Investigating the Relationship between Traffic Infractions and Collisions in York Region
By:
Pedram Izadpanah, Ph.D., P.Eng., TNS
Stefan Tsang, P.Eng., RSP1, TNS
Nelson Costa, York Regional Municipality
Ben Kos, LET, C.E.T., RSP1, MITE, York Regional Municipality
Soroush Salek, Ph.D., P.Eng., RSP1, CIMA+
Abstract
The Safe System Approach has emerged as an integrated and comprehensive method to improve safety for all road users. One of the key action areas for the implementation of Safe System Approach is road rules and enforcement, which directly supports safe speeds and complements safe road design and road user education. However, police forces face strains on resources, which can often be allocated to efforts outside of road safety law enforcement. One approach to dealing with this challenge is to undertake targeted enforcement, guided by data that reveals the nature and severity of traffic infractions over a geographic area.
As part of the York Region Traveller Safety Plan, traffic infractions issued by the York Region Police were analyzed to identify if infraction data could be used to inform an understanding of road safety issues and to determine if historic collision data could be used to identify locations for targeted traffic enforcement. The traffic infraction and collision data were mapped and visually compared to identify locations where hotspots aligned and locations where they differed. The findings of the analysis highlight that the police infraction data can be used by road authorities as another source of data to assist them in the decision-making process. Also, the findings show the opportunity to incorporate collision data and the importance of collaboration between road authorities and law enforcement to inform locations that would benefit most from targeted enforcement.
Acknowledgments
This study has been completed as part of the Traveller Safety Plan for the York Region. The authors thank the York Region project team for their input throughout the process and their permission to publish the outcomes of the conducted systemic safety analysis.
Introduction
The Safe System Approach has emerged as an integrated and comprehensive method to improve safety for all road users. Its underlying philosophy is that the responsibility for safe roads is shared between those who fund, plan, design, build, and maintain roads, as well as all those who use roads regardless of their travel mode. The Safe System Approach is the mechanism to achieve Vision Zero with the ultimate goal of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries for all road users in transportation networks.
As shown in Figure 1, Safe System Approach pillars of safe speeds, safe road users, safe vehicles, safe road design, post-crash care, and safe land use planning strive to be proactive and to eliminate death and injuries, while recognizing the reality that road users are human beings who make mistakes. The elements of the Safe System Approach include integrated land use planning, safe speeds, educated road users, safe vehicle design, multi-modal road design considering human factors, and post-crash care.
Figure 1: Vision Zero and Safe System Approach (1).
One of the key action areas for the implementation of Safe System Approach is road rules and enforcement, which directly supports safe speeds and complements safe road design and road user education. Even though road users are aware of road safety rules and laws, and roads are designed with those laws in mind, realistically, human behaviour often is less than ideal. Well-resourced law enforcement helps to shape road user behaviour and encourage compliance with the law. Within the context of road user safety, enforcement is used to deter dangerous driving behaviour like high speeds, distracted and aggressive driving, and impaired driving. Motorists are more likely to obey the rules of the road if they perceive a risk of being detected and penalized for not adhering to road rules. Police officers also have valuable knowledge and an understanding of locations that may experience a greater degree of dangerous driving behaviour on roads. Police forces face serious strains on resources and road safety law enforcement is a major challenge. One approach to dealing with this challenge is to undertake targeted enforcement, guided by data that reveals the nature and severity of traffic infractions over a geographic area.
Despite extensive road safety initiatives, guidelines, and policies, approximately 10,000 collisions occur on York regional and local roadways each year, out of which approximately 2,500 collisions result in a fatality or injury. The York Region Traveller Safety Plan (York TSP) was developed with goal of reducing the frequency and severity of collisions on roadways in the region. To achieve this, the Safe Systems Approach was applied to provide an evidence-based strategy to determine the nature of safety programs and implement countermeasures to reduce the number of roadway fatalities and injuries.
As part of the York TSP, the relationship between collisions and traffic infractions issued by York Region Police (YRP) were explored to identify (i) how the infractions can assist in better understanding of safety issues and (ii) if the collision data can potentially assist in targeted enforcement for more efficient and effective enforcement of the rules of the road.
The objective of the police enforcement data review analysis was to identify trends in traffic infractions and identify if there were any relationships between infractions and collisions. This article will outline the data used in the study, summarize the results, and present findings and recommendations.
Study Data
Two sources of data were used in this study, traffic infraction data and historical collision data.
Traffic Infraction Data
A total of 490,556 traffic infractions were issued by YRP in a 6-year period between 2017 and 2022. The data was provided in a spreadsheet. The provided variables are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Infraction Attributes Used in the Study.
| Variable | Description |
| ID | A unique identifier for the infraction |
| Location | The description of an intersection or road segment where the infraction was issued |
| Municipality | The municipality where the infraction was issued |
| Date/Time | The date and time the infraction was issued |
| HTA Statute | The relevant Highway Traffic Act (HTA) regulation for the traffic infraction |
| X and Y Coordinate | Geospatial coordinates used to plot the infraction |
Collision Data
Collision data was obtained from York Region’s traffic management system, TES, for collisions recorded between 2017 and 2022 to correspond to the period for which infraction data was provided. The TES database contained validated and geocoded collision records. To align with the goals of the York Region TSP, only collisions resulting in fatality or injury (FI) were selected Relevant collision attributes used in the analysis are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Collision Attributes Used in the Study.
| Variable | Description |
|---|---|
| Accident Number | Unique identifier for each collision |
| Classification of Accident | The severity of the collision. For this analysis, only fatal or injury collisions was selected. |
| Initial Impact Type | Best describes the general path of the vehicle(s) immediately before the first impact (e.g. rear-end, turning movement, angle) |
| Accident Location | Provides information about where the collision occurred (e.g., at-intersection, intersection related, or non-intersection) |
| Driver Action | The driver action that led to the collision. This was used to determine aggressive or distracted driving behavior (e.g., speed too fast for condition, inattentive, etc.) |
| X and Y coordinate: | Geospatial coordinates used to plot the collision |
Methodology
As part of the York TSP, the collision data were used to identify emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are referred to as the largest types or groups of collisions or specific collision types (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists, school-aged children, etc.). Countermeasures are applied to emphasis areas to reduce the frequency or severity of collisions in each emphasis area. York Region utilized fatal or injury (FI) collision data and identified the following emphasis areas:
- Vulnerable Road Users (VRU)
- Intersections
- Aggressive Driving
- Distracted Driving
- Impaired Driving
Table 3 shows the infractions by HTA regulation. The infractions shown are ones that have more than 5,000 over the analysis period. The rows with bolded and red values in the table represent infractions that were explored further as part of the analysis. These were selected because they are often contributing factors for FI collisions and align with emphasis areas identified by the Region.
Table 3: Infractions by HTA Regulation (2017 to 2022)
| HTA Regulation | Description | # Infractions | % of Total Infractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 128 | Speeding | 205,947 | 42% |
| 136(1)(a) | Stop sign violation | 74,397 | 15% |
| 7(1)(a) | Invalid vehicle permit | 22,728 | 5% |
| 7(1)(c)(i) | Improper display of license permit | 18,763 | 4% |
| 78.1(1) | Using handheld device | 17,177 | 4% |
| 182(2) | Sign violation | 12,456 | 3% |
| 130(1) | Careless Driving | 11,740 | 2% |
| 33(1) | Not carrying driver’s license or failure to surrender license | 10,887 | 2% |
| 53(1) | Driving with suspended license | 10,147 | 2% |
| 144(18) | Red light violation | 9,913 | 2% |
| 130 | Careless Driving | 9,295 | 2% |
| 7(5)(a) | Not carrying vehicle permit | 8,537 | 2% |
| 172(1) | Stunt driving | 5,973 | 1% |
| 7(1)(b)(i) | Improper display of license permit | 5,638 | 1% |
| 32(1) | Driving without license | 5,274 | 1% |
As shown in Table 3, the infraction that was issued the most was related to speeding, accounting for 42% of all infractions issued over the analysis period. The second most frequent infraction consisted of stop sign violations, representing 15% of all infractions. After that, the infractions were more evenly distributed.
Infractions were paired with corresponding potential target collisions. For example, the target collisions paired with speeding infraction selected based on the Driver Action variable in the collision reports. Collisions with Driver Actions of “Exceeding speed limit” and “Speed too fast for condition were paired with speeding infractions.
To identify potential relationships between infraction and collision data, the locations of each were plotted and visually compared. The plotted data was displayed using heatmaps to aid in the identification of hotspots. The mapping approach was used to identify whether there is an alignment between the locations with high density of specific infractions and high density of the target collisions. To align with the goals of the York Region TSP, only FI collisions were included as part of the analysis.
Results
A total of six emphasis areas were examined as part of this analysis, consisting of speeding, stop sign violations, stunt driving, red light running, handheld device usage, and careless driving.
Speeding
Speeding infractions were the most prominent infraction type, with a total of 205,947 speeding infractions issued between 2017 and 2022. Speeding pertains to HTA Section 128, Rate of Speed.
The target collisions were selected based on the Driver Action column in the collision report. Collisions with Driver Actions of “Exceeding speed limit” and “Speed too fast for condition were selected. A total of 690 collisions were recorded during the analysis period.
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the infraction volumes and FI collision volumes by year.
Figure 2: Speeding Infractions vs. FI Collisions.
Based on Figure 2, the following observations can be made:
- Speeding infractions have been decreasing year over year. This is consistent with trends in total infractions.
- FI collision frequencies experienced a decrease in 2020 and 2021. This is related to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, where reduced vehicle volumes resulted in reduced collision frequencies. The collision frequency in 2022 has returned to pre-COVID levels.
Figure 3 shows a map that compares infraction hotspots and collision hotspots. Areas with similar hotspots are highlighted with green squares, areas where they don’t align are shown in red squares.
Figure 3: Speeding Infractions vs FI Collisions Map.
Based on Figure 3, there was not much alignment between infraction and FI collision hotspots. Collision frequencies were generally higher along the major east-west roads like Major Mackenzie Drive, Rutherford Road, and Highway 7. The infraction hotspots were more prevalent north on Bayview Avenue near Stouffville Road and on Bloomington Road. These were likely related to targeted enforcement campaigns in those specific locations.
Stop Sign Violations
Regulations related to stop sign violations are presented in HTA Section 136(1)(a). There was a total of 17,177 stop sign violations issued between 2017 and 2022.
The target collisions consisted of angle collisions that occurred at stop-controlled intersections. There was a total of 409 angle FI collisions recorded during the analysis period.
It should be noted that all FI collisions that occurred at stop-controlled intersections were included in this analysis. In the case of two-way stop control intersections, the specific intersection approach with a stop sign could not be identified (i.e., if two-way stop control is in the north-south or east-west direction), so the number of collisions presented is lower than what is presented. The Region is working on a Region-wide data management system, this analysis will be possible in the future.
A comparison of the stop sign violations to stop sign angle collisions by year is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Stop Sign Violations vs. Stop Sign Angle FI Collisions.
A map comparing the locations of stop sign infractions to stop sign FI angle collisions in shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Stop Sign Infractions vs. Stop Sign FI Angle Collisions Map.
As shown in Figure 5, there were no locations that aligned with infractions and collisions. The location with the highest number of stop sign infractions was the intersection of Hilda Avenue at Pinewood Drive, where a total of 1,598 infractions were issued. There were no angle collisions that occurred at this location.
The stop-controlled intersection with the highest number of angle collisions was Keele Street at 17th Sideroad (11 collisions); there was 1 stop sign infraction issued over the same period.
Stunt Driving
There was a total of 5,913 stunt driving infractions between 2017 and 2022. In Ontario, the threshold for stunt driving is defined as 40 kilometres per hour (km/h) over the posted speed limit on roads with speed limits less than 80 km/h, or driving 50 km/h over the posted speed limit on roads with speed limits over 80 km/h.
The target collisions were selected based on the Driver Action column in the police collision report. Collisions with Driver Actions of “Exceeding speed limit” and “Speed too fast for condition were selected. A total of 690 FI collisions were recorded during the analysis period.
Figure 6 shows a graph of stunt driving infractions and speed related FI by year.
Figure 6: Stunt Driving Infractions vs. Speed Related FI Collisions.
Figure 6 shows a substantial increase in stunt driving collisions starting in 2020. This may be related to the COVID-19 pandemic, where fewer vehicles were on the road, resulting in the potential for higher operating speeds. Another contributing factor was a change in legislation that was implemented in July 2021; the speed limit threshold was reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h on roads with posted speeds less than 80 km/h. A reduced threshold for stunt driving infractions would lead to an increase in the number of infractions issued.
Figure 7 shows a map comparing the locations of stunt driving infractions to speed-related FI collisions.
Figure 7: Stunt Driving Infractions vs. Speed-Related FI Collisions Map.
As shown in Figure 7, there are some similar hotspots when comparing stunt driving infractions to speed-related collisions along Highway 7 from Yonge Street to Leslie Street and from Highway 407 to Islington Avenue. There were hotspots that occurred on different locations along Major Mackenzie Drive.
Red Light Running
There was a total of 9,913 red light running (RLR) infractions that were issued between 2017 and 2022. It should be noted that tickets issued from red light cameras are not included as part of this dataset.
Target collisions for RLR consisted of collisions with the initial impact type of “Angle collision” and the traffic control as “Traffic signal”. A total of 1,497 RLR FI collisions were recorded during the analysis period.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of the RLR FI collisions and infractions by year.
Figure 8: Red Light Running Infractions vs. FI Collisions.
There is a decreasing trend in the number of RLR infractions that were issued, which is consistent with overall infraction trends. The number of RLR FI collisions has decreased in 2020, which may be related to the COVID-19 pandemic, but there does not appear to be a return to pre-COVID values. Additional years of data are required to identify whether the reduction trend of RLR FI collisions will continue, or whether the change is related to yearly fluctuations.
Figure 9 shows a map comparing the locations of RLR collisions and infraction locations.
Figure 9: Red Light Running Infractions vs. Angle FI Collisions Map.
Based on Figure 9, there are no similar locations between RLR FI collisions and infractions. The two locations with the highest infractions were Donald Cousens Parkway at Box Grove Bypass and Woodbine Avenue at 14th Avenue. Despite being the two highest intersections for red light infractions, with more than 500 infractions between the two locations, there were no angle collisions recorded at either location. Angle FI collisions were more prevalent along Yonge Street, Bayview Avenue, and near the Highway 400 interchanges south of Major Mackenzie Drive.
Handheld Device Usage
Use of a handheld device while driving is covered in HTA Section 78.1 (1). There was a total of 17,177 handheld device infractions issued between 2017 and 2022.
Target collisions were identified based on the driver condition field of “Inattentive”. This field is broader than when the driver was using a handheld device because the driver could be distracted and inattentive due to other reasons. With changes to some Ontario motor vehicle accident report fields, collisions occurring after January 29, 2023, will have a new field to identify what distracted the driver (e.g., handheld device, in-car device, two-way radio, etc.). There was a total of 2,644 FI collisions where the driver was considered inattentive.
Figure 10 shows a comparison between handheld device infractions and inattentive FI collisions that were recorded between 2017 and 2022.
Figure 10: Handheld Device Infractions vs. Inattentive FI Collisions.
The number of handheld device infractions have been steadily decreasing since 2017, consistent with the overall infractions trend. The number of inattentive FI collisions experienced a decrease in 2020 but increased in 2021 and 2022.
Figure 11 shows a map comparing hotspot locations for handheld device infractions and inattentive FI collisions.
Figure 11: Handheld Device Infractions vs. FI Collisions Map.
Based on Figure 11, there are locations where handheld device infractions align with inattentive FI collisions. These areas are along Yonge Street from Steeles Avenue to Elgin Mills Road, Highway 7 from Weston Road to Jane Street, and at the intersection of Highway 7 at McCowan Road. There are also locations where there are infraction hotspots that do not align with collision hotspots, at Yonge Street from Wellington Street to Green Lane and at the intersection of Steeles Avenue at Woodbine Avenue.
Careless Driving
Careless driving pertains to HTA Section 130 (1). There was a total of 21,035 careless driving infractions issued between 2017 and 2022.
The target collision was the same as handheld device – driver condition “Inattentive”.
Figure 12 provides a yearly comparison between careless driving infractions and inattentive FI collisions.
Figure 12: Careless Driving Infractions vs. Inattentive FI Collisions.
The trend in careless driving infractions and inattentive FI collisions appear to be aligned between the two sources. They both experienced a decrease in 2020 but have increased in 2022.
Figure 13 shows a map comparing different hotspots for careless driving infractions and inattentive collisions.
Figure 13: Careless Driving Infractions vs. Inattentive FI Collisions Map.
Based on Figure 13, there are several locations where the hotspots align between careless driving infractions and inattentive FI collisions. These locations include Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road from Weston Road to Keele Street, Highway 7 from Weston Road to Jane Street, Yonge Street from Steeles Avenue to Elgin Mills Road, and the intersection of Highway 7 at McCowan Road.
It should be noted that both the infractions and FI collisions were relatively evenly distributed throughout York Region. This may make the hotspots appear to be more closely aligned, especially since they are more prominent on roads with likely higher vehicle volumes.
Conclusion
Based on a comparison of traffic infractions to FI collision data, there do not appear to be many discernable relationships between the two datasets. One contributing factor could be that existing traffic enforcement is not informed by collision data, and may be based on public complaints, and subject to other constraints faced by the police (e.g. safe areas for the police for traffic stops).
There is an opportunity to incorporate collision data to inform locations that would benefit most from targeted traffic enforcement. A data-driven approach to selecting enforcement locations could lead to increased benefit from traffic enforcement efforts in reducing serious and fatal collisions. Infraction data could be used to supplement collision data in identifying potential sites for improvement in the York Region road network as part of the systemic proactive approach.
The analyses conducted in this study can also be additional justification to highlight the importance of collaboration between road authorities and law enforcement to reduce frequency and severity of collisions by sharing data and coordinating the many actions in the Region’s Safety Programs.
References
- Vision Zero and Safe System Approach: A Primer for Canada, Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), March 2023
Bios
Pedram Izadpanah, Ph.D., P.Eng., RSP1, TNS, is the Director of Transportation Engineering at TNS with over 19 years of consulting, academic, and project management experience. His expertise includes the use of new technologies in road safety and traffic engineering to assist road authorities in making better decisions. Pedram has managed projects related to all aspects of the road safety management process, including the development of Vision Zero plans, the development of safety performance functions and network screening, road safety audits at the design stage, and in-service road safety reviews for many municipalities. He is also recognized and respected as a leader in the field, having authored in full or in part manuals and guidelines including Ontario Traffic Manuals Books (7, 11, 12, and 15), ITE’s Before and After Studies in Road Safety, MTO Guidelines for Operational Performance Reviews, and TAC’s Defining and Measuring Urban Congestion.
Stefan Tsang, P.Eng., RSP1, TNS, is a Transportation Safety Engineer at TNS with over six years of experience, specializing in road user safety and traffic operations. He has experience in conducting in-service road safety reviews, road safety audits, road safety strategies, and operational performance reviews of intersections and corridors in diverse operating environments. These studies consist of data collection, collision record validation, historic collision data reviews, predictive safety analysis, field investigations, issues diagnosis, and countermeasure selection/evaluation to improve safety performance for all road users.
Nelson Costa, Manager, Traffic Safety and Signal Operations, York Region, is a public sector leader in road safety engineering service delivery. Nelson has 23 years of experience contributing to York Region's safe road network.
Ben Kos, LET, C.E.T., RSP1, MITE, Program Manager, Traffic Safety, York Region, is a Road Safety Professional and Limited Licence holder with 16 years of experience in road safety engineering. Ben has extensive experience in public and private sectors leading and conducting road safety assessments and programs.
Soroush Salek, Ph.D., P.Eng., RSP1, is a Director of Traffic Engineering with CIMA+ with almost 20 years of academic and consulting experience in traffic engineering and road safety. His comprehensive experience spans the entire spectrum of safety management projects, including the development of Safety Performance Functions (SPFs), network screening exercises, formulation and assessment of safety countermeasures, and development of Vision Zero plans. His strengths include machine learning, statistical analysis, and prediction models, as well as developing new methodologies to collect, process, and analyze transportation data to improve client decision-making processes.