Objective: This study aimed to explore the relationship between crash types and different freeway segments and identify the factors contributing to crashes on different freeway segments. Unlike most of the previous studies on freeway segments, this study separately investigates basic freeway segments, single ramp influence segments, and multiple ramp influence segments.
Methods: Nonlinear canonical correlation analysis (NLCCA) and proportionality test were used to identify the relationship between crash types and different freeway segments. The data sets for the different freeway segments accumulated for this study consist of 9,867 crash samples with complete information on all 22 chosen variables. A multinomial logit model (MNL) was used to estimate the influence of crash factors on different freeway segments.
Results: The results show that weaving and diverge overlap influence segments (WD) are more likely to have injury or fatal crashes; diverge and diverge overlap influence segments (DD) are more likely to have property damage–only (PDO) crashes; merge and merge overlap influence segments (MM) are more likely to have sideswipe crashes; and WD have non-sideswipe crashes; WD and weaving overlap influence segments (MW) are more likely to have rear end crashes; and MM segments are less likely to have hit object crashes. The contributing factors are identified by MNL and the results show that different traffic variables, environmental variables, vehicle variables, driver variables, and geometric variables significantly affected the likelihood of crashes on different freeway segments.
Conclusions: Investigation of crash types and factors contributing to crashes on different freeway segments is based on multiple ramp influence segments, which can promote a better understanding of the safety performance of various freeway segments. 相似文献
Abstract: Although there are many indicators of endangerment (i.e., whether populations or species meet criteria that justify conservation action), their reliability has rarely been tested. Such indicators may fail to identify that a population or species meets criteria for conservation action (false negative) or may incorrectly show that such criteria have been met (false positive). To quantify the rate of both types of error for 20 commonly used indicators of declining abundance (threat indicators), we used receiver operating characteristic curves derived from historical (1938–2007) data for 18 sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) populations in the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada. We retrospectively determined each population's yearly status (reflected by change in abundance over time) on the basis of each indicator. We then compared that population's status in a given year with the status in subsequent years (determined by the magnitude of decline in abundance across those years). For each sockeye population, we calculated how often each indicator of past status matched subsequent status. No single threat indicator provided error‐free estimates of status, but indicators that reflected the extent (i.e., magnitude) of past decline in abundance (through comparison of current abundance with some historical baseline abundance) tended to better reflect status in subsequent years than the rate of decline over the previous 3 generations (a widely used indicator). We recommend that when possible, the reliability of various threat indicators be evaluated with empirical analyses before such indicators are used to determine the need for conservation action. These indicators should include estimates from the entire data set to take into account a historical baseline.相似文献