Motor vehicle crash countermeasures often are selected after an extensive data analysis of the crash history of a roadway segment. The value of this analysis depends on the accuracy or precision with which the crash itself is located. yet this crash location only is as accurate as the estimate of the police officer. Global Positioning System (GPS) technology may have the potential to increase data accuracy and decrease the time spent to record crash locations. Over 10 months, 32 motor vehicle crash locations were determined by using both conventional methods and hand-held GPS receivers, and the timeliness and precision of the methods were compared. Local crash data analysts were asked how the improved precision affected their consideration of potential crash countermeasures with regard to five crashes selected from the sample. On average, measuring a crash location by using GPS receivers added up to 10 extra minutes, depending on the definition of the crash location, the technology employed, and how that technology was applied. The average difference between conventional methods of measuring the crash location and either GPS or a wheel ranged from 5 m (16 ft) to 39 m (130 ft), depending on how one defined the crash location. Although there are instances in which improved precision will affect the evaluation of crash countermeasures, survey respondents and the literature suggest that problems with conventional crash location methods often arise from human error, not a lack of precision inherent in the technology employed.
A semi-nonparametric Poisson regression model for analyzing motor vehicle crash data
