The Georgia study includes a subjective analysis by which each individual crash is evaluated by qualified traffic engineering experts in an effort to determine feasibility and/or effectiveness of the application of a countermeasure for a specific crash. This countermeasure evaluation departs from a common countermeasure evaluation method where a crash type is paired with feasible countermeasures. By evaluating the individual countermeasures at a microscopic level, the research team hopes to identify realistic countermeasure applications. For example, often a run-off-road crash may end when the errant vehicle impacts a tree adjacent to the roadside. The countermeasure suggested for this type of crash would be to remove the obstacle (in this case the tree) and widen the clear zone. Clearly improving the clear zone is a good candidate countermeasure. If the individual crash is evaluated, however, the reviewer may determine that an impaired driver exited the road after crossing an opposing lane (somehow managing to avoid a head-on collision) and then traversed a considerable distance well beyond a reasonable clear zone before impacting the tree. In this example, it is probable that no countermeasure would have prevented the crash.
Countermeasure Handbook Prepared for the Georgia 1997 Fatal Crash Study
1997
80 pages
Report
No indication
English
Transportation , Transportation & Traffic Planning , Transportation Safety , Highway Engineering , Fatality prevention , Accident reduction , Traffic engineering , Georgia , Roads , Fatalities , Accident prevention , Accident analysis , Law enforcement , Legislation , Traffic safety , Motor vehicle accidents , Pavement markings , Traffic signs , Roadside maintenance , Handbooks
Critical Success Factors for Crash Avoidance Countermeasure Implementation
British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
|Critical success factors for crash avoidance countermeasure implementations
Automotive engineering | 1994
|