estimation of 2001 crash costs using fars and ges
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43

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


  • 134 Views
  • Uploaded on

Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES. John McFadden, Len Meczkowski, 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

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

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


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.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

Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES

John McFadden, Len Meczkowski,

FHWA-Office of Safety R&D;

Carol Conly, Lendis Corporation;

Promod Chandhok, BTS

presentation overview
Presentation Overview
  • Introduction/Safety Problem
  • FHWA Safety Goals
  • Data Collection
    • FARS
    • GES
  • Interpretation of Results
  • Conclusions
introduction
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
introduction1
Introduction
  • What is the cost of traffic crashes for 2001?
  • Why do we care about this cost?
  • How do we quantify this cost?
introduction2
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
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
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
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
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 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 Crashes
  • MHE
    • Recorded as a vehicle level variable
    • Separate MHE are assigned to EVERY vehicle in a crash
example
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
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
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 collection1
Data Collection
  • Data were also normalized for the following contributing factors:
    • Alcohol involvement
    • Restraint usage
slide24

2001 MHE Fatal + Injury Crash Costs

By Most Frequent Events

slide26

MHE – 2001 ROR

“A” Injury Crashes (5 most frequent events)

slide27

MHE – 2001 ROR

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

slide29

2001 Fatal + Injury Crash Costs

By Most Frequent Events

interpretation of results
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
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 shsp crash categories
AASHTO SHSPCrash Categories
  • DUI
  • Aggressive driving
  • Seat belt
  • Peds
  • Head-on
  • Curves
  • Trees
  • Utility poles
  • Guiderail
  • Intersections
head on crashes
Head on Crashes
  • 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
head on crashes strategy
Head on Crashes Strategy
  • Low cost improvement
    • Centerline rumble strips for two lane roadways
run off road crashes
Run off Road Crashes
  • 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
ROR Crash Strategy
  • Pavement edge rumble strips

Taken During Construction

ror strategy utility pole relocation

BEFORE

AFTER

Digitally Enhanced Photograph

ROR StrategyUtility Pole Relocation
ror strategy hazardous tree removal

BEFORE

AFTER

Digitally Enhanced Photograph

ROR StrategyHazardous Tree Removal
conclusions
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
conclusions1
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
Questions?
  • Contact Information:
    • www.tfhrc.gov
    • John McFadden,
ad