Accident Analysis and Prevention 33 (2001) 799 808

www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Overdispersion in modelling accidents on road sections and in

Empirical Bayes estimation
Ezra Hauer *
35 Merton Street, Apartment 1706, Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S 3G4
Received 28 September 2000; received in revised form 08 October 2000; accepted 30 October 2000

Abstract

In multivariate statistical models of road safety one usually finds that the accident counts are overdispersed. The extent of the
overdispersion is itself subject to estimation. It is shown that the assumption one makes about the nature of overdispersion will
affect the maximum likelihood estimates of model parameters. If one assumes that the same overdispersion parameter applies to
all road sections in the data base, then, the maximum likelihood estimate of parameters will be unduly influenced by very short
road sections and insufficiently influenced by long road sections. The same assumption about the overdispersion parameter also
leads to an inconsistency when one estimates the safety of a road section by the Empirical Bayes method. A way to avoid both
problems is to estimate an overdispersion parameter () that applies to a unit length of road, and to set the overdispersion
parameter for a road section of length L to L. How this would change the estimates of regression parameters for road section
models now in use requires examination. Safety estimation by the Empirical Bayes method is altered substantially. 2001
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Empirical Bayes; Overdispersion; Negative binomial; Multivariate model

1. Introduction The NB distribution arises when accident counts for

Entities have accident counts and traits. An entity
can be a road section with traits such as length, traffic
flow, number of lanes; entities can be drivers, with
gender, age, annual distance travelled as traits; they can
be grade crossings, with train traffic, vehicle traffic,
sight distance, protective device used as traits; entities
can be cities, with road density, number of inhabitants
as traits, and so on. Often statistical regression models
are formulated to express the expected accident count
of an entity as a function of its traits. After the un-
known model parameters are estimated, one usually
finds that the accident counts are overdispersed. That
is, that the differences between the accident counts and
model predictions, are larger than what would be con-
sistent with the assumption that accident counts are
Poisson distributed. This led researchers to use the
Negative Binomial (NB) distribution to represent the
distribution of accident counts.
* Tel.: +1-416-483-4452; fax: +1-416-483-4415.
E-mail address: ezra.hauer@utoronto.ca (E. Hauer).
entity i are Poisson distributed with a mean piq while q
is random variable drawn from a gamma distribution
with mean= 1 and variance= 1/ (see, e.g. Guo 1996).
We will call the overdispersion parameter. Let Yi be
the count of accidents on entity i. By the NB
distribution,
P(Yi = yi )=
G(yi + )  
pi 
yi
. (1)
G()yi ! pi + pi +
The value of the overdispersion parameter is estimated
along with all other unknown model parameters.
The overdispersion parameter features in two uses to
which the results of statistical regression modelling are
put. First, when the results of modelling are used to
estimate what is the mean accident frequency of entities
with given traits, the overdispersion parameter serves to
indicate how widely the accidents counts are distributed
around the estimated mean. Second, when the results of
modelling are used to estimate the safety of a specific
entity for which the traits and the accident record are
known by the Empirical Bayes (EB) method (see, e.g.

0001-4575/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 1 - 4 5 7 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 9 4 - 4
800 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
Hauer, 1997), the overdispersion parameter determines
the relative weights given to the model prediction and
the accident record.
When fitting models to accident counts it is often
assumed that one overdispersion parameter is common
to all entities. Thus, e.g. a single common overdisper-
sion parameter is used by Maycock and Hall (1984)to
model accidents at roundabouts, by Hausman et al.
(1984) to model patent counts; Hauer et al. (1989) to
model accidents at urban signalized intersections; by
Bonneson and McCoy (1993) to model accidents at
stop-controlled rural intersections; by Guo (1996) to
model quarterly counts of surgical procedures; by Mi-
aou (1996) to model truck accidents; by Vogt and
Bared (1998) to model accidents on rural road segments
and intersections, and by many others.
To use an overdispersion parameter that is common
to all entities may be found limiting. There is no reason
to expect that the gamma distribution from which q is
sampled is the same for all the entities that make up the
data for the regression, or to all the entities to which
the predictions may be thought to apply. One way to
remove this limitation is to assume that i =p ki (see,
e.g. Cameron and Trivedi, 1998 and Maher and Sum-
mersgill, 1996). When the parameter k is set to 0, the
standard NB model is obtained; when k\ 0 is chosen
then the variance of the gamma distribution from
which q is sampled decreases as pi increases. Miaou and
Lum (1993) modelled crashes on rural interstate high-
ways using k=1. Using the data from Maycock and
Hall (1984) for four-arm roundabouts, Maher and
Summersgill (1996) report that k=0.25 maximized the
likelihood of the data. Yet another possibility is to
assume that itself is a function of the various covari-
ates and unknown parameters. Heydecker and Wu
(1999) used this approach when modelling accidents at
three-arm junctions. The attraction of such generaliza-
tions is that they can better represent the reality of
specific data sets.
My experience with accident prediction models for
road sections which differ in length leads me to believe
that the choice of the expression for overdispersion is
not only a matter of getting a better fit at the price of
additional parameters in the model. The issue is not
only empirical but also conceptual. In Section 2I show
why problems of parameter estimation may arise when
the same value of is assumed to apply to road
sections that differ in length. In Section 3I discuss the
general mechanism by which overdispersion arises in
accident modelling. This understanding leads to a sug-
gestion of a remedy to the aforementioned problem.
The remedy is discussed in Section 4. In Section 5 I
argue that the use of a single and common dispersion
parameter also leads to a logical blemish in the Empir-
ical Bayes Estimation of expected accident frequency
and that the remedy in Section 4 removes the blemish.
Table 1
Data for two road sections
Section Traits Accident counts
L, length (km) X, AADT Y, accidents in a year
1 0.5 500 1
2 10.0 500 40
2. A problem of influence
In this section a numerical example is used to illus-
trate how two alternative assumptions about the distri-
bution of accident counts influence parameter
estimates. In this example a parameter is estimated once
assuming that accident counts are Poisson distributed
and next using the NB distribution assumption. The
data in this example are for two road sections with the
traits and accident counts given in Table 1. Take, e.g.
the model equation pi = hLiX 0.5 In this pi is
i .
the expected number of accidents per year for road
section i, Li is the length of road section i, and Xi is its
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). The parameter
h is to be estimated by the method of maximum likeli-
hood.
2.1. Poisson regression
Assume first that the accident counts (Y) comes from
a Poisson distribution. The Poisson log-likelihood func-
tions with respect to h for section 1, section 2, both
sections on the same graph, and the sum for both
sections together are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 Fig. 3 Fig.
4.
The maximum in Fig. 1 is at h1 = 1/(0.5 5000.5)=
0.089, in Fig. 2 at h2 = 40/(10 5000.5)= 0.179. Fig. 3
serves to show that the variation in log-likelihood for
section 1 is very small compared to the variation in the
log-likelihood for section 2. This is why the much
longer road section 2 with its many accidents dominates
the joint log-likelihood function in Fig. 4. As a result
the maximum for the sum of two log-likelihoods is at h1
and 2= 0.175, very close to the maximum for road
section 2.
That a data point with many accidents should have
more influence on the estimate of h than a data point
with a few accidents is in accord with intuition and can
be explained from basic principles. For road section i, h
is its mean number of accidents divided by LiX 0.5 i .
When h is estimated, the accident count replaces the
mean number of accidents. If the accident count is
Poisson distributed, the variance of this estimate of h is
i ) = h/(Li X i ). Thus, whatever the
the meani /(LiX 0.5 2 0.5
value of h, since L1/L2 = 1/20, the variance of h1 is 20
times the variance of h2. In combining two estimates of
 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
Fig. 1. Section 1.
different precision, the combined estimate is most pre-
cise if we use a linear combination of h1 and h2 with the
inverse of their variances as weights. That is, h1&2 =
(0.089/20 + 0.179/1)/(1/20 + 1/1) = 0.175. In this, the
weight of h1 = 0.089 is 1/21 and the weight of h2 =
0.179 is 1/1.05.
2.2. Negati6e binomial regression
Assume now that accident counts (Y) come from the
negative binomial distribution in Eq. (1) and that it is
known that = 1. The negative binomial log-likelihood
functions with respect to h for section 1, section 2, both
sections on the same graph, and the sum for both
sections together are shown in Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig.
8. The maxima in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 are, as before, at
h1 = 0.089 and h2 = 0.179. However, as is evident from
the comparison of Fig. 3 and Fig. 7, the log-likelihood
function for road section 2 is now much flatter. There-
fore, when the log-likelihoods for sections 1 and 2 (Fig.
8) are added, the h1 and 2 shifts a considerable way from
h2 in the direction of h1. It is now 0.144. The mutual
position of the estimates is depicted in Fig. 9.
Fig. 2. Section 2.
801
Fig. 3. Sections 1 and 2.
It is commonly believed that the estimates of model
parameters do not change much when accident counts
are assumed to be NB instead of Poisson distributed;
the belief is that alternative assumptions about the
distribution of accident counts affect mainly the preci-
sion with which the model parameters are estimated. In
this numerical example, in which there are large differ-
ences in road section length, the maximum likelihood
parameter estimate does depend on what is assumed to
be the distribution of accident counts.
The issue is now clear. We expect that road section 2,
which is 20 times longer than road section 1 and has 40
times as many accidents, will always exert a strong pull
on the maximum likelihood estimate h1&2. It is dis-
turbing to find that assuming accident counts to be NB
distributed with a common , considerably weakens the
influence of what should be the dominant data point.
Why is this so?
The transparent explanation is again provided by
examining the relative precision of the estimates h1 and
h2. Under the Poisson assumption the variance of an
estimate of h was mean/(LX 0.5)2. Under the NB as-
sumption the variance of an estimate of h is [mean
(1+ mean/)]/(LX 0.5)2. If we take mean1 = 0.144
Fig. 4. Sum for sections 1 and 2.
802 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
Fig. 5. Section 1.
0.5 5000.5 =1.6 accidents per year and mean2 =20
1.6= 32 accidents per year, then the ratio of their
variances is [1.6(1+ 1.6)/L 21]/[(32(1 +32)/(20L)21]=
4.16/2.64 # 1.5. Combining the two hi s we now obtain
h1 and 2 = (0.089/4.16 + 0.179/2.64)/(1/4.16 + 1/2.64) =
0.144. Whereas under the Poisson assumption the vari-
ance of h1 was 20 times that of h2, under the NB
assumption it is only 1.5 times.
The root of the problem in the numerical example is
the innocuous but commonly made assumption, that
the overdispersion parameter is the same for road
sections 1 and 2. Recall that the NB distribution arises
when pi is multiplied by a random variable q drawn
from a gamma distribution with mean=1 and vari-
ance =1/i. This amounts to assuming that the vari-
ance of accident counts is pi (1 + pi /i ). For road
section 2, under the Poisson assumption, the variance
of accident counts was the same as the mean (32); using
= 1 in the NB assumption, the variance of accident
counts is 33 times the mean [32(1+ 32/1) =1056]. The
reason for the dramatic increase in the variance of the
accident counts of road section 2 is that its mean (32) is
Fig. 6. Section 2.
Fig. 7. Sections 1 and 2.
large compared to the magnitude of the overdispersion
parameter .
The issue can be now stated generally:
The lesser the variance of the (accident) counts for a
data point (a road section), the larger is its influence
on the estimates of model parameters. When counts
are assumed to be NB distributed with a common
overdispersion parameter , then, entities with a
mean that is large in comparison to the magnitude of
will suffer a dramatic increase in the variance of
their (accident) counts. This brings about a corre-
spondingly large decline in their influence over the
most likely value of the model parameters, as com-
pared to their influence when counts are assumed to
be Poisson distributed. But entities with large means
(e.g. long road sections and road sections with a lot
of traffic) are precisely those entities that should
influence parameter estimation most.
Miaou and Lum (1993) provide essentially the same
argument when they note that in estimating the
Fig. 8. Sum for sections 1 and 2.
 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
Fig. 9. Comparison of estimates.
(regression) coefficients for road sections with the same
AADT the linear-regression models put considerably
more weight on accidents observed on short road sec-
tions than those observed on long sections (p. 698).
They argue in favour of using the Poisson models
(where the variance of accident counts is the mean) as
opposed to the Normal and Log-Normal models
(which they, for some reason, call linear-regression
models) in which the assumption is that the variance is
proportional to the square of the road section length or
the square of the mean.
That under the NB error structure with common ,
road section 2 does not dominate the estimate of h
should raise eyebrows. To suggest a sensible remedy, it
is necessary to be clear about why overdispersion arises
in our circumstance.
3. Why are accident counts overdispersed?
The usual circumstance of statistical road safety
modelling is that we have data for many entities (say,
road sections) and we wish to fit a model to this data
set. For each entity we know the count of accidents that
have been reported to the police. In addition, for each
entity we know some traits that have been measured or
estimated with varying degrees of accuracy. The mea-
sured traits are often averages over the road section
length (e.g. roadside hazard rating) or averages over
time (e.g. Annual Average Daily Traffic AADT).
We then choose to include some such measured traits in
the model equation as covariates. These will be called
the represented traits. In addition, there are the mea-
sured traits that are not represented in the model, some
measurable but unmeasured traits, and perhaps some
altogether unmeasurable traits. These are the unrepre-
sented traits. Both represented and unrepresented traits
are linked to accident occurrence.
If for a specific entity, say entity a it was possible to
keep constant all its traits both represented and
unrepresented and then to repeat the same time
period over and over, each time recording the count of
accidents, then, the average of the counts would con-
verge on the period mean for this specific entity pqa.
Consider now a different entity, say entity b, with the
same represented traits as entity a. The mean for
803
entity b (pqb ) will likely differ from the mean for
entity a in spite of the fact that their represented traits
are identical. This difference has several reasons. First,
the measured traits are subject to estimation error.
Thus, e.g. AADT is estimated on the basis of few days
of traffic counting that may have been carried out in
some other year at a nearby location. Therefore identi-
cal estimates of AADTs do not mean that, in fact, road
sections a and b served the same traffic. Second, the
same average may represent very different distributions.
If road section a carries 100 vehicles at night and 900
during daytime while road section b serves 500 vehi-
cles at night and in daytime, a and b will have the
same AADT but different accident means. Third, enti-
ties a and b are sure to differ in unrepresented traits;
one road may lead to a pub, the other may be popular
with deer. For all these reasons, if we imagine a large
group of entities (a, b, c, ) with the same represented
traits, they must be thought to have different means
(pqa, pqb, pqc, ). These means form a distribution
with p as a mean (when E[q]= 1) and with p 2/ as
variance (when VAR[q] =1/). The ro le of statistical
modelling is to provide an estimate p as a function of
represented traits.
We are interested in how p can be expressed as a
function of the represented traits for two common
purposes. First, when we wish to ascertain how a
certain trait (say, lane width or grade) is associated with
(perhaps affects) the expected accident frequency. The
second purpose is when we wish to estimate the ex-
pected accident frequency of a specific site by
combining the prediction p for sites with identical
represented traits with the accident history of the site.
In both instances (using the common statistical par-
lance) this means that we wish to estimate a random
effects model and this is the framework of discussion in
this paper. (Were a time series of accident counts and
traits available for each entity in a data set, it would
also be possible to estimate a parameter qi, i =
a, b, c, doing so might be of interest if, e.g. one tried
to examine why some entities in the data set seem to
have fewer or more accidents than is predicted by their
represented traits. In this case we might be interested in
a fixed effects model.)
Unless VAR[q]= 0, p (being the mean of the pqi, in
the imagined group of entities i= a, b, c, that have
identical represented traits) will not be the same as the
pq of the entity in the data. On this basis it is possible
to further clarify the nature of overdispersion. Recall
that the definition of variance is the expected value of
the squared difference between a random variable and
its mean. The expected value of the squared differences
between a random variable and any fixed value other
than the mean, is larger than the variance. Overdisper-
sion is judged by the magnitude of the squared differ-
ence between accident counts and model predictions
804 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
the squared residuals. But model predictions are esti-
mates of the p for an imagined population of entities
with identical represented traits; model predictions are
not estimates of the pqi of the entities for which we
happen to have the accident counts. Since the squared
residuals are computed with respect to a value other
than the mean of the entities for which we have data,
we must expect the residuals to be larger than the
variance of the counts for the entities in the data set.
Thus, overdispersion is the necessary consequence of
the fact that the means of the entities that serve as data
are not what the model aims to predict. The root cause
of overdispersion is that entities with the same repre-
sented traits have different means.
In the numerical example we noted that the influence
of a data point diminishes as the variance of its acci-
dent counts increases and that the NB distribution
implies that the variance of the accident counts for
entity i is pi (1pi /i ). Therefore, the central ques-
tion is: how does the VAR[q] =1/i change as a func-
tion of the value of represented traits. This question is
answered in a very specific way if it is assumed that q is
always drawn at random from a Gamma distribution
with mean 1 and variance 1/. In this case, since i is
assumed to be , the same for all entities, the variance
of the means in an imagined population of entities with
identical represented traits is proportional to p 2. Thus,
e.g. the use of =1 for both road sections in the
numerical example implies that roads with the same
represented traits as section 2 (10 mile long road sec-
tions with AADT=500) have a VAR[pq] that is four
hundred times that of roads with the same represented
traits as road section 1 (0.5 mile long road sections with
AADT = 500). Should one expect such a large increase
in the variance that is due to traits not represented in
the model simply because one road section is much
longer than the other road section?
The condition under which this would be true will be
examined next. However, before doing so, it is impor-
tant to comment briefly on why in available data sets
some road sections are long and others short. Miaou
and Lum (1993)(pp. 697699) provide a good discus-
sion of this issue. Usually road sections in state or
provincial inventories are delimited by intersections. In
principle, the aim is to define the road sections so that
the road in-between the end-points is of one class (e.g.
two-lane, four-lane divided) and is fairly homogeneous
in traffic. Additional considerations having to do with
the history of major reconstructions also apply. When
so defined, road sections are usually not homogeneous
in features such as grade, curvature, roadside hazard
and the like. In some data bases (e.g. the HSIS the
Highway Safety Information System) an attempt is
made to define road sections that are homogeneous in
all (or most) measured traits.
4. A remedy
Road section 2 of the numerical example can be
thought to consist of 20 subsections like road section 1.
Therefore p2 = 20p1. With this, under the usual NB
assumption, the variance of accidents counts on road
section 2 would be 20p1(1+20p1/). (The usual NB
assumption is that the value of q, drawn from the
Gamma distribution with mean=1 and variance=1/,
applies to the entire road section 2.)
An alternative expression for the variance of accident
counts on road section 2 is obtained when one assumes
that for each of the 20 constituent subsections a sepa-
rate q is selected from a Gamma distribution with mean
1 and variance 1/. Under this assumption the variance
of accident counts on each such sub-section is p1(1+
p1/). If the 20 subsection accident counts are statisti-
cally independent, the variance of their sum will be
20p1(1+p1/). We now have two different expressions
for the variance of accident counts on road section 2
and, obviously, 20p1(1+20p1/)" 20p1(1+p1/).
The reason for the noted difference can be stated in
tangible terms. The expression 20p1(1+20p1/) has
been obtained by assuming that all 20 constituent sub-
sections have the same q. That is, all 20 subsections of
which road section 2 is made up have the very same
errors in variables, the same distribution that under-
lies averages, and the same unrepresented traits. In
contrast, the expression 20p1(1+20p1/) is obtained by
assuming that for each of the 20 constituent subsections
a new q is selected at random from the Gamma distri-
bution with mean= 1 and variance=1/. This implies
that the 20 constituent sub-sections differ amongst each
other in their errors in variables, distributions under-
lying averages and in unrepresented traits in the same
manner as any two road sections with the same repre-
sented traits would, even when they were not stringed
out one behind the other on the same road. In short,
under the first assumption the 20 values of q are
perfectly correlated while under the second assumption
they are uncorrelated.
The assumption about the q s being either perfectly
correlated or entirely uncorrelated brackets reality.
Subsections of the same road will still differ in many
respects. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the
q s of all the subsections are the same. However,
subsections with the same represented traits when
stringed out consecutively along the same road are
likely to differ less than would subsections that are not
spatially proximal. Therefore the q s of subsections
along the same road are likely to be correlated, if only
because they are used by the same drivers under the
same climatic conditions.
A general expression for the variance of accident
counts when the q s of subsections are not correlated
can be obtained as follows. A road section of length L
 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
Fig. 10. Section 1.
can be thought to consists of L/l subsections, all
subsections having the same covariate values, and each
subsection being l units long. If the entire road section
has a mean accident frequency p, each subsection has
mean accident frequency w= p/(L/l). As before a mix-
ing variable q is drawn randomly from a distribution
with mean= 1, but now we assume that its variance
depends on the length of the subsection l. That is,
VAR[q] = 1/(l). Using the NB distribution, for each
subsection of length l, VAR[Accident count for a sub-
section]= w(1 + w/(l)). Let Y be the sum of accident
counts for the L/l subsections. Since the subsection
counts are statistically independent, VAR[Y]=
(L/l)w[1+ (L/l)w/((l)L/l)] = p[1 + p/((l)L/l)].
The sum of independent NB random variables is not
NB distributed. However, we can use the result about
VAR[Y] as a motivation to postulate an alternative
negative binomial model for the count of accidents Y
for a road of length L. The alternative assumption is
that the NB distribution arises when p for the road
section of length L is multiplied by a random variable
q drawn from a gamma distribution with mean=1 and
variance= 1/[(l)L/l].
Fig. 11. Section 2.
805
Fig. 12. Sections 1 and 2.
To examine the implication of this alternative as-
sumption on parameter estimation, I now return to the
numerical example. Assume that (l=1km)= 1. Then,
for road section 1, VAR[q]= 1/[(l= 1 km) 0.5/1] =
1/0.5 = 2 and for section 2, VAR[q]= 1/[(l=1
km) 10/1] = 1/10. The corresponding four log-likeli-
hood functions are in Figs. 1013.The maxima in Figs.
10 and 11 are, as before, at h1 = 0.089 and h2 =0.179.
As is evident from the comparison of Figs. 10 and 11,
the much larger influence of the log-likelihood function
for the accident-rich road section 2 has been restored.
Therefore, when the two log-likelihoods are added, the
h1 and 2 (= 0.175) is again very close to h2.
When it comes to parameter estimation by maximiz-
ing a likelihood function then, instead of using in Eq.
(1) a that is common to all entities, for entity i we
used i = (l)Li /l. The question is what subsection
length l should be used? Suppose that using a subsec-
tion length l= 1 km we obtain the maximum likelihood
estimate ML(l=1) of (l= 1). This determines the
values of all the i s. Naturally, the same values of i
maximize the likelihood function if subsections were,
say, 2 km long. This implies that ML(l=1)=
Fig. 13. Sum of sections 1 and 2.
806 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
ML(l=2)/2. That is, that the ratio ML(l)/l is con-
stant. Therefore we can choose l =1 unit of length, say
1 mile or 1 km and the numerical values of i = (1
mile) Li (measured in miles) or i =(1 km)
Li (measured in km) will be the same. Using the same
argument, namely, that there is a unique set of values
i that maximize the likelihood function, we can estab-
lish the relationship between ML(1 mile) and ML(1
km); ML(1 mile)L(measured in miles)= ML(1
mile) 0.622 L(measured in km). Therefore ML(1
km) = 0.622 ML(1 mile).
The gist of the argument in this section was that
reality is somewhere between assuming that all subsec-
tions of a road section have precisely the same repre-
sented and unrepresented traits, and, alternatively,
assuming that these traits vary from sub-section to
sub-section of a certain road just as they vary between
any subsections of the road system that have the same
represented traits. The mathematical equivalent of these
two bracketing assumptions is to either use a constant
that does not depend on road length or to use
i = Li. (Both options can be represented alge-
braically by i = L ii with i = 0 or i = 1. A device
for establishing a compromise that reflects reality might
be to use a value of i from within the (0, 1) range).
5. Implication for EB estimation
In EB estimation the model prediction pi and the
accident count Yi are combined as follows (see, e.g.
Hauer, 1997):
Estimate of piq =weighti (1 weighti ) (Yi ). (2)
In this, pi is the expected number of accidents for
entities that have the same represented traits as entity i
and
1 1
weighti = =
1+VAR[piq]/E[piq] 1 +(p 2i /i )/pi
1
= . (3)
1+pi /i
The assumption that i =L 0 = was seen earlier
to lead to potential distortions in parameter estimation.
The same assumption may lead to an inconsistency
when the safety of a road section is to be estimated by
the EB method.
To show the potential for inconsistency, consider a
road that has along its entire length the same repre-
sented traits. The model for this kind of road predicts p
accidents in a period of specified length. Assume that
we have in that period accident counts y1 and y2 on the
first and the second half of this road. Since for the
whole road weightwhole =(1 +p/) 1, the estimate of
pq for the road is weightwholep+ (1 weightwhole) (y1 +
y2).
Consider now the first half of this road on which y1
accidents were counted and ask what is to be the
estimate of the expected accidents there. One extreme
option is to estimate as if both halves of the road had
the same q. To estimate in this manner reflects the
belief that not only do the two halves of the road have
the same represented traits, as postulated, but they are
also have the same errors in variables, the same distri-
butions that underlie averages, and the same unrepre-
sented traits. With these assumptions the estimate for
the first half of the road would be half the estimate for
the whole road. This amounts to asserting that not only
is the count of accidents on the second half of the road
(y2) relevant to estimating what is true about the first
half of the road, but that it is just as important as the
accident count on the first half of the road (y1). One
may ask how far can this belief be stretched? How can
one judge whether physically separate road segments
with the same (or even similar) represented traits have
the same q, in which case their accident counts should
be used jointly to estimate the expected number of
accidents on any one of these segments? In any case, if
the belief that the same q applies to both halves of the
road is correct, then the sum of EB estimates for the
two halves equals the EB estimate for the whole road.
With the assumption of a common q the EB estimates
are consistent.
The other extreme option is to estimate as if the two
road halves differed in their unrepresented traits, in
variable errors and in the nature of averages. That is,
even though the two halves have the same represented
traits, their q s could differ in the same manner as q s
differ amongst roads that are not physically contiguous;
as if two values of q were sampled independently from
the same distribution, one for each road half. With this,
for the first half of the road the EB estimate is :
weighthalf p/2+ (1 weighthalf) (y1), and for the
second half of the road the EB estimate is: weighthalf
p/2+ (1 weighthalf) (y2). The sum of the two esti-
mates is : weighthalf p+ (1 weighthalf) (y1 +y2). As
was shown earlier, the EB estimate for the road as a
whole is weightwholep+ (1weightwhole) (y1 + y2). We
would like the EB estimator be such that, the sum of
the estimates for the two halves be the same as the
estimate for the whole. The only general way to satisfy
this equality is to make weighthalf = weightwhole.
The assumption i = L 0 = implies that
weighthalf = (1+ (p/2)/) 1 and weightwhole =(1+p/
) 1. Because weighthalf " weightwhole, the sum of the
estimates for the two halves of a road section is not the
same as the estimate for the whole. Under the assump-
tion that i = the EB estimates are inconsistent when
the two halves have different q s. The alternative
assumption that i = L does not have the same blem-
ish. Now weighthalf = [1+(p/2)/(L/2)] 1 =[1+p/
(L)] 1 = weightwhole. Since the two weights are now
 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
the same, the sum of the estimates for the two halves is
the same as the estimate for the whole.
That in our thought we divided the road section into
halves only made the algebra transparent. Division into
unequal parts would lead to the same conclusion. It
appears that if it is not true that all subsections of a
road that is homogeneous in represented traits have the
same expected number of accidents per unit length,
then use of the assumption that i = would lead to
inconsistent EB estimates.
6. Summary and discussion
In NB regression it is common to assume that the
overdispersion parameter is the same for all entities.
Experience with statistical modelling of accidents on
road sections indicates that this assumption may have
undesirable consequences. When road sections in the
data base differ in length, two problems arise. First, if
model parameters are estimated by maximum likeli-
hood, the relative influence of long road sections is
much diminished whereas very short road sections exert
an unduly large influence. Second, when the expected
accident frequency of a road section is estimated by the
EB method and the entire road section does not have
the same q, the sum of estimates for subsections does
not add up to the estimate for the road section as a
whole.
An alternative is to consider overdispersion for road
section i to be given by Li. This has been motivated by
the argument that each road section can be viewed as
consisting of many subsections that differ in traits that
are not represented in the model. Therefore, that these
subsections have different q s drawn independently
from the same Gamma distribution. The use of this
assumption has been shown to remedy both problems.
It can be argued that reality is somewhere between
the unsatisfactory assumption that i =L 0 and the
logically-pleasing-but-not-exactly-true assumption that
i = L 1i . It is therefore tempting to consider i = L ii
with i in the range (0, 1). Two problems arise. First,
any i "1 will give rise to the problem that when the q
of a road section is not constant, the sum of EB
estimates for parts will not be the EB estimate for the
whole. Second, examination of residuals may give an
illusory confirmation of incorrect assumptions about i.
The problem is that a value of i close to 0 will give
little weight to data points with large p. This, will make
for large squared residuals at these data points. Large
squared residuals for these data points will seem to
confirm the assumption that i is close to 0. Had a i
close to 1 been assumed, the data points where p is
large would have been more influential. The resulting
parameter estimates, would make these residuals
smaller, and thereby seem to confirm the assumption of
807
i being close to 1. Whether the usual maximum likeli-
hood estimation can overcome this built-in tendency
needs to be explored.
The recommendation here is not to regard the
overdispersion parameter as a constant common to
all entities, at least not without justification that is
based on the data. At this time, the relationship i =
Li seems to be the more attractive alternative. In this
relationship Li is a logical variable. It represents the
logical requirement that if a road section is made up of
two non-overlapping sub-sections the sum of the model
predictions for the two subsections should be the same
as the model prediction for the road section as a whole.
This can be true only if the model prediction is propor-
tional to section length. At times, section length is used
in models not only as a logical variable but also as a
statistical covariate. Since the length of a road section is
determined mainly by the distance between major inter-
sections, it is entirely possible that section length is
correlated with speed, driveway density etc, and there-
fore legitimately serves as a proxy for several causal
variables. Logical variables and statistical covariates
must be kept separate. Thus, e.g. should parameter
estimation lead to the result that accident frequency is
proportional to (section length)0.79, this is best written
as proportionality to L L 0.21 in which L is the
logical variable and L the covariate which serves as
proxy for causal variables associated with section
length.
Would the generalization suggested by Cameron and
Trivedi (1998) to use i = p ki with k set to either 0 or
1 be a remedy? If k is set to be 0 then we have the
standard NB model and both noted deficiencies apply.
If k is chosen to be larger than 0 but lesser than 1, then
weightpart " weightwhole and the potential for estimation
inconsistency discussed in Section 5 remains. When k is
set to be 1, then, in Eq. (2), weighti = (1+ 1/) 1. This
would remove the estimation inconsistency. Unfortu-
nately, use of a weight that does not diminish as pi
increase would deprive EB estimation of its essence.
The attraction of EB estimation is that it correctly
accounts for differences in the precision of two separate
sources of information. When pi is large, most of the
information about the expected accident frequency for
the specific site should come from the accident count
for that site, not the model prediction. Therefore
weighti should be small. Conversely, when pi is small
the accident count will be small and therefore much of
the information should come from the model predic-
tion. In this case weighti should be large. It follows that
the suggested generalization does not solve the
problem.
Heydecker and Wu (1999) suggest that itself be
modelled as a function of the various covariates and a
new set of parameters. This avenue can be pursued
provided that the structure i = Li f(covariatesi ) is
808 E. Hauer / Accident Analysis and Pre6ention 33 (2001) 799808
preserved. However, since we suspect that in reality the
q s for subsections of the same road are neither
uncorrelated nor perfectly correlated, the fundamental
remedy is in research that might provide details about
the variation of q s among spatially proximate and
spatially distant road sections.
To make our point clearly, the numerical example on
which Section 2 was based made use of one very short
and one very long road section. The question arises
whether in real data sets which consist of a mixture of
road section lengths, the assumption made about the
overdispersion parameter would have a noticeable ef-
fect on the results modelling. A related practical ques-
tion is whether models that have been estimated in the
past on the assumption of a single common overdisper-
sion parameter should revisited. These questions can be
answered fully only by modelling several real data sets
using both assumptions about the overdispersion
parameter. It is a task for future research. However,
one issues can be settled now. The value of the overdis-
persion parameter under the differing assumptions is
sure to be different. Therefore, if any use is to be made
of the overdispersion parameter, the models need to be
re-estimated.
Another question is whether the two alternative as-
sumptions about the dispersion parameter will have a
noticeable effect on the EB estimation of the expected
accidents. This question can be answered affirmatively.
The EB estimate depends on the model prediction (p)
and the weight (Eq. (2)). Even if the model prediction
was affected only mildly by the alternative assumptions,
the weight under the two assumptions will, as a rule,
be substantially different. This may open another line
of empirical inquiry. After fitting a model to data using
both assumption, one can then compare the perfor-
mance of the two alternative EB estimators.
References
Bonneson, J.A., McCoy, P.T., 1993. Estimation of safety at two-way
stop-controlled intersections on rural highways. Transportation
Research Record 1401, 83 89.
Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K., 1998. Regression Analysis of Count
Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Guo, G., 1996. Negative multinomial regression models for clustered
event counts. Sociological Methodology 26, 113 132.
Hauer, E., 1997. Observational Before After Studies in Road Safety.
Pergamon, Oxford, UK.
Hauer, E., Ng, J.C.N., Lovell, J., 1989. Estimation of safety at
signalized intersections. Transportation Research Record 1185,
48 61.
Hausman, J., Hall, B.H., Griliches, Z., 1984. Econometric models for
count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship.
Econometrica 52 (4), 909 938.
Heydecker, B.G, Wu, J., January/1999. Identification of sites for road
accident remedial work by Bayesian statistical methods: an exam-
ple of uncertain inference. The Fifth International Conference on
the Application of Artificial Intelligence to Civil and Structural
Engineering, Oxford.
Maher, M., Summersgill, I., 1996. A comprehensive methodology for
the fitting of predictive accident models. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 28 (6), 281 296.
Maycock, G, Hall, R.D., 1984. Accidents at four-arm roundabouts.
Laboratory Report LR 1120, Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK.
Miaou, S-P., 1996. Measuring the Goodness of Fit of Accident
Prediction Models. FHWA- RD-96-040. FHWA, McLean, VA.
Miaou, S.P., Lum, H., 1993. Modelling vehicle accidents and highway
geometric design relationships. Accident Analysis and Prevention
25 (6), 689 709.
Vogt, A., Bared, J., 1998. Accident models for two-lane rural seg-
ments and intersections. Transportation Research Record 1635,
18 29.