Analysis of Crash Severity of Texas Two Lane Rural Roads Using Solar Altitude Angle Based Lighting Condition
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Solar Altitude Angle
2.2. Mixed Logit Model (MXL)
3. Data
4. Model Specification Tests
5. Estimation Results and Discussion
5.1. Roadway Characteristics
5.2. Temporal and Environmental Characteristics
5.3. Collision Characteristics
6. Conclusions
6.1. Implications for Policy and Practice
6.2. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Studies
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society; Sage: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ratcliffe, M.; Burd, C.; Holder, K.; Fields, A. Defining rural at the US Census Bureau. Am. Community Surv. Geogr. Brief 2016, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Anarkooli, A.J.; Hosseinlou, M.H. Analysis of the injury severity of crashes by considering different lighting conditions on two-lane rural roads. J. Saf. Res. 2016, 56, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, B.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, Z.; Liu, X. Analysis of Factors Affecting Real-Time Ridesharing Vehicle Crash Severity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klinjun, N.; Kelly, M.; Praditsathaporn, C.; Petsirasan, R. Identification of Factors Affecting Road Traffic Injuries Incidence and Severity in Southern Thailand Based on Accident Investigation Reports. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Sánchez, G.; Olmo-Sánchez, M.I.; Maeso-González, E.; Gutiérrez-Bedmar, M.; García-Rodríguez, A. Traffic Injury Risk Based on Mobility Patterns by Gender, Age, Mode of Transport and Type of Road. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pashkevich, A.; Nowak, M. Road safety risk assessment at pedestrian crossings: A case study from Sułkowice. Sci. J. Sil. Univ. Technol. Ser. Transp. 2017, 95, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anarkooli, A.J.; Hosseinpour, M.; Kardar, A. Investigation of factors affecting the injury severity of single-vehicle rollover crashes: A random-effects generalized ordered probit model. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 106, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naik, B.; Tung, L.-W.; Zhao, S.; Khattak, A.J. Weather impacts on single-vehicle truck crash injury severity. J. Saf. Res. 2014, 58, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, S.; Jones, S.L.; Dye, D. Comprehensive analysis of single- and multi-vehicle large truck at-fault crashes on rural and urban roadways in Alabama. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 67, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, F.; Chen, S. Injury severities of truck drivers in single- and multi-vehicle accidents on rural highways. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1677–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, C.; Richards, S.H.; Huang, B.; Jiang, X. Identifying the factors contributing to the severity of truck-involved crashes. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 2013, 22, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Song, X.; Wu, J.; Zhang, H.; Pi, R. Analysis of Crash Severity for Hazard Material Transportation Using Highway Safety Information System Data. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowosielski, A.; Małecki, K.; Forczmański, P.; Smoliński, A.; Krzywicki, K. Embedded Night-Vision System for Pedestrian Detection. IEEE Sens. J. 2020, 20, 9293–9304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowosielski, A.; Małecki, K.; Forczmański, P.; Smoliński, A. Pedestrian Detection in Severe Lighting Conditions: Comparative Study of Human Performance vs. Thermal-Imaging-Based Automatic System. Int. Conf. Comput. Recognit. Syst. 2019, 977, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezapour, M.; Moomen, M.; Ksaibati, K. Ordered logistic models of influencing factors on crash injury severity of single and multiple-vehicle downgrade crashes: A case study in Wyoming. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 68, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xie, Y.; Zhao, K.; Huynh, N. Analysis of driver injury severity in rural single-vehicle crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 47, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jalayer, M.; Shabanpour, R.; Pour-Rouholamin, M.; Golshani, N.; Zhou, H. Wrong-way driving crashes: A random-parameters ordered probit analysis of injury severity. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 117, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haleem, K.; Abdel-Aty, M. Examining traffic crash injury severity at unsignalized intersections. J. Saf. Res. 2011, 41, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Huang, H.; Liu, J. Parameter Estimation of the Mixed Logit Model and Its Application. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2010, 10, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khorashadi, A.; Niemeier, D.; Shankar, V.; Mannering, F. Differences in rural and urban driver-injury severities in accidents involving large-trucks: An exploratory analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005, 37, 910–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, N.; Ahmed, A.; Wali, B.; Saeed, T.U. Exploring factors associated with crash severity on motorways in Pakistan. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Transp. 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obeidat, M.S.; Khrais, S.K.; And, B.S.B.; Rababa, M.M. Impacts of roadway lighting on traffic crashes and safety in Jordan. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.; Hassan, M. Crash severity analysis of nighttime and daytime highway work zone crashes. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Uddin, M.; Huynh, N. Truck-involved crashes injury severity analysis for different lighting conditions on rural and urban roadways. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 108, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, S.; Burton, B. A comparative injury severity analysis of rural intersection crashes under different lighting conditions in Alabama. J. Transp. Saf. Secur. 2020, 12, 1106–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masters, G.M. Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, M.; Chin, H.C. Factors affecting the injury severity of out-of-control single-vehicle crashes in Singapore. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 124, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anarkooli, A.J.; Persaud, B.; Hosseinpour, M.; Saleem, T. Comparison of univariate and two-stage approaches for estimating crash frequency by severity—Case study for horizontal curves on two-lane rural roads. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 129, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, A.; Puckett, S.M.; Nassiri, H. Heterogeneity in Preferences of Air Travel Itinerary in a Low-Frequency Market. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2011, 2214, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paz, A.; Arteaga, C.; Cobos, C. Specification of mixed logit models assisted by an optimization framework. J. Choice Model. 2019, 30, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Washington, S.P.; Karlaftis, M.G.; Mannering, F. Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis; CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahukula, J.; Hernandez, S.; Unnikrishnan, A. A time of day analysis of crashes involving large trucks in urban areas. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 75, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, S. Advanced Discrete Choice Models with Applications to Transport Demand. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Adler, T.; Falzarano, C.S.; Spitz, G. Modeling Service Trade-Offs in Air Itinerary Choices. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2005, 1915, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Crash Reports and Records. 2019. Available online: https://www.txdot.gov/driver/safety/crash-reports.html (accessed on 20 October 2019).
- Billah, K.; Sharif, H.O.; Dessouky, S. Analysis of Pedestrian–Motor Vehicle Crashes in San Antonio, Texas. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Ci, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, G.; Wu, Q.; Qian, Z.; Prevedouros, P.D.; Ma, D.T. Investigation of driver injury severities in rural single-vehicle crashes under rain conditions using mixed logit and latent class models. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 124, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hosseinpour, M.; Yahaya, A.S.; Sadullah, A.F. Exploring the effects of roadway characteristics on the frequency and severity of head-on crashes: Case studies from Malaysian Federal Roads. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 62, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, N. Increased presence of foreign investors and dividend policy of Japanese firms. Pac.-Basin Financ. J. 2009, 17, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Srinivasan, S. A comprehensive analysis of factors influencing the injury severity of large-truck crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo-Martinez, A.; Medina-Merodio, J.-A.; Gutierrez-Martinez, J.-M.; Aguado-Delgado, J.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Otón, S. Evaluation and Improvement of Lighting Efficiency in Working Spaces. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deehr, C.S.; Rees, M.H.; Belon, A.E.H.; Romick, G.J.; Lummerzheim, D. Influence of the ionosphere on the altitude of discrete auroral arcs. Ann. Geophys. 2005, 23, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, H.; Chin, H.C.; Haque, M.M. Severity of driver injury and vehicle damage in traffic crashes at intersections: A Bayesian hierarchical analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kardar, A.; Davoodi, S.R. A generalized ordered probit model for analyzing driver injury severity of head-on crashes on two-lane rural highways in Malaysia. J. Transp. Saf. Secur. 2019, 12, 1067–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, Y.; Yudhistira, M.H. Bad light, bad road, or bad luck? The associations of road lighting and road surface quality on road crash severities in Indonesia. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2021, 9, 1407–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Author(s) | Independent Variables | Model | Key Outcomes | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vehicle Info | Roadway Info | Land Use | Temporal and Environmental Info | Lighting Conditions | Collision Info | Driver Info | Occupation Info | |||
Ahmad et al. [23] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Ordered probit model | Speeding, drowsiness, head on collision due to wrong way driving, illegal motorway crossing by pedestrian, and aging drivers will increase the fatality of crashes. | |||||
Song et al. [14] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Random forest and ordered logistic model | AADT, fatigued/asleep, number of lanes, speeding, adverse weather, and light are the six most important factors affecting crash severity. | |||
Obeidat et al. [24] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Generalized linear model | Crash year, road surface, whether the crash occurred during the day or the night, number of vehicles involved, and lighting condition affect crash severities. | ||||
Zhang and Hassan [25] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Mixed logit model | Older and male drivers, the number of lane closures, sidewise crashes, and rainy weather have opposite effects on injury severity in night time and daytime crashes. | |||
Rezapour, Moomen and Ksaibati [17] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Ordered logit model | Dark and dark lit conditions decrease the likelihood of severe injury crashes for multiple vehicle crashes | |||
Uddin and Huynh [26] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Mixed logit model | Age, gender, truck type, AADT, speed and weather affect crash severities in rural and urban areas, and also the lighting condition (daylight, dark, and dark with street lights) | |||
Anarkooli, Hosseinpour, and Kardar [9] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Mixed logit and random effects generalized ordered probit model | The dark without supplemental lighting leads to an increase in the probability of deaths or severe injuries in single vehicle rollover crashes. | ||
Anarkooli and Hosseinlou [4] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Fixed effects ordered probit model | The critical differences between proposed models for different lighting conditions (daylight, dark, and dark with street lights) are the crash location, speed limit, shoulder width, driver performance and crash type. | ||||
Naik et al. [10] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Mixed logit and random parameter ordered logit | The dark without supplemental lighting and dusk/dawn conditions decrease visible injury probabilities. |
Time Zone | LT Meridian |
---|---|
Eastern | |
Central | |
Mountain | |
Pacific | |
Eastern Alaska | |
Alaska and Hawaii |
Variables | Dark Light | Dark | Twilight | Day Light | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | S.D | Mean | S.D | Mean | S.D | Mean | S.D | |
Crash Severity | ||||||||
Severe | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.1 | ||||
Minor | 0.3 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.31 | ||||
Possible/no | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.68 | 0.59 | ||||
Roadway info | ||||||||
Crash location (1 if at an intersection, 0 otherwise) | 0.18 | 0.53 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.59 | 0.24 | 0.2 |
Curve (1 if at a curve, 0 otherwise) | 0.24 | 0.52 | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.56 | 0.19 | 0.39 |
Road alignment (1 if level and straight, 0 otherwise) | 0.43 | 0.61 | 0.38 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.63 |
Center stripe/divider (1 if center stripe/divider exist, 0 otherwise) | 0.19 | 0.24 | 0.47 | 0.61 | 41.5 | 0.74 | 0.33 | 0.65 |
Marked lane (1 if marked lane exists, 0 otherwise) | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.21 | 0.36 | 0.18 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.49 |
No passing zone (1 if crashes occur in no passing zone, 0 otherwise) | 18.3 | 40.6 | 20.7 | 45.2 | 5.9 | 36.3 | 20.11 | 55.2 |
Shoulder type (1 if is the same as road surface, 0 otherwise) | 0.75 | 0.48 | 0.68 | 0.44 | 0.7 | 0.66 | 0.69 | 0.36 |
Shoulder width (shoulder width varied between 11 and 66 ft.) | 23.5 | 2.71 | 24.3 | 3.66 | 24.23 | 2.95 | 23.81 | 3.16 |
LogAADT (AADT varied between 101 and 55106 veh/day) | 7.61 | 1.1 | 6.41 | 1.16 | 8.81 | 1.21 | 8.03 | 1.22 |
Grade direction (1 if uphill; 0 downhill) | 0.67 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.47 | 0.58 | 0.44 |
Crash info | ||||||||
Fixed object (1 if a collision with roadside objects; 0 otherwise) | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.16 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.41 | 0.09 | 0.18 |
Angle (1 if angular collision; 0 otherwise) | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.35 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.26 | 0.3 |
Animal (1 if a collision with an animal; 0 otherwise) | 0.11 | 0.48 | 0.27 | 0.43 | 0.14 | 0.61 | 0.07 | 0.36 |
Head on (1 if head on collision; 0 otherwise) | 0.03 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.29 |
Temporal and Environmental info | ||||||||
Dry road surface (1 if dry surface; otherwise 0) | 0.87 | 0.38 | 0.81 | 0.39 | 0.9 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.29 |
Weekday (1 if a crash occurred on a weekday; 0 weekends) | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0.71 | 0.33 | 0.76 | 0.56 | 0.62 | 0.39 |
df | 12 | 14 | 12 | 18 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
i2 | Dark Lit | Twilight | Dark | Day | |
i1 | |||||
Dark Lit | 0.00 | 115.09 | 250.20 | 66.74 | |
Twilight | 1142.40 | 0.00 | 3360.82 | 109.23 | |
Dark | 6186.03 | 6257.64 | 0.00 | 6438.52 | |
Day | 218.79 | 1131.81 | 2896.73 | 0.00 |
Variables | Dark-Lighted | Dark | Twilight | Day Light |
---|---|---|---|---|
Roadway Info | ||||
Crash location—intersection | N(±) | F(±) | ||
Road alignment | M(±), N(±) | M(−) | M(−), N(±) | |
Center stripe/divider | F(−) | N(+) | ||
Shoulder type | M(−), N(±) | F(−) | ||
No passing zone | F(−) | |||
LogAADT | M(+) | M(±) | F(+), N(−) | |
Curve | F(+) | F(+) | ||
Shoulder width | F(−), N(+) | |||
Marked lane | F(−), M(−) | M(+), N(±) | ||
Grade direction | M(−) | N(−) | F(−), N(+) | |
Crash info | ||||
Fixed object | F(+), M(+) | |||
Angle | F(−), M(−) | F(−),N(+) | M(+), | |
Animal | M(−), N(+) | F(−), M(+) | ||
Head on | F(+) | F(+), M(+) | ||
Temporal and Environmental info | ||||
Dry road surface | F(−) | N(+) | N(+) | |
Weekday | M(+) | M(+),N(±) | M(−), N(+) | M(+),N(±) |
Meaning of Variables | Coefficient | t-Statistic | Marginal Effects | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Severe Injury | Minor Injury | Possible/No Injury | |||
Defined for severe injury | |||||
Constant | 1.90 *** | 26.39 | |||
Crash location (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | 0.09 (2.89 *) | 0.28 (1.8) | −0.0059 | 0.0047 | 0.0012 |
Curve | 0.22 *** | 5.08 | 0.0287 | −0.0216 | −0.0071 |
Dry road surface | −0.12 ** | −2.2 | −0.0207 | 0.0154 | 0.0053 |
Fixed object | 0.56 *** | 10.45 | 0.0187 | −0.0135 | −0.0052 |
Center stripe/divider | −0.37 *** | −4.05 | −0.0312 | 0.0291 | 0.0021 |
Defined for minor injury | |||||
Fixed Object | 0.49 *** | 9.17 | −0.1184 | 0.1411 | −0.0227 |
Shoulder type | −0.09 ** | −2.05 | 0.0101 | −0.0117 | 0.0016 |
LogAADT | 0.11 *** | 12.52 | −0.1321 | 0.1525 | −0.0204 |
Weekday | 0.29 *** | 6.3 | −0.0122 | 0.0141 | −0.0018 |
Defined for Possible/no injury | |||||
Grade direction | −0.15 ** | −2.17 | 0.0049 | 0.0021 | −0.007 |
Shoulder type (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −0.37 (1.41 *) | −0.62 (1.84) | −0.0076 | −0.003 | 0.0106 |
Weekday (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −0.97 (2.20 **) | −0.97 (2.07) | −0.0068 | −0.0026 | 0.0094 |
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observations | 14125 | ||||
Restricted Log-likelihood (constant only) | −15380.6 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence | −11405.8 | ||||
McFadden Pseudo R-squared | 0.258 |
Meaning of Variables | Coefficient | t-Statistic | Marginal Effects | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Severe Injury | Minor Injury | Possible/No Injury | |||
Defined for severe injury | |||||
Marked lane | −2.04 *** | −4.07 | −0.0184 | 0.0122 | 0.0062 |
Angle | −0.54 ** | −2.35 | −0.0156 | 0.0118 | 0.0038 |
Defined for minor injury | |||||
Marked lane | −0.07 *** | −2.85 | 0.0426 | −0.0476 | 0.005 |
Road alignment (1 if level and straight, 0 otherwise) (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −1.29 **(2.96 **) | −2.36 (2.42) | −0.0019 | 0.0043 | −0.0024 |
Angle | −1.10 ** | −2.24 | 0.0066 | −0.0095 | 0.003 |
Animal | −1.58 *** | −2.87 | 0.0061 | −0.0065 | 0.0003 |
Weekday | 0.38 * | 1.86 | −0.0125 | 0.0138 | −0.0013 |
Grade direction | −0.58 *** | −3.04 | 0.0242 | −0.027 | 0.0028 |
Defined for Possible/no injury | |||||
Constant | −2.61 *** | −7.37 | |||
Crash location | 0.62 ** | 2.05 | −0.0091 | −0.0033 | 0.0124 |
Road alignment (1 if level and straight, 0 otherwise) (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −2.29 *** (2.53 *) | −1.28 (1.68) | −0.0163 | −0.0068 | 0.0231 |
Animal | 0.62 * | 1.84 | −0.0058 | −0.0021 | 0.0079 |
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observations | 1853 | ||||
Restricted Log-likelihood (constant only) | −2035.73 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence | −1521.06 | ||||
McFadden Pseudo R-squared | 0.252 |
Meaning of Variables | Coefficient | t-Statistic | Marginal Effects | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Severe Injury | Minor Injury | Possible/No Injury | |||
Defined for severe injury | |||||
No passing zone | −0.09 *** | −3.38 | −0.0045 | 0.0035 | 0.001 |
Head on | 0.86 *** | 8.19 | 0.0211 | −0.0187 | −0.0024 |
Shoulder width | −0.01 *** | −3.85 | −0.0171 | 0.0139 | 0.0032 |
LogAADT | 0.11 *** | 27.25 | 0.2005 | −0.1632 | −0.0373 |
Shoulder type | −0.20 *** | −8.83 | −0.0229 | 0.0187 | 0.0042 |
Curve | 0.22 *** | 2.82 | 0.0165 | −0.0151 | −0.0014 |
Defined for minor injury | |||||
Road alignment (1 if level and straight, 0 otherwise) | −0.13 *** | −4.96 | 0.0271 | −0.0362 | 0.0091 |
Marked lane | 0.58 *** | 15.87 | −0.0121 | 0.0144 | −0.0023 |
Head on | 0.91 *** | 8.38 | −0.0196 | 0.0208 | −0.0012 |
Angle | 0.28 *** | 7.69 | −0.007 | 0.0077 | −0.0007 |
Weekday | 0.21 ** | 2.52 | −0.0048 | 0.0052 | −0.0004 |
Defined for Possible/no injury | |||||
Road alignment (1 if level and straight, 0 otherwise)(standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −1.38 *** (1.75 ***) | −4.34 (5.41) | −0.0073 | −0.0033 | 0.0106 |
Dry road surface | 0.51 *** | 8.32 | −0.0195 | −0.0106 | 0.0301 |
Angle | −0.23 *** | −4.57 | 0.0027 | 0.0014 | −0.0041 |
Marked lane (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −0.82 (1.56 **) | −1.49 (2.24) | −0.0015 | −0.0009 | 0.0024 |
Shoulder width | 0.02 *** | 3.2 | −0.0053 | −0.0028 | 0.0081 |
LogAADT | −0.19 *** | −18.86 | 0.0643 | 0.034 | −0.0983 |
Weekday (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −0.03 (1.26 **) | −0.08 (2.33) | −0.0055 | −0.0029 | 0.0084 |
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observations | 36517 | ||||
Restricted log-likelihood (constant only) | −40118 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence | −31784.9 | ||||
McFadden Pseudo R-squared | 0.208 |
Meaning of Variables | Coefficient | t-Statistic | Marginal Effects | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Severe Injury | Minor Injury | Possible/No Injury | |||
Defined for severe injury | |||||
Head on | 0.29 ** | 2.07 | 0.013 | −0.0087 | −0.0043 |
Angle | −1.26 *** | −6.37 | −0.0269 | 0.0171 | 0.0098 |
Grade direction | −0.22 * | −1.93 | −0.0081 | 0.0051 | 0.003 |
Animal | −0.23 ** | −2.05 | −0.0101 | 0.0086 | 0.0015 |
Defined for minor injury | |||||
Road alignment (1 if level and straight, 0 otherwise) | −0.22 * | −1.68 | 0.0163 | −0.0183 | 0.002 |
Weekday | −0.66 ** | −2.4 | 0.009 | −0.0119 | 0.0029 |
Animal | −2.14 *** | −5.06 | 0.0312 | −0.0339 | 0.0027 |
LogAADT (standard deviation of parameter distribution) | −0.12 *** (0.18 *) | −2.87 (1.69) | 0.0407 | −0.0474 | 0.0067 |
Defined for Possible/no injury | |||||
Constant | −3.16 *** | −14.47 | |||
Dry road surface | 0.37 * | 1.94 | −0.0187 | −0.0049 | 0.0236 |
Center stripe/divider | 0.61 *** | 3.94 | −0.0089 | −0.0026 | 0.0115 |
Grade direction | 0.74 *** | 3.56 | −0.0105 | −0.0031 | 0.0136 |
Angle | 0.59 *** | 2.6 | −0.0035 | −0.0011 | 0.0046 |
Weekday | 0.41 *** | 2.98 | −0.011 | −0.0032 | 0.0142 |
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observations | 3132 | ||||
Restricted log-likelihood (constant only) | −3440.85 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence | −2390.07 | ||||
McFadden Pseudo R-squared | 0.305 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Abbasi, M.; Piccioni, C.; Sierpiński, G.; Farzin, I. Analysis of Crash Severity of Texas Two Lane Rural Roads Using Solar Altitude Angle Based Lighting Condition. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031692
Abbasi M, Piccioni C, Sierpiński G, Farzin I. Analysis of Crash Severity of Texas Two Lane Rural Roads Using Solar Altitude Angle Based Lighting Condition. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3):1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031692
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbbasi, Mohammadhossein, Cristiana Piccioni, Grzegorz Sierpiński, and Iman Farzin. 2022. "Analysis of Crash Severity of Texas Two Lane Rural Roads Using Solar Altitude Angle Based Lighting Condition" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031692