大客车正面碰撞乘客约束系统仿真分析

为探究约束系统在全承载客车正面碰撞事故中对乘客损伤的影响,利用有限元分析软件LS_DYNA建立某大客车正面碰撞仿真模型,并开展整车50 km/h正面100％重叠碰撞固定刚性壁障试验;从车身变形、加速度曲线和乘员损伤等3方面验证仿真模型;基于已验证的仿真模型,开展不同座椅间距、车厢位置及安全带类型的乘员运动响应和损伤等综...     

Is seat belt usage by front seat passengers related to seat belt usage by their drivers?

INTRODUCTION: Unrestrained drivers and passengers are involved in a significant amount of fatalities and injuries in motor-vehicle crashes in the United States. While the literature documents the effectiveness of seat belt usage in reducing crash outcomes, such as fatalities and the severity of injuries, there is a need to evaluate the impact of seat belt usage by drivers and passengers in their respective vehicles. These findings could help develop effective education and enforcement strategies to enhance occupant safety. METHOD: This paper summarizes a study comparing seat belt usage rates of drivers and passengers based on whether or not the driver uses a seat belt. Observational data from 50 sites in the state of Nevada over 3 years are used for analyses. The data are stratified based on the gender of the driver and passengers in the front seat of the vehicle and are based on area type (rural or urban). RESULTS: A comparison of the rates of seat belt usage across for the aggregated data and for various types of disaggregation and statistical analyses to compare the rates of seat belt use among passengers based on the use of seat belts by drivers confirms that when drivers use seat belts, their respective passengers are much more likely to use seat belts. Further, if drivers do not use seat belts, their passengers are not likely to use seat belts. This observation is comparable for male drivers and female drivers, and also for male passengers and female passengers. Further, there are no differences for combinations of the genders of the drivers and passenger (i.e., both male or female, or one male and one female). IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: These results suggest that education and enforcement strategies would benefit most by working toward increasing seat belt usage rates among drivers.     

带乘员及约束系统汽车正面碰撞的有限元法仿真研究

采用计算机模拟的方法,对国产某轿车发生正面碰撞时,乘员在佩带三点式安全带的约束状态下的运动响应进行研究,从乘员的运动响应情况、乘员舱的变形情况、假人的HIC值等几个方面分析了该车型的乘员保护安全性能.模拟结果表明,该车达到了安全法规的要求.并探讨了运用有限元法对带乘员及约束系统的整车正面碰撞的计算机模拟方法.     

Impact of primary safety belt laws on alcohol-related front-seat occupant fatalities: five case studies

OBJECTIVE: Impaired drivers and other high-risk road users are less likely to use their safety belts, thus increasing the risk of fatal injury in the event of a crash. Although safety belt laws have been shown to increase wearing rates for daytime non-crash-involved drivers and their front-seat passengers, little evidence is available on the effect these laws have on belt usage by crash-involved drinking drivers and their passengers. METHODS: This study evaluated the influence of primary safety belt law upgrades from secondary laws on front-seat occupants of passenger cars driven by drinking drivers in fatal crashes in five states: California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington. The outcome measures used to evaluate these law upgrades were (1) the change in safety belt usage rates of front-seat occupants in passenger cars driven by drinking drivers in fatal crashes and (2) the change in alcohol-related front-seat occupant fatalities in passenger cars driven by drinking drivers. RESULTS: Four of the five states demonstrated increases in safety belt use by front-seat occupants of passenger cars of drinking drivers in fatal crashes following the upgrade to primary safety belt laws. Three states (California, Michigan, and Washington) experienced significant reductions in the number of front-seat occupant fatalities in vehicles driven by drinking drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of primary law upgrades was associated with significant increases in safety belt use (four of five states) and significant reductions in fatalities among high-risk occupants (i.e., front-seat occupants involved in fatal crashes in vehicles driven by drinking drivers) in three of the five states studied.     

A Simulation Study on the Efficacy of Advanced Belt Restraints to Mitigate the Effects of Obesity for Rear-Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes

Objective: Recent field data analyses have shown that the safety advantages of rear seats relative to the front seats have decreased in newer vehicles. Separately, the risks of certain injuries have been found to be higher for obese occupants. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of advanced belt features on the protection of rear-seat occupants with a range of body mass index (BMI) in frontal crashes.

Methods: Whole-body finite element human models with 4 BMI levels (25, 30, 35, and 40 kg/m²) developed previously were used in this study. A total of 52 frontal crash simulations were conducted, including 4 simulations with a standard rear-seat, 3-point belt and 48 simulations with advanced belt features. The parameters varied in the simulations included BMI, load limit, anchor pretensioner, and lap belt routing relative to the pelvis. The injury measurements analyzed in this study included head and hip excursions, normalized chest deflection, and torso angle (defined as the angle between the hip–shoulder line and the vertical direction). Analyses of covariance were used to test the significance (P <.05) of the results.

Results: Higher BMI was associated with greater head and hip excursions and larger normalized chest deflection. Higher belt routing increased the hip excursion and torso angle, which indicates a higher submarining risk, whereas the anchor pretensioner reduced hip excursion and torso angle. Lower load limits decreased the normalized chest deflection but increased the head excursion. Normalized chest deflection had a positive correlation with maximum torso angle. Occupants with higher BMI have to use higher load limits to reach head excursions similar to those in lower BMI occupants.

Discussion and Conclusion: The simulation results suggest that optimizing load limiter and adding pretensioner(s) can reduce injury risks associated with obesity, but conflicting effects on head and chest injuries were observed. This study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of using human models to investigate protection for occupants with various BMI levels. A seat belt system capable of adapting to occupant size and body shape will improve protection for obese occupants in rear seats.     

Association Between NCAP Ratings and Real-World Rear Seat Occupant Risk of Injury

Objective: Several studies have evaluated the correlation between U.S. or Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings and injury risk to front seat occupants, in particular driver injuries. Conversely, little is known about whether NCAP 5-star ratings predict real-world risk of injury to restrained rear seat occupants. The NHTSA has identified rear seat occupant protection as a specific area under consideration for improvements to its NCAP. In order to inform NHTSA's efforts, we examined how NCAP's current 5-star rating system predicts risk of moderate or greater injury among restrained rear seat occupants in real-world crashes.

Methods: We identified crash-involved vehicles, model year 2004–2013, in NASS-CDS (2003–2012) with known make and model and nonmissing occupant information. We manually matched these vehicles to their NCAP star ratings using data on make, model, model year, body type, and other identifying information. The resultant linked NASS-CDS and NCAP database was analyzed to examine associations between vehicle ratings and rear seat occupant injury risk; risk to front seat occupants was also estimated for comparison. Data were limited to restrained occupants and occupant injuries were defined as any injury with a maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 2 or greater.

Results: We linked 95% of vehicles in NASS-CDS to a specific vehicle in NCAP. The 18,218 vehicles represented an estimated 6 million vehicles with over 9 million occupants. Rear seat passengers accounted for 12.4% of restrained occupants. The risk of injury in all crashes for restrained rear seat occupants was lower in vehicles with a 5-star driver rating in frontal impact tests (1.4%) than with 4 or fewer stars (2.6%, P =.015); results were similar for the frontal impact passenger rating (1.3% vs. 2.4%, P =.024). Conversely, side impact driver and passenger crash tests were not associated with rear seat occupant injury risk (driver test: 1.7% for 5-star vs. 1.8% for 1–4 stars; passenger test: 1.6% for 5 stars vs 1.8% for 1–4 stars).

Conclusions: Current frontal impact test procedures provide some degree of discrimination in real-world rear seat injury risk among vehicles with 5 compared to fewer than 5 stars. However, there is no evidence that vehicles with a 5-star side impact passenger rating, which is the only crash test procedure to include an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) in the rear, demonstrate lower risks of injury in the rear than vehicles with fewer than 5 stars. These results support prioritizing modifications to the NCAP program that specifically evaluate rear seat injury risk to restrained occupants of all ages.     

The effect of precrash velocity reduction on occupant response using a human body finite element model

Objective: The objective of this study is to use a validated finite element model of the human body and a certified model of an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) to evaluate the effect of simulated precrash braking on driver kinematics, restraint loads, body loads, and computed injury criteria in 4 commonly injured body regions.

Methods: The Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) 50th percentile male occupant (M50-O) and the Humanetics Hybrid III 50th percentile models were gravity settled in the driver position of a generic interior equipped with an advanced 3-point belt and driver airbag. Fifteen simulations per model (30 total) were conducted, including 4 scenarios at 3 severity levels: median, severe, and the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (U.S.-NCAP) and 3 extra per model with high-intensity braking. The 4 scenarios were no precollision system (no PCS), forward collision warning (FCW), FCW with prebraking assist (FCW+PBA), and FCW and PBA with autonomous precrash braking (FCW + PBA + PB). The baseline ΔV was 17, 34, and 56.4 kph for median, severe, and U.S.-NCAP scenarios, respectively, and were based on crash reconstructions from NASS/CDS. Pulses were then developed based on the assumed precrash systems equipped. Restraint properties and the generic pulse used were based on literature.

Results: In median crash severity cases, little to no risk (<10% risk for Abbreviated injury Scale [AIS] 3+) was found for all injury measures for both models. In the severe set of cases, little to no risk for AIS 3+ injury was also found for all injury measures. In NCAP cases, highest risk was typically found with No PCS and lowest with FCW + PBA + PB. In the higher intensity braking cases (1.0–1.4 g), head injury criterion (HIC), brain injury criterion (BrIC), and chest deflection injury measures increased with increased braking intensity. All other measures for these cases tended to decrease. The ATD also predicted and trended similar to the human body models predictions for both the median, severe, and NCAP cases. Forward excursion for both models decreased across median, severe, and NCAP cases and diverged from each other in cases above 1.0 g of braking intensity.

Conclusions: The addition of precrash systems simulated through reduced precrash speeds caused reductions in some injury criteria, whereas others (chest deflection, HIC, and BrIC) increased due to a modified occupant position. The human model and ATD models trended similarly in nearly all cases with greater risk indicated in the human model. These results suggest the need for integrated safety systems that have restraints that optimize the occupant's position during precrash braking and prior to impact.     

Driver Injury Risk Variability in Finite Element Reconstructions of Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) Frontal Motor Vehicle Crashes

Objective: A 3-phase real-world motor vehicle crash (MVC) reconstruction method was developed to analyze injury variability as a function of precrash occupant position for 2 full-frontal Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) cases.

Method: Phase I: A finite element (FE) simplified vehicle model (SVM) was developed and tuned to mimic the frontal crash characteristics of the CIREN case vehicle (Camry or Cobalt) using frontal New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) crash test data. Phase II: The Toyota HUman Model for Safety (THUMS) v4.01 was positioned in 120 precrash configurations per case within the SVM. Five occupant positioning variables were varied using a Latin hypercube design of experiments: seat track position, seat back angle, D-ring height, steering column angle, and steering column telescoping position. An additional baseline simulation was performed that aimed to match the precrash occupant position documented in CIREN for each case. Phase III: FE simulations were then performed using kinematic boundary conditions from each vehicle's event data recorder (EDR). HIC15, combined thoracic index (CTI), femur forces, and strain-based injury metrics in the lung and lumbar vertebrae were evaluated to predict injury.

Results: Tuning the SVM to specific vehicle models resulted in close matches between simulated and test injury metric data, allowing the tuned SVM to be used in each case reconstruction with EDR-derived boundary conditions. Simulations with the most rearward seats and reclined seat backs had the greatest HIC15, head injury risk, CTI, and chest injury risk. Calculated injury risks for the head, chest, and femur closely correlated to the CIREN occupant injury patterns. CTI in the Camry case yielded a 54% probability of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ chest injury in the baseline case simulation and ranged from 34 to 88% (mean = 61%) risk in the least and most dangerous occupant positions. The greater than 50% probability was consistent with the case occupant's AIS 2 hemomediastinum. Stress-based metrics were used to predict injury to the lower leg of the Camry case occupant. The regional-level injury metrics evaluated for the Cobalt case occupant indicated a low risk of injury; however, strain-based injury metrics better predicted pulmonary contusion. Approximately 49% of the Cobalt occupant's left lung was contused, though the baseline simulation predicted 40.5% of the lung to be injured.

Conclusions: A method to compute injury metrics and risks as functions of precrash occupant position was developed and applied to 2 CIREN MVC FE reconstructions. The reconstruction process allows for quantification of the sensitivity and uncertainty of the injury risk predictions based on occupant position to further understand important factors that lead to more severe MVC injuries.     

The influence of personal protection equipment,occupant body size,and restraint system on the frontal impact responses of Hybrid III ATDs in tactical vehicles

Objective: Although advanced restraint systems, such as seat belt pretensioners and load limiters, can provide improved occupant protection in crashes, such technologies are currently not utilized in military vehicles. The design and use of military vehicles presents unique challenges to occupant safety—including differences in compartment geometry and occupant clothing and gear—that make direct application of optimal civilian restraint systems to military vehicles inappropriate. For military vehicle environments, finite element (FE) modeling can be used to assess various configurations of restraint systems and determine the optimal configuration that minimizes injury risk to the occupant. The models must, however, be validated against physical tests before implementation. The objective of this study was therefore to provide the data necessary for FE model validation by conducting sled tests using anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). A secondary objective of this test series was to examine the influence of occupant body size (5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male), military gear (helmet/vest/tactical assault panels), seat belt type (3-point and 5-point), and advanced seat belt technologies (pretensioner and load limiter) on occupant kinematics and injury risk in frontal crashes.

Methods: In total, 20 frontal sled tests were conducted using a custom sled buck that was reconfigurable to represent both the driver and passenger compartments of a light tactical military vehicle. Tests were performed at a delta-V of 30 mph and a peak acceleration of 25 g. The sled tests used the Hybrid III 5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male ATDs outfitted with standard combat boots and advanced combat helmets. In some tests, the ATDs were outfitted with additional military gear, which included an improved outer tactical vest (IOTV), IOTV and squad automatic weapon (SAW) gunner with a tactical assault panel (TAP), or IOTV and rifleman with TAP. ATD kinematics and injury outcomes were determined for each test.

Results: Maximum excursions were generally greater in the 95th percentile male compared to the 50th percentile male ATD and in ATDs wearing TAP compared to ATDs without TAP. Pretensioners and load limiters were effective in decreasing excursions and injury measures, even when the ATD was outfitted in military gear.

Conclusions: ATD injury response and kinematics are influenced by the size of the ATD, military gear, and restraint system. This study has provided important data for validating FE models of military occupants, which can be used for design optimization of military vehicle restraint systems.     

Real-World Rib Fracture Patterns in Frontal Crashes in Different Restraint Conditions

Objective: The purpose of this study was to use the detailed medical injury information in the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) to evaluate patterns of rib fractures in real-world crash occupants in both belted and unbelted restraint conditions. Fracture patterns binned into rib regional levels were examined to determine normative trends associated with belt use and other possible contributing factors.

Methods: Front row adult occupants with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ rib fractures, in frontal crashes with a deployed frontal airbag, were selected from the CIREN database. The circumferential location of each rib fracture (with respect to the sternum) was documented using a previously published method (Ritchie et al. 2006) and digital computed tomography scans. Fracture patterns for different crash and occupant parameters (restraint use, involved physical component, occupant kinematics, crash principal direction of force, and occupant age) were compared qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results: There were 158 belted and 44 unbelted occupants included in this study. For belted occupants, fractures were mainly located near the path of the shoulder belt, with the majority of fractures occurring on the inboard (with respect to the vehicle) side of the thorax. For unbelted occupants, fractures were approximately symmetric and distributed across both sides of the thorax. There were negligible differences in fracture patterns between occupants with frontal (0°) and near side (330° to 350° for drivers; 10° to 30° for passengers) crash principal directions of force but substantial differences between groups when occupant kinematics (and contacts within the vehicle) were considered. Age also affected fracture pattern, with fractures tending to occur more anteriorly in older occupants and more laterally in younger occupants (both belted and unbelted).

Conclusions: Results of this study confirmed with real-world data that rib fracture patterns in unbelted occupants were more distributed and symmetric across the thorax compared to belted occupants in crashes with a deployed frontal airbag. Other factors, such as occupant kinematics and occupant age, also produced differing patterns of fractures. Normative data on rib fracture patterns in real-world occupants can contribute to understanding injury mechanisms and the role of different causation factors, which can ultimately help prevent fractures and improve vehicle safety.     

The use of seat belt by motor vehicle occupants in South Africa

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to examine the use of seat belt by motor vehicle users in the various provinces in South Africa. METHODS: Data were abstracted from published reports of the national Department of Transport. Percentage distribution and correlation of road safety variables and seat belt wearing rates for motor vehicle users were calculated for the different provinces. RESULTS: High seat belt wearing rates by the drivers (between 75.1% and 88.1%, national rate was 81%). The seat belt wearing rates for the front and back seat passengers were much lower than for the drivers. The seat belt wearing rates for front seat passengers (44.5% to 60.5%, national - 50.1%) and back seat passengers (1% to 16%, national - 7.6%) were much lower than for the drivers. The national seat belt wearing rate for all vehicles between 1982 and 1995 was between 46.9% and 69.2%, but this has generally declined. CONCLUSION: There is a need for the implementation of strategies to increase the use of seat belts to reduce injuries and fatalities.     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

Assessment of Bilateral Thoracic Loading on the Near-Side Occupant Due to Occupant-to-Occupant Interaction in Vehicle Crash Tests

Objective: This study aims, by means of the WorldSID 50th percentile male, to evaluate thoracic loading and injury risk to the near-side occupant due to occupant-to-occupant interaction in combination with loading from an intruding structure.

Method: Nine vehicle crash tests were performed with a 50th percentile WorldSID male dummy in the near-side (adjacent to the intruding structure) seat and a THOR or ES2 dummy in the far-side (opposite the intruding structure) seat. The near-side seated WorldSID was equipped with 6 + 6 IR-Traccs (LH and RH) in the thorax/abdomen enabling measurement of bilateral deflection. To differentiate deflection caused by the intrusion, and the deflection caused by the neighboring occupant, time history curves were analyzed. The crash tests were performed with different modern vehicles, equipped with thorax side airbags and inflatable curtains, ranging from a compact car to a large sedan, and in different loading conditions such as car-to-car, barrier, and pole tests. Lateral delta V based on vehicle tunnel acceleration and maximum residual intrusion at occupant position were used as a measurement of crash severity to compare injury measurements.

Result: In the 9 vehicle crash tests, thoracic loading, induced by the intruding structure as well as from the far-side occupant, varied due to the size and structural performance of the car as well as the severity of the crash. Peak deflection on the thoracic outboard side occurred during the first 50 ms of the event. Between 70 to 150 ms loading induced by the neighboring occupant occurred and resulted in an inboard-side peak deflection and viscous criterion. In the tests where the target vehicle lateral delta V was below 30 km/h and intrusion less than 200 mm, deflections were low on both the outboard (20–40 mm) and inboard side (10–15 mm). At higher crash severities, delta V 35 km/h and above as well as intrusions larger than 350 mm, the inboard deflections (caused by interaction to the far-side occupant) were of the same magnitude or even higher (30–70 mm) than the outboard deflections (30–50 mm).

Conclusion: A WorldSID 50th percentile male equipped with bilateral IR-Traccs can detect loading to the thorax from a neighboring occupant making injury risk assessment feasible for this type of loading. At crash severities resulting in a delta V above 35 km/h and intrusions larger than 350 mm, both the inboard deflection and VC resulted in high risks of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ injury, especially for a senior occupant.     

Frontal crash simulations using parametric human models representing a diverse population

Abstract

Objective: Analyses of crash data have shown that older, obese, and/or female occupants have a higher risk of injury in frontal crashes compared to the rest of the population. The objective of this study was to use parametric finite element (FE) human models to assess the increased injury risks and identify safety concerns for these vulnerable populations.

Methods: We sampled 100 occupants based on age, sex, stature, and body mass index (BMI) to span a wide range of the U.S. adult population. The target anatomical geometry for each of the 100 models was predicted by the statistical geometry models for the rib cage, pelvis, femur, tibia, and external body surface developed previously. A regional landmark-based mesh morphing method was used to morph the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) M50-OS model into the target geometries. The morphed human models were then positioned in a validated generic vehicle driver compartment model using a statistical driving posture model. Frontal crash simulations based on U.S. New Car Assessment Program (U.S. NCAP) were conducted. Body region injury risks were calculated based on the risk curves used in the US NCAP, except that scaling was used for the neck, chest, and knee–thigh–hip injury risk curves based on the sizes of the bony structures in the corresponding body regions. Age effects were also considered for predicting chest injury risk.

Results: The simulations demonstrated that driver stature and body shape affect occupant interactions with the restraints and consequently affect occupant kinematics and injury risks in severe frontal crashes. U-shaped relations between occupant stature/weight and head injury risk were observed. Chest injury risk was strongly affected by age and sex, with older female occupants having the highest risk. A strong correlation was also observed between BMI and knee–thigh–hip injury risk, whereas none of the occupant parameters meaningfully affected neck injury risks.

Conclusions: This study is the first to use a large set of diverse FE human models to investigate the combined effects of age, sex, stature, and BMI on injury risks in frontal crashes. The study demonstrated that parametric human models can effectively predict the injury trends for the population and may now be used to optimize restraint systems for people who are not similar in size and shape to the available anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). New restraints that adapt to occupant age, sex, stature, and body shape may improve crash safety for all occupants.     

Driver and front passenger injury in frontal crashes: Update on the effect of unbelted rear occupants

Purpose: This is a study of the influence of an unbelted rear occupant on the risk of severe injury to the front seat occupant ahead of them in frontal crashes. It provides an update to earlier studies.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.

Conclusions: Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions.     

Factors contributing to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes

Abstract

Objectives: Earlier research has shown that the rear row is safer for occupants in crashes than the front row, but there is evidence that improvements in front seat occupant protection in more recent vehicle model years have reduced the safety advantage of the rear seat versus the front seat. The study objective was to identify factors that contribute to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes in newer model year vehicles.

Methods: A case series review of belted rear seat occupants who were seriously injured or killed in frontal crashes was conducted. Occupants in frontal crashes were eligible for inclusion if they were 6 years old or older and belted in the rear of a 2000 or newer model year passenger vehicle within 10 model years of the crash year. Crashes were identified using the 2004–2015 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and included all eligible occupants with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 or greater injury. Using these same inclusion criteria but split into younger (6 to 12 years) and older (55+ years) cohorts, fatal crashes were identified in the 2014–2015 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and then local police jurisdictions were contacted for complete crash records.

Results: Detailed case series review was completed for 117 rear seat occupants: 36 with Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3+ injuries in NASS-CDS and 81 fatalities identified in FARS. More than half of the injured and killed rear occupants were more severely injured than front seat occupants in the same crash. Serious chest injury, primarily caused by seat belt loading, was present in 22 of the injured occupants and 17 of the 37 fatalities with documented injuries. Nine injured occupants and 18 fatalities sustained serious head injury, primarily from contact with the vehicle interior or severe intrusion. For fatal cases, 12 crashes were considered unsurvivable due to a complete loss of occupant space. For cases considered survivable, intrusion was not a large contributor to fatality.

Discussion: Rear seat occupants sustained serious and fatal injuries due to belt loading in crashes in which front seat occupants survived, suggesting a discrepancy in restraint performance between the front and rear rows. Restraint strategies that reduce loading to the chest should be considered, but there may be potential tradeoffs with increased head excursion, particularly in the absence of rear seat airbags. Any new restraint designs should consider the unique needs of the rear seat environment.     

Case study: 128 injured in rollover coach crashes in Sweden—Injury outcome,mechanisms and possible effects of seat belts

The risk for injuries in rollover coach crashes are dependent on whether the occupants are belted or not. However, the influence of the different belt systems for reducing injuries has remained unclear. Since many injuries sustained are caused by impacts with the interior, passenger interactions or ejection through a window, the advantages by proper seat belt systems are evident. In this study, representing the most common serious crash scenario for serious injury, 128 injured in rollover cases were analysed with regard to the injury outcome, mechanisms and the possible injury reduction for occupants when using a safety belt. Furthermore, the different belt systems were compared to explain their contribution to increased safety. Based on medical reports and questioning of the passengers, the injuries sustained are recorded according to the AIS classification. The next step was the identification of the injury mechanisms, using the passenger statements as well as results from numerical occupant simulations. It is important to mention that this study was purely focused on detection of the injury mechanism to avoid the reported injuries. The possibility of additional injuries due to the wearing of a belt were not taken into account. However, the analysis of the 128 injured showed a considerable increase in safety for belted occupants through limiting interior contacts, minimising passenger interaction and reducing the possibility of ejection.     

The safety implications of vehicle seat adjustments

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to gather information on the preferred front seat position of vehicle occupants and to determine the impact of variation in seat position on safety during crashes. METHOD: The study evaluated the relationship between seat position and occupant size using the chi-square test and compared the risk of severe injury for small females and large males with regard to forward and rearward seat position using logistic regression. RESULTS: While smaller drivers sat closer to the steering wheel than larger drivers, front passengers of all sizes used similar seat positions. Additionally, the risk of injury was higher for small, unbelted females in rearward seat positions and large males (belted and unbelted) in forward seat positions. CONCLUSIONS: Occupants who adjust their seats to positions that are not consistent with required federal tests are at a greater risk for severe injury in a crash.     

Passenger use of and attitudes toward rear seat belts

Objectives: This study sought to identify attitudes toward belt use in the rear seat and to gain insight into the experiences of rear-seat passengers. Method: A telephone survey conducted between June and August 2016 targeted adult passengers who had recently ridden in the rear and who did not always wear their seat belt when doing so. Respondents were questioned regarding their reasons for not buckling up and possible conditions under which they would be more likely to buckle up during rear-seat travel. Results: Of 1163 recent rear-seat passengers, 72% reported always using their seat belt in the rear. Full-time belt use was lower among passengers who primarily travel in the rear of hired vehicles compared with personal vehicles. The most common explanation for not buckling up was that the back seat is safer than the front. Four out of five agreed they do not buckle up because of type of trip; two-thirds forget or do not see the need; and two-thirds agreed with reasons related to design, comfort, or usability issues. Nearly 40% agreed that they sometimes do not buckle up in the rear because there is no law requiring it. Conclusion: Many reasons for not using belts in the rear are similar to reasons in the front, such as forgetfulness, inconvenience, or discomfort. One difference is that many rear-seat passengers perceive using the belt is unnecessary because the back seat is safer than the front. More than half of part-time belt users and nonusers reported interventions such as rear seat belt reminders, stronger belt-use laws, and more comfortable belts would make them more likely to use their seat belt in the rear seat. Practical applications: This study identifies barriers to rear seat belt use that point to the need for a multi-faceted approach to increase belt use.     

The Importance of Non-struck Side Occupants in Side Collisions

Current occupant protection assessment for side impact is focused on struck side occupants sitting alone. In a representative sample of tow-away side collisions from the UK, only one-third of front seat occupants in side collisions were alone, on the struck side of the car. The other two-thirds were either a non-struck side occupant alone or a situation where the adjacent seat was also occupied. In terms of restraint protection for non-struck side occupants, belts appeared to be less effective in perpendicular compared to oblique side crashes. Front seat occupancy had bearing on injury outcome. With both front seats occupied, there was a reduction in AIS 27+ injury to belted non-struck side occupants due to a reduction in chest and lower limb injuries. Struck side occupants sustained increased injury rates to the extremities when accompanied by a belted non-struck side occupant but no notable increases in moderate to serious injury to the head, chest, abdomen or pelvis.