Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

Risk factors associated with truck-involved fatal crash severity:

Analyzing their impact for different groups of truck drivers
Yalong Yuan a,b,c, Min Yang a,b,⇑, Yanyong Guo a, Soora Rasouli c, Zuoxian Gan d, Yifeng Ren a
a
School of Transportation, Southeast University, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban ITS, Southeast University, Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Center of Modern Urban
Traffic Technologies, Southeast University, PR China
b
School of Transportation, Southeast University, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban ITS, Southeast University, Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Center of Modern Urban
Traffic Technologies, Southeast University, 2 Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, PR China
c
Urban Planning Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
d
School of Transportation, Dalian Maritime University, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: Fatal crashes that include at least one fatality of an occupant within 30 days of the crash
Received 2 May 2020 cause large numbers of injured persons and property losses, especially when a truck is involved.
Received in revised form 21 July 2020 Method: To better understand the underlying effects of truck-driver-related characteristics in fatal
Accepted 15 December 2020
crashes, a five-year (from 2012 to 2016) dataset from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Available online 31 December 2020
was used for analysis. Based on demographic attributes, driving violation behavior, crash histories, and
conviction records of truck drivers, a latent class clustering analysis was applied to classify truck drivers
Keywords:
into three groups, namely, ‘‘middle-aged and elderly drivers with low risk of driving violations and high
Truck-involved fatal crash
Risk factors
historical crash records,” ‘‘drivers with high risk of driving violations and high historical crash records,”
Crash severity and ‘‘middle-aged drivers with no driving violations and conviction records.” Next, equivalent fatalities
Latent class clustering were used to scale fatal crash severities into three levels. Subsequently, a partial proportional odds
Partial proportional odds model (PPO) model for each driver group was developed to identify the risk factors associated with the crash
severity. Results’ Conclusions: The model estimation results showed that the risk factors, as well as their
impacts on different driver groups, were different. Adverse weather conditions, rural areas, curved align-
ments, tractor-trailer units, heavier weights and various collision manners were significantly associated
with the crash severities in all driver groups, whereas driving violation behaviors such as driving under
the influence of alcohol or drugs, fatigue, or carelessness were significantly associated with the high-risk
group only, and fewer risk factors and minor marginal effects were identified for the low-risk groups.
Practical Applications: Corresponding countermeasures for specific truck driver groups are proposed.
And drivers with high risk of driving violations and high historical crash records should be more
concerned.
Ó 2020 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Trucks (vehicles with a gross weight rating greater than 10,000
pounds) are a vital component of freight logistics and economic
well-being. However, they are overrepresented in terms of both
fatal crash frequency and serious property damage compared with
passenger cars (Uddin & Huynh, 2017; Yuan et al., 2019; Zaloshnja
& Miller, 2004). In the United States between 2012 and 2016, an
average of 3,591 fatal crashes involved large trucks, leading to an
annual average of 4,049 people killed (NIOSH, 2016). Furthermore,
the number of truck-involved fatal crashes will likely increase as
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yangmin@seu.edu.cn (M. Yang).
the cargo demand and truck volume increase (Dong, Richards,
Huang, & Jiang, 2015). Therefore, research is urgently needed to
analyze and understand truck-involved fatal crashes as corre-
sponding safety countermeasures should be developed.
For fatal crashes involving trucks, previous studies have mainly
focused on driver fatalities (Brodie, Lyndal, & Elias, 2009;
Häkkänen & Summala, 2001; Lombardi, Horrey, & Courtney,
2017; Weaver & Bédard, 2013). However, Slovic, Lichtenstein,
and Fischhoff (1984) indicated that the social impact of fatal acci-
dents cannot be accurately measured by only considering the fatal-
ities, and the detailed characteristics of casualties should be
analyzed comprehensively. In addition, Zhu and Srinivasan
(2011) indicated that heterogeneity occurs in crashes with the
same injury severity, such as fatal accidents. Moreover, drivers,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.12.012
0022-4375/Ó 2020 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al.
as the operators of trucks, have an important responsibility in the
context of crashes and the safety of other occupants involved in the
accidents. Studies have indicated that 90% of crashes can be attrib-
uted mainly to drivers (NHTSA, 2010). Therefore, it is necessary to
study the roles of the relevant characteristics of drivers involved in
crashes in detail. Previous studies have mainly classified drivers
into male or female, young or old, and novice or experienced
groups according to a single attribute, such as the driver’s sex,
age, or driving experience (Kim, Ulfarsson, Kim, & Shankar, 2012;
Lombardi et al., 2017; Morgan & Mannering, 2011; Yuan et al.,
2019a,b). However, truck drivers are agents with many attributes,
such as specific demographics, driving habits, crash histories, and
conviction records. A single attribute, such as age or gender, is
not sufficient as a proxy for different driver types, and this
approach may result in an incomplete or biased evaluation of dri-
vers due to the heterogeneity that exists among different age or
gender groups. For example, one study found that young drivers
were more likely to be involved in crashes than middle-aged dri-
vers (Massie, 1995), but a certain proportion of young drivers
demonstrated good driving habits and maintenance of a low crash
involvement rate. To minimize the heterogeneity among different
driver groups, it is necessary to comprehensively consider driver-
related characteristics. We can also speculate about who is a dan-
gerous or safe driver based on more detailed profiles of different
diver groups. Moreover, implementing corresponding countermea-
sures for specific driver groups is of great significance for safety
managers.
The objective of this study was to identify various risk factors
associated with fatal crash severities and to analyze their impact
on different truck driver groups by incorporating a comprehensive
list of variables to classify the drivers. The remainder of the paper
is organized as follows. First, a literature review is presented. Sec-
ond, data collection and the classification of truck drivers are per-
formed. Subsequently, the methodology, which focuses on a partial
proportional odds (PPO) model, is introduced. Next, the model
results are provided and analyzed. Finally, the discussion is pre-
sented, and conclusions are drawn.
2. Literature review
Truck-involved crash analysis has attracted worldwide atten-
tion (Brodie et al., 2009; Häkkänen & Summala, 2001; Lombardi
et al., 2017; Slovic et al., 1984; Weaver & Bédard, 2013). Previous
studies have mainly identified the key risk factors from driver-,
vehicle-, roadway-, environment-, and collision-related perspec-
tives (Chang & Mannering, 1999; Dong et al., 2013; Lemp,
Kockelman, & Unnikrishnan, 2011; Zhu & Srinivasan, 2011;
Chang & Chien, 2013; Yang, Guo, & Xu, 2019). Results have shown
that various risk factors, including driving behaviors, road loca-
tions, weather conditions, the manner of collisions, and the num-
ber of vehicles involved, are significantly related to crash severity
(Khorashadi, Niemeier, Shankar, & Mannering, 2005; Xie, Zhao, &
Huynh, 2012; Zhu & Srinivasan, 2011).
For roadway- and environment-related risk factors, previous
studies have found that crashes that occurred in different time
periods, area types, and roadway segments have distinct character-
istics. Notably, Khorashadi et al. (2005) studied differences in truck
driver injury severity in urban and rural areas. Uddin and Huynh
(2017) analyzed crash injury severity under different lighting con-
ditions in rural and urban areas. The results showed significant dif-
ferences in risk factors under different combinations of lighting
conditions and area types. Dong, Clarke, Richards, and Huang
(2014), Pahukula et al. (2014), Wei, Wang, and Zhang (2016), and
Osman, Paleti, Mishra, and Golias (2016) investigated the risk fac-
tors contributing to crash frequency and injury severity at intersec-
tions and work zones in different time periods. They found that the
155
Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165
facilities at intersections, traffic flows in different periods, and
lighting conditions in work zones were significantly related to
crash injury severity.
Regarding collision-related risk factors, some studies have indi-
cated that specific collision types, such as head-on, rear-end, and
sideswipe collisions, and the number of vehicles involved in a crash
have significant effects on the crash-based injury severity. Chen
and Chen (2011), Xie et al. (2012), and Islam, Jones, and Dye
(2014) studied the injury severity of drivers in single- and multive-
hicle crashes involving trucks. The results showed that risk factors,
such as driving under the influence of alcohol, use of safety belts,
weight and body type of trucks, and the curviness of roadway seg-
ments, have significantly different impacts on the injury severity in
single- and multi-vehicle crashes. Wang and Abdel-Aty (2008), Pai
and Saleh (2008), and Guo, Li, Liu, and Wu (2019) studied specific
manners of collision in crashes. The results indicated that the crash
characteristics for different collision manners, such as head-on,
sideswipe, and rear-head collisions, are significantly different and
that attention should be given to the manner of collision in the
context of crashes.
For vehicle-related risk factors, Chen and Chen (2011) found
that a single-unit truck is safer for drivers than non-single-unit
trucks in single-vehicle crashes, but single-unit trucks tend to
increase driver injury severity in multi-vehicle crashes. They also
found that truck tire defects are more dangerous than brake
defects in terms of driver safety. Kim et al. (2013) found that
new vehicles can reduce injury severity in single-vehicle crashes
for male drivers and that older drivers who drive older vehicles
tend to suffer more severe injuries. However, Khorashadi et al.
(2005) found that multiunit trucks and large tractors have higher
risks than single-unit large trucks due to the chance of experienc-
ing severe injuries in all types of crashes. Zhu and Srinivasan
(2011) indicated that tractor trailers transporting heavy cargo
can lead to high injury severity relative to that for single-unit
trucks hauling less heavy cargo. It should be noted that vehicle-
related characteristics influence driver injury severity differently
based on the overall crash level.
Among driver-related risk factors, the attributes of drivers,
including the relevant demographic information, driving behavior,
and history of conviction, have been studied in depth. Morgan and
Mannering (2011), Kim et al. (2012), and Lombardi et al. (2017)
studied the effects of age and sex on the injury severity of drivers,
and a comparative analysis was performed among different age
and gender groups of drivers. The results showed that the likeli-
hood of being involved in a fatal crash was higher for older drivers
than for other age groups. Geneviève et al. (2002), Li, Baker, Qiang,
Grabowski, and McCarthy (2005), Alver, Demirel, and Mutlu
(2014), and Das, Sun, Wang, and Leboeuf (2015) analyzed the
effects of driver histories, including traffic violations and crash
records, on risky driving behavior and the likelihood of being
involved in a future crash. They indicated that the crash records
of drivers can be better used to predict risky driving behavior than
the history of traffic violations, and a high traffic violation involve-
ment rate had a significant positive effect on risky driving behav-
ior. In addition, Mercer (1987), Bédard, Guyatt, Stones, and
Hirdes (2002), Behnood, Roshandeh, and Mannering (2014), and
Sullman, Stephens, and Pajo (2016) studied the effects of driving
violation behavior, such as drunk driving and wearing a seat belt,
on crash severity. The results showed that both driving drunk
and not wearing a seat belt can lead to serious driver injuries in
crashes.
In summary, previous studies have mainly focused on safety
analyses of nonfatal crashes, and there is also a lack of specific
studies on fatal crash severities, especially for truck-involved ones.
In addition, the multiple attributes of truck drivers such as viola-
tion behaviors and conviction records, which greatly affect driver
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al.
classification results, must be considered. To fill in these gaps, the
classification of truck drivers, considering driver-related multiple
attributes, and underlying effects of different driver groups on fatal
crash severities, are analyzed in this study.
3. Data preparation and the classification of truck drivers
3.1. Data preparation
In the present study, data on truck-involved fatal crashes from
2012 to 2016 were retrieved and pooled from the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) dataset (ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/fars/). The
FARS files contain records of fatal motor-vehicle crashes within the
United States and Puerto Rico, and each record includes at least one
fatality of a vehicle occupant or non-occupant within 30 days of
the crash. Because the risk factors associated with fatal crash
severity are the main interest of this paper, only crash records
including environment, roadway, vehicle, driver, and collision
characteristics of interest were extracted. At the truck driver level,
drivers’ age, gender, previous crash and traffic conviction histories,
and driving violation behaviors in the crash were considered in the
analysis. Ultimately, 15,506 valid records were obtained from the
original 17,955 total records. To facilitate the study of categorical
and nominal variables, environment-, roadway-, vehicle-,
collision-, and driver-related factors were transformed into binary
variables. The coding of each category is presented in Table 1,
which shows that the typical truck driver involved in a fatal crash
can be characterized as male (97.1%) and middle-aged (82.0%), a
lower proportions of drivers have an invalid license (3.5%) and vio-
lation behaviors such as fatigued (0.9%), drinking (2.4%), and care-
less (4.3%) driving, with relatively high proportions of history of
crashes (14.5%) and conviction records such as license suspension
(7.4%), speeding (23.6%), and other convictions (23.3%).
To accurately describe the casualty level of the overall number
of deaths and injured persons involved in fatal crashes, the equiv-
alent fatalities per accident is recommended to capture the equiv-
alent impact of an injury relative to a fatality (Dupont, Martensen,
Papadimitriou, & Yannis, 2010; Evans, 1994; Feng, Li, Ci, & Zhang,
2016; Hu, Li, & Lee, 2010). For equivalent fatalities in the FARS
dataset, the equivalency rule of the KABCO scale is implemented
as follows: 1 O-injury (no apparent injury), 1 C-injury (possible
injury), 1 B-injury (non-incapacitating injury), 1 A-injury (incapac-
itating injury), and 1 K-injury (killed) are equivalent to 0.0049,
0.0148, 0.0310, 0.1107, and 1 fatalities, respectively (Blincoe,
Miller, Zaloshnja, & Lawrence, 2014). Thus, the equivalent fatalities
of all persons involved in each accident can be calculated. The
cumulative frequency distributions of equivalent fatalities are
depicted in Fig. 1, which shows that a large difference occurs
among truck-involved fatal accidents. As shown in Fig. 1, the min-
imum, maximum, average, and standard deviation of the equiva-
lent fatalities are 1, 17.67, 1.22, and 0.96, respectively. And 85.9%
of accidents have equivalent fatalities that are less than two per-
sons, and only 5.5% of accidents have equivalent fatalities that
are more than three persons. Referring to the method used in sim-
ilar studies (Feng et al., 2016), we classified the crash severity into
three levels designated 1–3, with a higher severity level corre-
sponding to a more severe crash. Level 1 indicates less than two
equivalent fatalities (85.9%), level 2 indicates greater than two
but smaller than three equivalent fatalities (8.6%), and level 3 indi-
cates greater than three equivalent fatalities (5.5%).
3.2. The classification of drivers
A latent class clustering (LCC) was adopted to assign truck dri-
vers to several groups with different underlying probability distri-
156
Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165
butions by maximally internally homogeneous and externally
heterogeneous (Abenoza, Cats, & Susilo, 2017; Chang & Yeh,
2007; Feng et al., 2016; Guo & Fang, 2013; Moustaki &
Papageorgiou, 2005).
From the probabilistic perspective in LCC, every cluster has a
different underlying probability distribution from which its data
elements are generated (Depaire, Wets, & Vanhoof, 2008). When
the distribution functions are known, the problem of finding the
clusters reduces to a parameter estimation problem. Given a data
sample of N cases, measured with a set of observed variables
ðy1 ; y2 ;    ; ym Þ, the prior probability pðzÞ for cluster C z with
z ¼ 1; 2;    ; K and the conditional multivariate probability density
pðyj =C z ; hz Þ, where hz is the unknown parameter vector, and the
mixture probability density for the whole data set can be
expressed as in Eq. (1):
XK Y
m
pðY=hÞ ¼ z¼1
½pðC z Þ pðyj =C z ; hz Þ ð1Þ
j¼1
Following the maximum likelihood approach, the unknown
parameter vector is often estimated by means of the
expectation–maximization algorithm. After estimation of the
parameter vector h, the underlying statistical model assigns a set
of posterior probabilities pik belonging to cluster C k in each case i.
Compared with traditional clustering techniques, such as K-
means or hierarchical clustering algorithms, LCC is suitable for lar-
ger datasets without large memory demands, allowing the
researcher to include variables of different scales such as nominal,
continuous, and ordinal variables, in determining the number of
clusters based on several statistical criteria, such as the Akaike’s
information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion
(BIC) (Abenoza et al., 2017; Chang & Yeh, 2007; Feng et al., 2016;
Guo & Fang, 2013). In the present paper, all driver-related variables
mentioned in Table 1 are inputted into cluster analysis, and LCC is
fitted using Latent Gold software (v.4.5).
Table 2 shows indicators of fit for LCC with two through five
cluster solutions. According to the results obtained for the degrees
of freedom and p-values, cluster solutions with two groups had
significant test statistics (P < 0.001), suggesting that the latent
classes in these models may not adequately account for hetero-
geneity across individuals in the datasets. Smaller values of AIC,
BIC, and L2 were obtained for cluster solutions with three groups.
Considering the parsimony and stability of the results, the truck
drivers were partitioned into three groups. In addition, the entropy
criterion (Celeux & Soromenho, 1996) and silhouette coefficient
(Zhou & Gao, 2014) were adopted to evaluate the clustering quality
as in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3)–(5).
Pn Pk
z¼1 pik lnðpik Þ
IðkÞ ¼ 1  i¼1
ð2Þ
nlnð1=kÞ
where pik denotes the posterior probability that case i belongs to
cluster k and with the convention that pik lnðpik Þ = 0 if pik = 0.
1 Xn bðiÞ  aðiÞ
SðkÞ ¼ i¼1 max½aðiÞ; bðiÞ
ð3Þ
n
1 X
aðiÞ ¼ dði; jÞ ð4Þ
nc  1 i;j2C ;i–j
z
1 X
bðiÞ ¼ minp;p–c ½ dði; jÞ ð5Þ
np i2C z ;j2C p
where aðiÞ is the average distance between case i and all other cases
in its cluster C z , and bðiÞ is the minimum average distance between
case i and all cases in any other cluster C p not containing case i.
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al. Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165

Table 1
Statistical-descriptive analysis of truck-involved fatal crashes (N = 15,506).

Variable Categories Percentage Categories Percentage

Collision-related variables
Crash severity Level 1 85.9% Level 2 8.6%
Level 3 5.5%
Number of K-injuries 1 89.7% 2 8.1%
3 1.4% >3 0.8%
Number of A-injuries 0 82.1% 1 13.2%
2 3.0% >2 1.7%
Number of B injuries 0 76.6% 1 17.7%
2 4.1% >2 1.6%
Manner of collision Front-to-rear: 1, others: 0 19.9% Angle-front-to-side: 1, others: 0 16.1%
front-to-front: 1, others: 0 18.0%
Number of vehicles involved Multi vehicles: 1 84.7% Single vehicle: 0 15.3%
Environment-related variables
Atmospheric condition Clear: 0 84.2% Others (rain, cloudy, snow, etc.): 1 15.8%
Land use Rural: 1 66.6% Urban: 0 33.4%
Day of week Weekday: 0 84.5% Weekend: 1 15.5%
Time period Morning: 1, others: 0 36.0% Afternoon: 1, others: 0 41.0%
Evening: 1, others: 0 15.5% Night: 1, others: 0 7.5%
Season Spring: 1, others: 0 30.0% Summer: 1, others: 0 18.0%
Autumn: 1, others: 0 27.5% Winter: 1, others: 0 24.5%
Light condition Daytime: 1, others: 0 67.3% Dark-lighted: 1, others: 0 27.1%
Dark-not-lighted: 1, others: 0 4.8%
Road-related variables
Roadway alignment Straight: 0 83.4% Curve: 1 16.6%
Roadway grade Related variables: 0 72.9% Others (grade, uphill, etc.): 1 27.1%
Surface condition Dry: 0 86.6% Others (wet, ice, snow, etc.): 1 13.4%
Surface type Blacktop or asphalt: 0 86.6% Others (concrete, brick or stone): 1 13.4%
Speed limit 40 mile/h: 1, others: 0 11.7% 45–55 mile/h: 1, others: 0 48.8%
60–70 mile/h: 1, others: 0 36.6% >70 mile/h: 1, others: 0 2.9%
Number of lanes 2 lanes: 1 73.6% Others: 0 26.4%
Vehicle-related variables
Body type Truck-tractor: 1 64.4% Single unit truck: 0 35.6%
Truck weight 10,001–33,000 lbs: 0 26.5% 33,001 lbs. or more: 1 73.5%
Vehicle trailering No trailing units: 0 32.0% One or more trailing units: 1 68.0%
Vehicle age 5 years 43.7% >5 and  10 years 30.8%
>10 years 25.5%
Driver-related variables
Gender Male: 1 97.1% Female: 0 2.9%
Age 25 years: 1, others: 0 5.7% 25–65 years: 1, others: 0 82.0%
65 years: 1, others: 0 12.3%
License class compliance Valid: 1 96.5% Not valid: 0 3.5%
History of crashes Yes: 1 14.5% No: 0 85.7%
History of convictions Suspensions: 1, others: 0 7.4% Speeding: 1, others: 0 23.6%
DWI: 1, others: 0 0.6% Other convictions: 1, others: 0 23.3%
Driving behaviors Drowsy or fatigued: 1, others: 0 0.9% Under the influence of drugs:1 1.2%
Drinking driving yes: 1, no: 0 2.4% Careless: 1, others: 0 4.3%
Failure to keep in proper lane: 1, others: 0 6.2% Shoulder and lap belt used: 1, no:0 83.5%

Entropy varies between 0 and 1, and values over 0.90 denote a
clear cluster differentiation, as well as the interpretability of the
clusters. In addition, the value of silhouette coefficient ranges
between 1 and 1, and the values are closer to 1 indicating better
clustering results. In the dataset, the silhouette coefficient and
entropy criterion were 0.45 and 0.97, respectively, indicating a
good separation among the clusters. Furthermore, discriminant
analysis was also used to test the stability of the clustering results
(Abenoza et al., 2017), and the group membership results of cluster
analysis indicated that 94.5% of the cases were correctly classified,
indicating stable clustering results within three groups.
After estimation of the parameters, the posterior probabilities
of belonging to specific clusters to each case are calculated
according to the underlying statistical model in Latent Gold (de
Oña, López, Mujalli, & Calvo, 2013), and the case was assigned
to the cluster in which the probability was highest. As shown
in Table 3, each cluster corresponded to an underlying group of
truck drivers characterized by a particular pattern of demograph-
ics, conviction records, and violation behaviors. Cluster 1, cluster
2 and cluster 3 represent 32.8%, 35.6%, and 31.6% of the dataset,
respectively.
The truck drivers in cluster 1 were characterized by a high pro-
portion of male (99.8%), middle-aged (71%), and older (20.1%) dri-
vers. High proportion of drivers with crash (26.8%), speeding
(41.9%), and conviction (41.6%) histories were also observed. How-
ever, drivers in this cluster exhibited satisfactory driving behaviors,
and no traffic violations, such as drunk driving, driving under the
influence of drugs, or careless driving. In addition, the proportion
of level 3 crash severity was lower than in cluster 2 (3.8%). Accord-
ing to these characteristics, the first cluster was called ‘‘middle-
aged and elderly drivers with low risk of driving violations and
high historical crash records.”
The truck drivers in cluster 2 exhibited satisfactory driving
behaviors and no traffic violations, such as drunk driving, driving
under the influence of drugs, or careless driving. In addition, dri-
vers in this cluster were characterized by a higher proportion of
female (8%) and middle-aged (80%) drivers and a lower proportion
of having a valid license (90.3%) and using a seat belt (54%) than

157
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al. Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165

Fig. 1. Cumulative frequency distributions of equivalent fatalities.

Table 2
Indicators of fit of the models with two to five cluster solutions.

Number of clusters L2 df P-value BIC AIC

2 8,548.58 13,971.00 <0.001 112,511.43 102,511.89
3 4,134.47 13,953.00 0.09 109,269.17 100,269.99
4 4,817.81 13,935.00 0.12 109,424.36 103,424.78
5 5,078.73 13,917.00 0.11 109,757.13 105,757.51

Table 3
Results of the driver classification (N = 15,506).

Variable Categories Overall Sample Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

(N = 15,506) N = 5,086 N = 5,516 N = 4,904
Gender Male 97.1% 99.8% 92.0% 100.0%
Female 2.9% 0.1% 8.0% 0.0%
Age Young driver 5.7% 8.9% 7.8% 0.0%
Middle-aged driver 85.6% 71.0% 80.0% 97.8%
Older driver 11.6% 20.1% 12.1% 2.2%
License Valid = Yes 96.5% 99.9% 90.3% 100.0%
Restraint system Belt used = Yes 83.5% 100.0% 54.0% 100.0%
History of crashes Crashes = Yes 14.5% 26.8% 16.0% 0.0%
History of convictions Suspensions = Yes 7.4% 0.0% 20.7% 0.0%
Speeding = Yes 23.6% 41.9% 27.7% 0.0%
Driving while intoxicated = Yes 0.6% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0%
Others = Yes 23.3% 41.6% 27.1% 0.0%
Driver drowsy or fatigued Drowsy = Yes 1.0% 0.3% 2.3% 0.0%
Influence of drugs Drug = Yes 1.2% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0%
Driver careless/inattentive Careless = Yes 4.3% 0.0% 12.1% 0.0%
Driver drinking Yes 2.4% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0%
Failure to yield right-of-way Yes 3.4% 0.0% 9.4% 0.0%
Failure to keep in proper lane Yes 6.2% 0.0% 17.3% 0.0%
Crash severity Level 1 86.0% 90.8% 83.0% 94.8%
Level 2 8.5% 5.6% 6.2% 4.5%
Level 3 5.5% 3.8% 10.8% 0.7%

other clusters. Moreover, a higher proportion of crashes (16%),
driving with a suspended license (20.7%), and drunk driving
(1.8%) was apparent compared with the other groups. In addition,
a higher proportion of driving violation behaviors, such as drunk
driving (6.7%), driving under the influence of drugs (3.4%), careless
driving (12%), and failure to drive in the proper lane (17.3%), were
observed for this group. The proportion of level 3 crash severity
was the highest among all groups (10.81%). Therefore, the second
cluster was named ‘‘drivers with high risk of driving violations
and high historical crash records.”
The truck drivers in cluster 3 were characterized by a high
proportion of male (100%) and middle-aged (97.8%) drivers with
no history of traffic convictions or crash records. Moreover, these
drivers were associated with no driving violations in crashes.
The proportion of level 3 crash severity was the lowest among
all groups (0.7%). Therefore, the third cluster was called

158
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al. Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165

‘‘middle-aged drivers with no driving violations and conviction
records.”
4. Methodology
The partial proportional odds (PPO) model is recommended as
an effective alternative model for ordinal response data (Kaplan
& Prato, 2012; Peterson & Harrell, 1990; Wang & Abdel-Aty,
2008; Williams, 2006). By relaxing the proportional odds assump-
tion for some or all explanatory variables (Kaplan & Prato, 2012;
Mooradian, Ivan, Ravishanker, & Hu, 2013; Sasidharan &
Menéndez, 2014; Wang & Abdel-Aty, 2008), the PPO model can
obtain more correct and complete results than the ordered logit
(OL) model (Kaplan & Prato, 2012). For a more parsimonious and
easy-to-understand layout (Williams, 2006), a gamma parameter-
ization of the PPO model can be specified in terms of the probabil-
ity of the j-th injury severity for a given crash i as (Peterson &
Harrell, 1990):
0 0
exp½aj þ ðX i b þ T i cj Þ
PðY i > jÞ ¼ 0 0 where j
1 þ exp½aj þ ðX i b þ T i cj Þ
¼ 1; 2;    ; J  1 ð6Þ
where Yi denotes the discrete crash severity of a truck occupant in a
crash i; Xi is a p1 vector of explanatory variables; b is a p  1 vec-
tor of estimated parameters, which is the same for all values of
crash severity; T i is a q1 vector of explanatory variables that vio-
lates the proportional odds assumption (q  p); cj is a q  1 vector
of estimated parameters associated with a subset of variables T i ;
and aj is a cut-off point for the j-th cumulative logit. In this model,
each independent variable has one beta coefficient and J – 2 gamma
coefficients.
To obtain a tangible understanding of the strength and impor-
tance of the effect of explanatory variable on crash severities, the
marginal effect was adopted to accurately and tangibly understand
the probability change in crash severities when certain explanatory
variables were increased or decreased by 1% (Train, 2003). Xie et al.
(2012), Anarkooli and Hosseinlou (2015), and Uddin and Huynh
(2017) recommended that the direct-marginal effect and cross-
marginal effect of explanatory variables can be calculated by par-
tial derivatives of various explanatory variable in the crash severity
function, formulated as in Eqs. (7)–(8).
P
Direct EXijijk ¼ @Pij =@X ijk ¼ bk Pij ð1  Pij Þ ð7Þ
P
Cross EXim
ijk
¼ @Pim =@X ijk ¼ bk Pim P ij ð8Þ
distribution, with the null hypothesis is that there is no parameter
difference statistically between the full model and separate model.
The second log likelihood ratio test for transferability of the
coefficient for three separate models is individually compared as
follows:
    
LRK 1 K 2 ¼ 2 LLK 1 K 2 bK 1 K 2  LLK 1 bK 1 ð10Þ
 K1 K2

where LLK 1 K 2 b is the log-likelihood at convergence of a model
using the converged parameters from the k2 model (using k2 data)
 
while using the data for the k1 driver group; LLK 1 bK 1 is the log-
likelihood at convergence of the model using k1 driver group data.
5. Estimation results
5.1. Model comparison
In this study, PPO model was fitted using a user-written pro-
gram in Stata 15 (Williams, 2006). Three indicators including
McFadden pseudo R-squared, the Akaike’s information criterion
(AIC), and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were employed
to measure the goodness-of-fit of the PPO and OL model. The
model comparison measures are shown in Table 4. The results
showed that higher pseudo R-squared and smaller AIC and BIC val-
ues were obtained using the PPO model in each driver subgroup
model, indicating that PPO had better performance than the OL
model. As such, the PPO model was adopted and the estimation
results analyzed.
5.2. Model transferability
Then, two different likelihood ratio tests were used to check the
statistical justification of each driver subgroup model. First,
LRall =218.62, which is greater than the critical value of the Chi-
square statistic with 50 degrees of freedom at the 99%
confidence-related variables (76.15), was utilized. Therefore, we
achieved 99% confidence not supporting the null hypothesis, and
the three separate driver subgroup models showed statistically dif-
ferent model parameters than the overall model. Next, the values
of LRK 1 K 2 for different driver group models were calculated, and
the results of the second transferability are shown in Table 5. Each
test statistics are greater than the critical value of the Chi-square
statistic, with corresponding degrees of freedom at the 99%
confidence-related variables. Therefore, each driver group model
was statistically justified.
5.3. Model results

where X ijk is the independent variable k associated with the j-th

The estimated results of the gamma parameterization of PPO
P
crash severity for crash i;Direct EXijijk represents the direct-marginal models for all three driver subgroups were obtained and are pre-
effect, which means the impact of changes in variable X ijk on Pij to sented in Table 6. From the results, significant factors contributing
be in j-th crash severity; and Cross EXim
P
represents the cross- to fatal crash severities for each driver subgroup were identified by
ijk
a statistical significance test. Then, the marginal effects (ME) of
marginal effect, which describes the impact of changes in the vari-
various explanatory variables were also evaluated and are shown
able X ijk of m-th crash severity (m – j) on the P im for crash i.
in Table 7, and the sign and magnitude of the marginal effects on
Two kinds of likelihood ratio tests are used to check the statis-
fatal crash severities were analyzed. As shown in Table 6, each
tical justification of the three developed models for different driver
explanatory variable had one beta coefficient and one gamma coef-
groups. Specifically, the first log likelihood ratio test for the trans-
ficient for the variable violating the parallel line assumption. Addi-
ferability of the coefficient from the full model to three separate
tionally, assumptions were being violated in variables such as
models is as follows:
atmospheric condition, surface type, and roadway alignment,
h XK  i
which had significant beta coefficients.
LRall ¼ 2 LLðball Þ  k¼1
LLk bk ð9Þ

where LLðball Þ is the log-likelihood at the convergence of the overall
 
model; LLk bk is the log-likelihood at convergence of the k-th dri-
ver group (k = 3); and LRall is a statistical value that follows thev2
159
(1) Collision-related variables
Front-to-front (coefficient = 1.01, 1.62, and 1.05; P-value <0.01,
0.01, and 0.01) and angled-front-to-side (0.23, 0.34, and 0.27;
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al. Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165

Table 4
Fitness results of the ordered logit model and partial proportional odds model.

Fitness parameters Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

PPO OL PPO OL PPO OL
Log likelihood at zero 3,644.00 3,445.00 5,282.00 5,217.00 3,468.00 277.00
Log likelihood at convergence 3,319.00 3,254.00 3,963.00 4,107.00 3,208.00 2,634.00
Pseudo R-squared 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.20 0.12 0.08
AIC 6,716.00 6,873.00 8,043.00 8,291.00 6,376.00 6,315.00
BIC 6,967.00 6,979.00 8,422.00 8,538.00 6,438.00 6,462.00

Table 5 severe crash severities than under dark-not-lighted condition (not

Results of the second transferability.
k1 k2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Cluster 1 0.00 1,900.00 (df = 39) 1,090.00 (df = 22)
Cluster 2 1,770.00 (df = 31) 0.00 1,240.00 (df = 22)
Cluster 3 1,298.00 (df = 31) 1,420.00 (df = 39) 0.00
Critical v2(P=0.01, v2(P=0.01, v2(P=0.01,
value = 52.19 = 62.43 = 40.29
df=31) df=39) df=22)
P < 0.01, 0.01, and 0.01) collision manners were significantly posi-
tively associated with increased crash severities in all three driver
groups. Compared with other collision manners, front-to-front
could increase the likelihood mostly of level 2 (ME = 17.4%,
16.7%, and 9.2%) and level 3 (2.5%, 4.2%, and 1.9%) crash severity.
Therefore, this collision manner could be considered the most dan-
gerous and merit greater attention. In addition, multi-vehicle
involved crashes (2.89, 3.15, and 2.98; P < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.01)
were positively associated with severe crash severities (level 2
and level 3) in all driver groups. Notably, compared with the dri-
vers in group 1 and group 3 with fewer driving violation behavior,
drivers in group 2 showed increased likelihoods of level 2 (23.2%
vs. 18.8% and 20.1%) and level 3 (9.5% vs. 7.4% and 8.5%) crash
severities.
(2) Environment-related variables
Both adverse weather conditions such as rain and snow (0.28,
0.84, and 0.36; P < 0.05, 0.05, and 0.01) and rural area (0.17, 0.58,
and 0.31; P < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.01) were significantly associated
with increased fatal crash severities in all the three driver groups.
In comparison to the urban area, rural areas showed an increased
likelihood of level 2 (5.1%, 4.6%, and 4.5%) and level 3 (3.1%, 3.2%,
and 2.4%) crash severities in all three driver groups. Notably, larger
marginal effects of land use (3.2% vs. 3.1% and 2.4%) and adverse
weather condition (3.4% vs. 3.2% and 2.8%) could be observed in
driver group 2 compared with other two driver groups for level 3
crash severity.
The season was also significantly associated with fatal crash
severities in all three driver groups. Compared with spring, sum-
mer was associated with a slightly decreased likelihood of a level
3 crash severity (0.4%, 1.0%, and 0.7%) in all three driver
groups. In contrast, autumn (0.12, 0.27, and 0.10; P < 0.05, 0.05,
and 0.05) and winter (0.13, 0.31, and 0.16; P < 0.05, 0.05, and
0.05) were positively associated with crash severities. It should
be noted that winter (3.2% vs. 2.3%; 4.9% vs. 3.0%; and 3.9% vs.
1.7%) was related to greater marginal effects of level 2 crash sever-
ity than autumn.
The day of week, light conditions, and time period were also sig-
nificantly associated with fatal crash severities in all driver groups.
With respect to crashes that occurred under day-light conditions,
decreases in the likelihood of severe crash severities (level 2 and
level 3) were observed under both dark-light and dark-not-
lighted conditions. Particularly, driving under dark-lighted condi-
tion (0.7%, 2.4%, and 2.4%) seemed to be more likely to reduce
significant (NS), 0.2%, and 0.7%).
(3) Road-related variables
The occurrence of a truck-involved in fatal crashes (level 3) in
curved (2.4% and 4.8%), graded (1.0% and NS), non-blacktop surface
(NS and 2.0%), or two-lane (0.2% and 1.8%) roadways showed an
increased likelihood of greater crash severities in driver groups 1
and 2; there were no significances in comparisons of group 3. This
result may indicate that drivers in group 1 and group 2 cannot
effectively handle complicated roadway conditions. When the sur-
face condition was wet or icy compared with dry condition, the
likelihood of being involved in a level 3 crash severity increased
significantly in group 1 (1.5%) and group 2 (2.2%), whereas drivers
in group 3 (0.23, P < 0.05) were associated with decreased likeli-
hoods of severe crash severities.
In addition, lower speed limits were associated with the mitiga-
tion of fatal crash severities. Compared with a speed limit greater
than 70 miles per hour, a speed limit less than 40 miles per hour
(13.8%, 14.7%, and 1.2%) and 45–55 miles per hour (2.3%,
5.7%, and 0.7%) could decrease the likelihood of a level 3 crash
severity significantly in all three driver groups. Furthermore, a
higher speed limit of 60–70 miles per hour was associated with
an increased crash severity in groups 1 and 2.
(4) Vehicle-related variables
Truck tractors (0.6%, 3.0%, and 0.9%) with a heavy weight (2.2%,
7.4%, and 2.5%) and trailing pull units (1.9%, 1.8%, and 1.7%) all
increased the likelihood of being involved in a level 3 crash sever-
ity in all three driver groups compared with other trucks. Notably,
when the drivers in group 2 drove trailer trucks with heavier
weights, the probability that they would be involved in severe
crash increases was even greater than in the other two driver
groups.
Relative to a vehicle age of greater than 10 years, trucks with a
vehicle age of less than 5 years were less likely to be involved in a
severe crash in driver groups 1 and 3. When the vehicle age was
between 5 and 10 years, trucks (0.16, P < 0.05) were significantly
associated with decreased crash severities only in group 3.
(5) Driver-related variables
For driver-related variables, older drivers were associated with
an increased likelihood of level 3 (1.5% and 7.7%) crash severity in
driver groups 1 and 2. This finding may be caused by a poor health
status and limited perception abilities among elderly drivers.
Moreover, compared with female truck drivers, male drivers
(0.26, P < 0.01) had a significantly negative effect on crash sever-
ity in driver group 2. It should be noted that female truck drivers
are few in number and that the role of gender in crashes requires
further study.
A history of license suspension and other convictions in driver
group 2 were significantly associated with decreased likelihoods

160
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al. Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165

Table 6
Estimation results of gamma parameterization of PPO model in the three driver groups.

Variables Categories Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Beta
Collision-related variables
Manner of collision Front-to-rear = yes: 1 0.07** 0.17*** 0.05**
Front-to-front = yes: 1 1.01*** 1.62*** 1.07***
Angle-front-to-side, right angle = yes: 1 0.23*** 0.34*** 0.27***
Number of vehicles involved Multi vehicle = 1 2.89** 3.15*** 2.98***
Environment-related variables
Atmospheric condition Rain, cloudy, snow etc. = 1 0.28** 0.84** 0.36***
Land use Rural = 1 0.17** 0.58*** 0.31***
Day of week Weekday = 1 0.31*** 0.38*** 0.31**
Light condition Dark-not-lighted = 1 – 0.12** 0.26**
Dark-lighted = 1 0.10** 0.24** 0.24**
Time period Afternoon = 1 – – –
Evening = 1 0.65** 1.22** 0.56**
Night = 1 0.54** 1.03** 0.46**
Season Summer = 1 0.05** 0.10** 0.06**
Autumn = 1 0.12** 0.27** 0.10**
Winter = 1 0.13** 0.31** 0.16**
Road-related variables
Roadway alignment Curve = 1 0.12** 0.36*** –
Roadway grade Grade, uphill, downhill etc. = 1 0.14** – –
Surface condition Wet, ice, snow etc. = 1 0.21** 0.17** 0.23**
Surface type Blacktop = 1 – 0.19** –
Speed limit 40 mile/h = 1 1.11** 1.49*** 0.96***
45–55 mile/h = 1 0.33** 0.46*** 0.66**
60–70 mile/h = 1 0.14** 0.19** –
Number of lanes per direction 2 lanes = 1 0.21*** 0.20*** –
Vehicle-related variables
Body type Truck-tractor = 1 0.08** 0.22*** 0.14**
Truck weight 33,001 lbs. or more = 1 0.19*** 0.11*** 0.17**
Vehicle trailering One or more trailing units = 1 0.26** 0.12** 0.25**
Vehicle age 5 years = 1 0.04** – 0.11**
>5 and  10 years = 1 – – 0.16**
Driver-related variables
Gender Male = 1 – 0.26** –
Age 25 years = 1 – – –
65 years = 1 0.20*** 0.40*** –
License class compliance Valid = yes: 1 – – –
Restraint system Shoulder and lap belt not used = 1 – 1.20*** –
Driver drinking Yes: 1 – 0.64*** –
History of crashes Yes: 1 0.07** 0.05** –
History of convictions Suspensions = yes = 1 – 0.21** –
Speeding = yes: 1 0.14** – –
Driving while intoxicated = yes: 1 – – –
Other convictions = yes: 1 0.09** 0.13** –
Driver behavior Drowsy or fatigued = yes: 1 – 0.85*** –
Under the influence of drugs = yes: 1 – 0.59*** –
Careless/inattentive = yes: 1 – 0.74*** –
Failure to keep in proper lane = yes: 1 – 1.03*** –

Gamma
Atmospheric condition Rain, cloudy, snow etc. = 1 0.72*** 0.18*** –
Number of vehicles involved Single vehicle = 1 2.25*** – 2.11***
Manner of collision Front-to-front = yes: 1 0.66 *** 0.49*** 0.45***
Angle - front-to-side, right angle = yes: 1 0.40 *** 0.51*** 0.44***
History of crashes Yes: 1 – 0.22*** –
Surface type Blacktop = 1 0.28*** – –
Roadway alignment Curve = 1 0.36*** – –

Alpha
Constant 1 0.50*** 0.28** 0.89**
Constant 2 2.35*** 2.37** 2.58**
** ***
Note: indicates values that are significant at the 0.05 level; indicates values that are significant at the 0.01 level; – indicates values that are not significant at the 0.05
level.

of level 3 (0.3% and 1.1%) crash severity. It should be noted that
histories of speeding (3.8%) and crashes (0.5%) in driver group 1
were associated with a decreased likelihood of level 3 crash sever-
ity, potentially because these drivers were cautious due to a fear of
repeat punishment. However, histories of speeding (0.7%) and
crashes (3.0%) in driver group 2 were associated with an increased
likelihood of level 3 crash severity, which might be due to poor
driving habits.
For driving violation behaviors in group 2, drunk driving (0.64,
P < 0.01), fatigue (0.85, P < 0.01), driving under the influence of

161
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al. Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165

Table 7
The margin effects of fatal crash severities in the three driver groups.

Variable Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Level1 (%) Level2 (%) Level3 (%) Level1 (%) Level2 (%) Level3 (%) Level1 (%) Level2 (%) Level3 (%)
Collision-related variables
Collision manner: Front-to-rear = Yes:1 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.9 1.4 0.5 1.6 2.0 3.6
Collision manner: Front-to-front = Yes:1 19.8 17.4 2.5 20.9 16.7 4.2 11.1 9.2 1.9
Collision manner: Angle-front-to-side = Yes:1 4.5 2.9 1.6 6.2 8.3 2.1 5.3 3.5 1.8
Multi vehicle involved = Yes: 1 26.2 18.8 7.4 32.7 23.2 9.5 28.6 20.1 8.5
Environment-related variables
Adverse weather: rain, cloudy, snow, etc. = 1 8.6 5.4 3.2 8.0 4.6 3.4 4.5 1.7 2.8
Land use: rural = 1 8.2 5.1 3.1 7.8 4.6 3.2 6.9 4.5 2.4
Day of week: Weekday = 1 6.1 3.9 2.2 3.9 1.8 2.1 1.7 1.1 0.6
Light condition: Dark-not-lighted = 1 – – – 3.7 3.5 0.2 2.0 1.3 0.7
Light condition: Dark-lighted = 1 2.0 1.3 0.7 3.3 0.9 2.4 3.3 0.9 2.4
Time period: Evening = 1 7.4 5.5 1.9 9.8 5.6 4.2 6.5 4.7 1.8
Time period: Night = 1 6.2 4.3 1.9 7.2 4.8 2.4 6.0 4.0 2.0
Season: Summer = 1 1.2 0.8 0.4 2.7 1.7 1.0 1.6 0.9 0.7
Season: Autumn = 1 4.9 2.7 2.2 6.8 3.8 3.0 4.2 2.9 1.3
Season: Winter = 1 5.5 3.2 2.3 7.9 4.9 3.0 5.6 3.9 1.7
Road-related variables
Roadway alignment: curve = 1 3.4 1.0 2.4 6.6 1.8 4.8 – – –
Roadway: grade etc. = 1 2.7 1.7 1.0 – – – – – –
Surface condition: wet, ice, etc. = 1 4.2 2.7 1.5 3.1 0.9 2.2 7.3 5.1 2.2
Surface type: Blacktop = 1 – – – 4.7 2.7 2.0 – – –
Speed limit  40 mile/h = 1 21.7 7.9 13.8 26.1 11.4 14.7 3.6 2.4 1.2
Speed limit 45–55 mile/h = 1 6.4 4.1 2.3 7.9 2.2 5.7 8.8 9.5 0.7
Speed limit 60–70 mile/h = 1 2.8 4.9 2.1 3.1 0.9 2.2 – – –
Number of lanes per direction  2 lanes = 1 4.7 4.5 0.2 2.5 0.7 1.8 – – –
Vehicle-related variables
Body type: Truck-tractor = 1 1.6 1.0 0.6 4.2 1.2 3.0 2.7 1.8 0.9
Truck weight  33,001 lbs. = 1 4.6 2.4 2.2 10.3 2.9 7.4 7.4 4.9 2.5
One or more trailing units = 1 5.1 3.2 1.9 4.5 2.7 1.8 5.1 3.4 1.7
Vehicle age  5 years = 1 0.7 0.5 0.2 – – – 2.0 1.3 0.7
Vehicle age > 5 and  10 years = 1 – – – – – – 3.1 2.1 1.0
Driver-related variables
Gender Male = 1 – – – 5.2 6.5 1.3 – – –
Driver age  25 years = 1 3.9 0.8 3.1 1.8 0.5 1.3 – – –
Driver age  65 years = 1 4.0 2.5 1.5 7.6 0.1 7.7 – – –
License class compliance: Valid = 1 – – – 3.6 1.0 2.6 – – –
Restraint system: Shoulder belt not used = 1 – – – 12.8 10.1 2.7 – – –
Driver drinking: Yes = 1 – – – 11.6 8.4 3.2 – – –
History of crashes: Yes = 1 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 3.2 3.0 – – –
History of suspensions: Yes = 1 – – – 4.2 4.5 0.3 – – –
History of speeding: Yes = 1 2.7 1.1 3.8 2.3 3.0 0.7 – – –
History of driving while intoxicated: Yes = 1 – – – 3.3 0.9 2.4 – – –
History of other convictions: Yes = 1 2.0 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.4 1.1 – – –
Drowsy or fatigued: Yes = 1 – – – 9.2 7.1 2.1 – – –
Under the influence of drugs: Yes = 1 – – – 16.0 12.1 3.9 – – –
Careless/inattentive: Yes = 1 – – – 14.6 10.6 4.0 – – –
Failure to keep in proper lane: Yes = 1 – – – 19.4 16.8 2.6 – – –

Note: – indicates values that are not significant at the 0.05 level.

drugs (0.59, P < 0.01), careless driving (0.74, P < 0.01), and failure to
drive in the proper lane (1.03, P < 0.01) all were positively associ-
ated with severe crash severities (level 2 and level 3). Among them,
drunk driving (8.4% and 3.2%), fatigue (7.1% and 2.1%), and careless
driving (10.6% and 4.0%) all significantly increased the likelihood of
experiencing level 2 and level 3 crash severities. In addition, failure
to drive in the proper lane (16.8%) could mostly increase the like-
lihood of being involved in a level 2 crash severity. This finding
may be related to the poor flexibility and heavy weights of trucks.
Thus, it is necessary to focus on lane planning considering truck-
related characteristics.
6. Discussion and conclusions
Latent class clustering was adopted based on drivers’ demo-
graphic attributes, conviction records, and driving violation behav-
iors, which were found in previous studies to influence the crash
severity (Li et al., 2005; Oppenheim, Oron-Gilad, Parmet, &
Shinar, 2016). The clustering results classify truck drivers into
three groups: (i) middle-aged and elderly drivers with low risk of
driving violations and high historical crash records; (ii) drivers
with high risk of driving violations and high historical crash
records; and (iii) middle-aged drivers with no driving violations
and conviction records. The main differences among the three
groups were conviction records and driving violation behaviors.
Then, the results of the PPO models for the three driver groups
were used to determine how risk factors make drivers more or less
likely to be involved in severe accidents.
The estimated results indicate that the risk factors, as well as
their impacts on different driver groups, are different. First, more
driver-related risk factors, such as driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs, fatigue, or carelessness, are significantly associ-
ated with the high-risk group (group 2) only. Moreover, the prob-
ability of level 3 crash severity was highest in group 2. Thus,
drivers in group 2 were not sufficiently responsible for themselves
and other occupants, and they were more likely to make mistakes

162
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al.
and cause more severe crashes. Therefore, it is recommended that
safety managers and planners pay more attention to historical traf-
fic violations and crash records of truck drivers, and carry out mea-
sures specific to different driver groups. Additionally, some safety
managing recommendations are proposed as follows: (a) use of
an advanced driver information system (ADIS); (b) more severe
penalties imposed on drivers who have poor traffic violation
records; (c) use of an advanced driving assistance system (ADSS).
Second, fewer roadway- and environment-related risk factors
and minor marginal effects were identified in the low-risk groups
(groups 1 and 3). Especially in group 3, several risk factors, such
as roadway alignment, number of lanes, driving violation behav-
iors, and conviction records, were not significantly related to the
drivers in this groups despite being significant for the other two
groups. This result may indicate that drivers in group 3 had devel-
oped good driving habits and performed better in complex condi-
tions than others. Therefore, it is recommended that safety
managers provide some rewards to truck drivers in group 3, such
as awarding ‘‘excellent truck drivers” to affirm their good driving
habits. Moreover, the driving habits and experience of drivers in
group 3 could be collected by interview and inquiry, which could
be used as an important reference for teaching and training novice
truck drivers.
Third, the highest proportions of level 3 crash severities
(10.81%) and more risk factors and larger marginal effects were
found in group 2. In contrast, drivers in group 3 had no history of
crashes, no convictions, and no traffic violation behaviors, with
the lowest proportion of level 3 crash severity. Additionally, fewer
risk factors and lower marginal effects were identified in group 3.
These results may indicate that drivers in group 2 are ‘‘the riskiest
ones,” drivers in group 3 are ‘‘the safest ones,” and drivers in group
1 are in the middle. Therefore, an evaluation report of driving per-
formance for each truck driver according to the historical traffic
violation records and crash records of truck drivers should be
established, which could be used to identify who is a risky or a safe
driver.
Both higher crash involvement rates and high conviction
records should be noted in groups 1 and 2, but almost no driving
violation behaviors, such as drinking or fatigue driving, were found
in group 1. The proportion of severe crash severities was lower in
group 1 than group 2. It is speculated that punishment of crash
involvement or violation records has played a good educational
or warning role for the drivers in group 1. Similar to the results
of Chandraratna, Stamatiadis, and Stromberg (2006), some previ-
ous records (history of license suspensions and history of driving
while intoxicated) were associated with the alleviation of crash
severity for high risk drivers (group 2), while history of crashes
and of speeding were associated with lowering the risk of severe
crashes in group 1. Hence, it is suggested that an advanced driver
information system should be used to identify and record traffic
violations of truck drivers over time, correcting the driving behav-
iors of truck drivers by supervising or punishing drivers.
In addition, the highest proportions of young (8.9%) and older
(20.1%) drivers are noteworthy in group 1. Knight (2004) indicated
that the likelihoods of fatal crash involvement are higher for young
drivers with a history of crash and other traffic convictions. How-
ever, certain proportions of young and older drivers were capable
of learning from previous crashes or speed violation records. More-
over, some elderly drivers with poor traffic violation and crash
records were also found in group 2. However, they had a high risk
of driving violations in the next crash, and they could be regarded
as dangerous drivers. The driving performance of elderly drivers in
these two groups was quite different in accidents. Therefore,
besides demographics such as age and gender, managers should
also focus on driving violation records and crash records of young
163
Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165
and elderly drivers, which could be more helpful to identify risky
drivers.
Furthermore, risky driving behavior, such as driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs, fatigue, or carelessness, were signif-
icantly associated with severe crash severities in group 2, which
is consistent with previous studies (Abegaz, Berhane, Worku,
Assrat, & Assefa, 2014; Bédard et al., 2002; Behnood et al., 2014;
Sullman et al., 2016). It is possible that drivers in group 2 had
developed risky driving habits, and it was difficult to correct their
driving behavior by punishment or warnings via traffic violations
alone. Additionally, comprehensive countermeasures involving
psychology, safety training, and advanced technological equipment
are recommended for group 2.
Both older and female drivers showed an association with an
increased likelihood of driving violations and severe crash severi-
ties in group 2. Oppenheim et al. (2016) also found that drivers’
specific violations could be traced to personal characteristics, such
as demographics and gender roles, and the health status and driv-
ing performance of drivers should be regularly checked. Further-
more, license validity, license suspension, and other traffic
violation records were related to the occurrence of crashes. Gene-
viève et al. (2002) also found that previous crashes or convictions
were better predictors of subsequent crashes. Therefore, these
records could be used as an important basis for driving risk
assessment.
The results showed that risk factors such as adverse weather
conditions, winter, rural areas, and curved road segments were
associated with an increased likelihood of severe crash severities
for all three driver groups. Additionally, Lemp et al. (2011), Dong
et al. (2015), Pahukula, Hernandez, and Unnikrishnan (2015),
Wei et al. (2016), and Ouyang, Li, Xu, Wu, and Ke (2020) also found
that adverse weather conditions such as rain or snow events in
rural areas could increase casualties and property damage in
truck-involved crashes. Hence, some policy recommendations can
be proposed based on these results that may be beneficial for mit-
igating truck-involved fatal crash severities: (a) determine flexible
working timetables for truck drivers under different weather con-
ditions and area types; (b) ascertain a rational design of alignments
and right-of-way for trucks; (c) use an advanced driving assistant
system, and assistance with driving in adverse conditions through
timely GPS data and in-vehicle data records.
The model results also indicated that truck tractors, trucks with
heavy weights, and using one or more trailing units were all
related to an increased likelihood of severe crash severities in the
three driver groups. Similarly, Zhu and Srinivasan (2011) and
Islam et al. (2014) indicated that the overall injury severity in a
crash is significantly worse for heavy trucks and tractors pulling
van/box trailers. Notably, new vehicles were associated with a
decreased likelihood of severe crashes in group 3, potentially due
to better braking performance. Similar results were obtained by
Lemp et al. (2011) and Islam et al. (2014). Therefore, some safety
designs such as truck body types and reasonable weights are rec-
ommended to truck manufacturers, with greater attention paid
to trucks with a vehicle age greater than 10 years.
Among the collision-related variables, the results showed that
collision manners and the number of vehicles involved in a crash
were significant in all three driver groups. Notably, front-to-front
collisions were positively related to the crash severity for all driver
groups and could be considered the most dangerous collision man-
ner. It is speculated that this finding may be linked to the heavy
weights of trucks and intense collisions in front-to-front crashes.
Additionally, multi-vehicle crashes were linked to an increased
likelihood of greater crash severities in all driver groups. Chen
and Chen (2011), Xie et al. (2012), Islam et al. (2014) and
Michalaki, Quddus, Pitfield, and Huetson (2015) also observed an
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al.
increase in serious driver injuries in multi-vehicle crashes in com-
parison to other cases, potentially due to the involvement of more
occupants in the crashes. Therefore, crashworthiness standards of
trucks should be rationally ascertained considering different colli-
sion types and the number of vehicles involved.
The main contribution of this paper is the latent class clustering
analysis of truck drivers based on their multiple attributes, and the
results can be used to reveal the heterogeneity among drivers with
respect to the risk factors and crash severity level. In addition, var-
ious risk factors associated with fatal crash severities for different
driver groups were identified, and these results are helpful to apply
various management strategies for specific driver groups. How-
ever, explained variances of the fitting results for three driver
groups are relatively weak level. Possible explanations are missing
important variables or non-linear relationships between the vari-
ables. For future studies, other driver-related attributes, such as
mood and psychological characteristics, can be collected by face-
to-face or telephone interviews and be included in the analysis.
And multisource accident data fusion to obtain the latest and more
objective datasets can be used. Moreover, estimating non-linear
relationships requires advanced methods such as neural network
and other machine learning methods in future studies. Finally,
heterogeneity across observations was not fully studied, and ran-
dom parameter models, such as a mixed logit model, could be
applied to provide new insights into understanding the related risk
factors in later studies.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this work are grateful to two anonymous review-
ers for their comments on this research paper. This research is
funded by the National Key R&D Program of China
(2018YFB1600900), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 51925801, and 71771049), and Postgraduate Research ＆
Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (No.
KYCX19_0105).
References
Abegaz, T., Berhane, Y., Worku, A., Assrat, A., & Assefa, A. (2014). Effects of excessive
speeding and falling asleep while driving on crash injury severity in Ethiopia: A
partial proportional odds model analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 71,
15–21.
Abenoza, R. F., Cats, O., & Susilo, Y. O. (2017). Travel satisfaction with public
transport: Determinants, user classes, regional disparities and their evolution.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95, 64–84.
Alver, Y., Demirel, M. C., & Mutlu, M. M. (2014). Interaction between socio-
demographic characteristics: Traffic rule violations and traffic crash history for
young drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 72, 95–104.
Bédard, M., Guyatt, G. H., Stones, M. J., & Hirdes, J. P. (2002). The independent
contribution of driver, crash, and vehicle characteristics to driver fatalities.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 34(6), 717–727.
Behnood, A., Roshandeh, A. M., & Mannering, F. L. (2014). Latent class analysis of the
effects of age, gender, and alcohol consumption on driver-injury severities.
Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 3-4, 56–91.
Blincoe, L., Miller, T. R., Zaloshnja, E., & Lawrence, B. A. (2014). The economic and
societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2010 (Report # DOT HS-812-013).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Brodie, L., Lyndal, B., & Elias, I. J. (2009). Heavy vehicle driver fatalities: Learning’s
from fatal road crash investigations in Victoria. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
41(3), 557–564.
Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number
of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13(2), 195–212.
Chang, L., & Mannering, F. (1999). Analysis of injury severity and vehicle occupancy
in truck- and non-truck-involved crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31
(5), 579–592.
Chang, L. Y., & Chien, J. T. (2013). Analysis of driver injury severity in truck-involved
crashes using a non-parametric classification tree model. Safety Science, 51(1),
17–22.
Chandraratna, S., Stamatiadis, N., & Stromberg, A. (2006). Crash involvement of
drivers with multiple crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(3), 532–541.
Chang, H.-L., & Yeh, T.-H. (2007). Motorcyclist accident involvement by age, gender,
and risky behaviors in Taipei, Taiwan. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 10(2), 109–122.
164
Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165
Chen, F., & Chen, S. (2011). Injury severities of truck drivers in single- and multi-
vehicle crashes on rural highways. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(5),
1677–1688.
Das, S., Sun, X., Wang, F., & Leboeuf, C. (2015). Estimating likelihood of future
crashes for crash-prone drivers. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering
(English Edition), 2(3), 145–157.
de Oña, J., López, G., Mujalli, R., & Calvo, F. J. (2013). Analysis of traffic accidents on
rural highways using Latent Class Clustering and Bayesian Networks. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 51, 1–10.
Depaire, B., Wets, G., & Vanhoof, K. (2008). Traffic accident segmentation by means
of latent class clustering. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(4), 1257–1266.
Dong, C., Richards, S. H., Huang, B., & Jiang, X. (2015). Identifying the factors
contributing to the severity of truck-involved crashes. International Journal of
Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 22(2), 116–126.
Dong, C., Clarke, D. B., Richards, S. H., & Huang, B. (2014). Differences in passenger
car and large truck involved crash frequencies at urban signalized intersections:
An exploratory analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 62, 87–94.
Dupont, E., Martensen, H., Papadimitriou, E., & Yannis, G. (2010). Risk and protection
factors in fatal accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(2), 645–653.
Evans, A. W. (1994). Evaluating public transport and road safety measures. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 26(4), 411–428.
Feng, S., Li, Z., Ci, Y., & Zhang, G. (2016). Risk factors affecting fatal bus accident
severity: Their impact on different types of bus drivers. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 86, 29–39.
Guo, F., & Fang, Y. (2013). Individual driver risk assessment using naturalistic
driving data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 61, 3–9.
Guo, Y., Li, Z., Liu, P., & Wu, Y. (2019). Modeling correlation and heterogeneity in
crash rates by collision types using full bayesian random parameters
multivariate Tobit model. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 128, 164–174.
Häkkänen, H., & Summala, H. (2001). Fatal traffic crashes among trailer truck
drivers and accident causes as viewed by other truck drivers. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 33(2), 187–196.
Hu, S.-R., Li, C.-S., & Lee, C.-K. (2010). Investigation of key factors for accident
severity at railroad grade crossings by using a logit model. Safety Science, 48(2),
186–194.
Islam, S., Jones, S. L., & Dye, D. (2014). Comprehensive analysis of single- and multi-
vehicle large truck at-fault crashes on rural and urban roadways in Alabama.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 67, 148–158.
Kaplan, S., & Prato, C. G. (2012). Risk factors associated with bus accident severity in
the United States: A generalized ordered logit model. Journal of Safety Research,
43(3), 171–180.
Khorashadi, A., Niemeier, D., Shankar, V., & Mannering, F. (2005). Differences in
rural and urban driver-injury severities in crashes involving large-trucks: An
exploratory analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(5), 910–921.
Kim, J. K., Ulfarsson, G. F., Kim, S., & Shankar, V. N. (2012). Driver-injury severity in
single-vehicle crashes in California: A mixed logit analysis of heterogeneity due
to age and gender. Accident analysis and prevention, 50(1), 1073–1081.
Knight, S. (2004). The fast and the fatal: Street racing fatal crashes in the United
States. Injury Prevention, 10(1), 53–55.
Lemp, J. D., Kockelman, K. M., & Unnikrishnan, A. (2011). Analysis of large truck
crash severity using heteroskedastic ordered probit models. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 43(1), 370–380.
Li, G., Baker, S. P., Qiang, Y., Grabowski, J. G., & McCarthy, M. L. (2005). Driving-
while-intoxicated history as a risk marker for general aviation pilots. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 37(1), 179–184.
Lombardi, D. A., Horrey, W. J., & Courtney, T. K. (2017). Age-related differences in
fatal intersection crashes in the United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 99,
20–29.
Massie, D. L. (1995). Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 27(1), 73–87.
Mercer, G. W. (1987). Influences on passenger vehicle casualty accident frequency
and severity: Unemployment, driver gender, driver age, drinking driving and
restraint device use. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 19(3), 231–236.
Michalaki, P., Quddus, M. A., Pitfield, D., & Huetson, A. (2015). Exploring the factors
affecting motorway accident severity in England using the generalized ordered
logistic regression model. Journal of Safety Research, 55, 89–97.
Mooradian, J., Ivan, J. N., Ravishanker, N., & Hu, S. (2013). Analysis of driver and
passenger crash injury severity using partial proportional odds models. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 58, 53–58.
Morgan, A., & Mannering, F. L. (2011). The effects of road-surface conditions, age,
and gender on driver-injury severities. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(5),
1852–1863.
Moustaki, I., & Papageorgiou, I. (2005). Latent class models for mixed variables with
applications in Archaeometry. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(3),
659–675.
Oppenheim, I., Oron-Gilad, T., Parmet, Y., & Shinar, D. (2016). Can traffic violations be
traced to gender-role, sensation seeking, demographics and driving exposure?
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 43, 387–395.
Osman, M., Paleti, R., Mishra, S., & Golias, M. M. (2016). Analysis of injury severity of
large truck crashes in work zones. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 97, 261–273.
Ouyang, P., Li, X., Xu, C., Wu, J., & Ke, Z. (2020). Safety effects of road pavement
resurfacing: a case study of city-wide scale projects in China. Journal of
Transportation Safety & Security, 1–20.
Pahukula, J., Hernandez, S., & Unnikrishnan, A. (2015). A time of day analysis of
crashes involving large trucks in urban areas. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 75,
155–163.
Y. Yuan, M. Yang, Y. Guo et al.
Pai, C.-W., & Saleh, W. (2008). Modelling motorcyclist injury severity by various
crash types at T-junctions in the UK. Safety Science, 46(8), 1234–1247.
Peterson, B., & Harrell, J. (1990). Partial proportional odds models for ordinal
response variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied
Statistics), 39(2), 205–217.
Sasidharan, L., & Menéndez, M. (2014). Partial proportional odds model—An
alternate choice for analyzing pedestrian crash injury severities. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 72, 330–340.
Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1984). Modeling the societal impact of
fatal crashes. Management Science, 30(4), 464–474.
Sullman, M. J. M., Stephens, A. N., & Pajo, K. (2016). Transport company safety
climate - the impact on truck driver behaviour and crash involvement. Traffic
Injury Prevention, 18(3), 306–311.
Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Uddin, M., & Huynh, N. (2017). Truck-involved crashes injury severity analysis for
different lighting conditions on rural and urban roadways. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 108, 44–55.
Wang, X., & Abdel-Aty, M. (2008). Analysis of left-turn crash injury severity by
conflicting pattern using partial proportional odds models. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 40(5), 1674–1682.
Weaver, B., & Bédard, M. (2013). The influence of stimulants on truck driver crash
responsibility in fatal crashes. Forensic Science International, 228(1–3), 15–20.
Wei, Z., Wang, X., & Zhang, D. (2016). Truck crash severity in New York city: An
investigation of the spatial and the time of day effects. Accident analysis and
prevention, 99, 249–261.
Williams, R. (2006). Generalized Ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for
ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal, 6, 58–82.
Xie, Y., Zhao, K., & Huynh, N. (2012). Analysis of driver injury severity in rural single-
vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 47, 36–44.
Yang, B., Guo, Y., & Xu, C. (2019). Analysis of freeway secondary crashes with a two-
step method by loop detector data. IEEE Access, 7, 22884–22890.
Yuan, Y., Yang, M., Wu, J., Rasouli, S., & Lei, D. (2019a). Assessing bus transit service
from the perspective of elderly passengers in Harbin, China. International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 13(10), 761–776.
Yuan, Y., Yang, M., Gan, Z., Wu, J., Xu, C., & Lei, D. (2019b). Analysis of the risk factors
affecting the size of fatal accidents involving trucks based on the structural
equation model. Transportation Research Record, 2673(8), 112–124.
Zaloshnja, E., & Miller, T. R. (2004). Costs of large truck-involved crashes in the
United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(5), 801–808.
165
Journal of Safety Research 76 (2021) 154–165
Zhou, H. B., & Gao, J. T. (2014). Automatic method for determining cluster number
based on silhouette coefficient. Advanced Materials Research, 951, 227–230.
Zhu, X., & Srinivasan, S. (2011). A comprehensive analysis of factors influencing the
injury severity of large-truck crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1),
49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.07.007.
Yalong Yuan is a PhD candidate in the Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban ITS at
Southeast University, Nanjing, China. He graduated with a M.S. and B.S. in trans-
portation engineering from Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT). His research
interests cover accident analysis, safety management, and driving behavior.
Min Yang is a Full Professor in the Department of the transportation engineering at
Southeast University, China. And his research interests mainly include public transit
planning and management, intelligent transportation system, passenger percep-
tion, and hub optimization.
Yanyong Guo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of the transportation
engineering at Southeast University, China. And his research interests mainly
include pedestrians, speed management, intersection safety, wrong-way driving,
and safety management.
Soora Rasouli is a Full Professor in the Department of the Built Environment at
Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). She leads the Urban Planning and
Transportation group, where the focus is on developing models on citizens’ travel
behavior with special attention paid to the recent advances in transport technology
including EV, autonomous driving and Mobility as a Service (MaaS).
Zuoxian Gan is an Assistant Professor in College of Transportation Engineering at
Dalian Maritime University, China. He received the M.A. degree in transportation
engineering from Chang’an University in 2015, and the Ph.D. degree in trans-
portation engineering from Southeast University in 2019. His current research
interests include travel behavior analysis, transport geography, and traffic data
mining.
Yifeng Ren received her bachelor degree of transportation engineering from
Southeast University, Nanjing, China, in 2019. She is currently pursing master
degree at Southeast University. And her research interest includes accident analysis,
machine learning, public transit planning, as well as data mining and modeling.