| 1. |
- Ljung Aust, Mikael, 1973, et al.
(author)
-
Fatal intersection crashes in Norway: Patterns in Contributing Factors and Data Collection Challenges
- 2012
-
In: Accident Analysis and Prevention. - : Elsevier BV. - 0001-4575. ; 45, s. 782-791
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Fatal motor vehicle intersection crashes occurring in Norway in the years 2005–2007 were analyzed to identify causation patterns among their underlying contributing factors, and also to assess if the data collection and documentation procedures used by the Norwegian in-depth investigation teams produces the information necessary to do causation pattern analysis. 28 fatal accidents were analyzed. Causation charts of contributing factors were first coded for each driver in each crash using the Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method (DREAM). Next, the charts were aggregated based on a combination of conflict types and whether the driver was going straight or turning. Analysis results indicate that drivers who were performing a turning maneuver in these crashes faced perception difficulties and unexpected behavior from the primary conflict vehicle, while at the same time trying to negotiate a demanding traffic situation. Drivers who were going straight on the other hand had less perception difficulties but largely expect anyturning drivers to yield, which led to either slow reaction or no reaction at all. In terms of common contributing factors, those often pointed to in literature as contributing to fatal crashes, e.g. high speed, drugs and/or alcohol and inadequate driver training, contributed in 12 of 28 accidents. This confirmstheir prevalence, but also shows that most drivers end up in these situations due to combinations of less auspicious contributing factors. In terms of data collection and documentation, there was an asymmetry in terms of reported obstructions to view due to signposts and vegetation. These were frequently reported as contributing for turning drivers, but rarely reported as contributing for their counterparts in the same crashes. This probably reflects an involuntary focus of the analyst on identifying contributing factors for the driver held legally liable, while less attention is paid to the driver judged not at fault. Since who toblame often is irrelevant from a countermeasure development point of view, this underlying investigator approach needs to be addressed to avoid future bias in crash investigation reports.
|
|
