Use of empirical and full Bayes before-after approaches to estimate the safety effects of roadside barriers with different crash conditions

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Background

Road Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high-income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence-based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high-income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.

Search Methods

The EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.

Selection Criteria

The interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post-crash pre-hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non-fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.

Data Collection and Analysis

The EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case-control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post-crash pre-hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non-fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety-six percent of the studies were reported from high-income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper-middle-income countries, and only 1.4% from lower-middle and low-income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

The EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence-synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

Examining the performance of engineering treatment evaluation methodologies using the hypothetical treatment and actual treatment settings

The selection of treatment evaluation methodology is paramount in determining reliable crash modification factors (CMFs) for engineering treatments. A lack of ground truth makes it cumbersome to examine the performance of treatment evaluation methodologies. In addition, a sound methodological framework is critical for evaluating the performances of treatment evaluation methodologies. In addressing these challenges, this study proposed a framework for assessing treatment evaluation methodologies by hypothetical treatments with known ground truth and actual real-world treatments. In particular, this study examined three before-after treatment evaluation approaches: 1) Empirical Bayes, 2) Simulation-based Empirical Bayes, and 3) Full Bayes methods. In addition, this study examined the Cross-Sectional treatment evaluation methodology. The methodological framework utilized five datasets of hypothetical treatment with known ground truth based on the hotspot identification method and a real-world dataset of wide centerline treatment on two-lane, two-way rural highways in Queensland, Australia. Results showed that all the methods could identify the ground truth of hypothetical treatments, but the Full Bayes approach better predicts the known ground truth compared to Empirical Bayes, Simulation-based Empirical Bayes, and Cross-Sectional methods. The Full Bayes approach was also found to provide the most precise estimate for real-world wide centerline treatment along rural highways compared to other methods. Moreover, the current study highlighted that the Cross-Sectional method offers a viable estimate of treatment effectiveness in case the before-period data is limited.

A before-after evaluation of protected right-turn signal phasings by applying Empirical Bayes and Full Bayes approaches with heterogenous count data models

Right-turn crashes (or left-turn crashes for the US or similar countries) represent over 40 % of signalized intersection crashes in Queensland, Australia. Protected right-turn phasings are a widely used countermeasure for right-turn crashes, but the research findings on their effects across different crash types and intersection types are not consistent. Methodologically, the Empirical Bayes and Full Bayes techniques are generally applied for before-after evaluations, but the inclusion of heterogeneous models within these techniques has not been considered much. Addressing these research gaps, the objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of protected right-turn signal phasings at signalized intersections employing heterogeneous count data models with the Empirical Bayes and Full Bayes techniques. In particular, the Empirical Bayes approach based on random parameters Poisson-Gamma models (simulation-based Empirical Bayes), and the Full Bayes approach based on random parameters Poisson-Lognormal intervention models (simulation-based Full Bayes) are applied. A total of 69 Cross intersections (with ten treated sites) and 47 T intersections (with six treated sites) from Southeast Queensland in Australia were included in the analysis to estimate the effects of protected right-turn signal phasings on various crash types. Results show that the change of signal phasing from a permissive right-turn phasing to the protected right-turn phasing at cross and T intersections reduces about 87 % and 91 % of right-turn crashes, respectively. In addition, the effect of protected right-turn phasings on rear-end crashes was not significant. The heterogenous count data models significantly address extra Poisson variation, leading to efficient safety estimates in both simulation-based Empirical Bayes and simulation-based Full Bayes approaches. This study demonstrates the importance of accounting for unobserved heterogeneity for the before-after evaluation of engineering countermeasures.

Examining crash injury severity and barrier-hit outcomes from cable barriers and strong-post guardrails on Alabama's interstate highways

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the impact of several risk factors (i.e., roadway, driver, vehicle, environmental, and barrier-specific characteristics) on the injury severity resulting from barrier-related crashes and also on barrier-hit outcomes (i.e., vehicle containment, vehicle redirection, and barrier penetration). A total of 1,685 barrier-related crashes, which occurred on three major interstate highways (I-65, I-85, and I-20) in the state of Alabama, were collected for a seven-year period (2010-2016), and all relevant information from the police reports was reviewed. Features that were rarely explored before (e.g., median width, barrier length, barrier offset or lateral position, left shoulder width, blockout type, and number of cables) were also collected and examined. Two types of longitudinal barriers were analyzed: high-tension cable barriers installed on medians and strong-post guardrails installed on medians and/or roadsides.

METHOD

Two separate mixed logit (MXL) models were used to analyze crash injury severity in median and roadside barrier-related crashes. Two additional MXL models were separately adopted for median and roadside barrier-related crashes to estimate the probability of three barrier-hit outcomes (vehicle containment, vehicle redirection, and barrier penetration).

RESULTS

The results of crash injury severity MXL models showed that, for both median and roadside barrier crashes, barrier penetration, female drivers, and driver fatigue were associated with a higher probability of injury or fatal crashes. The results of barrier-hit MXL models showed that longer barrier length, Brifen cable barrier system, and barrier lateral position were significant predictors of median barrier-hit outcomes, whereas dark lighting condition, driving under the influence (DUI), presence of curved freeway sections, and right shoulder width significantly contributed to roadside barrier-hit outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The MXL model succeeded in identifying several contributing factors of crash severity and barrier-hit outcomes along Alabama's interstate highways. Practical applications: One study application is to design longer barrier run length (greater than 1230 feet or 0.2 miles) to reduce the barrier penetration likelihood.

Traffic volume and crashes and how crash and road characteristics affect their relationship - A meta-analysis

The present study has investigated the relationship between traffic volume and crash numbers by means of meta-analysis, based on 521 crash prediction models from 118 studies. The weighted pooled volume coefficient for all crashes and all levels of crash severity (excluding fatal crashes) is 0.875. The most important moderator variable is crash type. Pooled volume coefficients are systematically greater for multi vehicle crashes (1.210) than for single vehicle crashes (0.552). Regarding crash severity, the results indicate that volume coefficients are smaller for more fatal crashes (0.777 for all fatal crashes) than for injury crashes but no systematic differences were found between volume coefficients for injury and property-damage-only crashes. At higher levels of volume and on divided roads, volume coefficients tend to be greater than at lower levels of volume and on undivided roads. This is consistent with the finding that freeways on average have greater volume coefficients than other types of road and that two-lane roads are the road type with the smallest average volume coefficients. The results indicate that results from crash prediction models are likely to be more precise when crashes are disaggregated by crash type, crash severity, and road type. Disaggregating models by volume level and distinguishing between divided and undivided roads may also improve the precision of the results. The results indicate further that crash prediction models may be misleading if they are used to predict crash numbers on roads that differ from those that were used for model development with respect to composition of crash types, share of fatal or serious injury crashes, road types, and volume levels.

Severity assessment of accidents involving roadside trees based on occupant injury analysis

The aims of this study were to achieve a quantitative assessment of the severity of accidents involving roadside trees on highways and to propose corresponding safety measures to reduce accident losses. This paper used the acceleration severity index (ASI), head injury criteria (HIC) and chest resultant acceleration (CRA) as indicators of occupant injuries and horizontal radii, vehicle departure speeds, tree diameters and roadside tree spacing as research variables to carry out bias collision tests between cars, trucks and trees by constructing a vehicle rigid body system and an occupant multibody system in PC-crash 10.0® simulation software. A total of 2,256 data points were collected. For straight and curved segments of highways, the occupant injury evaluation models of cars were fitted based on the CRA, and occupant injury evaluation models of trucks and cars were fitted based on the ASI. According to the Fisher optimal segmentation method, reasonable classification standards of severities of accidents involving roadside trees and the corresponding ASI and CRA thresholds were determined, and severity assessment methods for accidents involving roadside trees based on the CRA and ASI were provided. Additionally, a new index by which to evaluate the accuracy of the accident severity classification and the degree of misclassification was built and applied for the validity verification of the proposed severity assessment methods. A proportion of trucks was introduced to further improve the ASI evaluation model. For the same simulation conditions, the results show that driver chest injuries are more serious than driver head injuries and that the average ASI of cars is greater than that of trucks. The CRA and ASI have a positive linear correlation with the departure speed and a logarithmic correlation with the roadside tree diameters. The larger the spacing of roadside trees is and the smaller the horizontal radius is, the smaller the chance that a vehicle will experience a second collision and the lower the risk of occupant injury. In method validation, the evaluation results from two proposed severity assessment methods based on the CRA and ASI are consistent, and the degrees of misclassification are 4.65% and 4.26%, respectively, which verifies the accuracy of the methods proposed in this paper and confirms that the ASI can be employed as an effective index for evaluating occupant injuries in accidents involving roadside trees.

A full Bayesian approach to appraise the safety effects of pedestrian countdown signals to drivers

Although they are meant for pedestrians, pedestrian countdown signals (PCSs) give cues to drivers about the length of the remaining green phase, hence affecting drivers' behavior at intersections. This study focuses on the evaluation of the safety effectiveness of PCSs to drivers, in the cities of Jacksonville and Gainesville, Florida, using crash modification factors (CMFs) and crash modification functions (CMFunctions). A full Bayes (FB) before-and-after with comparison group method was used to quantify the safety impacts of PCSs to drivers. The CMFs were established for distinctive categories of crashes based on crash type (rear-end and angle collisions) and severity level (total, fatal and injury (FI), and property damage only (PDO) collisions). The CMFs findings indicated that installing PCSs result in a significant improvement of drivers' safety, at a 95% Bayesian credible interval (BCI), for total, PDO, and rear-end collisions. The results of FI and angle crashes were not significant. The CMFunctions indicate that the treatment effectiveness varies considerably with post-treatment time and traffic volume. Nevertheless, the CMFs on rear-end crashes are observed to decline with post-treatment time. In summary, the results suggest the usefulness of PCSs for drivers. The findings of this study may prompt a need for a broader research to investigate the need to design PCSs that will serve the purpose not only of pedestrians, but drivers as well.

Examination of the reliability of the crash modification factors using empirical Bayes method with resampling technique

There have been plenty of studies intended to use different methods, for example, empirical Bayes before-after methods, to get accurate estimation of CMFs. All of them have different assumptions toward crash count if there was no treatment. Additionally, another major assumption is that multiple sites share the same true CMF. Under this assumption, the CMF at an individual intersection is randomly drawn from a normally distributed population of CMFs at all intersections. Since CMFs are non-zero values, the population of all CMFs might not follow normal distributions, and even if it does, the true mean of CMFs at some intersections may be different from that at others. Therefore, a bootstrap method based on before-after empirical Bayes theory was proposed to estimate CMFs, but it did not make distributional assumptions. This bootstrap procedure has the added benefit of producing a measure of CMF stability. Furthermore, based on the bootstrapped CMF, a new CMF precision rating method was proposed to evaluate the reliability of CMFs. This study chose 29 urban four-legged intersections as treated sites, and their controls were changed from stop-controlled to signal-controlled. Meanwhile, 124 urban four-legged stop-controlled intersections were selected as reference sites. At first, different safety performance functions (SPFs) were applied to five crash categories, and it was found that each crash category had different optimal SPF form. Then, the CMFs of these five crash categories were estimated using the bootstrap empirical Bayes method. The results of the bootstrapped method showed that signalization significantly decreased Angle+Left-Turn crashes, and its CMF had the highest precision. While, the CMF for Rear-End crashes was unreliable. For KABCO, KABC, and KAB crashes, their CMFs were proved to be reliable for the majority of intersections, but the estimated effect of signalization may be not accurate at some sites.