• International Journal of Highway Engineering
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.153-164
• /
• 2009

This Paper presents the severity analysis result of the year 2006 national pedestrian crashes using the data base of 37,589 records prepared for the National Police Bureau. A set of attributing factors considered to affect pedestrian crash patterns were selected, and their contributing effects were investigated by applying the Ordered Logit Model. This model was selected because this model has been able to afford satisfactory results when the dependent variable involved ordered severity levels; fatal, injury, and property- damage-only in this investigation. The investigation has unveiled the followings; First, the pedestrian crash patterns were dependent upon human -drivel and pedestrian- characteristics including gender, age, and drinking conditions. Second, other contributing factors included vehicle, roadway geometric, weather, and hour of day characteristics. Third, seasonal effect was not contributive to crash patterns. Finally, the application of the Ordered Logit Model facilitated the ordered severity level analysis of the pedestrian crash data. This paper concludes that conventional wisdom on the pedestrian crash characteristics is largely truthful. However, this conclusion is limited only to the data used in this analysis, and further research is required for its generalization.

• Proceedings of the KOR-KST Conference
• /
• 1995.02a
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 1995

The Highway Capacity Manual specifies procedures for evaluating intersection performance in terms of delay per vehicle. What is lacking in the current methodology is a comparable quantitative procedure for ass~ssing the safety-based level of service provided to motorists. The objective of the research described herein was to develop a computational procedure for evaluating the safety-based level of service of signalized intersections based on the relative hazard of alternative intersection designs and signal timing plans. Conflict opportunity models were developed for those crossing, diverging, and stopping maneuvers which are associated with left-turn and rear-end accidents. Safety¬based level-of-service criteria were then developed based on the distribution of conflict opportunities computed from the developed models. A case study evaluation of the level of service analysis methodology revealed that the developed safety-based criteria were not as sensitive to changes in prevailing traffic, roadway, and signal timing conditions as the traditional delay-based measure. However, the methodology did permit a quantitative assessment of the trade-off between delay reduction and safety improvement. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) specifies procedures for evaluating intersection performance in terms of a wide variety of prevailing conditions such as traffic composition, intersection geometry, traffic volumes, and signal timing (1). At the present time, however, performance is only measured in terms of delay per vehicle. This is a parameter which is widely accepted as a meaningful and useful indicator of the efficiency with which an intersection is serving traffic needs. What is lacking in the current methodology is a comparable quantitative procedure for assessing the safety-based level of service provided to motorists. For example, it is well¬known that the change from permissive to protected left-turn phasing can reduce left-turn accident frequency. However, the HCM only permits a quantitative assessment of the impact of this alternative phasing arrangement on vehicle delay. It is left to the engineer or planner to subjectively judge the level of safety benefits, and to evaluate the trade-off between the efficiency and safety consequences of the alternative phasing plans. Numerous examples of other geometric design and signal timing improvements could also be given. At present, the principal methods available to the practitioner for evaluating the relative safety at signalized intersections are: a) the application of engineering judgement, b) accident analyses, and c) traffic conflicts analysis. Reliance on engineering judgement has obvious limitations, especially when placed in the context of the elaborate HCM procedures for calculating delay. Accident analyses generally require some type of before-after comparison, either for the case study intersection or for a large set of similar intersections. In e.ither situation, there are problems associated with compensating for regression-to-the-mean phenomena (2), as well as obtaining an adequate sample size. Research has also pointed to potential bias caused by the way in which exposure to accidents is measured (3, 4). Because of the problems associated with traditional accident analyses, some have promoted the use of tqe traffic conflicts technique (5). However, this procedure also has shortcomings in that it.requires extensive field data collection and trained observers to identify the different types of conflicts occurring in the field. The objective of the research described herein was to develop a computational procedure for evaluating the safety-based level of service of signalized intersections that would be compatible and consistent with that presently found in the HCM for evaluating efficiency-based level of service as measured by delay per vehicle (6). The intent was not to develop a new set of accident prediction models, but to design a methodology to quantitatively predict the relative hazard of alternative intersection designs and signal timing plans.