chapter 4 comparison of accident rate using accident...

61

CHAPTER 4

COMPARISON OF ACCIDENT RATE USING

ACCIDENT RANKING

4.1 GENERAL

To give an accident ranking among the three districts

(Tiruchirappalii, Pudukottai and Thanjavur) and all the districts of Tamilnadu

in India, accident rate is used. The purpose of this system is to take remedial

measures to reduce accidents and compare the local rates with district rates,

state rates and national rates. Ranking is done on the basis of the number of

accidents and accident rates. The road safety level in Tamilnadu is taken

considering four parameters, namely, accident severity index, accident fatality

rate, accident fatality risk and accident risk.

4.2 INTRODUCTION

Among different types of roads, the Highways (NH, SH, MDR,

ODR - National Highways, State Highways, Major District Roads, Other

District Roads) and roads in urban areas experience more accidents.

Accidents do not occur uniformly on all days. Owing to environmental

conditions and variations in traffic volume, accidents are innumerable on

certain days. Accidents are mainly caused due to the improper interaction

among various factors related to drivers, vehicles, roads and weather

conditions. Large number of accidents occur at intersections in urban road

networks. Higher number of accidents obviously indicate the presence of

62

more accident causative factors and higher accident proneness of that part of

the road (Pignataro 1973). For accident numbers, higher ranking is given to

those sites with more accidents. The accident rate used for ranking is

accidents per million vehicle kilometres. Accident rate provides a way of

comparing local rates with district rates, state rates and national rates for

similar road types.

4.3 RANKING LOCATION ACCORDING TO ACCIDENTS

Except in some small places, resources will not permit the study of

all locations. The locations (presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.3) to be studied

must therefore be selected. The next in doing this is to list or rank the

locations according to accident experience (Pline 1992). Ranking is done

using two bases, namely,

Number of accidents

Accident rates.

4.3.1 Number of Accidents

The number of accidents is calculated in a simple way. Locations

are ranked according to the number of accidents experienced at each location

for the same period, usually a year. The one having the most accidents is

listed first, the one with next most second, and so on. Locations having three

or fewer accidents are omitted because they have too little experience to be

significant.

Lists (Tables 4.1 and 4.3) in which locations are ranked according

to number of accidents, can be prepared from a spot map by going through a

location file, or if locations are numerous by computer. No manipulation of

data other than counting is required before beginning the study. This simple

63

ranking by number of accidents is easy to explain. It is useful at a point when

somebody urges signs or signals “for safety” at an unimportant location. This

method is good to begin with and serves the purpose indefinitely in many

jurisdictions. The number of accidents in sections of road has little

significance unless all sections are of the same length. If sections are not of

the same length accidents per kilometre, instead of number of accidents must

be used.

But ranking by number of accidents has disadvantages. For

example, locations with few accidents at which inexpensive improvements

could be very effective will be far down on the list and so may not be reached.

Also, in extensive road networks, there may be many locations with nearly the

same number of accidents. Then additional means are useful in choosing the

best among the others.

4.3.2 Accident Rate

Rate or risk of accidents is the more useful method of ranking

locations according to accident experience. A road location may have

numerous accidents because it is much used rather than hazardous. Thus, the

location having the most accidents is not necessarily the most dangerous to

use. Conversely, lack of reported accidents for a specific period does not

mean that there is no risk. Lists (Tables 4.2 and 4.4) in which locations are

ranked according to accident rates. As risk or hazard may be expressed as an

accident rate, it is the number of those experiencing accidents (involvements)

at a location in a specified time divided by the number using the location in

the same period. Because accidents are rare events, the simple rate is a very

small decimal fraction. Therefore, for ease in writing, the rate is multiplied by

a million and quoted as accident involvements per million users (Baerwald

1976).

66

1 6

1 1 3 1 1 3 9 6 1

6

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 3 8 3 1 5 2 8

67

9 9 7

1 8 5 1 3

3

4 11 3 4

4

5 3

4 2 3 6 2 4 2

6

1 1 5

68

2 2

3

4 3 4 6 4 2 2 10 3 5 1 2

5 1 6 1 2 3 5 2 1 4

69

1 6 1 1 2 7 1 5 2 3 6 1 6 1 4

9 11

6 1

8 8 3 4 3 1 8 9 1 1

70

5 1 1 3 4 9 3 3 1 1 2 4 3 1 3 3

4 2 1 10 1 1 2 1 3 2

3 2 1

5

71

1 2 4 3 1

6 3 2 1 2 5 4 6 5 1 5 4 3 3 5 2 2

4 2 6

72

Since the early 1980s, the department of transport in UK has beendeveloping, a national database of road network information. Another versioncalled NIS (Network Information System) containing comprehensive recordof accident details and traffic flows for the whole of the trunk road networkwas developed during 1988. Using the NIS data base, In Yorkshire, Hayes(1988) developed a system to identify and rank trunk road sites with clustersof accidents. Using the above system, the comprehensive record of accidentdetails, traffic flows and road length for the three district road networks(Tiruchirappalli (city and district), Pudukottai and Thanjavur) and all thedistricts of Tamilnadu in India, ranking is assigned.

The purpose of the above system is to inform those who areresponsible for managing the road network and help them:

To direct remedial action to the sites most in need of attention.

To assess agent authorities proposals for remedial actionwithin the context of regional priorities

To assess the relative needs within the region.

A system was first devised in 1986 (the traffic section of theYorkshire and Humberside regional office) based on accident record coveringthe preceding five year period. System was almost completed in 1988. In thischapter, accident records cover the preceding four year period, (2003-2006) asmost of the road improvements were done previously.

4.4 DATA COLLECTION

In this chapter data are collected from the records of police andhighways departments during the period 2003 to 2006 (area wise) and thestatistical department from 1997 to 2008 (district wise) (CCRB and DCRBTiruchirappalli, Pudukottai, Thanjavur). They are the number of accidents

73

(Fatal and Non fatal), traffic flow (ADT) in 2008, the road length in km, areawise, district wise, state wise and nation wise.

Clusters of accidents were picked out and the section of road withinwhich they occurred determined. As an initial guide, all accidents in fouryears are included in the list of sites for ranking. In this way a list of 87 siteswas compiled in three districts and all the 29 districts of Tamilnadu in India.

4.5 RANKING

The first step in the ranking process is to obtain a detailed accidentrecord for each of the sites identified. When the system of ranking was firstdevised, an attempt was made to weigh the feature of the accidents tohighlight those sites which could be treated by engineering measures.However, weighing the features required an additional process and the resultsare not significantly different from those based on accident numbers alone.Therefore, the weighing stratagem was abandoned.

4.5.1 Methodology

Ranking is now done using two methods, number of accidents andaccident rate. For number of accidents higher ranking is given to those siteswith more accidents where there is a tie. There are two methods to befollowed for ranking against number of accidents.

a) In the first method, priority is given on the basis of accidentseverity starting with fatal and working through severe to slight inthis method, considering the site one by one according to theranking given to take remedial action against accidents.

b) The second method is, by using rank correlation method,assigned the rank to the total number of accidents. Equalattention to the repeated rank for two or more number of sitesis considered (Kadiyali 1987).

74

4.5.2 Calculation of Accident Rate

The accident rate used for ranking is accidents per million vehicle

kilometres. Accident rates are normally considered better measures of risk

than accident frequencies alone, since they account for differences in traffic

flow. The standard equation for calculating accident rate for a location is

found by dividing the accident experience by the exposure (Chand and Alex

2001, Tuladhar and Justo 1981).

(i.e.)Exposure

Accidentsof.NoRateAccident (4.1)

where the exposure over a road way section is measured by the total vehicle

kilometres of travel over the section for the period.

(i.e.) Exposure =000,000,1

NKM365ADT per million vehicles km. (4.2)

where N is the number of years, ADT is the average daily traffic and KM is

the length of the section (in km)

NKMADT365000,000,1Accidentsof.NoRateAccident (4.3)

In this chapter the length of the section is in km. The table ranked

by accident rate provides a means of comparing the local rates with district,

state and national rates for similar road types.

4.6 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

A number of studies on road safety have also been carried out in

India, in different cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Ernakulam and

Kolkata as well as on some highways. The notable studies include Srinivasan

75

and Prasad (1979), Tuladhar and Justo (1981), Kadiyali et al (1983a), Valli

and Sarkar (1997), Victor and Vasudevan (1998), Sikdar et al (1999), Chand

(1999), Baviskar (1999), Saija et al (2000), Sing and Misra (2001), Martin

(2003), Chakraborty et al (2001), Chakraborty and Roy (2005). However, no

significant studies have appeared on the accident characteristics of passenger

vehicles in the districts of Tamilnadu.

The rapid population growth and increasing economic activities

have resulted in the tremendous growth of motor vehicles which is considered

one of the primary factors responsible for increasing road accidents in many

metropolitan cities of developing countries, including Tamilnadu, India. In

this chapter an assessment of the current level of road safety in Tamilnadu is

made utilizing data obtained from secondary sources. The road safety level in

the state Tamilnadu is assessed considering four parameters, namely, accident

severity index, accident fatality rate, accident fatality risk and accident risk.

4.6.1 Accident Severity Index

The accident severity index measures the seriousness of an

accident. It is defined as the number of persons killed per 100 accidents.

Table 3.5 presents the district wise accident severity index for Tamilnadu

during the period 1997 to 2008. It is seen that the accident severity has

gradually decreased in the districts Cuddalore, Dharmapuri, Kanniyakumari,

Nagapattinam, Namakal, Theni, Thiruvarur, Thoothukkudi and Vellore, but

has, since 2001 been increasing. It is observed that in 2002 there was a sudden

rise of fatal accidents resulting in the increase of the accident severity index.

Figure 3.1 represents graphically the accident severity index for the year 2008

in terms of percentage. The figure shows that Kancheepuram has the highest

percentage (5%) of ASI in 2008. The lowest percentage of 2% is in the

districts of Chennai, Cuddalore, Nagapattinam, Thiruvarur.

76

Table 4.5 District Wise Accident Severity Index in Tamilnadu (Persons

Killed per 100 Accidents)

Sl.NoName of The

District1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 Chennai 10.90 10.76 14.66 11.42 12.17 13.04 12.59 11.80 11.46 19.01 15.14 13.26

2 Coimbatore 21.31 19.78 17.75 17.28 18.44 18.44 19.01 18.55 21.86 24.25 24.68 26.68

3 Cuddalore 21.55 15.55 18.55 14.27 12.74 13.65 13.56 13.77 14.60 13.21 13.53 14.52

4 Dharmapuri 23.96 19.49 22.48 22.49 22.58 20.87 14.89 16.24 14.70 14.18 17.84 18.96

5 Dindigul 21.04 16.78 22.15 22.18 18.11 21.80 20.88 22.18 29.93 19.54 23.79 24.18

6 Erode 22.43 20.61 20.12 18.83 18.63 18.94 19.78 20.88 23.08 25.59 24.08 26.91

7 Kancheepuram 21.12 22.92 23.73 24.71 25.56 22.23 26.24 27.41 16.16 21.28 29.70 29.59

8 Kanniyakumari 20.54 12.07 21.05 20.45 19.28 18.15 17.13 18.75 17.49 19.85 17.34 19.10

9 Karur 23.57 26.71 29.47 21.85 19.79 22.17 22.27 19.43 21.39 20.79 19.61 25.38

10 Madurai 19.46 16.63 20.72 18.98 14.57 17.19 15.70 16.17 17.50 18.87 20.32 22.66

11 Nagapattinam 24.26 12.12 14.47 16.67 14.20 12.69 11.55 10.80 11.24 10.11 13.34 13.18

12 Namakal 26.87 25.79 20.23 21.85 18.96 18.29 24.03 24.54 25.96 22.83 25.06 19.10

13 Perambalur 24.02 26.23 27.26 23.28 22.20 19.90 22.76 24.74 16.87 22.28 20.45 25.73

14 Pudukkottai 16.31 16.65 13.13 17.61 15.05 16.93 16.12 13.42 23.40 17.35 18.57 22.30

15 Ramanathapuram 23.76 15.77 21.40 20.04 18.51 26.36 17.17 20.95 24.10 23.84 21.03 25.63

16 Salem 19.82 23.48 24.69 23.52 23.21 22.72 18.43 18.23 14.24 21.22 20.99 18.91

17 Sivagangai 17.57 17.00 20.67 19.15 18.23 22.55 21.57 20.16 19.42 21.29 21.19 25.60

18 Thanjavur 14.03 15.39 16.50 16.36 15.88 14.78 12.90 12.85 14.10 13.82 13.29 17.40

19 The Nilgiris 8.65 14.04 17.44 10.36 15.38 12.38 7.43 9.86 15.31 14.12 17.48 25.72

20 Theni 25.51 18.02 20.34 15.75 17.05 16.69 14.44 17.41 20.36 22.25 19.63 20.33

21 Thiruvallur 19.70 21.03 27.80 22.42 22.19 19.43 20.71 19.07 24.85 26.15 23.80 25.22

22 Thiruvannamalai 19.93 22.82 23.75 15.37 14.88 14.96 17.79 17.08 19.35 20.13 16.23 21.14

23 Thiruvarur 15.99 16.29 16.91 15.06 14.04 9.91 13.70 10.88 12.49 11.83 15.72 14.18

24 Thoothukkudi 22.54 17.20 23.31 19.47 24.02 19.59 17.46 18.72 19.36 23.05 21.79 19.32

25 Tiruchirappalli 16.02 17.62 16.86 22.41 21.79 22.56 22.53 20.47 21.92 20.29 22.76 25.32

26 Tirunelveli 21.94 19.82 21.64 21.66 20.23 22.39 19.51 25.06 22.74 18.96 19.95 20.64

27 Vellore 24.11 19.36 20.09 23.47 21.27 20.78 20.81 20.53 18.30 17.76 19.74 18.89

28 Villupuram 21.59 21.02 23.05 23.20 24.66 23.73 23.32 21.08 23.97 24.65 23.85 26.52

29 Virudhunagar 23.39 19.15 22.20 19.57 20.53 21.35 22.36 18.62 24.39 22.85 28.47 25.02

77

KANCHEEP URAM5%

KANNIYAKUMARI3%

KARUR4%

MADURAI4%

NAGAP ATTINAM2%

NAMAKAL3%

P ERAMBALUR4%

P UDUKKOTTAI4%

THIRUVALLUR4%

THOOTHUKKUDI3%

TIRUCHIRAP P ALLI4%

TIRUNELVELI3%

VELLORE3%

VILLUP URAM4%

VIRUDHUNAGAR4%

CUDDALORE2%

COIMBATORE4%

RAMANATHAP URAM4%

SALEM3%

SIVAGANGAI4%

THANJAVUR3%

THE NILGIRIS4%

THIRUVARUR2%

THIRUVANNAMALAI3%

THENI3%

ERODE4%

DINDIGUL4%

DHARMAP URI3%

CHENNAI2%

Figure 4.1 Accident Severity Index in the Year 2008 (Persons Killedper 100 Accidents)

4.6.2 Accident Fatality Rate

The accident fatality rate is defined as the number of deaths per

10,000 vehicles. Table 4.6 presents district wise fatality rate in Tamilnadu

during the period 1997 to 2008. There was a substantial decrease in fatality

rate from 1997 to 2008. It may be noted here that although the number of

accident deaths in Tamilnadu district wise did not decrease significantly. The

vehicle population in the same period increased from 3,181,819 to 11,040,369

which resulted in a decrease of fatality rates of more than 62 per cent except

the two districts namely the Nilgiris and Tiruvallur. Figure 4.2 is the graphical

representation of the accident fatality rate for the year 2008 in percentage.

78

Table 4.6 District Wise Accident Fatality Rates in Tamilnadu (Persons

Killed per 10,000 Vehicles)

Sl.

No.Name of the

District1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 Chennai 6.74 5.22 5.91 4.69 4.71 3.24 3.36 3.35 2.98 5.39 5.13 4.15

2 Coimbatore 15.96 13.00 12.07 10.94 10.97 10.45 8.59 8.50 8.87 8.35 8.06 8.48

3 Cuddalore 40.96 32.41 40.07 24.14 21.18 20.29 19.11 18.28 20.10 16.70 15.49 15.50

4 Dharmapuri 53.19 33.09 31.44 27.14 24.02 25.89 17.37 10.40 8.83 7.37 10.86 11.80

5 Dindigul 42.94 30.64 37.14 32.65 31.33 30.34 25.49 27.36 23.12 22.77 23.07 20.83

6 Erode 27.67 23.05 21.43 18.68 18.90 17.49 14.22 12.86 14.87 15.50 13.57 14.55

7 Kancheepuram 66.41 70.50 71.66 20.15 20.30 16.34 18.14 15.26 7.97 12.03 15.13 12.70

8 Kanniyakumari 20.60 17.20 18.72 17.38 17.31 16.24 15.16 14.90 14.65 14.12 12.77 12.90

9 Karur 21.78 26.70 25.93 20.04 20.83 23.36 18.11 14.35 18.21 16.92 12.96 15.62

10 Madurai 27.57 21.97 24.16 22.18 16.63 20.83 13.62 12.79 13.44 11.83 11.67 11.70

11 Nagapattinam 50.78 24.14 25.64 26.72 22.25 18.18 15.29 14.24 17.73 13.00 18.64 14.88

12 Namakal 14.75 14.11 11.61 12.96 11.98 11.44 10.41 10.15 12.01 9.89 11.90 8.39

13 Perambalur 354.69 203.92 133.26 76.07 57.93 40.25 36.73 38.32 34.42 33.85 29.86 25.30

14 Pudukkottai 38.82 36.31 24.50 25.42 21.26 20.12 17.31 14.34 18.97 17.76 17.39 16.86

15 Ramanathapuram 38.88 30.16 29.57 27.32 20.66 28.79 19.77 21.18 25.55 20.93 17.97 21.17

16 Salem 17.55 18.43 14.70 16.89 15.64 15.45 10.25 10.14 8.47 10.84 10.30 10.32

17 Sivagangai 36.57 34.47 37.96 26.79 22.46 23.24 20.73 14.75 12.55 12.30 11.90 13.99

18 Thanjavur 41.77 35.22 32.26 29.23 28.40 24.71 19.95 18.44 22.44 19.56 18.12 20.08

19 The Nilgiris 13.21 17.93 20.53 11.50 16.78 12.36 6.98 7.65 11.87 8.62 9.67 15.01

20 Theni 36.72 27.61 64.40 18.86 19.49 20.41 16.94 20.31 23.79 27.68 19.66 18.80

21 Thiruvallur 7.77 9.98 11.38 21.21 15.69 12.34 12.24 10.42 11.34 10.94 8.59 7.36


23 Thiruvarur 222.42 101.95 57.42 46.92 37.62 19.59 24.82 18.20 22.11 19.44 22.73 16.34

24 Thoothukkudi 31.05 21.25 31.82 21.14 25.44 19.18 15.84 15.62 16.27 17.61 17.95 15.50


26 Tirunelveli 24.99 22.74 24.69 22.34 20.68 20.82 15.83 16.24 14.75 12.60 14.22 13.46

27 Vellore 42.74 30.80 28.20 27.90 19.69 22.02 18.50 15.73 14.77 14.45 13.32 14.87

28 Villupuram 91.35 97.16 97.40 81.13 77.90 75.14 65.49 52.87 55.55 51.08 45.86 48.26

29 Virudhunagar 25.65 20.95 24.19 18.09 17.97 16.32 15.62 12.86 15.56 12.42 14.12 11.13

79

COIMBATORE2%

CUDDALORE3%DHARMAPURI

3%DINDIGUL

5%

ERODE3%

KANCHEEPURAM3%

KANNIYAKUMARI3%

KARUR3%

MADURAI3%

NAGAPATTINAM3%

NAMAKAL2%

PERAMBALUR6%

PUDUKKOTTAI4%

RAMANATHAPURAM5%

SALEM2%

SIVAGANGAI3%

THANJAVUR4%

THE NILGIRIS3%

THENI4%

THIRUVALLUR2%

THIRUVANNAMALAI4%

THIRUVARUR4%

THOOTHUKKUDI3%

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI3%

TIRUNELVELI3%

VELLORE3%

VILLUPURAM11%

VIRUDHUNAGAR2%

CHENNAI1%

Figure 4.2 Accident Fatality Rates in the Year 2008 (Number of Deathsper 10,000 Vehicles)

From the diagram, Villupuram district shows the highest percentage (11%) of

accident fatality rate in the year 2008. But the lowest percentage of 1% occurs

in Chennai district during the same year.

4.6.3 Accident Fatality Risk

The accident fatality risk, defined as the number of accidental

deaths per 100,000 population, shows an increasing trend in Tamilnadu

district wise. From Table 4.7 it is seen that the fatality risk has increased

marginally from 1997 to 2008 except in the districts Dharmapuri,

Nagapattinam and Vellore. It showed an upward trend thereafter but was on

the down again in 2002 when the number of deaths owing to accidents

80

Table 4.7 District Wise Accident Fatality Risk in Tamilnadu (PersonsKilled per 100,000 Population)

Sl.NoName of The

District1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 Chennai 15.76 13.07 15.99 13.72 14.69 10.81 11.96 12.89 12.47 24.40 25.09 21.34

2 Coimbatore 20.96 19.03 19.49 19.60 19.55 20.39 18.46 20.19 23.56 24.49 26.09 29.46

3 Cuddalore 17.39 15.06 20.76 13.82 13.87 14.31 14.31 14.53 17.45 16.06 16.39 17.35

4 Dharmapuri 15.33 11.56 13.20 13.09 12.67 15.12 10.90 6.54 5.85 5.20 8.16 9.39

5 Dindigul 16.10 13.00 17.90 17.48 17.89 18.70 16.80 19.29 18.28 19.23 20.87 20.52

6 Erode 18.68 18.02 19.15 18.79 20.03 19.96 17.69 17.35 21.51 23.38 22.87 26.48

7 Kancheepuram 15.17 17.51 18.51 17.69 20.54 18.45 22.22 20.91 12.38 21.28 30.17 28.41

8 Kanniyakumari 7.14 6.62 8.16 8.46 9.55 9.75 9.67 10.11 11.00 11.78 11.69 13.18

9 Karur 13.57 19.08 20.75 18.15 20.31 24.25 19.94 17.07 23.43 24.88 20.53 27.14

10 Madurai 16.56 14.71 17.94 18.23 15.48 21.10 14.82 14.95 17.34 16.76 18.07 19.55

11 Nagapattinam 14.06 7.47 9.13 10.51 9.54 8.38 7.58 7.59 10.38 8.56 12.84 11.29

12 Namakal 19.75 20.43 18.56 22.17 19.22 19.30 18.34 18.97 23.99 21.11 26.81 20.23

13 Perambalur 11.09 13.20 14.53 11.65 11.58 9.75 10.07 11.87 12.18 14.18 14.55 16.19

14 Pudukkottai 10.05 11.01 8.70 10.62 10.35 11.00 10.23 9.34 13.76 14.44 15.70 16.69

15 Ramanathapuram 9.11 7.73 8.50 8.46 7.33 11.35 8.43 9.76 13.01 12.02 11.45 14.55

16 Salem 14.39 16.56 14.59 18.28 17.41 18.13 12.79 13.49 12.07 16.74 16.93 18.21

17 Sivagangai 8.93 10.37 13.99 11.75 11.43 13.63 13.34 10.53 10.03 11.20 12.02 15.61

18 Thanjavur 12.11 11.99 12.70 12.92 13.81 13.32 12.01 11.82 15.69 14.57 14.67 18.06

19 The Nilgiris 4.52 6.59 7.86 4.56 6.82 5.20 3.09 3.58 5.96 4.53 5.36 8.79

20 Theni 10.95 8.92 10.48 8.58 10.06 11.23 9.78 12.46 15.98 19.88 15.73 17.00

21 Thiruvallur 4.18 6.76 9.39 6.87 6.46 6.40 7.66 7.70 9.92 11.48 10.60 10.66


23 Thiruvarur 8.81 8.75 8.79 9.00 9.15 5.59 7.64 6.41 9.08 9.01 11.71 9.69

24 Thoothukkudi 13.71 10.68 16.41 13.55 17.17 13.86 12.12 12.69 14.19 16.39 18.26 17.29


26 Tirunelveli 9.40 9.67 11.99 12.29 12.44 13.75 10.89 12.15 12.02 11.26 14.14 14.56

27 Vellore 15.42 12.55 13.21 14.88 11.01 13.33 12.17 11.26 11.61 12.56 12.85 15.75

28 Villupuram 15.19 17.70 20.12 19.48 21.59 22.59 20.76 17.92 21.53 21.98 21.87 25.48

29 Virudhunagar 10.91 10.21 13.51 11.43 12.33 12.33 12.73 11.29 14.83 12.91 16.02 13.64

81

CHENNAI4% COIMBATORE

6%CUDDALORE

3%

DHARMAP URI2%

DINDIGUL4%

ERODE5%

KANCHEEP URAM6%

KANNIYAKUMARI3%

KARUR5%

MADURAI4%

NAGAP ATTINAM2%NAMAKAL

4%P ERAMBALUR3%

P UDUKKOTTAI3%

RAMANATHAP URAM3%

SALEM4%

SIVAGANGAI3%

THANJAVUR4%

THE NILGIRIS2%

THENI3%

THIRUVALLUR2%

THIRUVANNAMALAI3%

THIRUVARUR2%

THOOTHUKKUDI3%

TIRUCHIRAP PALLI4%

TIRUNELVELI3%

VELLORE3%

VILLUP URAM5%

VIRUDHUNAGAR3%

Figure 4.3 Accident Fatality Risk in the Year 2008 (Number of Deathsper 100,000 Populations)

decreased compared with 2001. Figure 4.3 is the graphical representation of

district wise accident fatality risk in Tamilnadu for the year 2008 in terms of

percentage. The above diagram shows that Coimbatore and Kancheepuram

have the highest percentage (6%) of accident fatality risk in 2008. But the five

districts of Dharmapuri, Nagapattinam, the Nilgiris, Thiruvallur and

Thiruvarur have the least percentage (2%).

82

4.6.4 Accident Risk

Accident risk is defined as the number of accidents per 100,000population. Table 4.8 presents the accident risk in Tamilnadu district wise forthe same period 1997 to 2008. It is seen that accident risk increased from1997 to 2008 but except the districts of Dharmapuri, the Nilgiris andTiruchirappalli. The increasing trend of accident risk indicated that thechances of non-fatal accidents were gradually increasing, making the peopleof Tamilnadu district wise more vulnerable to the non-fatal type of accidents.Figure 4.4 is the graphical representation of the accident risk for the year2008. The highest percentage (7%) of accident risk is seen in Chennai districtwhere as the Nilgiris shows the least (1%) in the year 2008.

CHENNAI7%

COIMBATORE5%

CUDDALORE5%

DHARMAPURI2%

DINDIGUL4%

ERODE4%

KANCHEEP URAM4%

KANNIYAKUMARI3%

KARUR4%

MADURAI4%

NAGAPATTINAM4%NAMAKAL

4%PERAMBALUR

3%RAMANATHAPURAM

2%

SALEM4%

SIVAGANGAI3%

THANJ AVUR4%

THE NILGIRIS1%

THENI3%

THIRUVALLUR2%

THIRUVANNAMALAI3%

THIRUVARUR3%

THOOTHUKKUDI4%

TIRUCHIRAP P ALLI3%

TIRUNELVELI3%

VELLORE3%

VIRUDHUNAGAR2%

VILLUP URAM4%

P UDUKKOTTAI3%

Figure 4.4 Accident Risk in the Year 2008 (Number of Accidents per100,000 Population)

83

Table 4.8 District Wise Accident Risk in Tamilnadu (Accidents per100,000 Population)

Sl.

No.

Name of the

District1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 Chennai 144.57 121.48 109.01 120.09 120.68 82.91 94.99 109.23 108.85 128.31 165.72 160.98

2 Coimbatore 98.36 96.22 109.80 113.44 106.02 110.56 97.12 108.85 107.76 101.02 105.71 110.41

3 Cuddalore 80.70 96.87 111.93 96.80 108.91 104.82 105.48 105.47 119.50 121.58 121.16 119.46

4 Dharmapuri 64.00 59.28 58.70 58.20 56.12 72.46 73.19 40.29 39.79 36.66 45.71 49.51

5 Dindigul 76.53 77.48 80.80 78.82 98.80 85.78 80.48 86.98 61.06 98.40 87.72 84.88

6 Erode 83.28 87.43 95.16 99.79 107.50 105.35 89.43 83.09 93.18 91.37 95.00 98.37

7 Kancheepuram 71.80 76.42 78.00 71.59 80.35 83.01 84.67 76.30 76.62 99.99 101.58 96.03

8 Kanniyakumari 34.78 54.88 38.74 41.36 49.52 53.73 56.42 53.91 62.92 59.34 67.40 69.00

9 Karur 57.54 71.45 70.44 83.04 102.60 109.38 89.52 87.82 109.50 119.70 104.67 106.94

10 Madurai 85.14 88.46 86.60 96.04 106.24 122.70 94.38 92.48 99.11 88.83 88.92 86.30

11 Nagapattinam 57.97 61.58 63.08 63.06 67.17 66.08 65.69 70.23 92.30 84.69 96.25 85.66

12 Namakal 73.51 79.22 91.73 101.47 101.38 105.54 76.34 77.32 92.40 92.44 106.97 105.88

13 Perambalur 46.15 50.33 53.30 50.05 52.14 49.01 44.26 47.98 72.19 63.65 71.17 62.95

14 Pudukkottai 61.67 66.11 66.31 60.32 68.72 64.96 63.44 69.57 58.82 83.23 84.56 74.83

15 Ramanathapuram 38.33 49.01 39.73 42.20 39.58 43.05 49.11 46.57 53.99 50.42 54.45 56.76

16 Salem 72.58 70.51 59.11 77.71 74.99 79.81 69.41 74.01 84.78 78.87 80.64 96.33

17 Sivagangai 50.82 60.99 67.68 61.39 62.66 60.46 61.87 52.25 51.65 52.58 56.71 60.95

18 Thanjavur 86.33 77.93 77.00 78.95 86.95 90.13 93.05 91.95 111.25 105.40 110.44 103.81

19 The Nilgiris 52.20 46.94 45.05 44.01 44.35 41.99 41.62 36.28 38.90 32.06 30.69 34.19

20 Theni 42.92 49.48 51.51 54.50 58.96 67.29 67.77 71.56 78.48 89.33 80.14 83.62

21 Thiruvallur 21.20 32.12 33.76 30.64 29.11 32.94 37.00 40.40 39.93 43.89 44.53 42.25


23 Thiruvarur 55.08 53.70 51.95 59.77 65.16 56.42 55.75 58.94 72.75 76.19 74.48 68.29

24 Thoothukkudi 60.81 62.08 70.41 69.58 71.49 70.76 69.39 67.81 73.27 71.11 83.82 89.52


26 Tirunelveli 42.85 48.80 55.41 56.76 61.53 61.40 55.80 48.50 52.86 59.37 70.86 70.52

27 Vellore 63.94 64.85 65.73 63.39 51.79 64.16 58.48 54.82 63.43 70.76 65.11 83.37

28 Villupuram 70.34 84.25 87.28 83.96 87.52 95.21 89.03 85.05 89.80 89.16 91.70 96.08

29 Virudhunagar 46.65 53.31 60.84 58.43 60.07 57.76 56.91 60.60 60.82 56.51 56.25 54.50

84

Figures 4.5 to 4.33 indicate the graphical comparisons of accident

severity index, accident fatality rate and accident fatality risk of all the

districts of Tamilnadu. Out of four parameters of road safety level in

Tamilnadu district wise, three parameters namely accident severity index,

accident fatality rate and accident fatality risk are taken to draw the trend

chart for all the districts from 1997 to 2008. Since the value of the left out

parameter is very high, the other three parameters are only considered. The

values of the remaining parameters are very low compared to the fourth

parameter and so the diagram is not so apt and visible. The fourth parameter

for accident risk is shown separately.

In Chennai district, there is a sudden growth in fatality risk and

severity index from 2005 to 2008. The same rise is observed in Coimbatore

district from 2004 to 2008. A downward tend is seen in accident fatality rate

in the districts of Cuddalore, Dharmapuri, Dindigul, Kancheepuram,

Perambalur, Pudukkottai, Ramanathapuram, Sivagangai, Thanjavur,

Thiruvarur, Vellore and Villupuram during the year 1997 to 2001. It is

because the number of accident deaths did not decrease significantly during

that period in the above mentioned districts.

The vehicle population of those districts has increased which

resulted in the 20% decrease of fatality rate. However this decreasing trend

has reversed in 2001. It showed a downward trend thereafter but was on the

rise in 2006. This is due to the increasing number of deaths compared to the

year 2005 in some of the districts like Dharmapuri, Erode, Kanniyakumari,

Madurai, Pudukkottai, Ramanathapuram, Tiuchirappalli, Thiruvallur,

Thirunalveli and Vellore. Severity index, fatality rate and fatality risk based

on road accidents show similar trend in the districts like Coimbatore,

Dharmapuri, Kanniyakumari, Madurai, Nagapattinam, Ramanathapuram, the

Nilgiris, Thiruvannamalai, Thoothukkudi, Vellore and Virudhunagar.

85

Figure 4.34 shows the graph of accident risk in the districts of

Tamilnadu from 1997 to 2008. From the diagram, it is clear that vast

variations of accident risk in the districts of Chennai, Coimbatore, Cuddalore,

Dharmapuri, Dindigul, Erode, Kancheepuram, Kanniyakumari, Karur,

Madurai, Namakal and Theni comparing to other districts. Regarding the vast

variations, Chennai and Karur lead the other districts.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatality rateAccident fatality risk

Figure 4.5 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Chennai

86

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatali ty rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.6 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Coimbatore

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severity indexAccident fatali ty rateAccident fatali ty risk

Figure 4.7 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Cuddalore

87

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatali ty rateAccident fatality risk

Figure 4.8 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Dharmapuri

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severity indexAccident fatal ity rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.9 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Dindigul

88

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatal ity rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.10 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Erode

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident severity indexAccident fatality rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.11 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Kancheepuram

89

0

5

10

15

20

25

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.12 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Kanniyakumari

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.13 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Karur

90

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.14 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Madurai

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.15 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Nagapattinam

91

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident severity indexAccident fatality rateAccident fatality risk

Figure 4.16 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Namakal

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatal ity rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.17 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Perambalur

92

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident Severity indexAccident fatali ty rateAccident fatality risk

Figure 4.18 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Pudukkottai

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR


Figure 4.19 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Ramanathapuram

93

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.20 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Salem

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.21 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Sivagangai

94

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.22 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Thanjavur

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatal ity rateAccident fatal ity ri sk

Figure 4.23 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in the Nilgiris

95

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatality rateAccident fatali ty risk

Figure 4.24 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Theni

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.25 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Thiruvallur

96

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.26 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Thiruvannamalai

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severity indexAccident fatal ity rateAccident fatal ity ri sk

Figure 4.27 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Thiruvarur

97

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident severity indexAccident fatality rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.28 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Thoothukkudi

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.29 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Tiruchirappalli

98

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR

Accident severi ty indexAccident fatli ty rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.30 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Tirunelveli

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR

Accident severity indexAccident fata.lity rateAccident fatal ity risk

Figure 4.31 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Vellore

99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

YEAR


Figure 4.32 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Villupuram

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009YEAR


Figure 4.33 Severity Index, Fatality Rate and Fatality Risk of RoadAccidents in Virudhunagar

100

ACCIDENT RISK

101

4.7 ADVANTAGES

The tables together give a broad indication of the state of road

safety on the roads in the region. It has been found that the ranking system

serves other useful purposes, as mentioned below

It acts as an early warning device in indicating locations where

the accident record is deteriorating.

It serves as a safety net in identifying sites which have not

been detected by the other methods operated by the regional

office.

It gives a measure of the effectiveness of the remedial work

carried out.

4.8 RESULTS

A comparison of the four tables (Tables 3.1 to 3.4) shows that,

although the rank of sites varied with method of ranking, the content of each

table is remarkably consistent with approximately 90 percent of the sites in

any one table also featuring in the other. The results of this work conformed

to state and national trends in several ways; in particular there is a marked

contrast between the frequency of accidents with urban areas and those in

rural areas. Also motorways have much better accident records than all other

roads.

Krishnagiri district was started only in the year 2004. So its data

could not be found out for the previous years. Comparing local with district,

state and national average, some sites identified and ranked have much higher

accident rates. In both tables, some routes stood out as having a high

incidence of accidents. The most prominent of these three districts for the first

102

10 accident rates, maximum number will be in Tiruchirappalli district. Of the

sites identified for ranking, almost all were already under the subject of

examination for remedial treatment, either by national improvement scheme

or regional improvement scheme.

4.9 SUMMARY

1. A simple computerized system for the course ranking of

accident sites has been developed to facilitate the management

of the road network within the three districts namely

Tiruchirappalli (city and district), Pudukottai and Thanjavur

and all the districts of Tamilnadu in India. It is a two (accident

rate and accident numbers) stage process of identification and

ranking. Identification is carried out from the records of

police, highways and statistical departments of Tamilnadu.

Ranking and computing are being done on two bases, accident

numbers and accident rate.

2. The correlation coefficient between the two methods of

ranking in the three districts (87sites) is 0.440 and the

correlation coefficient between the methods of ranks in all the

districts of Tamilnadu in India is 0.601.

3. The accident risk showed an increasing trend from 1997 to

2008, but has since been decreasing. This again reiterates that

the traffic management measures taken in the recent past have

been effective.

4. In general, the accident severity index of Tamilnadu has

shown an increasing trend, although there was a decrease in

2007. Various traffic engineering measures undertaken in the

103

last few years might have helped in curbing the number of

total accidents as well as fatal accidents.

5. A general decrease in accident fatality rates despite the

considerable increase of motor vehicles, indicates that the

traffic operation management in the state might have

improved.

6. The rate of increase of the accident fatality risk was higher

than the other parameters. This indicates that the safety

improvement measures undertaken in the state have been

effective.

Method of ranking helps to take remedial measures against

accidents. It is an early warning device in indicating the locations where the

accident record is deteriorating. This feature allows a quick visual

identification and ranking of the problematic location of area concerned. One

of the main advantages of this system is that the authority can easily perceive

and experience the economic loss incurred due to accidents and thus perhaps

help to justify the allocation of funds needed for the countermeasures. Safety

improvement measures like widening roads, constructing signals and flyovers,

road markings and signage etc. to reduce accidents.

For further improvement of reducing road accidents of all the 87

sites of Tiuchirappalli, Thanjavur and Pudukkottai, pavement marking is

taken as one of the remedial measures, which is discussed in the next chapter.

chapter 4 comparison of accident rate using accident...

Documents