## 4 Results and Discussion

Table 5: AHP score for factors related to traffic conditions due to weather. The comprehensive assessment of the impact of factors within the road restrictions category was conducted using a matrix comprising five elements: unrestricted, traffic restrictions, parking prohibition, limited traffic/one-way systems, traffic control (priority). After determining the influence values for each factor and applying the relevant calculation formulas, the matrix achieved a consistency rate of 7%. This rate is within the acceptable margin for analysis, permitting the use of the weighted results of these factors in the spatial analysis (Table 6). In the spatial analysis model, the assigned weights emphasize a significant weight, approximately 55.6%, for the factor representing accidents on road sections with unrestricted traffic. This weighting lends substantial representativeness to the matrix, whereas \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Unrestricted** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Traffic** \\ **Restrictions** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Parking** \\ **Prohibition** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Traffic/One-Way** \\ **Systems** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Traffic Control** \\ **(Priority)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Weight** \\ \hline Unrestricted & 1 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 9 & 0.556 \\ \hline Traffic restrictions & 1/3 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 7 & 0.201 \\ \hline Parking prohibition & 1/5 & 1/2 & 1 & 3 & 7 & 0.124 \\ \hline Limited traffic/one-way systems & 1/7 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 1 & 3 & 0.073 \\ \hline Traffic control (priority) & 1/9 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 1/9 & 1 & 0.046 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: AHP score for traffic restriction factors producing incidents. Figure 4: Spatial distribution of cumulative impact based on weather conditions at the time of incident occurrence. the combined weight of the other four factors totals less than 50%. When these calculated weights for each factor are integrated into the spatial analysis using the AHP matrix, a notable observation in terms of impact, as measured by spatial extent across Romania, is the prominence of the 1000-5000 and 5000-10,000 m impact intervals, which carry a weight of 9.75%. This is followed by the 10,000-20,000 m interval, with a spatial extent weight of about 33.73%. Conversely, the 200-1000 m impact interval has a very low weight of approximately 0.74%, underscoring the relatively minor importance of factors related to traffic restrictions (Figure 5). Regarding the spatial distribution of impact ranges, a significant impact is observed predominantly in large urban centers and county seats. Additionally, there is an extension of these impact ranges along certain major national roads. These particularly include roads that connect to European roads or heavily trafficked national roads, such as DN12 (Gehorgheni-Miercurea Ciuc-Cosmeni), DN15 (Piatra Neamt-Buhusi), and DN16 (Apahida-Reghin). Moreover, the high-importance impact intervals are distinctly prominent along the E60, especially in the section between Bucharest and Brasov. On other European roads, impact is mainly confined to hotspots, primarily within the inner areas of the localities they pass through. The cumulative assessment of the impact of factors in the category of traffic signal systems necessitated the development of an AHP matrix. This matrix is based on the significance of five key factors: intersections, public transport stations, roadway alignment signs, temporary traffic signals (roadworks, detours), and railroad crossing. Notably, the intersection factor emerges as highly significant, accounting for 55.7% of the impact, followed by public transport stations and road curves with impacts of 20.8% and 12.2%, respectively (Table 7). Figure 5: Spatial distribution of cumulative impact based on traffic restrictions. The spatial distribution of impact at the territorial level predominantly highlights major urban centers, as well as certain national and county roads.