Sonstige
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.
In the context of the COST357 research project, the climatic conditions and requirements for protective helmets for motorcyclists have been examined. The extent to which these factors would influence motorbike handling and accidents in which motorcyclists are involved have also been examined. This project addresses how cognitive abilities of motorcyclists relate to helmet construction factors. In particular, the aspects of motorcycle driver helmets are to be parameterized in order that they may be used subsequently as a basis for future requirement profiles. The task of one working group of the COST357 project has been to analyse accident events and to identify helmet design issues which affect motorcycle drivers while wearing a helmet. This has been achieved by collating accident data across different countries recorded in the course of in-depth investigations at the site of accidents and by combining this with field studies of motorcyclists participating in traffic, but not involved in accidents. This paper presents the study methodology, database and first results of this international survey. The basis of the study has been a total of 424 interviews of motorcyclists and 134 motorcycle accidents, which were collected across Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey and combined in a single database.
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.
The purpose of this study was to analyse the actual injury situation of bicyclists regarding accidents involving more than one bicyclist. Bicyclists were included in a medical and technical analysis to create a basis for preventive measures and discovered repeating accident patterns and circumstances such as daytime, environment, helmet use rate. Technical and medical data were collected at the scene, shortly after accident. The population was compared focusing on bicycle versus bicycle accidents. Technical analysis included speed at crash, type of collision, impact angle, environment, used lane and relative velocity. Medical analysis included injury pattern and severity (AIS, ISS). Included were 578 injured bicyclists in 289 accidents from years 1999 to 2008, 61 percent were male (n=350) and 39 percent female (n=228). Sixty-seven percent ranged between 18 to 64 years of age, twelve percent each between 13 to 17 years of age and older than 65 years, eight percent between 6 to 12 years and one percent between 2 to 5 years.. Crashes took place in urban areas in 92 percent, in rural areas in 8 percent. Weather conditions were dry lanes in 97 percent and wet conditions in 3 percent. Eighty-three percent of all accidents happened during daytime, ten percent during night, and seven percent during dawn. The helmet use rate was only 7,5 percent in all involved bicyclists. The mean Maximum Abbreviated injury scale, Injury severity score was 1,31. Bicyclists are still minimally- or unprotected road users. The helmet use rate is unsatisfactorily low. The incidence of bicycle to bicycle crashes is high. Most of these accidents take place in urban areas. The level and pattern of injuries is moderate. Most of the more severe injuries occur to the head and could have been avoided by frequent helmet use.