Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (16) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Benutzung (16) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (16) (entfernen)
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.
Bicyclists are minimally or unprotected road users. Their vulnerability results in a high injury risk despite their relatively low own speed. However, the actual injury situation of bicyclists has not been investigated very well so far. The purpose of this study was to analyze the actual injury situation of bicyclists in Germany to create a basis for effective preventive measures. Technical and medical data were prospectively collected shortly after the accident at the accident scenes and medical institutions providing care for the injured. Data of injured bicyclists from 1985 to 2003 were analyzed for the following parameters: collision opponent, collision type, collision speed (km/h), Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Maximum AIS (MAIS), incidence of polytrauma (Injury Severity Score >16), incidence of death (death before end of first hospital stay). 4,264 injured bicyclists were included. 55% were male and 45% female. The age was grouped to preschool age in 0.9%, 6 to 12 years in 10.8%, 13 to 17 years in 10.4%, 18 to 64 years in 64.7%, and over 64 years in 13.2%. The MAIS was 1 in 78.8%, 2 in 17.0%, 3 in 3.0%, 4 in 0.6%, 5 in 0.4%, and 6 in 0.2%. The incidence of polytrauma was 0.9%, and the incidence of death was 0.5%. The incidence of injuries to different body regions was as follows: head, 47.8%; neck, 5.2%, thorax, 21%; upper extremities, 46.3%; abdomen, 5.8%; pelvis, 11.5%, lower extremities, 62.1%. The accident location was urban in 95.2%, and rural in 4.8%. The accidents happened during daylight in 82.4%, during night in 12.2%, and during dawn/dusk in 5.3%. The road situation was as follows: straight, 27.3%; bend, 3.0%; junction, 32.0%; crossing, 26.4%; gate, 5.9%; others, 5.4%. The collision opponents were cars in 65.8%, trucks in 7.2%, bicycles in 7.4%, standing objects in 8.8%, multiple objects in 4.3%, and others in 6.5%. The collision speed was grouped <31 in 77.9%, 31-50 in 4.9%, 51-70 in 3.7%, and >70 in 1.5%. The helmet use rate was 1.5%. 68% of the registered head injuries were located in the effective helmet protection area. In bicyclists, head and extremities are at high risk for injuries. The helmet use rate is unsatisfactorily low. Remarkably, two thirds of the head injuries could have been prevented by helmets. Accidents are concentrated to crossings, junctions and gates. A significant lower mean injury severity was observed in victims using separate bicycle lanes. These results do strongly support the extension or addition of bicycle lanes and their consequent use. However, the lanes are frequently interrupted at crossings and junctions. This emphasizes also the important endangering of bicyclists coming from crossings, junctions and gates, i.e. all situations in which contact of bicyclists to motorized vehicles is possible. Redesigning junctions and bicycle traffic lanes to minimize the possibility of this dangerous contact would be preventive measures. A more consequent helmet use and use and an extension of bicycle paths for a better separation of bicyclists and motorized vehicle would be simple but very effective preventive measures.
Who doesn't wear seat belts?
(2009)
Using real world accident data, seat belts were estimated to be 61% effective at preventing fatalities, and 32% effective at preventing serious injuries. They were most effective for drivers with an airbag. Seat belts were estimated as having prevented 57,000 fatalities and 213,000 seriously injured casualties in the UK since 1983. Seat belt legislation was estimated to have prevented 31,000 fatalities and 118,000 seriously injured casualties. A future increase in effective seat belt wearing rate (which takes into account seating position) in the UK from 92.5% to 93% may prevent casualties valued at a societal cost of over -£18 million per year. To target a seat belt campaign, the question "who doesn"t wear seat belts?" must be answered. Seat belt wearing rates and the number of unbelted casualties were analysed. It was primarily young adult males who didn"t wear seat belts, and they made up the majority of unbelted fatalities and seriously injured casualties.
The objectives of this paper are the analysis of the accident risk of drivers brain pathologies (Mild Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer- disease, and Parkinson- disease), and the investigation of the impact of driver distraction on the accident risk of patients with brain pathologies, through a driving simulator experiment. The three groups of patients are compared to a healthy group of similar demographics, with no brain pathology. In particular, 125 drivers of more than 55 years old (34 "controls"" and 91 "patients") went through a large driving simulator experimental process, in which incidents were scheduled to occur. They drove in rural and urban areas, in low and high traffic volumes and in three distraction conditions (undistracted driving, conversation with a passenger and conversation through a mobile phone). The statistical analyses indicated several interesting findings; brain pathologies affect significantly accident risk and distraction affects more the groups of patients than the control one.
The current paper reports on the results of a pilot study aiming to investigate the effect of mobile telephone use on the driving performance of 5 amateur and 5 professional drivers. Their driving acuity was tested through a driving simulator. Analysis and interpretation of the results occurred comparing the drivers' driving performance while talking, reading messages and writing a message on the mobile phone (intervention time) with the drivers' driving performance engaged in no activity (control time). The variables affected by the mobile phone were the "steering", the "lane offset" and the "duration of lane offset". Moreover, the drivers involved in a car crash in the last five years appeared to differ from those who were not involved in a crash in both "lane offset" and "following distance". The results of this pilot study will inform the design of a large experimental study on 50 professional and 50 amateur drivers.
Since the compulsory use of child restraints for children up to 5 years of age was introduced in 2000, restraint use among younger children has increased significantly. However, the observed rate of child restraint use plateaus at around 50%, and apparently little spillover effect has been found for older children who are not covered by the law. This report examines the restraint use patterns for children who were injured in cars in relation to driver and child passenger characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to describe the association between the outcome measure (the proper use of restraints for children) and relevant variables. Better ways for parents and caregivers to improve the use of restraints for children are also discussed.
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.
Safety of light goods vehicles - findings from the German joint project of BASt, DEKRA, UDV and VDA
(2011)
Light goods vehicles (LGVs) are an important part of the vehicle fleet, providing a vital component in the European transportation system. On the other hand, LGVs are in the focus of public discussion regarding road safety. In order to analyse the accident situation of LGVs in an objective manner, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), VDA, DEKRA and German Insurers Accident Research (UDV) launched a joint project. The aim of this project, which will be finished by mid of 2011, is to identify reasonable measures which will further improve the safety of LGVs. For the first time, these partners jointly together conducted a research project and put together their know-how in accident research. Analyses are based on real-life accident data from the GIDAS database, the Accident Database of UDV (UDB), the DEKRA database and national statistics. The findings deliver answers to questions within the arena of future legislative actions and consumer protection activities. The analyses of databases cover areas of primary and secondary safety of LGVs with a special focus on advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), driver behaviour as well as partner and occupant protection. Key figures from national statistics are used to highlight hotspots of accidents of LGVs in Germany. Finally, the proposed countermeasures are assessed regarding their potential effectiveness. Amongst others, the results show that the accident situation of LGVs is very similar to that of passenger cars. Noteworthy variations could be found in collisions with pedestrians, at reversing and regarding accident causes. Occupant safety of LGVs is on a higher level compared to cars. Results indicate that seatbelt use is on a significantly lower level compared to cars. This leads to higher-than-average injury risk for unbelted LGV occupants. When it comes to partner protection, there are problems with compatibility at LGVs. For car occupants there is a very high injury risk when colliding with a LGV. It indicates that higher passive safety test standards for LGVs would be counterproductive if they further increase stiffness of LGVs. The analysis of LGV-pedestrian accidents shows that pedestrian kinematic differs significantly from car-pedestrian accidents. At this point, existing pedestrian related test standards developed for cars cannot be adopted to LGVs. When it comes to active safety, ESC proved its effectiveness once again. Beyond that, rear view cameras, advanced emergency braking systems and lane departure warning systems show a safety potential, too. In addition to any technical countermeasures previously discussed, the importance of the driver behavior and attitude regarding the accident risk was investigated. In order to develop successful actions it is important to understand the main target population. In the case of LGV especially the crafts business and smaller companies are the major contributors the safety issue.
Driver distraction
(2017)
This report for the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) summarises recent research and knowledge from scientific studies about distracted driving. The report defines what it means to be "distracted" when driving, discusses the impact of distraction on driver behaviour and safety, and what can be done to reduce distracted driving. The focus of distraction discussed here relates to how drivers engage with technology when driving. The report begins with a background to driver distraction, followed by discussion about what is actually meant by driver distraction. It is then considered why humans cannot successfully do two things at the same time, particularly within the context of driving. The subsequent section summarises the scientific research findings to date with regard to driver distraction and technology, and how this affects different types of road user. Recommendations for how driver distraction can be mitigated in the real world and a summary conclude the report. Responses to common questions raised by drivers are presented in Appendix A.
Within the COST Action TU1101 the working group WG 1 is dealing with acceptance criteria and problems in helmet use while bicycling concerning conspicuity, thermal stress, ventilation deficits and other potential confounding. To analyze the helmet usage practice of bicyclists in Europe a questionnaire was developed in the scope of working group 1 to collect relevant information by means of a field study. The questionnaire consists of some 66 questions covering the fields of personal data of the cyclist, riding und helmet usage habits, information concerning the helmet model and the sensation of the helmet, as well as information on previous bicycle accidents. A second complementary study is conducted to analyze if the use of a bicycle helmet influences the seating geometry and the posture of cyclists when riding a bicycle and if the if the helmet vertically limits the vision. For this purpose cyclists with and without helmets were photographed in real world situations and relevant geometrical values such as the decline of the torso, the head posture of the upper vertical vision limit due to the helmet were established from the photos. The interim results of the field studies which were conducted in Germany by the Hannover Medical School are presented in this study. Some 227 questionnaires were filled out, of which 67 participants had used a helmet and 42 of the 227 participants have had a bicycle accident before. For the analysis of the riding position and posture of the cyclist over 40 pictures of riders with a helmet and over 240 pictures of riders without a helmet were measured concerning the seating geometry to describe the influence of using a bicycle helmet. Some results in summary: From the riders interviewed with the questionnaire only 11% of the city bike riders and 12% of the mountain bike riders always used the helmet, while 38% of the racing bike riders and 88% of the e-bike-riders always used the helmet. The helmet use seems not to change the sensation of safety of cycling compared to the use of a car. The arguments for not wearing a helmet are mostly stated to be the short distance of a trip, high temperatures or carelessness and waste of time. The reasons for using a helmet are stated to be the feeling of safety and being used to using a helmet. Being a role model for others was also stated to be a reason for helmet use. Concerning the sensation of the helmet 9% of the riders reported problems with the field of vision when using a helmet, 57% saw the problem of sweating too much, and 10% reported headaches or other unpleasant symptoms like pressure on the forehead when using the helmet. The analysis of the seating posture from the pictures taken of cyclists revealed that older cyclists generally have a riding position where the handle bar is higher than the seat (0-° to 10-° incline from seat to handlebar), while younger riders had a higher variance (between -10-° decline and 20-° incline). Further, elderly riders and riders with helmets seem to have a more upright position of the upper body when cycling. The vertical vision limit due to the helmet is determined by the front rim of the helmet (mostly the sun shade). Typical values here range from 0-° (horizontal line from the eye to the sun shade) to 75-° upwards, in which elderly riders tend to have a slightly higher vertical vision limit possibly due to the helmet being worn more towards the face.