ArticleAccident; analysis and prevention2020
Comparing distance and time as driving exposure measures to evaluate fatal crash risk ratios.
Article in Accident; analysis and prevention, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of driver licensing renewal policies on older driver crash involvement and injury rates in 13 states, 2000-2019.Injury epidemiology · 2025Article
- Young Adult Alcohol and Cannabis Impaired Driving After the Opening of Cannabis Retail Stores in Washington State.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024Article
- Validating the representativeness assumption of the quasi-induced exposure method using a national representative field observation survey.Traffic injury prevention · 2021Article
- Driver License Renewal Laws and Older Adults' Daily Driving, United States, 2003-2017.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of an appropriate driving exposure measure is essential to calculate traffic crash rates and risks. Commonly used exposure measures include driving distance and the number of licensed drivers. These measures have some limitations, including the unavailability of disaggregated estimates for consecutive years, low data quality, and the failure to represent the driving population when the crash occurred. However, the length of driving time, available annually from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), can be disaggregated by age, gender, time-of-day, and day-of week, and addresses the temporal discontinuity limitation of driving distance on the United States (U.S.) national scale.
objectivesThe objective of this study is to determine if the length of driving time as a driving exposure measure is comparable to driving distance by comparing distance-based and time-based fatal crash risk ratios by driver age category, gender, time-of-day, and day-of-week.
methodsThe 2016-2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) provided driving distance, and 2016-2017 Fatality Analysis Reporting System provided the number of drivers in fatal crashes. The distributions of driving distance and length of driving time by driver age category (16-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65 years or older), gender, time-of-day, day-of-week were compared. Two negative binomial regression models were used to compute the distance-based and time-based fatal crash risk ratios.
resultsThe distributions of driving-distance were not different from the length-of-driving-time distributions by driver age category, gender, time-of-day, and day-of-week. Driving distance and the length of driving time provide similar fatal crash risk ratio estimates.
conclusionsThe length of driving time can be an alternative to driving distance as a measure of driving exposure. The primary advantage of driving time over driving distance is that, starting from 2003, the disaggregated estimates of the length of driving time are available from ATUS over consecutive years, curtailing the discontinuity limitation of driving distance. Furthermore, the length of driving time is related to drivers' perceived risks about their driving conditions and as a result, may be a better exposure measure than driving distance in comparing crash risks between drivers whose likelihood of traveling in hazardous driving conditions (e.g., nighttime) varies substantially.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.