83 Unfall und Mensch
Filtern
Schlagworte
- Accident (2)
- Conference (2)
- Injury (2)
- Konferenz (2)
- Unfall (2)
- Verletzung (2)
- Analyse (math) (1)
- Analysis (math) (1)
- Aufzeichnung (1)
- Behaviour (1)
The changed focus in vehicle safety technology from secondary to primary safety systems need to evolve new methods to investigate accidents, high critical, critical and normal driving situations. Current Naturalistic Driving Studies mostly use vehicles that are highly equipped with additional measuring devices, video cameras, recording technology, and sensors. These equipped fleets are very expensive regarding the setup and administration of the study. Due to the great rarity of crashes it is additionally necessary to have a high distribution and a homogeneous distribution of subject groups. At the end all these facts are leading to a very expensive study with a manageable number of data. Smartphones are becoming more and more popular not only for younger people. Contrary to traditional mobile phones they are mostly equipped with sensors for acceleration and yaw rates, GPS modules as well as cameras in high definition resolution. Additionally they have high-performance processors that enable the execution of CPU-intensive tools directly on the phone. The wide distribution of these smartphones enables researchers to get high numbers of users for such studies. The paper shows and demonstrates a software app for smartphones that is able to record different driving situations up to crashes. Therefore all relevant parameter from the sensors, camera and GPS device are saved for a given duration if the event was triggered. The complete configuration is independently adjustable to the relevant driver and all events were sent automatically to the research institute for a further process. Direct after the event, interviews with the driver can be done and important data regarding the event itself are documented. The presentation shows the methodology and gives a demonstration of the working progress as well as first results and examples of the current study. In the discussion the advantages of this method will be discussed and compared with the disadvantages. The paper shows an alternative method to investigate real accident and incident data. This method is thereby highly cost efficient and comparable with existing methods for benefit estimation.
The paper presents a methodology for the benefit estimation of several secondary safety systems for pedestrians, using the exceptional data depth of GIDAS. A total of 667 frontal pedestrian accidents up to 40kph and more than 500 AIS2+ injuries have been considered. In addition to the severity, affected body region, exact impact point on the vehicle, and the causing part of every injury, the related Euro NCAP test zone was determined. One results of the study is a detailed impact distribution for AIS2+ injuries across the vehicle front. It can be stated, how often a test zone or vehicle part is hit by pedestrians in frontal accidents and which role the ground impact plays. Basing on that, different secondary safety measures can be evaluated by an injury shift method concerning their real world effectiveness. As an example, measures concerning the Euro NCAP pedestrian rating tests have been evaluated. It was analysed which Euro NCAP test zones are the most effective ones. In addition, real test results have been evaluated. Using the presented methodology, other secondary safety like the active bonnet (pop-up bonnet) or a pedestrian airbag measures can be evaluated.
Aim of the study was to evaluate the protective effect of bicycle helmets particularly considering injuries to the head and to the face. Accidents with the participation of bicyclists which occurred from 2000 to 2007 were chosen from GIDAS. We observed that injuries to the head and face were more severe in the group of non-helmeted riders. There seems to be no significant difference in injuries with AIS 3-6. Altogether 26 cyclists were killed. 2 of them wore a helmet (1% of helmeted cyclists), 24 did not (1% of non-helmeted cyclists). Only one killed rider (without helmet) did not suffer from polytrauma (only head injuries recorded). The findings seem to support the thesis of a preventive effect of the bicycle helmet, however the two groups are different in their characteristics related to riding speed. Necessarily we need a multivariate model to evaluate the effect of helmets.