- (20 points) Spell out the following acronyms.
1) EPDO:
2) SVROR:
3) AADT:
4) FI:
5) MV:
6) MVT:
7) 3ST:
8) 4SG:
9) BCR:
10) NPV:
CIV 602-Online Transportation Safety Exam 2
Page 3 of 6 - (20 points) A rural segment1 is selected for safety review. The crash summary statistics,
collision diagram, and condition diagram are shown below. Determine the crash patterns
and identify the appropriate contributing factors.
Crash Severity Alcohol- and DrugRelated Crashes
Fatal Injury PDO Related 6%
6 32% 62% Not Related 94%
Crash Type Pavement
Rear-End 0% Dry 68%
Angle 0% Wet 32%
Head-On 15%
Sideswipe 13% Lighting
Pedestrian 0% Night 23%
Fixed
Object 32% Dawn/Dust 26%
Rollover 40% Day 51%
CIV 602-Online Transportation Safety Exam 2
Page 4 of 6 - (30 Points) Countermeasures for application at a signalized intersection have been
identified. Please perform cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it is economically
justified. Summary of crash conditions, contributing factors, and select countermeasures
are listed in Table 1:
Table 1 of crash conditions, contributing factors, and select countermeasures
Data Signalized Intersection
Major/Minor AADT 47,000/8,500
Annual AADT Increase 5%
Predominate Collision Types Angle, Read-End
Crashes by Severity
Fatal 0%
Injury 59%
PDO 41%
Selected Countermeasure Convert Signalized intersection to a Modern
Roundabout
CMFs are listed in Table 14-3 â Using All settings
Assumptions
⪠Calibrated SPF being evaluated as listed in Table 2
⪠Table 2. Expected Average Crash Frequency at Intersection 2 WITHOUT Installing
the Roundabout
Year in Service Life Nexpected(total)
1 10.3
2 10.5
3 10.5
4 11.4
5 11.5
6 11.5
7 11.6
CIV 602-Online Transportation Safety Exam 2
Page 5 of 6
8 11.7
9 11.8
10 11.8
11 11.8
12 11.9
13 11.9
14 11.9
15 12.2
⪠Societal crash costs associated with crash severities
⪠Cost estimate for implementing the countermeasure: $20,000,000
⪠Discount rate (minimum rate of return): 2%
⪠Estimate of the service life of the countermeasure: 15 years
Sample Solution
Firstly, Vittola discusses one of the just causes of war, most importantly, is when harm is inflicted but he does mention the harm does not lead to war, it depends on the extent or proportionality, another condition to jus ad bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, however, argues the idea of âjust causeâ based on âSovereigntyâ which refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again todayâs world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, âsince it is lawful to resist force with force,â but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to âteach its enemies a lesson,â but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotleâs argument: âthere must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues âself-defenceâ has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify oneâs actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittolaâs view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisherâs authority, but also todayâs world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that âright intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,â suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Othe>
Firstly, Vittola discusses one of the just causes of war, most importantly, is when harm is inflicted but he does mention the harm does not lead to war, it depends on the extent or proportionality, another condition to jus ad bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, however, argues the idea of âjust causeâ based on âSovereigntyâ which refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again todayâs world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, âsince it is lawful to resist force with force,â but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to âteach its enemies a lesson,â but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotleâs argument: âthere must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues âself-defenceâ has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify oneâs actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittolaâs view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisherâs authority, but also todayâs world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that âright intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,â suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Othe>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples