Model of road traffic accidents

based on root primary causes

J. 0. Asalor
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Benin, P.M.B. 1154, Benin City,
Nigeria
E. A. Onibere
Institute of Computer Science, University of Benin, P.M.B. 1154, Benin City, Nigeria
(Received May 1984; revised August 1984)
An offshoot of an existing general model of road traffic accidents
(M RTA) is presented. The general M RTA contains an unwieldy number
of terms for practical purposes. A reduction in the number of terms
becomes necessary to render the model suitable for numerical computa-
tions. The method used to achieve this through grouping primary causes
is shown. Some potential applications of the model are also outlined.
Computations performed using this model yielded results which com-
pared favourably with available results from other practical sources.
Key words: mathematical model, road accidents, interactions
A general model of road traffic accidents (MRTA) that
took account of all potential primary causes of traffic acci-
dents was developed in a previous paper. Included in the
model was each absent or malfunctioning component that
could relate to the safe use of either road or vehicle; every
irresponsible manoeuvre and failure to avert an accident
by means of a normal safe manoeuvre when this option was
available.
While the general model provides a basic theoretical
framework that applies to a wide range of traffic situa-
tions, the expressions contain too many terms making
solution difficult. The aim of this paper is to develop a
simpler version of the general model that contains fewer
terms and is more suited to computational purposes. This
has been achieved in two stages. First, primary causes are
grouped into a number of mutually exclusive sets each set
being represented by a unifying cause: a root primary cause
(r.p.c.). Expressions are then derived that correspond to
those of the general model in terms of the r.p.c.s, and a
further reduction of the number of terms is presented.
Grouping accident causal variables
Four main factors are responsible for the large number of
terms that appear in the expressions of the general model:
(1) The large number of interactions among vehicles in-
cluded in the model, only a small proportion of which
actually result in accidents.
0307-904X/85/042275-06/$03.00
0 1985 Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd
(2) The large number of complex interactions among the
primary causes. While the model took account of all the
interactions, only a small proportion may actually lead to
accidents.
(3) The number of primary causes of accidents that appear
explicitly in the general model is large.
(4) A road accident is normally a rare event and the pro-
cess of occurrence is very short compared with the inter-
val between accidents on a road element. Use of a time-
domain therefore leads to a large number of time intervals
in which there is no accident.
In this paper the number of variables in the model is first
reduced. An examination of primary causes of road acci-
dents reveals that they are all traceable to a relatively small
number of common roots. Figure 1 shows a typical r.p.c.
that has been decomposed to its primary causes. In between,
there are a number of quasi-root primary causes. For the
simpler model to retain the accuracy and generality of the
original model, the r.p.c.s must meet the following con-
ditions:
(1) The risk variable that relates to a particular r.p.c. must
fully represent the risk variables of all the associated pri-
mary causes actina alone or in combination among them-
selves. Let I be the total number of primary causes and K
the corresponding number of r.p.c.s such that:
Rr,j, . . . , R,,,j relate to @r,i
Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, August 275
A model of road accidents: J . 0. Asalor and E. A. Onibere
Root primarv
Quasi-root
prrmary causes
Prrmary
causes, R,, ,
.I
,=l 2 34 5.,..
1
Figure 7 A root primary cause decomposed to its primary causes
Tab/e 7 Two typical groups of root primary causes of road traffic
accidents
Group one Group two
1 Vehicle condition
2 Road and its surroundings
(including road signs and
weather condition)
3 Drivers safety performance
4 Pedestrians and other road
users safety performance
5 Circumstance
1 Vehicle condition
2 Road and its surroundings
(including road signs and
weather condition)
3 Human safety performance
4 Circumstance
R
?I 1 +1,j, . . . >
R n,,j relate to @a,j
R
. nk-l+l,j
R nk, i relate to &j
R
?I K_l+l,j> >
R&i relate to @K,]
Then dk,j can be obtained from the primary causes by:
@k,j = F Ril,j + T F RilrjRilrj + . . .
i,=tk i,tk i,= tk
+ i ztk i2$tk . . iy$tk Ri,,iRi2.i . . . Riysl
I
+ Rtk.jRtk,l,jRtk+2..Rnk,j
where:
tk=nk__l+ 1
i,<iz<i3<...<iu
@k, j and Ri,j represent the root and primary risk variables
respectively, k and i denote the respective causes and i is
the vehicle that is involved.
(2) Interaction among Ri,js from, say three different
r.p.c.s is represented by interaction that involves exactly
the same three r.p.c.s. The above role of the r.p.c. is similar
in some respects to that of common cause in reliability
studies.2-4
Two sets of r.p.c.s are proposed in Table 1. The list is
not exhaustive. Each r.p.c. represents a classical subsystem
of a traffic system, for example in traffic engineering and
controlsS6 and road traffic safety.7,8 Circumstance reflects
the role of a traffic situation involving innocent drivers and
pedestrians in accidents.
Formulation of the equations
By introducing r.p.c., the general model can be split into
two parts. The part of most interest here relates an accident
to the number of vehicles and the r.p.c. involved. The other
part relates each r.p.c. to its primary causes and has been
dealt with in the preceding section.
The root risk variables @k, j where k is the r.p.c. andj is
the vehicle affected is a binary with the following proper-
ties:
@k,j = 1 if there is an accident due to k alone
= 0 otherwise
(la)
@k,,j @k,,j = 1 ifth
ere is an accident due to r.p.c.
kl and kz only
= 0 otherwise
(lb)
@k,,j@k,,j . . @k,j
= 1 if there is an accident due to r.p.c.
k,,k,,...,k,only
= 0 otherwise
(lc)
Following the procedure of reference 1 the effective risk
of an accident in the time interval dt(m) as it affects j
becomes:
kff,j(m>
= @ji(l, m>+ Gji(2, nz> 2 @x,,2(2, m>
x,=2
+ @(3,m) g f h Qxi(3, m) + . . .
x,=2 x,=2 i=2
+ @j(r, WI) F F . . F A cbxik m> + . .
x,=2 x,=2 x,52 i=2
+ @j(N ml i f
. . . f ii @&Y m> (24
x,=2 x,=2 xN=2 i=2
wherejfxz#x3fx4f...#xN,or:
&ff,j(m> = Gji(l, ml + f
r=2
X { 4jCr, mi[ xc2. . . i ;I ~Xi(r, ml]}
2
x,=2 i=2
(2b)
where N is the largest number of vehicles that could be in-
volved in a single accident. Now:
@j = @j(@l,j, @2,j, . . .j @K, j) (34
Eli = ~~i(~l,~i ~2,~i . . . ) ~K,Xi) WI
where K is the total number of r.p.c. of accidents as it
affects one vehicle. Then:
&(Y, m) = risk of xi being involved in an r-vehicle
accident by a single r.p.c.
+ any two r.p.c.
+ any three r.p.c.
+
+ any S r.p.c.
(4)
276 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, August
A model of road accidents: J . 0. Asalor and E. A. Onibere
where S is the maximum actual number of r.p.c.s that
could involve a single vehicle in an accident (S < K).
Combining equations (3) and (4) and after simplification,
one has:
. . ,g, ,h, @kp,Xi(" m)} (1
s
wherekl<k,<...<k,.
Substituting for $x,(~, m) into equation (2b):
&ff, j(m)
(6)
The following constraints hold for a short time interval:
@,ff,j(m) G 1 Pa)
,f @k,,j (l , m> G 1 (7b)
k, =1
5 { f . . . f ii @kp,j (l ,m)/~ 1 (7c)
s=2 k,=l k,=lp=l
Equations (S)-(7) contain many fewer terms than those of
the general model.
Following the analysis of reference 1, equations (5) and
(6) can be summed over an infinitely large number of short
time intervals dt(m), and the cumulative effective risk
&n,i(cM) obtained. The effective risk @,n,i(cM) can be
expressed as a function of the number of vehicles that are
involved in an accident as:
[.t2 .E2 j2 @Xicr2 cM)]] c8)
r
If the total vehicle distance travelled and the total vehicle
exposure time are X and T respectively,*then the mean
effective risk per unit vehicle distance, &rr, j, and per unit
time of vehicle exposure &n. i, can be expressed as:
&f, j = lim -G&f, j(CM) etc.
T--t- T
Equation (8) becomes:
&ff, j =
lim $j(l, CM)
X+m x 1
+;{GjCr.CW[ f . . . f li
r=2 x,=2 x,=2 i =2
x @5& CM)
Ill
(9b)
(104
or
xc2 i2 @xi( CM)]]} (lob)
r
Since vehicles j, Xi are involved in the accidents,with j play-
ing the role of the initiator of the accidents, equations
(lOa) and (lob) can be expressed as:
(114
(lib)
where i now represents the ith vehicle involved in the
accident and j takes the value unity.
The corresponding expressions to (11 a) and (11 b) in
terms of the number of vehicles and the number of causes
can be derived similarly from equation (6):
d&f = f 6k,,lWW
k,=l
+c c
,f2{k~l-~ $ i 6kp,d1dt)}
L
ks=lp=l
+r;2 {[ka?l ~k,,l@, cM)
1
(124
Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, August 277
A model of road accidents: J. 0. Asalor and E. A. Onibere
and
+; { f . . . fi. 1; 6kp,l(licM))
s=2 k,=l ks=l p=l
K-I K-1 3
n(4,3) = w, 2) w, 3) c ~(~l~xl)
I,=1 k,=l x,=2
K-l K-l I
x Wl, x*1 + 1 c wl,xl)w,,xl)
k,=l k,=l
klfk, U5c)
Other useful quantities which can be determined are:
(1) Accident multiplier factor arising from interactions
among vehicles and root primary causes H, defined as:
f 4k 0) 2 40, r>
k=l r=l
HC
(16a)
41, 1)
= n(l , 1)
(2) The ratio of all accidents to single vehicle accidents:
Some potential applications
Equations (11) express, for example, the total number of
accidents in terms of the number of vehicles involved.
Alternatively, they can be used to express the accident rates
in terms of the rates of l-, 2-, . . . , r-vehicle accidents. Equa-
tions (12) further express each accident class in terms of
the causes, and particularly in terms of the number of
causes that have interacted to cause the accidents. Since
each vehicle that is involved in an accident must have a
cause, according to the definition of the causation pro-
cess,l the minimum number of causes that are involved in
an r-vehicle accident is r.
If an analysis of vehicles involved in accidents reveals
that a proportion, n(k, i), are due to k causes and involve i
vehicles, and ~(0, r) and n(k, 0) denote the total propor-
tions due to r-vehicle accidents and k-causes respectively,
then one has:
H
C n(k,O)
k=l
=
H(l)+ l- s
C n(k, 1)
(16b)
k=l
This is an accident multiplier factor due to vehicular con-
flicts.
(3) The ratio of single vehicle accidents to single root
primary cause accidents:
H(l) + 1 E k=l
41, 1)
(16~)
where H(1) is the ratio of single vehicle accidents due to
two or more r.p.c. to single vehicle accidents due to a
single r.p.c.
n(0, 1) = n(1, 1) + n(2, 1) + n(3, 1) + . . + n(S1, 1)
n(O,2) = n(2,2) + n(3,2) + n(4,2) + . . . f n(Sz, 2)
n(0, 3) = n(3,3) + n(4,3) + . . . + n(&, 3)
n(0, r) =
n(r, r) + n(r + 1, r) + . . . + n(S,, r)
(13)
where Si = i * S. Also:
n(l,O) = n(1, 1)
n(2,O)=n(2,1)+n(2,2)
n(3,O) = iz(3, 1) + n(3,2) + n(3,3)
n(k, 0) = n(k, 1) + n(k, 2) + . . . + ti(k, k)
(14)
The terms n(k, i) could be obtained from equation (12).
So that n(k, 0) and n(0, r) could be evaluated. For example:
K-l
1 @(k> 1)
k=l 1
n(1, 1) =
=-
Qeff 4eff
(Isa)
K-l
42,2) = $W, 2) 1 Hk,, XI) (15b)
(1) road condition, @( 1, 1)
(2) vehicle condition, $(2, 1)
(3) drivers safety ability, 45(3, 1)
(4) pedestrian and other road users ability, @(4, 1)
(5) circumstance, @(5, 1)
k,=l wherej = 1.
Computation of some of the quantities
The special role played by circumstance needs to be further
defmed to compute the above quantities from equation
(12b). Circumstance plays no role in single vehicle accidents.
Whenever two vehicles collide, they do so by virtue of
circumstance featuring once, among other causal factors.
In general, circumstance features exactly r - 1 times in an
r-vehicle accident.
Let the root causes be represented by:
278 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, August
A model of road accidents: J . 0. Asalor and E. A. Onibere
Proportion of I-, 2- and S-vehicle accidents
It is known that n(0, r) is the proportion of r-vehicle
accidents. This is obtained from the summation of the
terms n(k, i) as shown in equation (13).
Mean number of causes per accident
The mean number of causes per accident, MA, is given
by:
N S;
(z, kg,
kn(k, i)
MA=---_ (17)
where:
$=S*i-i+ 1
n(k, i) = proportion of accidents involving i vehicles due
to k causes excluding circumstance
Discussion of results
Using the variables shown in Table 1 and the constraint
that @(l, 1) = $(2, l), the terms in sets of equations (13)
and (14) were evaluated. From this evaluation, the ratio of
I-, 2- and 3-vehicle accidents to total number of accidents
was calculated with and without pedestrian influence. Also
the mean number of causes per accident was computed.
The Prime 750 computer of the Institute of Computer
Science, University of Benin was used to perform the
various computations. The calculations were based on the
assumption that @(k, j) do not vary among the vehicles
in the traffic system. This implies that all the drivers are
exposed to an equal risk of accident per unit distance of
road travelled.
Figure 2 shows the proportion of all accidents involving
1, 2 and 3 vehicles for different values of circumstance. The
results show that the proportion varies little irrespective of
individual root primary causes other than circumstance.
The proportion, however, is very sensitive to circumstance.
The results also show that as the number of vehicles in-
volved in an accident increases, the proportion of such
accidents falls rapidly for accidents involving more than
three vehicles and this is in agreement with references 9 and
10.
In Figure 3, the mean number of causes per accident
excluding circumstance is shown with or without pedestrian
influence for extreme values of circumstance of 0.1 and
0.3. The results show that the mean number of causes per
accident drops steadily as one of the factors other than
circumstance becomes predominant. This agrees with
expectation, since the predominant root primary cause
requires less interaction in order to cause an accident. Also
the mean number of causes per accident is sensitive to
circumstance and increases with it rapidly.
The limited evidence available agrees with the range
of values shown in Figure 3. For example the average
number of influencing factors per accident was 1.6 in
West Germany and 1.5 in Switzerland in 1963.8
Conclusions
A model of road traffic accidents that contains relatively
few terms has been developed. The model is suitable for
Circumstance @ (5.1)
@(5,1)=0.1 1 vehicle
0 (5,l) = 0.3 1 vehicle
a
0.2 /
Ol-
0(5,1)=0.1 2 vehicles
@(5.1)=01 3vehicles.
I I I I I I I I
02 03 04 0.5 07 08 0.1
a
Driver fact$% (3.1)
:
1 o-
09-
Circumstance @ (5.1)
5 o.a-
@(5,1)=0.1 lvehicle
; 0.7-
;
2 0.6- 0 (5.1) = 0.3 1 vehicle
5 05- @ (5.1) =0 3 2 vehicles
r g 0.4
e 03-
a
@(5.1)=0.3 3vehlcles
0.2. _ : _ _ _ _ . _
O.l-
@(5.1)=0.1 2 vehicles/
0 (5.1) ~0.1 3 vehGesl
I I I I I I I I
02 03 04 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
b
Driver factor @ (3.1)
figure 2 Proportion of all accidents involving 1, 2 and 3
vehicles, (a) without influence of pedestrians, (b) with pedestrian
factor o(4, 1) =0. 1
z 17-
$! l.6-
0.3
2
1.2-
0.1
9 1.1
e
6
1.0
.+ I
2
I 1 I 1 I I I
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Driver factor o(3.1)
Figure 3 Mean number of causes per accident (circumstance
excluded)
computer application in analysing road traffic accidents
and their causes. The results obtained using the model
agree with trends obtained from field investigations.
Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, August 279
A model of road accidents: J. 0. Asalor and E. A. Onibere
References
1 Asalor, J. 0. Appl. Math. Modelling 1984, 8, 133
2 Smith, A. M. and Watson, I. A. Reliability Engr. 1980, 1, 127
3 Fleming, K. N. and Hannaman, G. W. IEEE Transactions on
Reliability 1976, R-25 (31, 171
4 Ganeloff. W. C. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems i975, PAS-94 (l), 21
5 Drew, D. R. Traffic flow theory and control, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1968, pp. 7-78
6 Wells, G. R. Traffic engineering, an introduction, Charles
Griffin and Co., London, 1970, p. 133
7 Aaron, J. E. and Strasser, M. K. Driver and traffic safety
education, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1977,
pp. 6-13
8 Babkov, V. F. Road conditions and traffic safety, Mir Pub-
lishers, Moscow, 1975, pp. 10 and 20-21
9 Jones. I. S. The effect of vehicle characteristics on road acci-
dents, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1976, p. 18
10 U.S. Department of Transportation, National accidents
sampling systems, 1982, DOT HS 806 530, March 1984,
p. 28
280 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, August