This study proposes a framework of a model-based hot spot identification method by applying full Bayes (FB) technique. In comparison with the state-of-the-art approach [i.e., empirical Bayes method (EB)], the advantage of the FB method is the capability to seamlessly integrate prior information and all available data into posterior distributions on which various ranking criteria could be based. With intersection crash data collected in Singapore, an empirical analysis was conducted to evaluate the following six approaches for hot spot identification: (a) naive ranking using raw crash data, (b) standard EB ranking, (c) FB ranking using a Poisson-gamma model, (d) FB ranking using a Poisson-lognormal model, (e) FB ranking using a hierarchical Poisson model, and (f) FB ranking using a hierarchical Poisson (AR-1) model. The results show that (a) when using the expected crash rate–related decision parameters, all model-based approaches perform significantly better in safety ranking than does the naive ranking method, and (b) the FB approach using hierarchical models significantly outperforms the standard EB approach in correctly identifying hazardous sites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DeaconJ. A., ZegeerC. V., and DeenR. C.Identification of Hazardous Rural Highway Locations. In Transportation Research Record 543, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1975, pp. 16–33.
2.
StokesR. W., and MutabaziI. M.Rate–Quality Control Method of Identifying Hazardous Road Locations. In Transportation Research Record 1542, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 44–48.
3.
TamburriT. N., SmithR. N., MillsJ. P., and PeriniV. J.The Safety Index: A Method of Evaluating and Rating Safety Benefits. In Highway Research Record 307, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1970, pp. 28–43.
ElvikR.State-of-the-Art Approaches to Road Accident Black Spot Management and Safety Analysis of Road Networks. Report 883. Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway, 2007.
6.
HauerE.Identification of Sites with Promise. In Transportation Research Record 1542, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 54–60.
7.
HauerE., KononovJ., AlleryB., and GriffithM. S.Screening the Road Network for Sites with Promise. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1784, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 27–32.
8.
HauerE., and PersaudB. N.Problem of Identifying Hazardous Locations Using Accident Data. In Transportation Research Record 975, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 36–43.
9.
ChengW., and WashingtonS. P.Experimental Evaluation of Hotspot Identification Methods.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 37, 2005, pp. 870–881.
10.
ChengW., and WashingtonS. P.New Criteria for Evaluating Methods of Identifying Hot Spots. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2083, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 76–85.
11.
CarlinB., and LouisT.Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis.Chapman and Hall, New York, 2000.
12.
MiaouS.-P., and LordD.Modeling Traffic-Flow Relationships at Signalized Intersections: Dispersion Parameter, Functional Form, and Bayes versus Empirical Bayes Methods. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1840, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 31–40.
13.
GelmanA., CarlinJ. B., and SternH. S.Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd ed.Chapman and Hall, New York, 2003.
14.
MiaouS. P., and SongJ. J.Bayesian Ranking of Sites for Engineering Safety Improvement: Decision Parameter, Treatability Concept, Statistical Criterion and Spatial Dependence.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, 2005, pp. 699–720.
15.
SongJ. J., GhoshM., MiaouS., and MallickB.Bayesian Multivariate Spatial Models for Roadway Traffic Crash Mapping.Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Vol. 97, 2006, pp. 246–273.
16.
MacNabY. C.A Bayesian Hierarchical Model for Accident and Injury Surveillance.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, 2003, pp. 91–102.
17.
HuangH. L., ChinH. C., and HaqueM. M.Severity of Driver Injury and Vehicle Damage in Traffic Crashes at Intersections: A Bayesian Hierarchical Analysis.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 45–54.
18.
HuangH., ChinH. C., and HaqueM. M.Bayesian Hierarchical Analysis of Crash Prediction Models. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
19.
MiaouS. P.The Relationship Between Truck Accidents and Geometric Design of Road Section: Poisson Versus Negative Binomial Regression.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, 1994, pp. 471–482.
20.
ShankarV. N., ManneringF. L., and BarfieldW.Effect of Roadway Geometric and Environmental Factors on Rural Freeway Accident Frequencies.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 27, 1995, pp. 371–389.
21.
LordD., and Miranda-MorenoL. F.Effects of Low Sample Mean Values and Small Sample Size on the Estimation of the Fixed Dispersion Parameter of Poisson-Gamma Models for Modeling Motor Vehicle Crashes: A Bayesian Perspective.Safety Science, Vol. 46, 2008, pp. 751–770.
22.
WangX., and Abdel-AtyM.Temporal and Spatial Analyses of Rear-End Crashes at Signalized Intersections.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 1137–1150.
23.
CongdonP.Applied Bayesian Modelling.John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York,2003.
24.
SpiegelhalterD. J., BestN. G., CarlinB. P., and LindeV. D.Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit (with discussion).Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. B64, No. 4, 2003, pp. 583–616.
25.
LordD., WashingtonS. P., and IvanJ. N.Poisson, Poisson-Gamma and Zero-Inflated Regression Models for Motor Vehicle Crashes: Balancing Statistical Fit and Theory.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, 2005, pp. 35–46.
26.
LordD., WashingtonS. P., and IvanJ. N.Further Notes on the Application of Zero-Inflated Models in Highway Safety.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, 2007, pp. 53–57.
27.
ChapmanR.The Concept of Exposure.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 5, 1973, pp. 95–110.
28.
SpiegelhalterD. J., ThomasA., BestN. G., and LunnD.WinBUGS Version 1.4.1 User Manual.MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
29.
BrooksS. P., and GelmanA.Alternative Methods for Monitoring Convergence of Iterative Simulations.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, Vol. 7, 1998, pp. 434–455.
30.
MaherM. J., and MountainL. J.The Identification of Accident Blackspots: A Comparison of Current Methods.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 20, 1988, pp. 143–151.
