Carrier Safety performance in Saskatchewan is assessed on each of three safety measures: atfault
\ncollisions, convictions and on road inspections, with each measure having its own unique
\nthreshold. When a carrier\u2019s performance on any of these three measures exceeds a threshold,
\nremedial action is triggered. However, this approach to assessing carrier safety performance
\ndoes not address the combined roles played by the three safety measures in predicting a
\ncarrier\u2019s future collision involvement. Using binary regression techniques, this study developed
\npredictive models to identify which past violation types significantly predict a carrier\u2019s
\ninvolvement in future at-fault collisions, and, identify the specific types of collisions, convictions
\nand out-of-service (OOS) inspection violations that warrant attention when reviewing a carrier\u2019s
\nsafety performance. At the aggregate level, the model outcome indicated that a carrier with a
\npast at-fault collision, conviction, and OOS inspection violation is 3.62, 2.62, and 2.94 times as
\nlikely as one with no violation history to be involved in a future casualty collision respectively. At
\nthe disaggregate level, involvement in prior at-fault casualty collisions more significantly
\ndetermined a carrier\u2019s likelihood of being involved in a future casualty collision than involvement
\nin past at-fault property damage collisions. Five out of 15 conviction types and two out of eight
\nOOS inspection types were found to be significant determinants of future at-fault casualty
\ncollisions. This study provides the administrator with an empirical approach in determining the
\nrelative importance of violation types in the carrier safety rating process by considering a
\ncarrier\u2019s propensity to be involved in future at-fault casualty collisions.<\/p>\n
<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajib Sahaji, George Eguakun, Cari Donaldson<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[128,346],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-2014-cmrsc-ccmsr-xxiv-vancouver","category-research-and-evaluation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18770","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18770"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18770\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19778,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18770\/revisions\/19778"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}