View
220
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Reducing Roadway Crashes: GIS-Based Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Selective Law Enforcement
Dr. Andrew Graettinger, Jenna SimandlDr. Randy Smith, Tim Barnett
2
Introduction
• According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2012:– Speeding: 30% of fatal crashes• Cost to society = 40.4$ billion
– Driving under the influence: 31% of fatalities
while– Seat belt usage saved an estimated
12,174 lives
3
Alabama Crash Facts
• In 2011: 814 fatal crashes, killing 899 people– Speeding:
27% of fatal crashes
– DUI: 27% of fatal crashes
– Lack of seat belt usage in 42% of the crashes
DUI
Failed
to Y
ield R
ight
of W
ay
Failur
e to H
eed S
ign/
Signa
l/Offi
cer
Wro
ng S
ide o
f Roa
d
Impr
oper
Lane C
hang
e/Use
Swerved
to A
void
Veh
icle/O
bjec
t
Tailga
ting
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percentage of Fatal Crashes per Specific Driver Contributing Cir-
cumstance
Per
cent
age
4
Introduction
• Selective Law Enforcement Campaigns: intensify law enforcement at high crash locations– Attempt to change negative driver
behaviors that contribute to most severe crashes
Alabama Selective Enforcement Campaign
• Collaborative effort: Department of Public Safety and DOT
• Troopers worked extra-duty shifts• Selective Enforcement data (SE data)
is documented in invoices and timesheets– One year analysis from available data– August 1, 2010 through July 31, 2011
Date Worked Trooper Hours Salary Per Diem Miles Initiative Troop Post5
6
Data Sources• The Center for Advanced Public Safety
(CAPS) at The University of Alabama• Research center Developed software
for:– Data collection– Data storage– Research platforms and dashboards for
statistical analysis
• Used by law enforcement, traffic engineers, and other disciplines of business
7
Mobile Officers’ Virtual Environment (MOVE)
• Designed to enable officers to use laptops in their cars for automated data entry
• 80,000 Electronic Citations (eCitations) per month–No structured location information
required
• 10,000 Electronic Crash (eCrash) reports per month
8
Mobile Officers’ Virtual Environment (MOVE)
• State trooper vehicle location is polled every 30 seconds (GPS trace data)
• eCite and GPS trace data stored in relational databases– Structured Query Language (SQL)
• eCrash data stored in the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE)– Research Dashboard
Project Overview
9
Verify Selective Enforcement Locations
Integrate eCrashes
Geolocate eCitations
Integrate officer location GPS trace data
Evaluate citation and crash trends before and during selective enforcement
10
Geolocating eCitations• eCitations do not require GPS data
or structured location information• eCitations do have a timestamp– Temporal Join: Join eCitations to officer
trace GPS point based on closest timestamp
1 2 3
*Fictitious data
Map of officer activities
11
Processing eCitation and GPS trace data
• Query citations and GPS trace data for the participating officers and Aug. ’10 – July ‘11– 475,214 eCitations– 37.6 million GPS points
• Big Data! Leverage SQL
12
Geolocating eCitations SQL QueryJoin on UserID = UserID and select smallest DATEDIFF() within 600 secs
141646
> 600
13
Geolocating eCitations• Temporal join was accepted if time
difference was within 600 seconds (10 minutes)– 68.6% of eCitations were successfully
geolocated
• 49 of the officers in the year dataset did not have any GPS trace data– Early years of GPS trace data implementation– Excluding those officers, 72.6% of eCitations
were successfully geolocated within 600 seconds• 95% of those within 30 seconds
14
Selective Enforcement Work
UserID, TimestampLatitude & Longitude
Trooper NameUserID
Date WorkedHours WorkedDifference between
Successive GPS Points
Date, Shift Start & Shift EndShift Length (Hours Worked)
Identify when the difference was greater than 6 hours: indicates end of shift.
Calculate time between GPS Points
GPS Data: Selective Enforcement
Data:
15
SELECT [UserID] ,[Latitude] ,[Longitude] ,[GPSTimeUTC] ,LEAD([GPSTimeUTC], 1, NULL) OVER (PARTITION BY [UserID] ORDER BY [GPSTimeUTC] ASC) AS [NextTime] ,DATEDIFF(second, [GPSTimeUTC], LEAD([GPSTimeUTC], 1, NULL) OVER (PARTITION BY [UserID] ORDER BY [GPSTimeUTC] ASC)) AS DifferenceFROM [AURA].[dbo].[JSGpsCoordsToGpsGroupToUsers]
Calculating Diff. Between GPS Points
SQL Query: LEAD Function
UserID Latitude Longitude GPSTimeUTCA x y 7/1/09 2:33:58A x y 7/1/09 2:34:28A x y 7/1/09 2:34:58A x y 7/6/09 6:20:03A x Y 7/6/09 6:20:33B x y 7/3/09 9:32:47
NextTime7/1/09 2:34:287/1/09 2:34:587/6/09 6:20:037/6/09 6:20:33NULL
Diff303044550530NULL
GPS Trace Data in GIS
• GPS points on selective enforcement shift days:
2.98 million points• “Selective
Enforcement Overtime” points:
1.65 million points16
17
Hotspot Analysis
• Traditional Hotspot Analysis (HSA): Euclidean distance– Potentially useful tools in GIS
• Hotspot Analysis (HSA) along the roadway network
• Desirable to utilize SQL– Summation and Grouping Technique• Effectively HSA
– First: join GPS data to Route-Milepost information in GIS
18
SQL Hotspot Analysis
• Centered the analysis on a particular MP: LEAD and LAG functions
• 3 different HS indicators: 1/10 mile, ½ mile, 1 mile
• Completed in 2.5 hours
Route MP Number of Events
A 3.0 0A 3.1 49A 3.2 1A 3.3 6A 3.4 0A 3.5 430A 3.6 645A 3.7 61A 3.8 5A 3.9 1A 4.0 0A 4.1 0A 4.2 0A 4.3 8
Sum
486
1131
1192
1197
1198
1198
1198
1149
1156
1150
1150
720
75
14
Verifying Selective Enforcement Locations
• Import SQL HSA results into GIS• Classify using Natural Breaks
Symbology– Lowest value from the largest class as the
limit
• One Mile Bucket was chosen at the indicator
19
Half-Mile Bucket (Sum ≥ 1887) One-Mile Bucket (Sum ≥ 2885)
20
21 Located Selective Enforcement Locations
• 26 locations investigated in GIS with aerial imagery and Google Maps Street View– Refined to 21
locations
• 10 urban locations• 11 rural locations
21
Crash Frequency and Citation Counts at Selective Enforcement
Locations• eCrash data exported to GIS from
CARE– One year before and one year during
selective enforcement
• Crash frequency recorded for each location
• eCitation count recorded for each location– Select by attribute: only Speed, DUI, or
seat belt related citations
22
Including Crash Severity
• Equivalent C injury level crashes recorded (severity indicator) as well
KABCO Letter Injury Severity Level
Equivalent C Level Crashes
K Fatal Injury 5 C injuriesA Incapacitating Injury (visible/carried from the scene) 3 C injuriesB Non-incapacitating Injury (bruises/abrasion/swelling) 2 C injuriesC Possible Injury (minor/pain/fainting) 1 C injuriesO Property Damage Only 0 C injuries
23
Crashes Citations Equivalent C Level Crashes
Location One Year Before
One Year During
Percent Change
One Year Before
One Year During
Percent Change
One Year Before
One Year During
7 2 0 -100.00% 93 153 64.52% 0 08 2 0 -100.00% 31 23 -25.81% 0 0
12 33 19 -42.42% 1512 963 -36.31% 27 521 22 14 -36.36% 91 257 182.42% 10 1411 10 7 -30.00% 180 180 0.00% 6 419 17 14 -17.65% 75 505 573.33% 5 1110 24 20 -16.67% 268 1133 322.76% 0 95 15 13 -13.33% 4 41 925.00% 8 1
13 16 14 -12.50% 916 511 -44.21% 8 99 16 15 -6.25% 33 698 2015.15% 4 4
15 16 15 -6.25% 214 826 285.98% 10 103 22 22 0.00% 886 1243 40.29% 11 8
16 2 2 0.00% 33 46 39.39% 6 220 9 9 0.00% 144 343 138.19% 2 21 13 15 15.38% 311 223 -28.30% 7 74 43 50 16.28% 35 170 385.71% 21 156 7 9 28.57% 371 365 -1.62% 1 1
18 13 19 46.15% 229 568 148.03% 7 92 19 30 57.89% 140 161 15.00% 7 11
17 3 5 66.67% 27 91 237.04% 0 014 13 34 161.54% 868 1599 84.22% 8 10
Paired Difference t-test Results:21 SE Locations
Difference between Before and During SE P-value Conclusion
Number of Crashes 0.390
85% confident that selective enforcement did decrease crashes when urban and rural were separated.
Number of Citations 0.01898% confident that the number of issued citations increased (α = 0.02)
Number of Equivalent C Crashes 0.287
Beginning to see trends in effectiveness of selective enforcement
24
25
Selective Enforcement Recommendations
• Define the scope and intent of the SE campaign
• Identify high-crash locations eligible for SE
• Plan timing and logistics• Organize community outreach and media
publicity• Train participating officers for
implementation• Document SE activities
26
Identify high-crash locations for selective enforcement
• Use three years of crash data
• 2012-2014 crash dataset in CARE
• Hotspot indicators: Minimum # of crashes in 5 miles
• Additional considerations: severity, shoulder width, number of lanes
75 in 5m 50 in 5m
27
Plan timing and logistics
• Crash frequency analysis for all locations for months– 3 waves in a year campaign is suggested
• March, July, and December
– Can subsidized overtime for the year• Increase especially during the 3 identified months
• Crash frequency analysis at each location for time of day– Example: Location A should have increased
selective enforcement patrol during 7-8 AM, 3-4 PM, and 10-11 PM
28
Community Outreach and Media Publicity
• Initial Press Conference
• Public Service Announcements
• Billboards• Paper
Advertisements (brochures, posters, etc.)
Linesof
Communication
Representative from DOT (i.e. traffic safety engineer)
Representative from Troopers
Representative from local Mayor’s office
29
Train Officers on Implementation
• New and existing equipment– From simple radar to new mapping tools
• Where: Understand locations to patrol–Nearby posts patrol surrounding areas for
increased productivity
• When: Organize schedules – for overtime during peak times of day,
and – over three intense waves in respective
months of the year
30
Documentation of Selective Enforcement Activities
• Selective Enforcement Data: – document specific location of increased
patrol; – start and end times of the shift
• eCitations: – populate GPS coordinates; – potentially program as a validation step
• GPS data: – Functioning GPS in each vehicle– On when working, otherwise turned off
31
Conclusion• Geolocated 72.6% of eCitations; 95% of which
were within approximately 30 feet• Dealing with big data– Making use of GPS data– Leveraging relational databases with SQL
• Located 21 selective enforcement locations• 85% confident that crashes were reduced in both
urban and rural locations, analyzed separately• Severity of crashes is trending down, locations
analyzed collectively• Up to 99% confident that the number of issued
citations increased• Techniques exist to improve the effectiveness of
selective enforcement
32
Selective Enforcement Works
33
References• US Speeding Fact: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812021.pdf• US DUI Fact: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811870.pdf• US Seatbelt Fact: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811851.pdf• AL Crash Facts: Center for Advanced Public Safety. (2011). 2011 Alabama traffic
crash facts. Alabama Department of Transportation. Retrieved February 22, 2015• Introduction Pictures:
– http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157763/Drivers-fined-flashing-headlights-warn-oncoming-cars-police-speed-trap.html
– http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=737637– http://www.thejournal.ie/what-county-is-the-worst-offender-for-not-wearing-
seatbelts-1361152-Mar2014/• KABCO Injury scale: Federal Highway Administration. (2011). Highway Safety
Improvement Program Manual; Chapter 4.0: Planning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved May 28, 2015
• Literature used for recommendation campaign:– Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2007). Guidelines for
Developing a High-Visibility Enforcement Campaign to Reduce Unsafe Driving Behaviors among Drivers of Passenger and Commercial Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
– National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2008). Speed Enforcement Program Requirements. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
Recommended