Vehicle mismatch: injury patterns and severity
Introduction
From 1980 to 1998, there was a steady decrease in the number of fatalities resulting from passenger vehicle (PV) versus PV collisions (Lombardo, 2001). However, since 1980, there has also been an increase in fatalities resulting from the collision of PV and light truck vehicles (LTV). LTV include sport utility vehicles (SUV), pickup trucks, and vans which are constructed on a truck frame. This increase is surmised to be due to the mismatch between the PV and LTV and the increasing representation of LTV in the vehicle fleet.
Vehicle mismatch is defined as design differences between vehicle types which result in disproportionate damage patterns to the vehicles involved in a collision; these design differences include weight, frame height, and stiffness. This is also known as crash incompatibility (IIHS, 1999). The damage patterns can result in a violation of the structural integrity of the passenger compartment resulting in increased risk of serious injury or death to the occupants. Studies by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) have shown that the relative risk of death for occupants of PV involved in frontal collisions with LTV is 3–4 times greater than those involved in similar collisions with another PV. For side impacts, the relative risk of death can be 27–48 times greater for the occupants of the PV (IIHS, 1999).
LTV are becoming more common on our highways. For the year 2000, Motor vehicle registrations show 77.8 million light trucks in the US, a 63.8% increase from 1990. During the same period, there was a 1% decrease in the number of registered PV. LTV now represent 40% of all registered motor vehicles (Office of Highway Policy Information, 2000) and the LTV market share has increased from 14.2% in 1996 to 21% in 2000 (Polk, 2001). If these trends continue, LTV will soon become the majority of vehicles on the road, resulting in even greater occurrences of vehicle mismatch.
The Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) was developed under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide detailed crash site analysis and specific occupant injury data to improve the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of motor vehicle crash injuries. The purpose of the current study is to examine crashes with vehicle mismatch to determine the kinematic mechanisms of occupant injury and identify possible design improvements to reduce fatalities and prevent severe injury.
Section snippets
CIREN database and case selection
The Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center (HIPRC) is one of 10 CIREN centers. Inclusion criteria for the CIREN database include: (1) the vehicle can not roll nor can the occupant have been ejected from the vehicle, (2) the case occupants must have been restrained or have an airbag deploy, have sustained at least one injury with abbreviated injury severity score (AIS)≥3, and have been in a vehicle manufactured within the last 6 years. For each enrolled crash the following data were
Side impact collisions
Table 1 displays the crash data for PV involved in side impact collisions with LTV. Fourteen collisions with 16 near sided occupants were identified. The intrusions listed are those closest to the occupant in question. Table 2 displays the injury data for each target vehicle occupant, as well as the on-scene estimation of injury in the impacting vehicle as reported by the police. Two case reports followed by a summary of the findings for the cases reviewed are presented.
Discussion
For each grouping of vehicle mismatch, definite patterns of injury and related sources are evident. Our results are similar to death risk results reported by the IIHS, who reported PV occupants were 3–4 times more likely to die than LTV occupants in frontal crashes between PV and LTV (5 deaths versus 0 in our series) (IIHS, 1999). For side impacts, they reported a 27–48-fold greater risk of death for PV occupants (5 versus 0 in our series). Of note, there were no LTV occupants who struck the
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)/Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) and the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
References (10)
- AIS, 1990. Abbreviated Injury Scale, AAAM. Des Plaines, IL (revised...
- Bradshear, K., 2000. Automaker’s Modifying S.U.V.’s to Reduce Risk to Other Drivers. New York Times, 21 March 2000,...
- et al.
The injury severity score revisited
J. Trauma
(1990) - CIREN, 2000. Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network, 2000....
- Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 1999. Putting the crash compatibility issue in perspective. Insurance...
Cited by (60)
Machine learning-based injury severity prediction of level 1 trauma center enrolled patients associated with car-to-car crashes in Korea
2023, Computers in Biology and MedicineCitation Excerpt :In particular, car-to-car (C2C) crashes account for a significant proportion of crashes leading to major traumatic injury risks. Many studies have shown that crash incompatibility between two vehicles significantly affects injury severity [11–18]. This indicates a considerable difference in vehicle design regarding mass and size, geometry, and stiffness.
Head-on Crashes
2021, International Encyclopedia of Transportation: Volume 1-7Do NHTSA vehicle safety ratings affect side impact crash outcomes?
2020, Journal of Safety ResearchAmbulance traffic accidents in Taiwan
2018, Journal of the Formosan Medical AssociationRisk of serious injury of occupants involved in frontal crashes of cab-over-type trucks
2017, Traffic Injury Prevention