ft) Conflict Conflict Conflict
Yielding Yielding Yielding
None 19.2 1.0 16.7 0.8 17.8 0.9

0 2.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0
30 14.8 1.6 4.7 2.3 8.8 2.0
60 5.7 0.0 11.4 2.3 8.9 1.3
90 6.1 0.0 7.3 0.0 6.8 0.0
120 9.0 1.1 8.5 2.1 8.7 1.7
57
Speed Data Analysis Results
University Avenue and Hamline Street
Average Minimum Maximum
35
30
25
Speed (mph)
20
15
10
0
With Without With Without With Without With Without
Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound
Morning Afternoon
Time of the Day and Direction of the Flow with and without Sign
59
University Avenue and Yale Dr
40
35
30
25
Speed (mph)
20
15
10
60
6th Ave N and State St
35
30
25
Speed (mph)
20
15
10
61
On-campus Locations Combined
40
35
30
25
Speed (mph)
20
15
10
0
Morning Afternoon
62
13th Ave S and S 11th St
35
30
25
Speed (mph)
20
15
10
0
Morning Afternoon
63
32nd Ave S and S 10th St
40
35
30
25
Speed (mph)
20
15
10
0
Morning Afternoon
64
Demers Ave before Sorlie Bridge
35
30
25
Speed (mph)
20
15
10
0
Morning Afternoon
65
Significant Difference Test for Traffic Speed (On-campus)
Eastbound Westbound
Ti- Without Sign Without

Location With Sign With Sign Sign.
me Sign . Sign
Diff.
Diff.
Avg. n Avg. n Avg. n Avg. n ?
?
Uni. Ave & M 18.2 59 18.8 83 No 17.6 157 19.6 138 Yes
Hamline St A 19.5 75 19.1 64 No 17.6 118 17.7 100 No
Uni. Ave M 21.1 125 23.3 98 Yes 22.8 76 23.4 64 No
and Yale Rd A 20.5 196 22.8 179 Yes 19.9 169 22.2 177 Yes
6th Ave N M 18.3 43 19.6 21 No 16.4 24 17.0 10 No
and State St A 20.4 24 24.7 45 Yes 21.3 38 24.0 42 Yes
M 19.8 227 21.1 202 Yes 19.0 257 20.6 212 Yes
Combined
A 20.2 295 22.3 288 Yes 19.2 325 21.0 319 Yes
66
Significant Difference Test for Traffic Speed (Off-campus)
Eastbound Westbound
Without Sign With Sign Without
Ti- With Sign Sign.
Location Sign . Sign
me Diff.
Diff.
Avg. n Avg. n ?
? Avg. n Avg. n
13th Ave S M 14.9 10 19.2 6 Yes 13.5 59 14.7 60 Yes

and S 11th St A 20.7 40 20.7 45 Yes 16.7 46 18.4 57 Yes
32nd Ave S M 14.2 25 19.3 38 Yes 14.1 78 16.7 108 Yes
and S 10th St A 20.7 66 23.8 77 Yes 20.3 94 26.2 108 Yes
Demers Ave M 23.3 44 24.3 51 No 21.8 62 24.8 44 Yes
Bridge A 19.7 207 20.6 181 Yes 19.2 203 20.1 198 Yes
M 19.3 79 22.0 95 Yes 16.3 199 17.8 212 Yes
Combined
A 19.5 313 21.4 303 Yes 19.1 343 21.7 363 Yes
67
Conclusions
Yielding for pedestrians without the sign is significantly
different from yielding for pedestrians with the sign at any
location
 yield sign at any of the sign locations increases yielding for
pedestrians
Yielding for pedestrian when the sign is at the crosswalk

(0 ft) is significantly different from without the sign and
sign at other locations
 placing yield sign at the crosswalk (0 ft) is the most
effective way of increasing yielding for pedestrian
68
Conclusions (Continued)
Percent drivers not yielding for pedestrian and pedestrian-
driver conflict, respectively are significantly low in the
presence of yield sign
The presence of the sign results in lower average traffic

speed
 the risk to pedestrian will be less if there is crash in the
presence of the sign
69
Acknowledgements
Senate Scholarly Activities Committee (SSAC) at UND
for sponsoring this study
70
Thank You
Questions?

Lecture 9-Traffic Safety Annotated

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 9-Traffic Safety Annotated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 9

By: Daba S. Gedafa, Ph.D., P.E., ENV SP

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 2

 $16,500 per crash

 $76,300 per injury crash

 $504,400 per fatal injury

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 3

 Not the vehicle

 Not weather conditions

 Most crashes are caused by driver error

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 4

3. Drifting left of center

5. Passing or overtaking improperly

6. Following too closely

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 6

 Red light running

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 7

 There are 3 form of distraction:

 Texting includes all three forms of distraction

 The odds of being involved in a crash are approximately

 A Virginia Tech study reported that

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 9

 DOT.gov (distracted driving)

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 10

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 11

 Cell phones cause 1.4 million crashes each year

 18 percent of fatalities are distraction-related

 Using a phone while driving makes drivers four times more

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 12

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 13

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 14

 Brains juggle tasks, performing only one task at a time

 We screen out information to deal with distraction

 Inattention blindness is big risk: look but don’t see

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 15

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 16

 Seatbelts when worn correctly, reduce the risk of fatal

 35% unrestrained vehicle occupants ejected

 2% of restrained occupants ejected

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 17

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 19

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 20

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 21

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 22

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 23

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 24

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 25

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 26

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 27

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 28

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 29

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 30

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 31

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 32

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 33

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 34

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 35

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 36

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 37

 Emergency Medical Services

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 38

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 40

CE 416: L8-Traffic Safety 41