Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (14)
- Article (2)
- Book (2)
- Working Paper (2)
Keywords
- Conference (9)
- Deutschland (9)
- Germany (9)
- Injury (9)
- Konferenz (9)
- Verletzung (9)
- Anfahrversuch (8)
- Safety (8)
- Sicherheit (8)
- Frontalzusammenstoß (7)
Institute
Airbags are, together with the three-point belt, the most effective passive safety equipment of vehicles. However, literature shows that sound pressure levels of up to 170 dB can occur during airbag deployment. A literature review revealed no systematic experimental data on possible hearing loss by airbag deployment, that also takes any other crash accompanied noise into account, such as deformation and impact noise. Also the rising number of airbags per vehicle resulting in a higher number of deployed airbags in an accident was not addressed with respect to hearing loss. Thus, an extensive test matrix of noise measurements during airbag deployments was conducted including onboard measuring during crashes and static measurements. Dynamic and static experiments with single and multiple airbag deployments were conducted. The results of this study show, that in the analyzed crash constellations the acoustic emission of the collision as well as the car deformation can trigger the stapedius reflex before the airbag deployment. The stapedius reflex protects the inner ear at least partially in case of dangerous sound levels. However, it seems that multiple airbag deployments in a short sequence pose a considerable risk for hearing impairments despite the fully contracted stapedius muscle. Further and in line with Price et al. (2013) it was found that the risk of hearing loss is lower with closed windows. The analysis of patient and accident data showed no link between airbag deployment and hearing loss. This might be caused by low case numbers of reported hearing loss problems up to now. In conclusion the results show that a singular analysis of the sound pressure of airbag deployments without crash accompanied noises is not sufficient as the protective effect of the stapedius reflex is neglected. Still, successive airbag deployments in a short timeframe raise the risk of hearing loss. Further investigation on hearing impairment due to airbag deployment and triggering of the stapedius reflex is needed and the data acquisition of accidents and patients should consider hearing loss aspects.
Frontal impact is still the most relevant impact direction in terms of injury causation amongst car occupants. Especially for car-to-car frontal impacts the mass ratio between the involved vehicles has a significant impact on the injury risk (the heavier the opponent car the higher the injury risk). In order to address this issue frontal Mobile Deformable Barrier test procedures have been developed world-wide (for example the MPDB procedure that was fully described during the FIMCAR Project). The objective of this study was to investigate how vehicles of different weight classes perform in a mobile barrier test procedure compared to a fixed barrier test procedure (the full width rigid and offset deformable barrier test). Beyond that, the influence of vehicle mass and vehicle deformation on injuries was evaluated based on real world accident data. Five vehicle types were selected and tested in a fixed offset test procedure (ODB), a full width rigid barrier test procedure (FWRB) and a mobile offset test procedure (MPDB). For the accident analyses data from the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) was evaluated with a focus on MAIS 2+ injured belted front row car (UN-R 94 compliant cars) occupants in frontal impact accidents. Test data indicates higher dummy loadings, in particular for the head acceleration and chest acceleration, in the MPDB test for the vehicles with a mass lighter than the trolley (1,500 kg) compared to the FWRB test. The trend of increased vehicle stiffness (especially illustrated by tests with the MPDB and small cars) shows the need of a further improvement of passive restraint systems to reduce the occupant loading and with it the injury risk. The analyzed GIDAS data confirm the higher injury risk for occupants in cars with an accident weight of less than 1,500 kg compared to those with a crash weight above 1,500 kg in car-to-car and car-to-object or car-to-HGV, respectively. Furthermore the injury risk increases with decreasing mass ratio (i.e., the opponent car is heavier) in car-to-car accidents. Independent from the higher injury risk, the risk for passenger compartment intrusion in frontal impact appears not to be independent on the crash weight of the car.
Mit der flächendeckenden Einführung des Beifahrerairbags ergab sich das Problem der nachträglich festgestellten Inkompatibilität mit rückwärts gerichten Kindersitzen. Zahlreiche tödliche Unfälle mit Babyschalen, insbesondere in den USA, führten unter anderem dazu, dass in den Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union die Beförderung von Kindern in einem rückwärtsgerichteten Kinderschutzsystem auf einem mit Frontairbag geschützten Autositz untersagt wurde, sofern der Airbag nicht deaktiviert wurde. Heute gibt es eine Vielzahl an Möglichkeiten, die dem Nutzer zur Abschaltung des Airbags zur Verfügung stehen. Mit der Notwendigkeit der Abschaltung ergibt sich die Gefahr zweier Arten der Fehlbenutzung: die Beförderung eines Kindes in einer Babyschale trotz aktivierten Airbags beziehungsweise die Mitfahrt eines erwachsenen Insassen trotz deaktivierten Airbags. Im Rahmen dieser Studie wurden zu den beiden Fehlbenutzungsarten Beobachtungs- und Befragungsstudien durchgeführt, Unfalldaten in Hinblick auf die Problematik der Fehlbenutzung der Airbagabschaltung analysiert und Versuche zur erneuten Bewertung des Risikos, das durch heutige und zukünftige Airbagsysteme ausgeht, durchgeführt. In den Umfragen ließen sich nur schwer Daten zum Missbrauch bei der Beförderung von Kindern mit Airbag auf dem Beifahrersitz erfassen. Es kommt insgesamt zu nur wenigen Fällen des Transports eines Kindes auf dem Beifahrersitz mit aktivem Airbag, was zum einen an der hohen Abschaltquote des Beifahrerairbags liegt, zum anderen an der Präferenz der Eltern, die Kinder auf dem Rücksitz zu transportieren. Der Großteil dieser Fehlbenutzungsfälle entsteht in älteren Pkw, die einen Werkstattaufenthalt für die Deaktivierung/Aktivierung erfordern. Keine Missbräuche beziehungsweise technische Fehler fanden sich bei den Systemen mit automatischer Sitzerkennung. Der überwiegende Anteil der Missbrauchsfälle bei den Modellen mit manueller Umschaltmöglichkeit geht offenbar auf Vergessen zurück. Der Missbrauch zweiter Art wird ebenfalls wirkungsvoll durch automatische Systeme verhindert. Bei dieser Beförderungskonstellation ergibt sich jedoch praktisch immer ein Problem, wenn der Beifahrerairbag in einer Werkstatt deaktiviert wurde. Die dadurch für einen erwachsenen Mitfahrer entstehende Gefährdung wird als weniger gravierend eingeschätzt. Bei der manuellen Umschaltung im Fahrzeug verbleibt ebenfalls ein Vergessensproblem wie beim Missbrauch erster Art. Auch die Unfallanalyse deutet auf eine geringe Fehlbenutzungsquote hin. Von den untersuchten GIDAS-Frontalaufprallunfällen mit über 300 betroffenen Kindern nutzten lediglich 24 Kinder den Beifahrerplatz in einem Auto, das mit einem Beifahrerairbag ausgestattet war. In den meisten Fällen war der Airbag vorschriftsmäßig deaktiviert. In den nachgewiesenen Fehlbenutzungsfällen waren die Unfallfolgen für die betroffenen Babys gering. Die untersuchten Einzelfälle zeigen jedoch die tödliche Gefahr, die vom Beifahrerairbag ausgehen kann. Auf der technischen Seite gab es im Lauf der letzten Jahre grundsätzliche Veränderungen im Bereich der Gestaltung des Beifahrerairbags. Während bei der früheren Einbauposition des Airbags die Schale direkt angeschossen wurde, entfaltet sich dieser heutzutage eher nach oben, stützt sich an der Windschutzscheibe ab und kommt danach erst mit der Schale in Kontakt. Da er in diesem Zustand aber schon weitestgehend voll entfaltet ist, besitzt er zu diesem Zeitpunkt kaum noch die Aggressivität, die bei den Beifahrerairbags der ersten Generation beobachtet werden konnte, und stellt somit wahrscheinlich eine geringere Gefahr für das Kleinkind in der Babyschale dar. Damit lässt sich ein deutlicher Trend in Richtung weniger gefährlicher Airbags erkennen. Der Originalbericht enthält als Anhänge den Abdruck des Expertenfragebogen, die Zusammenfassung der Expertenbefragung, den Umdruck der Online-Befragung sowie den Fragebogen der Feldbefragung "Kindersitze und Airbag auf dem Beifahrersitz". Auf die Widergabe dieser Anhänge wurde in der vorliegenden Veröffentlichung verzichtet. Sie liegen bei der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen vor und sind dort einsehbar. Verweise auf die Anhänge im Berichtstext wurden zur Information des Lesers beibehalten.
The goal of the project FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) was to define an integrated set of test procedures and associated metrics to assess a vehicle's frontal impact protection, which includes self- and partner-protection. For the development of the set, two different full-width tests (full-width deformable barrier [FWDB] test, full-width rigid barrier test) and three different offset tests (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test, progressive deformable barrier [PDB] test, moveable deformable barrier with the PDB barrier face [MPDB] test) have been investigated. Different compatibility assessment procedures were analysed and metrics for assessing structural interaction (structural alignment, vertical and horizontal load spreading) as well as several promising metrics for the PDB/MPDB barrier were developed. The final assessment approach consists of a combination of the most suitable full-width and offset tests. For the full-width test (FWDB), a metric was developed to address structural alignment based on load cell wall information in the first 40 ms of the test. For the offset test (ODB), the existing ECE R94 was chosen. Within the paper, an overview of the final assessment approach for the frontal impact test procedures and their development is given.
To improve vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility aims to improve both the self and partner protection properties of vehicles. Although compatibility has received worldwide attention for many years, no final assessment approach has been defined. Within the Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research (FIMCAR) project, different frontal impact test procedures (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test as currently used for Economic Commission for Europe [ECE] R94, progressive deformable barrier test as proposed by France for a new ECE regulation, moveable deformable barrier test as discussed worldwide, full-width rigid barrier test as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] 208, and full-width deformable barrier test) were analyzed regarding their potential for future frontal impact legislation. The research activities focused on car-to-car frontal impact accidents based on accident investigations involving newer cars. Test procedures were developed with both a crash test program and numerical simulations. The proposal from FIMCAR is to use a full-width test procedure with a deformable element and compatibility metrics in combination with the current offset test as a frontal impact assessment approach that also addresses compatibility. By adding a full-width test to the current ODB test it is possible to better address the issues of structural misalignment and injuries resulting from high acceleration accidents as observed in the current fleet. The estimated benefit ranges from a 5 to 12 percent reduction of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from frontal impact accidents. By using a deformable element in the full-width test, the test conditions are more representative of real-world situations with respect to acceleration pulse, restraint system triggering time, and deformation pattern of the front structure. The test results are therefore expected to better represent real-world performance of the tested car. Furthermore, the assessment of the structural alignment is more robust than in the rigid wall test.
The off-set assessment procedure potentially contributes to the FIMCAR objectives to maintain the compartment strength and to assess load spreading in frontal collisions. Furthermore it provides the opportunity to assess the restraint system performance with different pulses if combined with a full-width assessment procedure in the frontal assessment approach. Originally it was expected that the PDB assessment procedure would be selected for the FIMCAR assessment approach. However, it was not possible to deliver a compatibility metric in time so that the current off-set procedure (ODB as used in UNECE R94) with some minor modifications was proposed for the FIMCAR Assessment Approach. Nevertheless the potential to assess load spreading, which appears not to be possible with any other assessed frontal impact assessment procedure was considered to be still high. Therefore the development work for the PDB assessment procedure did not stop with the decision not to select the PDB procedure. As a result of the decisions to use the current ODB and to further develop the PDB procedure, both are covered within this deliverable. The deliverable describes the off-set test procedure that will be recommended by FIMCAR consortium, this corresponds to the ODB test as it is specified in UN-ECE Regulation 94 (R94), i.e. EEVC deformable element with 40% overlap at a test speed of 56 km/h. In addition to the current R94 requirements, FIMCAR will recommend to introduce some structural requirements which will guarantee sufficiently strong occupant compartments by enforcing the stability of the forward occupant cell. With respect to the PDB assessment procedure a new metric, Digital Derivative in Y direction - DDY, was developed, described, analysed, and compared with other metrics. The DDY metric analyses the deformation gradients laterally across the PDB face. The more even the deformation, the lower the DDY values and the better the metric- result. In order analyse the different metrics, analysis of the existing PDB test results and the results of the performed simulation studies was performed. In addition, an assessment of artificial deformation profiles with the metrics took place. This analysis shows that there are still issues with the DDY metric but it appears that it is possible to solve them with future optimisations. For example the current metric assesses only the area within 60% of the half vehicle width. For vehicles that have the longitudinals further outboard, the metric is not effective. In addition to the metric development, practical issues of the PDB tests such as the definition of a scan procedure for the analysis of the deformation pattern including the validation of the scanning procedure by the analysis of 3 different scans at different locations of the same barrier were addressed. Furthermore the repeatability and reproducibility of the PDB was analysed. The barrier deformation readings seem to be sensitive with respect to the impact accuracy. In total, the deliverable is meant to define the FIMCAR off-set assessment procedure and to be a starting point for further development of the PDB assessment procedure.
The objectives of the FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) project are to answer the remaining open questions identified in earlier projects (such as understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of force based metrics and barrier deformation based metrics, confirmation of specific compatibility issues such as structural interaction, investigation of force matching) and to finalise the frontal impact test procedures required to assess compatibility. Research strategies and priorities were based on earlier research programs and the FIMCAR accident data analysis. The identified real world safety issues were used to develop a list of compatibility characteristics which were then prioritised within the consortium. This list was the basis for evaluating the different test candidates. This analysis resulted in the combination of the Full Width Deformable Barrier test (FWDB) with compatibility metrics and the existing Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) as described in UN-ECE Regulation 94 with additional cabin integrity requirement as being proposed as the FIMCAR assessment approach. The proposed frontal impact assessment approach addresses many of the issues identified by the FIMCAR consortium but not all frontal impact and compatibility issues could be addressed.
The main objective of EC CASPER research project is to reduce fatalities and injuries of children travelling in cars. Accidents involving children were investigated, modelling of human being and tools for dummies were advanced, a survey for the diagnosis of child safety was carried out and demands and applications were analysed. From the many research tasks of the CASPER project, the intention of this paper is to address the following: • In-depth investigation of accidents and accident reconstruction. These will provide important points for the injury risk curve, in order to improve it. Different accident investigation teams collected data from real road accidents, involving child car passengers, in five different European countries. Then, a selection of the most appropriate cases for the injury risk curve and the purposes of the project was made for an in-depth analysis. The final stage of this analysis was to conduct an accident reconstruction to validate the results obtained. The in-depth analysis included on-scene accident investigation, creating virtual simulations of the accident/possible reconstruction, and conducting the reconstruction. In the cases of successful reconstructions, new points were introduced to the injury risk curves. Accident reconstructions of selected cases were carried out in test laboratories as the next step following in-depth road accident investigation. These cases were reconstructed using similar child restraint systems (CRS) and the same type make and model as in the real accidents. Reconstructing real cases has several limitations, such as crash angle, cars" approximation paths and crash speed. However, a few changes and applications on the testing conditions were applied to reduce the limitations and improved the representations of the real accidents. After conducting the reconstructions, a comparison between the deformations of the cars on the real accident and the vehicles from the reconstructions was made. Additionally, a correlation between the data captured from the dummies and the injury data from the real accident was sought. This finalises an in-depth analysis of the accident, which will provide new relevant points to the injury risk curve. The CASPER project conducted a large research programme on child safety. On technical points, a promising research area is the developing injury risk curves as a result of in-depth accident investigations and reconstructions. This abstract was written whilst the project was not yet finished and final results are not yet known, but they will be available by the time of the conference. All the works and findings will not necessarily be integrated in the industrial versions of evaluation tools as the CASPER project is a research program.
To elucidate the risk of pedestrians, bicycle and motorbike users, data of two accident research units from 1999 to 2014 were analysed in regard to demographic data, collision details, preclinical and clinical data using SPSS. 14.295 injured vulnerable road users were included. 92 out of 3610 pedestrians ("P", 2.5%), 90 out of 8307 bicyclists ("B", 1.1%) and 115 out of 4094 motorcycle users ("M", 2.8%) were diagnosed with spinal fractures. Thoracic fractures were most frequent ahead of lumbar and cervical fractures. Car collisions were most frequent mechanism (68, 62 and 36%). MAIS was 3.8, 2.8 and 3.2 for P, B and A with ISS 32, 16 and 23. AIS-head was 2.2, 1.3 and 1.5). Vulnerable road users are at significant risk for spine fractures. These are often associated with severe additional injuries, e.g. the head and a very high overall trauma severity (polytrauma).
For the assessment of vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility compromises both the self protection and the partner protection properties of vehicles. For the accident data analysis, the CCIS (GB) and GIDAS (DE) in-depth data bases were used. Selection criteria were frontal car accidents with car in compliance with ECE R94. For this study belted adult occupants in the front seats sustaining MAIS 2+ injuries were studied. Following this analysis FIMCAR concluded that the following compatibility issues are relevant: - Poor structural interaction (especially low overlap and over/underriding) - Compartment strength - Frontal force mismatch with lower priority than poor structural interaction In addition injuries arising from the acceleration loading of the occupant are present in a significant portion of frontal crashes. Based on the findings of the accident analysis the aims that shall be addressed by the proposed assessment approach were defined and priorities were allocated to them. The aims and priorities shall help to decide on suitable test procedures and appropriate metrics. In general it is anticipated that a full overlap and off-set test procedure is the most appropriate set of tests to assess a vehicle- frontal impact self and partner protection.
The GRSP informal group on child restraint systems (CRS) finalised phase 1 of a new regulation for the homologation of CRS . This regulation is the subject of several discussions concerning the safety benefits and the advantages and disadvantages that certain specific points may bring. However, these discussions are sometimes not based on scientific facts and do not consider the whole package but only single items. Based on the experience of the CASPER partners in the fields of human behaviour, accident analysis, test procedures and biomechanics in the area of child safety, a consideration of the safety benefits of phase 1 of the new regulation and recommendations for phase 2 will be given.
The misuse of CRS (child restraint system) is one of the most urgent problems in connection of child safety in cars. Numerous field studies show that more than two thirds of all CRS are used in a wrong way. This misuse could lead to serious injuries for the children. Surprisingly the quality of CRS use is coded much better in accident data (e.g. GIDAS) than the results of observatory field studies show. It is expected that misuse of CRS was not detected by the accident teams in a large number of the cases. An essential part in improving child seats and their usability is the knowledge of the relation between misuse and resulting injuries. For that the analysis and experimental reconstruction of accidents is an important part. For allowing an exact experimental accident reconstruction, it is necessary to have detailed information about the securing situation of the child and about the installation of the CRS in the car.
In general the passive safety capability is much greater in newer versus older cars due to the stiff compartment preventing intrusion in severe collisions. However, the stiffer structure which increases the deceleration can lead to a change in injury patterns. In order to analyse possible injury mechanisms for thoracic and lumbar spine injuries, data from the German Inâ€Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) were used in this study. A twoâ€step approach of statistical and caseâ€byâ€case analysis was applied for this investigation. In total 4,289 collisions were selected involving 8,844 vehicles, 5,765 injured persons and 9,468 coded injuries. Thoracic and lumbar spine injuries such as burst, compression or dislocation fractures as well as soft tissue injuries were found to occur in frontal impacts even without intrusion to the passenger compartment. If a MAIS 2+ injury occurred, in 15% of the cases a thoracic and/or lumbar spine injury is included. Considering AIS 2+ thoracic and lumbar spine, most injuries were fractures and occurred in the lumbar spine area. From the case by case analyses it can be concluded that lumbar spine fractures occur in accidents without the engagement of longitudinals, lateral loading to the occupant and/or very severe accidents with MAIS being much higher than the spine AIS.
Since a number of human models have been developed it appears sensible to use these models also in the accident analysis. Especially the understanding of injury mechanisms and probably even injury risk curves can be significantly improved when interesting accidents are reconstructed using human body models. However, an important limitation for utilising human models for accident reconstruction is the effort needed to develop detailed FE models of the accident partners or to prepare the human model reconstruction by running physical accident reconstructions. The proposed approach for using human models for accident reconstruction is to use simplified and parametric car models. These models can be adapted to the crash opponents in a fast and cost effective way. Although, accuracy is less compared to detailed FE models, the relevant change in velocity can be simulated well, indicating that the computation of a detailed crash pulse is not needed. Two frontal impact test accidents that were reconstructed experimentally and using the parametric car models are indicating sufficient correlation of the adapted parametric car models with the full scale crash reconstructions. However, further developments of the parametric models to be capable for the use in lateral impacts and rear impacts are needed. For the PC Crash simulation runs the output sampling rate is too large to allow sufficient analysis. In addition the performance appears to be too general.
For the avoidance of traffic accidents by means of advanced driver assistance systems the knowledge of failures and deficiencies a few seconds before the crash is of increasing importance. This information e.g. is collected in the German accident survey GIDAS by an interview derived from the ACAS methodology. However to display the whole range of accident causation factors additional information is needed on enduring factors of the system components "human", "infrastructure" and "machine". On the strategic level these accident moderating factors include long term influences such as medical preconditions or a general higher risk taking behavior as well as influences on the immediate conflict level such as an aggressive response to a perceived previous traffic conflict. This study was conducted to examine the feasibility of collecting such causation information in the scope of an in-depth accident investigation like GIDAS. Due to the comprehensive amount of information necessary to estimate the moderating factors the collection of the information is distributed to different methods. 5 cases of real world crashes have been investigated where information was collected on-scene and retrospective by interviews. The identified moderating factors of the accidents and the method for collecting the information are displayed.
The use of proper child restraint systems (CRS) is mandatory for children travelling in cars in most countries of the world. The analysis of the quantity of restrained children shows that more than 90% of the children in Germany are restrained. Looking at the quality of the protection, a large discrepancy between restrained and well protected children can be seen. Two out of three children in Germany are not properly restrained. In addition, considerable difference exists with respect to the technical performance of CRS. For that reason investigations and optimisations on two different topics are necessary: The technical improvement of CRS and the ease of use of CRS. Consideration of the knowledge gained by the comparison of different CRS in crash tests would lead to some improvements of the CRS. But improvement of child safety is not only a technical issue. People should use CRS in the correct way. Misuse and incorrect handling could lead to less safety than correct usage of a poor CRS. For that reason new technical issues are necessary to improve the child safety AND the ease of use. Only the combination of both parts can significantly increase child safety. For the assessment of the safety level of common CRS, frontal and lateral sled tests simulating different severity levels were conducted comparing pairs of CRS which were felt to be good and CRS which were felt to be poor. The safety of some CRS is currently at a high level. All well known products were not damaged in the performed tests. The performance of non-branded CRS was mostly worse than that of the well known products. Although the branded child restraint systems already show a high safety level it is still possible to further improve their technical performance as demonstrated with a baby shell and a harness type CRS.
When assessing the consequences of accidents normally the injury severity and the damage costs are considered. The injury severity is either expressed within the police categories (slight injury, severe injury or fatal injury) or the AIS code that rates the fatality risk of a given injury. Both injury metrics are assessing the consequences of the accident directly after the accident. However, not all consequences of accidents are visible directly after the accident and the duration of the consequences are different. Besides a physiological reduction of functionality social and psychological implications such as reduced mobility options, problems to continue the original job etc. are happening. In order to assess long term consequences of accidents the MHH Accident Research Unit established a brief questionnaire that is distributed to accident involved people of the Hannover subset of the GIDAS data set approx. one year after the accident beginning with the accident year 2013. The basic idea of using a brief questionnaire (in fact only one page) is to obtain a relatively large return rate because the questionnaire appears to be simple and quickly answered. This appears to be important because it is believed that the majority of accident involved people will not report long term consequences. In order to allow a more detailed survey amongst those responders that are reporting long term consequences they are asked for a written consent for the additional questionnaire that will be distributed at a time that is not yet defined. Long term consequences are reported for all addressed areas, medical, physiological, psychological and sociological by people without injuries, with minor injuries and with severe injuries.
Within the process of integrating passenger airbags in the vehicle fleet a problem of compatibility between the passenger airbag and rear-facing child restraint systems was recognised. Especially in the US several accidents with children killed by the passenger airbag were recorded. Taking into account these accidents the deactivation of a present passenger airbag is mandatory if a child is carried in a rear-facing child restraint system at the front passenger seat in all member states of the European Union. This rule is in force since the deadline of 2003/20/EC at the latest. In the past a passenger airbag either could not be disabled or could only be disabled by a garage. Today there are a lot of different possibilities for the car driver himself to disable the airbag. Solutions like an on/off-switch or the automatic detection of a child restraint system are mentioned as an example. Taking into account the need for the deactivation of front passenger airbags two types of misuse can occur: transportation of an infant while the airbag is (still) enabled and transportation of an adult, while the airbag is disabled, respectively. Within a research project funded by BASt both options of misuse were analysed utilising two different types of surveys amongst users (field observations and interviews, Internet-questionnaires). In addition both analysis of accident data and crash tests for an updated assessment of the injury risk caused by the front passenger airbag were conducted. Both surveys indicate a low risk of misuse. Most of the misuse cases were observed in older cars, which offer no easy way to disable the airbag. For systems, which detect a child seat automatically, no misuse could be found. The majority of misuses in cars equipped with a manual switch were caused by reasons of oblivion. Also the accident analysis indicates a minor risk of misuse. From more than 300 cases of the GIDAS accident sample that were analysed, only 24 children were using the front passenger seat in cars equipped with a front passenger airbag. In most of these cases the airbag was deactivated. When misuse occurred the injury severity was low. However, when analysing German single accidents the fatality risk caused by the front passenger airbag became obvious. From the technical point of view, there were important changes in the design of passenger airbags in recent years. Not only volume and shape were modified, but also the mounting position of the entire airbag module was changed fundamentally. Even if these findings do not allow obtaining general conclusions, a clear tendency of less danger by airbags could be identified. For future vehicle development a safe combination of airbags and rear faced baby seats seems to be possible in the long term. This would mean that both types of misuse could be eliminated. For parents an easier use of child seat and car would be the result.
The share of high-tensile steel in car bodies has increased over the last years. While occupant safety has generally benefited from this measure, there is a potential risk that, as a result, rescue time may increase considerably. In more than 60% of all car occupant fatalities a technical rescue has been necessary. These are in particular those cases where occupants die immediately at the accident scene. Therefore, in these cases "rescue time" is a very sensitive parameter. In addition to the general analysis of the need of technical rescue and the actual rescue time depending on model years, the injury pattern of occupants requiring technical rescue will be analysed to provide advice for rescue teams. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of rescue measures for the most popular car models depending on the safety cell design is given.
Die zunehmende Beliebtheit des Pedelecs zeigt sich in jährlich steigenden Absatzzahlen. In ähnlichem Maße steigt die Zahl der in der amtlichen Unfallstatistik verzeichneten Pedelecunfälle, sodass das Thema der Verkehrssicherheit von Pedelecfahrern zunehmend an Bedeutung gewinnt. Bisherige Forschungsarbeiten bieten weder ein repräsentatives Bild der Nutzergruppe noch ein ganzheitliches Bild ihres Unfallgeschehens. Im Rahmen der vorliegenden Arbeit wurden daher drei verschiedene methodische Ansätze gewählt, um die Nutzergruppe von Pedelecs und deren Unfallgeschehen zu beschreiben. Die Repräsentativbefragung bietet erstmalig einen breiten Überblick über personen- und fahrzeugbezogene Charakteristika der Pedelecfahrer in Deutschland, ihr Fahr- und Nutzungsverhalten, mögliche Probleme im Umgang mit dem Pedelec sowie erlebte Unfälle binnen der vergangenen drei Jahre (n = 775). Die beiden Unfallanalysen – eine Klinikbefragung verunfallter Pedelecfahrer (n = 39) sowie eine Analyse der in der German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) enthaltenen Pedelecunfälle (n = 214) – liefern eine detaillierte Beschreibung des jeweiligen Unfalls und seiner Folgen.
Die Gruppe der Pedelecfahrer erweist sich vorwiegend als ältere, aber aktive Nutzergruppe, die das Pedelec oft und für unterschiedliche Zwecke nutzt. Ihr überwiegend hohes Sicherheitsgefühl im Straßenverkehr geht mit einer eher niedrigen Risikobereitschaft einher. In den vergangenen zwei Jahren haben allerdings insbesondere jüngere Fahrer zwischen 18 und 44 Jahren das Pedelec für sich entdeckt, die derzeit (noch) einen geringen Anteil an der Nutzergruppe wie auch im Unfallgeschehen stellen. Als Unfallschwerpunkte zeichnen sich Kollisionen mit einem Pkw sowie die nur selten polizeilich erfassten Alleinunfälle ab. Auch wenn die meisten Fahrer eigenen Angaben zufolge mit dem Pedelec schneller unterwegs sind als mit einem konventionellen Fahrrad, ereignen sich nur wenige Unfälle bei Geschwindigkeiten am Maximum der mit legalen Mitteln erreichbaren Tretunterstützung von 25 km/h. Häufig erfolgen sie beim Stehen oder Anfahren und spiegeln somit die von vielen Fahrern berichteten Balanceprobleme bei niedrigen Geschwindigkeiten wider. In beiden Unfallanalysen wirken Selektionseffekte, aufgrund derer die Generalisierbarkeit der Ergebnisse eingeschränkt ist. So beinhaltet GIDAS ausschließlich die polizeilich erfassten Unfälle und damit vorwiegend Unfälle mit einem weiteren Beteiligten, während in der Klinikbefragung stationär behandelte, ältere Pedelecfahrer überrepräsentiert sind. Zu den Nutzern von S-Pedelecfahrern und ihrem Unfallgeschehen lassen sich aufgrund geringer Fallzahlen keine belastbaren Aussagen treffen.
Auf Basis der gewonnenen Erkenntnisse werden verschiedene Empfehlungen zur Verbesserung der Verkehrssicherheit für Pedelecfahrer abgeleitet, die gemäß dem Fokus der vorliegenden Arbeit primär beim Fahrer (z. B. Erhöhung der Helmtragequote) oder dessen Fahrzeug (z. B. technische Unterstützung zur Verbesserung der Fahrstabilität auch bei geringen Geschwindigkeiten) ansetzen. Ferner bedarf es weiterführender Studien zur Beschreibung von Pedelecunfällen und ihrer Ursachen, auch mit Fokus auf den Pkw-Fahrern als häufigsten Unfallgegnern bei Pedelecunfällen mit mindestens zwei Beteiligten, sowie einer Überprüfung und Verbesserung der Güte amtlicher Statistiken bezüglich der Erkennung elektrifizierter Räder und ihrer korrekten Klassifikation als Pedelecs oder S-Pedelecs.
