1 / 73

Week 5, CE 552

Week 5, CE 552. Today. Discuss Vanderbilt Chapter 3 Misc slides from Evans The general approach to the crash problem Crash risk and age Road crash factors Vehicle crash factors Environmental crash factors. Misc Slides from Evans.

porter-bruce
Télécharger la présentation

Week 5, CE 552

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. Week 5, CE 552

  2. Today • Discuss Vanderbilt Chapter 3 • Misc slides from Evans • The general approach to the crash problem • Crash risk and age • Road crash factors • Vehicle crash factors • Environmental crash factors

  3. Misc Slides from Evans

  4. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004

  5. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  6. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  7. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  8. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  9. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  10. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  11. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  12. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  13. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  14. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  15. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  16. Source: Evans, Leonard. Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, MI; Science Serving Society; 2004 used by permission for CE 552 in class use only

  17. The general approach to the crash problem

  18. Historical development of approaches to road safety (Ogden, Chapter 2) Mono-Causal casuistic approach • Remove the cause: Every accident was a problem and solution for that was taking away the cause. • Problem migration: No attention was paid that taking away one problem may produce other problems. • No solution: It is impossible to find a unique solution to every different problem. • Blame: This approach promoted perfectionism and led to attitude to “blame the victim”.

  19. Mono-Causal accident proneness approach • Focus on bad drivers: This approach argued that accident-prone drivers should be identified and kept away from traffic, or force them to improve. • Failure: Since all attempts to identify these drivers in advance have failed, this approach was not successful.

  20. Mono-Causal chance phenomenon approach • Not preventable: This approach considers crashes as completely a matter of chance, so it was argued that they can not prevented. • Focus on consequences: This approach concentrated on the consequences of the crashes • e.g. crashworthy cars, frangible poles, post crash countermeasures

  21. Multi_Causal chance phenomenon approach • Chain of events: By using scientific research and analysis, this approach argues that crashes are the result of chain of events. • Break the weak link: Prevention or reduction of the end result was depend on finding the weak link in the chain. • Parts are controllable: Several interdependent factors such as human, vehicle and road and the interaction between these factors were partly deterministic and therefore controllable, and partly stochastic (random). • Data and Stats: This approach needs an extensive crash database and sophisticated statistical techniques to determine the interaction among the factors. • Targeted programs: Effectiveness and setting priorities became the leading principles for the management of road trauma and resulted in targeted speed enforcement, concentration on at risk group (young, alcohol impaired), and “accident black spot programs”. • Successful: This approach led to great advances, and essentially is the state of the current practice.

  22. Multi-Causal static system approach • Nature of problem:This approach emphasizes the nature of the problem. • Close examination: It is based on a problem-oriented strategy of choosing a particular part of the problem and bring resources to examine it more closely. (TI, Safety audit) • Answer “why”: The goal of this approach is to gather as much data as possible about not only the site and circumstances of the crash, but background information and circumstances before the crash.

  23. the Haddon Matrix Note: Evans thinks the matrix places too much emphasis on the crash, and that “Pre-crash” has usually meant the seconds before the crash. However, that view probably pertains to this matrix without the fourth column (early Haddon matrix had only the first 3 columns). http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/winter05-06/haddon.html

  24. Crash risk and ageOlder Drivers

  25. NCHRP 500 series • Volume 9: Older Driver • Identifies/characterizes the problem (what we are now discussing) • Recommends remedial action/countermeasures (later in the semester)

  26. Why?

  27. Why? See interesting illusion applet

  28. Age and vision 20 Year old vision 60 year old vision

  29. Grandpa hopes this is serious exaggeration 75 year old vision estimate

  30. BMW, Hummer night vision systems because it's unaffected by ambient light, Night Driver enables drivers to see beyond oncoming headlight glare… …up to five times further than with headlights alone

  31. Older Population Traffic Safety Fact Sheet (DOT-HS-810-992) also includes state by state comparison data

  32. Why does this look different?

  33. Age and vision the olny iprmoetnt tihng is that the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae!

  34. Crash risk and ageYoung Drivers

  35. NCHRP 500 series • Volume 19: Young Drivers • Identifies/characterizes the problem (what we are now discussing) • Recommends remedial action/countermeasures (later in the semester)

  36. See also these references if you are interested: • Generational perspective on teen and older drivers on traffic safety in rural and urban communities • Younger older interaction • LIDAR study sight distance • Visual acuity paper

  37. Road crash factors • The highest design/most :forgiving road” • High speed design (curvature) • Full access control • Forgiving roadsides (slopes, obstacles) • Grade separated intersections • Median separation 4 to 20 times or more safer than other roads

  38. Access control • Eliminates conflict points • Does not require full access control • Some roads must have access at many points • But still may be reduced

  39. Medians • Wide (grass) • “Narrow” with barrier • Narrow (painted or grass) • 30 foot median can reduce encroachment by 70-90 percent • 6:1 desirable to prevent rollover, but will not slow errant vehicles as much (I-35 case, 4:1 to 6:1 to cable)

  40. Cross section • Lane width: 11-12 feet is best • Shoulder width up to 10 feet (not independent of lane width) and surface type/condition (edge drop) • Cross slope (drainage, esp on superelevated curves) • Sight distance, esp. on curves • Curves (esp. at night, poor weather) • Grades • Combinations of factors/expectancy • Bridges/structures • Passing zones

  41. Vehicle Factors

More Related