The fully Bayesian (FB) approach for identification of collision black spots has been available for some time. However, little research has been conducted on the performance of the FB method, especially on criteria for ranking sites. A study was done to fill this void by a thorough evaluation of the FB method for black spot identification. First, an investigation compared the FB approach with the now-traditional empirical Bayesian method. It was confirmed that the FB method was superior for key ranking criteria [the posterior Poisson mean (PM) of crash frequency and potential for safety improvement] based on evaluation criteria, including sensitivity and specificity, and the sum of the PM. Next, eight ranking criteria, which included PM, posterior expected, mode and median ranks, and probability of being the worst, were proposed and evaluated for the best of several FB model variations explored. The mode rank of the posterior distribution of the Poisson mean proved to be the most promising because it tended to provide the best results, especially for top-ranked sites. The sum of the Poisson mean was also found to be a solid evaluation criterion, especially for limited numbers of top-ranked sites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PersaudB., LyonC., and NguyenT.Empirical Bayes Procedure for Ranking Sites for Safety Investigation by Potential for Safety Improvement. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1665, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 7–12.
2.
HauerE., KononovJ., AlleryB., and GriffithM. S.Screening the Road Network for Sites with Promise. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1784, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 27–32.
3.
ChengW., and WashingtonS. P.New Criteria for Evaluating Methods of Identifying Hot Spots. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2083, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 76–85.
4.
SchluterP. J., DeelyJ. J., and NicholsonA. J.Ranking and Selecting Motor Vehicle Accident Sites Using a Hierarchical Bayesian Model. Statistician, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1997, pp. 293–316.
5.
Van den BosscheF. V., WetsG., and LesaffreE.Bayesian Hierarchical Approach to Model Rank of Hazardous Intersections for Bicyclists Using Gibbs Sampler. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
6.
Miranda-MorenoL. F., and FuL.Traffic Safety Study: Empirical Bayes or Full Bayes? Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
7.
HuangH., ChinH. C., and HaqueM. M.Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Approaches in Identifying Crash Hot Spots: Naive Ranking, Empirical Bayes, and Full Bayes Methods. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2103, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 32–41.
8.
McGuiganD. R. D.The Use of Relationships Between Road Accidents and Traffic Flow in “Black-Spot” Identification. Traffic Engineering and Control, Aug.–Sept. 1981, pp. 448–453.
9.
LairdN. M., and LouisT. A.Empirical Bayes Ranking methods. Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1989, pp. 29–46.
10.
MiaouS.-P., and SongJ. J.Bayesian Ranking of Sites for Engineering Safety Improvements: Decision Parameter, Treatability Concept, Statistical Criterion, and Spatial Dependence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005, pp. 699–720.
11.
TunaruR.Hierarchical Bayesian Models for Multiple Count Sata. Austrian Journal of Statistics, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2002, pp. 221–229.
12.
SpiegelhalterD., ThomasA., BestN., and LunnD.WinBUGS Version 1.4 User Manual.MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2003. http://www.mrc-cam.ac.uk/bugs.
SayedT., and RodriguezF.Accident Prediction Models for Urban Unsignalized Intersections in British Columbia. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1665, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 93–99.
15.
PersaudB., LordD., and PalmisanoJ.Calibration and Transferability of Accident Prediction Models for Urban Intersections. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1784, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 57–64.
16.
PersaudN. B., LanB., LyonC., and BhimR.Comparison of Empirical Bayes and Full Bayes Approaches for Before-After Road Safety Evaluations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2010, pp. 38–43.
17.
ChibS., and GreenbergE.Bayes Inference in Regression Models with ARMA (p, q) Errors. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 64, No. 1–2, 1994, pp. 183–206.
18.
CongdonP.Bayesian Statistical Modeling.John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2001.
19.
SpiegelhalterD. J., BestN. G., CarlinB. P., and LindeA.Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, No. 64, Part 4, 2002, pp. 583–639.
20.
LanB., and PersaudB.Evaluation of Multivariate Poisson Log Normal Fully Bayesian Methods for Before-After Treatment Effect Analysis. Presented at 89th Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
21.
AkaikeH.Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. Proc. 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary, 1973, pp. 267–281.
22.
SchwarzG.Estimating the Dimension of a Model. Annals of Statistics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1978, pp. 461–464.
23.
ForsterM. R.Key Concepts in Model Selection: Performance and Generalizability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2000, pp. 205–231.
24.
WeakliemD. L.Introduction to the Special Issue on Model Selection. Sociological Methods Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2004, pp. 167–187.
25.
BurnhamK. P., and AndersonD. R.Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociological Methods Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2004, pp. 261–304.
26.
YuJ., and MeyerR.Multivariate Stochastic Volatility Models: Bayesian Estimation and Model Comparison. Econometric Reviews, Vol. 25, No. 2–3, 2006, pp. 361–384.
27.
KassR. E., and RafteryA. E.Bayes Factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 90, 1995, pp. 773–795.
28.
BrooksS. P.Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method and Its Application. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (Statistician), Vol. 47, No. 1, 1998, pp. 69–100.
