| Literature DB >> 32369928 |
Shengdi Chen1, Shiwen Zhang2, Yingying Xing2, Jian Lu2.
Abstract
The impact that trucks have on crash severity has long been a concern in crash analysis literature. Furthermore, if a truck crash happens in a tunnel, this would result in more serious casualties due to closure and the complexity of the tunnel. However, no studies have been reported to analyze traffic crashes that happened in tunnels and develop crash databases and statistical models to explore the influence of contributing factors on tunnel truck crashes. This paper summarizes a study that aims to examine the impact of risk factors such as driver factor, environmental factor, vehicle factor, and tunnel factor on truck crashes injury propensity based on tunnel crashes data obtained from Shanghai, China. An ordered logit model was developed to analyze injury crashes and property damage only crashes. The driver factor, environmental factor, vehicle factor, and tunnel factor were explored to identify the relationship between these factors and crashes and the severity of crashes. Results show that increased injury severity is associated with driver factors, such as male drivers, older drivers, fatigue driving, drunkenness, safety belt used improperly, and unfamiliarity with vehicles. Late night (00:00-06:59) and afternoon rushing hours (16:30-18:59), weekdays, snow or icy road conditions, combination truck, overload, and single vehicle were also found to significantly increase the probability of injury severity. In addition, tunnel factors including two lanes, high speed limits (≥80 km/h), zone 3, extra-long tunnels (over 3000 m) are also significantly associated with a higher risk of severe injury. So, the gender, age of driver, mid-night to dawn and afternoon peak hours, weekdays, snowy or icy road conditions, the interior zone of a tunnel, the combination truck, overloaded trucks, and extra-long tunnels are associated with higher crash severity. Identification of these contributing factors for tunnel truck crashes can provide valuable information to help with new and improved tunnel safety control measures.Entities:
Keywords: ordered logit model; risk factors; truck crashes injury propensity; tunnel traffic crashes
Year: 2020 PMID: 32369928 PMCID: PMC7246825 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17093155
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Definition of Tunnel Zones by Three Studies.
| Author | Amundsen and Engebretsen (2000) | Ma et al., (2009) | Yeung et al., (2013) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zone 1 | A distance of 50 m ahead (of the entrance) | 100 m ahead | 250 m ahead |
| Zone 2 | First 50 m inside (the tunnel) | First 100 m inside | First 250 m inside |
| Zone 3 | Next 100 m (from Zone 2) | Next 300 m | The remainder |
| Zone 4 | The remainder | The remainder | – |
Figure 1Tunnel Zones.
Figure 2Different Tunnel Zones: (a,e) Zone 1; (b,d) Zone 2; (c) Zone 3. (Data source: Baidu Picture).
Descriptive Statistics of Variables.
| Variables | Codes | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Driver’s gender | 0—male | 98.0% |
| 1—female | 2.0% | |
| Driver’s age | 1—≤25 | 6.4% |
| 2—26–64 | 90.3% | |
| 3—≥65 | 3.3% | |
| Fatigue | 1—Unknown | 6.0% |
| 2—Yes | 35.1% | |
| 3—No | 58.9% | |
| Alcohol | 0—Yes | 3.9% |
| 1—No | 96.1% | |
| Safety belt used properly | 0—Yes | 93.7% |
| 1—No | 6.3% | |
| Familiarity with vehicle | 1—Unknown | 2.2% |
| 2—Driven this vehicle >10 times in the past three 6 months | 70.0% | |
| 3—Driven this vehicle ≤10 times in the past three 6 months | 27.9% | |
| Truck body type | 0—Single-unit truck | 52.2% |
| 1—Combination truck | 47.8% | |
| Overload | 0—Yes | 35.2% |
| 1—No | 64.8% | |
| Number of vehicles | 1—single | 3.2% |
| 2—two | 88.6% | |
| 3—three or more | 8.2% | |
| Time of crash | 1—00:00–06:59 | 13.3% |
| 2—07:00–09:29 | 17.4% | |
| 3—09:30–16:29 | 44.2% | |
| 4—16:30–18:59 | 17.1% | |
| 5—19:00–23:59 | 8.0% | |
| Day of week | 0—Weekdays | 83.8% |
| 1—Weekends | 16.2% | |
| Road-surface conditions | 1—Rain | 17.0% |
| 2—Snow and ice | 0.8% | |
| 3—Dry | 82.2% | |
| Tunnel length | 0—3000 ≥ L > 1000 m | 86.5% |
| 1—L > 3000 m | 13.5% | |
| Speed limit | 1—<50 km/h | 2.9% |
| 2—50–79 km/h | 7.1% | |
| 3—≥80 km/h | 90.0% | |
| Number of lanes | 1—Two lanes | 7.3% |
| 2—Three lanes | 8.9% | |
| 3—Four lanes or more | 83.8% | |
| Crash location | 1—Zone 1 | 34.9% |
| 2—Zone 2 | 17.9% | |
| 3—Zone 3 | 47.3% | |
| Least horizontal radius | Continuous variable | |
| Maximum longitudinal gradient | Continuous variable |
Results of the Multicollinearity Test.
| Model | Standardized Coefficients | T-Stat | Collinearity Diagnostics | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tolerance | VIF | |||
| Constant | 8.834 | |||
| Driver’s gender * | 0.258 | 2.803 | 0.993 | 1.007 |
| Driver’s age * | 0.079 | 1.894 | 0.992 | 1.008 |
| Fatigue * | 0.044 | 2.054 | 0.957 | 1.045 |
| Alcohol * | −0.303 | −4.491 | 0.969 | 1.032 |
| Safety belt used properly * | 0.149 | 2.807 | 0.988 | 1.012 |
| Familiarity with vehicle | 0.072 | 2.685 | 0.976 | 1.024 |
| Truck body type * | 0.075 | 2.895 | 0.968 | 1.033 |
| Overload * | −0.073 | −2.716 | 0.980 | 1.020 |
| Number of vehicles * | −0.079 | −2.020 | 0.973 | 1.028 |
| Time of crash * | −0.024 | −2.008 | 0.966 | 1.036 |
| Day of week * | −0.128 | −3.661 | 0.985 | 1.016 |
| Road−surface conditions * | −0.052 | −2.683 | 0.757 | 1.320 |
| Tunnel length * | 0.211 | 5.358 | 0.908 | 1.102 |
| Speed limit * | 0.127 | 3.652 | 0.801 | 1.248 |
| Number of lanes * | −0.098 | −3.776 | 0.744 | 1.344 |
| Crash location * | 0.044 | 2.705 | 0.760 | 1.316 |
| Maximum longitudinal gradient | 0.051 | 3.075 | 0.720 | 1.389 |
| Least horizontal radius | 0.047 | 1.717 | 0.981 | 1.018 |
Note: * Significant at 5% level. VIF: Variance Inflation Factor.
Test of Parallel Lines.
| Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Null hypothesis | 2195.908 | |||
| General | 2154.036 | 41.873 | 66 | 0.991 |
Results of Estimation.
| Estimates | Wald | Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Driver factors | Driver’s gender (base: male) | |||
| Female * | −1.091 | 7.941 | 0.336 (0.157,0.717) | |
| Driver’s age (base: ≥65) | ||||
| ≤25 * | −1.142 | 10.144 | 0.319 (0.158,0.645) | |
| 26–54 * | −1.224 | 15.981 | 0.294 (0.161,0.536) | |
| Fatigue (base: No) | ||||
| Unknown * | −1.298 | 33.931 | 0.273 (0.176,0.423) | |
| Yes * | 0.223 | 3.994 | 1.250 (1.004,1.554) | |
| Alcohol (base: No) | ||||
| Yes * | 0.876 | 10.129 | 2.401 (1.399,4.116) | |
| Safety belt used properly (base: No) | ||||
| Yes * | −0.421 | 3.921 | 0.656 (0.433,0.996) | |
| Environmental factors | Time of the crash (base: 19:00–23:59) | |||
| 00:00–06:59 * | 0.816 | 12.708 | 2.261 (1.443,3.543) | |
| 07:00–09:29 | 0.183 | 0.745 | 1.201 (0.792,1.822) | |
| 09:30–16:29 | 0.203 | 1.142 | 1.225 (0.845,1.779) | |
| 16:30–18:59 * | 0.442 | 4.239 | 1.556 (1.021,2.370) | |
| Day of week (base: weekends) | ||||
| Weekdays * | 0.323 | 5.667 | 1.381 (1.059,1.802) | |
| Road surface Condition (base: Dry) | ||||
| Rain | 0.373 | 5.976 | 1.452 (1.077,1.960) | |
| Snow and ice | 1.503 | 5.616 | 4.495 (1.297,15.580) | |
| Vehicle factors | Truck body type (base: Combination truck) | |||
| Single-unit truck | −0.208 | 4.154 | 0.812 (0.665,0.992) | |
| Overload (Base: No) | ||||
| Yes | 0.217 | 4.184 | 1.242 (1.009,1.528) | |
| Number of vehicles involved (base: three or more) | ||||
| One | 1.084 | 10.021 | 2.956 (1.511,5.789) | |
| Two * | 0.499 | 7.225 | 1.647 (1.145,2.368) | |
| Tunnel factors | Number of lanes (base: four or more) | |||
| Two * | 0.705 | 9.196 | 2.024 (1.283,3.190) | |
| Three * | 0.527 | 7.432 | 1.694 (1.160,2.472) | |
| Speed limit (base: ≥80 km/h) | ||||
| <50 * | −0.95 | 8.275 | 0.387 (0.203,0.739) | |
| 50–79 * | −0.745 | 13.216 | 0.475 (0.318,0.710) | |
| Crash location (base: zone 3) | ||||
| Zone 1 * | −0.258 | 4.067 | 0.773 (0.602,0.993) | |
| Zone 2 * | −0.653 | 21.149 | 0.520 (0.394,0.687) | |
| Tunnel length (base: extra-long tunnel) | ||||
| Long tunnel * | −0.848 | 25.99 | 0.428 (0.309,0.593) | |
| Maximum longitudinal gradient | ||||
| Least horizontal radius | ||||
Notes: * Significant at 5% level.
Figure 3Distribution of fatigue driving by time.