Unpacking the COVID-19 roadway fatality paradox: an analysis of motor vehicle crashes in Michigan 2019-2022.

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Colleen M Peterson, Andrew Leslie, Patrick J Bowman, Carol A C Flannagan
{"title":"Unpacking the COVID-19 roadway fatality paradox: an analysis of motor vehicle crashes in Michigan 2019-2022.","authors":"Colleen M Peterson, Andrew Leslie, Patrick J Bowman, Carol A C Flannagan","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2024.2427264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Motor vehicle travel shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in fewer vehicle miles traveled yet paradoxically higher fatality rates. Anecdotally, the paradox was blamed on increases in risky behavior in the absence of regular traffic and enforcement. We examined three hypotheses to explain the fatality paradox using Michigan crash data: (1) lack of congestion led to higher-speed impacts; (2) increased risky driver/driving; and (3) low-risk driving miles decreased.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined changes in hypotheses-related crash factors and injury outcomes for the years 2019-2022; restricted to the duration of Michigan's stay-at-home order in 2020 (March 23 and June 1). First, we used logistic regression to evaluate the prevalence of the crash factors in all crashes and in severe/fatal crashes only in 2020, 2021; and 2022 compared to 2019. Second, to identify whether those crash factors differentially resulted in worse injury outcomes, we used logistic regression to evaluate whether odds of a severe/fatal crash occurring in March 23-June 1 across the years 2019-2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three hypotheses tested to explain Michigan's traffic safety paradox had moderate to extensive support. Risky driving/driver factors were more prevalent during the 2020 stay-at-home order in all crashes; however, the risky driving factors were largely not more prevalent in severe and fatal injury crashes in 2020. In contrast, although less prevalent, many factors associated with the low-risk mileage and congestion hypotheses were more likely to result in severe and fatal outcomes during the stay-at-home orders in 2020. The prevalence of most congestion and low-risk miles factors remained less prevalent in 2020-2022 compared to 2019; while the prevalence of risky driving and driver factors in crashes had largely returned to 2019 levels or lower in 2022.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The overlapping contributions of the three different hypotheses explaining Michigan's pandemic traffic safety paradox underscore the complexity of roadway safety and the need for simultaneous investments in driving education, environmental infrastructure, and technology-based mechanisms of enforcement. In the post-pandemic new normal, system-wide changes from investments like these can encourage safer driving even in the absence of social pressure or physical law enforcement presence.</p>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2427264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Motor vehicle travel shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in fewer vehicle miles traveled yet paradoxically higher fatality rates. Anecdotally, the paradox was blamed on increases in risky behavior in the absence of regular traffic and enforcement. We examined three hypotheses to explain the fatality paradox using Michigan crash data: (1) lack of congestion led to higher-speed impacts; (2) increased risky driver/driving; and (3) low-risk driving miles decreased.

Methods: We examined changes in hypotheses-related crash factors and injury outcomes for the years 2019-2022; restricted to the duration of Michigan's stay-at-home order in 2020 (March 23 and June 1). First, we used logistic regression to evaluate the prevalence of the crash factors in all crashes and in severe/fatal crashes only in 2020, 2021; and 2022 compared to 2019. Second, to identify whether those crash factors differentially resulted in worse injury outcomes, we used logistic regression to evaluate whether odds of a severe/fatal crash occurring in March 23-June 1 across the years 2019-2022.

Results: All three hypotheses tested to explain Michigan's traffic safety paradox had moderate to extensive support. Risky driving/driver factors were more prevalent during the 2020 stay-at-home order in all crashes; however, the risky driving factors were largely not more prevalent in severe and fatal injury crashes in 2020. In contrast, although less prevalent, many factors associated with the low-risk mileage and congestion hypotheses were more likely to result in severe and fatal outcomes during the stay-at-home orders in 2020. The prevalence of most congestion and low-risk miles factors remained less prevalent in 2020-2022 compared to 2019; while the prevalence of risky driving and driver factors in crashes had largely returned to 2019 levels or lower in 2022.

Conclusions: The overlapping contributions of the three different hypotheses explaining Michigan's pandemic traffic safety paradox underscore the complexity of roadway safety and the need for simultaneous investments in driving education, environmental infrastructure, and technology-based mechanisms of enforcement. In the post-pandemic new normal, system-wide changes from investments like these can encourage safer driving even in the absence of social pressure or physical law enforcement presence.

解开COVID-19道路死亡悖论:对2019-2022年密歇根州机动车事故的分析。
目的:在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,机动车出行方式的转变导致车辆行驶里程减少,但自相矛盾的是,死亡率却更高。有趣的是,这种悖论被归咎于在缺乏正常交通和执法的情况下危险行为的增加。我们使用密歇根州的碰撞数据检验了三种假设来解释死亡悖论:(1)缺乏拥堵导致高速碰撞;(2)危险驾驶员/驾驶增加;(3)低风险驾驶里程减少。方法:我们研究了2019-2022年与假设相关的碰撞因素和损伤结果的变化;仅限于2020年(3月23日和6月1日)密歇根州的居家令持续时间。首先,我们使用逻辑回归来评估所有事故和2020年、2021年严重/致命事故中事故因素的发生率;2022年与2019年的对比。其次,为了确定这些碰撞因素是否会导致更严重的伤害结果,我们使用逻辑回归来评估2019-2022年3月23日至6月1日发生严重/致命碰撞的几率。结果:所有三个假设测试解释密歇根州的交通安全悖论有中等到广泛的支持。在2020年所有车祸中,危险驾驶/驾驶员因素在“居家令”期间更为普遍;然而,在2020年的严重和致命伤害事故中,危险驾驶因素在很大程度上并不普遍。相比之下,尽管不那么普遍,但在2020年的居家令期间,与低风险里程和拥堵假设相关的许多因素更有可能导致严重和致命的后果。与2019年相比,2020-2022年大多数拥堵和低风险里程因素的普遍程度仍然较低;2022年,危险驾驶和驾驶因素在交通事故中的发生率基本恢复到2019年或更低的水平。结论:解释密歇根州交通安全悖论的三种不同假设的重叠贡献强调了道路安全的复杂性,以及同时投资于驾驶教育、环境基础设施和基于技术的执法机制的必要性。在大流行后的新常态中,即使在没有社会压力或实际执法人员在场的情况下,此类投资带来的全系统变革也可以鼓励更安全的驾驶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Traffic Injury Prevention
Traffic Injury Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment. General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信