Comparison of Methodology Approach to Identify Causal Factors of Accident Severity

Abstract

Identifying the factors that significantly affect accident severity has become one of the many ways to reduce it. While many accident database studies have reported associations between factors and severities, few of them could assert causality, primarily because of uncontrolled confounding effects. This research is an attempt to resolve the issue by comparing the difference between what happened and what would have happened in different circumstances. Data on accidents were analyzed first with rough set theory to determine whether they included complete information about the circumstances of their occurrence by an accident database. The derived circumstances were then compared with each other. For those remaining accidents without sufficient information, logistic regression models were employed to investigate possible associations. Adopting the 2005 Taiwan single-auto-vehicle accident data set, the empirical study showed that an accident could be fatal mainly because of a combination of unfavorable factors instead of a single unfavorable factor. Moreover, the accidents related to rules with high support and those with low support showed distinct features.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Ghamdi

A. S.

Using Logistic Regression to Estimate the Influence of Accident Factors on Accident Severity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, No. 6 2002, pp. 729–741.

Abdel-Aty

Analysis of Driver Injury Severity Levels at Multiple Locations Using Ordered Probit Models. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 34, No. 5 2003, pp. 597–603.

Bedard

Guyatt

G. H.

Stones

M. J.

and Hirdes

J. P.

The Independent Contribution of Driver, Crash, and Vehicle Characteristics to Driver Fatalities. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, No. 6 2002, pp. 717–727.

Chandraratna

Stamatiadis

and Stromberg

Crash Involvement of Drivers with Multiple Crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 3 2006, pp. 532–541.

Kim

and Kim

Personal, Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Seriously Injured Crash-Involved Seat Belt Non-Users in Hawaii. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, No. 1 2003, pp. 121–130.

Quddus

M. A.

Noland

R. B.

and Chin

H. C.

An Analysis of Motorcycle Injury and Vehicle Damage Severity Using Ordered Probit Models. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 33, No. 4 2002, pp. 445–462.

Davis

G. A.

Possible Aggregation Biases in Road Safety Research and a Mechanism Approach to Accident Modeling. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 36, No. 6 2004, pp. 1119–1127.

Elvik

Assessing the Validity of Road Safety Evaluation Studies by Analyzing Causal Chains. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, No. 5 2003, pp. 741–748.

Elvik

Laws of Accident Causation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 4 2006, pp. 742–747.

10.

Karlaftis

M. G.

and Tarko

A. P.

Heterogeneity Considerations in Accident Modeling. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 30, No. 4 1998, pp. 425–433.

11.

Clarke

D. D.

Forsyth

and Wright

Machine Learning in Road Accident Research: Decision Trees Describing Road Accidents During Cross-Flow Turns. Ergonomics, Vol. 41, No. 7 1998, pp. 1060–1079.

12.

Chang

L. Y.

and Wang

H. W.

Analysis of Traffic Injury Severity: An Application of Non-Parametric Classification Tree Techniques. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 5 2006, pp. 1019–1027.

13.

Sharda

and Bessonov

Identifying Significant Predictors of Injury Severity in Traffic Accidents Using a Series of Artificial Neural Networks. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 3 2006, pp. 434–444.

14.

Karlaftis

M. G.

and Golias

Effects of Road Geometry and Traffic Volumes on Rural Roadway Accident Rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, No. 3 2002, pp. 357–365.

15.

Sohn

S. Y.

and Shin

Pattern Recognition for Road Traffic Accident Severity in Korea. Ergonomics, Vol. 44, No. 1 2001, pp. 107–117.

16.

Pearl

Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000.

17.

Hauer

Cause and Effect in Observational Cross-Section Studies on Road Safety.

Presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.

18.

Hauer

Observational Before–After Studies in Road Safety. In Estimating the Effect of Highway and Traffic Engineering Measures on Road Safety. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1997.

19.

Pawlak

Rough Sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Science, Vol. 11, No. 5 1982, pp. 341–356.

20.

Pawlak

and Skowron

Rudiments of Rough Sets. Information Sciences, Vol. 177, No. 1 2007, pp. 3–27.

21.

Walczak

and Massart

D. L.

Rough Sets Theory. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, Vol. 47, No. 1 1999, pp. 1–16.

22.

Wong

J.-T.

and Chung

Y.-S.

Rough Set Approach for Accident Chains Exploration. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 3 2007, pp. 629–637.

23.

Grzymala-Busse

J. W.

LERS—A System for Learning from Examples Based on Rough Sets. Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1992.

24.

Grzymala-Busse

J. W.

and Werbrouck

On the Best Search Method in the LEM1 and LEM2 Algorithms. In Incomplete Information: Rough Set Analysis Orlowska

(E.

ed.), Physica-Verlag, New York, 1998, pp. 75–91.

25.

Lin

and Fearn

K. T.

The Provisional License: Nighttime and Passenger Restrictions—A Literature Review. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 34, No. 1 2003, pp. 51–61.

26.

Kim

Nitz

Richardson

and Li

Personal and Behavioral Predictors of Automobile Crash and Injury Severity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 27, No. 4 1995, pp. 469–481.