Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Modeling the impact of spatial relationships on horizontal curve safety

Daniel J. Findley a,∗ , Joseph E. Hummer b , William Rasdorf c , Charles V. Zegeer d , Tyler J. Fowler e
a
Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State University, Centennial Campus Box 8601, Raleigh, NC 27695-8601, United States
b
North Carolina State University, 423 Mann Hall, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, United States
c
North Carolina State University, 200 Mann Hall, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, United States
d
Engineering and Planning, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 730 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430, United States
e
Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE), North Carolina State University, Centennial Campus Box 8601, Raleigh, NC 27695-8601, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The curved segments of roadways are more hazardous because of the additional centripetalforces exerted
Received 24 March 2011 on a vehicle, driver expectations, and other factors. The safety of a curve is dependent on various factors,
Received in revised form 20 July 2011 most notably by geometric factors, but the location of a curve in relation to other curves is also thought to
Accepted 24 July 2011
influence the safety of those curves because of a driver’s expectation to encounter additional curves. The
link between an individual curve’s geometric characteristics and its safety performance has been estab-
Keywords:
lished, but spatial considerations are typically not included in a safety analysis. The spatial considerations
Horizontal curve
included in this research consisted of four components: distance to adjacent curves, direction of turn of
Safety
Spatial
the adjacent curves, and radius and length of the adjacent curves. The primary objective of this paper
Collision is to quantify the spatial relationship between adjacent horizontal curves and horizontal curve safety
Radius using a crash modification factor. Doing so enables a safety professional to more accurately estimate
safety to allocate funding to reduce or prevent future collisions and more efficiently design new roadway
sections to minimize crash risk where there will be a series of curves along a route. The most important
finding from this research is the statistical significance of spatial considerations for the prediction of hor-
izontal curve safety. The distances to adjacent curves were found to be a reliable predictor of observed
collisions. This research recommends a model which utilizes spatial considerations for horizontal curve
safety prediction in addition to current Highway Safety Manual prediction capabilities using individual
curve geometric features.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A road essentially consists of two types of segments: straight
segments and curved segments. Curves, particularly those with
curves along the horizontal plane, are more hazardous to drivers
because of the additional centripetalforces exerted on a vehicle
passing through the curve and the more difficult driving tasks
required of the driver (Hummer et al., 2010a). Horizontal curves are
a primary area of focus for transportation agencies to improve the
safety of their roadway network. The safety of a curve is dependent
on various factors, most notably geometric factors of the individual
curve, but the location of a curve in relation to other curves is also
thought to influence safety (Glennon, 1987). The link between an
individual curve’s geometric characteristics and its safety perfor-
mance has been established (Zegeer et al., 1991; Strathman et al.,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 515 8564; fax: +1 919 515 8897.
E-mail addresses: Daniel Findley@ncsu.edu (D.J. Findley), hummer@ncsu.edu
(J.E. Hummer), rasdorf@ncsu.edu (W. Rasdorf), Charlie Zegeer@unc.edu
(C.V. Zegeer), tjfowle2@ncsu.edu (T.J. Fowler).
2001; AASHTO, 2010). This paper seeks to explore and quantify the
impact of spatial relationships on horizontal curve safety.
The goal of standardizing safety prediction of roadways in the
United States led to the development of the Highway Safety Manual
(HSM) which can predict the safety of a curve based on its phys-
ical characteristics (AASHTO, 2010). However, safety analysis has
traditionally considered each curve as an isolated highway feature,
without considering other nearby roadway and roadside features.
This presents a prime opportunity to explore spatial considera-
tions with a consistent and widely accepted analysis strategy for
individual curve characteristics. Another reason for assessing the
inclusion of spatial considerations is to incorporate the concept of
maintaining a driver’s expectations which is a practice of highway
designers. Typically, a road which violates a driver’s expectations
will be more hazardous than a road which does not. In relation to
curves, a driver who experiences a set of curves will expect to expe-
rience additional curves on the route, while an isolated curve can
be hazardous because of the disruption to a driver’s expectations.
In a similar manner, driver alertness can also be impacted by hor-
izontal curves; where multiple, closely spaced horizontal curves
demands more effort from a driver and can keep a driver more

0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.018
 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304
alert on the roadway. The opposite can be true for long tangent
sections between curves; where a driver’s alertness can wane and
the approaching curve might become a safety hazard for the driver.
Longer tangent sections between adjacent curves can also lead to
higher speeds which can lead to more severe collisions.
The inclusion of spatial relationships in a safety analysis can be
an important consideration for a more accurate and comprehensive
examination of actual safety performance. Thus, to improve perfor-
mance this paper investigates a curve’s spatial relationship relative
to adjacent curves, including the distance to adjacent curves, the
direction of turn of the adjacent curves, the radius of the adjacent
curves, and the length of the adjacent curves. Vertical curvature
and roadway grades are also important features which can influ-
ence the safety of a horizontal curve or a series of curves. However,
vertical alignment was not considered in this study, due to a lack
of available vertical alignment data. The objective of this paper is
to quantify the spatial relationship of nearby horizontal curves on
horizontal curve safety for rural, two-lane roads so that a safety
professional can accurately estimate safety and effectively allo-
cate funding. A curve within a series of curves might be expected
to experience fewer collisions than an isolated curve with simi-
lar geometric characteristics, no matter how severe its geometric
characteristics.
2. Literature review
Although much attention has been focused on the safety of a
curve through the examination of an individual curve’s attributes,
spatial considerations in relation to the nearby roadway features
have not been widely considered in the literature. Therefore, this
analysis will not focus on the characteristics of an individual curve
and their impact on safety, but rather, on the impact of spatial
relationships with other curves on the safety of a particular curve.
2.1. Safety considerations
Numerous horizontal curve countermeasures have been a focus
of transportation professionals and researchers because of the fre-
quent and severe nature of collisions at curves. One impetus for
further work is a study of safety management conducted in Norway
that found horizontal curve treatments provide more benefits than
they cost with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.37 (Elvik, 2007). A number
of studies have focused on the relationship between an individual
horizontal curve’s characteristics and the safety performance of the
curve, including design attributes (Zegeer et al., 1991; Strathman
et al., 2001), and signage and markings (Retting and Farmer,
1998; Eccles and Hummer, 2000; Hammond and Wegmann, 2001;
Chrysler et al., 2005; Lyles and Taylor, 2006; Charlton, 2007). Other
efforts have created guidelines for signing and marking on hor-
izontal curves (Nielsen et al., 1999; Herrstedt and Greibe, 2001;
Bonneson, 2007) and strategies for improving the safety of hori-
zontal curves (Torbic et al., 2004; McGee and Hanscom, 2006).
Wong and Nicholson (1992) studied driver behavior at hor-
izontal curves through vehicle movement tracking using video
recordings on three curves in New Zealand that were realigned
due to safety concerns. The video tracking allowed vehicle speeds
and paths to be determined. Each of the curves was lengthened (to
approximately twice the length of the original curve) and recon-
structed with a larger radius (to approximately three times the
radius of the original curve). The study found that there is a consid-
erable difference among drivers of the speed and path they take on
horizontal curves. Therefore, the design radius and radius driven by
the vehicle can vary considerably which can alter the forces expe-
rienced by the individual vehicle. In general, this study found that
the realignment of a curve increased vehicle speeds (although the
297
percent of vehicles exceeding the design speed decreased dras-
tically) and increased the margin of safety (through a greater
difference between the required side friction and provided side
friction), while decreasing actual reported collisions.
The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) provides a model to pre-
dict the safety performance of two-lane rural highways based on
the following characteristics: traffic volume, lane width, shoul-
der width, length, radius, superelevation, grade, driveway density,
roadside hazard rating, spiral transition, passing lanes, roadway
lighting, centerline rumble strips, two-way left turn lanes, and
automated speed enforcement (AASHTO, 2010). The HSM consists
of safety performance functions (SPFs) (which determine the pre-
dicted crash frequency of a tangent roadway segment under base
conditions) and crash modification factors (CMFs) (which adjust
the base conditions assumed in the SPF to model site specific condi-
tions). The two-lane highway SPF, shown in Eq. (1), was developed
from 619 rural two-lane highway segments in Minnesota and 712
segments in Washington (Harwood et al., 2000). The HSM CMF
for horizontal curve alignment, shown in Eq. (2), was developed
from curve data in the state of Washington using crash data for
10,900 curves from 1982 to 1986 (Zegeer et al., 1992). The horizon-
tal alignment CMF represents the ratio of expected curve collisions
to expected collisions on a similar two-lane tangent section. For
instance, a curve with a length of 500 ft, a radius of 500 ft, and no
spiral transitions would have a horizontal alignment CMF of 2.09,
meaning that this curved section is expected to have 2.09 times
the amount of collisions of a comparable tangent section. In addi-
tion to the horizontal alignment CMF, this study accounted for the
other factors presented in the two-lane highway methodology in
the HSM.
SPF = AADT × L × 365 × 10−6 × e−0.312 (1)
where SPF = predicted total crash frequency per year for roadway
segment base conditions, AADT = average annual daily traffic vol-
ume (vehicles per day), L = length of roadway segment (miles)
 80.2 
(1055 × Lc ) + R
− (0.0012 × S)
CMF = (2)
(1.55 × Lc )
where CMF = crash modification factor for the effect of horizontal
alignment on collisions, R = radius (feet), Lc = length of horizontal
curve (miles), including spiral transitions if present, S = spiral tran-
sition presence: 1 if present, 0 if not present, 0.5 if present on one
end only.
2.2. Spatial considerations
Glennon et al. (1985) studied 3304 curved segments and 253
tangent segments on rural, two-lane roads in Florida, Illinois, Ohio,
and Texas. The researchers examined 0.6-mile (1 km) long road-
way segments which included horizontal curves (with an average
length of 0.17 miles) and the adjacent tangent lengths which are
thought to be influenced by the curve. Glennon studied only iso-
lated curves by setting a minimum tangent length between curves
of 656 ft (200 m). The analysis found that curves experience three
times the rate of collisions that tangent segments do.
In a synthesis of research, Glennon (1987) identified four cat-
egories of elements relating to the safety of horizontal curves:
horizontal alignment, cross section, vertical alignment, and other.
The horizontal alignment elements describe the longitudinal fea-
tures of horizontal curves, such as radius, length, and sight distance.
The cross section elements define the features of a roadway which
are perpendicular to the direction of travel, such as the lane width,
shoulder width, and cross-slope of the roadway. The vertical align-
ment elements specify the relationship between horizontal curves
and vertical elements (grades and curves). Among the remaining
298 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304
elements, the distance to adjacent highway curves, intersections,
and bridges were the most relevant as spatial considerations for
horizontal curves. Although spatial considerations were identified
as relevant to horizontal curve safety, no research had been con-
ducted prior to the synthesis report by Glennon which was able to
quantify the effect of distance of nearby curves on collision risk.
Aram (2010) considered spatial elements as influential in curve
safety based on the research by Glennon. His individual curve
study focused on radius, degree of curve, deflection angle, curve
length, lane width, roadside clearance, signage, markings, pave-
ment condition, and operating speeds. Aram found that the most
significant variables for horizontal curve collisions were degree of
curve, length of curve, superelevation, length of spiral transition,
shoulder width, and traffic volume. The author also noted that the
collision difference between curves and tangents was apparent at
radius values less than 3000 ft and was particularly significant at
radius values less than 600 ft.
Zegeer et al. (1991) reported that the effect of distance between
curves on collisions was a gap in the existing curve safety knowl-
edge. The researchers identified previous studies using surrogate
measures which had differing conclusions about the safety impacts
of the distance between curves (Terhune and Parker, 1986; Datta
et al., 1983). Despite the contradictory surrogate studies, Zegeer
et al. noted that long tangents sections would make drivers less
prepared to safely traverse a horizontal curve than a curve of sim-
ilar characteristics in a series of curves, due to driver expectations.
Furthermore, the researchers discussed the potential for traffic con-
trol countermeasures if curves at the end of long tangent sections
truly are more hazardous than other curves. Zegeer et al. attempted
to include the distance to adjacent curves in the model but did not
find these spatial factors to be significant in their analysis. However,
when the authors used a categorical variable (distance less than or
greater than 0.3 miles) to describe the distances, the variable was
found to be marginally significant (p-value = 0.06). The variable was
not included in the final model, but the authors noted that there
appeared to be some evidence that longer tangents might result in
more collisions.
Milton and Mannering (1998) developed a predictive model
for estimating collisions based the geometrics of highways and
traffic-related characteristics with 31,306 observations in Wash-
ington. Among other geometric and traffic-related characteristics,
the authors included two components related to the spatial char-
acteristics of horizontal curves: (1) the tangent length (total length
between two adjacent horizontal curves) and (2) a tangent-curve
indicator variables (which is input as a 1 if the curve radius less
than 2850 ft and the tangent length between adjacent curves is
more than half a mile, or is input as 0 otherwise). The study found
that collision frequency increases as the tangent length increases,
due to driver expectations of encountering additional curves and
higher speeds on the longer sections. The tangent-curve indicator
variable also showed that curves with longer tangent lengths expe-
rience higher collision frequencies, particularly in the set of curves
with longer tangent lengths (over half a mile) and smaller radii (less
than 2850 ft).
A roadway design’s conformance to the expectations of drivers
can be explained through the concept of design consistency
(Fitzpatrick et al., 2000). A typical way to measure design con-
sistency is through the measurement of operating speeds on a
roadway. Changes in operating speeds can indicate a potential vio-
lation of a driver’s expectations and, therefore, might be a site with
increased crash risk and therefore, for potential countermeasures
to improve the roadway. Fitzpatrick et al. studied operating speeds
on horizontal curves and developed a model for predicting the
85th percentile operating speed based on the radius of the curve
for inclusion in the design consistency module of the Interactive
Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM).
Another research effort focused on developing a two-lane rural
roads safety evaluation process that incorporated spatial features
in the safety criteria (Lamm et al., 2002). The criteria were used
to classify the safety of roadways sections as good, fair, or poor.
Two spatial criteria were included in the process: (1) a design con-
sistency criteria which desires differences of less than 10 km/h
between the 85th percentile speed and the design speed along
the entire segment of analysis and (2) an operating speed consis-
tency criteria which desires differences in 85th percentile speed
of less than 10 km/h between successive roadway elements (curve
to curve or tangent to curve). The safety evaluation criteria found
similar conclusions in approximately 75% of analyses of collisions
at 236 roadway sections with a total length of 490 km, showing
that the safety of a two-lane rural road could be estimated with
measures other than collision history.
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) has a
spatial guidance component related to horizontal curves through
the application of horizontal alignment warning signs (FHWA,
2009). The MUTCD recommends warning signs and advisory speed
warning signs in advance of curves when the difference between
the speed limit and advisory speed is 5 mph or more and requires
the signs when the difference is 10 mph or greater. Chevrons or one
large directional arrow are optional at a 5 mph difference, recom-
mended at a 10 mph difference, and required at a 15 mph difference
between the speed limit and advisory speed. The guidance provided
by the MUTCD promotes a spatial examination of curves and their
surroundings by comparing the speed limit of the roadway to the
recommended advisory speed of the curve.
Guo et al. (2010) incorporated spatial considerations into the
safety modeling of signalized intersections for 170 intersections
along 25 corridors in central Florida. The spatial consideration
utilized in their equations was the distance between the intersec-
tions. A negative binomial model was recommended among models
tested which included Poisson and negative binomial models and
variations of those models. The model with spatial components was
found to be superior to other models by providing a better repre-
sentation of intersection safety. According to the authors, exclusion
of the spatial factors would lead to biased inference in the model
and incorrect conclusions.
2.3. Summary
The majority of previous literature has relied on an individual
curve’s attributes, not spatial considerations in relation to nearby
roadway features that could influence safety. However, spatial con-
siderations have been identified as a feature which could impact
horizontal curve safety. This paper presents a procedure that uti-
lizes the HSM methodology as a foundation for the analysis of curve
safety and incorporates spatial characteristics of nearby curves to
assess their influence on the safety of a curve.
3. Methodology
This study consisted of three major components: horizontal
curve data collection, HSM safety prediction, and an analysis of
spatial considerations created by adjacent curves. Horizontal curve
data collection was performed to obtain the missing curve char-
acteristics that constitute the basis for further analysis. The HSM
safety prediction utilized a contemporary safety model to estimate
the safety of the curves. The spatial relationship analysis combined
data from both of the previous steps to develop a more accurate
and comprehensive safety prediction model. The overall effort was
to compare HSM predicted collisions to reported collisions with
respect to spatial considerations.
This study included two two-lane roads (NC42 and NC96) which
are predominately rural and reside in central and eastern North
 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304
Carolina. The analysis included the entire length of each route
except where a higher order route (i.e., US route) ran concurrently
with the NC route. The entire route of NC42 is 223 miles long; the
analysis sections included 168 miles of the route containing 246
curves and traversing east and west through 11 counties. The entire
route of NC96 is 107 miles long; the analysis sections included
95 miles of the route containing 174 curves and traversing north
and south through 5 counties. The collision data were supplied by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation and included the
milepost location of the collision, collision severity, and the county
location of the collision. Five years of collision data were stud-
ied (January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009) with 4505 reported
collisions, including all types of collisions.
3.1. Horizontal curve data collection
Curvature Extension is a GIS based application which uses line
work to derive horizontal curve geometric data, including the
length and radius of a curve. Curvature Extension determines the
radius of a curve by creating a circular arc utilizing the chord
length, chord angle, and length of the curve along the route.
The curve length is calculated based on the end points selected
by the user. Curvature Extension can be added as a toolbar in
ArcGIS software and was developed by the Florida Department
of Transportation FDOT, 2010). A study of three comparable GIS
applications, including Curvature Extension, found that Curvature
Extension outperformed the other two programs under theoretical
and real-world conditions (Rasdorf et al., in press). The theoreti-
cal assessment found that Curvature Extension was able to report
the exact radius of various precisely drawn curves regardless of
the number of GIS points tested in the analysis. The real-world
assessment found that Curvature Extension was capable of return-
ing the radius of the curve within 50% of the field measured value
on 80% of the curves included in the study, the radius of the curve
within 25% of the field measured value on 45% of the curves, and
the radius of the curve within 10% of the field measured value on
24% of the curves. These accuracies are reasonable because many
two-lane rural curves were not designed using current standards
with consistent radii throughout the curve and representing those
situations with a single radius value inherently adds variability to
the results.
For this study, the horizontal curve data collection procedure
utilized the methodology proposed by Rasdorf et al. (in press) by
executing Curvature Extension on GIS line work data to obtain the
required horizontal curve spatial data. Data collection consisted of
two processes to obtain the curve data: (1) a manual, visual curve
identification of the beginning and ending points of the curve by
the user through the delineation of tangent sections and the ter-
mini of the curves and (2) a geometric characterization (radius and
arc length) completed by the program. Horizontal curve spatial data
are a critical component of the HSM safety prediction and the spa-
tial relationship analyses. Thus, obtaining quality spatial data in an
automated fashion is critical and is the focus of the work by Rasdorf
et al. (in press).
3.2. HSM safety prediction
The HSM safety model was used to predict the safety of a curve
based on its characteristics (AASHTO, 2010). The HSM methodology
is primarily applied through three steps: selection and application
of a safety performance function, application of crash modifica-
tion factors, and calibration of predicted collisions. Each step is
repeated for every roadway segment. The SPF used for this anal-
ysis is appropriate for tangent two-lane road sections and is shown
in Eq. (1) (for tangent sections only). The SPF relies on the AADT
volume (in vehicles per day) and on the length of the segment (in
299
miles) to determine the predicted crash frequency using default
base conditions.
The resulting collision frequency from the SPF is multiplied
by appropriate CMFs to adjust the collision prediction based on
the specific roadway characteristics of the segment (lane width,
shoulder width, radius, super elevation, grade, driveway density,
roadside hazard rating, spiral transition, passing lanes, roadway
lighting, centerline rumble strips, two-way left-turn lanes, and
automated speed enforcement). A CMF less than one means that
roadway feature creates a safer road and therefore, the predicted
collision frequency is reduced, while a CMF greater than one means
that crash frequency will increase as a result of the treatment.
Research by Hummer et al. (2010b) found that the most sensi-
tive inputs for horizontal curves are length, traffic volume, lane
width, and radius. The sensitivity of these elements was based on
a comparison of the number of predicted collisions when individ-
ual curve data was used for each curve versus an average value for
each element being applied to each curve. The analysis found a +4%
change in predicted collisions for length, +6% for radius, −7% for
AADT, and −7% for lane width when the average value for the ele-
ment was utilized in the prediction model instead of the actual field
measured value for each individual curve. For instance, this sensi-
tivity analysis found that if average input values for radii were used
in the analysis, the number of predicted collisions when utilizing
individual curve data was 6% greater than the number of predicted
collisions had an average radii been applied to all curves.
Therefore, site specific values were used in the HSM model
for the sensitive inputs which were available without a field visit
(radius, length, and AADT) and two-lane rural road average values
were used for all other inputs (shoulder width, lane width, superel-
evation variance, grade, driveway density, and roadside hazard
rating). Among the four most sensitive parameters, an average
value was needed for lane width due to a lack of data, which is
a reasonable methodology because of a relatively small variance of
0.7 ft2 with a mean of 10.5 ft. The radius and length values were
determined from the horizontal curve data collection through the
execution of Curvature Extension on GIS line work data and the
AADT values were collected from traffic volume maps. The average
values were collected from field measurements at 51 horizontal
curve sites dispersed throughout central and eastern North Car-
olina. Average values included lane width of 10.5 ft, inside shoulder
width of 6 ft, outside shoulder width of 8 ft, no superelevation vari-
ance, level grade, driveway density of 9.6 driveways per mile, and
a roadside hazard rating of 4.
The HSM predictive model was calibrated using local conditions
such as climate, driver population, and crash reporting thresholds
(which are likely different in North Carolina than in Washington
where the SPF was developed). The calibration factor adjusts the
predicted collision frequency for elements not covered by CMFs to
convert the national prediction to a local prediction. A calibration
factor of 1.33 is recommended for two-lane road curves in North
Carolina (Hummer et al., 2010b). This factor accounts for all of the
local conditions enumerated above.
3.3. Spatial relationship analysis
The spatial relationship analysis consisted of three primary
analyses: an investigation of descriptive statistics, a correlation
analysis, and a regression analysis. The investigation of descrip-
tive statistics and correlation analysis were principally useful for
comprehensively understanding the data and to provide a basis
for the selection of variables to include in the regression analysis.
Statistical testing was conducted using Stata software (Stata, 2010).
The selection of the most appropriate model was an iterative
process which involved a close examination of the correlation coef-
ficients to determine which variables were significantly correlated
300 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304
to the observed collisions. Those significantly correlated variables
were then subjected to regression analysis to determine the most
appropriate regression model for the inclusion of spatial consid-
erations. The significance of individual variables in the model and
the appropriateness of Poisson, through the overdispersion param-
eter, were considered for choosing the recommended model. The
recommended model was also validated with a set of 25 randomly
selected curves in central North Carolina with similar characteris-
tics as the data set used to develop the model.
In North Carolina collisions are reported to the nearest 0.1 mile
location along a roadway at a location known as a milepost. How-
ever, collisions are not actually clustered at these incremental
locations. Instead, they are dispersed between mileposts. Curves,
on the other hand, are identified to a higher level of precision
than were collisions. Therefore, the ending and beginning locations
of a curve do not necessarily correspond to tenth mile mileposts.
This can create difficulty when performing the collision data anal-
ysis. Some collisions might have actually occurred on the curve,
but for reporting purposes were listed at a milepost outside the
curve boundary because the location was closer to the milepost
outside of the curve, and vice versa. To overcome this potential
inconsistency, collisions were distributed based on the interpolated
distance between the terminal points (beginning and end) of the
curve and the edge of the nearest milepost’s influence area (mile-
post ±0.05 miles). The mid-point was used for the analysis because
the influence area around each milepost is effectively 0.1 miles
(0.05 miles on each side of the milepost or the mid-point between
each consecutive milepost). This approach to finding the number
of collisions that occur within the limits of the curve is consistent
with the methodology employed by Zegeer et al. (1991) which was
based on analyses of various influence areas.
An example of curve collision distribution by interpolating mile-
posts is shown in Fig. 1. shows mileposts, the curve locations, and
the number of reported collisions attributed to each milepost. The
purpose of this analysis is to assign to the curve the appropriate
number of reported collisions attributed to each milepost by the
police officer. Examining the collisions near the beginning of the
curve, ten reported collisions were attributed to milepost 5.7. The
beginning of the curve (milepost 5.68) is within the 0.05 mile influ-
ence area of milepost 5.7 which means that the actual number of
collisions assigned to the curve at this milepost should be adjusted
downward to 7 collisions (10 collisions times 0.07 miles/0.1 miles).
This calculation is consistent with the concept that the curve
occupies 70% of the influence area surrounding milepost 5.7 and
therefore, the curve is assigned 70% of the 10 total collisions at
the milepost. This concept assumes that the reported collisions
are evenly distributed throughout the influence area of the mile-
post and not clustered exactly at the milepost. For the collisions
at the end of the curve (milepost 5.87), five reported collisions
were attributed to milepost 5.9. However, only one of the collisions
attributed to milepost 5.9 should be assigned to the curve (5 col-
lisions times 0.02 miles/0.1 miles). Therefore, nine total reported
collisions would be assigned to this curve (seven collisions from
milepost 5.7, one collision from milepost 5.8, and one collision from
milepost 5.9).
Beginning of Curve
(Milepost 5.68)
Milepost 5.6 Milepost 5.7
(2 Collisions) (10 Collisions)
Fig. 1. Collision interpolation milepost example.
Curve #2
Y
X
Curve #3
(Proximal to Curve #2)
Curve #1
(Distal to Curve #2)
Fig. 2. Spatial curve example layout.
Important considerations in the selection of potential variables
to include in a regression analysis include the required effort of data
collection to populate the model and the availability of accurate
and repeatable data collection procedures. The spatial characteris-
tics included in this study consisted of distance to adjacent curves,
direction of turn of the adjacent curves, radius of the adjacent
curves, and length of the adjacent curves. The distance to adja-
cent curves consists of two distances, one for each of the adjacent
curves (upstream and downstream of the curve of interest). Adja-
cent curves are identified by their proximity to the curve of interest,
as either the proximal curve (i.e., the adjacent curve which is clos-
est to the subject curve of interest) or distal curve (i.e., the adjacent
curve which is furthest away from the subject curve of interest).
Fig. 2 shows an example consisting of three curves with straight
segments between the curves. If Curve #2 was the curve of inter-
est, Curve #1 would be the distal curve, or farthest curve from Curve
#2, since the distance X is greater than Y. Similarly, Curve #3 would
be the proximal curve, or closest curve to Curve #2.
The relative direction of turn of adjacent curves was another
spatial characteristic studied. The relative direction of turn of adja-
cent curves defines whether the adjacent curves turn in the same
direction or the opposite direction as the curve of interest. In the
example shown in Fig. 2, Curve #1 and Curve #3 each turn in the
opposite direction from Curve #2. The radius and length of each
adjacent curve were also considered in the analysis.
A further examination of the characteristics of curves in a series
was also conducted as part of the analysis. The definition of a curve
as an isolated, serial, or leading curve depends on the distance
requirement. Distance thresholds of 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 and 1 mile incre-
ments were tested. An isolated curve is a curve in which neither
adjacent curve is within the threshold distance, a serial curve is one
in which both adjacent curves are within the threshold distance,
and a leading curve is a curve in which only one of the adjacent
curves is within the threshold distance. Considering Fig. 2 as an
example, if the threshold was set at 1/4 mile and X was 0.3 miles
and Y was 0.2 miles, Curve #2 would be considered a leading curve.
The objective of the regression analysis was to develop an equa-
tion which incorporates actual reported collisions as the dependent
variable which can be explained by the number of HSM predicted
collisions and quantifiable curve spatial characteristics. An equa-
tion incorporating collisions as a function of HSM parameters and
End of Curve
(Milepost 5.87)
Milepost 5.8 Milepost 5.9
(1 Collision) (5 Collisions)
 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304
spatial considerations, as a CMF, will provide a useful addition to
the current safety methodology provided by the HSM without the
development of a complete new model. Inclusion of HSM collision
predictions in the model allows the user to utilize a widely accepted
method for estimating the safety of a curve based on its geomet-
ric characteristics. The basis of the HSM safety model prediction
is total collisions (not individual injury type or property damage
collisions).
4. Results
A close examination of the descriptive statistics reveals insight
when selecting appropriate variables to include in a regression
analysis, for explaining results, for considering further analysis, and
for assessing the applicability to other locations. The following is
a summary of the most useful results of the descriptive statistics
investigation. A total of 420 curves were included in the analysis
(246 on NC42 and 174 on NC96). The following points describe the
results.
• At 43% of the curves, the adjacent curves both turn in the opposite
direction (i.e., if the curve turns to the right, both of the adja-
cent curves would turn to the left). Only 8% of adjacent curves
both turn in the same direction as the curve of interest (i.e., if
the curve turns to the right, both of the adjacent curves also turn
to the right) leaving 51% of the adjacent curves turning in both
directions.
• For the definition of a curve as an isolated, serial, or leading curve
a threshold of 1/4 of a mile provides a roughly equal split of the
curves into the three categories (32% were isolated, 27% were
serial, and 41% were leading curves). Larger thresholds result in a
lower percentage of isolated and leading curves, while resulting
in more serial curves.
• The average curve length was approximately 750 ft, with 40% of
the curves being shorter than 500 ft long, 79% shorter than 1000 ft
long, and 91% shorter than 1500 ft long.
• The average radius was approximately 2500 ft, with 19% of the
curves having a radius less than 1000 ft, 54% having a radius less
than 2000 ft, and 75% having a radius less than 3000 ft.
• The average number of HSM predicted collisions was 0.36 colli-
sions per curve per year (for a total of 152 predicted collisions
per year on the full sample of 420 curves). Twenty six percent of
the curves have predicted collisions of less than 0.1 collisions per
year, 60% have less than 0.25 predicted collisions per year, 81%
have less than 0.5 predicted collisions per year, and 94% have less
than 1 collision per year.
• The average number of observed collisions was 0.50 collisions
per curve per year (for a total of 210 collisions per year), 37% of
the curves have observed collisions of less than 0.1 collisions per
year, 59% have less than 0.25 predicted collisions per year, 74%
have less than 0.5 predicted collisions per year, and 89% have less
than 1 collision per year.
• The average distance from the curve to the proximal curve is
0.26 miles, with 29% of the proximal adjacent curves within
0.1 miles, 68% within 0.25 miles, 86% within 0.5 miles, and 97%
Table 1
Variables of the model.
Variable (All distances and lengths in miles)
Distance to distal adjacent curve D 0.367**
Distance to proximal adjacent curve P 0.122
Distance to distal adjacent curve*
Distance to proximal adjacent curve D×P
(Constant)
*
Significant at <0.10.
**
Significant at <0.05.
301
within 1 mile. The average distance from the curve to the distal
curve is 0.66 miles, with 3% of the distal adjacent curves within
0.1 miles, 27% within 0.25 miles, 54% within 0.5 miles, and 83%
within 1 mile.
4.1. Model selection
A correlation analysis established which variables were most
correlated with the desired dependent variable, observed col-
lisions. Among the spatial elements, correlations between the
observed collisions and distances to nearby curves were found to be
significantly positive, but curve directions were not significant. The
statistically significant positive values for the distance to nearby
curves demonstrate that in general, as the distance between curves
increase, the number of expected collisions increases.
Numerous regression equations were tested and examined
based on overall model statistics, the individual variables, parsi-
mony, and the significance of the variables. The dependent variable
in the model was observed collisions and the independent variables
were HSM predicted collisions and the spatial factors shown in Eq.
(3). Therefore, the HSM procedure should be conducted to deter-
mine the predicted collisions for inclusion in the model to provide
a more accurate prediction of observed collisions. To include HSM
predicted collisions in an unmodified manner (i.e., coefficient = 1),
the HSM predicted collisions term was input as an offset to the
model.
Coli = HSMi × exp[B0 + (B1 × D) + (B2 × P) + (B3 × D × P)] + ui
(3)
where Col = observed collisions (collisions/year), HSM = HSM pre-
dicted collisions (collisions/year), D = distance to distal adjacent
curve (miles), P = distance to proximal adjacent curve (miles),
Bi ’s = coefficients.
Observed collisions typically follow a Poisson or negative bino-
mial distribution; in this analysis, the data showed overdispersion
(with an alpha of 1.45 at <0.001 significance, that is indicative of an
overdispersed distribution) which led to the selection of a negative
binomial distribution instead of a Poisson distribution. The Pois-
son distribution assumes that the mean and variance are equal,
which was not accurate for this data. The distance to adjacent
curves and an interaction term combining the distances to the dis-
tal and proximal adjacent curves was used in the model. Each of
the terms, except the distance to the proximal curve, were statis-
tically significant (at the 0.05 level). Table 1 shows the variables
for the final model resulting from the analysis. The recommended
model has a pseudo R-squared value of 0.0082 which is lower than
expected for many applications. However, with safety applications
and the inherent randomness of collisions, lower R-squared val-
ues are expected to result from the analysis. The model that was
used to explain the relationship between curvature and safety was
developed by Zegeer et al. (1991) and was utilized in the HSM
has a pseudo R-squared of 0.351. Although it is not appropriate
to compare R-squared values across models with different depen-
dent variables and a different number of variables, it would be
B Standard error z
0.368 2.37
0.155 0.33
−0.255* 0.144 −1.77
0.116 0.158 0.74
302 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304

Table 2
Model predicted collisions (collisions per year) by adjacent curve distance.

Distance to distal curve (miles)

0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0

Distance to proximal curve (miles) 0.3 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.33
0.6 – 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27
0.9 – – 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.21
1.2 – – – 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14
1.5 – – – – 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08

Note: Assumptions include length of 500 , radius of 500 , AADT of 5000 vehicles per day, lane width of 10.5 ft, inside shoulder width of 6 ft, outside shoulder width of 8 ft, no
superelevation variance, level grade, driveway density of 9.6 driveways per mile, and a roadside hazard rating of 4.

Fig. 3. Validation of model with difference in collisions from reported collisions.

expected that the model by Zegeer et al. would have a higher
R-squared because of the more direct relationship between an indi-
vidual curve’s attributes and safety then spatial effects and safety.
The importance of spatial factors is a key determining factor in the
adequacy of the model as are the significance of the parameters in
the model. The recommended model is shown in Eq. (4). This model
does not include any of the parameter used in the HSM methodol-
ogy because those attributes are captured through the inclusion of
the HSM procedures for estimating collisions, which is multiplied
by the spatial features of the recommended model.
Col = HSM[0.116 + (0.367 × D) + (0.122 × P) + (−0.255 × D × P)]
(4)
where Col = observed collisions (collisions/year), HSM = HSM pre-
dicted collisions (collisions/year), D = distance to distal adjacent
curve (miles), P = distance to proximal adjacent curve (miles).
The relationship between distal and proximal curve distances
is shown in Table 2 using assumed values for horizontal curve fea-
tures. The computations required to generate the model prediction
of collisions per year were based on a 500-ft radius, 500-ft length,
and an ADT 5000 vehicles per day. Using these values, the resulting
HSM prediction was 0.32 collisions per year. A comparable tangent
section of roadway with all the same characteristics except with-
out the horizontal curvature would be expected to experience 0.15
collisions per year. The table shows that collisions predicted by the
model increase as the distance to the distal curve increases and
decreases as the distance to the proximal curve increases.
4.2. Model validation
Fig. 3 shows the results from the validation of the model using
25 randomly selected curves in North Carolina, which were not
used in the development of the model. Average differences between
the model prediction and observed collisions, as well as the HSM
prediction and observed collisions, were computed. As expected,
because the HSM methodology is part of the recommended model,
the average differences returned by the model prediction and the
HSM prediction follow a similar track. However, the model predic-
tion shows an improvement over the HSM prediction in six of the
eight categories of reported collisions.
5. Conclusions
The most significant finding from this research is the impor-
tance and significance of spatial considerations for the prediction
of horizontal curve safety. This analysis found that some spatial
relationships significantly impact the safety of a horizontal curve.
Specifically, the distance to adjacent curves was found to be signif-
icant in the estimation of observed collisions. Table 2 shows that
the more closely spaced curves have fewer predicted collisions than
those curves which are more distant to each other. These findings
are consistent with the concept of driver expectations used by high-
way designers which affirms that a road which violates a driver’s
expectations will likely have more crashes than a road which does
not violate those expectations. With regards to curves, a curve that
is a part of a series of curves is expected to be (and turns out to be)
safer than a curve which is isolated from other curves.
The isolated or serial nature of a curve can be represented by
the longer distance between curves, the distance to the distal curve
component of the model. Once a driver enters a series of curves, the
driver expects to experience additional curves, while a driver on a
long, straight segment of roadway can be surprised by a curve. How-
ever, drivers may expect some straight segment length between
curves, represented by the shorter distance to the adjacent curves,
the distance to the proximal curve. The straight segment between
curves allows a driver the time needed to perceive and react to the
upcoming curve. The negative coefficient of the interaction term
between the distal curve distance and the proximal curve distance
represent the desired balance between curves which are too close
and those that are too far from each other (Table 1).
An important consideration for any collision is the determina-
tion of its location. A key added difficulty for curve collisions is how
to identify whether or not the collision even occurred on a curve.
A collision is not typically contained at one finite location; rather,
a collision typically has a point of origin and a final stopping point
 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304
when the momentum of the vehicles has ended. This characteristic
of collisions adds to the complexity of defining whether a collision
occurred on, started on, or was caused by a horizontal curve.
Another consideration for identifying curve collisions involves
locating the collisions in relation to horizontal curves. In this anal-
ysis, the reported collisions were located by a milepost number to
the nearest 0.1-mile, while the curves were located using GIS tech-
niques to a higher level of precision. Therefore, an interpolation
technique was used to distribute the collisions to each curve for
the nearest milepost outside and inside the curve boundaries. If one
did not use the interpolation and curve collisions included only the
reported collisions bounded by the 0.1-mile curve limits, the num-
ber of curve collisions would be underestimated. This could mean
that a hazardous curve is overlooked and is not investigated for
improvements. Similarly, collisions reported as being bounded by
the curve limits plus an additional fraction of a milepost distance to
reach the next full milepost (to incorporate the next milepost out-
side of the curve) could overestimate the total reported collisions
assigned to the curve.
Analysts could consider an additional distance beyond a curve
as a curve influence area. The influence area of a curve could be
expected to extend beyond its physical boundaries for a couple of
reasons, including: (1) a collision could be caused by the instability
of vehicular forces created by the transition from the end of the
curve to the straight segment, while the collision would occur out-
side the curve itself or (2) the momentum of a vehicle that leaves
the roadway or collides with another vehicle on the curve could
carry the vehicle outside the boundary of the curve. However, this
approach would be inconsistent with HSM procedures for defining
the curve length and its parameters.
6. Recommendations
The recommended equation to account for the spatial rela-
tionship of horizontal curves (while including the geometric
considerations of the curve from the Highway Safety Manual
model) is Eq. (4). The distance to the distal and proximal adjacent
curves and an interaction term for the distances to adjacent curves
are the spatial variables of the model. Eq. (4) is especially useful
because the implementation of the HSM safety model is incom-
plete without the spatial consideration. Practitioners can input the
HSM results along with the variables listed in Eq. (4) to estimate
the total number of collisions on the curve. When using Eq. (4)
distances and lengths should be non-zero and should be applied to
curves with similar features as the curves analyzed for this research.
Although this study did not include any curves with no tangent dis-
tance between adjacent curves, the recommended model appears
to provide reasonable results for small or zero tangent values.
An example calculation using Eq. (4) is shown below. The same
HSM assumptions as presented in Table 2 that yielded an estimate
of 0.32 predicted collisions per year for an example curve were
used. The distance to the distal curve is 1.5 miles and the distance
to the proximal curve is 0.3 miles. The assumed curve radius for the
curve of interest is 1000 ft. Accounting for the spatial considerations
of the adjacent curves, the resulting prediction is 0.19 collisions per
year, showing that the recommended model expects this example
curve to experience more collisions than the HSM prediction for
the curve.
Col = HSM[0.116 + (0.367 × D) + (0.122 × P) + (−0.255 × D × P)]
Col = 0.32 collisions per year [0.116 + (0.367 × 1.5 miles)
+ (0.122 × 0.3 miles) + (−0.255 × 1.5 miles × 0.3 miles)]
Col = 0.19 predicted collisions per year
303
7. Future research
This analysis focused on the safety effects of adjacent curves
on a curve of interest. However, a more comprehensive, network
based approach that includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. curves in addi-
tion to adjacent curves could provide additional accuracy and lead
to better safety improvement decisions. In addition, direction of
travel could be incorporated as an additional variable. Thus, the
model could include the distance to both the proximal and distal
adjacent curves as well as a factor to account for travel direction
which could be used to estimate the risk of a driver in a particular
direction. Directional analysis could be useful for selecting coun-
termeasures, such as advanced warning signs, which are specific to
one direction. Another element of interest for future research is the
spatial correlation among adjacent curves which would consider
the directional information along with the adjacent curve that was
traversed immediately prior to the collision. For the spatial consid-
erations in this paper, the average distance from the curve to the
proximal curve was approximately one quarter of a mile and the
average distance from the curve to the distal curve was 2/3 of a mile.
Further data collection at additional curves that are spaced more
closely together and those that are spaced further apart would add
more significance to the results.
Another possible area for future research is the HSM calibration
method which could use further refinement in site selection. The
current recommendations do not specify a sampling technique to
reach the minimum number of sites (30–50 sites) or the minimum
number of collisions (100 per year) (AASHTO, 2010). Site selec-
tion could play a major role in the magnitude and variability over
time of the calibration factor, particularly if high crash locations are
purposefully included in the study.
Furthermore, the CMF for superelevation could also be fur-
ther investigated to determine if the variance between actual and
required superelevation fully incorporates the impact of superel-
evation on horizontal curve safety. The HSM incorporates the
variance in superelevation, but with advancements in data col-
lection methods for superelevation, a CMF could become more
sophisticated to more accurately model the superelevation effects
and the changes of superelevation through a curve. The transi-
tion from a normal crown cross-slope (each lane sloped away from
the centerline at 2%) to a fully superelevated roadway (both lanes
sloped in one direction to the design superelevation) can be difficult
to design and if done incorrectly can cause safety concerns on the
curve. Further research could examine the effect of any deviation
from the recommended transition to full superelevation.
Acknowledgements
This paper was based on a study funded by the North Car-
olina Department of Transportation entitled “Procedure for Curve
Warning Signing, Delineation, and Advisory Speeds for Horizontal
Curves.” Brian Mayhew served as the NCDOT Chair of the Steer-
ing and Implementation Committee. NCDOT has not evaluated or
adopted the findings of this paper or accepted or rejected any of its
conclusions.
References
AASHTO, 2010. Highway Safety Manual. American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Aram, A., 2010. Effective safety factors on horizontal curves of two-lane highways.
Journal of Applied Sciences 10 (22), 2814–2822 (Elsevier).
Bonneson, J., et al., 2007. Horizontal Curve Signing Handbook. TTI Technical Report.
Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas.
Charlton, S.G., 2007. The role of attention in horizontal curves: a comparison of
advance warning, delineation, and road marking treatments. Accident Analysis
and Prevention 39 (5), 873–885 (Elsevier).
304 D.J. Findley et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 296–304
Chrysler, S.T., et al., 2005. Simplifying Delineator Applications for Horizontal Curves.
Transportation Research Record, vol. 1918. Transportation Research Board.
National Research Council, Washington D.C, pp. 68–75.
Datta, T.K., Perkins, D.D., Taylor, J.I., Thompson, H.T., 1983. Accident Surrogates for
Use in Analyzing Highway Safety Standards. Publication FHWA-RD-82-103-105.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washing-
ton D.C.
Eccles, K.A., Hummer, J.E., 2000. Safety effects of fluorescent yellow warning signs
at hazardous sites in daylight curves. In: Proceedings of the Transportation
Research Board 80th Annual Meeting. Transportation Research Board. Paper
Number 01-2236, Washington D.C.
Elvik, R., 2007. Road safety management by objectives: a critical analysis of the
Norwegian approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (3), 1115–1122 (Else-
vier).
Fitzpatrick, K. et al., 2000. Speed prediction for two-lane rural highways. Report
FHWA/RD-99/171. Federal Highway Administration. United States Department
of Transportation. Washington D.C.
FHWA, 2009. Manual on uniform control devices. Federal Highway Administration.
United States Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., p. 110 (Table 2C-
5. Horizontal Alignment Sign Selection).
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), 2010. Geographic Information Sys-
tem (GIS): Curvature Extension for ArcMap 9.x. Transportation Statistics Office,
FDOT. Tallahassee, FL. URL: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/gis/
(accessed February 14, 2011).
Glennon, J.C., Neuman, T.R., Leisch, J.E., 1985. Safety and operational considerations
for design of rural highway curves. Report FHWA/RD-86/035. Federal Highway
Administration. United States Department of Transportation. Washington D.C.
Glennon, J.C., 1987. Effect of alignment on highway safety. State of the Art Report 6.
Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington D.C.
Guo, F., Wang, X., Abdel-Aty, M.A., 2010. Modeling signalized intersection safety
with corridor-level spatial correlations. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42
(1), 84–92 (Elsevier).
Hammond, J., Wegmann, F., 2001. Daytime effects of raised pavement markers on
horizontal curves. ITE Journal: Institute of Transportation Engineers (August),
38–41.
Harwood, D.W., Council, F.M., Hauer, E., Hughes, W.E., Vogt, A., 2000. Prediction
of the Expected Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways. Publication
FHWA-RD-99-207. Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, Washington D.C.
Herrstedt, L., Greibe, P., 2001. Safer signing and marking of horizontal curves on
rural roads. Traffic Engineering and Control Magazine 42, 82–87 (Hemming
Information Systems. London, England).
Hummer, J.E., Rasdorf, W., Findley, D.J., Zegeer, C.V., Sundstrom, C.A., 2010a. Curve
crashes: road and collision characteristics and countermeasures. Journal of
Transportation Safety and Security 2 (3), 203–220 (Southeast Transportation
Research Center).
Hummer, J.E., Rasdorf, W., Findley, D.J., Zegeer, C.V., Sundstrom, C.A., 2010b. Proce-
dure for curve warning signing, delineation, and advisory speeds for horizontal
curves. NCDOT Report, No. FHWA/NC/2009-07. North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Raleigh, NC.
Lamm, R., Psarianos, B., Cafiso, S., 2002. Safety Evaluation Process for Two-Lane
Rural Roads: A 10-Year Review. Transportation Research Record, vol. 1796.
Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington D.C, pp.
51–59.
Lyles, R.L., Taylor, W., 2006. Communicating changes in horizontal alignment, NCHRP
Report 559. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Wash-
ington D.C.
McGee, H.W., Hanscom, F.R., 2006. Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety.
Publication FHWA-SA-07-002. Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Milton, J.C., Mannering, F.L., 1998. The relationship among highway geometrics
traffic-related elements and motor-vehicle accident frequencies. Transportation
25, 395–413.
Nielsen, M.A., Greibe, P., Herrsted, L., 1999. Signing and Marking of Substandard
Horizontal Curves on Rural Roads (Main Report). Road Directorate, Ministry
of Transport, Report 163. Traffic Management and Road Safety, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Rasdorf, W., Findley, D.J., Zegeer, C.V., Sundstrom, C.A., Hummer, J.E. Evaluation of
GIS applications for horizontal curve data collection. Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, in press.
Retting, R.A., Farmer, C.M., 1998. Use of pavement markings to reduce excessive
traffic speeds on hazardous curves. ITE Journal: Institute of Transportation Engi-
neers 68 (9), 30–36.
Stata, 2010. Stata/SE 11.0 for Windows. College Station, TX.
Strathman, J.G., et al., 2001. Analysis of Design Attributes and Crashes on the Oregon
Highway System. Publication FHWA-OR-RD-02-01. Federal Highway Adminis-
tration. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.
Terhune, K.W., Parker, M.R., 1986. An Evaluation of Accident Surrogates for
Safety Analysis of Rural Highways. Publication FHWA-RD-86-127. Federal
Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington
D.C.
Torbic, D.J. et al., 2004. Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic High-
way Safety Plan, Volume 7: A Guide for Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves.
NCHRP Report 500. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council,
Washington D.C.
Wong, Y.D., Nicholson, A., 1992. Driver behaviour at horizontal curves: risk com-
pensation and the margin of safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention 24 (4),
425–436 (Elsevier).
Zegeer, C.V., et al., 1991. Cost-Effective Geometric Improvements for Safety
Upgrading of Horizontal Curves, Publication FHWA-RD-90-074. Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington
D.C.
Zegeer, C.V., Stewart, J.R., Council, F.M., Reinfurt, D.W., Hamilton, E., 1992.
Safety Effects of Geometric Improvements on Horizontal Curves, Transporta-
tion Research Record. Volume 1356. Transportation Research Board. National
Research Council, Washington D.C, pp. 11–19.