New Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic … · 2017. 6. 6. · the severity of such injuries are well documented and compared to previous time frames

Otte: Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic Accidents in comparing Drivers of Motorcycle and All Kinds of Motorized Two-wheelers 1

Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic Accidents in comparing Drivers of Motorcycle and All Kinds of Motorized Two-wheelers

Otte, D.*, Jänsch, M.*, Wiese, B.**

Accident Research Unit* and Biometric Institute**, Hannover Medical School

Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany

ABSTRACT

This study describes the injury frequency and injuries in detail for motorcycle drivers on German roads involved in traffic accidents and comparing the analysis with the whole group of all kinds of motorized two-wheelers. The study is based on documented accidents by GIDAS (German In-Depth-Accident Study). The current situation on injury frequencies on different body areas and the severity of such injuries are well documented and compared to previous time frames. Also the characteristics of the accident causes are analyzed on the basis of a special coding system ACAS (Accident Causation Analysis System) showing human factors responsible for the accident occurrence. For the present study 2.864 motorized two wheeler riders compared to 1.406 motorcycle drivers are used as representative distribution for the German situation, based on a statistical random selection of accident documentations and weighting procedure. Two-thirds of all motorized two-wheeler suffered from minor injuries MAIS 1 and 10% received severe injuries MAIS 3+. The trend of the last decades is shown a positive decrease of numbers in fatalities and severely injured riders. The smallest proportion of severe injuries MAIS 3+ can be observed for moped25 riders with 3.3%. The group of heavy motorcycles has a portion of 16.3% severely injured riders. Nearly 50% of the riders used protective clothes while 98% wear helmets. The impact location and load levels are discussed regarding an optimization of the safety level on the motorcycle and demands to the rider on protective equipment. Over 70% of the riders had contributed to the emergence of the accident with a human failure and in less than 2% of the cases a technical defect of the motorcycle was a contributing factor for causing the accident. Over 10% of the motorcycle riders had caused an accident due to an influence from the traffic environment or weather. This study will show that also demands to the drivers of motorcycles are needed to get further reduction in accident events.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Road users without a protective outer shell are called "Vulnerable Road User". This includes pedestrians, cyclists and motorized two-wheeler users (powered two wheelers PTW). The latter are categorized by the German and the EU vehicle classification regulation into „Kleinkrafträder“ (EU-class L1e, <45 km/h, <50 ccm) and motorcycles (L3e, L4e >50 ccm, >45 km/h). The so called „Kleinkrafträder“ include cycles (<50 ccm, <45 km/h), Mopeds and Mofas (<25 km/h) and Light Mofas (<30 ccm, <0.5 KW, <20 km/h). The motorcycles can be divided into motorcycles (>50 ccm, > 45 km/h), light motorcycles (<125 ccm, <11 KW) and heavy so called “standard” motorcycles (>125 ccm, >11 KW).

Due to the different types of PTW and their different use driving and motion behavior on public roads are different. There are also different requirements for limits of speed arising from the motor vehicle authorities within these groups. The protection existing for users of these PTW is


not fundamentally different, as there are helmets and protective clothing available. However the usage behavior is different riders of motorcycles almost generally use full face helmets protecting the whole head and often use protective clothing to protect the whole body also with special protectors. For scooters and mopeds however rarely a full face helmet is used, but more often half-shell helmets and open-face helmets. Protective clothes is also found in different frequencies depending on the type of PTW and special protectors inside the clothing are found almost exclusively among the riders of motorcycles (however also in rather low frequency of use).

The accidents which occur are often a reflection of driving performance, handling and traffic participation, while riders of PTW involved in accidents are found in almost all age groups. While crashed motorcyclists are quite often characterized by more mature ages, light motorcycles and scooters are mainly used by the younger generation. Age plays a part in the causes of accidents but also the results of suffering injuries as the biomechanical load limits of the elderly compared to the younger people are significantly reduced. The injury severity however is particularly influenced by the different masses of the colliding accident partners and thus by the loads transmitted to the body by the collision. Therefore the severity of the accident and the resulting injuries are different in the various groups of PTW.

It is currently estimated that there are about 30 million motorized two-wheelers in Europe, and a market for Europe is currently indicated to about 2.5 million two-wheelers annually (ACEM, 2007). Here, a heavy increase was observed in the years after 2005 (with only 2.0 million units). The trend of mopeds (<50 ccm) and scooters is now declining to about 1 million annually, in contrast the registrations of motorcycles (> 50 ccm) however is increasing by +3% to 1.5 million. Particularly in Asia motorized two-wheelers add to the overall picture of traffic. In India, for example, 69% of all motorized vehicles are motorized two-wheelers and 27% of all road deaths are among the group of riders of motorized two-wheelers. In Thailand it is estimated that 70-90% of road deaths and about 60% in Malaysia are from the group of riders of motorized two-wheelers. In many so-called "low and middle income countries" PTW are among the increasing means of transport. Consequently, it is not surprising that also many people of this road user group die in traffic of those countries. This is not the case in western countries, although there also many people are injured or killed every year by using these types of PTW. In the European Union about 40,000 people are killed in traffic each year (ETSC, 2008) of which in 2006 6,200 riders of PTW in the EU 25 countries lost their lives. These represent 16% of all traffic fatalities, while they only represent 2% of the total mileage driven. The risk to be killed is classified 18 times higher than with car drivers. It has been postulated that Norway, Switzerland, Denmark and Finland are the least dangerous countries for motorized two-wheelers, while the central and eastern Europe are represented as the most dangerous regions.

PTW users are particularly vulnerable as a result of the higher driving speeds collisions with heavier vehicles such as cars and trucks lead to high energy transmission. The use of protection such as helmet and protective clothing is common in many countries, but it is registered that in view of different temperatures from north to south the usage frequency varies. Similarly, half-shell and open-face helmets are used more frequently in southern countries. In Germany in 2012 99% of the drivers of PTW were wearing a helmet, only 53% wore additional protective clothing, 21% wore full protective clothing (BAST, 2013). It can be explained by the relatively high usage rate of protection gear that the injury situation on the road for motorcyclists now compared to previous years turns out positively. In 2009 651 killed motorcyclists were counted in Germany, about 18% less than 4 years ago (DeStatis, 2010). The number of killed PTW was


not decreased over the last further years, moped users on the other hand, remained also constant (at about 100 fatalities per year), which also applies to the number of injured.

As technical causes, given the high technical quality of vehicle engineering and road design, hardly come into appearance for the occurrence of accidents and also as vehicles are continu-ously optimized in terms of safety, human causes may be stated as the main source for the occur-rence of accidents. Especially to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities even further in the future the reduction of the absolute number of accidents is also required. Past studies revealed that the motorcyclist involved is obviously less culpable for the accident than the drivers of cars or trucks with which he collided. The neglecting of the right of way of the PTW by other road users is currently one of the most common causes of accidents (IFZ, 2004). According to the Association of insurance companies in situations where the motorcyclist was injured the car drivers often were to be blamed for the occurrence of the accident (Sporner, 1989).

The present study will clarify the extent to which the accident and injury situation has changed for the group of riders of PTW and which measures to increase safety must be sought in the future. For this it is effective to use the continuously carried out on-scene accident research in Hannover and Dresden (GIDAS) for analyzing the accident-structure. The study aims to analyze the structural characteristics of the different types of road users based on detailed documented traffic accidents and thereby identify injury priorities and mechanisms in connection with the used protective equipment such as a helmet and protective clothing. Furthermore accident causation factors and characteristics therefore should be identified.

BASIS OF THE STUDY

As part of GIDAS about 2,000 traffic accidents involving personal injury are documented annually by scientific teams in Hanover and Dresden since 1999. The reconstruction of the driving and collision velocities as well as the detailed documentation of the sustained injuries is recognized through the comprehensive collection of information (Otte, 2003 and Brühning, 2005). By means of a new coding system of accident causation factors (ACAS Accident Causation Analysis System) accident-relevant situations can be worked out and prophylactic measures can be defined (Otte, 2009 and Pund, 2006). The injuries are recorded based on the AIS (AAAM, 1998) and injury severities using the usual definition according to MAIS (maximum single-AIS on all registered injuries) are compared to the technical framework. For the determination of the collision and driving speeds, the traces of the accident scene are documented in a scaled drawing using 3D laser technology and the crash collision analysis is conducted by the simulation software PC-Crash (Otte, 2005). Based on the documentation of traffic accidents by statistically representative sampling methods and by an annually renewed matching of the data, the accident data in GIDAS can be regarded as representative for Germany (Pfeiffer, 2006).

The analysis of the statistically weighted data set was made as descriptive statistics. Therefore unknown parameters in the data set were not included, so that hereby the presented tables and graphs may display different numbers of “n”.

To display the current accident and injury situations of road users the official statistics of traffic accidents in a country is to be look at. In order to implement measures to increase road safety for motorcyclists, it is necessary to carry out further detailed surveys that are done in a comprehensive and detailed analysis, including reconstruction of the accident on the example of the Accident Research Unit Hanover. The on scene accident research provides detailed information about vehicle damage for the two-wheeler as well as for the collision partners cars

Otte: InjDrivers

and truincludinthe impcan be dtechnicainvolvedof vehicalso proinvolvedconductFederal FAT sidocumesamplin

DATA

For the this accunknowwere unriders o1). Thesinjury spassive avoidanlatter a accidenHannovcausatio

Figure 1

njury Severi of Motorcy

ucks. Accesng consideraact and injudeterminedal accident d. These cacles and peoovide inford and failurted in GermHighway R

nce 1999. ent 2000 trang method (P

STRUCTU

present studidents with

wn informatnknown sucof powered tse 2 groupsituation of msafety (inju

nce strategiesubsample

nt causes (Aver Medical on factors co

Sample F

ty and Causycle and All

ss to the ination of X-rury kinemat. Essential circumstan

an be reconsople involvrmation abores in the dr

many as partResearch InTwo teamffic accidenPfeiffer, 20

URE OF TH

dy GIDAS h motorized tion such ah as injury two-wheeles are compamotorcyclisury and injues) will be of the year

ACAS AccidSchool. Th

ollected fro

Frame of the

sation Factol Kinds of M

njured is arays and instics of the richaracteristces such as

structed withed using meout the accriving task. t of the GIDnstitute and s, one each

nts involving06).

HE STUDY

data from thtwo-wheeles cases witinformation

ers includingared within sts compareury severity

analyzed ars 2008-201dent Causatihis is a specm interview

Study for GI

ors of MotoMotorized Tw

allowed andsight into thiders of twotics of an evs impact spth the use ofechanical pcident deveSuch a comDAS projec

d the Researh in the reg personal i

Y

he years 19ers (n=3,47thout ridersn, head injug 1,406 mothis study.

ed to the groand their d

as a snapsh2 was chosion Analysi

cial coding sws and accid

IDAS Databa

orcyclists inwo-wheeler

d thus the he medical do-wheelers avaluation oeed and relf traces on t

principles. Inelopment, s

mprehensivect (German rch Associaegions of Hinjury (Brüh

99-2011 (n=74) were sels, and casesury, wearingotorcyclists

On the oneoup of all P

distributionsot of the cusen as for this System) wsystem of hdent descrip

ase (left: pas

Traffic Accrs

detailed kndocumentatas well as thf the traumlative speedthe roadwaynterviews oituational aaccident reIn-Depth A

ation for AuHannover ahning, 2005

=24,013) wected. Afters in which

g of safety hremained foe hand this

PTW, on the) and activeurrent accidhis data a spwas started

human, vehiptions (Otte,

ssive safety, r

cidents in co

knowledge tion is availhe mechani

ma developmd between ty and the poof accident pactions of esearch is coAccident Stuutomotive Tand Dresde5) based on

were analyzer excludingimportant

helmet, a totfor the analy

study will e other hande safety (caudent situatiopecial class

d in the inveicle and env, 2009).

right: active

omparing 4

of injuries,lable, hencecs of injury

ment are thethe vehiclesoints of restparticipantsthe driversontinuouslyudy) by theTechnologyen annuallya statistical

ed and fromg cases with

parameterstal of 2,864ysis (Figuredisplay the

d aspects ofusation andon. For thesification ofestigation atvironmental

safety)

4

, e y e s t s s y e y y l

m h s 4 e e f d e f t l

Otte: InjDrivers

INJUR

The anathe catemotoriz

1. “2. “

t3. “

l4. “

(

The injuuninjure(Otte, 1injury sOnly a the seveoccupanwhich amotorcy

Figure 2motorizobservegroup oportion

Figure 2


RY SITUAT

alysis is conegories validzed two-whe

“Mofa”: m“Mokick”: this study re“Kleinkraftlight motor“Motorrad”(heavy) mo

uries are claed, AIS 1 m1995). 57.3%everity of Mcomparison

erely injurednts were coa proportionycling has a

2 shows thzed two-whed for mopeof light motof 16.3% se

Maximumeach grou


TION OF M

nducted ford in Germaeelers”:

maximum spengine dispeferred to atrad”: with arcycle ”: with an enotorcycle an

assified by minor, AIS 2% of all mMAIS 2 andn with otherd is of imponsidered (d

n of the seva 6.6-times h

hat the propheelers. Thued25 riders torcycles haeverely inju

m injury seveup)


MOTORCY

r the differeany. There a

eed of 25 kplacement ofs moped an engine di

ngine displand compar

the Abbrev2 moderate

motorcyclistsd 11.9% of mr road usersortance for tdata source Gverely injurehigher risk t

portion of thus, the smawith 3.3%.

as a proportured riders.

erity grades f


YCLISTS

ent types ofare 4 major

km/h , in thisf up to 50 c

isplacement

acement of red to the g

viated Injuryand AIS 3

s suffered fmotorcycliss allows an the whole aGIDAS 201ed occupanto suffering

he severelyallest propo The grouption of 8.8%

for motorcyc


f motorized r categories

s study refeccm and a m

t of up to 12

over 125 ccroup of all

y Scale (AIsevere up to

from minor st suffered fassessmentccident situ13, accidents MAIS 3+

g serious inj

y injured ridortion of sps of moped% and the g

clists of diffe

Traffic Accrs

two wheelsummarize

rred to as mmaximum sp

25 ccm in th

cm, in this sPTW

S) in 6 dego AIS 6 (AIinjuries M

from serioust to what ex

uation. For tts of 2000-2+ results in uries.

ders varies evere injurds have a prgroup of hea

erent two-wh

cidents in co

lers PTW aed in the gr

moped25 peed of 45 k

his study re

study referre

grees of sevIS 3+) (AA

MAIS 1, 25.s injuries ofxtent the prthis purpose2012, n = 21.8%.This

for differeries MAIS roportion oavy motorc

heeler-groups

omparing 5

ccording toroup of “all

km/h, in

ferred to as

ed to as

verity AIS 0AAM, 1998)

6% had anf MAIS 3+.roportion ofe, belted car21,668), forshows that

ent types of3+ can bef 7.5%, the

cycles has a

s (100%

5

o l

0 ) n . f r r t

f e e a

Otte: InjDrivers

The relethe relaaccount80% of which mmotorcy

A higheriders o+, wher51 to 12vehicle

That thewhen anPTWs wof PTWinjuries is visiblof sever

Figure 3

An influFrom thyear old

ACCID

The clas7 accidesituation


evant paramative velocit. 80% of ththe relative

means that ycle itself.

er injury sevof motorcyclreas only 7.25 ccm disphas no influ

e riders of bnalyzing diwith an eng

Ws with an is also influ

le especiallyrely injured

Maximum

uence of injhe sample ods a certaint

DENT TYP

ssification oent types wn which led


meter for theity betweenhe relative se speeds of t

motorcycle

verity can ales with an .7% of the placement cuence on th

bigger motoifferent clas

gine power oengine pow

uenced by ty for light-w(MAIS 3+)

m injury seve

jury severityof cases a wty however

PES

of accident which is alsod to the acc


e injury seven the collidspeeds for tthe total groe accidents

also be deteengine dispmoped rideclass. Howe injury sev

orcycles havsses of engof 50-75 kWwer greaterthe power toweight mot) riders is ab

erity grade an

y for differeweak trend tcannot be g

situations co used in ofcident imme


erity appareding vehiclethe motorcyoup of powe

are obviou

ected at higplacement oers (up to 5

wever the averity.

ve a higher gine power W are severr than 75 ko weight rattorcycles wibout twice a

nd power to

ent age groutowards hig

given due to

can be donefficial accidediately bef


ently is the ies in whichyclists are bered two-whusly charact

her engine over 750 cc0 ccm) and

analysis sho

incidence oof the PTW

rely injured kW. Conseqtio (mass/kWith high powas high as fo

weight ratio

ups of motogher injury o the small n

e on the basdent statisticfore collisio

Traffic Accrs

impact speeh the collisbelow 60 kmheelers are fterized by

displacemecm were sevd 8.9% of riows that th

of severe injWs. While this share r

quently theW) of the vwer (0-3 kgor the other

(100% each

orcyclists, hseverity ma

number of p

is of a classcs (GDV, 19on is consid

cidents in co

ed which is sion angle m/h. Compfound to bea higher sp

ent. Thus 15verely injuriders with P

he curb we

juries can a15% of th

rises to 25%e proportionvehicle (Figug/kW) wherr power wei

h group)

however, is ay be seen people in the

sification sy998). Here dered. It tur

omparing 6

resulted bycomes intoared to this

e at 50 km/hpeed of the

5.8% of thered MAIS 3PTW in theight of the

also be seenhe riders of% for ridersn of severeure 3). Thisre the shareght classes.

not visible.for over 60e sample.

ystem usingthe conflictrns out that

6

y o s h e

e 3 e e

n f s e s e

. 0

g t t

Otte: InjDrivers

riders oturning 26.5%. well as relativelinjuries betweendirectio

Form fconstellcollision(Otte, 1

Figure 4

Figure 5

For PTWand thecommonconfiguturn outPTW cothe PTWprovide


of PTW arein or crossAccidents accidents w

ly constant MAIS 2 c

n a turning n.

from the clations resun types. He998) which

4 Collision (n=1,406)

Collision (n=1,406)types)

W in generae single vehn collision

urations are t to be the tollides into W practicall a particular


e mostly insing road uinvolving pwith stationfor almost an be seen off road us

conflict situult between ere 7 collisih are scientif

configuratio), 100% all p

configuratio) and maxim

al, the obliqhicle accidetypes (see most commtypes 2,3,4,the front ofly perpendicr exposure t


nvolved in auser withoutpedestrians nary traffic all types ofin driving er and a roa

uations (accmotorcycle

ion types wfically wide

ons (types) opersons in ea

ons (types) omum injury se

que collisionent with imFigure 5). A

mon (20.3%,5 and 7. Thf the collisiocular into thto head inju


accidents wt priority an(cutting ac at 5.2%. Tf accidents accidents aad user com

cident typee and oppo

were establisely recogniz

f all motorcyach diagram

f all motorcyeverity grade

n frontally impact with Also for mo

% respective he most sevon opponenhe side of thuries, often a


which occurnd a vehicl

cross the roaThe proport(10-15%), y

and “turningming from t

es) betweenonent, whicshed based zed and ofte

ycles (n=2,84

ycles (n=2,84e of motorcyc

into the sideobjects (ty

otorcyclists48.8%). Th

vere collisiont at an obliqhe car in thassociated w

Traffic Accrs

rred due tole with prioadway) are tion of sevyet a high pg off accidehe same dir

n the partich are scienon a forme

en found in

48) and moto

48) and motoclist (100% e

e of a vehiclype 7 with s (> 125 ccmhe most sevons are founque angle ae area of thwith trauma

cidents in co

o a conflict ority at cro rare at onl

verely injureproportion oents” due torection or th

ies differenntifically cler study of literature.

orcycles > 12

orcycles > 12each group o

le (type 4 w44.7%) ar

m) these twvere types ond in type 2

as well as thhe compartma to the entir

omparing 7

between assings withly 2.4%, ased riders isof moderateo a conflicthe opposite

nt collisionlassified bythe authors

25 ccm

25 ccm of collision

with 21.1%)re the mostwo collisionof collisions2 where thehe impact ofment. Thesere body

7

a h s s e t e

n y s

) t n s e f e

Otte: InjDrivers

INFLU

To detegroups wsee Figuin Germ(BAST,severe hthat hadmuch leinjuries helmet.

Figure 6

Thus, thhigher pparticulhelmet winjured traumatwith the

The folstudy:

This hiconside


UENCE OF

ermine the ewere formeure 6. The r

many is foun, 2009). Whhead injuried not used ess with hel

are less fr

6 Injury sevand witho

he protectivproportion arly evidenwhere seriodue to the

tized victime absence of

lowing redu

AIS 1 AIS 2 AIS 3+

igh level oring the inju


A SAFETY

effectivenesed, riders wiratio of the nnd to be at 9hen considees AIS 3+ ithe helmet

lmet use wirequent at 7

verity grade out helmet)

ve effect of tof uninjure

nt, when coous injuries e helmet. T

ms (per definf severe hea

uction of in

minus 3 minus 2 minus 2

of protectioury-frequen


Y HELME

ss of a safetith safety henumber of c99% accordiring the injis found wi

(4.3%). Alith 9%, com7.6% with

head with an

the helmet ied riders wionsidering toften occurThis is parnition more ad injuries, t

njury sever

4% 22% 1%

on providedncy of differ


ET ON THE

ty helmet ielmet (n = 2cases showsing to studiury severity

ith riders thlso, the inju

mpared to 1the protect

nd without us

is clearly viith helmet (the overall r at the totalrticularly imthan 3 inju

the chances

rity with the

d by a morent body re


E SEVERI

n the accid2,725) and s the high ues of the Fey by AIS, a

hat had usedury severity1.5% of casive helmet

se of helmet

isible, which(80%) than

injury sevl body, whilmportant fo

ured body res of survival

e use of a

otorcycle hegions (Figu

Traffic Accrs

TY OF INJ

ent situatioriders withosage rate ofederal Highw

significantd the helmey of AIS 2 ses without compared

(100% each

h leads to thwithout he

verity MAISle the head

for patients egions withl can be imp

helmet can

elmet can ure 7). Moto

cidents in co

JURY

on of riders out helmet f safety helmway Researtly lower pret (3.4%) ve (moderatea helmet. Eto 11.5% w

h group of pe

he effect thelmet (72.7S of all ridis not or leshospitalize

h AIS 3+ eaproved with

n be deduce

also be foorcyclists (P

omparing 8

of PTW, 2(n = 139) –

mets, whichrch Instituteroportion ofersus riders) shows upEven AIS 1without the

rsons – with

at there is a%). This isders with ass seriouslyed as poly

ach), so thath a helmet.

ed from the

ound whenPTW > 125

8

2 – h e f s p

e

a s a y y t

e

n 5

Otte: InjDrivers

ccm) onmore fre

Figure 7

Arm injwere prEspeciathan witsuch asreason fexceptiofound w

Figure 8


nly had headequently ob

frequenciall person

juries wereresent at 67.ally thoracicth riders of protective for the diffeon of the he

within the ot

Frequencseverity g


d injuries inbserved.

ies of injuredns each group

present at .2% of motoc injuries haf other type

clothing aerences betwelmet whichther types o

ies of injuredgrades AIS (1


n 19.9% of

d body regionp)

44.1% of torcyclists. Pave the highs of PTW. Hnd with spween the dih is used byf PTW (Ott

d body areas100 % all inj


the cases, w

ns of motorc

the injured Particularlyher percentaHere obvioecial impacifferent typey nearly allte, 1991).

s with and wijured body ar


while the in

yclists for di

motorcycliy common aages with ri

ously the coct energy aes of PTWl riders of P

ithout protecreas)

Traffic Accrs

njuries to oth

ifferent types

ists (> 125 are also chesiders of mombination o

absorption z(Otte, 1987

PTW, protec

ctive clothing

cidents in co

ther body re

s of motorcy

ccm) and st injuries w

otorcycles (>of the used zones seem7). In contractive clothin

g related to th

omparing 9

egions were

ycles (100%

leg injurieswith 35.5%.> 125 ccm)protection,

ms to be theast with theng is rarely

he injury

9

e

s . ) , e e y

Otte: InjDrivers

In the sprotectiprotectianalyzinseverityclear res

It is remprotectiexisting

DEVELINJUR

The saftime poinvestigmethodosevere i2003-11nearly 5

Figure 9

Figure 1


scope of thve clothes ve clothes. ng at whichy grade accsult regardin

markable hove clothes

g effectivene

LOPMENTRY OUTCO

fety level caositions. Hgation carrieology of acinjury grade1 for users o50% over th

Frequenc(100% all

0 Frequenconly relat


his study an(Figure 8

An analysih body regording to Ang the effec

owever thatare higher

ess of prote

T OF SAFEOME IN TR

an be detectere GIDASed out at tccident sames MAIS 3+of PTW. Th

he time perio

y of injury sl persons eac

y of injury sted to differe


n attempt w). For thiss based on a

gions the riAIS were foctiveness co

t the identifor almost

ctive clothi

ETY FOR MRAFFIC AC

ted in lookiS can be usthe Medical

mpling. It ca+ are reducehere could bod of more

everity gradech year perio

everity gradeent year grou


was made tos purpose, all persons ider was w

found thereould be seen

ified percent all body ring for rider

MOTORCYCCIDENT

ing to the insed for suchl Universityan be seen ed with the be seen a rethan 20 yea

es MAIS of aod)

es MAIS of aups (100% all


o determineriders werincluded in

wearing protby percent

n here.

ntages for Aregions. Thrs of PTW.

YCLISTS AS

njury severih overview y Hannovein Figuresfactor of ne

eduction of ars.

all motorcyc

all motorcycl persons eac

Traffic Accrs

e the effectre considern the study (tective clottage frequen

AIS 1 injurihis could be

AND PTW

ity in trafficregarding t

r since 1989 and 10

early 3 fromseverely in

clists related t

clists on motoch year perio

cidents in co

tiveness of red with an(100%) wasthes and wncy. Unfort

ies withoute an indica

W BASED O

c accidents the fact tha85 by usingthat the pr

m the years njured moto

to different y

orcycles withod)

omparing 10

f the use ofnd withouts conductedhich injurytunately no

t the use ofation of the

ON THE

at differentat in-depth-g the sameoportion of1985-93 to

orcyclists of

year groups

h > 125 ccm

0

f t d y o

f e

t -e f o f

Otte: InjDrivers

CAUSEDRIVE

A look cause acausers acciden

Figure 1

The graPTW tomain caroad usexperienrisk begyear oldof younOn one young rbetweenwhile oaccidenaccidenphysica

For the is of speled to th(Accideand preACAS care colldivided technolo


ES OF TRAERS

into the Gaccidents at

of an age gnt (Figure 11

1: Germanparticip

aph shows tho all road usausation leadsers the risnce over thgins to rise d again havng novice ro

hand the yroad users nn 60 and 70other road unt. So elderlnts than othally fit senio

prevention ecial imporhe development Causatioesented at icausation faected for ea

in to threogy (group


AFFIC AC

erman natiot the same group with t1).

n national staants for diffe

he quotient sers. Thus fds to the dr

sk of causihe years to for road us

ve a risk of oad users. Inoung ridersnot using a

0 when in anusers at thaly motorcycher types oors use PTW

of accidentrtance. Thusment of a spon Analysisinternationaactors of traach accidenee differen2) and fac


CIDENTS

onal statistirate. This

the amount

atistics 2010:erent age gro

of accidentfor exampleiver of the Png an acciabout 47% ers over 60causing the

nterestingly s of PTW ara PTW (66%n accident oat age whencle riders sef road user

W.

ts with VRUs the need fpecial tool fSystem), w

al conferencaffic accide

nt participannt groups: ctors from t


INVOLVE

ics shows tis revealedof road use

: Quotient ofoups, compar

t causers to e young roaPTW whenident decrefor road u

0 years of age accident w

this graph hre less likel%). On theonly have a n in an acceem to be mrs at that a

U above all for in-depthfor the colle

which was dces in 2006ents which cnt. AccordinHuman facthe driving


ED POWER

that road usd when comers at that ag

f causers of aring riders of

all accidend users (age

n involved ineases with sers aged bge to a poin

which with ohas a visiblely to be the

other handrisk of 43%

cident in 50more cautioage. It is a

the knowleh accident caection and cdeveloped b6 and 2009contributed ng to the ACctors (grouenvironme

Traffic Accrs

RED TWO

sers dependmparing thege group wh

accidents andf PTW with a

nt participaned 18-21) inn an accidenthe age an

between 40 nt where theover 60% he deviation causer of a

d elderly rid% to be the 0% of the cous in traffiassumed tha

edge of the causation datcoding of su

based on the(Pund, 200to the eme

CAS methoup 1), factoent and/or f

cidents in co

O-WHEEL-

ding of the e amount o

which did no

d all accidentall road user

nts comparinn 66% of thnt. For the gnd with gai

and 60. Hoe group of thas nearly rfor the ride

an accident ders of PTWcauser of thcases have ic and causeat more me

causes of thata in accideuch data ca

e GIDAS m06 and Otteergence of todology theors from tfrom the in

omparing 11

-

age do notof accidentsot caused an

t s.

ng riders ofhe cases thegroup of allining moreowever thisthe over 75eached that

ers of PTW:(57%) thanW of ageshat accidentcaused the

e less oftenentally and

he accidentsent researchalled ACAS

methodologye, 2009). Inhe accident

e factors arethe vehiclefrastructure

1

t s n

f e l e s 5 t : n s t e n d

s h S y n t e e e

Otte: InjDrivers

(group 3causes owith the

Figure 1

For all (over 90vehicle cases. Tanalyzeto an aaccidenthe groua contricaused riders oHoweveinfluenctraffic afactors, in a chro

Compoall fieldtechnoloenvironaccordinsubdivid13. Thefurther s


3). Figure 1of motorcyce causes of c

2: Distributiheavy (>

types of ro0%) thus thin general

The fact thad but can b

accident mont causes anup of factoributing factby motorcy

of PTW areer environmce on the traccidents. T

which is aconological s

osition of 4-ds of interaogy of the

nment (so cngly with alded into spe

ese categorisubdivided


12 displays tcle riders (licar drivers.

on of accide>125ccm) an

oad users thhe focus of

rarely conat here motobe explainedore frequennd a more sirs from the tor from theycles had a e even mor

mental condiraction. As

The core of tchieved by sequence fr

-digit-code ction can b

e vehicle acalled 3 dill human caecific categoes are descinto charac


the distribuight and hea

nt causation nd light moto

he vast majof this analysntribute to torcycles had by the effetly with mignificant denvironmene environmcontributin

re dependenitions like rseen in Fig

the ACAS sdescribing

rom the perc

on accidenbe expectedand (3) cauifferent groausation facories of cau

cribed by thteristic influ


ution of causavy motorcy

factors on thorcycles (<12

ority of causis is on thithe emergenave higher rfect of a veh

motorcycles difference bnt. While on

ment some 1ng factor front on the c

rain or a poogure 12 humsystem therethe human

ception to a

nt-causationd: (1) Humauses from oups), givenctors in grouusation factohe 2nd numuence criter


sation factoycles depen

he three grou25ccm) with

usation factis group of nce of accirates of cauhicle failure

than with etween carsnly 6.4% of14% respectom the envicontinuous or conditionman factors efore is basparticipatio

a concrete ac

n-factors. Ian causes, the range n the first up 1. Each oors, as seen

mber of the ria (3rd num

Traffic Accrs

rs on the thnding on the

ups of the ACcars (100%

tors are relacauses. Te

ident with fuses in this (e.g. blowncars. A higs and motorf the accidentively over ironment. Ttraction be

n of the roadyield over

ed on the anon factors - ction/operat

n road traff(2) causes of the infrnumber of

of the three exemplarilcausation c

mber of the c

cidents in co

hree groups,e engine dis

CAS system,each vehicle

ated to humechnical failfewer than group was n tire) whicgher influercycles cannts caused b19% of th

The reason etween tiresd surface har 90% of thnalysis of thand failure

tion.

fic accidentsfrom the ra

frastructure f the causafields of in

ly for groupcode. Each code), whic

omparing 12

comparingsplacement)

comparing e type).

man failureslures of the3% of thenot further

ch may leadence on then be seen inby cars had

he accidentshere is thats and road.ave a stronge causes ofhese humanes of these -

s causes forange of theand/or the

ation code,nteraction isp 1 in Figure

category isch represent

2

g )

s e e r d e n d s t .

g f n -

r e e , s e s t

Otte: InjDrivers

the moseach infthe grou

Figure 1

Examplrecogniz

Explana1); Not number of the cthe code

For the was anamotorcy

Figure 1


st frequent ffluence criteup of the ve

3: Compos

le: If someze importan

ation: The arecognizing

r = 2); The code = 1); Te = 3)

present studalyzed againycles with th

4: FrequenComparvehicle


factors, whieria can be

ehicle techni

sition of the

one were dnt traffic inf

accident cag somethinginfluence cThe distrac

dy the frequn comparinghe situation

ncy distributirison of heavtype)


ich led to anfurther specical defects

ACAS-code

distracted bformation, th

1 – 2use is fromg is a failurriterion hertion in the

uency-distrig the situati

n of car driv

ion of humanvy (>125ccm


an accident. cified by spof accident

e – here exem

by a convehe code of t2 – 01 – 3

m the group re in the care is a distrvehicle occ

ibution of huion of rider

vers (Figure

n causation fm) and light m


Only in theecific indict influences

mplarily for th

rsation withthis cause w Code of human c

ategory of thraction fromcurred due t

uman causars of light (<14).

factors on themotorcycles (

Traffic Accrs

e human caators (4th ncan be stat

he Group 1 (

h a passenwould be:

causation fahe informatm inside the to a passen

ation factors<125 ccm) a

e 5 categorie(<125ccm) w

cidents in co

ausation facnumber of thted.

(human facto

nger, and th

factors (firsttion admissie vehicle (thnger (fourth

s on the fiveand heavy (

es of human fwith cars (100

omparing 13

tor group 1he code). In

ors)

hus did not

t number =ion (second

hird numberh number of

e categories(>125 ccm)

failures. 0% each

3

n

t

d r f

s )

Otte: InjDrivers

When l(15.5%)two-whfailures by builsubsequcommonoverview

In categthe rideinforma16.9%).wrong fhave les

The thirmisintercategoryfrequenof the cstabilityMotorcy

Failuresas with of the crelated traffic vviolatio(in over

Cadrtrminjrid

Figure 1


ooking at t) more freq

heelers (7.4%of car driv

ldings, veguently poor n with riderw and less f

gory 2 (Infers of PTWation which . A further focus of attss sources o

rd categoryrpretations. y than car

ncy among tcases). Typy) as well asycles are no

s from the ccar drivers.ars (both apto the rider

violations” ns of heavy

r 2/3rds of th

Case examplriving at hiraffic light otorcycle, f

njured (MAIder was tra

5: Case ex


the first caquently had % respectivvers are mosetation or visibility

rs of PTW frequently r

formation a. In over 50contributedanalysis re

tention thanof distraction

y (InformaRiders of Pdrivers (20

the PTWs ispical factorss a misjudgot evident in

category 4 (. Interestingpprox. 18%rs of heavy (in over 40

y motorcyclhe cases of

le: The 29 igh speed ain front offell over andIS 3) and ta

avelling at a

xample


tegory (Infa problem ely 5.6%).

stly related other vehice.g. due toas they gen

ride during b

admission)0% of the cd to the emevealed thatn the riders n like passe

ation evaluaPTWs (29.40%). Lookis often relats here are ament of the

n this group

(Planning ogly, here the). The incremotorcycle% of the cales (> 125 cintentional

year old ralong a majf him changd slid again

aken to hospabout 120 km


formation with the inThe analysto factors licles on the

o heavy rainerally havbad weathe

) again car cases car dr

mergence of t drivers ofof PTW. T

engers or in

ation) cons4% respectiing into th

ated to a misa misjudgme own speed.

of an actione level of theased propoes and hereases). The acc) shows th

violations)

rider of a ajor city roaged to red nst the polepital. A recm/h where t


access) it bnformation ais of the coike hidden Ie one handn on the oe a higher r.

drivers morrivers had athe acciden

f cars are mThis seems

car electron

ists of failuvely 33.3%

hese causatisjudgment o

ment of the d. Major dif

n) are twicehe light motortion of plae only due tanalysis of hat this is m. See the ca

heavy motad with thr

he started of the traffonstructionthe speed lim

Traffic Accrs

becomes obaccess than

odes of this Informationd and inforother hand. seating pos

re frequentla failure of nt (PTW onmore often quite plausnics.

ures concern%) more ofte

ion factors of the own vehicle be

fferences be

as likely wtorcycles (<anning errorto the subcathe distribu

mainly a matse example

torcycle (Suree lanes ind to brake, ffic lights. Thn of the accimit was 50 k

cidents in co

bvious that the riders category re

n (e.g. crashormation m

Both effecsition and th

ly have proacquiring t

nly 25.8% rdistracted

sible as ride

ning misjuden have fail

reveals thavehicle (in

ehavior (dynetween light

with the ride<125 ccm) isrs (over 45%ategory of “ution of the tter of exce.

uzuki GSX-n his direct

lost controThe driver w

ident reveakm/h.

omparing 14

car driversof powered

evealed thath opponent)asking andcts are lesshus a better

oblems thanthe relevantrespectivelyand have aers of PTW

gments andlures in thisat the highabout 20%

namics andt and heavy

rs of PTWss about that%) is solely“intentionalintentional

ssive speed

-R750) wastion. As theol over his

was severelyled that the

4

s d t ) d s r

n t y a

W

d s h

% d y

s t y l l d

s e s y e

Otte: InjDrivers

Failures(23.3% errors” is more cause ofis still wresults inot as w

To answsituationTherefocategoriinformafocus ofwith 36human admissileaves naccidenin time,avoidan

Figure 1

When lccm (Fisimilar


s from caterespectivelas well “readifficult th

f an accidenwell possiblin a crash. T

widespread a

wer the quen, the caus

ore in a firsies was anation admissf attention) .2% and of failures. Aon failures no or very l

nts based on , but was j

nce maneuve

6: Injury sPTWs (

ooking at tigure 17) thqualitative


egory 5 (Oy 17.5%) thaction errorhan that of cnt: While it le with motoThese casesas for cars.

estion whetsation factost step the inalyzed for sion failurehave visibl

f severe injuA possible

the relevanlittle time foan informa

just misinteer.

everity distri(100% each c

the group ohe correlatio

characteris


Operation)han with cars” are commcars. Especiis difficult orcycles as can are stil

ther the typors of riderinjury sever

all types e (e.g. the rly caused huries (MAISexplanation

nt informatiofor a possiblation admisserpreted/fals

ibution for dcategory of c

of riders of on between tstic. While


are signifiar drivers (omon with Pially when ito cause anan over brall common

pes of humrs of PTWsrity distribuof PTWs

rider misseshigher shareS 3+) with 1n here is ton often pole avoidancsion failure sely estima

different typecausation fac

motorcyclethe accidenaccidents c


cantly moronly 7.2%). TW riders. it comes to accident duaking and bin real life

man causes s were corution for dif

(Figure 16s to see a rees of modera11.6% than that with aossibly was ce maneuveimply that

ated which

es of human cctor)

es with an nt causes andcaused by a

Traffic Accrs

re frequent Both types The handlinbraking wi

ue to wronglocking of taccidents w

have an inrrelated witfferent type6). Accidenelevant roadate injuries the acciden

accidents canot seen atr like brakithe relevantmay have

causation cat

engine dispd the injuryan informat

cidents in co

with riders“mix up- o

ng of PTWith PTWs thg braking wthe front wh

while ABS f

nfluence onth the injures of humannts caused d user due (MAIS 2)

nts caused daused by It all or verying. On the t informatioleft time t

tegories from

placement oy severity shation admiss

omparing 15

s of PTWsor operations in generalhis can be aith cars thisheel mostlyfor PTWs is

n the injuryry severity.n causationdue to anto a wrongto the rider

due to otherInformationy late which

other handon was seento begin an

m riders of

of over 125hows a verysion failure

5

s n l a s y s

y . n n g r r n h d n n

5 y e

Otte: InjDrivers

again hawith ovidentifiehigher w

Figure 1

SIGNIF An ordiaccidenpowered

Table 1


ave high ratver 10%, ned due to thwith riders o

7: Injury smotorcyfactor)

FICANCE

inal logisticnts as well ad two-whee

Effect RelativAge Crash wAnnualInformInformInformPlanninOperatiType o

Statisticgrade M


tes of modeno significahe low numof motorcyc

everity distriycles with an

OF SEVER

c regressionas other paraeler, crash w

ve velocity

weight l mileage ation accessation admisation evaluang ionf powered t

cal analysisMAIS


erate injurieant differen

mber of casecles than wi

ibution for dn engine disp

RAL ACCI

n was perfoameters (Ta

weight, age,

s ssion ation

two-wheeler

s of effects o


es (MAIS 2)nces betwees. As expeith riders of

different typeplacement of

IDENT PA

ormed to exble 1). In adrelative vel

DF Ch

1 511811111

r 1

of several a


) with 50% een the othcted the sha

f all types of

es of human cf over 125 ccm

ARAMETE

xamine theddition to thlocity and th

Wald hi-Square50.93418.84863.96417.47234.56256.21020.08220.03690.33004.9166

accident par

Traffic Accrs

and of seveher causatioares of sevef PTWs.

causation catm (100% eac

ERS FOR IN

e influence he causes ohe annual m

Pr > Ch

<.0000.00290.04650.48660.03270.01270.77430.84770.56570.0266

rameters fo

cidents in co

ere injuries on categorere injuries

tegories fromch category o

NJURY SE

of both theof accidents mileage wer

hiSq

1 9 5 6 7 7 3 7 7 6

or the injury

omparing 16

(MAIS 3+)ies can beare visibly

m riders of of causation

EVERITY

e causes ofthe type ofe included.

severity

6

) e y

f f


Here, a separate category was created for "unknown" annual mileage to not exclude those cases in the analysis. The significant p-values are highlighted in yellow.

It turns out that in addition to age, relative speed, crash weight and type of powered two-wheeler the human causation categories “information access” and “information admission” have a significant impact on the injury severity, while the relative velocity has a highly significant impact.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study of accidents of powered two-wheelers in comparison to the group of motorcycles showed that the injury situation of both groups improved steadily over the past few years. Still, a share of 8.4% of severely injured and most severely injured (MAIS 3+) riders in the group all PTWs and correspondingly 13.1% in the group of motorcyclists is registered. With a high proportion of slightly injured (MAIS 1) of 60 to 65%, a high level of safety is achieved on the road. Wearing the motorcycle helmet here proves especially beneficial to the resulting injury frequency and injury severity of a person, as with motorcyclists only 19.9% suffered head injuries. Motorcyclists are well protected by the helmet; the study reveals an effectiveness of the helmet usage in relation to a reduction of head injuries AIS 1 to minus 34% and AIS 2 to minus 22% and severe head injuries AIS 3+ to minus 21%.

The study could also determine the protective effect of protective clothing, however not with the expected significance. Here influences of different materials, the different use of protective clothing for different body regions and the sometimes very low use of protective clothing result in an undetectable effect in the statistical sample.

Since the distributions of the relative velocities of the considered groups of motorcycles and other PTW not very much different from each other, the collision constellations define the outcome of injury in relation to the collision types only a little. The most serious consequences occur when the rider’s body collides relative to the chassis of the collision partner. Cars thus only represent a particular danger at accidents at crossings with the possibility of the rider to hit the passenger compartment, with trucks almost all collisions against front, side or rear are equally dangerous. Here the study revealed a high proportion of oblique collisions of two wheelers against the vehicle side with both cars and trucks (collision type 4 with about 21%). Particularly among motorcyclists this type as well as the perpendicular frontal crash against the side of the vehicle (type 3) showed a high proportion of severely injured MAIS 3+. Relatively common are single-vehicle crashes of motorcyclists with about 45%. This also includes those collisions where another two-wheeler or a pedestrian were involved. Severe injuries AIS 3+ are particularly often in association with a high risk of bone injuries of the cervical spine and the lower extremities. Leg injuries in future require special attention as they are often accompanied with long treatment durations and long-term consequences (Kalbe, 1981). One useful solution is seen here in the usage of protective clothing with protectors and the use of padded machines whose injury protection effectiveness in combination with the development of special leg protectors have been shown to be useful in previous publications (Otte, 2002).

To be able to further improve the injury situation of motorized two-wheeler in the future, accident analyzes in the scope of on-scene surveys are still important to gain detailed knowledge about injury patterns, the kinematics and injury mechanisms. In addition, however, it is especially important to avoid accidents at the beginning of the development. This can be achieved through adequate measures concerning the road layout, measures at the PTW and also measures concerning the attitude and behavior of drivers of PTW.


Attention must be turned towards the causes of the accidents and their relationships to human, machine and the environment to be able to postulate measures for the prevention of accidents in addition to the injury prevention.

The application of causation analysis tools ACAS (Accident Causation Analysis System) showed that riders of powered two-wheelers do have a characteristic distribution of cause factors when compared to drivers of cars. Even though there is a higher influence of environmental factors on the causes of accident from riders of PTW than on car drivers, the focus still lies on the human factors for both groups (over 91% for riders of PTW, 97.7% for car drivers). The human factors in ACAS are divided into 5 categories of possible failures. Here the analysis revealed that riders of PTWs had frequent failures in the Information evaluation which are often related to a misjudgment of the behavior or speed of the own vehicle (in about 20% of the cases). Furthermore riders of powered two wheelers have a high incidence of accident causes from the subcategory of intentional breach of rules. While riders of light motorcycles (< 125 ccm) are at the same level as car drivers with about 18% of causation factors, the riders have motorcycles (≥ 125 ccm) have an incidence of over 40% from this subcategory which is mostly related to excessive driving speed. Another source of accident causes which is specifically high with PTW when compared to cars are operation failures (23.3% for light motorcycles, 17.5% for motorcycles but only 7.2% for cars) as the handling of a PTW in general is more difficult than that of cars. As a result wrong braking or over braking with PTW does lead to accidents as ABS for PTW is not as widespread as for cars.

A correlation between the causation factors of riders of PTW with the injury severity revealed that the category of human failure had no significant influence on the injury severity distribution with one exception: Accidents caused by a failure of information admission (e.g. the rider misses to see a relevant road user due to a wrong focus of attention) of the rider of a PTW resulted in visibly higher shares of MAIS 2 had MAIS 3+ injuries than failures from the other categories.

It can be seen from the study that for PTW a high safety level can be established, the proportion of severe injury grades MAIS 3+ are reduced with the factor of nearly 3 from the years 1985-93 to 2003-11 for users of PTW. There could be seen a reduction of severely injured motorcyclists of nearly 50% over the time period of more than 20 years.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

For the present study, accident data from GIDAS (German In-Depth Accident Study) was used. GIDAS, the largest in-depth accident study in Germany, is funded by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) and the German Research Association for Automotive Technology (FAT), a department of the VDA (German Association of the Automotive Industry). Use of the data is restricted to the participants of the project. Further information can be found at http://www.gidas.org.

REFERENCES

ACEM, The European PTW market in 2007, 2007

AAAM, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine: The Abbreviated Injury Scale - Revision 98, American Ass. f. Automotive Medicine., Morton Grove, Illinois (USA) (1998)

BASt, Gurte, Kindersitze, Helme und Schutzkleidung 2012, Wissenschaftliche Informationen der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Info 06/13, Bergisch-Gladbach, 2013


Brühning E., Otte D., Pastor C.: 30 Jahre wissenschaftliche Erhebungen am Unfallort für mehr Verkehrssicherheit, Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit 51, 175-181, 2005

ETSC, Countdown to 2010, only two more years to act, Road Safety Report, ETSC, 2008

DeStatis, Statistisches Bundesamt – Verkehrsunfälle, www.destatis.de, 2010

GDV, Gesamtverband der deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft (GDV), Institut für Straßenverkehr (ISK), Der Unfalltypenkatalog, Köln, 1998

IFZ, Sicherheit - Umwelt - Zukunft V, Tagungsband der 5. Internationalen Motorradkonferenz, Institut für Zweiradsicherheit, 2004

Kalbe, P.; Suren, E. G.; Otte, D.: Trauma Assessment of Injuries and their Consequences in Accidents with Two-Wheelers, Proc. 6th IRCOBI-Conference, Salon de Provence (France), 1981

Otte, D.: Welchen Beitrag kann Schutzkleidung zur passive Sicherheit des Motorradfahrers leisten, VDI-Berichte 657, 281-303, 1987

Otte, D.; Felten, G.: Requirements on chin protection in full face helmets for motorcyclists, Forschungsbericht IFZ Nr. 7, 229-264, 1991

Otte, D.: Injury Scaling: from lesion assessment to passive safety improvement, Vortrag Round Table, Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Verona, Juni 1995

Otte, D., Willeke, H., Chinn, B., Doyle, D., Schuller, E.: Impact Mechanisms of Helmet Protected Heads in Motorcycle Accidents - Accidental Study of COST 327, Institut für Zweiradsicherheit e. V., Tagungsband der 2. Internationalen Motorradkonferenz, 1998, 83-109

Otte, D.: Möglichkeiten der Belastungsreduktion durch Beinprotektoren in der Schutzkleidung von Motorradfahrern-Technische, medizinische und biomechanische Zielsetzung, Int. Motorradkonferenz München und Forsch.hefte Zweiradsicherheit 10, 125-149, Bochum 2002

Otte, D., Krettek, C., Brunner, H., Zwipp, H.: Scientific Approach and Methodology of a New In-Depth-Investigation Study in Germany so called GIDAS, ESV Conference, Japan, 2003

Otte, D.: 3-D Laser systems for scaled accident sketches and documentation of the traces after traffic accidents as basis of biomechanical analysis, Ircobi Conference, 435-438, 2005

Otte D., Pund, B., Jänsch, M.: A New Approach of Accident Causation Analysis by Seven Steps with ACASS, Paper Number 09-0245 ESV Conference Stuttgart 2009

Otte, D.; Pund, B.; Jänsch, M.; Unfallursachen-Analyse ACASS für Erhebungen am Unfallort - Seven-Steps-Methode, Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit, 55. Jahrgang, G 12441 F, ISSN 0044-4654, Heft 3, 2009

Pfeiffer, M., Schmidt, J.: Statistical and Methodological Foundations of the GIDAS Accident Survey System, 2nd ESAR Conference, Hannover, 2006

Pund, B., Otte, D., Jänsch, M. (2007): Systematic of Analysis of Human Accident Causation – Seven Steps Methodology. In: Reports on the ESAR-Conference on 1st/2nd September 2006 at Hannover Medical School, Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Heft F 61

Sporner, A.; Langwieder, K. Polauke, J.: Risk of Leg injuries of motorcyclists-present situation and countermeasures, 12th ESV Conf. Göteborg Sweden, 1989

Documents

New Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic … · 2017. 6. 6. · the severity of such injuries are well documented and compared to previous time frames