Objective: The objective of this study was to quantify the population-based effects of a lower shoulder belt load limit on front row occupants in frontal car crashes.
Method: Crashes of modern vehicles from the GIDAS (German In-Depth Accident Study) are corrected for bias and projected to the national level. Injury risk functions are computed for the injury severity levels Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 2+, MAIS 3+, and fatal, stratified by 2 age cohorts (16–44 years of age and 45 years or older). To assess the field effectivity of a “softer belt,” the projected crash frequency data are modified separately for the 2 age cohorts such that its risk structure represents the risk of a softer belt. Given those 2 samples, the field effectivity of a softer belt is derived for several shares of the younger age cohort according to the injury severity levels MAIS 2+, MAIS 3+, and fatal.
Results: The injury risk distribution of the projected crash frequency data, represented here by the injury risk functions obtained, fits well into the injury risk distribution of other data sets (Sweden, United States, and Japan) given in the literature. The relative effects of a lower belt force are stable over the different ratios of the younger and old age cohorts. At the MAIS 2+ level, a lower belt force can significantly reduce the number of injuries (about 10%). A lower belt force does not significantly affect the number of MAIS 3+ injuries. A lower belt force can, however, more than double the number of fatal injuries.
Conclusions: Because the number of fatal injuries rises dramatically due to lower belt force, the reduction in the number of MAIS 2+ injuries comes at a very high cost. Therefore, whether reducing the belt force limit is the right approach is questionable. 相似文献
A telephone survey was conducted in four countries in November 1998 to compare drivers in the United States with those in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom regarding their attitudes toward seat belts and belt use laws. More than 90 percent of the 2251 respondents said they thought seat belts are effective, but self-reported belt use was significantly lower in the United States than in the other countries. Respondents in Australia and the United Kingdom had similar views about what they thought were important reasons for using seat belts and had the highest self-reported use. Reasons given for using belts by Canadian and US respondents were quite similar to one another, yet US respondents had significantly lower self-reported use rates, a difference thought to be due to vigorous enforcement of the law in Canada. US drivers were less likely than Australian and UK drivers to say they used belts out of habit, to avoid a ticket, or because it is required by law and more likely to say they used belts for situational reasons. US drivers were least likely to be in favor of belt use laws. Canadian drivers reported the most experience being checked by police for belt use and were most likely to think that nonusers would be caught. US drivers in primary enforcement jurisdictions were more likely than those in secondary jurisdictions to think that drivers not using belts would be caught and more likely to say they always used belts. Results of this survey indicate that seat belt use in the United States could be increased by adoption of primary enforcement laws and highly visible enforcement programs of the type used in Canada, and that seat belt use could be increased in all countries by increasing the penalties for nonuse. 相似文献