Post on 18-Jan-2015
description
transcript
Transportforum, Sweden 12.01 2011 1
Improving safety for motorbikes and mopeds - interim results from an analysis of the Finnish in-depth database on fatal accidents
Markus MATTSSON, Lars LEDEN
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 2
Topics
Introduction 2BESAFE 2 Finnish case-studies
Methodology The DREAM methodology Behavioural analysis
Some results Conclusions
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 3
Methodology – Accident data
National databases issuesUK, Greece, Finland, Italy,
France
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario …
MACRO ANALYSIS LEVEL
M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4
MICRO ANALYSIS LEVEL In-depth databasesUK, Finland, France
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario …
M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4
M 1, 2, 3, 4= Model 1, 2, 3, 4
STATE OF THE ART
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 4
Methodology
9 scenarios
391 in-depth studies of PTW crashes in the United Kingdom, Finland and France
35 Finnish in-depth studies
4 complementary accidents analysis models
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 5
Introduction
4 accident analysis models4 accident analysis models
Description of the DriverVehicleEnvironment system
Description of the evolution of the DVE system
Determination of the Human Functional Failure (HFF)
Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method DREAM
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 6
Methodology - DREAM
An accident model
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 7
WikipediA
"Genotype" is an organism's full hereditary information, even if not expressed.
"Phenotype" is an organism's actual observed properties, such as morphology, development, or behavior.
This distinction is fundamental in the study of inheritance of traits and their evolution.
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 8
Methodology - DREAM
A classification scheme Phenotypes: the observable effects Genotypes: the factors that may have
contributed to phenotypes
GenotypesDriver Vehicle Traffic environment Organisation
B: ObservationG: Temporary HMI problems
J: Weather conditions N: Organisation Timing
C: InterpretationH: permanent HMI problems
K: Obstruction of view due to object
O: Maintenance Speed
D: PlanningI: Vehicle equipment failure
L: State of road P: Vehicle design Distance
E: Temporary personal factors M: Communication Q: Road design DirectionF: Permanent personal factors Force
Object
A: Phenotypes
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 9
Methodology - DREAM
A method Links between phenotypes and
genotypes Links between genotypes and genotypes Rules to follow
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 10
Methodology - DREAM
A DREAM chart for each rider and driver involved in an accident
Genotype :
K1 - parked vehicles
Genotype :
F2 - expecting other road users to give way to priority traffic
Genotype :
B1 - did not see car waiting to emerge from driveway A1.2 - Too late action -
braked too late to avoid impact with the car crossing his path
Phenotype:
Genotype :
C2 - misjudged situation
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 11
A2.1 Too high speed A1.3 No actionA4.1 Wrong directionA5.1 Surplus forceA1.2 Too late actionA6 ObjectA5.2 Insufficient force
Misjudgement Of situation
Misjudgement of Time gaps
Equipment failure
Late observation
Overestimation of skills
Priority error
Inattention
Insufficient skills / knowledge
Road surface
Reduced friction
Inadequate roadgeometry
Missed observation
Reduced visibility
Expectance of behavioursPsychological
stress
Excitement seeking
Habitually stretching rules
Inadequate training
Inadequate road maintenance
Inadequate informationdesign
Inadequate roaddesign
Results: scenario 3 – Single motorcycle accident, outside urban area and no intersection
Inadequate trans-mission from road environment
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 12
Results from Vuthy et al (2010)
Motocycle / Passenger car, no intersection
Priority error Observation problem Absence of clues for passenger car manœuvre
Motocycle / Passenger car, at intersection
False or missed observation Temporary visibility mask
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 13
Finnish in-depth studies of fatal rider accidents
35 accidents in total 16 single rider accidents
Genotype :
Genotype : Genotype : Genotype : Genotype :
Genotype : Genotype : Genotype : Genotype :
Genotype : Genotype : Genotype : Genotype :
Priority error (D1) Fear (E1)Phenotype:
Genotype : Genotype : Genotype : Genotype :
Late observation (B2)
Genotype : Genotype : Genotype : Genotype :
Genotype : Genotype : Genotype : Genotype :
Genotype :
Genotype :
Reduced visibility (J1)
Genotype :
Equipment failure (I1)
Genotype :
Inadequate training (N4)
Psychological stress (E7) - Peer pressure (E7.1)
Insufficient skills/knowledge (F6) / Overestimation of skills (F5)
Sudden functional impairment (E6)
Excitement seeking (E5)
Misjudgement of situation (C2)
Habitually stretching rules and limitations (F4) No Action (2)
Too High Speed (7) Insufficient Force (1) Wrong Direction (6)
Inadequate information design (Q1)
Inadequate transmission from road environment (M2)
Equipment failure (I1)
Permanenet obstruction to view (K2)
Misjudgement of time gaps (C1)
Inadequate road design (Q2)
Inadequate road geometry (L5)
Under the influence of substances (E4)
Inattention (E2) - mirror (2 cases), using video cam (1 case)
Insufficient skills/knowledge (F6)
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 15
Finnish behavioural studies at urban intersection
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 16
Finnish behavioural studies at a rural curve
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 17
Finnish behavioural studies preliminary results
22 % of the riders were sportsbikers and were involved in 46 % of the conflicts observed
Riders made less errors and conflicts when riding with a passenger
Sportbikers are not less conspicous, than other riders, but custom riders on Harley-Davidson bikes are.
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 18
Finnish behavioural studies - Percentage errors and conflicts
Biketype
Riders passing
(%)Errors
(%)Conflicts
(%)
moped 17,3 12,7 23,1
scooter 5,4 7,1 0,0
sportsbike 22,4 31,7 46,2
custom 19,6 19,0 7,7
others 35,3 29,4 23,1
total n 496 126 13
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 19
Finnish behavioural studies – Percentage errors and conflicts
Riding with
Riders passing
(%) Errors
(%)Conflicts
(%)
A passenger 13,5 2,3 0
No passenger 86,5 97,7 100
total 496 129 13
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 20
Finnish behavioural studies – Conspicuity of helmet %
ot
hers
21.
8
21.
8
56.
3
174
Conspicuity of
Helmet moped scooter sportsbike custom others
bright 30.2 29.6 19.8 6.2 21.8
middle 15.1 11.1 22.5 3.1 21.8
dark 54.7 59.3 57.7 90.7 56.3
n 86 27 111 97 174
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 21
Finnish behavioural studies – Conspicuity of clothing %
Conspicuity of clothing moped scooter sportsbike custom others
bright 34.9 37.0 9.9 3.1 6.3
middle 18.6 29.6 27.0 10.3 21.8
dark 46.5 33.3 63.1 86.6 71.8
n 86 27 111 97 174
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 22
Finnish behavioural studies – Conspicuity of bike %
Conspicuity of bike moped scooter sportsbike custom others
bright 34.9 37.0 9.9 3.1 6.3
middle 18.6 29.6 27.0 10.3 21.8
dark 46.5 33.3 63.1 86.6 71.8
n 86 27 111 97 174
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 23
Finnish case studies conclusions
Sportsbikers make more errors than other riders. Quite often sportsbikers involved in fatal accidents show off to one another.
Riders with an passenger make less errors than riders with no passenger
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 24
Conclusions
The contribution of DREAM in understanding accident causation
Consideration of organizational factors Drawing of links representing the relationship
of cause and effect between factors
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 25
Conclusions
Advantages and limitations of DREAM A frame and rules
A lack of organizational factors found Factors not adapted to riders Comprehensive methodology
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 26
Thank you for your attention
www.ltu.se/forskning publications
www.2besafe.eu
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 27
Introduction
To better understand users behaviour when they are riding a motorbike or moped Accident analysis study Naturalistic driving study Risk Awareness: Development of tools: instrumented motor-
cycles and cars, riding simulator, car simulator, video tools and verbal methods
In-depth behavioural studies: conflict studies experimental studies in visual conspicuity,
Guidelines
2-wheeler BEhaviour and SAFEty
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 28
Methodology – Accident data for 9 scenarios
A lack of in-depth accident data for several scenarios
Finland FranceThe United Kingdom
1 Moped / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area – No intersection 0 13 2 15
2 Moped / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area –Intersection 3 36 10 49
3 Single motorcycle accident – Outside urban area – No intersection 16 10 25 51
4 Single motorcycle accident – Inside urban area – No intersection 4 26 16 46
5 Single motorcycle accident – Inside urban area – Intersection 0 19 17 36
6 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Outside urban area – No intersection 7 8 27 42
7 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area – No intersection 0 31 10 41
8 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area – Intersection 0 40 20 609 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Outside urban area – Intersection 3 18 30 51
TOTAL 33 201 157 391
PTW accident configuration Total
Number of in-depth accidents analysed per country
Scenario
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 29
Methodology - DREAM
To classify and store information about factors contributing to accidents
Warner, H., et al., (2008). Manual for DREAM 3.0, Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method. Deliverable 5.6 of the european project SafetyNet
DREAM is an adaptation of CREAM (Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method)
Hollnagel, E., (1998). Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method: CREAM. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
.
Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 30
A2.1 (12) – Too high speed A1.3 (11) – No actionA4.1 (9) – Wrong directionA5.1 (9) – Surplus forceA1.2 (6) – Too late actionA6 (3) - ObjectA5.2 (1) Insufficient force
C2 (43)Misjudgement ofsituation
C1 (8)C1.1 (1)Misjudgement of Time gaps
I1 (5)I1 / B2 (1) I1 / G1 (2)Equipment failure
E6 (3)Sudden functional impairment
E4 / C2 (1) E4 / E2 (1)E4.1 (1) E4.1 / B3 (1)Under the influence of substances
E1 (4)Fear
E3 (1) E3 / C2 (1)Fatigue
B2 / C1 (2) B2 / C2 (16)Late observation
F5 / C2 (19) F5 / C1 (1)F5 / D1 (2)Overestimation of skills
D1 / C2 (24)Priority error
E2.1 / C2 (1) E2.2 / B2 (2)E2.4 / C2 (1) E2.5 / C2 (1)E2 / C2 (10) E2 / B2 (6)E2 / B1 (4) E2 / B3 (3)Inattention
F6 / C2 (4) F6 / F5 (9)F6 / B2 (1)Insufficient skills / knowledge
P3 / I1 (2)Inadequate construction of vehicle parts and/or structures
L3 / C2 (5)Road surface degradation
L4 / C2 (1) L4.1 / C2 (2)L4 / C1 (1)Object on road
M2 / C2 (4) M2 / B2 (4)M2 / B1 (2)Inadequate transmissionFrom road environment
L2 / C2 (6) L2 / C1 (2)Reduced friction
L5 / C2 (3) L5 / B2 (3)Inadequate roadgeometry
O1 / I1 (4)Inadequate vehiclemaintenance
B1 / C2 (8)Missed observation
J1 / C2 (2) J1 / C1 (1)J1 / B2 (4) J1 / B1 (2)J1 / B3 (1)Reduced visibility
B3 / C1 (3) B3 / C2 (4)False observation
F2 / C2 (11)Expectance of certainbehaviours
L1 / C1 (1)Insufficient guidance
K2 / B2 (3)Permanent Obstruction ofview
E7.1 / D1 (6) E7 / D1 (2)Psychological stress
E5 / D1 (18)Excitement seeking
F4 / D1 (5)Habitually stretching rulesAnd recommendations
N4 / F6 (7)Inadequate training
O2 / L3 (4) O2 / L2 (6)O2 / L4 (1)Inadequate road maintenance
Q1 / M2 (9)Inadequate informationdesign
Q2 / L5 (4) Q2 / L2 (1)Q2 / K2 (2)Inadequate roaddesign
N3 / E3 (1)Heavy physical activity before ride
K1 / B2 (1) K1 / B1 (2)Temporary Obstruction ofview
G1 / B1 (2) G1 / B2 (1)G1 / B3 (1)Temporary illuminationproblem
Results: scenario 3 – Single motorcycle accident, outside urban area, no intersection
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 31
Results from Vuthy et al (2010)
Moped / passenger car, inside urban area, no intersection
Inattention Late observation Reduced visibility
Moped / passenger car, inside urban area, at intersection
PTW with a right of way status: expect a certain behaviour from the passenger car driver
PTW without a right of way status: late observation, inattention, priority error, reduced visibility
Lack of riding experience for the moped users
Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 32
Paper based on Deliverable 1
Phan, V., Regan, M., Moutreuil, M., Minton, R., Mattsson, M. and Leden, L., 2010.
Using the Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method (DREAM) to understand Powered Two-Wheeler accident causation.
International Conference on Safety and Mobility of Vulnerable Road Users: Pedestrians, Motorcyclists and Bicyclists. Jerusalem.