Accident Statistics

What is accident statistics ?

• Measures of nos. & severity of accidents

• Intended to provide insight; for e.g:

 general state of road safety,
 systematic contributing causes of accident.
These insights help to develop:

 Policies
 Programs
 Specific site improvements

to reduce nos. & severity of accidents.

Types of Accident
Statistics
3 major informational categories :

I. Accident occurrence
II. Accident involvements
III. Accident severity
I. Accident occurrence ?

• Nos. & types of accidents that occur

II. Accident involvement ?

• Nos. & types of vehicles & drivers/riders involved

in accidents
III Accident severity ?

• Nos. of fatal, injury & property damage only

accidents
 Statistics in these 3 categories
can be stratified & analysed
in almost infinite nos. of ways
depending upon factors of interest
to the analyst.
Common types of analyses?

• Trends over time

• By roadway type or geometric element
• By driver or rider characteristics (gender, age)
• By contributing cause
• By accident type
• By environmental conditions.
Such analyses also allow correlation of:

• Accident types with roadway types & specific

geometric elements

• Identification of high-risk road-user

• Quantifying extent of guardrails influence on

accidents and fatalities
 “These types of statistics
direct
policy makers
to key areas
requiring attention & research”
Accident Rates
 Increase in nos. of road fatalities
in a specific jurisdiction from one yr to the next
must be matched
against population & vehicle-usage patterns
to make any sense.
Thus, accident statistics are presented
in the form of RATES:

i. Population-based
ii. Exposure-based
i. Population-Based Accident Rates?

Values are relatively static

& do not depend on total amount of travel.
Commonly used
Population-Based Accident Rates?

• Area population
• Nos. of registered vehicles
• Nos. of licensed drivers/riders
• Roadway length
ii. Exposure-Based Accident Rates?

Attempt to measure amount of travel

as surrogate for the individual’s exposure
to potential accident situations.
Commonly used
Exposure-Based Accident Rates?

• Vehicle-km traveled
• Vehicle-hrs traveled
Common Bases for Accident & Fatality Rates ?

In computing accident rates,

numbers should be scaled
to produce meaningful values.
In general terms, all rates are computed as:

Rate = Total
x Scale
Base
Where:
• Total = total nos. of accidents, involvements or
fatalities
• Scale = scale of base statistic, e.g. “10,000
registered vehicles”
• Base = total base statistic for period of the rate,
e.g. “400,000 registered vehicles”
i. Population-Based Accident Rates?

• Fatalities, accidents, or involvements per 100,000

area population
• Fatalities, accidents, or involvements per 10,000
registered vehicles
• Fatalities, accidents, or involvements per 10,000
licensed drivers/riders
• Fatalities, accidents, or involvements per 1,000
km of roadway
ii. Exposure-Based Accident Rates?

• Fatalities, accidents, or involvements per 100

million vehicle-km travelled
• Fatalities, accidents, or involvements per 1 billion
vehicle-km travelled
Severity Index (SI) ?

Nos. of fatalities per accident.

Widely used for description of relative accident
severity.

SI = Nos. of fatalities / Total nos. of accidents

“Should be compared with respect to

general severity of accidents to
previous years, states, national norms”
Example
The following are sample gross accident statistics
for a relatively small urban area in Year 2014:

• Fatalities 75
• Fatal accidents 60
• Injury accidents 300
• Damage only accidents 2,000
• Total involvements 4,100
• Vehicle-km traveled 1,500,000,000
• Registered vehicles 100,000
• Licensed drivers 150,000
• Area population 300,000
Compute the followings :

i. Deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles

ii. Accidents per 100,000,000 veh-km traveled
iii. Severity Index
Statistical Displays & Use
Careful displays of accident statistics can:

- tell a compelling story,

- identify critical trends,
- spotlight specific problem areas.
An example?

Fatality time-series statistics depicted in one graph

- Deaths (X 1,000)
- Deaths per 100,000 population
- Vehicle-mile traveled (X 100 million)
- Deaths per 100 million vehicle-mile traveled
Identifying High-Accident
Locations
Statistical rankings give engineers a starting point
BUT
judgement must still be applied
in selection of sites most in need of improvement
during any given budget year.
One approach?

~ identify those with accident rates that are

significantly higher than the average for the
area under study.

i.e.
Locations with accident rates in the highest 5%
of the normal distribution.
Actual value of z for given accident location is:
x1 – 𝒙
z =
s
Where:
x1 = accident rate at the location under consideration
𝒙 = average accident rate for locations within the
jurisdiction under study
s = std deviation of accident rates for locations within
the jurisdiction under study
If value of z (one-tailed test) must be at least
1.645 for 95% confidence, then the minimum
accident rate considered must be significantly
higher than the average :

x1 ≥ 1.645s + 𝒙

“ Locations with higher accident rate

than this value would be selected
for specific study & remediation “
 Where:

Std deviation, s =

𝑖=𝑛 2
𝑖=1𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥
𝑛 −1
 Note:

“ In comparing average accident rates,

SIMILAR locations should be grouped “
i. Accident rates for mid-block/segment VS
other mid-block/segment

 Accidents per Km per Year

~ Frequency method

 Accidents per million Vehicle Km Travelled (VKT)

~ Accident Rate method
 Frequency method

 Accident rate per km/yr =

Nos. of accidents in N year

Length of segment (km) X N year

 Accident Rate method

 Accident rate per million Vehicle-Km Travelled (VKT):

Nos. of accidents in N year

X 1 million
ADT X 365 X N year X Km Length of segment
ii. Accident rates for signalised intersections
VS other signalised intersections,

iii. Accident rates for unsignalised

intersections VS other unsignalised
intersections,

 Accidents per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV)

~ Spot accident rate
 Spot Accident Rate

 Accident rate per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) =

Nos. of accidents in N year

X 1 million
24-hr intersection EV X 365 X N year
Class Problem 1
Data below show Number of years, Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) & Number of accidents at four different unsignalised
intersections (A, B, C & D) in an urban area.
Determine which intersection warrants for study &
remediation (at 95% confidence level) ?
Nos. of Years ADT N-S ADT E-W Nos. of Accidents Int/n
2 2,400 1,700 3 A
1.5 1,800 2,500 2 B
3 2,600 3,100 3 C
1 3,000 2,100 4 D
Class Problem 2
A major signalised intersection in a small city has an
accident rate of 15.8 per 1,000,000 entering vehicles.
Data base for all signalised intersections in the
jurisdiction indicates that the average accident rate is
12.1 per 1,000,000 entering vehicles, with a standard
deviation of 2.5 per 1,000,000 entering vehicles.

Should this intersection be singled out for study

& remediation (at 95% confidence level) ?
 NOTE:

If funding is insufficient to address all locations

identified as needing study & remediation??

~ ranking systems can help set priorities.

Before-and-After
Accident Analysis
Length of time considered??

~ long enough to observe changes in accident

occurrence

~periods range from 3 months to 1 year

~ length of “before” & “after” period must be

the same
Normal approximation test is often used
to make this determination:

fB – fA
z1 =
√ fA + fB

Where:
fA = nos. of accidents in “after” period
fB = nos. of accidents in “before” period
z1 = test statistic representing reduction in accidents on
the standard normal distribution
Std normal distribution table is entered with
this value to find the probability of z1 ≥ z

If Prob [ z1 ≥ z ] is ≥ 0.95
~ observed reduction in accidents is
statistically significant.
Note:
This is one-tailed test, & that only an observed
“reduction” in accidents would be tested.
An increase is a clear sign that remediation effort
failed.
Class Problem 3
A signal is installed at a high-accident location to
reduce the nos. of right-angle accidents that are
occurring.

In the 6-month period prior to installing the signal,

10 such accidents occurred.

In the 6-month period following the installation of

the signal, 6 such accidents occurred.

Was this reduction statistically significant

(at 95% confidence level)?
  Nos. of accidents may be SMALL,
thus sample sizes may not be sufficient
to justify the use of
normal approximation.
 More accurate to use
Poisson distribution &
Modified binomial test.
Figure 1 shows graphic criteria for
rejecting the Null hypothesis
(i.e. there has been no change in
accident occurrence).
Figure 1
Curve is entered with:
1) Nos. of accidents in “before” period &
2) % decrease in accidents in “after” period.

If the point plots above the appropriate decision line

(one line for accident reductions, the other for
accident increases), the observed change is
statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
Technically, there is a flaw in the way most
before-&-after accident analyses are conducted.
Generally, based on assumption that any observed
change in accident occurrence (or severity) is due
to the corrective actions implemented.
Because time span involved in most studies is long,
however, this may not be correct in any given case.
If possible, establish a controlled experiment.

It involve locations with similar accident experience

not treated with corrective measures.
Controls establish expected change in accident
is due to general environment causes,
and NOT influenced by corrective measures.
 For the subject location,
the null hypothesis, H0 is that:

“the change in accident experience at

treated location
is not significantly different
from the change at
observed control location”
• Statistical point of view?

Desirable
 • Practically?

Problem to establish control conditions

because it requires some
high- accident locations be left
untreated during the period of study.
Thus, many before-&-after accident studies
conducted without such control conditions !!
Control & Treated Studies
A chi square ( X 2 ) statistic is used to investigate
whether distributions of categorical variables
differ from one another.
Chi square tests can only be used on
actual numbers (i.e. counts or frequency)
and not on percentages, proportions, means, etc.
 General notation for a 2 x 2 contingency table
Variable 1

Variable 2 Data type 1 Data type 2 Total

Category 1 a b a+b

Category 2 c d c+d

Total a+c b+d a+b+c+d=N

For a 2 x 2 contingency table, Chi Square statistic is
calculated by the formula:

χ2 = (ad-bc)2(a+b+c+d)
(a+b)(c+d)(b+d)(a+c)
Example
 Suppose that a hazardous unsignalised
intersection was treated and it is hypothesized
that the accident numbers will decrease
compared to a similar match of unsignalised
intersection within the area of jurisdiction that
did not receive any remedial treatment
(at 95% confidence level)
Ho: There is no significant change in accident
number at treated & control unsignalised
intersection.

Ha: There is significant change in accident number

at treated & control unsignalised intersection.
Before-and-After Accidents at Matched Treated
& Control Unsignalised Intersections

Before After Total

Treated 36 14 50

Control 30 25 55

Total 66 39 105
Applying the formula:

Chi square χ2 =

[(36)(25) - (14)(30)]2 x 105

= 3.418
(50)(55)(39)(66)
Before that, it is important to know how many
degrees of freedom, df
When a comparison is made between one sample
and another, a simple rule is that the degrees of
freedom is equal to :

(nos. of columns – 1) x (nos. of rows - 1)

not counting the totals for rows or columns.

This data gives : (2-1) x (2-1) = 1

• Chi square statistic is (χ2 = 3.418),
• Alpha level of significance is (0.05),
• Degrees of freedom is (df = 1).
Chi square distribution table with 1 degree of
freedom & reading along the row, the value of
χ2 (3.418) lies between 2.706 and 3.841
 Chi Square distribution table

probability level (alpha)

df 0.5 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.001

1 0.455 2.706 3.841 5.412 6.635 10.827

2 1.386 4.605 5.991 7.824 9.210 13.815

3 2.366 6.251 7.815 9.837 11.345 16.268

4 3.357 7.779 9.488 11.668 13.277 18.465

5 4.351 9.236 11.070 13.388 15.086 20.517

Corresponding probability, p =0.065.
Since p > 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

In other words, there is no significant decrease

in accident numbers at the treated unsignalised
intersection.
Class Problem 4
A study was conducted on motorcyclist helmet
wearing before and after safety talks on the
importance of motorcycle helmet wearing were
given to a group of motorcyclist in a factory in a
small area. Motorcyclist helmet wearing among a
control group from another factory within the same
area whom do not get any safety talks were also
observed during the same period before and after
the motorcycle safety program.
Determine whether this safety talk program is
significantly effective (at 95% confidence level)
Ho: There is no significant increase in helmet
wearing among treated.

Ha: There is significant increase in helmet wearing

among treated.
Helmet Wearing Among Treated & Control Motorcyclist
Pre-and-Post Safety Talks

Treated Control

Pre 44 46

Post 84 51