Sonstige
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (100)
- Buch (Monographie) (18)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (4)
- Arbeitspapier (1)
Schlagworte
- Verletzung (123) (entfernen)
Institut
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.
Trauma management (TM) covers two types of medical treatment: the initial one provided by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and a further one provided by permanent medical facilities. There is a consensus in the professional literature that to reduce the severity and the number of road crash victims, the TM system should provide rapid and adequate initial care of injury, combined with sufficient further treatment at a hospital or trauma centre. Recognizing the important role of TM for reducing road crash injury outcome, it was decided, within the EU funded SafetyNet project, to develop road safety performance indicators (SPIs) which would characterize the level of TM systems" performance in European countries and enable country comparisons. The concept of TM SPIs was developed based on a literature study of performance indicators in TM, a survey of available practices in Europe and data availability examinations. A set of TM SPIs was introduced including 14 indicators which characterize five issues such as: availability of EMS stations; availability and composition of EMS medical staff; availability and composition of EMS transportation units; characteristics of the EMS response time, and availability of trauma beds in permanent medical facilities. Basic information on the TM systems was collected in close cooperation with the national expert group. A dataset with TM SPIs for 21 countries was created. It was demonstrated that the countries can be compared using selected TM SPIs. Moreover, a more general comparison of the TM systems' performance in the countries is possible, using multiple ranking and statistical weighting techniques. By both methods, final estimates were received enabling the recognition of groups of countries with similar levels of the TM system's performance. The results of various trials were consistent as to the recognition of countries with high or low level of the TM systems" performance, where in grouping countries with intermediate levels of the TM system's performance some differences were observed. The SafetyNet project's practice demonstrated that data collection for estimating TM SPIs is not an easy task but is realizable for the majority of countries. The TM SPIs" message is currently limited to the availability of trauma care services. Further development of the TM SPIs should focus on characteristics of actual treatment supplied, based on combined police and medical road crash related databases.
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.
Road accidents are typically analyzed to address influences of human, vehicle, and environmental (primarily infrastructure) factors. A new methodology, based on a "Venn diagram" analysis, gives a broader perspective on the probable factors, and combinations of factors, contributing both to the occurrence of a crash and to sustaining injuries in that crash. The methodology was applied to 214 accidents on the Mumbai-Pune expressway. Factors contributing to accidents and injuries were addressed. The major human factors influencing accidents on this roadway were speeding (30%) and falling asleep (29%), while injuries were primarily due to lack of seat belt use (46%). The leading infrastructure factor for injuries was impact with a roadside manmade structure (28%), and the main vehicle factor for injuries was passenger compartment intrusion (73%). This methodology can help identify effective vehicle and infrastructure-related solutions for preventing accidents and mitigating injuries in India.
Injury severity of e.g. pedestrians or bikers after crashes with cars that are reversing is almost unknown. However, crash victims of these injuries can frequently be seen in emergency departments and account for a large amount of patients every year. The objective of this study is to analyze injury severity of patients that were crashed into by reversing cars. The Hannover Medical School local accident research unit prospectively documented 43,000 road traffic accidents including 234 crashes involving reversing cars. Injury severity including the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) and the maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) was analyzed as well as the location of the accident. As a result 234 accidents were included into this study. Pedestrians were injured in 141 crashes followed by 70 accidents involving bikers. The mean age of all crash victims was 57 -± 23 years. Most injuries took place on straight stretches (n = 81) as well as parking areas (n = 59), entries (n = 36) or crossroads (n = 24). The AIS of the lower extremities was highest followed by the upper extremities. The AIS of the neck was lowest. The mean MAIS was 1.3 -± 0.6. The paper concludes that the lower extremities show the highest risk to become injured during accidents with reversing cars. However, the risk of severe injuries is likely low.
Ruptures and dissections of the thoracic and abdominal aortic vessel caused by traffic accidents are rare but potentially life-threatening injuries. They can occur by blunt trauma via seat belt or dashboard injury. The study aimed at evaluating the overall mortality, morbidity, neurological disorders, and differences in operative procedures of open repair and stenting. It shows that, with a change and improvement in diagnostic tools and surgical approach, mortality and morbidity of blunt aortic injuries were significantly reduced. Still an immediate life-threatening injury early diagnosis via multiple-slice and scans and surgical repair with minimally invasive stents showed excellent short-time results for selected patients.
In North America, frontal crash tests in both the regulatory environment and consumer-based safety rating schemes have historically been based on full-width and moderate-overlap (40%) vehicle to barrier impacts. The combination of improved seat-belt technologies, notably belt tensioning and load limiting systems, together with advanced airbags, has proven very effective in providing occupant protection in these crash modes. Recently, however, concern has been raised over the contribution of narrower frontal impacts, involving primarily the vehicle corners, to the incidence of fatality and serious injury as a result of the potential for increased occupant compartment intrusion and performance limitations of current restraint systems. Drawing on data documented in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)/ Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) for calendar years 1999 to 2012, the present study examines the characteristics of existing and proposed corner crash test configurations, and the nature of real-world collisions that approximate the test environments. In this analysis, particular emphasis is placed on crash pulse information extracted from vehicle-based event data recorders (EDR's).
Analysis of pedestrian leg contacts and distribution of contact points across the vehicle front
(2015)
Determining the risk to pedestrians that are impacted by areas of the front bumper not currently regulated in type-approval testing requires an understanding of the target population and the injury risk posed by the edges of the bumper. National statistics show that approximately 10% of all accident casualties are pedestrians, with 20% to 30% of these pedestrian casualties being killed or seriously injured. However, the contact position across the front of the bumper is not recorded in national statistics and so in-depth accident databases (OTS, UK and GIDAS, Germany) were used to examine injury risk in greater detail. The results showed that some injury types and severities of injuries appear to peak around the bumper edges. Although there are sometimes inconsistencies in the data, generally there is no evidence to suggest that the edges of the bumper are less likely to be contacted or cause injury.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Informal Group on GTR No. 7 Phase 2 are working to define a build level for the BioRID II rear impact (whiplash) crash test dummy that ensures repeatable and reproducible performance in a test procedure that has been proposed for future legislation. This includes the specification of dummy hardware, as well as the development of comprehensive certification procedures for the dummy. This study evaluated whether the dummy build level and certification procedures deliver the desired level of repeatability and reproducibility. A custom-designed laboratory seat was made using the seat base, back, and head restraint from a production car seat to ensure a representative interface with the dummy. The seat back was reinforced for use in multiple tests and the recliner mechanism was replaced by an external spring-damper mechanism. A total of 65 tests were performed with 6 BioRID IIg dummies using the draft GTR No.7 sled pulse and seating procedure. All dummies were subject to the build, maintenance, and certification procedures defined by the Informal Group. The test condition was highly repeatable, with a very repeatable pulse, a well-controlled seat back response, and minimal observed degradation of seat foams. The results showed qualitatively reasonable repeatability and reproducibility for the upper torso and head accelerations, as well as for T1 Fx and upper neck Fx. However, reproducibility was not acceptable for T1 and upper neck Fz or for T1 and upper neck My. The Informal Group has not selected injury or seat assessment criteria for use with BioRID II, so it is not known whether these channels would be used in the regulation. However, the ramping-up behavior of the dummy showed poor reproducibility, which would be expected to affect the reproducibility of dummy measurements in general. Pelvis and spine characteristics were found to significantly influence the dummy measurements for which poor reproducibility was observed. It was also observed that the primary neck response in these tests was flexion, not extension. This correlates well with recent findings from Japan and the United States showing a correlation between neck flexion and injury in accident replication simulations and postmortem human subjects (PMHS) studies, respectively. The present certification tests may not adequately control front cervical spine bumper characteristics, which are important for neck flexion response. The certification sled test also does not include the pelvis and so cannot be used to control pelvis response and does not substantially load the lumbar bumpers and so does not control these parts of the dummy. The stiffness of all spine bumpers and of the pelvis flesh should be much more tightly controlled. It is recommended that a method for certifying the front cervical bumpers should be developed. Recommendations are also made for tighter tolerance on the input parameters for the existing certification tests.
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.