5 On-site Investigations of Traffic Accidents (Micro Surveys)
  In order to conduct detailed studies of the conditions under which passengers are thrown out of vehicles, 84 case studies were selected from a total of approximately 3000 on-site investigations of traffic accidents (micro surveys) conducted over the ten-year period from 1993 through 2002. Table 2 shows the breakdown of these case studies and Table 3 lists the factors causing the throwing out action. Cases in which the entire body is thrown out of the vehicle driver seat and passenger seat areas are referred to as "complete throwing out" and those in which only part of the body is thrown out are referred to as "partial throwing out".

  General Categories Listed Below:
(1) Passenger is thrown out by the vehicle being overturned by the impact of the collision.
(2) Passenger is thrown out by the "extensiveness of the destruction" that destroys the original passenger survival space, resulting from major damage or breakup of vehicle caused by impact of collision.
(3) Although passenger survival space is intact, passenger is thrown out by door being thrown open.
(4) Passenger survival space is intact but passenger is thrown out due to the front window coming off.
(5) Categories other than (1) through (4) above.

  Category (1), where the vehicle overturned, accounted for the largest number of cases. In the case of "vehicle alone" accidents, many cases involve the vehicle running off the road and colliding with such fixed objects as telephone poles and posts and then overturning. Other causes include the vehicle losing its balance and overturning when a tire bursts or overturning after riding up on the inclined shoulder of the road. There were also cases of vehicles overturning as a result of vehicle to vehicle side collisions. The majority of cases involving overturning due to side collisions were with light trucks and vehicles with comparatively high vehicle height.
  The "(5) Categories other than (1) through (4) above" category included the second largest number of case studies. In the case of "vehicle alone" accidents, as with category (1), the cause of the accident was losing control of the vehicle through excessive speed and colliding with fixed objects. In the case of "vehicle to vehicle" accidents, the cause of passengers getting thrown out of vehicle was mainly due to crossing collisions impacting the side of the vehicle and sending it into a slide.

  The "(2) Extreme damage to the vehicle body" category mostly involved "vehicle alone" type accidents, often impacting at very high speeds. Even the lowest speed accidents in this category were at 55 km/h.

  The "(3) Door is thrown open" category involves two types of cases. One is when the body is deformed to the point that the pressure on the door breaks the lock and throws it open. The other is when the force of the passenger inside hitting the door breaks or opens the lock and throws the door open. These tend to involve older vehicles with vehicle registration dates in the 1987 to 1997 range. The more recent vehicles conform to regulations governing head-on and side collisions and therefore have stronger locks and stronger bodies, making it difficult for such conditions to occur.

  The "(4) Front window becomes detached" category involves the impact of collision deforming the window frame allowing the window to fall out (especially in medium and light trucks) and the passenger to be thrown out.

  As shown in Fig. 19, categories (3), (4) and (5), which account for 51 percent of the case studies, the passenger space is still intact. This indicates that wearing a seat belt would have prevented the passenger from being thrown out of vehicle. The micro survey data gathered allows for generation of macro data distribution that enables creation of accident summaries and of accident type models. Considering the facts, it is believed that up to 120, or approximately half of the 247 fatalities, in 2003, resulting from passengers being thrown out of vehicles, could have been prevented (see Fig. 2).

Table 2 Overview of Data Extracted from Case Studies of Thrown from Vehicle Accidents

Table 3 Thrown Out from Vehicle Accidents Categorized According to Throw Out Factor

Fig.19 Thrown from the Vehicle Factors and Accident Count Information Obtained from Selected Micro Survey Data

  The reasons given for not wearing seatbelts have been categorized as shown in Fig. 20A and 20B
  The most common responses received from all vehicle passengers covered in the on-site investigations of traffic accidents (micro surveys), who did not wear seatbelts (including 908 drivers and 508 passengers), are listed below.
1. They are troublesome to put on and constricting to wear.
2. I'm simply not in the habit of wearing them.
3. I won't be causing any accidents and I don't go far anyway.

  Based on these results, it is believed that the following measures will be effective in promoting the use of seatbelts.

  In response to reply "1" above, make seatbelts easier to put on and more comfortable to wear.

  Launch an informative campaign concerning the significance and effectiveness of wearing seatbelts in response to replies "2" and "3" above. This will be done to enhance the awareness of passengers who ride in vehicles.

  It should be noted that the driver's seats of new models of vehicles require mandatory seatbelt connection alarms starting from September 2005. The measure is expected to effectively increase the ratio of drivers that wear seatbelts.

Fig.20A  Reasons for Not Wearing Seatbelts: Drivers (360 Responses)

Fig.20B  Reasons for Not Wearing Seatbelts: Passengers (140 Responses)

UP

Next


Institute for Traffic Accident Research and Data Analysis (ITARDA)