High risk locations

ViDA
1

Hi.
I’m reaching out regarding highest risk locations. Why do the rankings of the risk worm by crash type in the star rating and the FSI estimations differ? To identify the Highest risk locations, I used the SRS for all road users, which is recommended in the SRIP manual. However, when reviewing the FSI estimations, I found other locations with higher FSI values, which can be the variables taken in to consideration for both are different. I would appreciate any justification for this discrepancy. Additionally, do you recommend ranking based on the SRS results or based on FSI estimation results for identifying those riskiest locations?

Thanks in advance

2

Hello,
SRS and FSI calculate different types of risks. SRS refers to the individual risk of each user on the road, while FSIs reflect the collective risk as they take exposure into account. Therefore, locations with a higher number of users will have higher FSIs. You can see the difference in the equations in the Methodology Factsheets. Ranking based on FSIs is possible, but please ensure that the crash data are accurately calibrated.

1 Like
3

Thank you for the clarification. But which one is advisable to rank highest crash locations, FSIs or SRS (as both resulted different locations)?

4

Hello again,

I’d really appreciate a timely response if possible.

Following up on the question above—when using FSI to prioritize high-risk locations, the results are in 100m segments (not smoothed like SRS). However, since road sections should be treated as a whole rather than as individual 100m segments, could you recommend alternative approaches?
Thanks in advance

5

Hello,
Sorry for the delay. You can either accumulate FSIs per road segment or focus on road sections with high 100m FSIs. However, the 100m base offers more detail to pinpoint issues in large sections.