Identifying and Ranking Dangerous Road Segments

(Along Hawassa-Bulbula Main Rural Road)

BY
Mandefro Terefe (M.Sc. in Road and Transport Engineering)
Lecturer
School of Civil Engineering
Hawassa University
Email: mandefroterefe@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT constraint in budget for improvement.

According to the study made by United
Nation Economic Commission for Africa,
Ethiopia stands as one of the worst
countries with respect to road safety
performance in terms of traffic accident
fatalities per 10,000 vehicles (i.e. 95 in
2007/8). Road safety generally depends
on humans, vehicles, and highway
conditions. These factors influence road
safety separately or in combination. One
of the basic means to improve road safety
is to reduce hazardous conditions of
roads. The objective of this research was
to identify and rank hazardous locations
and propose cost effective counter
measures along Hawassa-Bulbula main
two lane rural road. Empirical Bayes (EB)
method and Safety Performance Function
(SPF) have been used to estimate an
index known as Potential Safety
Improvement (PSI) for each site of the
study area to identify and rank road sites.
Accordingly, the road and traffic data were
collected from field investigation and
Ethiopian Road Authority and accident
data also gathered from police stations.
Thus, 8 road segments were found the
most dangerous road segments because
they have contributed 76% of total PSI
values. The appropriate cost effective
counter measures have been proposed for
selected segments so as to improve the
safety of the road.
Therefore, the study concludes that the
degree of hazardousness of a given road
segment in the study area has been
directly associated with the availability of
risk indicating road and traffic factors.
Finally, it recommends that regulatory
body of road safety in the study area
should give high priority and immediate
response for the improvement of road
sites which have been ranked at the top,
especially those included in the first
category of group rank.
Keywords: - Dangerous Road Segment,
Empirical Bayes Estimate, Safety
Performance Function, Potential for Safety
Improvement, Cost Effective Counter
Measures.

By analyzing these data, out of 43 road

segments 22 road sites were identified as
dangerous road segments and they were
then ranked according to a descending
order of their PSI values. In addition to
that, further criterion has been established
for screening the ranked road sections.
Accordingly, they have been ranked into
three groups for remedial treatment due to

1
 I. INTRODUCTION
A. General Background
The main purpose of transportation
system is to provide the efficient and safe
movement of freight and passenger from
one place to another. However, the rising
number of road accidents had created a
major social problem resulting in the loss
of lives and material. Moreover, in
developing countries like Ethiopia traffic
accidents rate have been still quite high.
Therefore, the issue of road safety is a
major concern in transportation
engineering.
According to the World Health
Organization report, road crashes were
the leading cause of death worldwide for
children and young people [24]. About 1.2
million people die and 50 million were
injured annually worldwide. More than
85% of these casualties occur in low and
middle in-come countries. Over 90% of the
world’s fatalities on the roads occur in low-
income and middle-income countries,
which have only 48% of the world’s
registered vehicles. Africa has the world’s
highest death rate (28.3 per 100,000 of
the population when corrected for under-
reporting).
A study made in Ethiopia indicates that it
has one of the world’s worst accident
records, 170 fatalities per 10,000 vehicles
in 1994/5 [18]. The study further noted the
worsening and the likely severe situation
due to under reporting. The occurrence of
traffic accidents in the country was
increasing as the exposure to this risk
increases due to rapid motorization
(without appropriate regulation), rapid
population growth, and increase in the
road network coupled with poor attitude
and safety culture of road users [20].
Therefore, this study focuses on
identification of accident accumulation site
2
and rank to provide a priority list of sites to
be treated according to their potential for
safety development and to utilize the
limited funds as effectively as possible.
B. Statement of the Problem
Traffic accident death rate per 10,000
motor vehicles were showing a decreasing
trend and had reached 95 in 2007/8 from
145 in 2003/4 [20]. It was also indicated
that the recent phenomenon of decreasing
trend of death rates per 10,000 vehicles in
the country cannot be due to absolute
decreases in fatalities and also the total
road traffic accidents. However, it was due
to the increasing exposure which can be
measured indirectly by the increase in
population, motorization, and road network
expansion in the country.
This is also confirmed in the last Ethiopian
fiscal year (2014/15), for example, police
reported 32,020 total accidents which
caused the losses of 3,843 lives. Of the
last six years up to 2014/15, traffic police
report indicates that total accidents and
fatalities increased at 12.2 % and 9.6 % in
average per year respectively. Due to
tremendous life and property loss,
therefore, more attention should be paid in
various ways to improve the road safety.
Although the road traffic accidents
problem is common across countrywide,
two geographical zones can be singled out
as the most accidents prone area
[2,16,20]. These zones were large urban
centers in the country like Addis Ababa
and highly trafficked high standard major
road corridors such as Addis - Adama and
Modjo - Hawassa and similar main roads.
Despite these facts, only few road safety
studies were carried out in the country and
most of these studies were concentrated
in the capital city, Addis Ababa. Although
there are limited activities towards
combating the problem, it is insufficient by
any standard relative to the worsening
situation. Unless adequate measures are
taken timely, the situation is expected to
get worst. Therefore, this study
investigates part of the Modjo- Hawassa
two-lane two-way highway.
Accordingly, it is expected that it fills the
gap of knowledge which exists by
identifying dangerous road sections and
risk factors associating to the influence of
road and traffic related factors on road
safety.
C. Objectives
 To identify and rank dangerous
road sections along the study area
with a poor safety performance.
 To estimate the major contributing
road and traffic factors and provide
cost effective counter measures.
D. Scope of the Study
The scope of the study is limited to
Hawassa - Bulbula two-lane rural road,
from Tikur Wuha town in front of Saint
Mary Church up to West Arsi zone border
near to Bulbula town with total length of
64.5 km over the period of September
2012/13 to August 2014/15.
Moreover, the severity of accidents were
not considered in the analysis part of this
study due to substantial amount of under-
reporting of non-fatal injury accidents and
the difficulties of estimating weight factor
for each injury accidents to convert them
into the appropriate severity level as per
local condition.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Various methods are available to identify
and rank hazardous site. There are three
common types of black spot or section
definition such as: numerical, Statistical,
and Model-based definitions [6]. The
numerical definition is called traditional
approach that depends only on the
3
recorded number of accidents to identify
dangerous road section. And hence, it
does not make any reference to traffic
volume or to the normal number of
accidents, nor does it specify the types of
location considered. Rather, a certain
limit for accident count or accident
density is set then hazardous sites
were selected based on this limits. In
this context, a site is defined as hazardous
if its observed accident count or accident
density or both exceed pre-specified
criteria. However, this method
undoubtedly affected by random variation
in accident count and regression-to-the-
mean problems [7]. As a result, the
method may incorrectly identify hazardous
sites as those sites which have high
accident counts or accident rates rather
than the normal number of accidents.
The second approach called statistical
definition of an accident black spot
depends on the comparison of the
recorded number of accidents to a normal
number for a similar types of location.
Statistical analysis method such as Rate
Quality Control Methods can also be used
to identify and select hazardous road
sections based on critical threshold that
exceeded only a small proportion of the
accident count [17]. In other study, it was
proposed ranking road sections according
to their potential for accident reduction
(PAR), which is the difference between the
observed accident frequency at a given
site and expected number of accidents at
sites with similar characteristics [12].
However, Maher and Mountain concluded
that using accident count as ranking
criterion may perform as well as or better
than using PAR due to inaccuracy in the
estimation of expected number of
accidents at a site which is required in the
PAR method [23].
The third approach called Model-based
definition of road accident black
spots/sections derived from multivariate
accident prediction mode [6]. This
approach is used not only for identification
of black road sections or spots but also to
estimate the interaction between road and
traffic related factors and accident
frequencies by means of regression
analysis techniques. Empirical Bayes (EB)
estimate has been also used as a criterion
for the purpose of identification and
ranking of hazardous sites [1,9,14]. In
other study, it had been used a method
known as potential for safety improvement
(PSI) [13]. This approach is fairly similar to
PAR method, except that the EB safety
estimate is used instead of accident count.
Here, PSI is estimated as the difference
between the EB safety estimates and what
is normal for similar sites. Hazardous site
defined as a site where the observed
number of accidents exceeds either the
accident prediction by Poisson model
estimate or EB estimate by at least one
standard deviation [15]. Finally, it had
been concluded EB estimate has
produced fewer black spot sites than
accident prediction by Poisson model.
As stated in Highway Safety Manual
(HSM), the key considerations in selecting
performance measures are: data
availability, regression-to-the-mean bias,
and how the performance threshold is
established [1]. It also provides guidance
on selecting performance measures and
the procedures to apply it. Performance
measures have been classified into the
following groups: accident frequency,
accident rate, critical accident rate,
equivalent property damage only index,
relative severity index, accident prediction
models, empirical Bayes methods, excess
expected average crash frequency with
EB adjustments [1,14]. It has been
recommended that a method that is based
on a multivariate model and uses an
empirical Bayes (EB) procedure [1,14].
4
As indicated in the above section, the EB
method is considered as the most
common state-of-the-art method for the
estimation of safety of a road and also for
identification and ranking of dangerous
road segments, and considerable
research had been conducted using it,
including [3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,19].
Guidelines for accident risk analysis in the
American Highway Safety Manual [1] are
based on the EB method and it is also
recommended by the European
Parliament to be included into concepts for
road infrastructure safety management [5].
To predict frequency of accidents for
similar sites in the reference population
different methods can be used. Hauer
suggested the following two methods for
calculation of predicted number of
accidents and its variance (a) the method
of sample moments and (b) the
multivariate regression method [9]. He
also compared these two methods and the
result shows that multivariate regression
method provides estimates of predicted
accidents for reference sites that match
the characteristics of the treated site
exactly and a large number of reference
sites are not needed for any particular
combination of characteristics.
Alternatively, HSM provides predictive
model that developed for rural two-lane
two-way facilities to estimate Safety
Performance Function (SPF) [1]. These
predictive models have been developed to
estimate the predicted average crash
frequency of an individual site, which is a
performance threshold value of
homogenous roadway segment.
III. METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
A. Description of the Study Area
Study area is located in Oromia region
along Hawassa - Bulbula trunk road
particularly within West Arsi Zone territory.
Of this road stretches only the rural two-
lane two-way highway which had not
undergone any modification during the
Figure-1 Location Map of Study Area (Hawassa – Bulbula Trunk Road); (Source: Google Map)
B. Study Area Selection Criteria
The selected study sites were one of the
expected accident prone locations in the
country. Furthermore, the selection of
study sites extremely depends on the
availability of adequate and reliable data
to achieve the stated objectives.
C. Sources of Data
 Primary data: were obtained by
inspecting and measuring road
geometry, roadside hazards and
delineation, and field
reconnaissance survey to observe
the characteristics of traffic.
 Secondary data: road crash data
from traffic police report, road as
built drawing and average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) from ERA,
and traffic data from the Federal
Transport Authority (FTA).
5
period (2012/13–2014/15) has been
considered.
D. Data Collection
Before data collections were carried out,
enumerators had been trained to arm
them with knowledge on how to gather
reliable data. During the fieldwork, three
types of data were gathered. These are:
road data, accident data and traffic data.
 Road Data
The road factors being investigated may
include road length of link or stretch,
horizontal curvature, vertical grades,
cross-sectional elements (e.g. lane width,
width of shoulder and surfacing, etc.),
number of minor junction per km,
sidewalks and crosswalks, traffic sign,
road surface marking, sight distance and
other pertinent data. As-built drawing of
the road plan and profile were obtained
from ERA. This has been substantiated
through actual measurements and visual
inspection, which can be obtained on the
road site. Preparing the data, the road interview with traffic police. Traffic data
stretches were divided into short sections (AADT) that obtained from Ethiopian Road
of 1.5 km in length based on kilometer Authority (ERA) include three years study
post and each of road segments was period.
considered as homogenous road section.
For each road segment, traffic volumes
and accident frequencies have been
assigned to predict the frequency of
accidents. In total, 43 road sections (total
length=64.5 km) have been considered in
this study and these entire road segments
were two-lane two-way rural highway.

 Traffic Accident Data

Three years road traffic accidents were

collected from traffic police stations. The
source of road accident data were
accident booklets compiled by traffic
police officers. To acquire reliable data, a
road traffic accident form was designed.
The form include: date, time of accident,
vehicle type and ownership, driver sex,
age and education, weather, road, and
illumination condition, accident type,
degree of severity, and number of victims
(driver, passenger, and pedestrian) and
their sex, age, severity; and location of
accident. Since the location of each
accident were registered broadly by the
name of Kebele or surrounding land use
exhaustive fieldwork were carried out to
approximate the location of accidents
based on kilometer post along the road.
Then, the collected accidents have been
applied for each segments of a road.

 Traffic Data

Traffic data has been used to undertake

the analysis of road safety problems for
the road under consideration. Traffic
volumes have been used as one of the
inputs to develop criteria in defining the
study road. Beside, traffic volume other
pertinent data such as speed
characteristics, non-motorized traffic
characteristics and others were collected
through reconnaissance survey and some

6

Figure-2 Typical Photos Taken from Study
Area
E. General Approaches
As indicated in the literature part, EB
method has been preferred to estimate the
safety of a road and also for identification
and ranking of road segments.
Accordingly, excess expected average
crash frequency with EB adjustment has
been used as a performance measure and
the predicted number of accidents has
been used as a performance threshold
value for identification and ranking of
dangerous road sections for this study.
F. Empirical Bayes Method
The EB method uses data from the crash
history of a treated site, as well as
information about what is known about the
safety of reference sites with similar
geometric characteristics to estimate how
many crashes would have occurred at the
treated site had no improvements been
made. The joint use of the information
from treated and reference sites are based
on a weighted average [10], which can be
expressed as:
Expected number of crashes at treated
site = (weight) × (number of crashes
expected at reference sites) + (1− weight)
× (actual number of crashes at treated
7
site) ------------------ (a) where, the weight
varies between zero and one.
The method for deriving the variables in
Equation (a) was described by Hauer [9].
By use of his notation, K1, K2, K3, . . . ,
are the number of crashes at references
sites 1, 2, 3, . . ., respectively, whose
characteristics were determined to be
similar to those at the treated site; E( ) is
the expected number of crashes at these
reference sites; and K is the actual crash
count at a treated site. Thus, E (k/ K) is
the estimate of the expected number of
crashes at the treated site, given that the
site recorded K crashes. Accordingly, EB
can be estimated as follows:
E ( / K) = w *E ( ) + (1 − w)* K ------- (1)
W= ---------------------------------- (2)
Where, Var(k) is the variance of the
expected number of crashes at the
reference sites; and w= weight factor,
which can be estimated based on over-
dispersion parameter.
G. Accident Prediction Model
The general formula for the collision
prediction model is [1]:
E ( ) = Nbr * Cr *(AMF1r * AMF2r …..…
AMFnr) -------------- (3)
Where, E ( ) = predicted number of total
roadway collisions per year after
application of AMFs; Nbr =predicted
number of total roadway collisions per
year for nominal or base conditions; Cr =
calibration factor; and AMF1r…..…AMFnr
= accident modification factors for
roadway segments.
 Base Model
Safety performance function is regression
models for estimating the predicted
average crash frequency of individual
roadway segments. The base model was distribution with (n-p) degree of freedom
established for a wide range of AADT, for certain confidence level, which is 95 %
range from 0 to 17,800 vehicles per day. [22]. The coefficient of determination (R²)
was also be used to determine the amount
The base conditions for roadway
of variability in the response variable
segments on rural two-lane two-way roads
explained by the variation in the selected
are shown below [1]:
set of explanatory variables [21].
Table-1 Base conditions for roadway
The Pearson X2 and Scaled Daviance G2
segments on two-lane rural road
Base statistics are:
No. Road parameters conditions
1 Lane width 3.66 m ∑
2 Shoulder width 1.83 m
3 Shoulder type Paved
4 Roadside hazard rating 3
(RHR) ∑ ( ) ( )
5 Driveway density (DD) 5 per mile
6 Horizontal curvature None
7 Vertical curvature None
8 Centerline rumble strips None
Where, yi = observer number of
9 Passing lanes None accidents;
10 Two-way left-turn lanes None ;
11 Lighting None and,
12 Automated speed None
enforcement The over dispersion parameter can be
13 Grade Level 0% estimated as a function of mean and
variance of the mean of accident count as
shown equation 7.
Based on the above road parameters, a
multivariate regression model, which was VAR (Yi) = ӯi + α ӯi²---------------------- (7)
established by Negative Binomial (NB)
Where, VAR (Yi) = variance of accident
distribution, is given below for the base
count; and ӯ = mean of accident count.
model of a two-lane two-way highway as:
 Accident Modification
Nbr = (AADT) (L) (365) (10-6) EXP (-0.321)
Factors
----------------- (4)
To consider any variation from base
Where, ADAT= average daily traffic; and
condition, HSM provides twelve AMFs in
L= length of segment (mi).
the form of equations, tables and/or
Evaluation of the validity of the fit between graphs. Of these factors, only eight of
observed values K and the predicted them have been considered for this study.
values using SPF model can be assessed The remaining factors are excluded
by a number of statistics. Therefore, a because they were similar with the base
model passes the goodness of fit criteria condition. The AMFs for geometric design
when the value of Pearson X2 and Scaled and traffic control features of rural two-
Daviance G2 statistics are greater than or lane two-way roadway segments are
equal to the value of χ² statistics presented in in Table-2.

8
Table-2 AMFs equations for geometric design and traffic control features of rural two-lane
road
Road
No Accident Modification Factors (AMF) Where
parameters
AMFra=AMF of
1 Lane Width AMFr1= (AMFra - 1.0) *Pra +1.0
related accidents,
Shoulder Pra=proportion of
2 AMF2r= (AMFwra * AMFtra - 1.0) * Pra + 1.00
Width related accidents
Lc=length of the
Horizontal
3 curve, R=radius &
Curves
S*=spiral curve
AMF4r = 1.00 for SV < 0.01;
Super SV=super elevation
4 AMF4r= 1.00+6 *(SV - 0.01) for 0.01 ≤ SV < 0.02;
elevation variation (m/m)
AMF4r = 1.06 + 3 * (SV - 0.02) for SV ≥ 0.02
G≤ 3%, AMF=1; 3 %< G ≤ 6%, AMF=1.1; and
5 Grades G=grade
G>6%, AMF 1.16
Driveway
DD=driveway density
Density
Roadside RHR=road hazard
7
Design rating
Passing AMF applied only for
8 AMF for short four-lane sections = 0.65
Lanes short four-lane section
S*=1 if spiral transition curve is present; 0 if spiral transition curve is not present; 0.5 if a spiral
transition curve is present at one but not both ends of the horizontal curve.

 Calibration Factor The following section presents steps of

estimation of expected average crash
Calibration provides a method to account frequency with Empirical Bayes
for differences between jurisdictions in adjustments [1]:
factors such as climate, driver populations,
animal populations, accident reporting STEP 1 –The predicted average crash
thresholds, and accident reporting system frequency can be estimated from SPF,
procedures. Therefore, mathematically E( )n, for each study year n, where, n =
calibration factor can be estimated by 1,2,3 using base model, AMFs and
using equation 8. calibration factor.

∑ STEP 2 –The annual correction factor is

∑ given as predicted average crash
 Expected average crash
frequency with Empirical
Bayes (EB) adjustment
The Empirical Bayes (EB) method is
applied in the estimation of expected
average crash frequency. The version of
the EB method implemented here uses
yearly correction factors for consistency
with network screening applications in the
Safety Analyst software tools.
frequency for year n divided by the
predicted average crash frequency for
year 1. This factor is intended to capture
the effect that annual variations in traffic,
weather, and vehicle mix have on crash
occurrences.
Where, Cn = Annual correction factor for
total crashes; E( )n = Predicted number of
crashes for year n; E( )1 = Predicted
number of crashes for year 1.

9
STET 3 - Weighted adjustment
The third step of the EB method is to
determine the relative weight, w, which
can be estimated by using equation 2.
STEP 4 – First year EB-adjusted expected
average crash frequency expression was
established by applying the correction
factor, Cn, on Equations 1
∑ section in the list the more hazardous it is
∑ compared to the other sections of the
Where, E( /K)1 = EB-adjusted expected
average crash frequency for year 1; Kn =
Observed crash frequency along each
segment for year n (n=1, 2 or 3); and n =
study years(1, 2 or 3).
STEP 5 –The EB-adjusted expected
number of total crashes for the final year
can be estimated using the following
equation (in this study, the final year is
year 3).
H. Identification and Ranking of
Dangerous Sites
 Identifying dangerous sites
Based on the selected performance
measure which is excess expected
average crash frequency commonly called
potential for safety improvement (PSI) as
calculated by Equation 12, dangerous
sites can be identified. It is also defined as
the positive difference between EB
estimate and the normal number of
accident expected from such types of
sites.
Excess y = Excess expected crashes
frequency or PSI for year, n
10
 Ranking locations
After dangerous locations were identified,
next step is to rank the road segments for
priority treatment. Having calculated the
excess expected number of accidents for
each homogeneous road section, they
have been listed in a decreasing order of
the excess expected number of accidents
value. The higher position of the road
same group.
IV. TEST RESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONS
The concept of hazardous location (HL)
identification assumes that there are road
with engineering deficiencies, which do
not function properly from a safety
viewpoint. The process of HL identification
is intended for an initial screening of road
sites, in order to focus on sites more
promising in terms of potential benefits of
intervention. This process can be
described as an examination of accident
frequencies on road sites of the study
area, in order to point out the sites with
irregularly high accident numbers.
A. Estimate and Apply
Calibration Factor
To estimate the calibration factor the
predicted number of accidents for each
segment was calculated by using base
modal and accident modification factors.
Thus, the total number of three years
predicted accidents before calibration
estimated to be 185.4 and the
corresponding actually occurred number
of accidents were 280 in the study area.
Then, mathematically calibration factor
can be estimate by using Equation 8.
The computed calibration factor, Cr=1.51,
has been applied in the appropriate
predictive model of each segment. After
application of calibration factor the base
model given in Equation 4 has been
modified in to the local condition and given
as Equation 13:
-6
Nbr = (1.51) (AADT) (L) (365) (10 ) EXP
------------------------ (13)
B. Predicted and Expected
Number of Accidents Estimation
EB safety estimation procedure can be
accomplished in four major steps.
 Predicted number of accidents: by
using calibrated base model (Equation
13) and combined AMF, the predicted
numbers of accidents were estimated
for each study year of each road
segments. The results of year 1, 2 and
3 predicted accidents were presented
in column 1, 2, and 3 of Table-3
respectively.
 Annual correction factors: The annual
correction factors for all road
segments were estimated using
equation 9 and summarized in column
4, 5, and 6 of Table-3 for year 1, 2 and
3 respectively.
 Relative Weights: In this step of the
EB method, the relative weight of each
segment was estimated by using
equation 2 based on over-dispersion
parameter (ODP) and predicted
number of accidents. ODP can be
estimated by using equation 7. Then,
(-0.321)
the relative weight of each segment of
a road was estimated and provided in
column 8 of Table-3
 EB-adjusted expected average crash
frequency: expected number of
accident frequencies which can
represent the accident potential of a
site or the long-term average actually
occurred number of accidents. This
stage of the method, integrates the
observed crash frequency with the
predicted average crash frequency by
weight factor. The larger the weighting
factor, the greater the reliance on the
predicted accidents than the observed
to estimate the long-term predicted
average crash frequency per year at
the site. The result of expected long
term first year and final year EB-
adjusted average crash frequency on
the roadway segments were estimated
by using Equations 10 and 11
respectively, and presented in column
10 and 11 of Table-3.

Table-3 Annual correction factors, weight factor, predicted and expected yearly crash frequencies
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Average
Weight Factor
Segment

st rd
Observed 1 and 3 year EB
Predicted Average Sum Accident Adjusted Expected
Crash Frequency of Frequency Average Crash
for Year Correction Factors Total per year Frequency
1 2 3 C1 C2 C3 Ctotal K E{k/K} 1 E{k/K} 3
120 2.06 2.20 2.36 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.33 1.0 1.31 1.49
121 1.99 2.13 2.28 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.34 0.3 0.88 1.01
122 1.80 1.92 2.06 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.36 2.3 2.04 2.33
123 1.80 1.92 2.06 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.36 2.0 1.84 2.11
124 1.80 1.92 2.06 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.36 0.7 1.05 1.20
125 1.80 1.92 2.06 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.36 0.0 0.65 0.74
126 1.92 2.06 2.20 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.35 0.3 0.87 0.99

11
 127 1.95 2.09 2.24 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.34 1.0 1.28 1.47
128 1.95 2.09 2.24 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.34 2.3 2.10 2.40
129 1.80 1.92 2.06 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.36 1.0 1.24 1.42
130 1.82 1.95 2.09 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.36 0.7 1.05 1.20
131 2.15 2.30 2.46 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.32 2.3 2.17 2.48
132 2.11 2.26 2.42 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.32 2.0 1.95 2.23
133 2.16 2.31 2.47 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.32 2.7 2.38 2.73
134 2.18 2.33 2.50 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.32 0.7 1.12 1.28
135 2.59 2.77 2.97 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.28 2.7 2.52 2.88
136 1.92 2.06 2.20 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.35 3.0 2.50 2.86
137 2.23 2.39 2.56 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.31 2.3 2.19 2.51
138 2.60 2.79 2.98 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.28 3.7 3.19 3.65
139 2.56 2.73 2.93 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.28 1.7 1.84 2.11
140 2.13 2.28 2.44 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.32 1.0 1.32 1.51
141 1.68 1.79 1.92 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.38 2.0 1.79 2.05
142 2.15 2.30 2.46 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.32 3.3 2.80 3.21
146 2.49 2.67 2.85 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.29 1.3 1.61 1.84
147 2.11 2.26 2.42 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.32 0.7 1.11 1.27
148 2.30 2.46 2.64 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.31 3.7 3.08 3.52
149 2.33 2.50 2.67 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.30 4.7 3.74 4.28
150 1.43 1.54 1.64 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.41 1.7 1.51 1.72
151 1.90 2.03 2.17 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.35 5.0 3.70 4.24
152 3.95 4.22 4.52 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.20 6.7 5.76 6.59
153 2.88 3.08 3.30 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.26 2.3 2.36 2.70
154 3.06 3.27 3.50 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.25 4.7 4.03 4.61
155 1.68 1.79 1.92 1.00 1.07 1.14 3.21 0.38 1.3 1.41 1.61
161 1.58 1.66 1.74 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.40 2.0 1.78 1.96
162 1.58 1.66 1.74 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.40 1.7 1.58 1.75
163 1.64 1.72 1.81 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.39 2.7 2.19 2.42
164 1.81 1.90 1.99 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.36 3.7 2.88 3.17
165 2.05 2.16 2.26 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.34 5.3 4.06 4.48
166 1.56 1.64 1.72 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.40 2.3 1.96 2.16
167 1.53 1.61 1.69 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.40 1.3 1.38 1.52
168 1.45 1.53 1.60 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.42 1.0 1.16 1.28
169 1.45 1.53 1.60 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.42 0.7 0.98 1.08
170 1.45 1.53 1.60 1.00 1.05 1.10 3.15 0.42 1.7 1.53 1.69
st nd rd
Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 represent 1 , 2 and 3 years of study period (2012/13-2014/15) respectively.

square statistic and Deviance statistic.

C. Model Validation
Two statistical measures were used in
assessing the validity of the model
developed. These were the Pearson Chi-
The Pearson Chi-square and Deviance
statistics were estimated to be 30.7 and
45.6 respectively. The values are within
the permissible range (i.e. less or equals
to χ²0.05, 35 = 46) indicating that the

12
Negative Binomial distribution assumption
is acceptable. Therefore, the goodness-of-
fit statistics for the model shows that the
model fits reasonably well with the data.
Figure-3 also shows that the distribution of
variance of accidents around the mean of
predicted accident frequency, which can
be measured by the coefficient of
determination (R²=1) indicates that the
assumed model fit with the data.

60.00

50.00 y = 0.3063x2 - 3E-14x + 1E-13

R² = 1
40.00
Variance

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
predicted accident frequency

Variance vse predected accident VAR{k} Poly. (Variance vse predected accident VAR{k})

Figure-3 Distributions of variance of accidents around predicted average accident frequency

D. Dangerous Road Sites in the methodology part, dangerous road

segments and the corresponding
According to the selected performance performance measure and threshold value
measure and detail procedure described were estimated and presented in Table-4
Table-4 List of dangerous road segment based on the excess from expected number of accident
Expected
Segment

Average observed Predicted number number of Dangerous

number of of accident per accidents per Excess number of /Not
accidents per year year year accidents per year /Not
K E{k} E{k/K} [E(k/K)-E(k)] or PSI
120 1.00 2.4 1.49 -0.91 Not
121 0.33 2.3 1.01 -1.29 Not
122 2.33 2.1 2.33 0.23 Dangerous
123 2.00 2.1 2.11 0.01 Dangerous
124 0.67 2.1 1.20 -0.90 Not
125 0.00 2.1 0.74 -1.36 Not
126 0.33 2.2 0.99 -1.21 Not
127 1.00 2.2 1.47 -0.73 Not
128 2.33 2.2 2.40 0.20 Dangerous
129 1.00 2.1 1.42 -0.68 Not
130 0.67 2.1 1.20 -0.90 Not
131 2.33 2.46 2.48 0.02 Dangerous
132 2.00 2.4 2.23 -0.17 Not
133 2.67 2.5 2.73 0.23 Dangerous
134 0.67 2.5 1.28 -1.22 Not

13
 135 2.67 3.0 2.88 -0.12 Not
136 3.00 2.2 2.86 0.66 Dangerous
137 2.33 2.6 2.51 -0.09 Not
138 3.67 3.0 3.65 0.65 Dangerous
139 1.67 2.9 2.11 -0.79 Not
140 1.00 2.4 1.51 -0.89 Not
141 2.00 1.9 2.05 0.15 Dangerous
142 3.33 2.5 3.21 0.71 Dangerous
146 1.33 2.9 1.84 -1.06 Not
147 0.67 2.4 1.27 -1.13 Not
148 3.67 2.6 3.52 0.92 Dangerous
149 4.67 2.7 4.28 1.58 Dangerous
150 1.67 1.6 1.72 0.12 Dangerous
151 5.00 2.2 4.24 2.04 Dangerous
152 6.67 4.5 6.59 2.09 Dangerous
153 2.33 3.3 2.70 -0.60 Not
154 4.67 3.5 4.61 1.11 Dangerous
155 1.33 1.9 1.61 -0.29 Not
161 2.00 1.7 1.96 0.26 Dangerous
162 1.67 1.7 1.75 0.05 Dangerous
163 2.67 1.8 2.42 0.62 Dangerous
164 3.67 2.0 3.17 1.17 Dangerous
165 5.33 2.3 4.48 2.18 Dangerous
166 2.33 1.7 2.16 0.46 Dangerous
167 1.33 1.7 1.52 -0.18 Not
168 1.00 1.6 1.28 -0.32 Not
169 0.67 1.6 1.08 -0.52 Not
170 1.67 1.6 1.69 0.09 Dangerous

The identification of dangerous road When the excess expected crash

segments were based on a criterion that
its accident potential exceeds the value
that is normal (i.e. performance threshold
value) for similar sites in reference
population. Then, excess expected EB
adjusted average crash frequency or PSI
value, presented in Table-4, were used to
identify the dangerous road locations in
the study area based on the analysis of
historical accident data and road and
traffic characteristic in the study period of
2012/13-1014/15.
frequency value is greater than zero, a site
experiences more crashes than expected.
When the excess expected crash
frequency value is less than zero, a site
experiences less crashes than expected.
Accordingly, based on excess or PSI
value out of 43 road segments (each 1.5
km section) 22 road sites were identified
as dangerous road segments. This implies
that there are 43 roadway segments from
which this study identify 22 road sites that
should be analyzed in more detail
because they show a potential for
reducing, as much as their corresponding

14
PSI value per year, the average crash
frequency. For example, segment 122 has
a potential for reducing 0.28 accidents per
year with minor improvement.
E. Ranking Road Sites
The dangerous road sites were ranked
according to their PSI values and the
result presented in Table-5. Accordingly,
the excess values of dangerous sites were
ordered from top to bottom in a decreasing
order.

Table-5 Ranking road sites based on excess expected crash frequency with BE adjustment
EB Excess or Based Excess or PSI per year
Observed Predicted estimate PSI on PSI (%)
Segment K E{k} E{k/K} E(k/K)-E(k) Rank Individual Cumulative
165 5.33 2.26 4.48 2.21 1 14.2 14.2
152 6.67 4.52 6.59 2.07 2 13.3 27.5
151 5.00 2.17 4.24 2.06 3 13.3 40.8
149 4.67 2.67 4.28 1.61 4 10.4 51.1
164 3.67 1.99 3.17 1.18 5 7.6 58.7
154 4.67 3.50 4.61 1.12 6 7.2 65.9
148 3.67 2.64 3.52 0.89 7 5.7 71.6
142 3.33 2.46 3.21 0.75 8 4.8 76.4
138 3.67 2.98 3.65 0.67 9 4.3 80.7
136 3.00 2.20 2.86 0.66 10 4.2 85.0
163 2.67 1.81 2.42 0.61 11 3.9 88.9
166 2.33 1.72 2.16 0.44 12 2.8 91.7
122 2.33 2.06 2.33 0.28 13 1.8 93.5
133 2.67 2.47 2.73 0.26 14 1.6 95.1
161 2.00 1.74 1.96 0.21 15 1.4 96.5
128 2.33 2.24 2.40 0.17 16 1.1 97.6
141 2.00 1.92 2.05 0.14 17 0.9 98.4
170 1.67 1.60 1.69 0.08 18 0.5 99.0
150 1.67 1.64 1.72 0.08 19 0.5 99.5
123 2.00 2.06 2.11 0.05 20 0.3 99.8
131 2.33 2.46 2.48 0.02 21 0.1 100.0
162 1.67 1.74 1.75 0.003 22 0.0 100.0
Total excess EB-adjusted estimate per year 15.6 100.0

After black road locations were identified,
the road segments should be ranked for
remedial treatment due to constraint in
budget for treatment. This means that, the
one that has ranked at the top has high
potential to reduce a number of accidents
if it is treated. However, one should not
expect that a treatment can bring a road
site into zero accident state. The reason is
traffic accidents are random by nature;
they are influenced by pure random
variation as well as systematic random
variation. Systematic variation, which is
attributable by various causal factors that
can be controlled, however, the pure
random variation cannot be controlled; as
long as there are exposure (vehicle-km
driven), accidents shall encountered.
Thus, most sensible approach is to bring
the number of accidents along a road site
back to the normal condition which is

15
representative for all similar road Where, PSIavg1 = average of 22 sites PSI =
segments in the reference population. O.71; and PSIavg2 = average of the
remaining 14 sites PSI= 0.26
Based on the results of the analysis, those
sites that show potential for improvement Having the total list of hazardous road
were identified for additional analysis. As sections, they have been ranked once
shown in Table-5 segment 165, which was again according to the established criteria.
ranked in the first position, in the rural two- Therefore, this study considers that all the
lane two-way trunk road reference identified and ranked hazardous sites (22
population, has a potential for reducing the of them in total) have been classified into
average crash frequency by 2.21 crashes three categories for further investigation
per year (i.e. around 14 % of total excess and treatment as per the rank of the
number of accidents in the study area). group, as shown in Table-6
Therefore, Segment 165 would be ranked
Table-6 Prioritization of group of dangerous
in the first position as compared to other
segments
segments according to the highest excess
Excess or PSI Proportion of
expected crash frequency. Ranked
per year segments
Cate- for
gory No. % No. % treatment
Similarly, segment 152 which took the Group
11.90 76 8 36.36 1
second place has a potential for reducing I
the average crash frequency by 2.07 Group
3 19 6 27.27 2
II
crashes per year (i.e. accounted around Group
0.76 5 8 36.36 3
for 13 % of total excess frequency of III
accidents in the study area). On the other Total 15.57 100 22 100.00
hand, if segment 162, which took the last
position (i.e. ranked in 22nd position), is
Group I - hazardous sites with a relatively
treated it has a potential reducing the
high excess expected number of accidents
average crash frequency by 0.003 crashes
than the average of that of all dangerous
per year. This is the reason why
road segments (which is 0.71 excess
prioritization of individual sites was made
values) are singled out as the most
within a reference population. In general,
dangerous road segments. This implies
the higher the position of the road section
that if only the top 8 hazardous sites (i.e.
in the list, the more hazardous it is
36.4 % of hazardous road section) are
compared to the other sections of the
treated, around 76 % of excess amount of
same group.
expected accidents can be reduced.
The researcher of this study has also Hence, they were ranked in to the first
established the following criteria for further group and must be analyzed and
screening those most dangerous road subjected to special purpose inspections.
sections. Such sites would be considered having
indeed a higher potential of safety
 If PSIi ≥ (PSIavg1 = O.71), Group I improvement, after applying the required
(the most dangerous site) cost effective measures.

 If PSIavg2 ≤ PSIi < (PSIavg1), Group Group II - hazardous sites with a relatively
II (the moderate dangerous site) moderate excess value or those having
potential to reduce 0.26 up to 0.71 crash
 If PSIi < (PSIavg2 = 0.26), Group III per year are grouped into second
(the least dangerous site) category. Accordingly, out of 22

16
dangerous segments the 6 segments were
included in this group. The total excess
value of these segments accounted for
around 19 % of total excess expected
crash frequency of hazardous sites. This
implies that by improving 6 (i.e. ranked
from 9th to 14th) hazardous sites (i.e. 27.3
% of hazardous road section), around 19
% of excess amount of expected can be
reduced.
around 5 % of excess amount of expected
can be reduced.
Therefore, those sites higher on the list
are considered most likely to benefit from
countermeasures intended to reduce
crash frequency. Further study of these
sites will indicate what kinds of
improvements are likely to be most
effective.

Group III - hazardous sites with a F. Counter measures

relatively least excess value or those
The counter measure selection has also
having potential to reduce less than 0.26
been made by evaluating the potential for
crash per year are grouped into third
safety improvement if appropriate counter
category. Accordingly, out of 22
measures are applied. Counter measures
dangerous segments 8 segments were
were provided for the top seven black
included in this group. The total excess
segments. They have been targeted a
value of these segments accounted for
particular crash type or contributing
around 5 % of total excess expected crash
factors. Typically, simple and inexpensive
frequency of black sites. This implies that
solutions were considered in this study as
by improving the last 8 hazardous sites
shown in Table-7
(i.e. 36.4 % of hazardous road section),

Table-7 Major contributing factors of accidents and proposed countermeasures

Segment

Accidents saved after

Rank

counter measures
applied per year Crash contributing road and
No. % traffic factors
high number of non-motorized
traffic due to village
settlement, sharp curve after
long tangent, inappropriate
coordination of horizontal and
vertical curves, and two
access points located inside
and outside of the curve (L ≤
165 2.2 14.2 1 50 m)
high number of non-motorized
traffic due to village
settlement, 4 HC per segment,
narrow culver, sharp HC,
inappropriate coordination of
horizontal and vertical curves,
152 2.1 13.3 2 and high access points
high number of non-motorized
traffic due to village
settlement, lane and shoulder
width, high access points,
grade and number of VC per
151 2.1 13.3 3 segment
narrow bridge and approach
road, rolling terrain, and minor
149 1.6 10.4 4 junction inside the horizontal
Proposed counter measures
warning sign with recommended
speed, text on road surface &
pedestrian crossing, construction
of painted guardrails at curves,
rumble strips to reduce speed,
safety poles, increasing shoulder
width, flattering side slope
warning sign with recommended
speed, special marking of road
edge, text on road surface &
pedestrian crossing, removal of
side obstacles
warning sign with recommended
speed, special marking of road
edge, text on road surface
& pedestrian crossing, increasing
shoulder width
Warning sign with recommended
speed, special marking of road
edge

17
 curve were observed along
segment
long tangent and rolling Warning sign with recommended
terrain, high number of non- speed, rumble strips to reduce
motorized traffic due to village speed, text on road surface &
164 1.2 7.6 5 settlement pedestrian crossing
narrow culver, three horizontal warning sign with recommended
curves within a segment, sight speed, special marking of road
distance problem due to road edge, removal of side obstacles
side obstacles and
inappropriate combination of
154 1.1 7.2 6 horizontal & vertical curves
high number of non-motorized warning sign with recommended
traffic due to village speed, text on road surface &
settlement, sharp curve after pedestrian crossing, rumble
long tangent, inappropriate strips to reduce speed,
coordination of horizontal and
148 0.9 5.7 7 vertical curves
142 0.75 4.8 8

V. Conclusions VI. Acknowledgements

Based on the selected method out of 43
segments 22 segments were singled out
as dangerous road segments and ranked
based on their excess number of expected
accidents. Out of 22 ranked dangerous
segments 8 road segments contributed
76% of total excess expected accidents
and therefore, identified as the most
dangerous segments.
The study also identified major
contributing road and traffic factors for the
most dangerous segments such as sharp
horizontal curves after a long tangent,
numbers of horizontal and vertical curves
per 1.5 km road segment, poor
coordination of horizontal and vertical
alignments, grade of the road, lane and/or
shoulder width, and high number of non-
motorized traffic due to village settlement.
Therefore, it concludes the need for
implementation of cost effective counter
measures at a place where road elements
deficiencies and traffic factors were
identified along the study area of
dangerous road segments.
The author would like to acknowledge the
Ethiopian Road Authority for giving me this
opportunity. I also extend my appreciation
for the generous support provided by
Hawassa University Institute of
Technology Scientific Director Dr. Moltot
Zewdie. I also like to thank Mr. Edilu
Shona and Mr. Shambel Demissie for their
cross assistance and valuable comments
through reading the draft manuscript of
this paper.
VII. References
[1] American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASSHTO):
Highway Safety Manual -1st Edition,
(2009).
[2] Berhanu, G, Effects of Road and Traffic
Factors on Road Safety in Ethiopia,
Dr.Ing. Thesis. Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trodhium,
Norway, 2000.
[3] Carlin, B. P. & Louis, T. A. 1997. Bayes
and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data
Analysis. Statistics and Computing, 7,
153-154.

18
[4] Cheng, W. & Washington, S. P. 2005
Experimental evaluation of hotspot
identification methods. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 37, 870-881.
[5] Directive 2008/96/Ec of The European
Parliament and of the Council of 19
November 2008 on road infrastructure
safety management.
[6] Elvik, R. (2008). The predictive validity
of empirical Bayes estimates of road
safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
[7] Hauer, E. 1986. On the Estimation of
the expected Number of Accidents.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 18, 1-12.
[8] Hauer, E. 1992. Empirical Bayes
Approach to the Estimation of Unsafely -
The multivariate Regression Method.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 24, 457-
477.
[9] Hauer, E. Observational Before–After
Studies in Road Safety. Pergamon
Publications, London, 1997
[10] Hauer, E., D. W. Harwood, F. M.
Council, and M. S. Griffith. Estimating
Safety by the Empirical Bayes Method: A
Tutorial. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Research Board,
No. 1784, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp.
126–131.
[11] Hauer, E., Persaud, B. N., Smiley, A.
& Duncan, D. 1991b. Estimating the
accident potential of an Ontario driver.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 23, 133-
152.
[12] McGuigan, D.R.D. (1981) The use of
relationship between road accident and
traffic flow in black-spot identification,
Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol.22,
No.8, 448-453.
19
[13] Persaud, B., Lyon, G., and Nguyen, T.
(1999) Empirical Bayes procedure for
ranking sites for safety investigation by
potential for safety improvement.
Transportation Research Record 1665, 7-
12.
[14] PIARC (2003). Road Safety Manual.
World Roads Association.
[15] Saccomanno, F.F., Grossi, R., Greco,
D., and Mehmood, A. (2001) Identifying
black spots along highway SS107 in
Southern Italy using two models, Journal
of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 6, 551-
521.
[16] Segni, G, Causes of Road Traffic
Accidents and Possible Counter Measures
on Addis Ababa – Shashemene Road,
Master’s Thesis. Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007
[17] Stokes, R.W. and Mutabazi, M.I.
(1996) Rate-quality controls method of
identifying hazardous road locations,
Transport Research Record, Vol.1542, 44-
48.
[18] TRL, Ross Silcock Partnership, Study
Report for a Sectoral Road Safety
Programme in Ethiopia. Volume l,
Transport Research Laboratory, Addis
Ababa 2001.
[19] TUNARU, R. 2002. Hierarchical
Bayesian Models for Multiple Count Data.
Austrian Journal of Statistics, 31, 221-229.
[20] United Nation Economic Commission
for Africa, Case Study Report on Road
Safety in Ethiopia, 2009
[21] S.-P. Miaou, Measuring the
goodness-of-fit of accident prediction
models, FHWA-RD-96-040, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C,
1996.
[22] S. Dissanayeke, I. Ratnayake,
Statistical modeling of crash frequency on
rural freeways and two-lane highways
using negative binomial distribution,
Advance in Transportation Studies an
International Journal (2006)8 Section B 9.
[23] Maher, M.J. and Mountain, L.J.
(1988). The identification of accident black
spots: A comparison of current methods,
20
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 20,
No. 2.
[24] Global Status Report on Road Safety
Time for Action Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2009
(www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/r
oadsafety/2009).