Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-10-024
Date: April 2010

Development of a Speeding-Related Crash Typology

PDF Version (1.53 MB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

 

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

 

The overall objective of this research was to obtain information on SR crashes that could be used for basic knowledge, treatment development (i.e., identifying the need for new treatments), and treatment targeting (i.e., targeting existing treatments to populations, times, or locations to maximize the effect). The methodologies used include examining single–variable tables and regression trees. As is the case with all such problem identification efforts, some caution must be observed in drawing conclusions for a number of reasons. As discussed previously, the definition of an SR crash is somewhat problematic in that at least two valid definitions exist, and both are based on the investigating officer's judgment of precrash speeds, which is a difficult judgment to make after the fact.

In addition, given either definition, the method for determining the highest priority categories varies. For treatment–related information, the variable descriptors in the single–variable tables that should be given the highest priority would be those that exhibit not only a high percentage of SR crashes, but also a high number of SR crashes. For example, the single–variable table below illustrates the number and percentage of SR crash categories by the type of location where the crash occurred. According to the percent columns, both FARS and GES indicate that the location category with the highest SR percentage is the interchange area. However, the crash location with the second highest percentage is "Not related to junction," which describes crashes occurring on roadway sections between intersections or interchanges. This category contains 10 times the number of interchange crashes in the GES data and 23 times the number of interchange crashes in the FARS data, implying that while attention should be given to speeding crashes in interchange areas, a higher priority should be given to strategies for reducing SR crashes at between–junction roadway sections.

Table 6. Frequency and number/percentage of SR crashes regarding crash location.

Crash Location

FARS

GES

All Crashes

SR Crashes

All Crashes

SR Crashes

n

n

Percent

n

n

Percent

Not related to junction

26,966

9,354

34.69

2,491,891

672,697

27.00

Intersection–related

8,078

1,510

18.69

2,340,179

383,900

16.40

Other junctions

1,347

291

21.60

601,811

66,438

11.04

Interchange area

1,007

391

38.83

210,542

64,248

30.52

Unknown

189

7

3.70

68,316

8,286

12.13

Total

37,587

11,553

30.74

5,712,739

1,195,569

20.93

Note: n represents frequency of crashes.

Thus, in determining high–priority categories for treatment consideration, both the SR percentage and the SR frequency should be considered.

The CART results must also be viewed carefully. While CART defines those subsets of crashes (i.e., subsets based on categories within multiple variables) with high proportions of SR crashes, even if one only goes to the third– or fourth–level branch, the total numbers of SR crashes and the proportion of total SR crashes is often less than 5 percent.

This report does not offer treatment–related conclusions. The goal of this report was to produce information that could be used by others in developing such conclusions. That information is noted appropriately throughout the report.

 

FHWA-HRT-10-024

 

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration