Suppr超能文献

用于减少交通违规和交通事故的闯红灯抓拍系统干预措施:一项系统综述。

Red light camera interventions for reducing traffic violations and traffic crashes: A systematic review.

作者信息

Cohn Ellen G, Kakar Suman, Perkins Chloe, Steinbach Rebecca, Edwards Phil

机构信息

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida International University Miami Florida.

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London UK.

出版信息

Campbell Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 29;16(2):e1091. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1091. eCollection 2020 Jun.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Road traffic crashes are a major and increasing cause of injury and death around the world. In 2015, there were almost 6.3 million motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States. Of these, approximately 1.7 million (27%) involved some form of injury and 32,166 (0.5%) resulted in one or more fatalities (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2016, Traffic Safety Facts 2013: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System). The most common cause of urban crashes appears to be drivers running red lights or ignoring other traffic controls and injuries occur in 39% of all of these types of crashes (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS, 2018, Red light running). While many drivers obey traffic signals, the possibility for violations exists due to issues such as driver distraction, aggressive driving behaviors, or a deliberate decision to ignore the traffic signal. One researcher suggests that eliminating traffic violations could reduce road injury crashes by up to 40% (Zaal, 1994, ). Red light cameras (RLCs) are an enforcement mechanism that permit police to remotely enforce traffic signals; they may serve as a deterrent to drivers who intentionally engage in red light running (RLR). The one previous systematic review of RLCs found that they were effective in reducing total casualty crashes but also found that evidence on the effectiveness of cameras on red light violations, total crashes, or specific types of casualty crashes was inconclusive. However, this review searched only a small number of electronic databases and was limited to a handful of studies published in 2002 or earlier.

OBJECTIVES

This report updates and expands upon the previous Cochrane systematic review of RLCs. The aim of this review is to systematically review and synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of RLCs on the incidence of red light violations and the incidence and severity of various types of traffic crashes.

SEARCH METHODS

This study uses a four-part search strategy that involves: (a) searching 27 online electronic bibliographic databases for published and unpublished evaluations of RLCs; (b) searching the websites of 46 international institutes and research agencies focusing on transportation issues for reports and other gray literature; (c) searching the reference lists of published studies to identify additional published and unpublished works; and (d) conducting a keyword search using Google and Google Scholar to search for additional gray literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The criteria for inclusion were determined before the search process began. To be eligible, studies must have assessed the impact of RLCs on red light violations and/or traffic crashes. Studies must have employed a quantitative research design that involved randomized controlled trials, quasi-random controlled trials, a controlled before-after design, or a controlled interrupted time series. Research that incorporated additional interventions, such as speed cameras or enhanced police enforcement, were excluded, although normal routine traffic enforcement in the nonintervention control condition was not excluded. Both published and unpublished reports were included. Studies were eligible regardless of the country in which they were conducted or the date of publication. Qualitative, observational, or descriptive studies that did not include formal comparisons of treatment and control groups were excluded from this research.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initial searches produced a total of 5,708 references after duplicates were removed. After title and abstract screening, a total of 121 references remained. Full-text review of these works identified 28 primary studies meeting the inclusion criteria, in addition to the 10 studies identified in the prior Cochrane review. Because several of the primary studies reported on multiple independent study areas, this report evaluates 41 separate analyses. At least two review authors independently assessed all records for eligibility, assessed methodological risk of bias, and extracted data from the full-text reports; disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third review author. To facilitate comparisons between studies, a standardized summary measure based on relative effects, rather than differences in effects, was defined for each outcome. Summary measures were calculated for all studies when possible. When at least three studies reported the same outcome, the results were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled meta-analyses were carried out when at least three studies reported the same outcome; otherwise, the results of individual studies were described in a narrative. Heterogeneity among effect estimates was assessed using tests at a 5% level of significance and quantified using the statistic. EMMIE framework data were coded using the EPPIE Reviewer database.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review suggest that RLCs are associated with a statistically significant reduction in crash outcomes, although this varies by type of crash, and suggest a reduction in red light violations. RLCs are associated with a a 20% decrease in total injury crashes, a 24% decrease in right angle crashes and a 29% decrease in right angle injury crashes. Conversely, however, RLCs are also associated with a statistically significant increase in rear end crashes of 19%. There was also some evidence that RLCs were associated with a large reduction in crashes due to red light violations. There is no evidence to suggest that study heterogeneity is consistently explained by either country or risk of bias, nor did the presence or absence of warning signs appear to impact the effectiveness of RLCs. Studies accounting for regression to the mean tend to report more moderate decreases for right angle crashes resulting in injury than studies not accounting for regression to the mean. Studies with better control for confounders reported a nonsignificant decrease in right angle crashes, compared with a significant decrease for all studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that RLCs may be effective in reducing red light violations and are likely to be effective in reducing some types of traffic crashes, although they also appear linked to an increase in rear end crashes. Several implications for policymakers and practitioners have emerged from this research. The costs and benefits of RLCs must be considered when implementing RLC programs. The potential benefits of a reduction in traffic violations and in some types of injury crashes must be weighed against the increased risk of other crash types. The economic implications of operating an RLC program also must be considered, including the costs of installation and operation as well as the economic impact of RLC effects.

摘要

背景

道路交通事故是全球范围内造成伤害和死亡的主要且日益严重的原因。2015年,美国发生了近630万起机动车交通事故。其中,约170万起(27%)涉及某种形式的伤害,32166起(0.5%)导致一人或多人死亡(美国国家公路交通安全管理局,2016年,《2013年交通安全事实:来自死亡分析报告系统和一般估计系统的机动车碰撞数据汇编》)。城市交通事故最常见的原因似乎是司机闯红灯或无视其他交通管制,在所有这类事故中,39%会导致人员受伤(公路安全保险协会,IIHS,2018年,《闯红灯》)。虽然许多司机遵守交通信号,但由于司机分心、攻击性驾驶行为或故意无视交通信号等问题,仍存在违规的可能性。一位研究人员认为,消除交通违规行为可将道路伤害事故减少多达40%(扎尔,1994年)。闯红灯抓拍相机(RLCs)是一种执法机制,允许警方远程执行交通信号;它们可能对故意闯红灯(RLR)的司机起到威慑作用。之前对闯红灯抓拍相机的一项系统评价发现,它们在减少伤亡事故总数方面是有效的,但也发现关于相机对闯红灯违规行为、事故总数或特定类型伤亡事故有效性的证据尚无定论。然而,该评价仅搜索了少数电子数据库,且仅限于2002年或更早发表的少数研究。

目的

本报告更新并扩展了之前Cochrane对闯红灯抓拍相机的系统评价。本评价的目的是系统评价和综合现有证据,以了解闯红灯抓拍相机对闯红灯违规发生率以及各类交通事故发生率和严重程度的有效性。

搜索方法

本研究采用四部分搜索策略,包括:(a)在27个在线电子书目数据库中搜索已发表和未发表的对闯红灯抓拍相机的评价;(b)在46个专注于交通问题的国际机构和研究机构的网站上搜索报告及其他灰色文献;(c)搜索已发表研究的参考文献列表,以识别其他已发表和未发表的作品;(d)使用谷歌和谷歌学术进行关键词搜索,以搜索其他灰色文献。

选择标准

纳入标准在搜索过程开始前确定。要符合条件,研究必须评估了闯红灯抓拍相机对闯红灯违规行为和/或交通事故的影响。研究必须采用定量研究设计,包括随机对照试验、准随机对照试验、前后对照设计或对照中断时间序列。纳入了其他干预措施(如测速相机或加强警力执法)的研究被排除,不过非干预对照条件下的正常常规交通执法不被排除。已发表和未发表的报告均纳入。无论研究在哪个国家进行或发表日期如何,均符合条件。未包括治疗组和对照组正式比较的定性、观察性或描述性研究被排除在本研究之外。

数据收集与分析

初步搜索在去除重复项后共产生5708条参考文献。经过标题和摘要筛选,共保留121条参考文献。对这些文献的全文审查确定了28项符合纳入标准的主要研究,此外还有之前Cochrane评价中确定的10项研究。由于几项主要研究报告了多个独立研究领域,本报告评估了41项单独的分析。至少两名综述作者独立评估所有记录的 eligibility,评估方法学偏倚风险,并从全文报告中提取数据;分歧通过与第三位综述作者讨论解决。为便于研究间的比较,为每个结果定义了基于相对效应而非效应差异的标准化汇总测量指标。尽可能为所有研究计算汇总测量指标。当至少三项研究报告了相同结果时,将结果合并进行荟萃分析。当至少三项研究报告了相同结果时进行合并荟萃分析;否则,以叙述形式描述个别研究的结果。使用5%显著性水平的检验评估效应估计值之间的异质性,并使用统计量进行量化。使用EPPIE Reviewer数据库对EMMIE框架数据进行编码。

结果

本系统评价的结果表明,闯红灯抓拍相机与事故结果的统计学显著减少相关,尽管这因事故类型而异,并表明闯红灯违规行为有所减少。闯红灯抓拍相机与总伤害事故减少20%、直角事故减少24%以及直角伤害事故减少29%相关。然而,相反的是,闯红灯抓拍相机也与追尾事故统计学显著增加19%相关。也有一些证据表明,闯红灯抓拍相机与因闯红灯违规导致 的事故大幅减少相关。没有证据表明研究异质性始终由国家或偏倚风险所解释,警示标志的存在与否似乎也未影响闯红灯抓拍相机的有效性。考虑到均值回归的研究往往报告因直角事故导致伤害的减少幅度比未考虑均值回归的研究更为适度。与所有研究相比,对混杂因素控制更好的研究报告直角事故减少不显著。

作者结论

证据表明,闯红灯抓拍相机可能在减少闯红灯违规行为方面有效,并且很可能在减少某些类型的交通事故方面有效,尽管它们似乎也与追尾事故增加有关。本研究为政策制定者和从业者带来了一些启示。在实施闯红灯抓拍相机计划时,必须考虑其成本和收益。交通违规行为减少以及某些类型伤害事故减少的潜在益处必须与其他事故类型风险增加相权衡。还必须考虑运营闯红灯抓拍相机计划的经济影响,包括安装和运营成本以及闯红灯抓拍相机效应的经济影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/64d7/8356316/bb01e81c8e3e/CL2-16-e1091-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验