IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

IATSS Research

Research Article

Factors influencing crash involvement during early years

of owning a new vehicle
Raghuveer Gouribhatla a, Srinivas S. Pulugurtha b,⁎
a
Infrastructure and Environmental Systems (INES) Ph.D. Program, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001, USA
b
Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, Director of Infrastructure, Design, Environment, and Sustainability (IDEAS) Center, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University
City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001, USA

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

Article history: Though automobile manufacturers are investing efforts to make newer vehicles safer to drive, an element of un-
Received 23 September 2021 certainty with the new vehicle seems to persist with the drivers during the early years of ownership. This could
Received in revised form 22 December 2021 be due to a lack of familiarity of the vehicle's power, dimensions or available technologies/features. While the un-
Accepted 19 February 2022
certainty in itself is a potential cause of a crash, it is important for the policy-makers, practitioners, and automo-
Available online 22 February 2022
bile manufacturers to understand the factors that could further aggravate the problem. This research focuses on
Keywords:
identifying the factors influencing the likelihood of getting involved in a crash and its severity when driving a
Partial proportional odds model new vehicle. Crash data for North Carolina for the years 2013 to 2018 (six years) was used develop partial pro-
Crash portionality odds models, compute the odds ratios, analyze the effects of explanatory variables, and identify fac-
Severity tors influencing crashes by the age of the vehicle. The likelihood of getting involved in a severe or moderate injury
Vehicle crash when driving a new vehicle is less for drivers in the age group ≤19 years. Erratic driving behavior (like mak-
Year ing wide turns, weaving and swerving in traffic, driving with headlights off, driving on center-line or lane-line,
etc.) and speeding increase the risk of getting involved in a moderate injury crash when driving a new vehicle.
Likewise, the odds of getting involved in a crash are high on weekends and in adverse weather conditions
when driving a new vehicle. They are higher when driving a new motorcycle, heavy vehicle or farm machinery.
The findings help policy-makers and practitioners formulate strategies to educate drivers on factors influencing
crash risk when driving a new vehicle. Further, automobile manufacturers can establish guidance programs and
documentation that explain what to expect when buying and driving a new vehicle.
© 2022 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction safety issues, an element of unfamiliarity persists with the drivers in

More than 6.75 million police-reported motor vehicle crashes, kill-
ing 36,096 people and injuring 2,740,000 people, occurred in the year
2019 in the United States [1]. The estimated economic and societal
costs due to these crashes exceed $836 billion per year [2]. The number
of vehicles as well as vehicle miles traveled and information regarding
vehicles used for travel and involved in crashes are of importance in re-
search, program development, and rulemaking [1].
Automobile sales were recorded to be more than 17.3 million in
2019 alone [3]. Though the automobile manufacturers have been con-
sistently upgrading their vehicles with every new model to address
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rgouribh@uncc.edu (R. Gouribhatla), sspulugurtha@uncc.edu
(S.S. Pulugurtha).
Peer review under responsibility of International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.
the early days of owning a new vehicle. The problem could be due to
underestimating the vehicle's power, unfamiliarity with the technology,
or understanding how to operate the vehicle's accessories. This lack of
familiarity influences the probability of getting involved in a crash dur-
ing early years of vehicle ownership. The risk of getting involved in a
crash also depends on the vehicle type. For example, the odds of getting
killed in a crash is lower for luxury vehicles than the equivalent non-
luxury vehicles, implying the advantages of advanced safety features
that are often found on more expensive vehicles [4].
Any crash, be it fatal, injury type, or property damage only (PDO),
not only costs money to those involved but also adversely affects
them physically and mentally. Several studies were conducted on the
type of crashes based on the age or type of the vehicle involved in a
crash [5]. However, not many studies were conducted on the role of un-
familiarity of a new vehicle in a crash or on the likelihood of getting in-
volved in a crash during the first year of purchase. A crash involving a
new vehicle may happen irrespective of the driver's experience, and ex-
pensive vehicles have higher claim severities and overall losses due to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2022.02.003
0386-1112/© 2022 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha
relatively pricey repair costs [5]. There are also various forums online
that discuss crashes involving new vehicle owners. Many of these fo-
rums share stories of crashes involving sports utility vehicles (SUVs)
or high-end luxury cars. However, studies that investigate the factors
influencing crashes of vehicles that have been recently owned are
rare. Also, there is no concrete substance or methodology to address
and train drivers on the unfamiliarity. There are no laws in place that
mandate a driver purchasing a new vehicle to be educated.
While adapting to a change in any experience takes time, uncertainty
prevails during that window which could occasionally increase the risk
than aid while driving a new vehicle. This window of adaptation needs
to be addressed such that the drivers are better aware of the vehicle
and possible repercussions for overlooking or ignoring the same. There
is a persisting gap in the past literature and this research helps understand
factors that might influence the probability of getting involved in a crash,
specifically for a new car owner. The key objectives, therefore, are:
1) collecting and segregating data accounting for unfamiliarity with a
new vehicle;
2) developing partial proportionality odds models, computing the odds
ratios, and analyzing the effects of explanatory variables; and,
3) identifying the factors influencing the likelihood of getting involved
in a crash and its severity when driving a new vehicle.
Overall, this research explores if the familiarity of the vehicles play a
role in different type of crashes. The findings help automobile manufac-
turers and practitioners proactively identify potential high risk situa-
tions and take appropriate precautions or formulate education policies
or standards. Identifying the effects of the natural course of owning a ve-
hicle will help employ such focused efforts.
2. Literature review
As stated previously, not many studies were conducted on factors
influencing crash involvement during early years of owning a new vehi-
cle. These factors could be demographic characteristics, weather condi-
tion, location-specific characteristics or other. A review of past literature
on selected factors and the methodologies typically used for such re-
search is discussed next. It is followed by the limitations of the past lit-
erature and the contribution of this research.
2.1. Influence of demographic characteristics on crashes and injury severity
While Williams and Carsten [6] observed the crash risk to be the
highest for younger and older drivers, Williams et al. [7] observed
higher involvement of 15-year-olds who did not hold learner's permit
and during nighttime with many occupants in the vehicle. Tavris et al.
[8] observed that the likelihood of male drivers getting involved in a
crash with other vehicles increased steeply for drivers aged over 70
years. Loss of control of vehicles was observed in the case of male
drivers with age groups 15–24 and 85–89 being the peak. However,
the injury severity was less for the male drivers when compared to
the female drivers.
Bedard et al. [9], using multivariate logistic regression, observed the
odds ratio to be the highest for drivers over 80 years when compared to
drivers of the age group 40–49 years. Alcohol consumption and higher
speeds were observed to increase the odds of a fatality while the use
of a three-point seatbelt reduces the risk of a fatality.
Williams and Shabanova [10] observed younger and older drivers to
be responsible for their deaths in single-vehicle crashes while older
drivers were found to be more responsible in two-vehicle crashes.
Kent et al. [11] observed the fatality rate to be increasing significantly
with the age, and chest injuries were found to be more common injury
types leading to fatality in older drivers. With the age, the delay of death
after getting involved in a crash was observed to increase significantly.
Boufous et al. [12] observed intersection complexity, seatbelt use,
298
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305
speed limit, and speeding as the major contributing factors of injury se-
verity.
2.2. Weather-related safety research
Andrey and Yagar [13] observed the risk to be 70% higher during
rain, but wet roads were not found to have any effect right after the
rain event. Hı́jar et al. [14] observed that adverse weather conditions
have the highest odds ratio, followed by alcohol intake, during daylight
and age below 25 years. The direction of travel also increased the odds
of getting involved in a crash.
Khattak and Knapp [15] did not observe any significant contribution
from snowstorms towards crash occurrence or severity, while the same
type of crashes was observed to be more severe during non-snow
events. Contrarily, Qin et al. [16] revealed a mixed effect on severity
due to snowstorms and maintenance during snowstorms. Spatial anal-
ysis revealed high crash clustered areas and was compared to the
weather data by Khan et al. [17], while meta-analysis by Qiu and
Nixon [18] revealed the effects of snow and rain on crashes with snow
contributing the most.
The risk of a crash or injury severity reduced over the years during
rainy condition, while no measurable changes were observed during
snowy condition by Andrey [19]. A higher number of crashes were ob-
served in the eastbound direction in the morning and westbound direc-
tion in the evening by Mitra [20]. The rear-end and right-angle crashes
were higher in number during the times of sun glare, in particular dur-
ing spring and fall times of a year. Ahmed et al. [21] researched using
real-time weather data and observed that the weather conditions
could explain the crash trends.
Ashley et al. [22] observed fog to be the primary factor leading to vi-
sion obscurity in case of fatal crashes especially in morning peak hours.
Naik et al. [23] observed wind speeds, rain, and warmer temperatures
contributing to crash injury severity. Kelarestaghi et al. [24] observed
that younger drivers were prone to less severe injuries during adverse
weather conditions, while the involvement of pedestrians, motorcycles,
heavy trucks, and drivers without seatbelts in the crashes drastically in-
creased the severity.
2.3. Location-specific analysis
Abdel-Aty [25] investigated the effect of location on the severity of
injuries in crashes and observed lighting condition, alcohol, and road
curves influenced the possibility of injuries. Abdel-Aty et al. [26] used
tree-based regression and observed that various road-related factors
are correlated with different types of crashes.
Wang et al. [27] researched on the influence of temporal and other
variables on crashes at signalized intersections while Wang and
Abdel-Aty [28] evaluated rear-end crashes in Florida using negative bi-
nomial log-link function to understand spatial and temporal effects.
They observed the combined effect of intersection related variables to
be significantly influencing rear-end crashes.
Manner and Wünsch-Ziegler [29] analyzed crashes on the Autobahn
and observed crashes involving motorcycles, pedestrians and roadside ob-
jects to be more severe, while crashes during daylight and at construction
sites were observed to be less severe. Pulugurtha et al. [30] investigated the
crashes at traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level and observed urban, single-
family, multi-family, business and office type land use to be statistically
influencing crashes while single-family land use was observed to be nega-
tively impacting the number of crashes. Liu and Sharma [31] observed that
vehicle miles traveled is the most significant variable with space and time
influencing the dispersion and zero inflation of crashes.
2.4. Discrete choice modeling
Wang and Kockelman [32] investigated the influence of road, vehicle,
environment, and occupants on the crash severity of injuries using a
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha
heteroscedastic ordered logit model. Daziano [33] modeled the crash se-
verity using discrete choice modeling and proposed a framework to appro-
priately handle the data. Osman et al. [34] investigated crashes involving
large trucks using multinomial logit, nested logit, ordered logit, and gener-
alized ordered logit models. Penmetsa and Pulugurtha [35] also used a
multinomial logit model to evaluate the crash injury severity based on
road features. Penmetsa and Pulugurtha [36] used logistic regression
modeling to investigate the factors contributing to fatal crashes involving
fixed objects. Likewise, Dadashova et al. [37] used discrete choice modeling
to analyze the crash injury severity on two urban freight corridors.
2.5. Limitations of past research
Extensive research was conducted in the past on the effects of driver
characteristics (age and gender), vehicle characteristics (the type of ve-
hicle), geometric conditions (highways, intersections, curves, and
grades), weather condition (snow, rain, and fog), and driver behavior
(use of alcohol, seatbelt use, and speeding) on crashes. Several studies
were conducted to assess the effectiveness of driver education pro-
grams [examples, 38,39]. However, an established program has not
been designed to educate drivers on how to handle or get familiarized
during early years of owning a vehicle and what to expect while driving
them under different conditions. There is a need to evaluate such
crashes, understand the role of influencing factors, and implement suit-
able mitigation measures.
Evaluating the unfamiliarity of a new vehicle has not been addressed
specifically in the past. If a vehicle has been driven by a driver for a
while, he/she is accustomed to the vehicle (power, size, features, etc.).
However, the driver may need time to adjust to a new vehicle. Certain
conditions like inclement weather, being inattentive, or speeding may
act as a catalyst to losing the control of a vehicle especially when it is
new. Therefore, it is important to understand what factors may aggra-
vate the probability of getting involved in a crash when it is new. Prob-
ing into this horizon may yield useful findings that can help formulate
strategies/policies and educate drivers to be more careful in such
conditions when driving a new vehicle.
Crash data:
Up to one year old,
two to three years old, & Data collection
four to five years old
vehicles
Crash, vehicle,
Data processing
occupant & road
Descriptive statistics
Proportionality odds test Discrete choice model
Results
Fig. 1. Methodology.
299
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305
3. Methodology
Figure 1 summarizes the methodology adopted for this research.
Each step is discussed next in detail.
4. Data collection/data processing
Good data helps derive meaningful interpretations with a higher de-
gree of certainty. Since this research deals with crashes involving only
new vehicles, records whose vehicle make year was not older than a
year (approximately) compared to the year of a crash were considered.
Crashes involving two to three years old and four to five years old vehi-
cles were also considered for comparison. To acquire and put together
as many samples as possible while also considering the span of the
timeline of the data, six years (2013 to 2018) of crash data for North Car-
olina was collected from the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS)
in Microsoft Excel (.xls) format and used in this research. The data was
requested through the HSIS online portal. The required variables were
selected based on the guidebook provided on HSIS online portal for
North Carolina.
4.1. Data description
Owing to the size of crash data, HSIS provides the data for each year
in multiple sub-files that capture various elements of a crash and are
segregated based on the characteristics (crash, vehicle, occupant, and
road). The crash subfile consists of information related to the crash
that captures elements like the crash severity (fatal, injury type or
PDO), the time and date of the crash, light and weather condition at
the time of the crash and the injury or fatality counts. Vehicle subfile
has details of the vehicles involved in a crash like a vehicle make,
model and year, drug/alcohol involvement information, crash contrib-
uting factors, driver demographics, and sequence of events after the oc-
currence of the crash and other related information. Occupant subfile
include occupant demographics and the vehicle position number in a
crash. Road subfile describes the road on which the crash occurred.
Study period: six years
(2013 - 2018)
Variables: age of the
vehicle, driver
demographics, geometric
conditions, & weather
conditions
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha
They include the geometric condition of the road, their functional clas-
sification, and traffic volume information.
4.2. Data processing
A crash dataset for a year is complete only after combining these four
subfiles. Each subfile contains a common field that is used to join them.
The crash, vehicle, and occupant sub-files are joined using the “case
number”. While combining the crash and vehicle subfile is fairly straight
forward, combining the occupant file requires a two-level filtering that
also takes the “vehicle number” into account. The “vehicle number” var-
iable is vital in combining the occupant subfile with the other two sub-
files. Assigning the occupants to the right vehicle in a crash is important
as the outcomes from a crash may vary distinctly based on vehicle pa-
rameters and point of contact during a crash. Failing to do so would re-
sult in drastic skewness of results that are not accurate. Hence, the best
way to combine the occupant subfile with other data subfiles is by join-
ing it to the vehicle subfile. Matching both the subfiles first by the ‘case
number’ and then by the ‘vehicle number’ and combining them ensures
the accuracy of this step. The road subfile does not contain the ‘case
number’ and needs to be combined with the other subfiles using the lo-
cation element of the data. This is possible with the crash subfile as it
contains the same information.
Initially, the data records were matched based on the county and
route information in the crash subfile and the occupant subfile. In addi-
tion to that, a range match was performed using the milepost variable in
the crash subfile that needs to fall between the beginning and ending
mileposts in the road subfile.
Structured Query Language (SQL) was used to perform the data com-
bining efforts. SQL was chosen to combine the datasets owing to the large
size of crash data. SQL is a data management tool that can effectively han-
dle large databases while also enabling users to perform multiple opera-
tions on the data. The “join” command was used to combine the data
with predetermined conditions from each subfile. Once data for each of
the six years (2013–2018) is ready, a vertical join of each year's dataset
was performed using the “union” command. While the “join” command
in SQL combines columns from two tables and puts them side by side, a
“union” command combines rows of data from the two tables and puts
one set of rows below or above the other set [40].
The variable ‘locality’ was initially considered for the analysis but
later dropped due to unavailability of data for the year 2018.
5. Descriptive statistics
After performing the required data cleaning and data elimination
process, the data was segregated into three files based on the type of
crash. The three segregated files contain severe injury crashes (fatal
and injury type A), moderate injury crashes (injury types B and C),
and PDO crashes separately. The age of the vehicle was also considered
while preparing the data for analysis and modeling. The age of the vehi-
cle was calculated using the vehicle make year and the year in which the
crash occurred. The records with null values were eliminated first from
the analysis to obtain meaningful interpretations. Table 1 summarizes
each selected explanatory variable, categories, number of crashes, and
percent of crashes by each crash type.
While not much is documented in the published literature, the aver-
age length of vehicle ownership in 2016 was observed as 79 months for
new vehicles per a survey conducted by Information Handling Services
(IHS) and published by Forbes [41]. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
automobile manufacturers anticipate owners to change vehicles every
3 to 4 years. Hence, the maximum age of vehicle was considered as
five years in this research.
The crash rates beyond the effects of the high-risk factors are corre-
lated with drivers who are unfamiliar with the vehicle [42]. As the like-
lihood of getting involved in a crash when driving a new vehicle, due to
unfamiliarity, could be higher during the first one year of owning a
300
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305
vehicle, the first category was chosen until one year old. The two to
five year timeline was further divided into two equal timelines to fur-
ther assess the effect of familiarity on crashes. Thus, the crash data
was segregated into three datasets based on the age of the vehicle; up
to one year old, two to three years old, and four to five years old.
The number of crash records for one-year old vehicles were 186,971,
for two to three years old vehicles were 198,678, and for four to five
years old vehicles were 181,623. It can be observed that the number
of crashes for one year old vehicles are very close to the other two cat-
egories though the timeline for one year old vehicles is half compared
to the other two categories.
The dependent variable ‘crash severity’ was categorized for each
classification of the age of vehicle as severe injury, moderate injury,
and PDO. Fatal and injury type A crashes were considered as severe in-
jury type and injury type B and type C crashes were considered as mod-
erate injury type crashes in the analysis.
The most common type of crashes across all the three crash datasets
was rear-end crashes followed by angle/ head-on and sideswipe
crashes. Adult age group (36–65 years) had the highest frequency
followed by young age group (20–35) for all age of vehicle groups.
The number of crash records with no contributing factor is highest for
all the considered vehicle age groups. Improper driving and speeding
contributed to the greatest number of crashes after no contributing fac-
tor. The highest number of crashes for all vehicle age groups occurred on
Friday while similar number of crashes occurred on weekdays (Tues-
days to Thursdays). Sundays had the least number of crashes for all ve-
hicle age groups.
Males were involved in a greater number of one year old vehicle
crashes while females were more involved in the crashes with vehicle
ages two to three years and four to five years old. About 75% of crashes
occurred in daylight conditions followed by about 13% of crashes occur-
ring on roadways not lighted. Similar number of crashes occurred on
roadways with 1 or 2 lanes and 3 or 4 lanes with each accounting for
about 36% crashes. The highest number of crashes occurred on inter-
states comprising about 37% of crashes, followed by the number of
crashes on local roads/ driveways. State secondary routes and US routes
had fairly equal number of crashes.
PDO crashes are the most common type of crashes comprising about
72% of the total crashes for all vehicle age groups, followed by injury
type crashes comprising about 27% of total crashes. About 75% of the
crashes occurred in rolling terrains followed by 18% of the crashes in
flat terrains. Passenger cars are the most involved vehicles in crashes
followed by SUVs and pickup trucks for all vehicle age groups. About
75% of the crashes occurred during clear weather conditions while
15% of the crashes occurred during cloudy weather and 10% of the
crashes occurred during rain/ fog/ snow. About 83% of the crashes oc-
curred on dry pavement while 15% of the crashes occurred on wet pave-
ment conditions for all vehicle age groups.
5.1. Proportionality odds model
Considering the ordinal nature of the dependent variable, an ordered
logit model best fits the modeling criteria based on previous research
[43]. Further, the partial proportionality odds model allows to consider
both equal and unequal effects of the predictor variables [44]. The
modeling procedure involves multiple steps to come up with the best
fit estimation. Initially, a proportionality odds model was developed as-
suming equal slopes across all categories of each explanatory variable.
In other words, the effect of the categories on the dependent variable
is identical. The results from this model showed a p-value of less than
0.05. As the null hypothesis is rejected, a partial proportional odds
model was tested. In this case, it is assumed that the slopes are unequal
across all categories of each explanatory variable. It was observed to be
the best fit model for the data used in this research.
Initially, many variables (available in the crash data) were consid-
ered in the analysis. However, only explanatory variables significant at
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305

Table 1
Frequency distribution of variables by categories for each crash type.

Variable Category One year Two to three years Four to five years

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Crash type (acctyp) Run-off/ overturn 3977 2.13 4226 2.13 4156 2.29
Non-motorist/ pedestrian/ animal 14,566 7.79 14,558 7.33 13,052 7.19
Object/ parked vehicle 14,979 8.01 15,921 8.01 15,409 8.48
Rear-end 83,943 44.90 89,883 45.24 81,824 45.05
Turning collision 18,884 10.10 21,285 10.71 19,705 10.85
Angle/ head-on 21,328 11.41 23,278 11.72 21,834 12.02
Sideswipe 24,960 13.35 25,045 12.61 21,729 11.96
Backing up/ other collision 4249 2.27 4389 2.21 3833 2.11
Driver Age (age) Teen (≤19 years) 8020 4.29 10,910 5.49 12,154 6.69
Young (20–35 years) 67,452 36.08 74,121 37.31 70,856 39.01
Adult (36–65 years) 93,921 50.23 95,288 47.96 82,125 45.22
Old/ Senior (66–74 years) 12,199 6.52 12,332 6.21 10,916 6.01
Very old (>75 years) 5379 2.88 6027 3.03 5572 3.07
Contributing Factor (contrib) No contributing factors 114,488 61.23 118,267 59.53 103,932 57.22
Inattention/ Erratic behavior 15,982 8.55 16,435 8.27 14,996 8.26
Speeding 24,707 13.21 30,327 15.26 30,769 16.94
Improper driving behavior 28,078 15.02 29,921 15.06 28,484 15.68
Alcohol/ Drug 3716 1.99 3728 1.88 3442 1.90
Day of the week (dayow) Sunday 17,998 9.63 18,683 9.40 17,502 9.64
Monday 27,056 14.47 29,034 14.61 26,381 14.53
Tuesday 28,934 15.48 30,774 15.49 27,963 15.40
Wednesday 28,836 15.42 31,233 15.72 28,573 15.73
Thursday 28,969 15.49 30,919 15.56 28,333 15.60
Friday 32,675 17.48 34,641 17.44 31,665 17.43
Saturday 22,503 12.04 23,394 11.77 21,206 11.68
Driver Gender (drv_sex) Male 99,716 53.33 97,976 49.31 86,472 47.61
Female 87,213 46.65 100,655 50.66 95,107 52.37
Lighting Condition (lighting) Daylight 138,837 74.26 149,046 75.02 135,181 74.43
Dusk/ dawn 6910 3.70 7367 3.71 6889 3.79
Lighted roadway 16,305 8.72 16,805 8.46 15,913 8.76
Roadway not lighted 24,577 13.14 25,083 12.62 23,279 12.82
Unknown lighting/ other 342 0.18 377 0.19 361 0.20
Number of Lanes (lanes) 1 or 2 lanes 66,580 35.61 72,844 36.66 67,635 37.24
3 or 4 lanes 68,562 36.67 71,877 36.18 65,692 36.17
>4 lanes 51,829 27.72 53,957 27.16 48,296 26.59
Road Functional Class (rdclas) Local road/ driveway 35,669 19.08 33,941 17.08 29,963 16.50
NC route 24,724 13.22 25,054 12.61 22,361 12.31
State secondary route 29,258 15.65 32,106 16.16 29,734 16.37
US route 29,633 15.85 32,881 16.55 30,232 16.65
Interstate 67,687 36.20 74,696 37.60 69,333 38.17
Severity (severity) Severe injury 2243 1.20 2236 1.13 2123 1.17
Moderate injury 49,809 26.64 53,875 27.12 49,493 27.25
PDO 134,919 72.16 142,567 71.76 130,007 71.58
Terrain (terrain) Flat 35,281 18.87 37,130 18.69 32,989 18.16
Rolling 139,644 74.69 149,819 75.41 137,768 75.85
Mountainous 12,046 6.44 11,729 5.90 10,866 5.98
Type of Vehicle (vehtyp) Passenger car 98,760 52.82 115,392 58.08 112,049 61.69
Pickup/ light truck 28,866 15.44 29,949 15.07 25,103 13.82
SUV 44,946 24.04 42,650 21.47 37,024 20.39
Heavy/ farm vehicles 11,117 5.95 7640 3.85 4828 2.66
Motorcycle 2426 1.30 2088 1.05 1596 0.88
Emergency vehicle 856 0.46 959 0.48 1023 0.56
Weather Condition (weather) Clear 141,116 75.47 148,692 74.84 135,554 74.63
Cloudy 27,800 14.87 29,392 14.79 26,911 14.82
Rain/ snow/ fog/ other 18,055 9.66 20,593 10.37 19,158 10.55
Road Surface (rdsurf) Dry pavement 157,449 84.21 165,285 83.19 150,182 82.69
Wet/ water 27,445 14.68 30,573 15.39 28,725 15.82
Ice/ snow/ slush 1884 1.01 2631 1.32 2540 1.40
Sand/ oil/ other 193 0.10 189 0.10 176 0.10

a 95% confidence level were discussed in this paper. Likewise, some cat-
egories of the considered explanatory variables were omitted if found to
have an insignificant effect. The degrees of freedom, Wald Chi-Square
and P-value from the analysis of effects of explanatory variables by the
age of vehicle are summarized in Table 2.
crash types. An odds ratio above one indicates a higher probability of a
severe or moderate injury type crash occurring compared to a PDO
crash. Similarly, an odds ratio lower than one indicates lower probabil-
ity of a severe or moderate injury type crash occurring compared to a
PDO crash.

5.2. Odds ratio estimates 6. Results

The odds ratios for the categories significant at a 95% confidence The likelihood of angle/ head-on collision involving a one year old
level are summarized in Table 3. The odds ratios of categories of vari- vehicle resulting in a severe and moderate injury type crash is higher
ables are mentioned separately for both severe and moderate injury by 154% and 48%, respectively when compared to a run-off/ overturn

301
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305

Table 2
Analysis of effects of explanatory variables by the age of vehicle using degrees of freedom, Wald Chi-Square, and P-value.

Effect One year Two to three years Four to five years

Degrees of freedom Wald Chi-Square P-value Degrees of freedom Wald Chi-Square P-value Degrees of freedom Wald Chi-Square P-value

Weather 6 90.78 <0.01 6 65.41 <0.01 6 65.80 <0.01

VehType 10 2931.67 <0.01 10 2446.96 <0.01 10 1980.71 <0.01
RoadCls 8 284.16 <0.01 8 298.00 <0.01 8 256.28 <0.01
Lanes 4 97.26 <0.01 4 97.53 <0.01 4 137.34 <0.01
Lighting 8 234.77 <0.01 8 205.30 <0.01 8 202.92 <0.01
Contrib 8 393.86 <0.01 8 323.26 <0.01 8 321.61 <0.01
DrvAge 8 41.68 <0.01 8 62.87 <0.01 8 83.93 <0.01
AccType 16 8224.29 <0.01 16 8273.86 <0.01 16 7234.49 <0.01
drv_sex 4 108.22 <0.01 4 101.88 <0.01 4 71.73 <0.01
dayow 12 111.28 <0.01 12 106.32 <0.01 12 67.96 <0.01
terrain 4 48.46 <0.01 4 52.07 <0.01 4 50.74 <0.01
rdsurf 6 66.47 <0.01 6 89.01 <0.01 6 105.33 <0.01

crash. Likewise, the likelihood of angle/ head-on collision involving a
two to three year old vehicle resulting in a severe and moderate injury
type crash is higher by 95% and 36%, respectively when compared to a
run-off/ overturn crash. A four to five year old vehicle also has 146%
and 44% higher likelihood of being involved in a severe and moderate
injury type angle/ head-on collision compared to a run-off/ overturn
crash. Similarly, the likelihood of a severe injury crash involving a four
to five year old vehicle due to turning collision is 41% higher when com-
pared to a run-off/ overturn crash. All the other types of collisions are
less likely to be severe or moderate injury irrespective of the vehicle
age group.
The likelihood of a severe injury crash involving a 66–75 year old
driver driving a two to three year old vehicle is 21% higher compared
to a 36–65 year old driver. Similarly, a driver older than 75 years driving

Table 3
Estimates and odds ratios from the partial proportional odds model.

One year Two to three years Four to five years

Reference category Category Severe injury Moderate injury Severe injury Moderate injury Severe injury Moderate injury

Run Off/ Overturn Angle/ head-on 2.54 1.48 1.95 1.36 2.46 1.44
Object/ Parked vehicle 0.47 0.48 0.57
Rear-end 0.43 0.78 0.35 0.74 0.32 0.81
Turning collision 1.41
Backing up/ Other 0.64 0.34 0.64 0.32 0.32
Non-motorist/ Pedestrian/ animal 0.55 0.15 0.49 0.15 0.55 0.17
Sideswipe 0.44 0.34 0.4 0.32 0.52 0.36
Adult (36–65 years) ≤19 years 0.89 0.74 0.87
20–35 years 0.96 0.93
66–74 years 1.21
>75 years 1.36 1.13 1.41 1.07 1.28
No contributing factor Inattention/ erratic behavior 1.15 1.14 1.15
Speeding 1.16 1.11 1.09
Improper driving behavior 0.69 0.76 1.04 0.77 1.05
Alcohol/ drug 1.81 1.82 1.98 1.75 2.29 1.75
Wednesday Sunday 1.30 1.16 1.18 1.14
Monday 1.06 1.05
Tuesday
Thursday
Friday 1.19 1.05 1.05
Saturday 1.28 1.12 1.32 1.13 1.09
Female Male 1.26 0.91 1.28 0.92 1.28 0.94
Daylight Lighted roadway 1.32 1.15 1.44 1.09 1.10
Dusk/ dawn 1.42 1.13 1.37 1.08 1.20 1.09
Roadway not lighted 1.98 1.18 1.92 1.19 1.92 1.20
1 or 2 lanes > 4 lanes 0.64 0.95 0.53 0.96 0.46 0.94
3 or 4 lanes 0.58 0.97 0.70 0.95 0.66 0.93
Interstate Local road/ driveway 1.87 1.69 1.85
NC route 2.11 1.20 2.02 1.23 1.94 1.22
State secondary route 1.58 1.16 1.47 1.14 1.4 1.13
US route 1.45 1.16 1.32 1.08 1.28 1.09
Flat Terrain Rolling 0.81 0.97 0.84 0.77 0.96
Mountainous 0.87 0.86 0.88
Passenger car Pickup/ light truck 1.16 0.96 1.2 0.92 0.91
SUV 0.93 0.92 0.92
Heavy/ farm vehicles 2.65 1.13 2.25 2.35
Motorcycle 11.78 14.95 10.98 13.29 11.35 13.52
Bus/ truck 1.88 0.85
Clear Weather Cloudy 1.06
Rain/ snow/ fog 1.12 0.76
Dry Pavement Wet/ water 0.72 0.91 0.74 0.80 0.93
Ice/ snow/ slush 0.40 0.67 0.42 0.64 0.25 0.60
Sand/ Fuel or Oil/ Other

302
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha
a one year old vehicle being involved in a severe and moderate injury
crash is 36% and 13% higher, respectively. Also, a driver older than 75
years driving a two to three year old vehicle being involved in a severe
and moderate injury crash is 41% and 7% higher, respectively compared
to a 36–65 year old driver. Erratic driving behavior (like making wide
turns, weaving and swerving in traffic, driving with headlights off, driv-
ing on center-line or lane-line, etc.) and speeding increased the likeli-
hood of moderate injury crashes for all considered vehicle age groups.
Similarly, alcohol/ drug use increase the likelihood of getting involved
in severe or moderate injury type crashes irrespective of the vehicle
age group. Improper driving behavior increased the risk of moderate in-
jury crashes for vehicle age groups two to three year old and four to five
year old. Significant results were not found for a one year old vehicle.
The likelihood of a severe injury crash occurring on Sunday is higher
when compared to Wednesday for all vehicle age groups. However, the
likelihood of a moderate injury crash occurring on Sunday compared to
Wednesday is higher only for one year old vehicles. The likelihood of a
moderate injury crash is higher on Monday compared to Wednesday
for two to three year old and four to five year old vehicles. Likewise,
the likelihood of a severe injury crash on Friday is higher compared to
Wednesday for one year old vehicles while the likelihood of a moderate
injury crash on Friday is higher compared to Wednesday for two to
three year old and four to five year old vehicles.
The likelihood of a male driver being involved in a severe injury
crash is higher when compared to a female driver irrespective of the
age of the vehicle. On the other hand, male drivers have a lower likeli-
hood of getting involved in a moderate injury crash when compared
to female drivers irrespective of the age of the vehicle. The likelihood
of a severe or moderate injury crash occurring on lighted roadways, dur-
ing dusk/ dawn, and on unlighted roadways is higher compared to day-
light conditions. The likelihood of a severe injury crash on an unlighted
roadway is higher by over 90%. The likelihood of a severe or moderate
injury crash on roadways with 3 or 4 lanes or more than 4 lanes is
lower when compared to roadways with 1 or 2 lanes irrespective of
the age of the vehicle.
The likelihood of a severe or moderate injury crash on a local road/
driveway, NC route, state secondary route, and US route is higher com-
pared to an interstate irrespective of the age of the vehicle. The likeli-
hood of a severe or moderate injury crash on rolling and mountainous
terrain is lower when compared to a flat terrain irrespective of the age
of the vehicle.
The likelihood of a severe injury crash involving a pickup truck is
higher compared to a passenger car for one year old and two to three
year old vehicles. However, the likelihood of a moderate injury crash in-
volving a pickup truck and SUV is lower for all considered vehicle age
groups. The likelihood of a severe injury crash involving heavy machin-
ery is higher when compared to a passenger car irrespective of the age
of the vehicle. However, the likelihood of a moderate injury crash in-
volving heavy machinery is higher by 13% for only one year old vehicles.
Similarly, the likelihood of a severe or moderate injury crash involving a
motorcycle is higher by over 1000% irrespective of the age of the vehicle.
The likelihood of a severe injury crash involving a bus/ truck is higher by
88% for one year old vehicles.
The likelihood of a moderate injury crash during cloudy weather
conditions is higher by 6% compared to clear weather conditions for
one year old vehicles. Similarly, the likelihood of a severe injury crash
during rainy weather conditions is higher by 12% for one year old vehi-
cles. Both, wet pavement and icy pavement conditions are less likely to
result in a severe or moderate injury crash irrespective of the age of the
vehicle.
7. Discussion
The findings from this research contradict that the driver of an older
vehicle is more likely to be fatally injured compared to the driver of a
three years old or newer vehicle [45]. This could be because three
303
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305
years old or newer vehicle include unfamiliarity period associated
with vehicle's power, dimensions and available technologies/features
and the familiarity period.
The odds of an angle/ head-on collision involving a one year old
vehicle being severe or moderate injury is higher compared to
other considered vehicle age categories in this research. Inaccurate
estimation of the vehicles handling and power during such maneu-
vers could be leading to the increased odds. Also, drivers over the
age of 75 years have higher odds of getting involved in severe and
moderate injury crashes when driving a one year old vehicle. This
could be attributed to age related conditions of older drivers in addi-
tion to lack of familiarity of features in newer vehicles compared to
drivers aged 36–65 years. Teen and young drivers have a lower risk
of moderate injury and PDO crash involvement when driving two
to three year old and four to five year old vehicles, which contradicts
the findings of Williams and Carsten [6] and Tavris et al. [8]. While
erratic driving behavior and speeding increased the odds of getting
involved in moderate injury crashes, the use of alcohol increased
the odds of drivers getting involved in both severe and moderate in-
jury crashes irrespective of the vehicle age group.
The odds of getting involved in a severe or moderate injury crash is
higher on weekends compared to weekdays. Also, male drivers have a
higher risk of getting involved in a severe injury crash but a lower risk
of getting involved in a moderate injury crash. This is similar to the find-
ings discussed by Tavris et al. [8]. The risk of getting involved in a severe
or moderate injury crash is higher on lighted roadways, poorly lit road-
ways, and dusk/ dawn compared to daylight, similar to the findings of
Golob and Recker [46]. Hindered sight distance leading to reduced reac-
tion times could be increasing the severity of a crash. The risk of getting
involved in a severe or moderate injury crash was higher on all road
classes compared to interstates. One year old vehicles had higher odds
of getting involved in such crashes compared to older vehicles.
The risk of getting involved in a severe or moderate injury crash in
rolling and mountainous terrains is lower. This contradicts the findings
of Ahmed et al. [47]. The risk of getting involved in a severe injury crash
is higher for heavy vehicles irrespective of the age of the vehicle. The
odds are relatively higher for newer vehicles (one year old). This is sim-
ilar to the findings of Pulugurtha et al. [30].
The risk of getting involved in a severe or moderate injury crash is
higher when driving a new motorcycle. Likewise, the risk of getting in-
volved in a severe injury crash is higher when driving a new bus/ truck.
Unfamiliarity with the handling capacity of the vehicle could be increas-
ing the crash risk.
The risk of getting involved in a moderate injury crash is higher in
adverse weather conditions like rain or snow, similar to the findings
from past studies [12,14,16]. However, drivers of only newer vehicles
had higher crash risk during adverse weather conditions. Though the
factors contributing to higher risk involvement in a severe or moderate
injury crash is mostly common across all vehicle age groups, higher
odds were observed for newer vehicles showing that better care needs
to be taken in the early years of ownership of a vehicle.
7.1. Practical implications of this research
Crash involvement negatively affects acceptance of advanced fea-
tures and disruptive technologies in newer vehicles [48]. It could lead
to skepticism and lack of trust in the technology. As stated previously,
there are no laws in place that mandate a driver purchasing a new vehi-
cle to be educated. The findings from this research help policy-makers
formulate strategies to educate drivers on factors influencing crash
risk when driving a new vehicle and improve the expected benefits.
Practitioners could also develop materials and share with new vehicle
owners highlighting what to expect and situations that demand higher
caution when driving on roads with varying geometric conditions. Addi-
tionally, driver training programs could account for expectations when
driving a new vehicle.
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha
Drivers should be better-informed and familiar with features in a
new vehicle [49]. Therefore, automobile manufacturers can establish
guidance programs and documentation that explain what to expect
when buying and driving a new vehicle. The programs and documenta-
tion must encourage dealers to provide more in-depth inputs on new
features, their functionality, and any limitations based on the driving
condition. This will enhance the whole buying experience and reduce
unfamiliarity with the features in the new vehicle.
8. Conclusions
Several factors could increase the odds of getting involved in a crash
when driving a one year old vehicle compared to two to three years old
or four to five years old vehicles. In particular, caution should be
exercised to avoid angle/ head-on crashes, when driving a heavy ma-
chinery or motorcycle, and during adverse weather conditions espe-
cially during the early years of ownership.
The data used for the analysis was collected from HSIS, which only
includes crashes that occur on interstates and other state-owned/
maintained roads. This leaves a gap in the evaluation of crashes involv-
ing newer vehicles on roads owned/maintained by local agencies. Also,
the data was filtered such that the make year of the vehicle is approxi-
mately one year before the year of the crash for one year old vehicles.
Similarly, two to three years old vehicles and four to five years old vehi-
cles were identified to generate datasets. This was done to identify vehi-
cles that were purchased by the people. They also purchase pre-owned/
used vehicles. The lack of familiarity with features in pre-owned/used
vehicles could increase the risk of getting involved in a crash. Using ad-
ditional crash data and integrating information pertaining to the date of
purchase (new or pre-owned) would not only help better understand
the role of factors influencing crash risk but also assess the effectiveness
of advanced technologies and driver unfamiliarity with a vehicle.
The advancements in automobile technology is expected to be the
same or improve over time. The influence of advanced technological
features needs to be further investigated, as heterogeneous conditions
are expected with the penetration of connected and automated vehicles
into the transportation system over the next few decades.
Articles published by insurance companies imply that drivers of
some luxury and high-end make vehicles are involved in a greater num-
ber of crashes when compared to drivers of economy class vehicles. The
most and least safe vehicle makes to be owned are also available online.
They could be based on crash-worthiness tests or insurance claims.
Expanding the scope of this research by considering make, model, and
year of each vehicle will not only help evaluate the safety aspects but
also assist automobile manufacturers and practitioners identify solu-
tions to enhance safety of drivers, passengers, and other road users.
These merit further investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank the staff of Highway Safety Information
System (HSIS) for providing the crash data required for the research.
References
[1] National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Summary of Motor Vehicle Crashes: 2019
Data. Traffic Safety Facts, Report No. DOT HS 813 209, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2021 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/813209 (accessed 20 December 2021).
[2] L.J. Blincoe, T.R. Miller, E. Zaloshnja, B.A. Lawrence, The Economic and Societal Im-
pact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised). Report No. DOT HS 812 013, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2015 https://crashstats.
nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013 (accessed 20 December 2021).
304
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305
[3] Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), New and Used Passenger Car and Light
Truck Sales and Leases, United States Department of Transportation, 2021 https://
www.bts.gov/content/new-and-used-passenger-car-sales-and-leases-thousands-
vehicles (accessed 20 December 2021).
[4] Highway Loss Data Institute, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Small
Cars, Big Problems: Driver Death Rates Remain High Among Small Cars, Status Re-
port vol. 55(2), 2020 3–4 https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-re-
port/pdf/55/2 (accessed 20 December 2021).
[5] Highway Loss Data Institute, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Tesla
Model S Has Higher Insurance Losses Than Other Large Luxury Cars, Status Report
vol. 52(4), 2017 6–7 https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/
pdf/52/4 (accessed 20 December 2021).
[6] A.F. Williams, O. Carsten, Driver age and crash involvement, Am. J. Public Health 79
(3) (1989) 326–327, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.79.3.326.
[7] A.F. Williams, D.F. Preusser, S.A. Ferguson, R.G. Ulmer, Analysis of the fatal crash in-
volvements of 15-year-old drivers, J. Saf. Res. 28 (1) (1997) 49–54, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022-4375(96)00033-3.
[8] D.R. Tavris, E.M. Kuhn, P.M. Layde, Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash
injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role, Accid. Anal. Prev. 33 (2)
(2001) 167–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(00)00027-0.
[9] M. Bedard, G.H. Guyatt, M.J. Stones, J.P. Hirdes, The independent contribution of
driver, crash, and vehicle characteristics to driver fatalities, Accid. Anal. Prev. 34
(6) (2002) 717–727, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(01)00072-0.
[10] A.F. Williams, V.I. Shabanova, Responsibility of drivers, by age and gender, for
motor-vehicle crash deaths, J. Saf. Res. 34 (5) (2003) 527–531, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jsr.2003.03.001.
[11] R. Kent, B. Henary, F. Matsuoka, On the fatal crash experience of older drivers, An-
nual Proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, vol.
49, , 2005.
[12] S. Boufous, C. Finch, A. Hayen, A. Williamson, The impact of environmental, vehicle
and driver characteristics on injury severity in older drivers hospitalized as a result
of a traffic crash, J. Saf. Res. 39 (1) (2008) 65–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2007.
10.010.
[13] J. Andrey, S. Yagar, A temporal analysis of rain-related crash risk, Accid. Anal. Prev.
25 (4) (1993) 465–472, https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(93)90076-9.
[14] M. Hijar, C. Carrillo, M. Flores, R. Anaya, V. Lopez, Risk factors in highway traffic ac-
cidents: a case control study, Accid. Anal. Prev. 32 (5) (2000) 703–709, https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0001-4575(99)00116-5.
[15] A.J. Khattak, K.K. Knapp, Interstate highway crash injuries during winter snow and
nonsnow events, Transp. Res. Rec. 1746 (2001) 30–36, https://doi.org/10.3141/
1746-05.
[16] X. Qin, D.A. Noyce, C. Lee, J.R. Kinar, Snowstorm event–based crash analysis, Transp.
Res. Rec. 1948 (2006) 135–141, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106194800115.
[17] G. Khan, X. Qin, D.A. Noyce, Spatial analysis of weather crash patterns, J. Transp. Eng.
134 (5) (2008) 191–202, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2008)134:5
(191).
[18] L. Qiu, W.A. Nixon, Effects of adverse weather on traffic crashes: systematic review
and meta-analysis, Transp. Res. Rec. 2055 (2008) 139–146, https://doi.org/10.3141/
2055-16.
[19] J. Andrey, Long-term trends in weather-related crash risks, J. Transp. Geogr. 18 (2)
(2010) 247–258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.002.
[20] S. Mitra, Sun glare and road safety: an empirical investigation of intersection
crashes, Saf. Sci. 70 (2014) 246–254, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.06.005.
[21] M. Ahmed, M. Abdel-Aty, J. Lee, R. Yu, Real-time assessment of fog-related crashes
using airport weather data: a feasibility analysis, Accid. Anal. Prev. 72 (2014)
309–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.07.004.
[22] W.S. Ashley, S. Strader, D.C. Dziubla, A. Haberlie, Driving blind: weather-related vi-
sion hazards and fatal motor vehicle crashes, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96 (5)
(2015) 755–778, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00026.1.
[23] B. Naik, L.W. Tung, S. Zhao, A.J. Khattak, Weather impacts on single-vehicle truck
crash injury severity, J. Saf. Res. 58 (2016) 57–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.
2016.06.005.
[24] K.B. Kelarestaghi, W. Zhang, Y. Wang, L. Xiao, K. Hancock, K.P. Heaslip, Impacts to
crash severity outcome due to adverse weather and other causation factors, Adv.
Transp. Stud. 43 (2017) 31–42, https://doi.org/10.4399/97888255077373.
[25] M. Abdel-Aty, Analysis of driver injury severity levels at multiple locations using or-
dered Probit models, J. Saf. Res. 34 (5) (2003) 597–603, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.
2003.05.009.
[26] M. Abdel-Aty, J. Keller, P.A. Brady, Analysis of types of crashes at signalized intersec-
tions by using complete crash data and tree-based regression, Transp. Res. Rec. 1908
(2005) 37–45, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105190800105.
[27] X. Wang, M. Abdel-Aty, P.A. Brady, Crash estimation at signalized intersections: sig-
nificant factors and temporal effect, Transp. Res. Rec. 1953 (2006) 10–20, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0361198106195300102.
[28] X. Wang, M. Abdel-Aty, Temporal and spatial analyses of rear-end crashes at signal-
ized intersections, Accid. Anal. Prev. 38 (6) (2006) 1137–1150, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aap.2006.04.022.
[29] H. Manner, L. Wünsch-Ziegler, Analyzing the severity of accidents on the German
autobahn, Accid. Anal. Prev. 57 (2013) 40–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.
03.022.
[30] S.S. Pulugurtha, V.R. Duddu, Y. Kotagiri, Traffic analysis zone level crash estimation
models based on land use characteristics, Accid. Anal. Prev. 50 (2013) 678–687,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.06.016.
[31] C. Liu, A. Sharma, Exploring Spatio-temporal effects in traffic crash trend analysis,
Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 16 (2017) 104–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.
2017.09.002.
R. Gouribhatla and S.S. Pulugurtha
[32] X. Wang, K.M. Kockelman, Occupant injury severity using a heteroscedastic ordered
logit model: distinguishing the effects of vehicle weight and type, Transp. Res. Rec.
1908 (2005) 195–204, https://doi.org/10.3141/1908-24.
[33] R.A. Daziano, Taking account of the role of safety on vehicle choice using a new gen-
eration of discrete choice models, Saf. Sci. 50 (1) (2012) 103–112, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SSCI.2011.07.007.
[34] M. Osman, R. Paleti, S. Mishra, M.M. Golias, Analysis of injury severity of large truck
crashes in work zones, Accid. Anal. Prev. 97 (2016) 261–273, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aap.2016.10.020.
[35] P. Penmetsa, S.S. Pulugurtha, Modeling crash injury severity by road feature to im-
prove safety, Traf. Inj. Prev. 19 (1) (2018) 102–109, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15389588.2017.1335396.
[36] P. Penmetsa, S.S. Pulugurtha, Risk factors attributed to fatal fixed-object crashes on
noninterstate roads, J. Transp. Safety Secur. 11 (1) (2019) 102–116, https://doi.
org/10.1080/19439962.2017.1356414.
[37] B. Dadashova, B. Arenas-Ramires, J. Mira-McWillaims, K. Dixon, D. Lord, Analysis of
crash injury severity on two trans-European transport network corridors in Spain
using discrete-choice models and random forests, Traf. Inj. Prev. 21 (3) (2020)
228–233, https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2020.1733539.
[38] L. Bates, A. Evenhuis, A. Lennon, Effectiveness of a pre-licensing driver education
program on five psycho-social factors over twelve months, Accid. Anal. Prev. 148
(2020), 105806https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105806.
[39] I. Lewis, B. Watson, B. Ho, Slow down! Get off that phone! The impact of a high
school road safety education program in influencing whether a young person
speaks up to a risky driver, Transp. Res. Part F Traf. Psych. and Behav. 78
(353–368) (2021)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.02.016.
[40] Essential SQL, What Is the Difference Between a Join and a UNION? https://www.
essentialsql.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-join-and-a-union/ 2022
(accessed 13 November 2019).
[41] Statista, Average Length of Vehicle Ownership in the United States in 2006 and
2016, by Vehicle Type, Published by Forbes based on Survey by Information
305
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 297–305
Handling Services (IHS), 2017 https://www.statista.com/statistics/581017/aver-
age-length-of-vehicle-ownership-in-the-united-states-by-vehicle-type/ (accessed
20 December 2021).
[42] P. Hoxie, Assessment of Driver Inexperience with an Automobile as a Factor Which
Contributes to Highway Accidents. Report No. DOT HS 806 593, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1984 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/
dot/8598 (accessed 20 December 2021).
[43] R. Williams, Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal
dependent variables, Stata J. 6 (1) (2006) 58–82, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1536867X0600600104.
[44] L. Sasidharan, M. Menéndez, Partial proportional odds model—an alternate choice
for analyzing pedestrian crash injury severities, Accid. Anal. Prev. 72 (2014)
330–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.07.025.
[45] National Center for Statistics and Analysis, How Vehicle Age and Model Year Relate
to Driver Injury Severity in Fatal Crashes, Traffic Safety Facts, Report No. DOT HS 811
825 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2013
(accessed 20 December 2021).
[46] T.F. Golob, W.W. Recker, Relationships among urban freeway accidents, traffic flow,
weather, and lighting conditions, J. Transp. Eng. 129 (4) (2003) 342–353, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2003)129:4(342).
[47] M. Ahmed, H. Huang, M. Abdel-Aty, B. Guevara, Exploring a Bayesian hierarchical ap-
proach for developing safety performance functions for a mountainous freeway,
Accid. Anal. Prev. 43 (4) (2011) 1581–1589, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.021.
[48] How do familiarity and fatal accidents affect acceptance of self-driving vehicles?
Transp. Res. Part F Traf. Psych. Behav. 83 (2021) 401–423, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.trf.2021.11.004.
[49] J. LaRiviere, M. Czajkowski, N. Hanley, M. Aanesen, J. Falk-Petersen, D. Tinch, The
value of familiarity: effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to
pay for a public good, J. Env. Econ. Manage. 68 (2) (2014) 376–389, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.07.004.