| Literature DB >> 36078839 |
Angelo Rampinelli1, Juan Felipe Calderón2, Carola A Blazquez3, Karen Sauer-Brand4, Nicolás Hamann5, José Ignacio Nazif-Munoz6.
Abstract
Pedestrians are vulnerable road users that are directly exposed to road traffic crashes with high odds of resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. Therefore, there is a critical need to identify the risk factors associated with injury severity in pedestrian crashes to promote safe and friendly walking environments for pedestrians. This study investigates the risk factors related to pedestrian, crash, and built environment characteristics that contribute to different injury severity levels in pedestrian crashes in Santiago, Chile from a spatial and statistical perspective. First, a GIS kernel density technique was used to identify spatial clusters with high concentrations of pedestrian crash fatalities and severe injuries. Subsequently, partial proportional odds models were developed using the crash dataset for the whole city and the identified spatial clusters to examine and compare the risk factors that significantly affect pedestrian crash injury severity. The model results reveal higher increases in the fatality probability within the spatial clusters for statistically significant contributing factors related to drunk driving, traffic signage disobedience, and imprudence of the pedestrian. The findings may be utilized in the development and implementation of effective public policies and preventive measures to help improve pedestrian safety in Santiago.Entities:
Keywords: kernel density estimation; partial proportional odds; pedestrian safety; spatial analysis; traffic injury
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078839 PMCID: PMC9517836 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Description of pedestrian crash studies using KDE and statistical methods.
| Authors | Year | Study Description |
|---|---|---|
| Xie et al. [ | 2017 | The authors computed pedestrian crash costs weighted by injury severity using KDE, and employed a tobit model to relate the contributing factors to the crash costs. |
| Chimba et al. [ | 2018 | The authors identified high concentrations of pedestrian crashes in Tennessee using KDE and applied a negative binomial to test the statistical significance of explanatory variables related to sociodemographic characteristics. |
| Ouni & Belloumi [ | 2018 | The authors implemented an integrated two-step approach by first identifying spatial clusters of vulnerable road user (e.g., pedestrians) crashes, and second, assessing the influence of personal and environmental factors on injury severity in Tunisia using multinomial logit models. |
| Yao et al. [ | 2018 | KDE was applied to estimate pedestrian crash density in Shanghai, China, and then the random forest method was employed for modeling pedestrian crashes. |
| Hu et al. [ | 2020 | KDE was utilized to identify clusters of pedestrian crashes and other variables, and subsequently explored the relationship and interaction between building environment characteristics and pedestrian injury risk using binary logistic regression and tree-based models. |
| Bajada & Attard [ | 2021 | A statistical analysis was performed using multivariate techniques to investigate the association between variables related to crash characteristics and pedestrian fatalities and injuries in Malta, and, subsequently, KDE was used to identify high-risk areas with increased likelihood for pedestrian injury crashes. |
| Chen et al. [ | 2022 | The authors introduced the geographically and temporally weighted ordered logistic regression model integrated with KDE to model pedestrian crash severity in rural highways of the Anhui Province, China. |
Figure 1Pedestrian crashes with injury severity in Santiago during the 2012–2016 period, Source: Prepared by the authors.
Descriptive statistics of variables and their pedestrian crash severity outcomes for the whole dataset.
| Variable | Frequency | Injury Severity (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less Serious | Serious | Fatal | ||||
| Pedestrian crashes | 4216 | (100.0%) | 22.2 | 64.8 | 13.0 | |
|
| ||||||
| Age a | Child (<18 years old) | 666 | (15.8%) | 24.3 | 66.4 | 9.3 |
| Young adult (18–24 years old) | 412 | (9.8%) | 28.4 | 62.4 | 9.2 | |
| Adult (25–65 years old) | 2081 | (49.4%) | 22.0 | 65.4 | 12.6 | |
| Elderly (>65 years old) | 1057 | (25.1%) | 18.8 | 63.7 | 17.5 | |
| Gender a | Female | 1812 | (43.0%) | 24.1 | 66.1 | 9.8 |
| Male | 2404 | (57.0%) | 20.8 | 63.9 | 15.3 | |
|
| ||||||
| Relative location a | Straight road section | 1775 | (42.1%) | 22.7 | 62.8 | 14.5 |
| Curved road section | 10 | (0.2%) | 20.0 | 70.0 | 10.0 | |
| Intersection without signage | 142 | (3.4%) | 17.6 | 70.4 | 12.0 | |
| Intersection with functioning traffic lights | 1420 | (33.7%) | 18.9 | 67.2 | 13.9 | |
| Intersection with yield sign | 220 | (5.2%) | 24.5 | 68.6 | 6.8 | |
| Intersection with stop sign | 184 | (4.4%) | 31.0 | 60.3 | 8.7 | |
| Sidewalk or shoulder | 50 | (1.2%) | 30.0 | 56.0 | 14.0 | |
| Disabled access | 30 | (0.7%) | 10.0 | 73.3 | 16.7 | |
| Other | 385 | (9.1%) | 28.1 | 63.9 | 8.1 | |
| Time a | Early morning | 702 | (16.7%) | 19.7 | 68.5 | 11.8 |
| Morning | 998 | (23.7%) | 22.8 | 64.1 | 13.0 | |
| Afternoon | 1101 | (26.1%) | 22.9 | 67.7 | 9.4 | |
| Night | 1415 | (33.6%) | 22.5 | 61.3 | 16.3 | |
| Day a | Weekday | 3054 | (72.4%) | 22.7 | 65.1 | 12.2 |
| Weekend | 1054 | (25.0%) | 20.6 | 63.8 | 15.7 | |
| Holiday | 108 | (2.6%) | 25.0 | 67.6 | 7.4 | |
| Season a | Fall | 1115 | (26.4%) | 22.5 | 65.7 | 11.8 |
| Winter | 1190 | (28.2%) | 22.7 | 63.7 | 13.6 | |
| Spring | 1050 | (24.9%) | 21.4 | 66.0 | 12.6 | |
| Summer | 861 | (20.4%) | 22.1 | 63.9 | 14.1 | |
| Contributing cause a | Imprudence of driver | 1280 | (30.4%) | 26.4 | 65.1 | 8.5 |
| Imprudence of pedestrian | 1436 | (34.1%) | 17.3 | 62.6 | 20.1 | |
| Driving under the influence of alcohol | 74 | (1.8%) | 35.1 | 40.5 | 24.3 | |
| Pedestrian under the influence of alcohol | 125 | (3.0%) | 18.4 | 58.4 | 23.2 | |
| Speeding | 28 | (0.7%) | 28.6 | 50.0 | 21.4 | |
| Loss of control of vehicle | 60 | (1.4%) | 16.7 | 71.7 | 11.7 | |
| Signage disobedience | 249 | (5.9%) | 21.7 | 51.4 | 26.9 | |
| Undetermined causes | 527 | (12.5%) | 23.7 | 72.8 | 3.5 | |
| Other causes | 437 | (10.4%) | 24.1 | 74.6 | 1.3 | |
|
| ||||||
| Socioeconomic status b | Low | 150 | (3.6%) | 16.0 | 64.0 | 20.0 |
| Medium-low | 1391 | (33.0%) | 21.5 | 63.6 | 14.9 | |
| Medium | 1337 | (31.7%) | 23.8 | 62.5 | 13.7 | |
| Medium-high | 741 | (17.6%) | 22.1 | 67.2 | 10.7 | |
| High | 597 | (14.2%) | 21.9 | 70.0 | 8.0 | |
| Land use b | Commercial (m2) | 3451 | (33.9%) | 21.6 | 66.0 | 12.4 |
| Industrial (m2) | 1611 | (15.8%) | 22.1 | 65.1 | 12.8 | |
| Office space (m2) | 1766 | (17.4%) | 21.8 | 66.0 | 12.1 | |
| Residential (m2) | 3339 | (32.8%) | 20.8 | 68.4 | 10.8 | |
| Population exposure b | Low (0–500 inhabitants) | 1539 | (36.5%) | 22.2 | 62.6 | 15.3 |
| Medium (500–1000 inhabitants) | 1423 | (33.8%) | 22.6 | 65.8 | 11.6 | |
| High (≥1000 inhabitants) | 1254 | (29.7%) | 21.8 | 66.5 | 11.7 | |
| Bus stops c | Short distance (0–100 m) | 3493 | (82.9%) | 21.9 | 64.8 | 13.3 |
| Medium distance (100–250 m) | 634 | (15.0%) | 22.7 | 66.1 | 11.2 | |
| Long distance (≥250 m) | 89 | (2.1%) | 29.2 | 57.3 | 13.5 | |
| Subway stations c | Short distance (0–250 m) | 713 | (16.9%) | 21.5 | 64.2 | 14.3 |
| Medium distance (250–1000 m) | 1161 | (27.5%) | 20.3 | 67.7 | 12.0 | |
| Long distance (≥1000 m) | 2342 | (55.6%) | 23.4 | 63.6 | 13.1 | |
| Traffic lights d | Short distance (0–10 m) | 812 | (19.3%) | 20.7 | 68.1 | 11.2 |
| Medium distance (10–25 m) | 651 | (15.4%) | 21.8 | 65.6 | 12.6 | |
| Long distance (≥25 m) | 2753 | (65.3%) | 22.7 | 63.7 | 13.6 | |
| Intersections d | Short distance (0–10 m) | 2158 | (51.2%) | 23.1 | 66.1 | 10.8 |
| Medium distance (10–25 m) | 1256 | (29.8%) | 22.8 | 63.9 | 13.3 | |
| Long distance (≥25 m) | 802 | (19.0%) | 19.0 | 62.8 | 18.2 | |
Data source: a Chilean National Road Safety Commission (CONASET), https://mapas-conaset.opendata.arcgis.com/ (accessed on 17 April 2018); b National Statistics Institute (INE), https://www.censo2017.cl/ (accessed on 8 June 2019); c Spatial Data Infrastructure-City Observatory (IDE-OC), https://ideocuc-ocuc.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/ (accessed on 10 June 2019); d Center for Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS), http://datos.cedeus.cl/layers/ (accessed on 10 June 2019).
Figure 2Critical zone with high density of pedestrian crashes during the 2012–2016 period.
Pedestrian crashes and injury severity per municipality within the identified critical zone.
| Municipality | Frequency | Injury Severity (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less Serious | Serious | Fatal | |||
| Estación Central | 97 | (11.1%) | 22.7 | 52.6 | 24.7 |
| Independencia | 18 | (2.1%) | 0.0 | 77.8 | 22.2 |
| Las Condes | 5 | (0.6%) | 60.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 |
| Providencia | 169 | (19.3%) | 26.7 | 68.0 | 5.3 |
| Ñuñoa | 53 | (6.0%) | 15.1 | 81.1 | 3.8 |
| Recoleta | 18 | (2.1%) | 16.7 | 66.6 | 16.7 |
| Santiago | 322 | (36.7%) | 16.1 | 75.8 | 8.1 |
Descriptive statistics of variables and their pedestrian crash severity outcomes for the identified critical zone.
| Variable | Frequency | Injury Severity (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole Dataset | Critical Zone | Less Serious | Serious | Fatal | ||||
| Pedestrian crashes | 4216 | (100.0%) | 659 | (100%) | 19.3 | 70.7 | 10.0 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Age | Child (<18 years old) | 666 | (15.8%) | 44 | (6.7%) | 13.6 | 79.5 | 6.8 |
| Young adult (18–24 years old) | 412 | (9.8%) | 74 | (11.2%) | 24.3 | 67.6 | 8.1 | |
| Adult (25–65 years old) | 2081 | (49.4%) | 373 | (56.6%) | 19.8 | 72.1 | 8.0 | |
| Elderly (>65 years old) | 1057 | (25.1%) | 168 | (25.5%) | 17.3 | 66.7 | 16.1 | |
| Gender | Female | 1812 | (43.0%) | 269 | (40.8%) | 23.1 | 71.0 | 5.9 |
| Male | 2404 | (57.0%) | 390 | (59.2%) | 16.7 | 70.5 | 12.8 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Relative location | Straight road section | 1775 | (42.1%) | 246 | (37.3%) | 19.9 | 69.1 | 11.0 |
| Curved road section | 10 | (0.2%) | 2 | (0.3%) | 50. | 50.0 | 0.0 | |
| Intersection without signage | 142 | (3.4%) | 7 | (1.1%) | 14.3 | 85.7 | 0.0 | |
| Intersection with functioning traffic lights | 1420 | (33.7%) | 320 | (48.6%) | 17.2 | 72.5 | 10.3 | |
| Intersection with yield sign | 220 | (5.2%) | 25 | (3.8%) | 28.0 | 72.0 | 0.0 | |
| Intersection with stop sign | 184 | (4.4%) | 9 | (1.4%) | 33.3 | 55.6 | 11.1 | |
| Sidewalk or shoulder | 50 | (1.2%) | 15 | (2.3%) | 20.0 | 73.3 | 6.7 | |
| Disabled access | 30 | (0.7%) | 6 | (0.9%) | 0.0 | 83.3 | 16.7 | |
| Other | 385 | (9.1%) | 29 | (4.4%) | 27.6 | 62.1 | 10.3 | |
| Time | Early morning | 702 | (16.7%) | 102 | (15.5%) | 17.6 | 73.5 | 8.8 |
| Morning | 998 | (23.7%) | 169 | (25.6%) | 22.5 | 67.5 | 10.1 | |
| Afternoon | 1101 | (26.1%) | 151 | (22.9%) | 19.2 | 74.2 | 6.6 | |
| Night | 1415 | (33.6%) | 237 | (36.0%) | 17.7 | 69.6 | 12.7 | |
| Day | Weekday | 3054 | (72.4%) | 492 | (74.7%) | 18.9 | 72.2 | 8.9 |
| Weekend | 1054 | (25.0%) | 155 | (23.5%) | 21.3 | 65.2 | 13.5 | |
| Holiday | 108 | (2.6%) | 12 | (1.8%) | 8.3 | 83.3 | 8.3 | |
| Season | Fall | 1115 | (26.4%) | 178 | (27.0%) | 21.9 | 67.4 | 10.7 |
| Winter | 1190 | (28.2%) | 191 | (29.0%) | 16.8 | 72.3 | 11.0 | |
| Spring | 1050 | (24.9%) | 151 | (22.9%) | 16.6 | 73.5 | 9.9 | |
| Summer | 861 | (20.4%) | 139 | (21.1%) | 22.3 | 69.8 | 7.9 | |
| Contributing factor | Imprudence of driver | 1280 | (30.4%) | 146 | (22.2%) | 25.4 | 71.2 | 3.4 |
| Imprudence of pedestrian | 1436 | (34.1%) | 231 | (35.1%) | 13.0 | 67.5 | 19.5 | |
| Driving under the influence of alcohol | 74 | (1.8%) | 5 | (0.8%) | 0.0 | 40.0 | 60.0 | |
| Pedestrian under the influence of alcohol | 125 | (3.0%) | 18 | (2.7%) | 11.1 | 77.8 | 11.1 | |
| Speeding | 28 | (0.7%) | 4 | (0.6%) | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | |
| Loss of control of vehicle | 60 | (1.4%) | 8 | (1.2%) | 25.0 | 75.0 | 0.0 | |
| Signage disobedience | 249 | (5.9%) | 60 | (9.1%) | 23.3 | 63.4 | 13.3 | |
| Undetermined causes | 527 | (12.5%) | 103 | (15.6%) | 22.3 | 77.7 | 0.0 | |
| Other causes | 437 | (10.4%) | 84 | (12.7%) | 20.2 | 77.4 | 2.4 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Socioeconomic status | Low | 150 | (3.6%) | 7 | (1.1%) | 14.3 | 71.4 | 14.2 |
| Medium-low | 1391 | (33.0%) | 79 | (12.0%) | 17.7 | 63.3 | 19.0 | |
| Medium | 1337 | (31.7%) | 242 | (36.7%) | 17.4 | 69.4 | 13.2 | |
| Medium-high | 741 | (17.6%) | 277 | (42.0%) | 20.9 | 72.6 | 6.5 | |
| High | 597 | (14.2%) | 54 | (8.2%) | 22.2 | 77.8 | 0.0 | |
| Land use | Commercial (m2) | 3451 | (33.9%) | 632 | (28.8%) | 19.8 | 70.6 | 9.6 |
| Industrial (m2) | 1611 | (15.8%) | 367 | (16.7%) | 21.2 | 67.6 | 11.2 | |
| Office space (m2) | 1766 | (17.4%) | 587 | (27.7%) | 19.1 | 71.5 | 9.4 | |
| Residential (m2) | 3339 | (32.8%) | 607 | (26.8%) | 19.6 | 70.8 | 9.6 | |
| Population exposure | Low (0–500 inhabitants) | 1539 | (36.5%) | 276 | (41.9%) | 18.1 | 68.1 | 13.8 |
| Medium (500–1000 inhabitants) | 1423 | (33.8%) | 163 | (24.7%) | 22.1 | 70.6 | 7.4 | |
| High (≥1000 inhabitants) | 1254 | (29.7%) | 220 | (33.4%) | 18.6 | 74.1 | 7.3 | |
| Bus stops | Short distance (0–100 m) | 3493 | (82.9%) | 572 | (86.8%)) | 18.5 | 71.2 | 10.3 |
| Medium distance (100–250 m) | 634 | (15.0%) | 87 | (13.2%) | 24.1 | 67.8 | 8.1 | |
| Long distance (≥250 m) | 89 | (2.1%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Subway stations | Short distance (0–250 m) | 713 | (16.9%) | 303 | (46.0%) | 19.2 | 67.3 | 13.5 |
| Medium distance (250–1000 m) | 1161 | (27.5%) | 329 | (49.9%) | 20.1 | 72.3 | 7.6 | |
| Long distance (≥1000 m) | 2342 | (55.6%) | 27 | (4.1%) | 11.1 | 88.9 | 0.0 | |
| Traffic lights | Short distance (0–10 m) | 812 | (19.3%) | 256 | (38.8%) | 20.7 | 69.9 | 9.4 |
| Medium distance (10–25 m) | 651 | (15.4%) | 121 | (18.4%) | 22.3 | 66.1 | 11.6 | |
| Long distance (≥25 m) | 2753 | (65.3%) | 282 | (42.8%) | 16.7 | 73.4 | 9.9 | |
| Intersections | Short distance (0–10 m) | 2158 | (51.2%) | 381 | (57.8%) | 17.3 | 74.0 | 8.7 |
| Medium distance (10–25 m) | 1256 | (29.8%) | 166 | (25.2%) | 24.1 | 63.2 | 12.7 | |
| Long distance (≥25 m) | 802 | (19.0%) | 112 | (17.0%) | 18.8 | 70.5 | 10.7 | |
Results of the PPO model using the whole dataset.
| Variable | Threshold 1: Less Serious vs. Serious, Fatal | Threshold 2: Less Serious, Serious vs. Fatal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Standard Error | Coefficients | Standard Error | ||
|
| |||||
| Age | base: Child (<18 years old) | ||||
| Elderly (>65 years old) a | 0.375 *** | 0.117 | 0.748 *** | 0.129 | |
| Gender | base: Female | ||||
| Male | 0.216 ** | 0.068 | 0.216 ** | 0.068 | |
|
| |||||
| Relative location | base: Straight road section | ||||
| Intersection with functioning traffic lights | 0.257 ** | 0.088 | 0.257 ** | 0.088 | |
| Time | base: Early morning | ||||
| Morning a | −0.273 * | 0.118 | 0.099 | 0.141 | |
| Afternoon | −0.281 ** | 0.106 | −0.281 ** | 0.106 | |
| Night a | −0.269 * | 0.112 | 0.199 | 0.128 | |
| Day | base: Weekday | ||||
| Weekend | 0.169 * | 0.077 | 0.169 * | 0.077 | |
| Contributing factor | base: Imprudence of driver | ||||
| Imprudence of pedestrian a | 0.474 *** | 0.099 | 0.847 *** | 0.124 | |
| Driving under the influence of alcohol a | −0.486 | 0.260 | 1.035 *** | 0.299 | |
| Pedestrian under the influence of alcohol a | 0.319 | 0.246 | 0.936 *** | 0.244 | |
| Speeding a | −0.061 | 0.429 | 1.115 * | 0.480 | |
| Signage disobedience a | 0.189 | 0.171 | 1.331 *** | 0.180 | |
| Undetermined causes a | 0.086 | 0.122 | −2.020 *** | 0.395 | |
| Other causes a | 0.111 | 0.133 | −0.983 *** | 0.276 | |
|
| |||||
| Socioeconomic status | base: Low | ||||
| Medium | −0.491 ** | 0.184 | −0.491 ** | 0.184 | |
| Medium-high | −0.503 ** | 0.195 | −0.503 ** | 0.195 | |
| High a | −0.274 | 0.207 | −0.777 *** | 0.239 | |
| Intersections | base: Short distance (0–10 m) | ||||
| Medium distance (10–25 m) a | 0.002 | 0.091 | 0.255 * | 0.116 | |
| Long distance (≥25 m) a | 0.224 * | 0.112 | 0.580 *** | 0.127 | |
|
| 1.219 *** | 0.270 | −2.714 *** | 0.288 | |
|
| 4216 | ||||
|
| −3463.87 | ||||
|
| 0.1665 | ||||
a Parallel-lines assumption is violated; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Average pseudo-elasticities for the PPO model using the whole dataset.
| Variable | Average Pseudo-Elasticity (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less Serious | Serious | Fatal | ||
|
| ||||
| Age | base: Child (<18 years old) | |||
| Elderly (>65 years old) | −5.98 *** | −1.15 | 7.13 *** | |
| Gender | base: Female | |||
| Male | −3.66 ** | 1.93 ** | 1.73 ** | |
|
| ||||
| Relative location | base: Straight road section | |||
| Intersection with functioning traffic lights | −4.21 ** | 2.05 ** | 2.16 ** | |
| Time | base: Early morning | |||
| Morning | 4.79 * | −5.61 ** | 0.83 | |
| Afternoon | 4.90 ** | −2.74 * | −2.16 ** | |
| Night | 4.64 * | −6.30 *** | 1.66 | |
| Day | base: Weekday | |||
| Weekend | −2.78 * | 1.35 * | 1.42 * | |
| Contributing factor | base: Imprudence of driver | |||
| Imprudence of pedestrian | −7.63 *** | −0.15 | 7.78 *** | |
| Driving under the influence of alcohol | 9.25 | −21.79 *** | 12.54 * | |
| Pedestrian under the influence of alcohol | −4.91 | −5.94 | 10.85 ** | |
| Signage disobedience | −3.03 | −14.19 *** | 17.22 *** | |
| Undetermined causes | −1.42 | 10.97 *** | −9.55 *** | |
| Other causes | −1.82 | 7.71 *** | −5.88 *** | |
|
| ||||
| Socioeconomic status | base: Low | |||
| Medium | 8.67 * | −4.95 * | −3.72 ** | |
| Medium-high | 9.24 * | −5.65 * | −3.59 ** | |
| High | 4.86 | 0.21 | −5.07 *** | |
| Intersections | base: Short distance (0–10 m) | |||
| Medium distance (10–25 m) | −0.04 | −2.13 | 2.17 ** | |
| Long distance (≥25 m) | −3.62 * | −1.87 | 5.48 *** | |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Results of the PPO model using the pedestrian crashes in the identified critical zone.
| Variable | Threshold 1: Less Serious vs. Serious, Fatal | Threshold 2: Less Serious, Serious vs. Fatal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Standard Error | Coefficients | Standard Error | ||
|
| |||||
| Contributing factor | base: Imprudence of driver | ||||
| Imprudence of pedestrian a | 0.685 * | 0.296 | 2.359 *** | 0.436 | |
| Driving under the influence of alcohol | 4.077 *** | 1.081 | 4.077 *** | 1.081 | |
| Speeding a | −1.153 | 1.076 | 3.205 * | 1.261 | |
| Signage disobedience a | −0.011 | 0.395 | 1.923 *** | 0.566 | |
| Other causes a | 0.298 | 0.337 | −0.543 * | 0.261 | |
|
| |||||
| Traffic lights | base: Short distance (0–10 m) | ||||
| Long distance (≥25 m) | 0.500 * | 0.249 | 0.500 * | 0.249 | |
| Intersections | base: Short distance (0–10 m) | ||||
| Medium distance (10–25 m) | −0.543 * | 0.261 | −0.543 * | 0.261 | |
|
| 1.199 * | 1.068 | −4.469 *** | 1.128 | |
|
| 659 | ||||
|
| −462.40 | ||||
|
| 0.1150 | ||||
a Parallel-lines assumption is violated; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Average pseudo-elasticities for the PPO model using pedestrian crashes in the identified critical zone.
| Variable | Average Pseudo-Elasticity (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less Serious | Serious | Fatal | ||
|
| ||||
| Contributing factor | base: Imprudence of driver | |||
| Imprudence of pedestrian | −9.07 * | −8.81 * | 17.88 *** | |
| Driving under the influence of alcohol | −17.12 | −53.63 ** | 70.75 *** | |
| Speeding | 22.32 | −74.19 ** | 51.87 | |
| Signage disobedience | 0.15 | −19.68 * | 19.52 * | |
| Other causes | −3.91 | 2.29 | 1.62 | |
|
| ||||
| Traffic lights | base: Short distance (0–10 m) | |||
| Long distance (≥25 m) | −6.91 * | 4.35 * | 2.56 | |
| Intersections | base: Short distance (0–10 m) | |||
| Medium distance (10–25 m) | 8.37 | −5.99 | −2.39 * | |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.