Elsevier

Accident Analysis & Prevention

Volume 70, September 2014, Pages 8-13
Accident Analysis & Prevention

Not just a rural occurrence: Differences in agricultural equipment crash characteristics by rural–urban crash site and proximity to town

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.02.013Get rights and content

Highlights

  • One in three Ag equipment-related crashes occurs in an urban zip code.

  • One-fourth of urban Ag equipment-related crashes occur within a town or city.

  • Non-collisions were more likely in small/large rural than isolated rural zip codes.

  • Crashes outside of town occur, on average, 1.9 to 2.8 miles from town.

Abstract

Purpose

Although approximately one-third of agricultural equipment-related crashes occur near town, these crashes are thought to be a rural problem. This analysis examines differences between agricultural equipment-related crashes by their urban–rural distribution and distance from a town.

Methods

Agricultural equipment crashes were collected from nine Midwest Departments of Transportation (2005–2008). Crash zip code was assigned as urban or rural (large, small and isolated) using Rural–Urban Commuting Areas. Crash proximity to a town was estimated with ArcGIS. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of crashing in an urban versus rural zip codes and across rural gradients. ANOVA analysis estimated mean distance (miles) from a crash site to a town.

Findings

Over four years, 4444 crashes involved agricultural equipment. About 30% of crashes occurred in urban zip codes. Urban crashes were more likely to be non-collisions (aOR = 1.69[1.24–2.30]), involve ≥2 vehicles (2 vehicles: aOR = 1.58[1.14–2.20], 3+ vehicles: aOR = 1.68[0.98–2.88]), occur in a town (aOR = 2.06[1.73–2.45]) and within one mile of a town (aOR = 1.65[1.40–1.95]) than rural crashes. The proportion of crashes within a town differed significantly across rural gradients (P < 0.0001). Small rural crashes, compared to isolated rural crashes, were 1.98 (95%CI[1.28–3.06]) times more likely to be non-collisions. The distance from the crash to town differed significantly by the urban-rural distribution (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Crashes with agricultural equipment are unexpectedly common in urban areas and near towns and cities. Education among all roadway users, increased visibility of agricultural equipment and the development of complete rural roads are needed to increase road safety and prevent agricultural equipment-related crashes.

Introduction

Crashes involving agricultural (Ag) equipment on public roads are rare occurrences, but the effects can be devastating for the Ag equipment operator as well as occupants of other vehicles involved. Two percent of crashes with Ag equipment result in a fatality while less than one percent of all other motor vehicle crashes result in fatalities (Costello et al., 2009, Traffic safety facts, 2008). Almost two-thirds (65%) of Ag equipment-related crashes involve collisions with non-Ag vehicles, and one in three crash fatalities are to occupants of the non-Ag vehicle (Gerberich et al., 1996). Although deaths are infrequent in Ag equipment-related crashes, three out of four non-fatal crashes with Ag equipment result in an injury, with the non-Ag vehicle operator being more likely to be injured (Peek-Asa et al., 2007).

Agricultural equipment, designed primarily to be operated in the field with minimal road transportation, has characteristics that make its use on the road unique and challenging. First, Ag equipment are slow moving vehicles built to endure heavy workloads and not for high speed transportation (Committee on Agricultural Safety and Health Research and Extension, 2009). Second, Ag vehicle traffic on roadways aligns with timing of agricultural tasks and varies by time of day and seasons of the year. These factors have implications for when and how crashes occur. Prior research, although sparse, has shown the most frequent manner of collision with agricultural equipment involves the equipment being struck in the rear by the non-Ag vehicle on two lane roads with speed limits of 55 miles per hour (Gerberich et al., 1996, Pinzke and Lundqvist, 2004, Gkritza et al., 2010). The incidence of Ag crashes follows a trend consistent with exposure due to seasonal agricultural tasks, with more crashes in the crop harvesting months (Pinzke and Lundqvist, 2004, Gkritza et al., 2010). The majority of crashes with Ag equipment occur during daylight; nevertheless, those occurring at dawn/dusk or night are more likely to result in an injury than those during the day (Gerberich et al., 1996, Gkritza et al., 2010).

Agricultural equipment-related crashes occur more frequently in rural areas because Ag equipment spend more time on rural rather than urban roads (Costello et al., 2009, Gerberich et al., 1996, Peek-Asa et al., 2007, Committee on Agricultural Safety and Health Research and Extension, 2009, Pinzke and Lundqvist, 2004, Gkritza et al., 2010). However, prior studies have not untangled some of the unique differences found within rural areas, which may differentially influence crash patterns. For example, in isolated rural communities, rural roads are more likely to have dirt and gravel surfaces with no or few traffic controls. In contrast, larger rural communities often have increased traffic density and comparatively, more paved roads and traffic controls (Ramirez et al., 2013). To our knowledge there have not been any previous studies on patterns of Ag equipment crashes in various rural environments.

Interestingly, while Ag equipment-related crashes are generally thought to be a rural problem; two studies reported that over one in three Ag equipment crashes occurred within one mile of or in a town or city (Pinzke and Lundqvist, 2004, Gkritza et al., 2010). This suggests that Ag equipment crashes also occur in urbanized areas with greater traffic density and more exposure to passenger vehicles. With increasing urbanization, today's farmers must navigate roadways with more drivers unaccustomed to the presence of large Ag equipment on roadways. Farmers in one rural state have expressed concern over the increased traffic on rural roads and fear that drivers of passenger vehicles have not been adequately educated on the lighting and marking of Ag equipment and on how to interact with this equipment on the roadway (Luginbuhl et al., 2003). Evaluation of crashes involving Ag equipment in urban locations has not been previously conducted.

Prior research on roadway crashes involving Ag equipment has not assessed differences between urban and rural crashes, nor has research evaluated how crash patterns differ across gradients of rurality. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (1) determine how characteristics of Ag vehicle crashes, such as crash configuration, differ between urban versus rural zip codes and (2) among rural areas, determine how crash characteristics differ across gradients of rurality (i.e., large rural, small rural and isolated rural areas). To further understand crash proximity to towns and cities, an additional objective was to measure the average distance Ag equipment crashes occurred from town or city limits and compare the proportions of crashes across rural and urban zip codes. We hypothesize that (1) urban crashes will involve more vehicles, be more likely to occur within a town/city and will have different crash mechanisms than rural crashes, and (2) compared to isolated rural crashes, large and small rural Ag equipment crashes will also involve more vehicles and occur closer to a town or city.

Section snippets

Methods

Agricultural equipment crashes were identified from Department of Transportation (DOT) data from the nine states making up the Great Plains region (Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) for years 2005 through 2008. Ag equipment, for this analysis, was defined as tractors or any other self-propelled implement of husbandry (e.g. combine harvester). Within the DOT data, each state has a separate vehicle classification category for Ag

Analysis

To illustrate how crashes are spatially related by rurality, a map of the nine states was created with each point representing the location of an Ag equipment-related crash. Zip codes were shaded to represent urban versus rural areas with urban being light gray and rural zip codes shaded darker gray. A portion of the map is enlarged, to display how the crash locations may differ across gradients of the rural zip codes (isolated, small, and large).

Frequencies and proportions of crashes by manner

Results

From 2005 through 2008, there were 4444 DOT reported crashes involving Ag equipment across nine Midwest states. These crashes were found across all nine states, with many more crashes occurring in Illinois (n = 774), Iowa (n = 762), Wisconsin (n = 681), Missouri (n = 662), and Minnesota (n = 550) than Kansas (n = 411), Nebraska (n = 318), North (n = 149) and South (n = 137) Dakota. Crashes were found in both urban and rural zip codes in all the nine states (Fig. 1).

Almost one in three (30.2%) crashes occurred in

Discussion

This is the first analysis to examine Ag equipment-related crash characteristics by rurality of crash zip code and approximate the distance from a crash location to a town. About a third of crashes involving Ag equipment occurred in urban areas. Across both rural and urban settings, crashes occurred, on average, approximately two miles from a town. These findings support the notion that agricultural operators are exposed to hazards in both rural and urban locations, as they traverse both rural

Conclusion

Agricultural equipment-related crashes are not just a rural problem; they occur within close proximity of a town and within urban zip codes. Education among Ag equipment and other motor vehicle users as well as increased conspicuity of Ag equipment and consideration of the complete street concept to fit rural roadways are needed to reduce the incidence of these crashes.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the University of Iowa Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health (U50 OH007548-11).

References (13)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (27)

  • Agricultural Injury Surveillance Using a Regional Trauma Registry

    2022, Journal of Surgical Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    These two characteristics, rurality and urbanity, may seem contradictory; however, large lot development defined as one or more acres per house, in rural areas, is one of two pathways of land development in the United States.44 Harland et al. observed that agricultural equipment crashes in urban [ZCTA] represented 30% of all farm equipment crashes in nine Midwestern states.45 As such, the encroachment of land development into less populated rural areas may increase the risk of injury events and warrants further study.

  • Community engagement in the development and implementation of a rural road safety campaign: Steps and lessons learned

    2021, Journal of Transport and Health
    Citation Excerpt :

    Fatality-rates in crashes involving farm vehicles are nearly five times higher than other rural traffic crashes (Scott et al., 2020). Collisions between passenger vehicles and farm vehicles are most often the fault of the passenger vehicle driver, and they tend to occur when the involved farm vehicle is rear-ended by or overtaken by a passenger vehicle (Harland et al., 2014; Peek-Asa et al., 2007; GPCAH, 2014). In these crashes, occupants of the passenger vehicle are more likely to be injured or killed than the farm vehicle operator (Peek-Asa et al., 2007).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text