Accident Proneness

The entry reviews five competing models for the occurrence of accidents: (1) pure chance, (2) true contagion, (3) apparent contagion, (4) spells, and (5) liability. The distributions for accident count data that they yield (e.g. Poisson, negative binomial, Neyman type A, short, and generalized Waring) can, however, arise from more than one model. Model identification, in order to modify behavior and hence reduce the number of accidents, has proved largely ineffective. Since 1985, research has moved from model detection to risk evaluation and analysis.

References

1 Arbous, A. G. & Kerrich, J. E. (1951). Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness, Biometrics 7, 340–432.
10.2307/3001656
Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 von Bortkiewicz, L. (1898). Das Gesetz der Kleinen Zahlen. Teubner, Leipzig.
Google Scholar
3 von Bortkiewicz, L. (1915). Über die Zeitfolge zufälliger Ereignisse, Bulletin de l'Institut International de Statistique 20, 30–111.
Google Scholar
4 Cresswell, W. L. & Froggatt, P. (1963). The Causation of Bus Driver Accidents. Oxford University Press, London.
Google Scholar
5 Greenwood, M. & Woods, H. M. (1919). A report on the incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with special reference to multiple accidents, Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report, Vol. 4. HMSO, London.
Google Scholar
6 Greenwood, M. & Yule, G. U. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidents, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 83, 255–279.
10.1111/j.2397-2335.1920.tb00606.x
Google Scholar
7 Irwin, J. O. (1964). The personal factor in accidents-a review article, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 127, 438–451.
10.2307/2343595
Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Irwin, J. O. (1968). The generalized Waring distribution applied to accident theory, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 131, 205–225.
10.2307/2343842
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Kemp, C. D. (1970). “Accident proneness” and discrete distribution theory, in Random Counts in Scientific Work. Vol. 2, Random Counts in Biomedical and Social Sciences, G. P. Patil, ed. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp. 41–65.
Google Scholar
10 Shaw, L. & Sichel, H. S. (1971). Accident Proneness. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Google Scholar
11 Xekalaki, E. (1983). The univariate generalized Waring distribution in relation to accident theory: proneness, spells, or contagion?, Biometrics 39, 887–895.
10.2307/2531324
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Xekalaki, E. (1984). The bivariate generalized Waring distribution and its application to accident theory, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 147, 488–498.
10.2307/2981580
Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Encyclopedia of Biostatistics

Browse other articles of this reference work: