Shared micromobility systems have become increasingly popular for short-distance travel. Different cities have been adopting micromobility systems to mitigate several transportation-related problems. Micromobility devices include e-scooters and e-bikes. However, the safety impacts of these devices have not been extensively studied. This study investigates the safety implications of various on-street facilities for micromobility users. It estimates crash modification factors for micromobility crashes in Florida for roadway segments and signalized intersections. This research utilizes a negative binomial Lindley model to analyze crash data involving micromobility users from 2021 to 2023, identifying significant factors contributing to micromobility crashes. For roadway segments, the presence of on-street parking and sharrow lanes were found to increase the likelihood of micromobility crashes. In contrast, the presence of sidewalk barriers was associated with a reduction in such crashes. At signalized intersections, the presence of multiple approaches with exclusive left-turn lanes, exclusive right-turn lanes, and permitted left-turn signals were associated with an increased probability of micromobility crashes. Conversely, intersections with multiple approaches featuring protected-permitted left-turn signals were associated with a reduction in micromobility crashes. The findings of this study provide valuable insights for transportation agencies planning to incorporate micromobility systems in their jurisdictions, helping to improve the overall safety of these systems.
HosseinzadehA.AlgomaiahM.KlugerR.LiZ.Spatial Analysis of Shared E-Scooter Trips. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 92, 2021, p. 103016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103016
3.
TianD.RyanA. D.CraigC. M.SievertK.MorrisN. L.Characteristics and Risk Factors for Electric Scooter-Related Crashes and Injury Crashes among Scooter Riders: A Two-Phase Survey Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19, No. 16, 2022, p. 10129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610129
4.
OeschgerG.CarrollP.CaulfieldB.Micromobility and Public Transport Integration: The Current State of Knowledge. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 102628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628
5.
AbduljabbarR. L.LiyanageS.DiaH.The Role of Micro-Mobility in Shaping Sustainable Cities: A Systematic Literature Review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 92, 2021, p. 102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734
ShinS.ChooS.Influence of Built Environment on Micromobility–Pedestrian Accidents. Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010582
8.
PourfalatounS.AhmedJ.MillerE. E.Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk. Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 11, 2023, p. 9045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119045
9.
KarpinskiE.BaylesE.SandersT.Safety Analysis for Micromobility: Recommendations on Risk Metrics and Data Collection. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2022. 2676: 420–435.
10.
ParkJ.Abdel-AtyM.LeeJ.LeeC.Developing Crash Modification Functions to Assess Safety Effects of Adding Bike Lanes for Urban Arterials with Different Roadway and Socio-Economic Characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 74, 2015, pp. 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.10.024
11.
BaharG.MasliahM.WolffR.ParkP.Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors. No. FHWA-SA-07-015. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2007. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/16438.
12.
GrossF.PersaudB.LyonC. A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors. No. FHWA-SA-10-032. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/41025
13.
CarterD.SrinivasanR.GrossF.CouncilF.Recommended Protocols for Developing Crash Modification Factors. No. NCHRP, 20-07(314). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
14.
LordD.WashingtonS. P.IvanJ. N.Poisson, Poisson-Gamma and Zero-Inflated Regression Models of Motor Vehicle Crashes: Balancing Statistical Fit and Theory. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2005, pp. 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2004.02.004
15.
ShankarV.MiltonJ.ManneringF.Modeling Accident Frequencies as Zero-Altered Probability Processes: An Empirical Inquiry. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 6, 1997, pp. 829–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00052-3
16.
QinX.IvanJ. N.RavishankerN.Selecting Exposure Measures in Crash Rate Prediction for Two-Lane Highway Segments. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2004, pp. 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00148-3
17.
LordD.WashingtonS.IvanJ. N.Further Notes on the Application of Zero-Inflated Models in Highway Safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2007, pp. 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.06.004
18.
KumaraS. S. P.ChinH. C.Modeling Accident Occurrence at Signalized Tee Intersections with Special Emphasis on Excess Zeros. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2003, pp. 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580309852
19.
PrasetijoJ.MusaW. Z.Modeling Zero—Inflated Regression of Road Accidents at Johor Federal Road F001. MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 47, 2016, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164703001.
20.
AbdulhafedhA.Incorporating Zero-Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Regression Model in Crash Frequency Analysis. Transportation Research Record, 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7632596
21.
SonH. D.KweonY. J.ParkB. B.Development of Crash Prediction Models with Individual Vehicular Data. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1353–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2011.03.002.
22.
ShaonM. R. R.QinX.Use of Mixed Distribution Generalized Linear Models to Quantify Safety Effects of Rural Roadway Features. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2583: 134–141.
23.
ShiraziM.DhavalaS. S.LordD.GeedipallyS. R.A Methodology to Design Heuristics for Model Selection Based on the Characteristics of Data: Application to Investigate When the Negative Binomial Lindley (NB-L) Is Preferred over the Negative Binomial (NB). Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 107, 2017, pp. 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.07.002
24.
LordD.GeedipallyS. R.The Negative Binomial-Lindley Distribution as a Tool for Analyzing Crash Data Characterized by a Large Amount of Zeros. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1738–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.004
25.
ZamaniH.IsmailN.Negative Binomial-Lindley Distribution and Its Application Hossein Zamani and Noriszura Ismail Actuarial Science Program. School of Mathematical Sciences, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Vol. 6, No. 1, 2010, pp. 4–9.
26.
KhodadadiA.TsapakisI.DasS.LordD.LiY.Application of Different Negative Binomial Parameterizations to Develop Safety Performance Functions for Non-Federal Aid System Roads. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 156, 2021, p. 106103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106103
27.
Gil-MarinJ. K.ShiraziM.IvanJ. N.Assessing the Negative Binomial-Lindley Model for Crash Hotspot Identification: Insights from Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 199, 2024, p. 107478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107478
28.
GeedipallyS. R.LordD.DhavalaS. S.The Negative Binomial-Lindley Generalized Linear Model: Characteristics and Application Using Crash Data. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 45, 2012, pp. 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.012
29.
AnisM.GeedipallyS. R.LordD.Pedestrian Crash Causation Analysis Near Bus Stops: Insights from Random Parameters NB-Lindley Models. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 220, 2025, pp. 1–27.
30.
ShaonM. R. R.QinX.ShiraziM.LordD.GeedipallyS. R.Developing a Random Parameters Negative Binomial-Lindley Model to Analyze Highly over-Dispersed Crash Count Data. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, Vol. 18, 2018, pp. 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2018.04.002
31.
RusliR.HaqueM. M.AfghariA. P.KingM.Applying a Random Parameters Negative Binomial Lindley Model to Examine Multi-Vehicle Crashes along Rural Mountainous Highways in Malaysia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 119, 2018, pp. 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.07.006
32.
DzinyelaR.ShiraziM.DasS.LordD.The Negative Binomial-Lindley Model with Time-Dependent Parameters: Accounting for Temporal Variations and Excess Zero Observations in Crash Data. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 207, 2024, p. 107711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107711
33.
TangF.FuX.CaiM.LuY.ZhongS.LuC.Applying a Correlated Random Parameters Negative Binomial Lindley Model to Examine Crash Frequency along Highway Tunnels in China. IEEE Access, Vol. 8, 2020, pp. 213473–213488. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3040211
34.
IslamA. S. M. M.ShiraziM.LordD.Finite Mixture Negative Binomial-Lindley for Modeling Heterogeneous Crash Data with Many Zero Observations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 175, 2022, p. 106765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106765
35.
IslamA. S. M. M.ShiraziM.LordD.Grouped Random Parameters Negative Binomial-Lindley for Accounting Unobserved Heterogeneity in Crash Data with Preponderant Zero Observations. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, Vol. 37, 2023, p. 100255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2022.100255
36.
AzimianA.JiaoJ.Modeling Factors Contributing to Dockless E-Scooter Injury Accidents in Austin, Texas. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2022, pp. 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2022.2030057
37.
SikkaN.VilaC.StrattonM.GhassemiM.PourmandA.Sharing the Sidewalk: A Case of E-Scooter Related Pedestrian Injury. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 9, 2019, pp. 1807.e5-1807.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.06.017
38.
MaasS.AttardM.CaruanaM. A.Assessing Spatial and Social Dimensions of Shared Bicycle Use in a Southern European Island Context: The Case of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 140, 2020, pp. 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.08.003
39.
Fonseca-CabreraA. S.Llopis-CastellóD.Pérez-ZuriagaA. M.Alonso-TroyanoC.GarcíaA.Micromobility Users’ Behaviour and Perceived Risk during Meeting Manoeuvres. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18, No. 23, 2021, p. 12465. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312465
40.
CubellsJ.Miralles-GuaschC.MarquetO.E-Scooter and Bike-Share Route Choice and Detours: Modelling the Influence of Built Environment and Sociodemographic Factors. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 111, 2023, p. 103664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103664
41.
KleinertzH.VolkA.DalosD.RutkowskiR.FroschK. H.ThiesenD. M.Risk Factors and Injury Patterns of E-Scooter Associated Injuries in Germany. Scientific Reports, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25448-z.
42.
YangH.MaQ.WangZ.CaiQ.XieK.YangD.Safety of Micro-Mobility: Analysis of E-Scooter Crashes by Mining News Reports. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 143, 2020, p. 105608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105608.
RaihanM. A.AlluriP.WuW.GanA.Estimation of Bicycle Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) on Urban Facilities Using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial Models. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 123, 2019, pp. 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.12.009
45.
ShiraziM.LordD.GeedipallyS. R.Sample-Size Guidelines for Recalibrating Crash Prediction Models: Recommendations for the Highway Safety Manual. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 93, 2016, pp. 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.011
46.
Al-MarafiM. N.SomasundaraswaranK.A Review of the State-of-the-Art Methods in Estimating Crash Modification Factor (CMF). Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 20, 2023, p. 100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100839
47.
LordD.BonnesonJ. A.Development of Accident Modification Factors for Rural Frontage Road Segments in Texas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2023. 2007: 20–27.
48.
ChampahomT.JomnonkwaoS.BanyongC.NambuleeW.KaroonsoontawongA.RatanavarahaV.Analysis of Crash Frequency and Crash Severity in Thailand: Hierarchical Structure Models Approach. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 18, 2021, p. 10086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810086
49.
DormannC. F.ElithJ.BacherS.BuchmannC.CarlG.CarréG.MarquézJ. R. G., et al. Collinearity: A Review of Methods to Deal with It and a Simulation Study Evaluating Their Performance. Ecography, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2013, pp. 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x
50.
QuddusM. A.WangC.IsonS. G.Road Traffic Congestion and Crash Severity: Econometric Analysis Using Ordered Response Models. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 5, 2010, pp. 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000044
51.
SrinivasanR.LyonC.PersaudB.BaekJ.GrossF.SmithS.SundstromC.Crash Modification Factors for Changes to Left-Turn Phasing. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2279: 108–117. https://doi.org/10.3141/2279-13
