1 / 74

MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria

MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria. Crash Vehicle Person Roadway. Impact of threshold adjustments. Sketch and narrative. http:// www.nhtsa-tsis.net/crashforms /. Storage/retrieval. <500 annually may be filed (paper) with summary tables

hubert
Download Presentation

MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MMUCCModel Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Crash Vehicle Person Roadway

  2. Impact of threshold adjustments

  3. Sketch and narrative

  4. http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/crashforms/

  5. Storage/retrieval • <500 annually may be filed (paper) with summary tables • Increasingly, all data are input into a database (and forms scanned) • Feeds state and national databases

  6. Old Location Process

  7. Data Collection Technologies • TraCS: Traffic and Criminal Software

  8. TraCS data entry form

  9. Incident Location Tool (and IMAT)

  10. Easy Street Draw & Visio Florida TraCS show

  11. Data limitations Ogden) • Systematic reporting bias • Database not truly reflective of crash situation • Random bias • Under-reporting can result in distorted picture of road crash situation • Numerically • Nature of the crashes • Not recording particular factor, means it was not present • Factor was present, but police officer did not think that it is not important

  12. Data limitations (continued) • Coding errors • Location errors • Discontinuities • Data from one time period can not be compared to another time period • Delays • Takes too long to have data available for analysis, so countermeasures development is responding to historical crashes which may be out of date

  13. Data limitations (continued) • Hidden problems • It is assumed that database is good indicator of road safety problems • There might some masked problems • Pedestrians avoid using an area because perceived safety problem • This kind of problems need to be tackled through a road safety audit or identified through community consultation

  14. Case study – access management From …

  15. Use and Abuse of Crash Data in Roadway Access Management A Workshop at the National Access Management Conference Baltimore, Maryland July 13, 2008

  16. Data-Driven Access Management • Access management treatments and plans should be directly tied to measurable objectives such as crash rate or crash cost reduction • Access management treatments proposed should be appropriate given the types of crashes and pattern of crashes being experienced in a corridor • Access management treatment costs need to be justifiable based upon the expected benefits of crash reductions and other objectives • Stakeholders and decision-makers must be convinced that the “gain” of access management is worth the “pain” • Confidence in both past (“before treatment”) and expected future crash rates (“after treatment”) should be high • You want to be very sure that any treatments will produce a noticeable and positive result

  17. Access Management and Safety • Most access-management related crashes occur on urban and suburban arterial roadways at speeds of 35 to 55 miles per hour • Up to half of all crashes in urban areas are related to issues of access (minor public road intersections, traffic signal spacing, driveways) • Although most access-related crashes occur in urban or suburban areas, access-related crashes in rural areas tend to be severe crashes due to higher travel speeds • Access-related crashes occur at conflict points • The diagram represents one crash data point

  18. Problem 1: Fix This Mess South Ankeny Blvd., Ankeny, Iowa

  19. What Do Crash Data Really Look Like?

  20. What’s On Your Table … Traffic over time Crash data tables and charts Corridor photos Land Use 27 Laminated base map Crash data stack map

  21. An Example Plan …

  22. Crash Data Allow Better … • Problem Identification • Understanding of the problem before jumping into exploring and designing solutions • Focus on severe crashes rather than all (minor) crashes However …

  23. You Need Good Quality Data The Ingredients Matter: Quality Control

  24. The Characteristics of Data Quality (The “Six-Pack”)

  25. FMCSA Data Quality

  26. Crash Data Quality: Timeliness • Sometimes crash data are not available for months or even years • Varying timeliness of different jurisdictions can cause issues for comparative analysis • Time itself is important – did something change during the analysis period? • Also – the time period is important … one year of data are probably not enough!

  27. Crash Data Quality: Accuracy Considering functional area Original • Spatial Location • Attributes, e.g., severity, crash type, roadway info 1ST Road SOUTH ANKENY BOULEVARD v

  28. Crash Data Quality: Completeness • Missing data can lead to a misleading picture and erroneous conclusions • Some crash records have “unknown” or “other” fields • Some crash records are missing altogether • Variations between jurisdictions (county level, state level) can lead to inaccuracies in comparative analysis

  29. Crash Data Quality: Consistency/Uniformity • Across jurisdictions • Across time • Consistent severities

  30. Consistency • Although the need for data is universally recognized, there is little consistency in collected data (Ogden) • Comparative study of eleven European countries found that • Only two variables (date & hour) were collected in all eleven countries • 7 percent of items were recorded in three countries • 70 percent recorded in only one country • There is no nationwide crash data reporting system in US • Little consistency within states for recorded data elements

  31. Crash Data Quality: Integration • Integration provides a ‘richer’, more complete source of information (e.g., integration with roadway features) • Double check on accuracy (including severity) • Privacy is a tough issue • Another tough issue is multiple offices and even agencies being in charge of various parts of safety data

  32. Crash Data Quality: Accessibility • How can you get crash data? • How easy is it to get? • What form do you want it in? • Liability and perception is an issue. • Continuum: not available … special request w/delay … regular updates … service … instant web access

  33. Typical Crash Data IssuesThese may not be apparent to the data user

  34. Changes in Crash Forms Collision Type Before After • Content • Addition/elimination of attributes collected • Change in definitions (values)

  35. Changes in Crash Forms, cont. Change in crash form Crash Rate Crash Rate Year Year Statewide Site #1 Impacts: Difficult to perform direct comparisons over analysis period. May result in systematic change in apparent crash performance, e.g. crash reduction.

  36. Cartographic (Base Map) Changes • Shift, update to reference road network Impact: Challenging to systematically assign crash location.

  37. Location Accuracy • How are the crashes located? • GPS (where?) • Manually derived, based on literal description • LRS, Link-node, other? • What reference networks are used? • GIS • LRS • Link-node

  38. X Location Accuracy, cont. • How do accuracies vary among location methods and reference networks? • Ex. GPS ±5m v. GIS-based road network ±10m Crash may be located anywhere within this area. X Roadway may be presented anywhere within this area. GIS road network Actual crash location Geocoded crash location Impact: type I or type II errors – you’d not know

  39. Changes in Statute • Reportable crash definition • Property damage threshold, e.g. $500 v. $1000 • Injury crash • Reporting requirements • Driver report “…is not required when the accident is investigated by a law enforcement agency.” Impact: May result in systematic change in apparent crash performance, e.g. crash reduction.

  40. Reporting Extent & Completeness • All public roads • Private property • State-maintained roads only • Jurisdiction, agency dependent Impacts: • Incomplete crash history skews findings. • Difficult to compare different locations.

  41. Multiple Data Sources • Local law enforcement • State DOT • Other agencies, e.g. taxi authority Impact: Difficult to access and integrate all crash data, i.e. difficult to create a comprehensive, useable data set.

  42. How Crash Data Are Abused

  43. Limited Frame of Reference • Limited, no comparison to similar locations. • No comparison to “expected” conditions (comparables). Impact: • What may appear to be a problem site, in isolation, may be performing as well as, or better than, similar locations. • However, this does not imply that a location is performing well and/or can not be improved.

More Related