Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES

1. Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES John McFadden, Len Meczkowski, FHWA-Office of Safety R&D; Carol Conly, Lendis Corporation; Promod Chandhok, BTS

2. Presentation Overview • Introduction/Safety Problem • FHWA Safety Goals • Data Collection • FARS • GES • Interpretation of Results • Conclusions

3. Introduction • 37,795 fatal motor vehicle crashes in 2001 • Resulting in 40,016 deaths • +/- 2.08 million injuries resulting from auto crashes in 2001 • Heavy personal toll and economic cost

4. Introduction • What is the cost of traffic crashes for 2001? • Why do we care about this cost? • How do we quantify this cost?

5. Introduction • February 2002: OST guidance on value of life (in 2001 dollars): • Fatality = $3 million • Severe injury = $1.01 million (AIS 5,4 (A)) • Minor injury = $60,000 (AIS 3-1, (B+C)) • PDO = $2,300

6. FHWA Safety Goals • Reduce the rate and number of highway related fatalities and injuries • Performance Measures and Benchmarks • Highway-related fatalities per 100 million VMT • Number of highway-related fatalities • Highway related injuries per 100 million VMT • Number of highway-related injuries (millions)

7. FHWA Safety Goal-Fatalities

8. FHWA Safety Goal-Fatalities

9. FHWA Safety Goal-Injuries

10. FHWA Safety Goal-Injuries

11. Problem Statement • How to achieve these safety goals? • What types of crashes should we focus? • What countermeasures are appropriate? • How to evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures?

12. R&D Efforts • One approach: • review traffic crash records to identify the crash types that will provide the largest “return on investment” for specific treatments. • Need to estimate benefit-cost ratios: • Benefits: reduction in crash (by type) for specific treatment • Costs by crash type

13. 2001 Crash Data • Fatal crash data obtained via FARS • Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems • Injury/PDO crash data obtained via GES • General Estimation Systems • Crash impacts that result in fatality, injury or PDO are called “harmful events” and are broken into two groups: • First Harmful Event (FHE) • Most Harmful Event (MHE)

14. FHE Crashes • FHE • Recorded as an accident level variable • Each crash is assigned a single FHE regardless of the number of vehicles involved • FHE may not be the impact that caused the greatest trauma or property damage

15. MHE Crashes • MHE • Recorded as a vehicle level variable • Separate MHE are assigned to EVERY vehicle in a crash

16. Example • Wet pavement, two-vehicle collision injuring two occupants in the struck vehicle. The striking vehicle was then deflected into the utility pole, killing the driver. • FHE • vehicle-vehicle collision • MHE • Struck vehicle = vehicle-vehicle collision • Striking vehicle = utility pole

17. Data Collection • 2001 crash data were broken into four groupings: • All crash types • FHE • MHE • Run off road crash types • FHE • MHE

18. Why focus on ROR crashes? • FHWA Office of Safety R&D, Roadside Team: • Interested in identifying focus of future research w/r/to ROR crash treatments • Data supported focus on these crashes: • ROR crashes are contributory cause for 38% of fatalities (McFadden, ITE 2002)

19. Data Collection • Data were also normalized for the following contributing factors: • Alcohol involvement • Restraint usage

20. MHE – 2001 Fatal Crashes (5 most frequent events)

21. MHE – 2001 “A” Injury Crashes (5 most frequent events)

22. MHE – 2001 “B+C” Injury Crashes (5 most frequent events)

23. MHE – 2001 Fatal + Injury Crash Comparison of Most Frequent Events

24. 2001 MHE Fatal + Injury Crash Costs By Most Frequent Events

25. MHE – 2001 ROR Fatal Crashes (5 most frequent events)

26. MHE – 2001 ROR “A” Injury Crashes (5 most frequent events)

27. MHE – 2001 ROR “B+C” Injury Crashes (5 most frequent events)

28. MHE – 2001 Fatal + Injury Crash Comparison of Most Frequent Events

29. 2001 Fatal + Injury Crash Costs By Most Frequent Events

30. Interpretation of Results • So What? • What does this information tell us? • How do we apply what we know? • Ans. • Focus areas for safety programs.

31. AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan • Developed in 1996-1997 • Reduce the deaths and health care costs due to crashes on highways • Guidance for state DOT safety management plans

32. AASHTO SHSPCrash Categories • DUI • Aggressive driving • Seat belt • Peds • Head-on • Curves • Trees • Utility poles • Guiderail • Intersections

33. Head on Crashes • Vehicle crosses the centerline or median or travels wrong way in opposing traffic lane and crashes • Objectives to reduce HOC: • Keep vehicles from encroaching onto opposite lane • Reduce the severity of crashes that occur

34. Head on Crashes Strategy • Low cost improvement • Centerline rumble strips for two lane roadways

35. Run off Road Crashes • Contributory cause for 38% of fatalities • FHWA 2-prong approach concentrates on: • Keeping vehicles in travel lanes • Minimize the harmful effects when the vehicle leaves the roadway

36. ROR Crash Strategy • Pavement edge rumble strips Taken During Construction

37. ROR Crash StrategyCurve Delineation

38. BEFORE AFTER Digitally Enhanced Photograph ROR StrategyUtility Pole Relocation

39. ROR StrategyUtility Pole Delineation

40. BEFORE AFTER Digitally Enhanced Photograph ROR StrategyHazardous Tree Removal

41. Conclusions • 2001 crash data were analyzed: • Ranked by frequency of harmful events • Calculated costs in 2001 dollars of these crashes • Validate existing safety improvement programs • Provide data to estimate benefit/cost ratios for safety treatments

42. Conclusions • 2001 crash data: • Provides guidance for future research efforts • Validates AASHTO SHSP priority areas • Accurate crash data essential for future highway safety initiatives

43. Questions? • Contact Information: • www.tfhrc.gov • John McFadden, • HRDS-6 • 6300 Georgetown Pike • McLean, VA 22101 • Phone: 202-493-3320 • E-mail: john.mcfadden@fhwa.dot.gov