Sijun Shen1, Marco H Benedetti2, Songzhu Zhao3, Lai Wei4, Motao Zhu5. 1. The Center for Injury Research and Policy, Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States; Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: Sijun.Shen@nationwidechildrens.org. 2. The Center for Injury Research and Policy, Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: Marco.Benedetti@nationwidechildrens.org. 3. Department of Bioinformatics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: Songzhu.zhao@osumc.edu. 4. Department of Bioinformatics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: lai.wei@osumc.edu. 5. The Center for Injury Research and Policy, Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States; Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: Motao.Zhu@nationwidechildrens.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of an appropriate driving exposure measure is essential to calculate traffic crash rates and risks. Commonly used exposure measures include driving distance and the number of licensed drivers. These measures have some limitations, including the unavailability of disaggregated estimates for consecutive years, low data quality, and the failure to represent the driving population when the crash occurred. However, the length of driving time, available annually from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), can be disaggregated by age, gender, time-of-day, and day-of week, and addresses the temporal discontinuity limitation of driving distance on the United States (U.S.) national scale. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine if the length of driving time as a driving exposure measure is comparable to driving distance by comparing distance-based and time-based fatal crash risk ratios by driver age category, gender, time-of-day, and day-of-week. METHODS: The 2016-2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) provided driving distance, and 2016-2017 Fatality Analysis Reporting System provided the number of drivers in fatal crashes. The distributions of driving distance and length of driving time by driver age category (16-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65 years or older), gender, time-of-day, day-of-week were compared. Two negative binomial regression models were used to compute the distance-based and time-based fatal crash risk ratios. RESULTS: The distributions of driving-distance were not different from the length-of-driving-time distributions by driver age category, gender, time-of-day, and day-of-week. Driving distance and the length of driving time provide similar fatal crash risk ratio estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The length of driving time can be an alternative to driving distance as a measure of driving exposure. The primary advantage of driving time over driving distance is that, starting from 2003, the disaggregated estimates of the length of driving time are available from ATUS over consecutive years, curtailing the discontinuity limitation of driving distance. Furthermore, the length of driving time is related to drivers' perceived risks about their driving conditions and as a result, may be a better exposure measure than driving distance in comparing crash risks between drivers whose likelihood of traveling in hazardous driving conditions (e.g., nighttime) varies substantially.
BACKGROUND: The use of an appropriate driving exposure measure is essential to calculate traffic crash rates and risks. Commonly used exposure measures include driving distance and the number of licensed drivers. These measures have some limitations, including the unavailability of disaggregated estimates for consecutive years, low data quality, and the failure to represent the driving population when the crash occurred. However, the length of driving time, available annually from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), can be disaggregated by age, gender, time-of-day, and day-of week, and addresses the temporal discontinuity limitation of driving distance on the United States (U.S.) national scale. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine if the length of driving time as a driving exposure measure is comparable to driving distance by comparing distance-based and time-based fatal crash risk ratios by driver age category, gender, time-of-day, and day-of-week. METHODS: The 2016-2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) provided driving distance, and 2016-2017 Fatality Analysis Reporting System provided the number of drivers in fatal crashes. The distributions of driving distance and length of driving time by driver age category (16-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65 years or older), gender, time-of-day, day-of-week were compared. Two negative binomial regression models were used to compute the distance-based and time-based fatal crash risk ratios. RESULTS: The distributions of driving-distance were not different from the length-of-driving-time distributions by driver age category, gender, time-of-day, and day-of-week. Driving distance and the length of driving time provide similar fatal crash risk ratio estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The length of driving time can be an alternative to driving distance as a measure of driving exposure. The primary advantage of driving time over driving distance is that, starting from 2003, the disaggregated estimates of the length of driving time are available from ATUS over consecutive years, curtailing the discontinuity limitation of driving distance. Furthermore, the length of driving time is related to drivers' perceived risks about their driving conditions and as a result, may be a better exposure measure than driving distance in comparing crash risks between drivers whose likelihood of traveling in hazardous driving conditions (e.g., nighttime) varies substantially.
Authors: Marie Claude Ouimet; Bruce G Simons-Morton; Paul L Zador; Neil D Lerner; Mark Freedman; Glen D Duncan; Jing Wang Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2009-11-28
Authors: Sharon D Dell; Margaret W Leigh; Jane S Lucas; Thomas W Ferkol; Michael R Knowles; Adrianne Alpern; Laura Behan; Anjana M Morris; Claire Hogg; Audrey DunnGalvin; Alexandra L Quittner Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-10