Sonstige
While cyclists and pedestrians are known to be at significant risk for severe injuries when exposed to road traffic accidents (RTAs) involving trucks, little is known about RTA injury risk for truck drivers. The objective of this study is to analyze the injury severity in truck drivers following RTAs. Between 1999 and 2008 the Hannover Medical School Accident Research Unit prospectively documented 43,000 RTAs involving 582 trucks. Injury severity including the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) and the maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) were analyzed. Technical parameters (e.g. delta-v, direction of impact), the location of accident, and its dependency on the road type were also taken into consideration. The results show that the safety of truck drivers is assured by their vehicles, the consequence being that the risk of becoming injured is likely to be low. However, the legs especially are at high risk for severe injuries during RTAs. This probability increases in the instance of a collision with another truck. Nevertheless, in RTAs involving trucks and regular passenger vehicles, the other party is in higher risk of injury.
In this study, we compared the injury severity of occupants according to the seating position and the crashing direction in motor vehicle accidents. In the driver's point of view, it was separated the seating position as "Near-side" and "Far-side". The study subjects were targeted by people who visited 4 regional emergency centers following motor vehicle accidents. Real-world investigation was performed by direct and indirect methods after patient- consent. The information of the damaged vehicle was informed by Collision Deformation Classification (CDC) code and the information of the injury of patients was informed by using the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). When the column 3 in CDC code was P, damaged at the middle part of lateral side, the average point of AIS 3 was 1.91-±1.72 in near-side and 1.02-±1.31 in far-side (p<0.01). The average point of maximum AIS (MAIS) was 2.78-±1.39 in near-side and 2.02-±1.11 in far-side (p<0.01). The average point of ISS was 15.74-±14.71 in near-side and 8.11-±8.39 in far-side (p<0.01). Also, when the column 3 in CDC code was D, damaged at the whole part of lateral side, it was significant that the average point of AIS 3 and MAIS in near-side was bigger than in far-side (p=0.02).
The incidence of side impacts was investigated from GIDAS data. Both vehicle-fixed object and vehicle-vehicle collisions were analysed as these are enclosed within the consumer testing program. Vehicle-fixed object collisions were stratified according to ESC availability. Results indicated that vehicles equipped with ESC rarely have pure-lateral impacts. An increase in oblique collisions was seen for the vehicles with ESC whereby most vehicle were driving in left curves. The analysis of vehicle-vehicle collisions developed injury risk curves were developed at the AIS3+ injury severity for the vehicle-vehicle side impacts. Results suggested that greatest injury risk occurred when a Pre Euro NCAP vehicle was struck by a Post Euro-NCAP vehicle. The remaining curves did not show different behaviour, indicating that stiffness increased have been equally combated. This was attributable to the few Post Euro-NCAP vehicles that had a deployed curtain airbag available in the sample. The integration of Euro NCAP testing has shown to improve vehicle crashworthiness for pole collisions, as those vehicles with ESC rarely incur lateral impacts.
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.
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.
Since its beginning in 1999, the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) evolved into the presumably leading representative road traffic accident investigation in Europe, based on the work started in Hanover in 1973. The detailed and comprehensive description of traffic accidents forms an essential basis for vehicle safety research. Due to the ongoing extension of demands of researchers, there is a continuous progress in the techniques and systematic of accident investigation within GIDAS. This paper presents some of the most important developments over the last years. Primary vehicle safety systems are expected to have a significant and increasing influence on reducing accidents. GIDAS therefore began to include and collect active safety parameters as new variables from the year 2005 onwards. This will facilitate to assess the impact of present and future active safety measures. A new system to analyse causation factors of traffic accidents, called ACASS, was implemented in GIDAS in the year 2008. The whole process of data handling was optimised. Since 2005 the on-scene data acquisition is completely conducted with mobile tablet PCs. Comprehensive plausibility checks assure a high data quality. Multi-language codebooks are automatically generated from the database structure itself and interfaces ensure the connection to various database management systems. Members of the consortium can download database and codebook, and synchronize half a terabyte of photographic documentation through a secured online access. With the introduction of the AIS 2005 in the year 2006, some medical categorizations have been revised. To ensure the correct assignment of AIS codes to specific injuries an application based on a diagnostic dictionary was developed. Furthermore a coding tool for the AO classification was introduced. All these enhancements enable GIDAS to be up to date for future research questions.
This work aims at bringing evidence for mass incompatibility in frontal impact for cars built according to the UNECE R94 regulation. French national injury accidents database census for years 2005 to 2008 were used for the analysis. The heterogeneity of frontal self-protection among cars of different masses is investigated, as well as the partner protection parameter offered by these cars. The last part of the analysis deals with the estimation of the benefit, in terms of fatal and severe injuries avoided, if crashworthiness was harmonized for the whole fleet of vehicle. This calculation is done for France and is extended to all Europe.
Over the past two decades the popularity of consumer crash test programs, commonly referred to as New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP), has grown across the world. They are popular among government regulators as they afford a means of promoting safety innovations and levels of vehicle performance beyond those dictated by national standards. They also fulfill the demand for information regarding the safety ranking of vehicles among consumers contemplating the purchase of a new vehicle. There is no question that consumer crash test programs greatly influence vehicle design changes as well as accelerate the fitment of new safety features. The extent to which these changes can be expected to reduce serious and potentially fatal injuries will be influenced by how well the testing protocols and associated rating schemes correctly reflect the nature of the residual safety problem they seek to address. Drawing on data contained primarily in the US National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), the field relevance of current and proposed testing and rating protocols addressing frontal crash test protection is examined. Emphasis is placed on examining how accurately injury rates computed from the dummy responses measured in consumer crash tests correspond to actual injury rates observed in the field. Additional data from Canadian field investigations and US databases such as the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS) are examined to see how well frontal airbag firing times, crush pulse durations and other determinants of injury are replicated in consumer testing protocols. This portion of the analysis draws on data obtained from Event Data Recorders (EDR) in both field collisions and staged tests of the same vehicle model. Vehicle rankings and overall frontal crash test ratings were found to be particularly sensitive to the choice of injury risk functions employed in the test. This was particularly true in the case of injury risk functions used to assess neck injury potential. Neck injury risk derived from Nij was found to show the least agreement with the field. Agreement between field chest injury rates and those derived from crash tests was improved considerably when chest injury risk functions for "older" occupants were employed. The paper concludes with a discussion of how different current testing protocols could be improved to enhance their field relevance.
In road traffic accidents, a car-seat and its occupant can be subjected to various crash pulses in the case of a rear impact. This study investigates the influence of crash pulse shape on seat-occupant response and evaluates the corresponding risk of whiplash injury. For this purpose, a rigorously validated seat-occupant system model is used to study different carseat designs and crash pulses. Two different car-seat concepts are also presented which can effectively mitigate whiplash injury for a wide range of crash severity. It is shown that for crash pulses of similar severity, the level of whiplash-risk depends strongly on the combined effects of seat design and crash pulse shape.
A total survey of road traffic accidents involving most severely injured, defined as sustaining a polytrauma or severe monotrauma (ISS > 15) or being killed, was conducted over 14 months in a large study region in Germany. Data on injuries, pre-clinical and clinical care, crash circumstances and vehicle damage were obtained both prospectively and retrospectively from trauma centers, dispatch centers, police and fire departments. 149 patients with a polytrauma and eight with a severe monotrauma were recorded altogether. 22 patients died in hospital. Another 76 victims had deceased at the accident scene. In 2008, 49 % of patients treated with life-threatening injuries were car or van occupants, 21 % motorcyclists, 18 % cyclists and 10 % pedestrians. Among fatalities at the scene, vehicle occupants constituted an even larger portion. The number of road users with life-threatening trauma in the region was extrapolated to the German situation. It suggests that 10 % among the "seriously injured" as defined in national accident statistics are surviving accident victims with a polytrauma or severe monotrauma.