More than Cops on Dots – Assessing Crash Risk
•
1 like•316 views
Breakout Session 9: Improving Safety through Enforcement 2015 Traffic Safety Conference by Robert Wunderlich, Research Engineer, Texas A&M Transportation Institute; and Troy Walden, Associate Research Scientist, Texas A&M Transportation Institute
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to More than Cops on Dots – Assessing Crash Risk
Similar to More than Cops on Dots – Assessing Crash Risk (20)
More from Texas A&M Transportation Institute
More from Texas A&M Transportation Institute (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
More than Cops on Dots – Assessing Crash Risk
- 2. It all starts with the CR-3 476,000 in 2015 So, what good are they anyway?
- 4. CRISdata Powerful Trends over years Characteristics Of Crash Types Biggest Problems Screening for locations Daunting
- 5. How do you make sense of all this information? How can you use it to aid law enforcement? Working with DPS HSSOC Pilot Project Eagle Ford Shale Three Counties McMullen, Live Oak and Bee
- 7. PuttingThingsin Context Segment Crash Risk • likelihood of crash • based on past history • account for traffic volume • relative to other similar roadway segments
- 8. TheQuestions Segments with more crashes than we would expect? Why? What can we do about it? What are characteristics stand out? Does that suggest certain actions?
- 9. DefiningSegmentsandRisk Same: number of lanes, median type, lane and shoulder widths, speed limit and traffic volume Risk: Crashes per Vehicle-Mile
- 10. ComparingRisk How do you compare a low volume FM Road to IH 37? Trick Question: You don’t!
- 11. ApplestoApples Area Type Functional Class Volume Ranges (ADT) Low Medium High Urban Freeways <75,000 75,000 – 150,000 >150,000 Arterials <25,000 25,000 – 50,000 >50,000 Collectors <5,000 5,000 – 10,000 >10,000 Local* 0 – 20,000 Rural Freeways <30,000 30,000 – 60,000 >60,000 Arterials <15,000 15,000 – 30,000 >30,000 Collectors <5,000 5,000 – 10,000 >10,000 Local* 0 – 15,000 *- Only one volume group.
- 12. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PercentofSegments Crash Rate (Crashes per Million Vehicle-Miles) Inflection points where the relationship between cumulative percentages and crash rates change. Low Moderate High Very High Cumulative Percentage vs. Crash Rate for Medium Traffic Volume Rural Freeways DefiningLevelsofRisk
- 14. > 9Crashes
- 16. BacktotheDots
- 17. 82% non-intersection 18% intersection Whatdo thedotstellus? 39 Crashes 1 Crash Alcohol All Single Vehicle 75% either Wet or Fatigued CMVs in 47% Wet – 47% Fatigued – 28% All Dry Sand/Mud/Dirt/ Surface 12%
- 18. 18% intersection Whatdo thedotstellus? 7 Crashes Alcohol – None 85% Angle CMVs in 57% Disregard- 17% Fail 2 Yield – 83% 1/3 Visibility
- 19. AnUnusualSegment? Non-Intersection Single Vehicle Wet or Standing Water 18% Non-Intersection Single Vehicle Wet or Standing Water 47% Dry Fatigued or Asleep 15% Dry Fatigued or Asleep 28% SH 16 All High Risk
- 20. Fatal and Incapacitating Injuries Rural Art. & Coll 82% Non- Intersection 76% Intersection 85% WherearePeopleHurtandKilled? Rural IH 9% Urban Art 9%
- 21. In WhatKindof Crashes? Fatal and Incapacitating Injuries Non-Intersection 72% Intersection 28% Single-Vehicle – 59% Head-on – 25% Rear-End – 12% Angle – 70% Single-Vehicle – 19% Rear-End – 9%
- 22. WhatContributed? FTY / Stop – 26% FTY / Left – 9% Inattention – 9% Disregard TCD – 10% Fatal and Incapacitating Injuries Non-Intersection – 72% Intersection – 28% Faulty Evasive – 29% Fatigued/Asleep – 18% Wrong Side – 15% Inattention – 9% Alcohol – 9%
- 23. Higher Risk Road Segments Systematic Analysis Of Crashes Higher Risk Roadway Types Predominant Characteristics TheOpportunity FOCUS