Quantifying the upper levels of Hydén's traffic safety pyramid using global data
Authors
Key Information
Journal
Published in Vol. 9 (2025) of Traffic Safety Research.
Traffic Safety Research (TSR) is an academic-led, international, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, Fair Open Access scientific journal. It was founded in 2021 with a clear objective to contribute to the global transition toward the Safe System approach in road transportation.
The TSR publishes high-quality research from a wide range of disciplines—including engineering, psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, political science, and other relevant fields—that help to explain and address road traffic injuries and fatalities. The journal places strong emphasis on the real-world relevance of both the research questions and the findings.
-
Why another journal? Read our mission statement.
-
Publication topics? Read more about the journal's focus and scope.
-
What papers get published? See our operational quality criteria and check out the TSR's webinars on excellence in traffic safety research.
-
Do I need to pay? Read more about our financing model and production fees.
-
Indexing? Read about the TSR's current indexing status.
-
Who is behind? Meet the editorial team.
Abstract
Hydén's pyramid qualitatively displays the number of conflicts and road user crashes in different severities. Fatal crashes are on the top of the pyramid, undisturbed passages mark the base of it. To quantify the pyramid, open data from the German Accident Atlas and closed data from the Berlin Police have been analysed with respect to time of the week, crash severity, and conflict-type. The data display distinctive weekly patterns that may reflect the traffic state at the hour of the week. Analysing the ratio among these levels for different crash severity levels seems to demonstrate that serious crashes and fatal crashes sometimes follow a different pattern than property-damage-only crashes, or crashes with lightly injured people. A similar result holds true for the conflict-types. This may indicate that their genesis is a mixed bag: sometimes, the mechanisms are different, and sometimes, they are not.
References
Anderson, M., & Denkl, M. (Eds.). (2010). The Heinrich Accident Triangle—Too Simplistic A Model for HSE Management in the 21st Century? DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/126661-MS
Hauer, E. (1982). Traffic Conflicts and Exposure. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 14(5), 359–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(82)90014-8
Heinrich, H. W. (1931). Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach. McGraw-Hill.
Hydén, C. (1987). The development of a method for traffic safety evaluation: the Swedish traffic conflict technique. Lund University.
Johnson, A. (2011). Examining the Foundation: Were Heinrich’s Theories Valid? Do They Still Matter? Safety+Health.
Knipling, R. R. (2015). Naturalistic Driving Events: No Harm, No Foul, No Validity. Proceedings of the 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design: Driving Assessment 2015, 197–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1571
R Core Team. (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Statistical Administration of the German Federal Government and the Federal States. (2022). Grundbegriffe der Verkehrsunfallstatistik [Online].
Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (2024). German Accident Atlas | Web Map Application [Online].
Tarko, A. P. (2012). Use of crash surrogates and exceedance statistics to estimate road safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 230–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.008
Tarko, A. P. (2019). Measuring Road Safety with Surrogate Events. Elsevier.
Tarko, A. P. (2021). A Unifying View on Traffic Conflicts and Their Connection with Crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 158, 106187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106187
Zheng, L., Ismail, K., & Meng, X. (2014). Traffic conflict techniques for road safety analysis: open questions and some insights. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 41, 633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0558
Details
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Marek Junghans, Andreas Leich, Ronald Nippold, Peter Wagner
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
