Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 447–456 Modeling rear-end collisions including the role of driver’s visibility and light truck vehicles using a nested logit structure Mohamed Abdel-Aty ∗ , Hassan Abdelwahab Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-2450, USA Received 23 April 2002; received in revised form 12 February 2003; accepted 13 February 2003 Abstract This paper presents an analysis of the effect of the geometric incompatibility of light truck vehicles (LTV)—light-duty trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles—on drivers’ visibility of other passenger cars involved in rear-end collisions. The geometric incompatibility arises from the fact that most LTVs ride higher and are wider than regular passenger cars. The objective of this paper is to explore the effect of the lead vehicle’s size on the rear-end crash configuration. Four rear-end crash configurations are defined based on the type of the two involved vehicles (lead and following vehicles). Nested logit models were calibrated to estimate the probabilities of the four rear-end crash configurations as a function of driver’s age, gender, vehicle type, vehicle maneuver, light conditions, driver’s visibility and speed. Results showed that driver’s visibility and inattention in the following (striker) vehicle have the largest effect on being involved in a rear-end collision of configuration CarTrk (a regular passenger car striking an LTV). Possibly, indicating a sight distance problem. A driver of a smaller car following an LTV, have a problem seeing the roadway beyond the LTV, and therefore would not be able to adjust his/her speed accordingly, increasing the probability of a rear-end collision. Also, the probability of a CarTrk rear-end crash increases in the case that the lead vehicle stops suddenly. © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Rear-end; Nested logit; Light truck vehicles; Vehicle compatibility; Crash configuration 1. Introduction Rear-end is a common type of traffic crashes in the United States. In 2000, about a third of the US traffic crashes were rear-end collisions. James et al. (1997) reported that rear-end collisions are not frequently reported because most are of low overall crash severity. Therefore, the actual number of rear-end collisions is expected to be more than the reported crashes. Wang et al. (1999) reported that the most numerous crash category in the US is rear-end collisions. According to the Spinal Injury Foundation (2002), neck injuries can be the most severe outcome of rear-end collisions because of the fact that the head has nothing to stop it except a nonexistent or poorly adjusted head rest (which can actually cause more harm than good), which means that rear-end crashes are a real problem. In general, a driver can minimize the likelihood of being involved in a rear-end crash by maintaining a space cushion that is appropriate for the driving conditions. A proper space cushion must provide a driver time to see and recognize a ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-407-823-5657; fax: +1-407-823-3315. E-mail address: mabdel@mail.ucf.edu (M. Abdel-Aty). hazard and make a decision regarding what should be done. Then, there must be adequate space to bring the vehicle to a stop. Kostyniuk and Eby (1998) explored rear-end crashes from the driver perspective to determine if knowledge of the cir- cumstances of the crash as perceived by the driver could offer insight into the characteristics of potential countermea- sures for rear-end crashes. The subjects were directly asked about the factors that contributed to the crash and to indi- cate the relative contribution of each factor. Action of the other driver in the lead vehicle was the dominant contribut- ing factor according to the subjects. The drivers described these actions as the other car stopped unexpectedly and the other car did not move when it should have. The next most frequent set of responses to this question included personal inattention or distraction. Graham (2000) reported that a major concern often voiced by the US motorists is that light truck vehicles (LTV) (light-duty trucks, vans, and sports utility vehicles) make it impossible for drivers in smaller vehicles to see the traffic ahead of them or to see the traffic flow when a driver is pulling out of a side street onto a major roadway. Therefore, driver’s visibility significantly affects the chance 0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00040-X