Crash risk perception of sleepy driving and its comparisons with drink driving and speeding: Which behavior is perceived as the riskiest?

- Objective Driver sleepiness is a major crash risk factor, but may be under-recognized as a risky driving behavior. Sleepy driving is usually rated as less of a road safety issue than more well-known risky driving behaviors, such as drink driving and speeding. The objective of this study was to compare perception of crash risk of sleepy driving, drink driving, and speeding. - Methods In total, 300 Australian drivers completed a questionnaire that assessed crash risk perceptions for sleepy driving, drink driving, and speeding. Additionally, the participants perception of crash risk was assessed for five different contextual scenarios that included different levels of sleepiness (low, high), driving duration (short, long), and time of day/circadian influences (afternoon, night-time) of driving. - Results The analysis confirmed that sleepy driving was considered a risky driving behavior, but not as risky as high levels of speeding (p < .05). Yet, the risk of crashing at 4 am was considered as equally risky as low levels of speeding (10 km over the limit). The comparisons of the contextual scenarios revealed driving scenarios that would arguably be perceived as quite risky due to time of day/circadian influences were not reported as high risk. - Conclusions The results suggest a lack of awareness or appreciation of circadian rhythm functioning, particularly the descending phase of circadian rhythm that promotes increased sleepiness in the afternoon and during the early hours of the morning. Yet, the results suggested an appreciation of the danger associated with long distance driving and driver sleepiness. Further efforts are required to improve the community’s awareness of the impairing effects from sleepiness and in particular, knowledge regarding the human circadian rhythm and the increased sleep propensity during the circadian nadir.

A novel approach to assessing road-curve crash severity

Curves are a common feature of road infrastructure; however crashes on road curves are associated with increased risk of injury and fatality to vehicle occupants. Countermeasures require the identification of contributing factors. However, current approaches to identifying contributors use traditional statistical methods and have not used self-reported narrative claim to identify factors related to the driver, vehicle and environment in a systemic way. Text mining of 3434 road-curve crash claim records filed between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2005 at a major insurer in Queensland, Australia, was undertaken to identify risk levels and contributing factors. Rough set analysis was used on insurance claim narratives to identify significant contributing factors to crashes and their associated severity. New contributing factors unique to curve crashes were identified (e.g., tree, phone, over-steer) in addition to those previously identified via traditional statistical analysis of Police and licensing authority records. Text mining is a novel methodology to improve knowledge related to risk and contributing factors to road-curve crash severity. Future road-curve crash countermeasures should more fully consider the interrelationships between environment, the road, the driver and the vehicle, and education campaigns in particular could highlight the increased risk of crash on road-curves.

Road Traffic Injury Prevention Initiatives: A Systematic Review and Metasummary of Effectiveness in Low and Middle Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Road traffic injuries (RTIs) are a growing but neglected global health crisis, requiring effective prevention to promote sustainable safety. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) share a disproportionately high burden with 90% of the world's road traffic deaths, and where RTIs are escalating due to rapid urbanization and motorization. Although several studies have assessed the effectiveness of a specific intervention, no systematic reviews have been conducted summarizing the effectiveness of RTI prevention initiatives specifically performed in LMIC settings; this study will help fill this gap. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, TRID, Lilacs, Scielo and Global Health. Articles were eligible if they considered RTI prevention in LMICs by evaluating a prevention-related intervention with outcome measures of crash, RTI, or death. In addition, a reference and citation analysis was conducted as well as a data quality assessment. A qualitative metasummary approach was used for data analysis and effect sizes were calculated to quantify the magnitude of emerging themes. RESULTS: Of the 8560 articles from the literature search, 18 articles from 11 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, four were from Sub-Saharan Africa, ten from Latin America and the Caribbean, one from the Middle East, and three from Asia. Half of the studies focused specifically on legislation, while the others focused on speed control measures, educational interventions, enforcement, road improvement, community programs, or a multifaceted intervention. CONCLUSION: Legislation was the most common intervention evaluated with the best outcomes when combined with strong enforcement initiatives or as part of a multifaceted approach. Because speed control is crucial to crash and injury prevention, road improvement interventions in LMIC settings should carefully consider how the impact of improvements will affect speed and traffic flow. Further road traffic injury prevention interventions should be performed in LMICs with patient-centered outcomes in order to guide injury prevention in these complex settings.

Multibody modelling of a TB31 and a TB32 crash test with vertical portable concrete barriers: model verification and sensitivity analysis.

In this article the multibody simulation software package MADYMO for analysing and optimizing occupant safety design was used to model crash tests for Normal Containment barriers in accordance with EN 1317. The verification process was carried out by simulating a TB31 and a TB32 crash test performed on vertical portable concrete barriers and by comparing the numerical results to those obtained experimentally. The same modelling approach was applied to both tests to evaluate the predictive capacity of the modelling at two different impact speeds. A sensitivity analysis of the vehicle stiffness was also carried out. The capacity to predict all of the principal EN1317 criteria was assessed for the first time: the acceleration severity index, the theoretical head impact velocity, the barrier working width and the vehicle exit box. Results showed a maximum error of 6% for the acceleration severity index and 21% for theoretical head impact velocity for the numerical simulation in comparison to the recorded data. The exit box position was predicted with a maximum error of 4°. For the working width, a large percentage difference was observed for test TB31 due to the small absolute value of the barrier deflection but the results were well within the limit value from the standard for both tests. The sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of the modelling with respect to contact stiffness increase of ±20% and ±40%. This is the first multibody model of portable concrete barriers that can reproduce not only the acceleration severity index but all the test criteria of EN 1317 and is therefore a valuable tool for new product development and for injury biomechanics research.

The Effects of Airbags and Seatbelts on Occupant Injury in Longitudinal Barrier Crashes

Introduction: Longitudinal barriers, such as guardrails, are designed to prevent a vehicle that leaves the roadway from impacting a more dangerous object while minimizing the risk of injury to the vehicle occupants. Current full-scale test procedures for these devices do not consider the effect of occupant restraints such as seatbelts and airbags. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which restraints are used or deployed in longitudinal barrier collisions and their subsequent effect on occupant injury. Methods: Binary logistic regression models were generated to predict occupant injury risk using data from the National Automotive Sampling System / Crashworthiness Data System from 1997 through 2007. Results: In tow-away longitudinal barrier crashes, airbag deployment rates were 70% for airbag-equipped vehicles. Compared with unbelted occupants without an airbag available, seat belt restrained occupants with an airbag available had a dramatically decreased risk of receiving a serious (MAIS 3+) injury (odds-ratio (OR)=0.03; 95% CI: 0.004- 0.24). A similar decrease was observed among those restrained by seat belts, but without an airbag available (OR=0.03; 95% CI: 0.001- 0.79). No significant differences in risk of serious injuries were observed between unbelted occupants with an airbag available compared with unbelted occupants without an airbag available (OR=0.53; 95% CI=0.10-2.68). Impact on Industry: This study refutes the perception in the roadside safety community that airbags rarely deploy in frontal barrier crashes, and suggests that current longitudinal barrier occupant risk criteria may over-estimate injury potential for restrained occupants involved in a longitudinal barrier crash.

Secondary collisions revisited: real-world crash data and relationship to crash test criteria

Objectives: Previous research conducted in the late 1980s suggested that vehicle impacts following an initial barrier collision increase severe occupant injury risk. Now over 25years old, the data are no longer representative of the currently installed barriers or the present US vehicle fleet. The purpose of this study is to provide a present-day assessment of secondary collisions and to determine if current full-scale barrier crash testing criteria provide an indication of secondary collision risk for real-world barrier crashes. Methods: To characterize secondary collisions, 1,363 (596,331 weighted) real-world barrier midsection impacts selected from 13years (1997-2009) of in-depth crash data available through the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) / Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) were analyzed. Scene diagram and available scene photographs were used to determine roadside and barrier specific variables unavailable in NASS/CDS. Binary logistic regression models were developed for second event occurrence and resulting driver injury. To investigate current secondary collision crash test criteria, 24 full-scale crash test reports were obtained for common non-proprietary US barriers, and the risk of secondary collisions was determined using recommended evaluation criteria from National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350. Results: Secondary collisions were found to occur in approximately two thirds of crashes where a barrier is the first object struck. Barrier lateral stiffness, post-impact vehicle trajectory, vehicle type, and pre-impact tracking conditions were found to be statistically significant contributors to secondary event occurrence. The presence of a second event was found to increase the likelihood of a serious driver injury by a factor of 7 compared to cases with no second event present. The NCHRP Report 350 exit angle criterion was found to underestimate the risk of secondary collisions in real-world barrier crashes. Conclusions: Consistent with previous research, collisions following a barrier impact are not an infrequent event and substantially increase driver injury risk. The results suggest that using exit-angle based crash test criteria alone to assess secondary collision risk is not sufficient to predict second collision occurrence for real-world barrier crashes.

Secondary Collisions Revisited: Real-World Crash Characteristics and Relationship to Crash Test Criteria

Previous research conducted in the late 1980’s suggested that vehicle impacts following an initial barrier collision increase severe occupant injury risk. Now over twenty-five years old, the data used in the previous research is no longer representative of the currently installed barriers or US vehicle fleet. The purpose of this study is to provide a present-day assessment of secondary collisions and to determine if full-scale barrier crash testing criteria provide an indication of secondary collision risk for real-world barrier crashes. The analysis included 1,383 (596,331 weighted) real-world barrier midsection impacts selected from thirteen years (1997-2009) of in-depth crash data available through the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) / Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). For each suitable case, the scene diagram and available scene photographs were used to determine roadside and barrier specific variables not available in NASS/CDS. Binary logistic regression models were developed for second event occurrence and resulting driver injury. Barrier lateral stiffness, post-impact vehicle trajectory, vehicle type, and pre-impact tracking conditions were found to be statistically significant contributors toward secondary event occurrence. The presence of a second event was found to increase the likelihood of a serious driver injury by a factor of seven compared to cases with no second event present. Twenty-four full-scale crash test reports were obtained for common non-proprietary US barriers, and the risk of secondary collisions was determined using recommended evaluation criteria from NCHRP Report 350. It was found that the NCHRP Report 350 exit angle criterion alone was not sufficient to predict second collision occurrence for real-world barrier crashes.

Standardized reporting using CODES (Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Crash protection systems for handicapped school and transit bus occupants. Volume I: executive summary. Interim report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Crash protection systems for handicapped school and transit bus occupants. Volume III: appendices A, B, C and D. Interim report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Crash protection systems for handicapped school and transit bus occupants. Volume IV: appendix E. Interim report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Automobile consumer information study crash test program. Volume I. Summary report. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Special training in injury coding. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Training program for accident investigation and coding in the National Crash Severity Study. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

The crash outcome data evaluation system (CODES).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.