Investigation of accidents involving powered two wheelers and bicycles - A European in-depth study.

INTRODUCTION: The number of road fatalities have been falling throughout the European Union (EU) over the past 20 years and most Member States have achieved an overall reduction. Research has mainly focused on protecting car occupants, with car occupant fatalities reducing significantly. However, recently there has been a plateauing in fatalities amongst 'Vulnerable Road Users' (VRUs), and in 2016 accidents involving VRUs accounted for nearly half of all EU road deaths. METHOD: The SaferWheels study collected in-depth data on 500 accidents involving Powered Two-Wheelers (PTWs) and bicycles across six European countries. A standard in-depth accident investigation methodology was used by each team. The Driver Reliability and Error Analysis Method (DREAM) was used to systematically classify accident causation factors. RESULTS: The most common causal factors related to errors in observation by the PTW/bicycle rider or the driver of the other vehicle, typically called 'looked but failed to see' accidents. Common scenarios involved the other vehicle turning or crossing in front of the PTW/bicycle. A quarter of serious or fatal injuries to PTW riders occurred in accidents where the rider lost control with no other vehicle involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Highly detailed data have been collected for 500 accidents involving PTWs or bicycles in the EU. These data can be further analyzed by researchers on a case-study basis to gain detailed insights on such accidents. Preliminary analysis suggests that 'looked but failed to see' remains a common cause, and in many cases the actions of the other vehicle were the critical factor, though PTW rider speed or inexperience played a role in some cases. Practical Applications: The collected data can be analyzed to better understand the characteristics and causes of accidents involving PTWs and bicycles in the EU. The results can be used to develop policies aimed at reducing road deaths and injuries to VRUs.

The role of perceived pedestrian safety on designing safer built environments.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how pedestrians´ safety perception concerning the built environmental characteristics can assist in designing a safer built environment in an urban area in Mexico. METHODS: The study involved two stages of data collection. In the first stage, a physical audit on selected urban roads was performed to assess the characteristics that may increase the perceived risk of a collision. An observational framework to evaluate the crossing areas, sidewalks and organizational factors was developed and used for data collection. In the second stage, an on-street questionnaire was applied to collect the perception of a group of 299 pedestrians about safety risks, road characteristics and their ideas for designing a safer built environment. RESULTS: The physical road audit identified several features in the crossing areas and sidewalks, such as parked cars, movable and fixed obstacles, and lack of traffic signage, which may increase the risk of a pedestrian being involved in a collision. More than half of the road users who were interviewed either agree (27%) or strongly agree (29%) with the statement that crossing the roads in the area was safe. However, pedestrians also identified the following elements as detrimental for the safe use of roads: lack of traffic lights, too much traffic, lack of signs, and parked cars that obstruct visibility. Participants also raised issues beyond the physical infrastructure; for instance, a lack of respect shown by drivers to pedestrians. For designing a safer built environment, participants suggested several ideas highlighting pedestrianization of the road and widening the sidewalks, along with restricting parking of cars on the road. CONCLUSIONS: This combination of findings provide valuable support for the premise that pedestrians may have a good sense of recognizing safety problems and the ability to see the solutions. Although the research was undertaken in the context of a municipality in Guadalajara, the role of pedestrian safety perception may be applicable in other urban settings in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where local authorities are in charge of designing the road environment. This study highlights the relevance of including pedestrians' participation for a safer and human-centred design of our cities.

Adapting load limiter deployment for frontal crash diversity.

Objective: Current European restraint systems may not realize their full protection potential in real-world frontal crashes because they are highly optimized for specific conditions. This research sought to quantify the potential benefit of adapting seat belt load limit thresholds to a wider range of occupant and crash characteristics.Methods: Numerical simulations using Hybrid III dummies were conducted to determine how varying load limiter thresholds could affect occupant kinematics and injury outcome in frontal impacts. Occupant-compartment models were developed with a restraint system consisting of a frontal airbag and a 3-point belt with retractor, buckle pretensioner, and load limiting at the shoulder. Load limiting threshold was varied in 5 frontal impact scenarios, covering as wide a range of real frontal crash conditions as possible. The simulated thoracic injury risks were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves. These values were then applied to a British real-world frontal impact sample to determine the injury reduction potential of optimized load limiting, taking into account occupant seating position, impact scenario, occupant size, and occupant age and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all cars.Results: In low-severity impacts, a low load limit provided the best chest protection, without increasing risk to other body regions, for both the 50th and 95th percentile dummies in both front seating positions. In high-severity impacts, the low limit was not recommended because it allowed the driver dummy to move into close proximity with the vehicle interior, although there appeared to be some benefit of lower load limiting for the 50th percentile front passenger dummy, due to the increased ride down space in that seating position. Adapting the load limit showed no injury reduction potential for 5th percentile drivers. Utilizing the best load limit threshold in real-world crashes could reduce the number of occupants with AIS 2+ chest injuries from belt loading from 377 to 251 (a 33% reduction), correspondingly reducing the number of occupants with AIS 2+ chest injuries (from all sources) in the whole frontal impact population from 496 to 370. This is a reduction in injury rate from 6.4% to 4.8%.Conclusions: The concept of an adaptive load limiter shows most promise in low-speed frontal crashes where it could lower the AIS 2+ chest injury risk for most front seat occupants, except the smallest of drivers. Generally, adaptive limiters show less potential effectiveness with increased crash severities. Overall, an intelligent adjustment of load limiting threshold could result in a reduction of at least a third of front seat occupants with AIS 2+ chest injuries associated with restraining loads and an overall reduction in AIS 2+ chest injury rate in frontal crashes from 6.4% to 4.8.

Factors associated with chest injuries to front seat occupants in frontal impacts.

Objective: Frontal impact chest protection in European cars has been highlighted as an area where possible improvements could be made. The chest is particularly vulnerable in older occupants whose numbers are forecast to increase significantly in the coming decades. This study aimed to provide some direction to areas for possible improvements in frontal crash chest protection.Methods: Real-world crash injury data were interrogated, focusing on cars with current restraint components. The research examined belted front seat occupants in frontal impacts where airbags, pretensioners, and load limiters were present.Results: The chest was the most often injured body region at Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+, 3+, and 4+ injury levels. The rate of AIS 2+ and AIS 3+ chest injuries was highest among elderly occupants and lowest among young occupants, and elderly occupants sustained proportionally more severe chest injuries in low/moderate-speed impacts compared to young and middle-aged occupants. However, it should be noted that rates of AIS 2 chest injury were also significantly higher for middle-aged occupants compared to the young. The front passenger seat was shown to be more often associated with significant chest injury than the driver seat. The higher proportion of elderly female occupants was postulated as a reason for this. Skeletal injury was the most frequent type of AIS 2+ chest injury, and the rate of injury for elderly occupants with such injuries was higher than that for young and middle-aged occupants. With the increase in the number of rib fractures, the risk of pulmonary complications and organ injuries tended to increase. The major cause of chest injury was identified as restraining loads transmitted to the chest via the seat belt. The absence of intrusion in the majority of cases suggests an opportunity for the restraint system to better manage the crash pulse, not only for elderly occupants but for those who are middle-aged as well.Conclusions: This study shows the necessity for safety interventions, through new vehicle crashworthiness systems, to improve chest protection, especially for middle-aged and elderly car occupants. Deployment of appropriate injury risk criteria, use of an appropriate dummy thorax, development of a low-energy restraint test, and the development of more adaptive restraints have been discussed as possible solutions to the problem.

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits. METHODS: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars. RESULTS: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt-induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.