Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Digges CHANGES IN CRASH PROTECTION WITH VEHICLE MODEL YEAR Kennerly Digges
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Bahouth, George T. Vahabaghaie, Amin |
| Copyright Year | 2019 |
| Abstract | NASS 1993-2015 was queried for frequency of exposed vehicles with belted driver injuries separated by injury severity and vehicle model year. Vehicle model-years were aggregated by 3 model year groupings – 1985 -1994; 1995-2000; 2001-2015. These percentages of the crash exposed populations for the 3 groups were: 27%, 34% and 39%. The total exposed population was 27,347,705. The total and Mean AIS 3+ HARM for each model year grouping was calculated for each crash mode – frontal, near-side, far-side, rear and rollover. Changes in total AIS 3+ HARM distribution and Mean AIS 3+ HARM by crash mode and model year grouping were reported. The largest source of AIS 3+ HARM to belted drivers in the 2001-2015 NASS population remains the frontal crash mode. Near-side and rollover injury rates have dramatically decreased in recent model years. Frontal and far-side crash mode injury rates have decreased slightly and rear has remained relatively constant, but at a low injury rate. The data suggests that for light trucks, the near-side Mean AIS 3+ HARM has increased during the 2001-2015 model years. However, the level remains below that of passenger cars which have experienced dramatic reductions in near-side Mean AIS 3+ HARM during the same period. BACKGROUND The analysis to follow examines vehicle safety trends based on changes to the HARM that was present in groupings of motor vehicles from three successive time periods. The concept of HARM was introduced in a landmark paper by key NHTSA staff [Malliaris, 1982]. A frequent alternative to the use of HARM is to categorize all severe injuries greater than AIS 3 in a single group labeled AIS3+ injuries. An issue with this categorization is that the AIS 3+ population is overwhelmed by AIS 3 injuries and the AIS 4+ population is not given increased priority. Alternatively, the HARM weighting scheme is applied to injuries of different severity based on the average cost of the injury. This injury weighting system has the advantage of increasing the priority for preventing the most severe injuries. The mean HARM is defined as the total HARM for a grouping divided by the exposure for that grouping. The mean HARM is a measure of the combined injury risk and has been widely used to conduct benefits analyses. The mean HARM is a weighted injury risk and is useful for determine how the safety has changed. HARM and mean HARM were used extensively at NHTSA and elsewhere in the 80’s and 90’s to assess priorities for safety systems. GM Australia used HARM calculations in designing the first air bag introduced in Australia and the Australian Ministry of Transport used HARM to establish frontal and side impact regulations [Fildes, 1992]. The analysis in this paper follows the methodology of an earlier analysis by Eigen [Eigen, 2007]. However, the Eigen analysis examined HARM to injured body regions and, therefore, considered all of the multiple injuries that were coded for each individual. The present analysis uses the Malliaris methodology and considers only the most severe injury to each occupant. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://indexsmart.mirasmart.com/26esv/PDFfiles/26ESV-000269.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
