A Review of Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Estimation

Q3 Social Sciences
Mohammad Nour Al-Marafi, K. Somasundaraswaran
{"title":"A Review of Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Estimation","authors":"Mohammad Nour Al-Marafi, K. Somasundaraswaran","doi":"10.2174/18744478-v17-e230120-2022-38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Road authorities and road safety experts are involved with estimating the expected outcomes originating from road safety treatments. Information derived from proposed treatments enables planners to make comparisons between the expected savings from crash reductions and associated treatment costs.\n \n \n \n The purpose of this review is to provide direction to agencies and practitioners interested in estimating safety effectiveness.\n \n \n \n Specifically, this study discusses the main methods for developing CMFs, including an overview of each method, data considerations, and their strengths and weaknesses. It also discusses the techniques of estimating combined CMFs resulting from multiple safety treatments.\n \n \n \n The review showed that observational Before–After (BA) studies with the Empirical Bayes (EB) and Full Bayes (FB) approaches provides enhanced consistency and precision for the estimated safety effectiveness. Alternatively, the cross-sectional method can be adopted in cases where observational BA studies are not practical due to data restrictions. Five additional techniques for estimating combined CMFs are also reviewed.\n \n \n \n The study notes that while there has been substantial research in the broad area, very few studies have reported comparative methods of combined CMF estimation. Future research directions and research gaps are also highlighted in this review.\n","PeriodicalId":38631,"journal":{"name":"Open Transportation Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Transportation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/18744478-v17-e230120-2022-38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Road authorities and road safety experts are involved with estimating the expected outcomes originating from road safety treatments. Information derived from proposed treatments enables planners to make comparisons between the expected savings from crash reductions and associated treatment costs. The purpose of this review is to provide direction to agencies and practitioners interested in estimating safety effectiveness. Specifically, this study discusses the main methods for developing CMFs, including an overview of each method, data considerations, and their strengths and weaknesses. It also discusses the techniques of estimating combined CMFs resulting from multiple safety treatments. The review showed that observational Before–After (BA) studies with the Empirical Bayes (EB) and Full Bayes (FB) approaches provides enhanced consistency and precision for the estimated safety effectiveness. Alternatively, the cross-sectional method can be adopted in cases where observational BA studies are not practical due to data restrictions. Five additional techniques for estimating combined CMFs are also reviewed. The study notes that while there has been substantial research in the broad area, very few studies have reported comparative methods of combined CMF estimation. Future research directions and research gaps are also highlighted in this review.
碰撞修正系数(CMF)估计方法综述
道路管理部门和道路安全专家参与估计道路安全处理的预期结果。从建议的治疗中获得的信息使规划者能够在减少车祸带来的预期节约和相关治疗成本之间进行比较。本次审查的目的是为有兴趣评估安全有效性的机构和从业者提供指导。具体而言,本研究讨论了开发CMF的主要方法,包括每种方法的概述、数据考虑因素及其优缺点。它还讨论了估计由多种安全治疗产生的组合CMF的技术。综述表明,使用经验贝叶斯(EB)和全贝叶斯(FB)方法进行的观察性前后(BA)研究为估计的安全有效性提供了增强的一致性和准确性。或者,在观察性BA研究由于数据限制而不实用的情况下,可以采用横断面方法。还回顾了估计组合CMF的五种附加技术。该研究指出,虽然在这一广泛领域进行了大量研究,但很少有研究报告了组合CMF估计的比较方法。本综述还强调了未来的研究方向和研究差距。
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
Open Transportation Journal
Open Transportation Journal Social Sciences-Transportation
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信