A general model of road traffic

accidents
J. 0. Asalor

Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Benin, P.M.B. 1154, Benin City,

Nigeria
(Received July 1982; revised August 1983)

A general model that relates road traffic accidents to the number of

vehicles involved, and the number of primary causes of such accidents, is
presented. The model considers traffic accidents as failures of a road
traffic network system to meet social and economic constraints, and
therefore as a measure of the unreliability of such a system. The equations
apply to accidents in the real time domain as well as to mean values per
unit of vehicle exposure time or vehicle distance. They also apply to single
vehicles and drivers, groups of drivers and fleets of vehicles, and the entire
vehicle and driving population. They can be used for sections of a network
or for a whole network.
The equations used have a large number of terms, hence bias errors are
common in road accident investigations.

Key words: mathematical modelling, road traffic analysis, road accidents

A modern road traffic network system is established
primarily to facilitate the movement of goods, persons
and farm animals. Apart from performing this basic
function, a road network should also satisfy certain social,
economic and environmental requirements as well as con-
straints. The requirements and constraints provide further
yardsticks for assessing road traffic network systems and
often reveal areas for their improvement. Consequently
they have been the subjects of extensive studies; examples
are the minimum cost of journeys between origins and
destinations,‘-3 road traffic accidents4*’ and air pollution.6
This paper is concerned with road traffic accidents.
The main aim of this paper is to establish a model that
relates road traffic accidents to their causes. Such a model
is necessary for several reasons:
(1) It permits a more systematic and precise assessment of
the relative contributions of factors associated with the
road and its enviromnent,7F8 the vehicles,9J’o the driver”-‘3
and the pedestrian4 to the overall accident rates.
(2) It enables the relative role of individual causes of road
traffic accidents to be more accurately analysed.
(3) It enables greater and more profitable use of analytical
tools in road accident studies.
(4) It permits more precise similarity conditions to be
specified for comparative studies of road traffic systems.
(5) It contributes to a greater insight into the complex
interactions of causal factors in road traffic accidents.
(6) It makes possible the analytical planning and develop-
ment of optimal approaches to road safety programmes.
(7) It provides relatively easy explanations to many per-
plexing road traffic accident phenomena.
A road traffic system has been considered to consist
essentially of two predominantly engineering subsystems -
the road and its environment, and the vehicle including its
contents but excluding the driver; and two predominantly
human subsystems - the driver, on the one hand, and the
pedestrian or farm animal on the other. These are inter-
acting whenever the system is functioning.
A road traffic accident is a type of failure of the system
that results in abnormal wear, tear or damage to life and
property. It is assumed that every road traffic accident is
traceable to a certain minimum degree of system malfunc-
tion. The reverse - namely that every single system mal-
function that is equal to or in excess of the minimum value
always results in an accident - is not true. These and
other consequences of the complex interactions of factors
are considered.
The unit of actual risk, Ri,j, where i is the cause and j
is the vehicle, has been taken as a simple accident count.
The number of such incidents per unit vehicle exposure
time or unit vehicle distance are the independent variables.
The dependent variables are the causes of accidents or the
number of accidents, or a combination of the two. A host
of interesting quantities (for example, the number of
vehicles involved and the total number of fatalities) are
obtainable from the equations.
A description of the causes of road traffic accidents is
presented in the next section. This is followed by a

0307-904X/84/02133-06/$03.00
0 1984 Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. Appl. Math. Modelling, 1984, Vol. 8, April 133
Model of road accidents: J. 0. Asalor

description and discussion of the model. Major conclusions One implication of the model process is that what may
and recommendations for further work are presented in seem to be a mammoth multivehicle accident involving up
the final section. to 100 vehicles may be a number of isolated multivehicle
accidents with each group not exceeding several vehicles.
Causation processes Also, even when there is impact between each vehicle and
Road traffic accidents are caused - they do not just every other one, the time intervals are important in decid-
happen. They occur when certain conditions are met. We ing whether there are one, two or more accidents.
classify all the causes of road accidents into two groups -
primary and secondary.
A potential primary cause in the two predominantly Formulation of general equations
engineering subsystems may be an absent or malfunctioning Let the variable Ci,i denote the values of the primary
component that is relevant for the safety of the system; causes of road traffic accidents i (i = 1, . . . , n), as they
with a driver, pedestrian or domestic animal, the cause may affect vehicle j. In general, Ci,i can be a continuous variable
be a dangerous manoeuvre or the failure to make a neces- and have values within the subcritical, critical or super-
sary and normal safe manoeuvre. An important subgroup critical states. We shall transform them to a risk variable
of primary causes includes those that do not relate to any Ri,i as follows:
of the above failures. This subgroup will be referred to as
causes due to cirumstances. Causes due to circumstances f(Ci,j) = Ri,j (la)
are at play when a vehicle or its driver is involved in an f(Ci,,j, Ci,,j> =Ri,,jRi2,j (lb)
accident for no other reason than that the vehicle occupies
its particular position at that instant. fCcil,j9 Ci,,j, *. . 9Ci,i) = Ril ,iRi,,i . *. R,,i (lc)
A seondary cause is obtained by further decomposing a The risk variables Ri,i have the following properties:
primary cause. Secondary causes are social, economic,
human, biological and environmental in nature - examples
are drunkenness and forgetfulness. The analysis that follows Ri,j
takes explicit congnizance of only primary causes, but the = 1 if there is an accident due to i alone
role of the secondary causes in reducing and preventing (2a)
= 0 otherwise
accidents is widely acknowledged.415P’3
To gain further insight into the accident causation pro-
cess, we shall follow the progress of a driver, 1, from one
= 1 if there is an accident due to causes il
moment to another. At one moment, the driver relies on his
and i2 ody (2b)
skill, the performance and general condition of his car, and
the road and its immediate surroundings to try to ensure ( = 0 otherwise
his safety and that of other vehicles and pedestrians in the
vicinity. If we take all of these as an element of the road
Ri,,jRi=,j . . . Rir,j
traffic system, then, at that moment, the element may = 1 if there is an accident due to causes
be in a subcritical, critical or supercritical state.
The subcritical state is one in which the element is at no
risk of having an accident; a critical state is a fail-to-safety
L iI,i2,...,i,only
= 0 otherwise
(2c)

condition when there is also a significant chance of having Let us consider a control area of a road traffic system as
an accident; a supercritical state is a fail-to-accident con- shown in Figure 1. In time interval dt(m), vehicle j runs an
dition. effective risk of an accident given by:
The conditions necessary and sufficient for a transforma-
tion from the subcritical state, through the critical state, to Reff,jCm>
the supercritical state are closely related to the following: = risk of vehicle j only having an accident
(1) sudden unanticipated serious failure; + risk of vehicle j and only one other vehicle
(2) prolonged or regularly repeated failures; having an accident
(3) interactions of two or more elements that are in the
critical state; + risk of vehicle j and only two other vehicles
(4) interaction of two or more components in critical con- having an accident
ditions within a given element; + ...
(5) any one or more of the above, and the mere presence of
a vehicle or a pedestrian. + risk of vehicle j and only r - 1 others having
an accident + . . .
We shall assume that road traffic accident causation pro-
( 3)
cesses have the following properties:
The risks of vehicle j being involved in an accident alone,
(1) An accident lasts a finite but insignificant time com-
with one, two or r - 1 other vehicles, are given by:
pared with inter-accident periods.
(2) Once started, the process is irreversible. 1-vehicle accident:
(3) In a multivehicle accident, every vehicle has an impact
R(l) m) = Rj(1, HZ) (ha)
with at least one other vehicle in the group.
2-vehicle accident :
The number of primary causes of a particular accident is
taken as the minimum number of all the potential causes
which, acting in the finite duration of that accicent, is W, m>=Rj(2, m) 5 Rx?@,m>
x2=2
necessary and sufficient to result in the accident.

134 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1984, Vol. 8, April

 Model of road accidents: J. 0. Asalor
3-vehicle accident : ofR Xkas:

RX,@, m)
R(3, m) =Ri(3, m) 5 ; i R,,(3, m) (4~)
x,=2x,=2 k=2 = iElRi,, xk(r’ m) + i i Ri,, xk(rym>
1 i,=l iz=l

XRi2,Xk(r,m)+ ..,
r-vehicle accident:

R(r,m)=Rj(r,m) + jl itl-.-i$lRz’,, m>Q, xkk ‘,“‘I. . .

1 2
xkk

(44 m>
x Rir, xkcr, (8)
wherej~N,k<r,j#x,#xs#...#x,,andNincludes
all vehicles with which j can be involved in an accident in This simplifies to:
the interval dt(m).
The effective risk becomes:
Rxk(r,ml = i Ri,,xk(r,ml
i, = 1

R,ff,j(m>
+si2
[i$l 1
“’ ?
is=1
i
p=l
Rip,Xk(r’m)] c9)
=Rj(l,m)+Rj(2,m) t R,$,m)
x,=2 where S is the maximum number of causes that can involve
a single vehicle in an accident. In theory, S = n; but in
practice, S < rr. For a given vehicle, il # i2 # i3 # . . . # i,.
+Ri(3,m) $ F h R,,@,m)+...
x,=2 x,=2 It=2
On substituting equation (9) into equation (5b), we
have :

+&@,m) E F ... i fi R,,(r,m)+.. R,ff,@)

x,=2 x,=2 x,.=2 k=2

=(i$Ri,.‘(1ym)+~2[i~~...~~l~l Rip,i:l~m)l]
+&W,m) E $ .. . F fi R,,(N,m) t 1
x,=2 x,=2 XN’2 k=2

6)
so that:

R,ff,i(m) + S,[5 *.*,$lljlRip,i(r~m,l)

s=2 i,=l ‘s
= Ri(l , m) + $ Rj(r, m)
i-=2

(5b)
(10)
We can express Ri(l , m), . . . , R,,(r, m) in terms of
their respective causes: Since the time interval dt(m) is short compared with the
R.&, m) = risk of vehicle xk being involved in an average inter-accident periods, the following constraints
._
accident by; hold for given m, j and xk, and for 2 < r <N:

a single cause (114

+ any two causes
+ ...
(lib)
+ any s causes
+ ... (6) j2[iil**-i ii RipA1pm)]
L
sl i,=l p=l
(llc)
Now:
Ri =Ri@,,i,R2,j,R3,j, . . . , &, j> (7a) tiEI Ril ,j(r, m> + s$Iigl * * - Zk IYI Rip,i(r~ m)])
1 i,=1 p=1
Rx, =Rxk(Rl,xk~R2,xk~R3,xk~ .a. dn,rk) (7b)
where n is the number of potential causes of accidents.
x (
Combining equations (6) and (7), we obtain a general form

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1984, Vol. 8, April 135

Model of road accidents: J. 0. Asalor

From equation (lo), the corresponding expression as a

function of the number of vehicles and the causes of
accident become:

Reff,j(CW

(15)
I i----' The summation over m includes all intervals during which
vehicle j is in the road network.
The cumulative distance travelled by j is:

Xi(CM) = f AX,(m)
LC---_-+J m=l

Figure 1 Control area of road traffic system

= Uj(l)dt(l)+ f $Uj(m-1)
m=2

<I (114 + uj(m>ldt(m) (16)

We shall denote the average number of accidents, say,
The equality holds only if there is an accident due to any of
per one million kilometres covered by j R,R, i, and the
the terms on the left-hand side of the respective equations.
average number of accidents per lo4 hours of exposure of i
The distance AX,(m), covered by vehicle j in time
interval dt(m) is approximated by: by Retr,j.
Equations (14) and (15) become respectively:
AX,(m) = f [Uj(m - 1) + Uj(m)] dt(m) (12)
where Uj(m - 1) and Uj(m) are the velocities at the end of I?eff,j = Lim
Xj(CJO --f m
intervals dt(m - 1) and dt(m) respectively.
Let us now consider our vehicle j as it moves from
m = 1 to m = M, and the control area moves with it. The
cumulative effective risk R,E,i(CM), is defined as:

Ren,j(cM) = z” Reff,j(m) (13a)

?TZ=t
Similarly:

Ri(r, CM) = f Rj(r, m) Wb)

‘r~2(R~kycM)[x~2”~x~2
m=l (17b)
From equation (5b), the effective risk as a function of the Izeff, j =
number of vehicles involved in the accidents becomes:

R,gi(cM) = Rj(l, CM) + f

r=2
(R&ir, CM) +i2(i$l**.
i Ii Rip,i(l~cW)
1 is=1 p=l

x[x~2...x~*~2Rxk(ry~~])
*
(14)
r

136 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1984, Vol. 8, April

 Model of road accidents: J. 0. Asalor

i irRip,j(r~c~)
+j2(i?l--. 1 is=1 p=l

x( t ***x$2klYJ2 (i$lRiI,~k(~ cw
x,=2 Y 1

+ 5 [ f . *. 5 fi Rip,xk(r> &!))))I
s=2 .i,=l is=1 p=l

[3.60xox7(
R&j = Lim i$l Ri,,i(l 7cw
T(cM)--fm 1
s 1 n
+c c . . . iI?l
s:2 1 i,=l
jl RipA 3‘M))

+ f
r=2 t i,=l
f &Jr, CM) + $ (f
i-=2 i,=l
Ril,l(rTcM)

+i(?...f

s=2 i,=l is=1 p=l

r”r Ri,,i(r, CM)
1 +
s=2
S:[ i -.. 2 f~Rip,l(r,CW]
i,=1 is=1 p=l

x ( ; ... ; fi ( i &,a&~ CM)

X ( F a.. F fi (i Ril,wk(rpC~
x,=2 x,=2 k=2 i,=l
w,=2 wr=2k=2 i,=l

+s$[i.$-**i.$ ~lRit’pwk(r~c~]])])] c20b)

Often, we are more interested in how safely a driver

performs. Corresponding equations can be derived in the Applications and discussion
same way for a specific driver, 1, who may interact in any
time interval dt(m) with other drivers, IV (IV,.= 1, . . . , A(). The equations presented above can be applied to determine
Corresponding to equations (17a) and (17b), we have the relative risk levels of stretches of road networks, or to
respectively: determine the risk level of a fleet of vehicles, or a group of
drivers.
In a fleet of J vehicles (j = 1, . . . , J), if the vehicle j
I?eff, 1 = Lim
covers a proportion of the total distance denoted by qj and
X,(W-t
its exposure to risk covers a proportion of the time denoted
by rj,, the mean risk levels for the fleet, geff, J and Reff,J,
are given by:

(194

GE,J = i Reff,jrj @lb)

j=l

The corresponding equations for a group of L drivers are:

(19b) A eff, L = 1$1

& ff,141 (22a)
Corresponding to equations (18a) and (18b), we have
respectively: b-f,. = i &ff,lQ (22b)
I=1

I? Lim
effy
1= X,(&f)+ m
As J -+ 00 or L -+ 00, we obtain the corresponding
the entire network system:
risks for

&ff= C AetT,jqj= C &ff,lql Wa)

j=l I=1

+ f ( i Ri,,l(r, CM) R&f= 1 Eeff,jrj = C &f,lrl (23b)

r=2 i,=l j=l 1=1

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1984, Vol. 8, April 137

Model of road accidents: J. 0. Asalor

The equations are most useful in statistical studies, and The equations contain a large number of terms, and
they also shed light on some major causes of bias in re- these need to be greatly reduced. It is suggested that this
constructing the causes of accidents.14 Reconstructing the model be incorporated into traffic distribution studies
causes of an accident involving vehicle j entails an examina- involving routes with significantly different accident rates.
tion of all the terms relating to the actual number of
vehicles involved as given in equation (10). Jones” identi- Acknowledgements
fied 19 causes associated with loss of control in single-
The author acknowledges the assistance given by his
vehicle accidents alone, while Duncan et al.’ reported that
colleague, Dr G. C. Ovuworie.
98 causes of road traffic accidents are in use by the Kenyan
Police Accident Section. Acknowledging that definitions
References
of causes of accident may vary, we take n = 100 as a
representative figure. For IZ= 100 and S = 6, the total 1 Nagase, H. Appl. Math. Modelling 1980,4, 101
number of terms to be examined exceeds 1000 million, 2 Wardrop, J. G. ‘Theory of traffic flow’ (ed. Herman, R.),
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1961, pp. 57-78
while the corresponding number for n = 40 still exceeds 3 Taylor, M. A. P. Appl. Math. Model&g 1981,5, 34
four million. There is, thus, considerable compulsion to 4 Robertson, J. S., McLean, A. J. and Ryan, G. A. Australian
neglect a significant proportion of the terms. This explains Road Research Board Special Report 1, 1966, pp. 5-30
why it is so easy for average or incompetent groups of 5 Duncan, J. W. K., Noel, L. P. and Soin, S. S. Nigerian Engr
investigators to identify the wrong causes, having allowed 1976,11,6
6 Sullivan, E. C. Trump. EngngJIASCE 1975, 101 (TE4), 763
the actual causes to filter through their sieves. 7 Agent, K. R., Deacon, J. A. and Deen, R. C. Tramp. Engng JI
The problem posed for analytical studies of road traffic ASCE 1976,102 (TE2), 426
accidents by the large number of terms in the equation Hall, T. A. Tramp. Engng Jl ASCE 1978, 104 (TE4), 449
will be resolved in a subsequent paper through modelling. : Newcomb, T. P. and Spurr, R. T. ‘Braking of road vehicles’,
Chapman & Hall, London, 1967
10 Jones, 1. S. ‘The effect of vehicle characteristics on road
Conclusions and recommendations accidents’, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975
11 Darzentas, J. and McDowell, M. R. J. Opl. Res. Sot. 1981, 32,
A general model of road traffic accidents has been formu- 721
lated for a road traffic network system. The model has a 12 McDowell, M. R. C., Darzentas, J. and Wennel, J. ‘Road
safety’, Praeger, 1981, pp. 28-34
wide range of applications which include the determination 13 Lovegrove, S. A. Amt. Road. Res. 1979; 9, 42
of the safety levels of sections of and entire road networks; 14 Hutchinson, J. W. and Roberts, J. M. Transp. Engng JI ASCE
fleet of vehicles; and group of drivers. 1981, 107, note 3, 255

138 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1984, Vol. 8, April