Comparing distance and time as driving exposure measures to evaluate fatal crash risk ratios.
Age category
American Time Use Survey
Driving exposure
Gender
Time-of-crash
Journal
Accident; analysis and prevention
ISSN: 1879-2057
Titre abrégé: Accid Anal Prev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 1254476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
03
01
2020
revised:
22
04
2020
accepted:
25
04
2020
pubmed:
18
5
2020
medline:
30
9
2020
entrez:
18
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
OBJECTIVE
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32417357
pii: S0001-4575(20)30020-8
doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105576
pmc: PMC7403895
mid: NIHMS1594799
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105576Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG050581
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R01 HD074594
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Références
Accid Anal Prev. 2000 Sep;32(5):633-42
pubmed: 10908135
Accid Anal Prev. 2002 Jan;34(1):13-8
pubmed: 11789571
Am J Public Health. 1989 Oct;79(10):1392-5
pubmed: 2782510
Accid Anal Prev. 1991 Apr-Jun;23(2-3):183-8
pubmed: 2029319
Inj Prev. 2015 Apr;21(e1):e23-7
pubmed: 24525908
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016 Oct;13(10):1726-1735
pubmed: 27464304
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50606
pubmed: 23227191
Accid Anal Prev. 1993 Apr;25(2):207-11
pubmed: 8471119
Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Mar;42(2):689-94
pubmed: 20159095
Accid Anal Prev. 2006 May;38(3):574-8
pubmed: 16426560
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 27;16:647
pubmed: 27460366
Accid Anal Prev. 1995 Feb;27(1):73-87
pubmed: 7718080
Accid Anal Prev. 2014 Apr;65:1-7
pubmed: 24384384
Traffic Inj Prev. 2016 May 18;17(4):346-51
pubmed: 26376230
Accid Anal Prev. 1992 Dec;24(6):679-84
pubmed: 1388587
J Adolesc Health. 2014 Sep;55(3):452-4
pubmed: 25151055
Traffic Inj Prev. 2019;20(6):641-647
pubmed: 31283363
Accid Anal Prev. 2008 Nov;40(6):1996-9
pubmed: 19068306
Accid Anal Prev. 1995 Jun;27(3):371-89
pubmed: 7639921
Inj Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;1(1):25
pubmed: 27747659