Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026

Evaluating the Effect of Roadside Parking on a Dual-Direction Urban Street
Published on: January 20, 2023
Analytic choices in road safety evaluation: exploring second-best approaches
1Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway. re@toi.no
Evaluating road safety measures requires careful study design. Simpler methods may yield biased results, underscoring the importance of robust data and advanced techniques for accurate safety effect estimation.
Area of Science:
- Road safety research
- Transportation engineering
- Statistical modeling
Background:
- Before-and-after studies are crucial for assessing road safety interventions.
- Advanced methods like empirical Bayes (EB) and fully Bayesian techniques require specific data, which may be unavailable or unreliable.
- Researchers face a dilemma: use less robust "second-best" methods or forgo evaluation when data is limited.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate how different study design choices impact the estimation of road safety effects.
- To compare the empirical Bayes approach with simpler methods in before-and-after studies.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of "second-best" techniques for controlling confounding factors in road safety evaluations.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of several before-and-after road safety evaluation studies conducted in Norway.
- Comparison of results obtained using the empirical Bayes approach versus simpler methods.
- Assessment of the influence of using or not using a comparison group.
- Examination of the impact of selecting different comparison groups.
- Testing two alternative "second-best" techniques for confounding factor control.
Main Results:
- Study design choices significantly influence the estimated safety effects in before-and-after evaluations.
- The use of simpler approaches, compared to the empirical Bayes method, can lead to different conclusions.
- The inclusion and selection of comparison groups critically affect outcome estimates.
- The "second-best" techniques evaluated did not provide unbiased estimates of safety effects.
Conclusions:
- The choice of methodology in before-and-after road safety studies has a substantial impact on findings.
- "Second-best" methods for controlling confounding factors are not recommended due to their tendency to produce biased results.
- Researchers should prioritize robust data collection and state-of-the-art analytical techniques, such as empirical Bayes, for reliable road safety evaluations.
Related Concept Videos
Design Example: Alignment of a Road Line Using GIS
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

