Response 1 Jerrad   Identify the various constructs and concepts involved in the study

Subject:SociologyPrice: Bought3

Share With

Response 1

Jerrad

 

Identify the various constructs and concepts involved in the study.

Concepts

            According to Schindler (2022), a concept is “a generally accepted collection of meanings or characteristics associated with certain events, objects, conditions, situations, or behaviors” (p. 12). Concepts are often simple things that provoke numerous thoughts, attitudes, or perceptions about that thing. In the State Farm initiative on dangerous intersections, the main concept here is traffic accidents. Schindler (2022) says that concepts serve the purpose of interpreting and sharing information. State Farm is using the concept of traffic accidents, specifically at intersections, to spread information on the world’s most dangerous intersections, and how to improve them.

Constructs

            Schindler (2022) defines constructs as “an abstract idea specifically invented for a given research and/or theory-building purpose” (p. 13). Constructs take the highly abstract concept, and turn it into something more tangible. In the case of State Farm, we have the concept of traffic accidents. The specific construct that is being studied, taking the concept of traffic accidents into consideration, is the most dangerous intersections in the United States.

What hypothesis might drive the research of one of the cities on the top 10

dangerous intersection list?

            Hypotheses are critical to any experiment or research scenario. The State Farm study is aiming to discover not only the most dangerous intersections in the United States, but also what can be done to improve the safety of these intersections. These improvements could be anything from a complete renovation of the intersection, to simply educating those who use it. For example, Basch et al. (2014) conducted a study using Manhattan, New York’s busiest intersections with pedestrian and motor vehicle travel. They found that almost 30% of pedestrians are actively distracted by either headphones or a mobile device while crossing these intersections. Sharing this information with the public could, therefore, theoretically reduce pedestrian-traffic accidents by up to 30%.

I would propose the following hypothesis: Changing intersections to reflect a more understandable and intuitive design will increase safety by decreasing traffic accidents within these intersections. This hypothesis allows for several options. First, it allows for the researcher to discover why the intersection is unsafe. Second, it clearly states the expected outcome of the research: that fixing the intersections will lead to a safer driving environment. Schindler (2022) provides a list of criteria that a good hypothesis should satisfy. Some of these items include driving the research design, opening the researcher’s mind to relationships among variables, and pointing out the relevant facts while ignoring the irrelevant ones. This proposed hypothesis satisfies all of these criteria.

Evaluate the methodology for State Farm’s research.

            The case study does a nice job of specifying what State Farm looked at, and how they gathered their data. In this study, State Farm only looked at their own customers, rather than all insured drivers across the United States. In this way, they chose to use a sample. This was a smart choice, as conducting a census of all motorists across the country would have been extremely expensive, and difficult. State Farm also chose to only look at accidents at intersections, which is a good example of observing relevant events and ignoring irrelevant ones (e.g., accidents that occur on a lone stretch of highway). They also ignored demographics when conducting the study. Geographic conditions (like wet, snowy, or otherwise undesirable road factors) were ignored, and State Farm used only its internal data, and no police reports were researched. When choosing to ignore geographic conditions and police reports, a large amount of data is being missed. Rolison (2020) says plainly that police reports provide a wealth of data for researchers. For example, many drivers choose not to make a claim following an accident (regardless of whether they file a police report) because it often increases their insurance premiums. Additionally, geographic conditions like wet pavement can play a significant role in auto accidents, especially if the roads are not grooved, therefore retaining large amounts of standing water after a rain or snowstorm.

If you were State Farm, how would you address the concerns of transportation

engineers?

            The completion of this case study prompted the desire for “immediate” solutions, as citizens within the studied communities were officially notified of how dangerous their intersections were. There was also a concern that traffic accidents resulting in death were not given a higher level of significance than any other accident (i.e. while there may have been a larger number of minor accidents at intersection A, that intersection was deemed more dangerous than intersection B, which had less accidents but more fatalities/serious injuries). Instead, State Farm used a “severity” scale based on the dollar amount of damage to property, rather than personal injury or death. Lastly, engineers were concerned that volume of traffic at the intersection was not considered.

            Ultimately, it can be very difficult to address these concerns one by one. One way that State Farm did try to help was by offering a large financial grant to help with construction, thereby making the named intersections safer. Though this does not provide the immediate gratification so many people in this world desire, especially older adults such as engineers (Cheng et al., 2012), it does provide an avenue for improvement. Regarding not taking into account the amount of deaths, State Farm should consider including these data in the conduct of their next similar study, as any engineer could easily argue that property damage is far less valuable than human life. As with the volume of traffic, it is important to remind the engineers that volume, by itself, is not necessarily a contributing factor to traffic accidents. If the intersection is well-designed, then traffic should be able to flow seamlessly through, regardless of the amount.

If you were State Farm, would you use traffic volume counts as part of the

2003 study? What concerns, other than those expressed by Nepomuceno,

do you have?

            Traffic volume is certainly an important factor, and often contributor, to traffic accidents. Many accidents around the world occur during rush hour to and from work. However, as previously mentioned, it is not the only cause. I think that State Farm made the right choice in leaving out traffic volume in its study. By contrast, the better the design of the intersection, the more traffic that intersection should be able to accommodate.

            I do believe that a two-part scale should have been used, including not only property damage values, by also fatalities. If an intersection has 10 total crashes, all of which were fatal, but another intersection had 20 minor fender-benders, the latter certainly should not receive more attention. Additionally, releasing the data to the public so quickly after its findings, while not giving the cities time to have a plan in place for improvement, could cause a sense of unease among its citizens. Or, conversely, simply possessing the knowledge of the intersection’s danger could increase the level of defensive driving, thereby passively decreasing the level of danger within those intersections.

            This study also does not address any accidents that involve pedestrians. Pesic et al. (2016) say that a large number of pedestrians often cross the street with their eyes buried in their phones, and without adequately clearing for traffic, resulting in many accidents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response 2

James

 

1. Identify the various constructs and concepts involved in the study.

There are several constructs and concepts involved throughout the State Farm Study. A construct is an abstract idea that is invented for a research or theory building-purpose (Schindler, 2022, 13). Whereas a concept is a generally accepted collection of classifications associated with something (Schindler, 2022, 12). What really distinguishes concepts are that they can be reduced to the perceptual level, tying them to reality (Locke, 2012). Examples of the constructs employed in the study include most dangerous. Additionally, examples of concepts include automobiles, accidents, and intersections. They used these concepts and constructs as the basis for their study.

2. What hypothesis might drive the research of one of the cities on the top 10 dangerous intersection list?

According to the text. a hypothesis is an unsubstantiated assumption about the relationship between concepts and constructs that drives research processes (Schindler, 2022, 18). A hypothesis can be either a declarative statement or a question (Schindler, 2022, 18). The hypothesis that should drive the research of the top 10 most dangerous intersections cities should investigate what causes their cities to be home to one of the most dangerous intersections in America? Of course, this may depend on the city. They may wonder, does our minimization of roundabout intersections cause traffic accidents? Do our lights not being tied to motion sensors cause the traffic accidents? Are there obstructions preventing drivers from seeing all other traffic? Is traffic too heavy through these intersections? Overall, the research question people should be looking into is what causes these intersections to be so dangerous? There are several possible explanations, and that is the impetus for research.

3. Evaluate the methodology for State Farm’s research.

Overall, the methodology for State Farm’s research was effective, especially considering it being an early attempt. However, there are some glaring shortcomings. These shortcomings include not looking at highway exits and entrances, and only evaluating when the State Farm insured driver was at fault. While State Farm does represent a large enough sample of drivers to reflect the population of all drivers in the U.S., there is still some skewing that results from this.  In 1998, drivers were not required to have insurance to operate motor vehicles in every state (Kasperowicz, 2021). This also skews the data towards more privileged individuals who could afford State Farms insurance, in comparison to other cheaper insurers. State Farm has adjusted its market position by acquiring Gainsc in 2020 (Schultz, 2020). This company specialized in insuring high-risk drivers, which are often low-income drivers who live paycheck to paycheck (Schultz, 2020).

Another issue with the methodology is relying on police reports. As 2020 showed, there is no overarching network of police reports for violent crimes, let alone traffic accidents. Relying upon this, instead of incorporating hospital reports or tow-truck reports limits the number of incidents being reported. Had the United States Department of Transportation had a data set looking at this topic, it would certainly improve this research. However, due to the federated nature of the United States, that is not a responsibility of the federal Department of Transportation; rather it is one left to the individual states’ Departments of Transportation. Because of this, USDOT does not have an accident dataset of policy publication (2015). This puts the onus on private companies to investigate traffic accidents and develop datasets like this one. Therefore, State Farm used the simplest means available to them and that involved using only internal records. This laid a solid foundation for future research.

4. If you were State Farm, how would you address the concerns of transportation engineers?

Overall, it does not seem that transportation engineers were overly concerned with intersection safety prior to this project. Yes, there had been a few local studies up until this point. However, State Farm’s study was the first nationwide one conducted in the U.S. America has the largest roadway system in the world with over four million miles of roads (CIA, 2021). The first automobile fatality occurred in a steam carriage in 1869 (Fallon & O’Neill, 2005). There are over 1.2 million deaths, and 25 million permanently disabling accidents in automobile each year (Fallon & O’Neill, 2005). Not conducting a study like this for nearly 150 years indicates that it was not high on the list of concerns for transportation engineers. Especially when the first study was conducted by a company with a monetary interest. This is reminiscent of the problems regarding indifference and complacency in Revelation 3:17, “You say, “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.” But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked (New International Version, 1978/20110).” Transportation engineers all over the country neglected to conduct a systemic review of this issue. However unconcerned transportation engineers were about national traffic safety prior to the study, they were concerned with the topic after its publication, and they had several complaints.

First and foremost, State Farm needed to account for traffic volume within intersections in follow on reports. This would really show people which intersections were most likely to result in accidents. Secondly, the concern that not all accidents hold the same weight is valid. While disabling accidents are awful, an accident resulting in death is worse. As a result, the results should be broken down into total accidents, lethal accidents, disabling accidents, and minor injuries. This would allow for differentiation between the various levels of severity and would also allow for better and more thorough data analytics. 

Finally, the concern that many of the engineers had that the study did not solve their problems should be addressed. This would have to be focused on from a public relations (PR) perspective, where the campaign planners make it clear that the study is for identification purposes, and not resolution. This PR campaign would also emphasize the additional research grants as prospective sources to better clarify and remedy these dangerous intersections. At the end of the day, State Farms’ goal through this program is to continually improve the safety of America’s roads, so that it does not have to pay out as many insurance claims. Their job is not to fix the roads, that is the role of the transportation engineers. State Farm is pursuing this program solely for pragmatic reasons and it should be clear and open about this.

5. If you were State Farm, would you use traffic volume counts as part of the 2003 study? What concerns, other than those expressed by Nepomuceno, do you have?

Using traffic volume is certainly a sensible solution to this problem. It is like evaluating GDP per capita when comparing countries. An intersection that has only three accidents a year may seem safe, but it does not when you see that only ten cars pass through the intersection each year. Unfortunately, it appears that State Farm has discontinued this research program, because nothing appears on their website regarding this study (Statefarm.com, 2021). They have pivoted to distracted driver research, which has seen an uptick in propensity since 2001 due to the mass introduction of cell phones (Statefarm.com, 2021). The suggestions for improvements that Nepomuceno recommended were not considered in follow on studies.

However, the mantle of dangerous intersection researcher has been taken up by Time Magazine, which used a data set covering the ten years between 2003 and 2012 to determine the deadliest intersection (2014). This could be another concern that people have with the project, how does it capture the change in safety for these intersections over time. This approach was a good technique that could have improved State Farm’s approach and expanded the results over time. Therefore, the State Farm Study could have been further broken down to include a section for the last year, and an aggregate section which looked at intersection safety over time. It should be noted that this study does not have more recent results published online either.

Another additional concern that is not addressed by this study is which intersections are the most dangerous for motorcycle drivers? State Farm does offer motorcycle insurance (2021). As a result, they have an incentive to include motorcycle safety data into their reports. They would be the only insurance company out there doing research like this. Following the study. they will be differentiated from their competition by showing their motorcycle riders that they care about their safety. Financially, it is a sound decision because it would have similar result to the auto insurance study. People will be made aware of which intersections are the most interested, and will begin accounting for that extra risk, in their pre-trip risk management. This would be an excellent addition to the study.

An additional modification would be included age information, creating more ways to break down the information. This would enable State Farm to direct its advertising campaigns to the right age groups in different markets, increasing possible profits. This would also allow their PR department to notify different communities that their intersections pose a risk to different groups of drivers. The more diverse this study is, the more likely people are to associate themselves with the unknown participants and the more State Farm can earn.

A final concern that was not brought up by Nepomuceno but may improve the efficacy of this research is the impact of intersection design on incidence of accidents and fatalities. One study compares the road safety of Australia and the United States and found that due to the much higher prevalence of roundabouts in Australia, there were less fatal collisions than in the United States. In the U.S. there is 1 roundabout for every 1118 intersections, but in Australia there is one for every 65 (Marshall, 2018). This study also notes that there is a 78-82 percent reduction in serious injury and death occurrence in roundabout intersections compared to traditional intersections (Marshall, 2018). This may contribute to the disparity in auto-related deaths in the two countries, with 12 deaths for every 100,000 Americans per year, but only 5.4 per 100,000 in Australia (Marshall, 2018). Most of the studies and data that the author collected were from Australia, and anyone who has driven in an American roundabout can attest to how poorly understood those are. However, incorporating information about the disparity in safety would be beneficial to traffic engineers.