1 / 45

Probabilistic Models of Motorcyclists' Injury Severities in Single- and Multi-vehicle Crashes

Probabilistic Models of Motorcyclists' Injury Severities in Single- and Multi-vehicle Crashes. Peter T. Savolainen, Ph.D. Wayne State University Fred Mannering, Ph.D. Purdue University. Overview. Background Research Objectives Methodology Multi-Vehicle Crash Severity Model

mckissick
Télécharger la présentation

Probabilistic Models of Motorcyclists' Injury Severities in Single- and Multi-vehicle Crashes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Probabilistic Models of Motorcyclists' Injury Severities in Single- and Multi-vehicle Crashes Peter T. Savolainen, Ph.D. Wayne State University Fred Mannering, Ph.D. Purdue University

  2. Overview • Background • Research Objectives • Methodology • Multi-Vehicle Crash Severity Model • Single-Vehicle Crash Severity Model • Conclusions

  3. Background

  4. Background

  5. Background • Ridership increasing • Riding population changing • Training • Age • Gender • Bike design • Speed • Power • Safety • Repealed helmet laws

  6. Research Objective • To develop probabilistic models of motorcycle crash-injury severity using Indiana crash data from 2003 to 2005 • Single-vehicle • Multi-vehicle

  7. Single- vs. Multi-Vehicle

  8. Methodology – Multi-Vehicle • Multinomial logit (MNL) model with, Sin = βi Xin + εin • Sin is the function that determines the probability of severity i for crash n, • Xin is a vector of measurable characteristics (motorcyclist and roadway characteristics) that determine the severity level for crash n, • βi is a vector of estimable coefficients, and • εin is an error term accounting for unobserved effects influencing the injury severity of crash n

  9. Methodology – Multi-Vehicle • if εin are assumed to be extreme value distributed (see McFadden, 1981), then a standard multinomial logit model results, • where Pn(i) is the probability that crash n will result in severity i and I is the set of possible injury severity levels (PDO/Possible, Non-incapacitating, Incapacitating, Fatal).

  10. Methodology – Multi-Vehicle • Elasticity • Pseudo-elasticity

  11. Multi-Vehicle Crash Severity Model

  12. Some Multi-Vehicle Crash Severity Model Findings Severity level; No injury: • Factors decreasing no-injury likelihood: • Alcohol use (other motorist) (65%) • Head-on collision (35%) • Motorcycle age

  13. Some Multi-Vehicle Crash Severity Model Findings Severity level; Incapacitating injury: • Factors increasing incapacitating-injury likelihood: • Motorcyclist speeding (50%) • Motorcyclist age (4.2% per 1% increase in age) • Vertical curve (81%) • Horizontal curve (45%)

  14. Some Multi-Vehicle Crash Severity Model Findings Severity level; Fatality: • Factors increasing fatality likelihood: • Motorcyclist at fault (126%) • Motorcyclist speeding (116%) • Head on collision (566%) • Factors decreasing fatality likelihood: • Helmet use (right angle) (61%)

  15. Methodology – Single Vehicle • If εin are correlated (crash severity levels share unobserved effects): • where Pn(ji) is the probability of crash n resulting in injury severity j conditioned on the injury severity being in injury-severity category i, J is the conditional set of outcomes (conditioned on i), I is the unconditional set of outcome categories, LSin is the inclusive value (logsum), and i is an estimable parameter.

  16. Single-Vehicle Crash Severity Model

  17. Some Single-Vehicle Crash Severity Model Findings Severity level; Minor or No injury: • Factors increasing minor/no-injury likelihood: • Motorcycle less than 5 years old (20%) • Helmet used (50%) • Factors decreasing minor/no-injury likelihood: • Motorcyclist age (1.15% per 1% increase in age) • Alcohol use (10%) • Speeding (14%) • Collisions with trees, poles, curbs, culverts, guardrails)

  18. Some Single-Vehicle Crash Severity Model Findings Severity level; Fatality: • Factors increasing fatality likelihood: • Over 2 years since took BRC (171%) • Speeding (212%) • Run-off-road (137%) • Collision with tree (525%) • Collision with pole (344%)

  19. Conclusions • Critical areas • Poor visibility • horizontal curvature, vertical curvature, darkness • Unsafe speed • Risk-taking behavior • alcohol use, not wearing a helmet • Collision type • Right-angle, head-on, and collisions with fixed objects • Age

  20. Conclusions • Critical areas (continued) • Rider training (BRC results) • Degradation in skills, self-selectivity, risk compensation? • Encouragingly, crashes were found to be less severe: • Under wet pavement conditions • Near intersections • When passengers were on the motorcycle

  21. Additional Evidence on the Effectiveness of Motorcycle Training and Motorcyclists’ Risk-taking Behavior Peter T. Savolainen, Ph.D. Wayne State University Fred Mannering, Ph.D. Purdue University

  22. Overview • Background • Research Objectives • Methodology • Crash Propensity Model • Top Travel Speed Model • Helmet Usage Model • Conclusions

  23. Background • Rider education and training critical to motorcycle safety agenda • Limited research on education/training programs • Contradictory results • Methodological shortcomings

  24. Background • Methodological shortcomings: • Lack of consideration of variables beyond violation and crash statistics • Lack of control for exposure • Not fully considering dissimilarity between trained/untrained riders • Not considering possible risk compensation

  25. Research Objectives • To provide additional evidence on effectiveness of motorcycle training courses • Motorcyclist survey • Using 2005 sample of Indiana motorcyclists

  26. Motorcyclist Survey • Survey developed to collect data on: • Demographics • Training history • Riding behavior • Crash involvement • 2 groups of riders • Trained: ABATE of Indiana – MSF Basic Rider Course (BRC) • Untrained: Indiana BMV and ABATE newsletter • Surveys mailed to 4,000 riders from each group • Over 1,300 responses obtained

  27. Motorcyclist Survey • Why ABATE? • Why combine samples? • Not statistically different. Proof: likelihood ratio test • LL(βR) = log-likelihood of restricted model • e.g., BMV only sample • LL(βU) = log-likelihood of unrestricted model • e.g., BMV and ABATE sample • Combining allows more precise parameter estimates

  28. Summary Statistics • Average age 47.8 • 84% male, 16% female • Completed BRC 60% • Multiple times 6% • Completed ERC 12% • ABATE members 46% • Annual exposure • <1000 23% • 1000-5000 51% • Over 5000 26%

  29. Summary Statistics • Type of Motorcycle • Sportbike: 15% • Cruiser: 46% • Touring: 27% • Other: 12%

  30. Summary Statistics • Reasons for not taking BRC • No need to take course: 47% • Could not find time: 34% • Unaware of course: 15% • Could not afford program cost: 4%

  31. Summary Statistics • Helmet usage frequency • Always/Usually: 56% • Sometimes: 21% • Rarely/Never: 23%

  32. Methodology • Multinomial logit models developed with, Rin = βi Xin + εin • Rin is the function that determines the probability of response i being chosen by motorcyclist n, • Xin is a vector of measurable characteristics (socioeconomics and rider perceptions) that determine the response of motorcyclist n, • βi is a vector of estimable coefficients, and • εin is an error term accounting for unobserved effects influencing the response of motorcyclist n

  33. Methodology • if εin are assumed to be extreme value distributed (see McFadden, 1981), then a standard multinomial logit model results, • where Pn(i) is the probability that motorcyclist n will choose response i and I is the set of possible survey responses.

  34. Crash Propensity Model • Cni is a function that determines crash propensity • Xni is a vector of rider characteristics

  35. Crash Propensity Model Crash propensity increaseswith: • Not wearing helmet (63%) • Ride over 100 mph in past 12 mo. (161%) • Sportbike (54%) • Ride over 10,000 mi/yr (102%) • Age under 35 (59%) • Completed BRC once (44%) • Completed BRC more than once (180%)

  36. Crash Propensity Model Crash propensity decreases with: • Citing no need for BRC (51%) • Riding experience • Highest during 1st year • Decreases years 2-4 (58%) • Increases slightly year 5+ • Riding 500-1000mi/yr (64%)

  37. Crash Propensity Model Note on BRC findings: • Completed BRC once (increases crash 44%) • Completed BRC more than once (increases crash 180%) • Cited no need for BRC (decreases crash 51%) • Evidence that BRC riders may be a self-selected group of inherently less-skillful riders

  38. Maximum Speed Model • Binary logit model for maximum speed • MSni is a function that determines maximum travel speed • Xni is a vector of rider characteristics

  39. Maximum Speed Model • Increasing probability of riding over 90 mph: • Motorcycle primary mode of travel (42%) • Usually wear a helmet (39%) • Sportbike riders (128%) • Drank alcohol within 2 hrs of riding (66%) • Licensed at 40+ years old (38%) • Ride 5-10K miles per year (106%) • Ride over 10K miles per year (189%) • Involved in crash/near-miss (30%)

  40. Maximum Speed Model • Decreasing probability of riding over 90 mph: • Rider age (1.82% per 1% increase in age) • Female riders (61%) • Smaller engines • Usually wear protective clothing/equipment (30%)

  41. Helmet Usage Model • Multinomial Logit for helmet usage • Xni rider characteristics • Hni is equal to: • 1 : Always/Usually • 2: Sometimes • 3: Rarely/Never

  42. Helmet Usage Model • Always wear helmet: • Typically wear other protective equipment or reflective clothing/equipment • Typical travel speed over 70 mph • Typical travel speed less than 60 mph • Older riders • Number of bikes owned

  43. Helmet Usage Model • Never wear helmet: • Motorcycle primary mode of travel • Never wear other protective equipment • Larger engine displacement • Rode over 100 mph in past year • Involved in near-miss in past year • Drank alcohol within 2 hrs of riding • Females • ABATE members • Except for those completing BRC • Self-rated as excellent rider

  44. Conclusions • Individuals taking BRC are more likely to be crash-involved • Inherently less capable riders? • Overcompensation of risks with learned material? • Skill-measurement methods must be developed and research undertaken to understand how skills can be improved considering: • Risk compensation • Self selection of less skilled rider to training courses

  45. Future Research Directions • Improvement of crash records system • Further research into rider training, self-selectivity into training courses, and risk compensation induced by course-taught material • Improvements to Rider Training Program • Baseline evaluation • Further application of survey methodology • Regional/national level • Focus on other issues

More Related