Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (7) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Vereinigtes Königreich (7) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (7) (entfernen)
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.
Interaction of road environment, vehicle and human factors in the causation of pedestrian accidents
(2005)
The UK On-the-Spot project (OTS) completed over 1500 in-depth investigations of road accidents during 2000-2003 and is continuing for a further 3 years. Cases were sampled from two regions of England using rotating shifts to cover all days of the week and all hours of the day and night. Research teams were dispatched to accidents notified to police during the shifts; arrival time to the scene of the accident was generally less than 20 minutes. The methodology of OTS includes sophisticated systems for describing accident causation and the interaction of road, vehicle and human factors. The purpose of this paper is to describe and illustrate these systems by reference to pedestrian accidents. This type of analysis is intended to provide an insight into how and why pedestrian accidents occur in order to assist the development of effective road, vehicle and behavioural countermeasures.
This study analyses no.39 cases in which n.41 motorcyclists were fatally injured, or 36% of total motorcycle fatalities in Northern Ireland between 2004 and 2010 (n.114). There were n.17 cases (43.6%) where the actions of another vehicle driver caused the collision, in thirteen of these cases the motorcycles had their lights switched on. The remaining n.22 collisions (56.4%) were due to the actions of the motorcyclist. In the approach to the collision scene, there were n.13 cases (31.7%) in which the approach was a right hand bend and in n.8 (19.5%) cases, the approach was a left hand bend. In the remaining n.18 (43.9%) cases, the approach was a straight road. Of the n.17 (41.4%) motorcycles that slid after falling, n.10 (24.4%) fell onto their right side and the remaining n.7 (17.1%) fell onto their left side. The information from this study identifies primary and contributory causes of motorcycle collisions.
At IAM RoadSmart we share the excitement about autonomous cars " who wouldn't! However over half of the drivers we polled supported concentrating on making drivers safer " among IAM RoadSmart members it was 70%. Driverless cars are still years away but delivering safer drivers can help reduce death and injury from tomorrow. Governments, academics and car makers need to work hard to convince sceptical British and American drivers that autonomous cars can deliver the benefits promised such as a 90% plus reduction in road deaths.
Although the number of road accident casualties in Europe (EU27) is falling the problem still remains substantial. In 2011 there were still over 30,000 road accident fatalities. Approximately half of these were car occupants and about 60 percent of these occurred in frontal impacts. The next stage to improve a car's safety performance in frontal impacts is to improve its compatibility. The objective of the FIMCAR FP7 EU-project was to develop an assessment approach suitable for regulatory application to control a car's frontal impact and compatibility crash performance and perform an associated cost benefit analysis for its implementation. This paper reports the cost benefit analyses performed to estimate the effect of the following potential changes to the frontal impact regulation: • Option 1 " No change and allow current measures to propagate throughout the vehicle fleet. • Option 2 " Add a full width test to the current offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) test. • Option 3 " Add a full width test and replace the current ODB test with a Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test. For the analyses national data were used from Great Britain (STATS 19) and from Germany (German Federal Statistical Office). In addition in-depth real word crash data were used from CCIS (Great Britain) and GIDAS (Germany). To estimate the benefit a generalised linear model, an injury reduction model and a matched pairs modelling approach were applied. The benefits were estimated to be: for Option 1 "No change" about 2.0%; for Option 2 "FW test" ranging from 5 to 12% and for Option 3 "FW and PDB tests" 9 to 14% of car occupant killed and seriously injured casualties.
Estimation of the benefits for the UK for potential options to modify UNECE Regulation No. 95
(2010)
The side impact problem in Europe remains substantial. UK data shows that between 22% and 26% of car occupant casualties are involved in a side impact, but this rises to between 29% and 38% for those who are fatally injured. This indicates the more injurious nature of side impacts compared with frontal impacts. The European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee (EEVC) has performed work to address the side impact issue since 1979. As part of its continuing work, it has recently investigated potential options for regulatory changes to improve side impact protection in cars further. To support this work the UK undertook an analysis to estimate the benefit for potential options to modify UNECE Regulation 95. The analysis used the UK national STATS19 and detailed Co-operative Crash Injury Study (CCIS) accident databases. Of the potential options reviewed, it was found that the addition of a pole test offered the greatest benefit.
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.