01474068

Component

https://doi.org/10.3141/2377-02

http://scholar.google.com...bler&publication_year=2013

Opposite-direction crashes can be extremely severe because opposing vehicles often have high relative speeds. The objective of this study was to characterize the overall frequency of opposite-direction crashes as well as the frequency of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries. The results of the study will guide future research and investment in infrastructure-based countermeasures to opposite-direction crashes, such as centerline rumble strips. The study used data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System for 2010, the NASS Crashworthiness Data System for 2006 to 2010, and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System for 2010. The most common opposite-direction crash scenario was a driver departing the road driving over the centerline or the road edge to the left, which accounted for only 5% of nonjunction vehicle-to-vehicle crashes but 44% of serious injury and 49% of fatal crashes of the same type. Of the cross-over-to-left crashes, 72% of fatal crashes occurred on rural, undivided, two-lane roads and accounted for 1,659 fatal crashes in 2010. In cross-over-to-left crashes on rural two-lane roads, the driver was going straight or negotiating a curve in 88% to 94% of the crashes. The driver was overtaking another vehicle in only 2% of serious injury crashes and 6% of fatal crashes. Cross-over-to-left crashes on curves were to the outside of the curve more often than to the inside of the curve. This research suggests that countermeasures to opposite-direction crashes should focus on rural two-lane roads.

01503755

13-3805

English

pp 14-20

2013

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

9780309286961

Print

Figures (7) ; References (22) ; Tables (5)

Countermeasures; Data analysis; Frontal crashes; Median barriers; Ran off road crashes; Rumble strips; Rural highways

Fatality Analysis Reporting System; National Automotive Sampling System

Design; Highways; Safety and Human Factors; I82: Accidents and Transport Infrastructure

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Feb 5 2013 12:44PM

• Crash Wall Design to Protect Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls
• Dynamic Evaluation and Implementation Guidelines for a Nonproprietary W-Beam Guardrail Trailing-End Terminal
• Injury Risk Posed by Side Impact of Nontracking Vehicles into Guardrails
• Midwest Guardrail System Without Blockouts
• Motorcyclist Impacts into Roadside Barriers: Is the European Crash Test Standard Comprehensive Enough?
• Retrofit Bridge Rail Design and Testing for a Historic Texas Steel Truss Bridge
• Some Limitations of the Models in the Highway Safety Manual to Predict Run-off-Road Crashes
• Test Level 2 Guardrail-to-Bridge Rail Transition Compatible with 31-in. Guardrail