Submitted:
12 June 2024
Posted:
13 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Development of a Predictive Model: Introducing a novel machine learning-based model that uses the XGBoost algorithm to predict the severity of traffic accidents in Montreal. Our analysis of a comprehensive dataset from 2012 to 2021 shows excellent accuracy (96%) of the model, outperforming other evaluated classifiers such as CatBoost, RF and GB.
- Performance Evaluation of Classifiers: We thoroughly analyzed performance metrics such as precision, recall, F1 score and accuracy and provided insights into the strengths and limitations of each classifier in the context of traffic safety.
- Real-time Prediction Web Application: We developed an innovative web application that implements the XGBoost prediction model through a user-friendly client-server architecture. This application, based on Swagger-UI and the Python Flask framework, provides users with a platform to input data and receive crash severity predictions, helping the Montreal city government implement data-driven traffic safety measures.
2. Related Work
3. Data Overview
3.1. Data Source
3.2. Data Description
- street_name (RUE_ACCDN): Name of the street where the collision occurred.
- collision_near (ACCDN_PRES_DE): Landmark near the collision site.
- collision_type (CD_GENRE_ACCDN): Type of collision.
- surface_condition (CD_ETAT_SURFC): Condition of the road surface.
- road_category (CD_CATEG_ROUTE): Category of the road.
- longitudinal_location (CD_LOCLN_ACCDN): Longitudinal location.
- weather_conditions (CD_COND_METEO): Weather conditions.
- light_cars_trucks_count (nb_automobile_camion_leger): Number of light cars and trucks involved.
- heavy_trucks_count (nb_camionLourd_tractRoutier): Number of heavy trucks involved.
- bicycle_count (nb_bicyclette): Number of bikes involved.
- motorcycle_count (nb_motocyclette): Number of motorcycles involved.
- emergency_vehicle_count (nb_urgence): Number of emergency vehicles involved.
- unspecified_vehicle_count (nb_veh_non_precise): Number of unspecified vehicles involved.
- authorized_speed (VITESSE_AUTOR): Authorized speed on the road.
- x_coordinate (LOC_X): X coordinate (Nad83 MTM8).
- y_coordinate (LOC_Y): Y coordinate (Nad83 MTM8).
- hour (HR_ACCDN): Hour of the collision.
4. Methodology
4.1. Data Preprocessing
4.2. Dealing with Missing Values
- Delete columns that are missing more than 50% of the data.
- For columns of a numeric type that represent categorical variables, we replace missing values with the value from the previous row (using the fillna method from the Python Pandas library with method=ffill). This method is chosen to preserve the order of the data wherever possible, assuming that adjacent entries are likely to have similar or identical categorizations, which is common with time series or ordered datasets.
- For purely numeric columns, replace missing values with the column mean. This approach is used to maintain the overall distribution and central tendency of the data. This is important to avoid biasing results in predictive modeling. However, we are aware of the potential biases that this method introduces and therefore limit its application to columns where the mean is a representative summary statistic of the underlying distribution.
4.2.1. Solving the Data Imbalance Problem
4.3. Feature Selection Using the Chi-Square Statistical Method
- is the chi-square statistic.
- n is the number of observation categories.
- is the observed frequency in category i.
- is the expected frequency in category i under the null hypothesis that the observed and expected frequencies are independent.
4.4. Exploratory Data Analysis
- Hourly Accident Severity Distribution: This chart illustrates the distribution of accident severity throughout the day, categorized by each hour.
- Weekly Accident Severity Distribution: This chart shows the distribution of accident severity across the days of the week and provides insight into daily patterns.
- Monthly Accident Severity Distribution: This chart shows how accident severity varies from month to month and highlights possible seasonal trends.
- Yearly Accident Severity Distribution: This chart shows annual accident severity
4.5. Development of the Predictive Model
4.5.1. Gradient Boosting (GB)
4.5.2. eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)
4.5.3. Categorical Boosting (CatBoost)
4.5.4. Random Forest (RF)
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Results
5.1.1. Interpretation of Results
5.1.2. Comparison of the Results with a Previous Study in the Literature
6. Conclusions and Future Work
Supplementary Materials
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, G.; Yau, K.K.; Chen, G. Risk factors associated with traffic violations and accident severity in China. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2013, 59, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/safety-and-mobility/global-status-report-on-road-safety-2023 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Transport Canada. Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics 2021. Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/statistics-data/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2021 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Alkheder, S.; Taamneh, M.; Taamneh, S. Severity prediction of traffic accident using an artificial neural network. Journal of Forecasting 2017, 36, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çeven, S.; Albayrak, A. Traffic accident severity prediction with ensemble learning methods. Computers and Electrical Engineering 2024, 114, 109101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashmienejad, S.H.A.; Hasheminejad, S.M.H. Traffic accident severity prediction using a novel multi-objective genetic algorithm. International journal of crashworthiness 2017, 22, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sameen, M.I.; Pradhan, B. Severity prediction of traffic accidents with recurrent neural networks. Applied Sciences 2017, 7, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, M.; Shen, Y. Traffic accident severity prediction based on random forest. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhanya, K.; Vajipayajula, S.; Srinivasan, K.; Tibrewal, A.; Kumar, T.S.; Kumar, T.G. Detection of Network Attacks using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models. Procedia Computer Science 2023, 218, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filali, A.; Mlika, Z.; Cherkaoui, S.; Kobbane, A. Preemptive SDN load balancing with machine learning for delay sensitive applications. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 2020, 69, 15947–15963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammouri, A.; Hammad, M.; Alnabhan, M.; Alsarayrah, F. Software bug prediction using machine learning approach. International journal of advanced computer science and applications 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, Y. Time series data prediction using IoT and machine learning technique. Procedia computer science 2020, 167, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muktar, B.; Fono, V.; Zongo, M. Predictive Modeling of Signal Degradation in Urban VANETs Using Artificial Neural Networks. Electronics 2023, 12, 3928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, S.; Hossain, M.A.; Ray, S.K.; Bhuiyan, M.M.I.; Sabuj, S.R. A study on road accident prediction and contributing factors using explainable machine learning models: analysis and performance. Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives 2023, 19, 100814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, P.; Meng, X.; Song, L. A novel ensemble learning method for crash prediction using road geometric alignments and traffic data. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security 2020, 12, 1128–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, J.; Li, L.; Zhang, D.; Yi, Z.; Xiang, Q. An alternative method for traffic accident severity prediction: using deep forests algorithm. Journal of advanced transportation 2020, 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, C.; Shao, C.; Li, J.; Xiong, Z. An improved deep learning model for traffic crash prediction. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2018, 2018, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; He, J.; Wang, Y.; Yan, X.; Zhang, C.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, B. A crash severity prediction method based on improved neural network and factor Analysis. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2020, 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Han, S.; Chen, Y.; et al. Prediction of Traffic Accident Severity Based on Random Forest. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2023, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, U.; Varun, M.; Srinivasa, G. A Comprehensive Study of Road Traffic Accidents: Hotspot Analysis and Severity Prediction Using Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Bombay Section Signature Conference (IBSSC); IEEE, 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, A.K.; Boni, P.K.; Islam, M.Z. A Data-Driven Study to Investigate the Causes of Severity of Road Accidents. In Proceedings of the 2022 13th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT); IEEE, 2022; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatarić, D.; Ruškić, N.; Aleksić, B.; Đurić, T.; Pezo, L.; Lončar, B.; Pezo, M. Predicting Road Traffic Accidents—Artificial Neural Network Approach. Algorithms 2023, 16, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sowdagur, J.A.; Rozbully-Sowdagur, B.T.B.; Suddul, G. An Artificial Neural Network Approach for Road Accident Severity Prediction. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Zooming Innovation in Consumer Technologies Conference (ZINC); IEEE, 2022; pp. 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meocci, M.; Branzi, V.; Martini, G.; Arrighi, R.; Petrizzo, I. A predictive pedestrian crash model based on artificial intelligence techniques. Applied Sciences 2021, 11, 11364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.K.; Reza, I.; Gazder, U.; Akter, R.; Arifuzzaman, M.; Rahman, M.M. Predicting road crash severity using classifier models and crash hotspots. Applied Sciences 2022, 12, 11354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldhari, I.; Almoshaogeh, M.; Jamal, A.; Alharbi, F.; Alinizzi, M.; Haider, H. Severity Prediction of Highway Crashes in Saudi Arabia Using Machine Learning Techniques. Applied Sciences 2022, 13, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Zheng, C.; Wu, F. Study on Traffic Accident Forecast of Urban Excess Tunnel Considering Missing Data Filling. Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 6773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Li, Z.; Pu, Z.; Xu, C. Comparing prediction performance for crash injury severity among various machine learning and statistical methods. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 60079–60087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Infante, P.; Jacinto, G.; Afonso, A.; Rego, L.; Nogueira, V.; Quaresma, P.; Saias, J.; Santos, D.; Nogueira, P.; Silva, M.; et al. Comparison of statistical and machine-learning models on road traffic accident severity classification. Computers 2022, 11, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansoor, U.; Ratrout, N.T.; Rahman, S.M.; Assi, K. Crash severity prediction using two-layer ensemble machine learning model for proactive emergency management. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 210750–210762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijithasena, R.; Herath, W. Data Visualization and Machine Learning Approach for Analyzing Severity of Road Accidents. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference for Advancement in Technology (ICONAT); IEEE, 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahab, L.; Jiang, H. A comparative study on machine learning based algorithms for prediction of motorcycle crash severity. PLoS one 2019, 14, e0214966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ville de Montréal. Collisions routières, [Jeu de données]. Dans Données Québec, 2018. Mis à jour le 19 décembre 2022. [Online; accessed 19 December 2023].
- Licenses, Creative Commons. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Creative Commons License, 2013. [Website accessed: 2023-12-20].
- McKinney, W.; et al. pandas: a foundational Python library for data analysis and statistics. Python for high performance and scientific computing 2011, 14, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Emmanuel, T.; Maupong, T.; Mpoeleng, D.; Semong, T.; Mphago, B.; Tabona, O. A survey on missing data in machine learning. Journal of Big Data 2021, 8, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nijman, S.; Leeuwenberg, A.; Beekers, I.; Verkouter, I.; Jacobs, J.; Bots, M.; Asselbergs, F.; Moons, K.; Debray, T. Missing data is poorly handled and reported in prediction model studies using machine learning: a literature review. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2022, 142, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chawla, N.V.; Bowyer, K.W.; Hall, L.O.; Kegelmeyer, W.P. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of artificial intelligence research 2002, 16, 321–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swana, E.F.; Doorsamy, W.; Bokoro, P. Tomek link and SMOTE approaches for machine fault classification with an imbalanced dataset. Sensors 2022, 22, 3246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muntasir Nishat, M.; Faisal, F.; Jahan Ratul, I.; Al-Monsur, A.; Ar-Rafi, A.M.; Nasrullah, S.M.; Reza, M.T.; Khan, M.R.H. A comprehensive investigation of the performances of different machine learning classifiers with SMOTE-ENN oversampling technique and hyperparameter optimization for imbalanced heart failure dataset. Scientific Programming 2022, 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, H.; Bai, Y.; Garcia, E.A.; Li, S. ADASYN: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE international joint conference on neural networks (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence); IEEE, 2008; pp. 1322–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, S.; Alshouiliy, K.; Roy, A.; AlGhamdi, A.; Agrawal, D.P. Chi-squared based feature selection for stroke prediction using AzureML. In Proceedings of the 2020 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing (IETC); IEEE, 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spencer, R.; Thabtah, F.; Abdelhamid, N.; Thompson, M. Exploring feature selection and classification methods for predicting heart disease. Digital health 2020, 6, 2055207620914777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaseen, I.S.; Kumar, C.A. Intrusion detection model using fusion of chi-square feature selection and multi class SVM. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 2017, 29, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, M.; Yuan, Z.; Janson, B.; Peng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wang, W. Older pedestrian traffic crashes severity analysis based on an emerging machine learning XGBoost. Sustainability 2021, 13, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, S.; Khattak, A.; Ullah, I.; Zhou, J.; Hussain, A. Predicting and analyzing road traffic injury severity using boosting-based ensemble learning models with SHAPley Additive exPlanations. International journal of environmental research and public health 2022, 19, 2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, P.; Zheng, Z.; Ren, Y.; Zhou, X.; Keramati, A.; Tolliver, D.; Huang, Y. A gradient boosting crash prediction approach for highway-rail grade crossing crash analysis. Journal of advanced transportation 2020, 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, J.H. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics 2001, 1189–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T.; Guestrin, C. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining; 2016; pp. 785–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentéjac, C.; Csörgo, A.; Martínez-Muñoz, G. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review 2021, 54, 1937–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarveshvar, M.; Gogoi, A.; Chaubey, A.K.; Rohit, S.; Mahesh, T. Performance of different machine learning techniques for the prediction of heart diseases. In Proceedings of the 2021 international conference on forensics, analytics, big data, security (FABS); IEEE, 2021; Vol. 1, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mufid, M.R.; Basofi, A.; Al Rasyid, M.U.H.; Rochimansyah, I.F.; et al. Design an mvc model using python for flask framework development. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Electronics Symposium (IES); IEEE, 2019; pp. 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hébert, A.; Guédon, T.; Glatard, T.; Jaumard, B. High-resolution road vehicle collision prediction for the city of montreal. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data); IEEE, 2019; pp. 1804–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| Study | Focus | Data Used | Models Evaluated | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [14] | Prediction of traffic accidents | New Zealand dataset (2016–2020) | RF, DJ, AdaBoost, XGBoost, LGBM, CatBoost | RF most effective with 81.45% accuracy. Importance of road category and vehicle number. |
| [15] | Accident prediction based on road and traffic data | Not specified | Ensemble learning CPM-GAs | Improved accuracy and reduced variance in predictions. |
| [16] | Predicting the severity of a traffic accident | UK road safety dataset | Deep Forests | Superior stability and accuracy with minimal hyperparameters. |
| [17] | Traffic accident prediction with deep learning | Data from Knox County, Tennessee | Improved deep learning model, MVNB | The model is characterized by prediction accuracy and dimensionality reduction. |
| [18] | Accident severity prediction | I5 interstate highway, Washington State (2011–2015) | Improved neural network | The focus is on vehicle-related versus road-related factors. |
| [19] | Predicting the severity of a traffic accident | Chinese National Car Accident In-Depth Investigation System (2018–2020) | RF | The RF algorithm is superior in predicting severity. |
| [20] | Analysis of traffic accidents | UK dataset (2005–2017) | Naive-Bayes, LR, AdaBoost, XGBoost, RF | Insights into accident severity and hotspot identification. |
| [21] | Causes of the severity of a traffic accident | UK road accident database | NCA, k-nearest neighbors, Individual Conditional Expectation | Identified significant factors influencing the severity of the accident. |
| [22] | Traffic accident prediction with ANN | Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina | ANN | High accuracy in predicting accident events and severity. |
| [23] | Predicting the severity of road accidents in Mauritius | Not specified | ANN (MLP) | MLP outperforms other models with an accuracy of 84.1%. |
| [24] | Pedestrian crash model | Italy, ISTAT dataset (5 years) | Gradient Boosting | Effective in predicting the risk of pedestrian accidents |
| [25] | Analysis of crash severity and hotspots | Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia (2016–2018) | Gradient boosting, RF, logistic regression | Identified factors and hotspots for severe R.T.C.s. |
| [26] | Severity of highway accident in Saudi Arabia | Qassim Province (2017–2019) | RF, XGBoost, logistic regression | XGBoost is the most accurate at predicting accident severity. |
| [27] | Traffic accident forecast in tunnels | YingTian Street Tunnel, Nanjing | GCN-LSTM, BP neural network, RF | The RF mode excels at predicting the duration of an accident. |
| [28] | Predicting the severity of injuries in an accident | Highway divergence areas, Florida | K-Nearest Neighbor, Decision Tree, RF, SVM | RF most effective; highlights overfitting problems. |
| [29] | Classification of the severity of a traffic accident | Setúbal, Portugal (2016–2019) | Logistic regression, machine-learning models | Comparing performance between models on balanced datasets. |
| [30] | Accident severity prediction for emergency management | Great Britain (2011–2016) | Two-layer ensemble model | Superior performance in accuracy and F1 score. |
| [31] | Analysis of the severity of traffic accidents | USA (2016–2019) | Random Forest | High accuracy in predicting accident severity. |
| [32] | Predicting the severity of a motorcycle accident in Ghana | Ghana (2011–2015) | J48 Decision Tree, RF, IBk | RF is the most accurate in predicting severity. |
| Current Work | Accident severity prediction in Montreal | Montreal collision data (2012–2021) | XGBoost, CatBoost, RF, GB | The XGBoost model demonstrated highest accuracy (96%) and effectiveness in predicting accident severity. |
| Description | Value |
|---|---|
| Number of rows | 218272 |
| Number of columns | 68 |
| Type of data | float64, int64. object |
| Categorical variables | 15 (type object) |
| Numerical variables | 53 (29 int64, 24 float64) |
| Severity of the accident | Numerical coding |
|---|---|
| Damage Below Reporting Threshold | 0 |
| Property Damage Only | 1 |
| Minor | 2 |
| Serious | 3 |
| Fatal | 4 |
| Feature | Chi-Square Score | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Collision_Near | 495129.765158 | 30.526103 |
| Street_Name | 175285.888584 | 10.806854 |
| Num_Serious_Injuries | 169805.678768 | 10.468984 |
| Num_Deaths | 162050.724638 | 9.990870 |
| Total_Victims | 151493.855851 | 9.340010 |
| Num_Minor_Injuries | 150924.871613 | 9.304931 |
| Pedestrian_Deaths | 98471.014493 | 6.071007 |
| Total_Pedestrian_Victims | 31182.458448 | 1.922484 |
| Pedestrian_Injuries | 30277.689032 | 1.866702 |
| Longitudinal_Location | 24494.472488 | 1.510151 |
| Bicycle_Deaths | 20159.420290 | 1.242883 |
| Bicycle_Injuries | 16883.042752 | 1.040886 |
| Total_Bicycle_Victims | 16847.829913 | 1.038715 |
| X_Coordinate | 14566.502900 | 0.898065 |
| Motorcycle_Deaths | 11630.434783 | 0.717048 |
| Bicycle_Count | 10794.691447 | 0.665522 |
| Unspecified_Vehicle_Count | 8160.399934 | 0.503111 |
| Y_Coordinate | 6016.332705 | 0.370923 |
| Total_Motorcycle_Victims | 4873.843542 | 0.300486 |
| Motorcycle_Injuries | 4830.242330 | 0.297798 |
| Road_Category | 3951.186923 | 0.243601 |
| Emergency_Vehicle_Count | 2492.677718 | 0.153680 |
| Heavy_Trucks_Count | 2031.992082 | 0.125278 |
| Motorcycle_Count | 1912.272853 | 0.117897 |
| Light_Cars_Trucks_Count | 1911.036696 | 0.117821 |
| Collision_Type | 1561.271344 | 0.096257 |
| Hour | 1255.653908 | 0.077414 |
| Authorized_Speed | 1127.238142 | 0.069497 |
| Surface_Condition | 950.290263 | 0.058588 |
| Weather_Conditions | 915.358973 | 0.056434 |
| Class | Precision | Recall | F1-score | Support | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results for XGBoost | |||||
| Damage Below Reporting Threshold | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 1385 | |
| Property Damage Only | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.61 | 907 | |
| Minor | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 3974 | |
| Serious | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 12953 | |
| Fatal | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 15346 | |
| Weighted Avg | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 34565 | 0.96 |
| Results for CatBoost | |||||
| Damage Below Reporting Threshold | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 1385 | |
| Property Damage Only | 0.62 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 907 | |
| Minor | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 3974 | |
| Serious | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 12953 | |
| Fatal | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 15346 | |
| Weighted Avg | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 34565 | 0.95 |
| Results for RF | |||||
| Damage Below Reporting Threshold | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 1385 | |
| Property Damage Only | 0.62 | 0.31 | 0.42 | 907 | |
| Minor | 0.81 | 0.65 | 0.72 | 3974 | |
| Serious | 0.91 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 12953 | |
| Fatal | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 15346 | |
| Weighted Avg | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 34565 | 0.93 |
| Results for GB | |||||
| Damage Below Reporting Threshold | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 1385 | |
| Property Damage Only | 0.56 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 907 | |
| Minor | 0.76 | 0.59 | 0.67 | 3974 | |
| Serious | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 12953 | |
| Fatal | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 15346 | |
| Weighted Avg | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 34565 | 0.89 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
