This audit assesses the iRAP ViDA risk engine's predictions in road safety, suggesting improvements for safety outcomes.
Road safety studies commonly use machine learning to predict crashes or to estimate crash-based treatment effects. This study instead audits the modelled fatal-and-serious-injury (FSI) risk produced by the iRAP ViDA risk engine. We analyse 147,466 segments (100 m each) from 12 surveys grouped into four European reporting groups. In Stage 1, gradient-boosted trees reproduce the engine’s risk surface under road-grouped cross-validation(R2 ≈ 0.92 with flows and survey identifiers), and Shapley-based attributions identify which coded attributes drive modelled risk at 396 hotspots (top-three segments per road). In Stage 2, a causal-forest double machine learning estimator adjusts for 38 covariates to estimate segment-level conditional contrasts between modelled risk and six retrofittable treatments across all eligible segments. Simple absolute and relative reduction thresholds translate these associations into 1170 association-based candidate upgrades. On 321 over-lapping hotspots, the candidate upgrades show moderate agreement with iRAP’s Safer Roads Investment Plan (Recall = 0.77; Precision = 0.66; Cohen’s κ = 0.40). All results are conditional associations on a calibrated risk engine whose totals are anchored to project- or network-level fatality totals or fatality estimates used in calibration, not causal effects on observed crashes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hassani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: