State Farm: Dangerous Intersections Case Study
1. Identify the various constructs and concepts involved in the study.
The purpose of the State Farm ongoing study was to provide an initiative to communities
around the country to further their research on the dangerous intersections in their state which
would result in funding from State Farm to initiate the improvements on the dangerous
intersections. There are various concepts and constructs throughout this study.
A concept is a bundle of meanings or characteristics associated with certain concrete,
unambiguous events, objects, conditions, or situations (Schindler & Cooper, 2018, p. 12). A few
of the concepts in this case could include the following: intersecting roads, highway access,
police reports, egress ramps, police reports, etc. These are all considered ‘concept’s because they
are the building blocks of the research theory.
A construct is an abstract idea specifically invented for a given research and/or theory-building
purpose (Schindler & Cooper, 2018, p. 12). Constructs throughout the study were how dangerous
the intersections are, the severity of the accidents at the intersections, and traffic patterns or
volume. These would be considered constructs because they are all measured with multiple
variables.
2. What hypothesis might drive the research of one of the cities on the top 10
dangerous intersection list?
Experts define “hypothesis” as a well-argued analysis of available evidence to provide a
realistic (scientific) explanation of existing facts, fill gaps in public understanding of
sophisticated processes, and propose a new theory or a test (Gasparyan & Ayvazyan, 2019, p.
13). The State Farm study involves dangerous intersections and the reasons behind why they are
dangerous. A hypothesis that might drive the research of one of the cities on the top 10 dangerous
intersection list would be: This intersection is dangerous due to the sharp curve approaching the
intersection limiting drivers' sight on the approaching traffic signal.
Through creating a hypothesis, you are then able to test it through research. Through
research, you gain more knowledge about your hypothesis. This makes gaining knowledge
crucial for successful research. As Proverbs 19:2 says: Desire without knowledge is not good,
and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way (English Standard Version Bible, 2001).
3. Evaluate the methodology for State Farm’s research.
State Farm’s research was based on learning what makes intersections dangerous. It was an on-
going study that adjusted its data collection techniques over time. What started as a study to
reduce risk turned into an ongoing study that directs a major public relations effort: State Farm
provides funds for communities to further research their dangerous intersections and initiate
improvements based on the research (Schindler & Cooper, 2018, p. 1). State Farm used both
quantitative and qualitative research through multiple stages.
State Farm originally began its research in 1998, only studying accidents involving intersection
roads with no isolation in demographic and geographic factors. In order to collect the data that
they needed, State Farm mined its own databases for the requisite information on accidents to
come up with a viable U.S list of the top 10 dangerous intersections (Schindler & Cooper, 2018,
p. 1). However, because they only reviewed this information internally, this left out a plethora of
further information that could have been drawn from public records/police reports. They
claimed this was all for good reason due to the variances in police/accident reports based on
jurisdiction.
State Farm then began analyzing accidents where their own drivers were at fault, then
began studying all of the accidents out of the pool of accidents that they had collected. Through
the 1998 study, State Farm was then able to identify 172 dangerous intersections across the
country and publicly released the list.
Issues raised as engineers began questioning State Farm’s data. For example, some
jurisdictions were upset that we didn’t consider intersection volume and we didn’t include
accident rate data (Schindler & Cooper, 2018, p. 2). In 2001, State Farm conducted another study
where they would now consider accident severity. The company created a measurement system
that helped to calculate the rate of payouts for incidents. They then calculated 224 dangerous
intersections and released another top 10 to national media. Through the 2001 study, State Farm
committed over 5 million to its safety program.
4. If you were State Farm, how would you address the concerns of transportation
engineers?
From a researcher’s perspective (State Farm, in this case), it is important to understand the
difficulties that the transportation engineers might face in order to aid in the safety success of the
intersections. Through understanding and better accommodation, the more cooperation State
Farm will receive from the engineers. State Farm is essentially relying on transportation
engineers to act on the results of the study in order to help improve dangerous intersection safety.
This is, after all, a traffic safety program and we would not achieve that goal without having the
cooperation of the traffic and transportation engineering community (Schindler & Cooper, 2018,
p. 2).
A major concern from transportation engineers was a budget issue. How were they going to
implement immediate safety solutions without proper, sufficient funds? Solving such an issue is
not cheap nor is it time efficient. Although State Farm offered grants towards the improvements,
I believe the grants could be insufficient for the amount of work involved, additional resources,
and time needed to make these immediate improvements. I would have addressed this concern
by providing additional insights, information, and resources in order to better aid the engineers in
these improvements. Also, encouraging small, short-term improvements might have eased the
engineers' concerns. Short-term improvements might include sign changes, changes in lane
markings, or signal timing changes (Schindler & Cooper, 2018, p. 4).
An additional obvious concern from the transportation engineers was the fact that certain
demographics were not included in the research, such as traffic volume and accident rates. From
their perspective, not all accidents are the same; locations with accidents that result in injuries
and death should be given more attention (Schindler & Cooper, 2018, p. 4). If such
demographics were included, I believe it would have given the engineers better insight,
ultimately putting them in a better position towards improving intersection safety.
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?
If I were State Farm, I would choose not consider traffic volume as part of the 2003
study. There are a few additional concerns that present themselves, aside from those that
Nepomuceno expressed. The role of congestion in modifying accident risk has been widely
studied, but consensus has not been reached, with conflicting results leaving open questions
(Retallack & Ostendorf, 2019).
If State Farm did choose to include traffic volume counts in their 2003 study, they would
need to consider bias information. Because these reports are conducted independently, we are not
sure exactly how the reports are conducted or the guidelines that are followed – this may vary
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This also poses a risk of the accuracy of the data. One of the
most 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 (US DOT,
2014).
An additional concern that I would have is the fact that other dangerous intersections
would be excluded if there is a low traffic volume on that intersection – just because an
intersection as low traffic, does not always necessarily mean that is not dangerous. For this study,
it is crucial that dangerous intersections aren’t left out. For example, as I used in a previous
question, a sharp curve leading up to an intersection could make it dangerous, leading to an
increase in traffic accidents. Overall, I believe that including the traffic volume reports in this
particular study would pose a risk for skewed results.
References:
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). Crossway Bibles.
Gasparyan, A., & Ayvazyan, L. (2019). Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and
Predicting Implications. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 34(45), 11-25.
doi:10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e300
Retallack, A., & Ostendorf, B. (2019). Current Understanding of the Effects of Congestion on
Traffic Accidents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
16(19). doi:10.3390/ijerph16183400
Schindler, P. S., & Cooper, D. R. (2018). Business Research Methods (State Farm: Dangerous
Intersections Case Study). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Schindler, P. S., & Cooper, D. R. (2018). Business Research Methods. New York, NY:McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
US DOT. (2014). 5.0 Guidelines for Data Collection for High-Volume Routes. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
