Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES

1 / 43

# Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES. John McFadden, Len Meczkowski, FHWA-Office of Safety R&amp;D; Carol Conly, Lendis Corporation; Promod Chandhok, BTS. Presentation Overview. Introduction/Safety Problem FHWA Safety Goals Data Collection FARS GES Interpretation of Results

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES ' - shelly

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES

FHWA-Office of Safety R&D;

Carol Conly, Lendis Corporation;

Promod Chandhok, BTS

Presentation Overview
• Introduction/Safety Problem
• FHWA Safety Goals
• Data Collection
• FARS
• GES
• Interpretation of Results
• Conclusions
Introduction
• 37,795 fatal motor vehicle crashes in 2001
• Resulting in 40,016 deaths
• +/- 2.08 million injuries resulting from auto crashes in 2001
• Heavy personal toll and economic cost
Introduction
• What is the cost of traffic crashes for 2001?
• How do we quantify this cost?
Introduction
• February 2002: OST guidance on value of life (in 2001 dollars):
• Fatality = \$3 million
• Severe injury = \$1.01 million (AIS 5,4 (A))
• Minor injury = \$60,000 (AIS 3-1, (B+C))
• PDO = \$2,300
FHWA Safety Goals
• Reduce the rate and number of highway related fatalities and injuries
• Performance Measures and Benchmarks
• Highway-related fatalities per 100 million VMT
• Number of highway-related fatalities
• Highway related injuries per 100 million VMT
• Number of highway-related injuries (millions)
Problem Statement
• How to achieve these safety goals?
• What types of crashes should we focus?
• What countermeasures are appropriate?
• How to evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures?
R&D Efforts
• One approach:
• review traffic crash records to identify the crash types that will provide the largest “return on investment” for specific treatments.
• Need to estimate benefit-cost ratios:
• Benefits: reduction in crash (by type) for specific treatment
• Costs by crash type
2001 Crash Data
• Fatal crash data obtained via FARS
• Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems
• Injury/PDO crash data obtained via GES
• General Estimation Systems
• Crash impacts that result in fatality, injury or PDO are called “harmful events” and are broken into two groups:
• First Harmful Event (FHE)
• Most Harmful Event (MHE)
FHE Crashes
• FHE
• Recorded as an accident level variable
• Each crash is assigned a single FHE regardless of the number of vehicles involved
• FHE may not be the impact that caused the greatest trauma or property damage
MHE Crashes
• MHE
• Recorded as a vehicle level variable
• Separate MHE are assigned to EVERY vehicle in a crash
Example
• Wet pavement, two-vehicle collision injuring two occupants in the struck vehicle. The striking vehicle was then deflected into the utility pole, killing the driver.
• FHE
• vehicle-vehicle collision
• MHE
• Struck vehicle = vehicle-vehicle collision
• Striking vehicle = utility pole
Data Collection
• 2001 crash data were broken into four groupings:
• All crash types
• FHE
• MHE
• Run off road crash types
• FHE
• MHE
Why focus on ROR crashes?
• FHWA Office of Safety R&D, Roadside Team:
• Interested in identifying focus of future research w/r/to ROR crash treatments
• Data supported focus on these crashes:
• ROR crashes are contributory cause for 38% of fatalities (McFadden, ITE 2002)
Data Collection
• Data were also normalized for the following contributing factors:
• Alcohol involvement
• Restraint usage

2001 MHE Fatal + Injury Crash Costs

By Most Frequent Events

MHE – 2001 ROR

“A” Injury Crashes (5 most frequent events)

MHE – 2001 ROR

“B+C” Injury Crashes (5 most frequent events)

2001 Fatal + Injury Crash Costs

By Most Frequent Events

Interpretation of Results
• So What?
• What does this information tell us?
• How do we apply what we know?
• Ans.
• Focus areas for safety programs.
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• Developed in 1996-1997
• Reduce the deaths and health care costs due to crashes on highways
• Guidance for state DOT safety management plans
AASHTO SHSPCrash Categories
• DUI
• Aggressive driving
• Seat belt
• Peds
• Curves
• Trees
• Utility poles
• Guiderail
• Intersections
• Vehicle crosses the centerline or median or travels wrong way in opposing traffic lane and crashes
• Objectives to reduce HOC:
• Keep vehicles from encroaching onto opposite lane
• Reduce the severity of crashes that occur
• Low cost improvement
• Centerline rumble strips for two lane roadways
• Contributory cause for 38% of fatalities
• FHWA 2-prong approach concentrates on:
• Keeping vehicles in travel lanes
• Minimize the harmful effects when the vehicle leaves the roadway
ROR Crash Strategy
• Pavement edge rumble strips

Taken During Construction

BEFORE

AFTER

Digitally Enhanced Photograph

ROR StrategyUtility Pole Relocation

BEFORE

AFTER

Digitally Enhanced Photograph

ROR StrategyHazardous Tree Removal
Conclusions
• 2001 crash data were analyzed:
• Ranked by frequency of harmful events
• Calculated costs in 2001 dollars of these crashes
• Validate existing safety improvement programs
• Provide data to estimate benefit/cost ratios for safety treatments
Conclusions
• 2001 crash data:
• Provides guidance for future research efforts
• Validates AASHTO SHSP priority areas
• Accurate crash data essential for future highway safety initiatives
Questions?
• Contact Information:
• www.tfhrc.gov