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
Otte: Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic Accidents in comparing Drivers of Motorcycle and All Kinds of Motorized Two-wheelers 2
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
Otte: Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic Accidents in comparing Drivers of Motorcycle and All Kinds of Motorized Two-wheelers 3
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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)
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
the cases, w
ns of motorc
the injured Particularlyher percentaHere obvioecial impacifferent typey nearly allte, 1991).
s with and wijured body ar
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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)
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
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
njury Severi of Motorcy
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
ty and Causycle and All
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
sation Factol Kinds of M
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
ors of MotoMotorized Tw
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
orcyclists inwo-wheeler
) 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
Otte: Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic Accidents in comparing Drivers of Motorcycle and All Kinds of Motorized Two-wheelers 17
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.
Otte: Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic Accidents in comparing Drivers of Motorcycle and All Kinds of Motorized Two-wheelers 18
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
Otte: Injury Severity and Causation Factors of Motorcyclists in Traffic Accidents in comparing Drivers of Motorcycle and All Kinds of Motorized Two-wheelers 19
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