estimation of 2001 crash costs using fars and ges

Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES Using FARS and GES

John McFadden, Len Meczkowski,

FHWA-Office of Safety R&D;

Carol Conly, Lendis Corporation;

Promod Chandhok, BTS

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

Introduction/Safety Problem FHWA Safety GoalsData Collection

– FARS– GES

Interpretation of ResultsConclusions

IntroductionIntroduction

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


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


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

FHWA Safety GoalsFHWA 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)

FHWA Safety Goal-FatalitiesFHWA Safety Goal-Fatalities

FHWA Safety Goal-InjuriesFHWA Safety Goal-Injuries

Problem StatementProblem 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?

R&D EffortsR&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

2001 Crash Data2001 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)

FHE CrashesFHE 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

MHE CrashesMHE Crashes

MHE– Recorded as a vehicle level variable– Separate MHE are assigned to EVERY vehicle

in a crash

ExampleExample

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

Data CollectionData Collection

2001 crash data were broken into four groupings:– All crash types

FHE MHE

– Run off road crash types FHE MHE

Why focus on ROR crashes?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)

Data CollectionData Collection

Data were also normalized for the following contributing factors:– Alcohol involvement– Restraint usage

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

Event Fatals Alcohol No Rest.

Vehicle in Transport

15,286 (40%)

2,776 (18%)14,514 (92%)

Overturn7,721 (19%)

1,907 (25%) 6,106 (79%)

Pedestrian4,723 (12%)

762

(16%)4,723

(100%)

Tree3,802

(9%)

878

(23%)2,510 (66%)

Utility Pole 1,199 (3%) 221 (18%) 755 (63%)

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

Event A Injuries Alcohol No Rest.


168,293 (62%)

8,118

(5%)26,705 (16%)

Overturn41,786

(15%)

8,111

(20%)

12,101

(29%)

Tree17,336 (6%)

4,552

(26%)

4,163

(24%)

Sign Post/

Sign

9,943

(4%)

2,428

(24%)

2,793

(28%)

Culvert8,077

(3%)

1,949

(24%)

3,156

(39%)

MHE – 2001 “B+C” Injury Crashes MHE – 2001 “B+C” Injury Crashes

(5 most frequent events)(5 most frequent events)

EventB+C

InjuriesAlcohol No Rest.


1,237,081

(72%)

27,602

(2.2%)86,064 (7%)

Overturn62,147

(4%)

7,528

(12%)

11,370

(18%)

Sign Post/

Sign

53,720

(3%)

11,409

(21%)

9,679

(18%)

Pedestrian53,141

(3%)

181

(0.3%)

53,141

(100%)

Tree39,621

(2%)

7,350

(19%)

6,239

(16%)

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

Rank Event Frequency

Fatal A InjuriesB+C

Injuries

1Vehicle in Transport

(Alcohol/Restraint)


(Alcohol/Restraint)


(Alcohol/Restraint)

2 Overturn(ROR)

Overturn(ROR)

Overturn(ROR)

3 Pedestrian Tree(ROR)

Sign Post/Sign (ROR)

4 Tree(ROR)

Sign Post/Sign (ROR)

Pedestrian

5 Utility Pole(ROR)

Culvert(ROR)

Tree (ROR)

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

Rank Event Frequency Fatalities Injuries

Vehicle in Transport $46 Billion $206 Billion

Overturn $23 Billion $45 Billion

Pedestrian (Fatal) Tree (Injury) $14 Billion $18 Billion

Tree (Fatal)

Sign Post/Sign (Injury) $11 Billion $11 Billion

Utility Pole (Fatal)

Culvert (Injury)$4 Billion $9 Billion

MHE – 2001 ROR Fatal Crashes MHE – 2001 ROR Fatal Crashes

(5 most frequent events)(5 most frequent events)Event Fatals Alcohol No Rest.

Overturn5,953 (36%)

1,962

(33%)

3,937

(66%)

Tree3,662 (22%)

1,088 (30%) 2,114 (58%)


1,401 (8%) 118 (8%) 312 (22%)

Utility Pole 1,076 (7%) 315 (29%) 593 (55%)

Embankment 509 (3%) 162 (32%) 342 (67%)

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


Overturn26,817 (30%)

6,364

(24%)

9,004

(34%)

Tree16,646 (19%)

4,552 (27%) 4,094 (25%)

Sign post/

Sign9,651 (11%)

2,349 (24%) 2794 (29%)

Culvert 7,898 (9%) 1,949 (25%) 3,157 (40%)

Embankment 4,765 (5%) 834 (18%) 1,431 (30%)

MHE – 2001 ROR MHE – 2001 ROR ““B+C” Injury Crashes B+C” Injury Crashes

(5 most frequent events)(5 most frequent events)


Overturn 76,656 (22%)10,467

(14%)

14,815

(19%)

Sign post/

Sign48,162 (14%) 10,261 (21%) 8,823 (18%)

Tree 40,622 (12%) 7,043 (17%) 6,646 (16%)

Parked Vehicle 26,543 (8%) 4,569 (17%) 4,539 (17%)

Culvert 26,325 (8%) 4,607 (18%) 4,715 (18%)

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

Rank Event Frequency

Fatal A InjuriesB+C

Injuries

1 Overturn Overturn Overturn

2 Tree TreeSign Post/

Sign

3Motor


Sign Post/

SignTree

4 Utility Pole CulvertParked vehicle

5 Embankment Embankment Culvert

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

Rank Event Frequency Fatalities Injuries

Overturn $18 Billion $29 Billion

Tree $11 Billion $18 Billion

Motor vehicle in transport (Fatal), Sign Post/Sign (Injury)

$4 Billion $11 Billion

Utility Pole (Fatal)

Culvert (Injury)$3 Billion $9 Billion

Embankment (Fatal),

Guide rail (Injury)$2 Billion $5 Billion

Interpretation of ResultsInterpretation of Results

So What?– What does this information tell us?– How do we apply what we know?

Ans.– Focus areas for safety programs.

AASHTO AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety PlanStrategic 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

AASHTO SHSPAASHTO SHSPCrash Categories Crash Categories

DUI Aggressive driving Seat belt Peds Head-on Curves Trees Utility poles Guiderail Intersections

Head on CrashesHead 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

Head on Crashes StrategyHead on Crashes Strategy

Low cost improvement– Centerline rumble strips for two lane roadways

Run off Road CrashesRun off Road Crashes

Contributory cause for 38% of fatalitiesFHWA 2-prong approach concentrates on:

– Keeping vehicles in travel lanes– Minimize the harmful effects when the vehicle

leaves the roadway

Taken During Construction

ROR Crash StrategyROR Crash Strategy

Pavement edge rumble strips

ROR Crash StrategyROR Crash StrategyCurve DelineationCurve Delineation

ROR StrategyROR StrategyUtility Pole RelocationUtility Pole Relocation

Digitally Enhanced Photograph

BEFORE

AFTER

ROR StrategyROR StrategyUtility Pole DelineationUtility Pole Delineation

ROR StrategyROR StrategyHazardous Tree RemovalHazardous Tree Removal

BEFORE

Digitally Enhanced Photograph

AFTER

ConclusionsConclusions

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

ConclusionsConclusions

2001 crash data: – Provides guidance for future research efforts– Validates AASHTO SHSP priority areas

Accurate crash data essential for future highway safety initiatives

Questions?Questions?

Contact Information:– www.tfhrc.gov– John McFadden,

HRDS-6 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101 Phone: 202-493-3320 E-mail: [email protected]

estimation of 2001 crash costs using fars and ges

Documents

vehiclevehicle collisionmhe

crash typesfhemherun

crash costs

struck vehicle

injury crashes

fatal motor vehicle

ror crashes

fatal crashes