Enhancing Road Safety Strategies through Applying Combined Treatments for Different Crash Severity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, it is with great pleasure that I got acquainted with your research. I think this material is very useful for both road builders and traffic management specialists. I will be happy to support your work in general and emphasize the following advantages.

 The main advantages.

1. The material in subsections 4.3...4.7 is very valuable and should be studied in detail by all traffic management specialists and road builders.

2. The data in Table 2 are very valuable as a result of the study.

3. Lines 199-206. Explanation of the terms used. This is very useful for the reader. Nevertheless, there are a number of minor inaccuracies in the work, mainly of a design nature.

 

Nevertheless, there are a number of minor inaccuracies in the work, mainly of a design nature.

Minor remarks.

1. Line 113. The abbreviation AADT is added, it is not used and not classified. Her explanation appears only on line 213. It is necessary to do this earlier.

 2. Lines 118-121. “Besides, Gbologah et al. reported a reduction in crash frequency, especially injury/fatal crashes, when the stop-controlled and conventional roundabouts were converted to roundabouts, underlining the relevance of comparing roundabouts and traditional intersection design for their positive safety consequence [30]”. The logical connection is broken: "When the intersections with a controlled stop and the usual roundabouts were transformed into roundabouts". Obviously, the authors wanted to say something another.

 3. Lines 130-134. “The study found that the GLM for variables with nonlinear safety effects is biased, especially away from baseline situation, 2) As crash risk and factors become more nonlinear, CMF bias increases, 3) CMFs of linear variables slightly affected when used within CMFs with strongly nonlinear variables, but may be tolerated, 4) Mis-specification of the link function of one or more CM-Function variables can distort parameter estimates”. The numbering is broken. 1 is lost.

 4. Line 139. “The study suggests a new approach, Method 11, for combining CMFs”. The essence of Method 11 is not clear. It is necessary to rename this method in such a way that its essence becomes clear.

 

5. Line 173.“3. Methodology”. I think that the content of this section should be designated as «Research Methodology»

 

6. Line 259. “4. Discussion”. I think that the content of this section should be designated as Research Results and the material of subsections 4.1...4.2 should be presented here. Subsections 4.3...4.7 (lines 309-401) should be presented in a separate section «Analysis of the impact of variables on road safety».

7. Line 271-273. “While Fatal and injury prediction value is increasing with the increasing in entry width, entry path radius, entry angle, and entering AADT while it decreases with the increases incircular width”. I think it is more correct to divide this phrase into two, namely: “Fatal and injury prediction value is increasing with the increasing in entry width, entry path radius, entry angle, and entering AADT” and “Fatal and injury prediction value decreases with the increases in circular width”.

8. Line 352. Figure 6. CMFs for weaving length and entry path radius treatments (using severe crashes).

 

 

Line 381. Figure 8. Combined CMFs for weaving length, entry path radius, and entry angle treatments (using severe crashes).

It is desirable to explain the linearity of this type of influence. This is influenced either by the limited amount of data, or something else.

 9. Line 402. 4. Discussion change to 5. Discussion. Numbering error.

10. Lines 424 and 431. The numbering 5 is duplicated twice. It needs to be adjusted.

11. Lines 431-454. In the Interventions subsection, it is necessary to check and renumber the proposed activities.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear Authors, it is with great pleasure that I got acquainted with your research. I think this material is very useful for both road builders and traffic management specialists. I will be happy to support your work in general and emphasize the following advantages.

 The main advantages.

1. The material in subsections 4.3...4.7 is very valuable and should be studied in detail by all traffic management specialists and road builders.
2. The data in Table 2 are very valuable as a result of the study.
3. Lines 199-206. Explanation of This is very useful for the reader. Nevertheless, there are a number of minor inaccuracies in the work, mainly of a design nature.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

 

1. Line 113. The abbreviation AADT is added, it is not used and not classified. Her explanation appears only on line 213. It is necessary to do this earlier.

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for providing us with detailed and constructive feedback. In the revised version, the abbreviation AADT was modified to “annual average daily traffic (AADT)”.

2. Lines 118-121. “Besides, Gbologah et al. reported a reduction in crash frequency, especially injury/fatal crashes, when the stop-controlled and conventional roundabouts were converted to roundabouts, underlining the relevance of comparing roundabouts and traditional intersection design for their positive safety consequence [30]”. The logical connection is broken: "When the intersections with a controlled stop and the usual roundabouts were transformed into roundabouts". Obviously, the authors wanted to say something another.

Thank you. We corrected the sentence in the revised version to make it more readable (lines 121-124).

3. Lines 130-134. “The study found that the GLM for variables with nonlinear safety effects is biased, especially away from baseline situation, 2) As crash risk and factors become more nonlinear, CMF bias increases, 3) CMFs of linear variables slightly affected when used within CMFs with strongly nonlinear variables, but may be tolerated, 4) Mis-specification of the link function of one or more CM-Function variables can distort parameter estimates”. The numbering is broken. 1 is lost.

In the revised version, we replaced the sentence with a more readable one (lines 143-148).

4. Line 139. “The study suggests a new approach, Method 11, for combining CMFs”. The essence of Method 11 is not clear. It is necessary to rename this method in such a way that its essence becomes clear.

In the revised version, we rewrite the sentence with a more readable one (lines 159-162).

5. Line 173.“3. Methodology”. I think that the content of this section should be designated as «Research Methodology»

We renamed the methodology section "3. Research Methodology" in response to your insightful comment (line 203).

6. Line 259. “4. Discussion”. I think that the content of this section should be designated as Research Results and the material of subsections1...4.2 should be presented here. Subsections 4.3...4.7 (lines 309-401) should be presented in a separate section «Analysis of the impact of variables on road safety».

Thanks for the advice. In the revised version, we renamed the section “4. Discussion” to "4. Research Results”. We have also introduced a new section named “5.0 Analysis of the impact of variables on road safety” and have modified numbering of subsections from 4.3….4.7 to 5.1...5.5.

7. Line 271-273. “While Fatal and injury prediction value is increasing with the increasing in entry width, entry path radius, entry angle, and entering AADT while it decreases with the increases incircular width”. I think it is more correct to divide this phrase into two, namely: “Fatal and injury prediction value is increasing with the increasing in entry width, entry path radius, entry angle, and entering AADT” and “Fatal and injury prediction value decreases with the increases in circular width”.

The sentence is divided based on your valuable comment (lines 315-317).

8. Line 352. Figure 6. CMFs for weaving length and entry path radius treatments (using severe crashes). Line 381. Figure 8. Combined CMFs for weaving length, entry path radius, and entry angle treatments (using severe crashes). It is desirable to explain the linearity of this type of influence. This is influenced either by the limited amount of data, or something else.

The discussions were included in the revised version to show the influence of the suggested road treatments on the other roundabout parameters (lines 399-401, 431-436).

9. Line 402. 4. Discussion change to 5. Discussion. Numbering error.

In the revised version, we have corrected the section's number.

10. Lines 424 and 431. The numbering 5 is duplicated twice. It needs to be adjusted

In the revised version, we have reviewed and corrected all section numbers throughout the manuscript.

11. Lines 431-454. In the Interventions subsection, it is necessary to check and renumber the proposed activities.

In the revised version, we have renumbered the proposed activities (lines 491-510).

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents research on the usefulness of combined modifying factors of events (CMFs) in minimizing accidents and their consequences in traffic circles. The article's structure follows the journal's guidelines and fulfils the requirements. The introduction and analysis of the literature allow the reader to fully understand the research problem described and solved. The methodology is ented logically and is not objectionable.  The authors did not relate the results of their work to other publications, which requires supplementation.

editing comments

Lines 404/416/424/431 Subsections should be 4.1, 4.2, etc.

Line 431 Repeated subsection numbering

 

Lines 435/439/444 If the numbering continues, it should be 3. It will be more apparent to number from scratch.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

The article presents research on the usefulness of combined modifying factors of events (CMFs) in minimizing accidents and their consequences in traffic circles. The article's structure follows the journal's guidelines and fulfils the requirements. The introduction and analysis of the literature allow the reader to fully understand the research problem described and solved. The methodology is ented logically and is not objectionable.  The authors did not relate the results of their work to other publications, which requires supplementation.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

1. Lines 404/416/424/431 Subsections should be 4.1, 4.2, etc.

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for providing us with detailed and constructive feedback. In the revised version, we have corrected the subsection numbering, based on your valuable comment.

2. Line 431 Repeated subsection numbering.

In the revised version, we have corrected the subsection number to be 5.4 instead of 5.3.

3. Lines 435/439/444 If the numbering continues, it should be 3. It will be more apparent to number from scratch.

In the revised version, we have corrected the numbering to start from 1 instead of 5 (lines 491, 497,500, 505).

4. Lines 431-454. In the Interventions subsection, it is necessary to check and renumber the proposed activities.

In the revised version, we have renumbered the proposed activities (lines 491-510).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introduces a combined CMF method that integrates multiple intervention measures, which is innovative in road safety analysis. The clear identification of the interaction effects between different safety measures provides a new perspective for the formulation of road safety strategies. The data collection process is detailed and comprehensive, covering various aspects such as traffic volume, geometric characteristics, and accident data. This solid data foundation supports the development and validation of the model. The substantial effort and meticulous methods used in the study are commendable.

 

Comments and suggestions on the authors are as follows:

1.      The literature review section demonstrates substantial effort but lacks clear themes and logical flow, making it difficult for readers to grasp the key points. It is recommended that the literature review be categorized by theme or research method and that subheadings be used to highlight the logical structure.

2.      Some cited research results in the literature review are not sufficiently explained in terms of their significance and relevance to the current study, making the review appear as a mere listing of studies. It is suggested that brief explanations of the relevance and importance of each cited study to the current research be provided. Coupled with the categorization mentioned in Opinion 1, this will make the section clearer.

3.      It is reasonable and necessary to explain terms and data set configurations fully. However, if there are too many terms and configurations that need explanation, it is advisable to place them in the appendix. This will enhance the coherence of the article, allowing readers to focus on understanding the core findings and conclusions of the research without being distracted by complex technical details.

4.      In the literature review section, you mentioned that traditional Generalized Linear Models (GLM) may have biases when dealing with nonlinear variables. What measures did you take to address this issue in model development in section 3.2? How did you evaluate and compare the suitability and performance of different models (such as Negative Binomial Regression and Poisson Regression) during the model selection process?

5.      In sections 3.5 and 3.6, when considering the interaction effects of combined CMFs, you mentioned three different methods (independent assumption, Turner method, and meta-analysis). It is recommended to elaborate on the basis for choosing between these methods and how you evaluate their reliability and effectiveness in practical applications.

6.      Section 4.2 mentions that adjusting entry and exit angles and entry path radii significantly reduces severe crashes. Are these measures applicable to all types of severe crashes (e.g., vehicle collisions, pedestrian accidents)? Is there a need to develop more specific intervention strategies for different types of severe crashes?

 

7.      Please carefully check the numbering and names of your section titles. This is a basic error.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

The paper introduces a combined CMF method that integrates multiple intervention measures, which is innovative in road safety analysis. The clear identification of the interaction effects between different safety measures provides a new perspective for the formulation of road safety strategies. The data collection process is detailed and comprehensive, covering various aspects such as traffic volume, geometric characteristics, and accident data. This solid data foundation supports the development and validation of the model. The substantial effort and meticulous methods used in the study are commendable.

Comments and suggestions on the authors are as follows:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

1. The literature review section demonstrates substantial effort but lacks clear themes and logical flow, making it difficult for readers to grasp the key points. It is recommended that the literature review be categorized by theme or research method and that subheadings be used to highlight the logical structure.

We greatly appreciate your comments to improve the readability of our manuscript. In the revised version, we reviewed and edited the literature review section and categorized it by theme using subheadings.

2. Some cited research results in the literature review are not sufficiently explained in terms of their significance and relevance to the current study, making the review appear as a mere listing of studies. It is suggested that brief explanations of the relevance and importance of each cited study to the current research be provided. Coupled with the categorization mentioned in Opinion 1, this will make the section clearer.

In the revised version, we have reviewed and edited the literature review section based on your valuable feedback.

3. It is reasonable and necessary to explain terms and data set configurations fully. However, if there are too many terms and configurations that need explanation, it is advisable to place them in the appendix. This will enhance the coherence of the article, allowing readers to focus on understanding the core findings and conclusions of the research without being distracted by complex technical details.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. After careful consideration, we believe that all the figures, tables, and detailed descriptions are essential to the main body of the text. Each element directly supports the discussion and findings, providing necessary context and clarity to the research. The integration of these details ensures that readers can fully understand the methodologies, results, and implications of the study without having to refer to an appendix. To address your concern about readability, we have ensured that each section is clearly structured, and the flow of information is logical and concise.

4. In the literature review section, you mentioned that traditional Generalized Linear Models (GLM) may have biases when dealing with nonlinear variables. What measures did you take to address this issue in model development in section 3.2? How did you evaluate and compare the suitability and performance of different models (such as Negative Binomial Regression and Poisson Regression) during the model selection process?

We greatly appreciate your attention to these significant issues. We have provided information demonstrating the application of generalized linear models (GLMs) with linear and log link functions based on the data's distribution, whether linear or nonlinear variables. You can find the responses in the revised version (lines 137-143, 245-246, 302-306).

5. In sections 3.5 and 3.6, when considering the interaction effects of combined CMFs, you mentioned three different methods (independent assumption, Turner method, and meta-analysis). It is recommended to elaborate on the basis for choosing between these methods and how you evaluate their reliability and effectiveness in practical applications.

The reliability and effectiveness of the three methods were included in the revised version based on your valuable comments (lines 291-298).

6. Section 4.2 mentions that adjusting entry and exit angles and entry path radii significantly reduces severe crashes. Are these measures applicable to all types of severe crashes (e.g., vehicle collisions, pedestrian accidents)? Is there a need to develop more specific intervention strategies for different types of severe crashes?

The analysis's outputs are based on the type of vehicle collision and regions with similar road characteristics. According to your valuable feedback, the study recommends replicating the analysis with different types of severe crashes (lines 541-543).

7. Please carefully check the numbering and names of your section titles. This is a basic error.

In the revised version, we reviewed the numbering and names of all sections.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comment. The suggestions given earlier have been carefully addressed. I think it can be published as it is.