Risk Assessment of Fixed Obstacles along Roads
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract
The objective of study is too specific which make the research sound like a consultancy. Suggest making it more general as a assessment tool development which was tested through a case study.
Enhance the abstract by providing background information explaining why this research is needed. Room can be made for this by removing some details of adopted methodology.
Section 1
The introduction should become more general and not too specific for Czech, please note that the journal targets international audiences.
Use appropriate referencing system, e.g., : Line 68 "inspections is used. [10][11][12][13][14] The" and Line 72 "One similar topic related to the risk assessment of fixed obstacles, specifically trees, was addressed at a Polish university, ..." the mentioned country is not a relevant information nor an appropriate referencing system.
Study lacks critical review of the relevant literature. This should be on risk-informed road accident assessment.
P is Equation 1 should be probability of an accident and not a traffic
Figure 9 is unclear, please explain the 'distance' more clearly in the caption.
Explain the notations a, c, e in figures 1-3 and 5-7
Figures 8-10 need to be more specific by providing detailed quantitative information about depth of the ditch and the gradient of the external slop. The associated text should be updated accordingly.
Research methodology is unclear. A separate section should be dedicated to this.
Table 1: the considered severity seems to be different from Equation 1, please elaborate. Also explain in the methodology section that how these combinations were selected for further analysis.
Equation 4, clarify what you mean by ‘reporting period’, i.e., reporting of what parameter
Discussion could be enhanced by discussing the application of emerging technologies including machine learning to predict severity of accident or to identify the influential factors. Also consider the impact of make and model of a vehicle.
Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a methodological approach to the issue of the level of severity of accidents depending on the existing obstacles on the roadside and their location. This approach enables a standardized assessment of the level of severity of individual road traffic hazards caused by fixed obstacles located in rural sections along the most important roads in the Czech Republic. The risk was determined for passenger car passengers. When calculating the risk level, parameters related to the transport infrastructure were analyzed in terms of its construction design. In the work, a number of hypotheses were put forward regarding the impact of: the distance of the obstacle from the edge of the road, the difference in height between the road and the level of the stationary obstacle, the depth and shape of the ditch which separate the obstacle from the road, the location of the obstacle on the right or left side of the road. The nuisance of accidents ranged from low risk of injury to severe injury.
The hypothesis about the impact of the distance to obstacles on the nuisance of accidents was confirmed. The second hypothesis about the impact of the height of the obstacle level relative to the road on the nuisance of the accident was also confirmed.The remaining hypotheses could not be proven due to the small amount of data.
Thanks to the use of the accident severity analysis method presented by the authors, the size of the risk for selected obstacles was determined, which may be helpful in the construction of roads.
Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The title and the introduction to the paper caught my interest, and was seen to be a potentially impactful work to help address the problems associated to safety of road-sides, which is important for achieving forgiving roads. However, after reading the paper, I could not appreciate the work, and could not follow the methodology and the arguments made in the paper. Maybe its my weaknesses in understanding complex articulation. However, I feel a paper must be able to be understood by booth lay-person and experts
2. I gather that the hypothesis verification (i would call it calibration) is critical to this effort. But I was not able to follow the methodology and the results. I suggest that a framework or flow chart is drawn to clarify the methodology for calibration.
3. I also fail to appreciate the utilisation of the findings for actual usage to help road-side safety. Author needs to add a section to show applicability of this method.
4. The paper has assumed that the world is driving on the same side of the road. Need to clarify on which side of the road, is the paper referring to. This applies to lines 67 to 80 and perhaps other arguments throughout the paper (line 173-174)
5. The definition of P given on line 112, :the probability of traffic. Meaning not clear
6. Consulting only road auditors for reference for parameters and sub-parameters may need to be complemented with established and widely-used safety manuals. (line 118)
7. The purpose of having Figures 1 to 3, showing different distances from the edge of the road is not clear. Please clarify. Similarly for Figures 5 to 7. Maybe need to indicate which is safer?
8. Many items in the Tables were not explained, and very difficult to follow. Table 1 is NOT self-explanatory
9. In Section 4, why is aveage year of vehicle manufacturer chosen as critical indicator for road-side safety? need to clarify (line 218)
10. Is Equation 3 taken from reference 25? who calibrated the parameters k and the way it was expressed in the paper is incomplete (Lines 241-244)
11. As highlighted earlier, I was lost reading Section 6, and perhaps having a framework to explain the process will help
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has made amendments to the comments and suggestions from the first review. The paper is an easier read, and appreciation of motivation, methodology and impact can be better appreciated.
