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
IntroductionIntroduction
What is the cost of traffic crashes for 2001?Why do we care about this cost?How do we quantify this cost?
IntroductionIntroduction
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-FatalitiesFHWA Safety Goal-Fatalities
FHWA Safety Goal-InjuriesFHWA Safety Goal-Injuries
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.
Vehicle in Transport
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.
Vehicle in Transport
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)
Vehicle in Transport
(Alcohol/Restraint)
Vehicle in Transport
(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%)
Vehicle in Transport
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)
Event Fatals Alcohol No Rest.
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)
Event Fatals Alcohol No Rest.
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
Vehicle in Transport
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]