Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3135, USA.
Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Jul;42(4):1273-82. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.004. Epub 2010 Mar 12.
Crash prediction models still constitute one of the primary tools for estimating traffic safety. These statistical models play a vital role in various types of safety studies. With a few exceptions, they have often been employed to estimate the number of crashes per unit of time for an entire highway segment or intersection, without distinguishing the influence different sub-groups have on crash risk. The two most important sub-groups that have been identified in the literature are single- and multi-vehicle crashes. Recently, some researchers have noted that developing two distinct models for these two categories of crashes provides better predicting performance than developing models combining both crash categories together. Thus, there is a need to determine whether a significant difference exists for the computation of confidence intervals when a single model is applied rather than two distinct models for single- and multi-vehicle crashes. Building confidence intervals have many important applications in highway safety. This paper investigates the effect of modeling single- and multi-vehicle (head-on and rear-end only) crashes separately versus modeling them together on the prediction of confidence intervals of Poisson-gamma models. Confidence intervals were calculated for total (all severities) crash models and fatal and severe injury crash models. The data used for the comparison analysis were collected on Texas multilane undivided highways for the years 1997-2001. This study shows that modeling single- and multi-vehicle crashes separately predicts larger confidence intervals than modeling them together as a single model. This difference is much larger for fatal and injury crash models than for models for all severity levels. Furthermore, it is found that the single- and multi-vehicle crashes are not independent. Thus, a joint (bivariate) model which accounts for correlation between single- and multi-vehicle crashes is developed and it predicts wider confidence intervals than a univariate model for all severities. Finally, the simulation results show that separate models predict values that are closer to the true confidence intervals, and thus this research supports previous studies that recommended modeling single- and multi-vehicle crashes separately for analyzing highway segments.
事故预测模型仍然是评估交通安全的主要工具之一。这些统计模型在各种类型的安全研究中发挥着至关重要的作用。除了少数例外,它们通常用于估算整个公路路段或交叉口每单位时间的事故数量,而不区分不同子组对事故风险的影响。文献中已经确定了两个最重要的子组,即单车事故和多车事故。最近,一些研究人员指出,为这两类事故分别开发两个独立的模型比开发合并这两类事故的模型提供了更好的预测性能。因此,需要确定在应用单一模型而不是单车和多车事故的两个独立模型时,计算置信区间是否存在显著差异。置信区间在公路安全中有许多重要的应用。本文研究了分别对单车和多车(正面碰撞和追尾碰撞)事故建模与对它们进行合并建模对泊松-伽马模型置信区间预测的影响。置信区间是针对所有严重程度的事故模型和致命及严重伤害事故模型计算的。用于比较分析的数据是在 1997-2001 年从德克萨斯州多车道无分隔公路上收集的。本研究表明,分别对单车和多车事故建模比将它们合并为一个单一模型预测的置信区间更大。对于致命和伤害事故模型,这种差异比所有严重程度的模型更大。此外,还发现单车和多车事故不是独立的。因此,开发了一个考虑单车和多车事故之间相关性的联合(双变量)模型,该模型对所有严重程度的模型预测的置信区间比单变量模型更宽。最后,模拟结果表明,单独的模型预测的值更接近真实的置信区间,因此本研究支持了之前建议分别对单车和多车事故建模以分析公路路段的研究。