Identification Method for Crash-Prone Sections of Mountain Highway under Complex Weather Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting in trying to build an identification method for accident-prone sections of mountain highway under complex weather conditions, and it has positive significance for the scientific design and the safety management of highway. Although I believe the article has the potential to be published in Sustainability, I still have the following concerns:

 

(1)     The language of the paper is often very confusing. I think the author should improve their writing in English.

(2)     In terms of pictures, the legend in Figure 1 should not obscure the results of the data description and the text in Figure 3 is not clear resulting in poor readability.

(3)     The author should further explain the calculation method of Le and Ne in equation (1). Similarly, the calculation process of related parameters in equations (2) and (3) should be further explained

(4)     Considering the title of this paper, it is suggested to add the difference analysis of the influence of different weather on the identification of accident-prone sections on the basis of the existing research results.

(5)     I In addition, based on the research results, some design suggestions and safety management countermeasures for highway should be put forward in the discussion and conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a good job of breaking down new safety topics related to crash-prone sections of mountainous highways. Your thoughts and ideas were clearly reflected in the paper, backed by conclusive findings to provide safer transportation systems.

This paper proposes a time-spatial density ratio method to identify the length of the road section and the impact of different weather conditions on crash rates. Even though I am not convinced with the proposed models, the subject matter is interesting, and the research is planned and well performed. Also, the review of literature is very comprehensive and informative. Good job! I have some comments that need proper revision as shown below:

1.       Please add a figure that shows the study location at the G76 Expressway and highlight the following information (Start/End mile point locations, segment length, AADT, number of lanes, divided/undivided, etc.)

2.       On page 4 – line 143, the authors mentioned that they used the homogeneity method for segmentation. They used the beginning and end locations of vertical or horizontal curves. This is correct, however, many studies have shown that other important considerations are roadway attributes and factors relevant to the safety study (e.g., traffic volume, shoulder width, number of lanes). The authors need to add a paragraph to explain that with proper references.

3.       I would encourage the authors to replace the word "accident" with "crash" throughout the paper. The word crash has been commonly accepted in the transportation safety research and the difference between the two words has been already identified.

4.       Figure 1 - line 133, please choose a darker color of the "Total crashes" for better visualization.

5.       Line 136, what do you mean by "dangerous unit", are you referring to the "unit length"? If yes, please change to "segment length"

6.       Line 146, "numbered" or "numbers"?

7.       Line 153, capital "D" in database.

8.       I got confused by Equations 1, 2, 3, 4 on pages 5 and 6. First of all, the equations need to be supported by published studies from the literature. Equation 1, the authors divided the number of crashes by the length of roadway segment. To me, this is a crash rate by route length, what do you mean spatial density!! In Equation 2., the authors divided the number of crashes by the number of days. I am not sure if this is correct. The reason is because traffic volumes differ from one day to another. So, I am not sure if you will get a meaningful ratio out of this. Please clarify or support by a published reference. Also, the authors are advised to add this to a study limitation paragraph after the “Conclusion” section.

9.       line 224 - line 230, reference numbers need to be added between brackets.

1.   Table 3 is so messy and noisy, change the length of the road to (km) instead of (m) and try not to let words run through lines.

 

Overall, good job

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

It is an interesting study about the identification of accident-prone sections under complex weather conditions by establishing the relationship between the number of accidents and the time-spatial characteristics of accidents. This paper is well-written but has some shortcomings that should be revised as per the below comments.

1. What is the difference between the current study and previous studies? The innovation and the importance of the present work should be emphasized more clearly.

2. In the introduction section, the clustering analysis methods are explained about 14 lines, however, this method was not used in this article. Therefore, the authors should better describe these methods much more concisely. Moreover, it would be suggested that authors write the introduction section more coherently and concisely.

3. In the methodology section, most of the equations and their explanations need references.

4. Maybe authors can present their approach as an algorithm or figure ...It can be very useful for readers.

5. In the result section (Spatial distribution of accidents), the authors should again describe the three categories of road risk levels.

6. In the comparative analysis and discussion section, the authors should describe the advantages of the methods in the methodology section.

7. The authors should discuss and compare their results with the studies considered in the introduction section.

8. The authors should give some ideas about future developments in this field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think it is worth publishing in Sustainability according to the current situation of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments. Thanks