On the commonly accepted assumptions regarding observed motor vehicle crash counts at transport system locations

Readily accepted knowledge regarding crash causation is consistently omitted from efforts to model and subsequently understand motor vehicle crash occurrence and their contributing factors. For instance, distracted and impaired driving accounts for a significant proportion of crash occurrence, yet is rarely modeled explicitly. In addition, spatially allocated influences such as local law enforcement efforts, proximity to bars and schools, and roadside chronic distractions (advertising, pedestrians, etc.) play a role in contributing to crash occurrence and yet are routinely absent from crash models. By and large, these well-established omitted effects are simply assumed to contribute to model error, with predominant focus on modeling the engineering and operational effects of transportation facilities (e.g. AADT, number of lanes, speed limits, width of lanes, etc.) The typical analytical approach—with a variety of statistical enhancements—has been to model crashes that occur at system locations as negative binomial (NB) distributed events that arise from a singular, underlying crash generating process. These models and their statistical kin dominate the literature; however, it is argued in this paper that these models fail to capture the underlying complexity of motor vehicle crash causes, and thus thwart deeper insights regarding crash causation and prevention. This paper first describes hypothetical scenarios that collectively illustrate why current models mislead highway safety researchers and engineers. It is argued that current model shortcomings are significant, and will lead to poor decision-making. Exploiting our current state of knowledge of crash causation, crash counts are postulated to arise from three processes: observed network features, unobserved spatial effects, and ‘apparent’ random influences that reflect largely behavioral influences of drivers. It is argued; furthermore, that these three processes in theory can be modeled separately to gain deeper insight into crash causes, and that the model represents a more realistic depiction of reality than the state of practice NB regression. An admittedly imperfect empirical model that mixes three independent crash occurrence processes is shown to outperform the classical NB model. The questioning of current modeling assumptions and implications of the latent mixture model to current practice are the most important contributions of this paper, with an initial but rather vulnerable attempt to model the latent mixtures as a secondary contribution.