DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 1
Discussion: Dangerous Intersections
Olen C. Appleton
Master of Business Administration in Finance of Liberty University
BUSI 600: Business Research Methods
Dr. Michael Walker
Author Note
Olen Appleton
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Olen Appleton
Email: oappleton@liberty.edu
DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 2
Dangerous Intersections
1. Identify the various constructs and concepts involved in the study.
The case study for State Farm has various constructs and concepts involved, but to grasp
these things while reading a case study, a person must have a firm grasp on the definition of
constructs and concepts. Our textbook defines a construct as, “an abstract idea specifically
invented for a given research and/or theory-building purpose” (Schindler, pg.10). Schindler goes
on to define concepts as, “a generally accepted collection of meanings or characteristics
associated with certain events, objects, conditions, situations, or behaviors and are used to
understand and communicate information” (pg. 9).
In this specific case study, the concepts that are used to understand and communicate the
information is the data collected by claims from customers of State Farm. This data is used to
measure the amount of crashes supporting the claim of the ten dangerous intersections. The
construct involved in this case study is, State Farm identifying those top ten most dangerous
United States intersections. The study was not simply just to use the data to point out what are
the top ten most dangerous intersections for information purposes only. The construct of
identifying the top ten dangerous intersections was so State Farm could use that information to
improve the intersections and/or to find ways to reduce property damage and other traffic
accident-related effects like injury, and loss. Some things contributing to the construct could be
suggesting roads and intersections undergo construction and repairs, adding stop signs or traffic
lights, and implementing other safeguards to assist drivers in easing the danger of the current top
intersections.
2. What hypothesis might drive the research of one of the cities on the top 10
dangerous intersection list?
DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 3
The hypothesis that might drive this research should have similarities to other research
hypothesis for research projects of topics ranging in subjects across the realm of possible topics.
The professional and acceptable type of hypothesis should be one that is measurable, provable,
and it should drive the research. Peter Eastwell wrote a journal entry titled What is a hypothesis
back in a journal in 1988, and his explanation in that article stands true for what hypothesis
should be used even in a case study for State Farm. In the article he said, “I consider a
hypothesis to be a supposition that attempts to explain the observed facts and laws, and a theory
to be a hypothesis that has stood the test of time” (Eastwell, 1988).
A hypothesis that could be used to drive the research of one of the cities on the top 10
dangerous intersections list could be something along the lines of the hypothesis that follows:
Top ten dangerous intersections would not be on the list if all current traffic rules and
control measures including stop-signs, stop-lights, warning signs, etc. were followed by
local drivers. The current danger is currently based off accidents that occurred solely
because drivers did not follow the laws and controls perfectly. No changes in
engineering design or laws need changed, but enforcement of current rules would reduce
dangers.
The hypothesis above is one that could be used to drive the research because the
hypothesis gives references and an idea of causality to begin crafting the research design.
Information for this research would come from police reports and State Farm customer claims,
and the hypothesis could be confirmed or disproved based on the information derived from
claims and reports. Through the study of that information, the city can isolate the factors that
contributed to the accidents and decide whether the current laws and controls are sufficient to
reduce the danger at the intersection. If any of the accidents occurred while drivers were
DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 4
following all rules and controls, then the city could argue that the current rules are not enough
and that further studies into adjusting the intersection to improve safety should be undertaken.
3. Evaluate the methodology for State Farm’s research.
The varying factors that are included in this case study immediately point to the need of a
research methodology that falls into the multiple-methodology design. Schindler says that the
multiple-methodology design is, “research design that employs more than one data collection
method; can include both quantitative and qualitative research; often done in two or more stages,
covering a longer time frame” (pg. 83). State Farm’s research falls into this fold because it used
quantitative and qualitative research. It used quantitative methods in the use of data collection
and analysis. It used qualitative in interview and action research methods. The information that
was used in this methodology consisted of collecting and analyzing police report data, an
engineer’s geometric review, traffic conflict study, benefit-cost analysis, and a schedule of
improvements review. The multiple-methodology design was the only viable option that State
Farm could use because any singular methodology would not provide the full context needed to
understand the complexities that pertain to making intersections top the dangerous list.
4. If you were State Farm, how would you address the concerns of transportation
engineers?
The concerns that the transportation engineers brought up during this study were that the
spotlight of the study generated demand for immediate solutions, solutions that the budget did
not support, locations of accidents with injuries and death should be given more attention, and
that State Farm did not consider intersection volume or accident rate data. The biggest issue with
this question of the case study is that it only asks how to address the concerns of the
transportation engineers. The initial response to this question is to put it into perspective
DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 5
regarding the entire study. Transportation engineers are only one of the many stakeholders
concerned with the results and the implantation strategies that will arise from the data collected.
This case study and the changes that will arise should have concerns from engineers, police,
drivers, lawmakers, treasurers, project managers, and taxpayers to name a few. The reality of
this situation is that every single concern of the engineers cannot be addressed satisfactorily to
their needs based on budgets, timelines, and other logistical hurdles. The best way to take the
data from this study and effectively address concerns is to bring representation from all affected
parties together to find the common concerns and prioritize those from most safety influential
and cost-beneficial to least. Bringing representation from all affected parties together can ensure
experts like the engineers are heard and the people that will be forced to pay for and follow their
input are all satisfied with the measures. Experts disagreeing is a common part of research
projects and the suggested handling of the traffic engineers concerns by combining their
concerns with the other affected parties can be agreed with in many scientific studies. In an
article from BMC Medical Ethics journal this concept is stated, “It is necessary to distinguish
cases where there is consensus among experts that there is insufficient evidence favoring one or
the other standard interventions from cases where experts disagree about the evidence. When
experts disagree, we have argued that it necessary to assess the nature of the disagreement so that
the ERC can conclude what the risk level of a study is” (Lie, Chan, Grady, Ng, and Wendler,
2017).
5. If you were State Farm, would you use traffic volume counts as part of the 2003
study? What concerns, other than those expressed by Nepomuceno, do you have?
There were many issues with the study that State Farm ignored on the initial study. “The
first study ignored accident severity and made no attempt to isolate demographic or geographic
DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 6
factors, and only looked at its’ own internal incident reports” (Pg. 2) They did not use any public
records involving traffic patterns or volume or police incident reports.
Arguments could be used supporting traffic volume counts for 2003 or going against
using the traffic volume. I would choose not to use volume counts. The top reason to not use the
traffic volume is so that the study remains consistent across versions. Inputting this new data
could skew the data in ways that would alter the trustworthiness of the original studies and
degrade public perception of believability in even the new study with the added data. The study
points out some of the issues with the traffic volume reports, but those issues are also pointed out
in studies of current US Government reviews. On the website of policy and governmental affairs
from the Federal Highway Administration issues are pointed out with the volume counts, “One
of the reported problems of traffic monitoring on high-volume routes is miscounting and
misclassification of vehicles due to multiple hits, phantom hits on multi-lane facilities” (Federal
Highway Administration). The trustworthiness of this data is not strong enough to completely
change parts of research methodology for this study after the study already provides and
accounts for some volume counts in its design. If there were organizations that wanted to
include more, they could add the volume counts and the data would not represent a strong
enough difference to change the outcomes or recommendations for making city intersections
safer.
The only other concerns that I would have to do with accuracy of the reports where the
information is derived. Certain cities should pass a law to contribute to this study by using
cameras only for safety research without having the film footage accessible to police for guilt or
court evidence. This should be a blind study where the personnel that drive on the intersections
are not aware of the camera, or the study and the laws should not be changed for significant
DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 7
amounts of time so that the accurate events leading to the accidents could be documented and
added to the research and it could be used to supplement so that available information is not
simple statements from the personnel involved with the accidents.
The last concern I have when studying the dangers associated with driving or any event
in our world is that people are not prepared for when and where these dangers could affect them.
The bible tells us that we live in a fallen world and that there is trouble every where we look.
Job 14:1 in the KJV Bible says, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble”
(Bible Gateway). Troubles should not surprise us, and the troubles involved with car accidents
are just another trouble that man faces in this fallen world. As a Christian, we should follow all
the laws appointed unto us by those put in power over us if they do not conflict with God’s word.
Following all traffic laws and rules is a way to follow those rules of people put over us and to
help reduce our potential trouble we face when driving through these dangerous intersections or
travelling on any road in the world.
DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS 8
References
Bible gateway passage: Job 14:1 - King James Version.). Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2014%3A1&version=KJV
Eastwell, P. (1988). What is a hypothesis? The Science Teacher, 55(4), 49-49. Retrieved June 14,
2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24140815
Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Office of highway policy information - Policy | Federal
highwayadministration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/volumeroutes
/ch5.cfm
Lie, R. K., Chan, F. K. L., Grady, C., Ng, V. H., & Wendler, D. (2017). Comparative
effectiveness research: what to do when experts disagree about risks. BMC Medical
Ethics, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0202-0
Schindler, P. S., & Cooper, D. R. (2019). Business research methods. McGraw-Hill Education.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
