Rear seat restraint system effectiveness in preventing fatalities

Restraint system effectiveness for rear seat adult (16 years or older) car occupants is estimated by applying the double pair comparison method to Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data for 1975 through 1985. As this data set contains information on fatal crashes only, the results apply exclusively to fatalities, and should not be generalized to other levels of injury. Rear seat occupants coded as using any restraint system are assumed to be using the lap belt only. Occupants in all four outboard seating positions (that is, driver and right front passenger, right and left rear passengers) serve as "other" occupants. Disaggregating the "other" occupant by restraint use generates six estimates of restraint system effectiveness for each of the two rear outboard positions. Insufficient data precluded estimating effectiveness for the center rear (or center front) positions, and also use of these occupants as "other" occupants. Average restraint system effectiveness for the two outboard rear seating positions is estimated as (18 +/- 9)%, where the error limit indicates one standard error. These estimates suggest that there is a 39 in 40 chance that rear lap belts reduce fatality likelihood, but a less than 1 in 10 chance that the reduction exceeds 30%.     

Relative risk of injury and death in ambulances and other emergency vehicles

This study addresses of the impacts of emergency vehicle (ambulances, police cars and fire trucks) occupant seating position, restraint use and vehicle response status on injuries and fatalities. Multi-way frequency and ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed on two large national databases, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the General Estimates System (GES). One model estimated the relative risk ratios for different levels of injury severity to occupants traveling in ambulances. Restrained ambulance occupants involved in a crash were significantly less likely to be killed or seriously injured than unrestrained occupants. Ambulance rear occupants were significantly more likely to be killed than front-seat occupants. Ambulance occupants traveling non-emergency were more likely than occupants traveling emergency to be killed or severely injured. Unrestrained ambulance occupants, occupants riding in the patient compartment and especially unrestrained occupants riding in the patient compartment were at substantially increased risk of injury and death when involved in a crash. A second model incorporated police cars and fire trucks. In the combined ambulance–fire truck–police car model, the likelihood of an occupant fatality for those involved in a crash was higher for routine responses. Relative to police cars and fire trucks, ambulances experienced the highest percentage of fatal crashes where occupants are killed and the highest percentage of crashes where occupants are injured. Lack of restraint use and/or responding with ‘lights and siren’ characterized the vast majority of fatalities among fire truck occupants. A third model incorporated non-special use van and passenger car occupants, which otherwise replicated the second model. Our findings suggest that ambulance crewmembers riding in the back and firefighters in any seating position, should be restrained whenever feasible. Family members accompanying ambulance patients should ride in the front-seat of the ambulance.     

Double pair comparison--a new method to determine how occupant characteristics affect fatality risk in traffic crashes

A new method to determine how occupant characteristics affect fatality risk in traffic crashes is developed. The method, which uses data from the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), focuses on two occupants, a "subject" occupant and an "other" occupant. The probabilities of a fatality to the subject occupant when that occupant has one of two characteristics are compared. The other occupant serves essentially a normalizing, or exposure estimating, role. The method uses only fatality frequency data--no external exposure information is required, and it is relatively free from uncertain assumptions. It has wide applicability; examples of potential applications include investigating car occupant fatality risk as a function of sex, age, alcohol use or motorcyclist fatality risk as a function of helmet use. The first application is to determining the effectiveness of safety belts in preventing car occupant fatalities, as described in the paper following this paper.     

The fraction of traffic fatalities attributable to alcohol

The vast literature on alcohol's effect on traffic safety does not contain even a moderately satisfactory answer to one of the most basic questions, namely “What is the fraction of all traffic fatalities attributable to alcohol use?” A published estimate of 23.7% based on an erroneous calculation has been widely quoted. This paper combines 1987 Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data from 26 states that recorded blood alcohol concentrations for over 84% of fatally injured drivers with published estimates on how alcohol affects crash risk. By categorizing all traffic fatalities as either nonoccupants of vehicles, or occupants killed in single-vehicle, two-vehicle or three-or-more-vehicle crashes, and developing calculation procedures appropriate for each category, the fraction of all fatalities due to alcohol was inferred. The main finding was that eliminating alcohol would reduce traffic fatalities by (47 ± 4)%. It was also concluded that alcohol use changes from 1982 to 1987 have reduced traffic fatalities by 12% (6,400 fatalities), which helps explain the absence of the fatality increase predicted because of a buoyant economy. Reducing the fraction of fatalities due to alcohol from the 1987 value of 47% to 42% (say) would reduce all traffic fatalities by 8%.     

Method to evaluate the effect of safety belt use by rear seat passengers on the injury severity of front seat occupants

Although the effectiveness of seat belts for reducing injury to rear seat passengers in traffic accidents has been well documented, the ratio of rear-seat passengers restrained by seatbelts remains lower than that of drivers or passengers in front seats. If passengers in rear seats do not wear seat belts, they may sustain unexpected injury to themselves when involved in accidents, and also endanger front occupants (drivers or front seat passengers). This paper focuses on the tendency of front seat occupants to sustain severer injuries due to forward movement of passengers in rear seats at the moment of frontal collisions, and evaluates the effectiveness of rear passengers' wearing seat belts in reducing injuries of front seat occupants. Since the occurrence of occupant injuries depends considerably on the crash severity, we proposed to use pseudo-delta V in regression analysis to represent velocity change during a collision when analyzing statistical accident data. As the crash severity can be estimated from pseudo-delta V, it becomes possible to make appropriate estimations even when the crash severity differs in data. The binary model derived from the ordered response model was used to evaluate the influence on the injury level based on pseudo-delta V, belted or unbelted status, gender and age. Occupants in cars with a hood in the case of car-to-car frontal collisions were extracted from the statistical data on accidents in Japan. Among 81,817 cars, where at least one passenger was present, a total of 6847 cars in which all passengers sustained injuries and which had at least one rear seat passenger aboard were analyzed. The number of killed or seriously injured drivers is estimated to decrease by around 25% if rear seat occupants come to wear seat belts. Also, the number of killed or seriously injured passengers in front seats is estimated to decrease by 28% if unbelted rear seat occupants come to wear seat belts. Thus, wearing of seat belts by previously unbelted rear seat passengers is considered effective in reducing not only injuries to the rear seat passengers themselves but also injuries to front seat occupants.     

Rear seat safety: Variation in protection by occupant,crash and vehicle characteristics

Objectives

Current information on the safety of rear row occupants of all ages is needed to inform further advances in rear seat restraint system design and testing. The objectives of this study were to describe characteristics of occupants in the front and rear rows of model year 2000 and newer vehicles involved in crashes and determine the risk of serious injury for restrained crash-involved rear row occupants and the relative risk of fatal injury for restrained rear row vs. front passenger seat occupants by age group, impact direction, and vehicle model year.

Method

Data from the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) were queried for all crashes during 2007–2012 involving model year 2000 and newer passenger vehicles. Data from NASS-CDS were used to describe characteristics of occupants in the front and rear rows and to determine the risk of serious injury (AIS 3+) for restrained rear row occupants by occupant age, vehicle model year, and impact direction. Using a combined data set containing data on fatalities from FARS and estimates of the total population of occupants in crashes from NASS-CDS, logistic regression modeling was used to compute the relative risk (RR) of death for restrained occupants in the rear vs. front passenger seat by occupant age, impact direction, and vehicle model year.

Results

Among all vehicle occupants in tow-away crashes during 2007–2012, 12.3% were in the rear row where the overall risk of serious injury was 1.3%. Among restrained rear row occupants, the risk of serious injury varied by occupant age, with older adults at the highest risk of serious injury (2.9%); by impact direction, with rollover crashes associated with the highest risk (1.5%); and by vehicle model year, with model year 2007 and newer vehicles having the lowest risk of serious injury (0.3%). Relative risk of death was lower for restrained children up to age 8 in the rear compared with passengers in the right front seat (RR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.12–0.58 for 0–3 years, RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.30–0.98 for 4–8 years) but was higher for restrained 9–12-year-old children (RR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.18–2.84). There was no evidence for a difference in risk of death in the rear vs. front seat for occupants ages 13-54, but there was some evidence for an increased relative risk of death for adults age 55 and older in the rear vs. passengers in the right front seat (RR = 1.41, 95% CI 0.94–2.13), though we could not exclude the possibility of no difference. After controlling for occupant age and gender, the relative risk of death for restrained rear row occupants was significantly higher than that of front seat occupants in model year 2007 and newer vehicles and significantly higher in rear and right side impact crashes.

Conclusions

Results of this study extend prior research on the relative safety of the rear seat compared with the front by examining a more contemporary fleet of vehicles. The rear row is primarily occupied by children and adolescents, but the variable relative risk of death in the rear compared with the front seat for occupants of different age groups highlights the challenges in providing optimal protection to a wide range of rear seat occupants. Findings of an elevated risk of death for rear row occupants, as compared with front row passengers, in the newest model year vehicles provides further evidence that rear seat safety is not keeping pace with advances in the front seat.     

Fatality risk for belted drivers versus car mass

This study was performed to determine how the likelihood of a belted driver being killed in a single car crash depends on the mass of the car. This was done by applying the pedestrian fatality exposure approach to the subset of fatalities in the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) for which the driver was coded as using a shoulder belt and/or a lap belt. Combining the 1975 through 1982 data provided a sufficiently large population of belted drivers to perform the analysis. In the exposure approach used, the number of car drivers killed in single car crashes is divided by the number of nonoccupant fatalities (pedestrians or motorcyclists) associated with the same group of cars. The ratio is interpreted to reflect the physical effect of car mass, essentially independent of driver behavior effects. In the present application, car mass effects for belted drivers were determined by considering the number of belted drivers killed divided by the number of nonoccupants killed in crashes involving cars whose drivers were coded in the FARS files as being belted. Because the belt use of surviving drivers is, to some extent, self-reported, it is considered that the data given in the report should be not used to estimate the effectiveness of seat belts in preventing fatalities. The results are presented as graphical and analytical comparisons of fatality likelihood versus car mass for belted and unbelted drivers. It is concluded that the effect of car mass on relative driver fatality likelihood is essentially the same for belted and unbelted drivers (for example, the present analysis gives that a belted driver in a 900 kg car is 2.3 times as likely to be killed in a single car crash as is the belted driver in an 1800 kg car. The corresponding ratio determined here for unbelted drivers is 2.4). As a consequence of this conclusion, the relative effectiveness of seat belts in preventing driver fatalities is similar for cars of different masses.     

How would increasing seat belt use affect the number of killed or seriously injured light vehicle occupants?

The expected effects of increasing seat belt use on the number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) light vehicle occupants have been estimated for three scenarios of increased seat belt use in Norway, taking into account current seat belt use, the effects of seat belts and differences in crash risk between belted and unbelted drivers. The effects of seat belts on fatality and injury risk were investigated in a meta-analysis that is based on 24 studies from 2000 or later. The results indicate that seat belts reduce both fatal and non-fatal injuries by 60% among front seat occupants and by 44% among rear seat occupants. Both results are statistically significant. Seat belt use among rear seat occupants was additionally found to about halve fatality risk among belted front seat occupants in a meta-analysis that is based on six studies. Based on an analysis of seat belt wearing rates among crash involved and non-crash involved drivers in Norway it is estimated that unbelted drivers have 8.3 times the fatal crash risk and 5.2 times the serious injury crash risk of belted drivers. The large differences in crash risk are likely to be due to other risk factors that are common among unbelted drivers such as drunk driving and speeding. Without taking into account differences in crash risk between belted and unbelted drivers, the estimated effects of increasing seat belt use are likely to be biased. When differences in crash risk are taken into account, it is estimated that the annual numbers of KSI front seat occupants in light vehicles in Norway could be reduced by 11.3% if all vehicles had seat belt reminders (assumed seat belt wearing rate 98.9%), by 17.5% if all light vehicles had seat belt interlocks (assumed seat belt wearing rate 99.7%) and by 19.9% if all front seat occupants of light vehicles were belted. Currently 96.6% of all (non-crash involved) front seat occupants are belted. The effect on KSI per percentage increase of seat belt use increases with increasing initial levels of seat belt use. Had all rear seat occupants been belted, the number of KSI front seat occupants could additionally be reduced by about 0.6%. The reduction of the number of KSI rear seat occupants would be about the same in terms of numbers of prevented KSI.     

Relative risk of death from ejection by crash type and crash mode

In virtually all circumstances, the chance of survival in a crash is much greater if the occupant is not ejected from the vehicle. Several estimates of the increased risk of death as a result of ejection (ranging from 2.5 to 25) have been made, but none were specific to the crash mode and most did not control for crash severity. The current study examined the relative risk of fatality due to ejection, by crash type and crash mode, using the Fatal Accident Reporting System data from the years 1982 through 1986. Crash type was defined as either single vehicle or multivehicle and crash mode included rollover, nonrollover, and/or direction of impact. Crash severity was controlled for using a paired comparison method of analysis. Both crash type and crash mode were found to have substantial effects on the relative risk of death due to ejection. In addition, risk differences across seating position exist. Depending on crash mode or type, the risks ranged from about 1.5 to 8. Single-vehicle rollover crashes have the highest increased risk of death due to ejection: about eightfold for the driver and sevenfold for the right front passenger.     

Motorized two-point safety belt effectiveness in preventing fatalities

The effectiveness of two-point motorized restraint systems in preventing fatalities to outboard front-seat car occupants is estimated using published fatality data for one model car equipped with a motorized two-point-belt system, together with a number of assumptions. Effectiveness estimates are obtained for the motorized belt system as used in the field, which reflects the mix of occupants who do and do not fasten the manual lap belt, and for effectiveness when the lap belt is not used. This latter estimate is, therefore, an estimate of the effectiveness of shoulder belts in preventing fatalities. In the data for the one car model, 18% of the fatally injured occupants were ejected. By assuming that three-point belt systems prevent ejection, these data are used to compute the difference in effectiveness between two-point and three-point systems. The result applies to the two-point belt system used in conjunction with whatever manual belt-use rates occurred in traffic. From published observations of lap-belt-use rates for this same vehicle, the effectiveness of the shoulder belt only is estimated. It is found that effectiveness of the two-point restraint system in conjunction with the lap-belt use that occurred in traffic is (32 +/- 5)%. The effectiveness of the shoulder belt only is estimated as (29 +/- 8)%.     

Restraint effectiveness, occupant ejection from cars, and fatality reductions

The effectiveness of air cushion restraint systems, or airbags, in preventing fatalities is estimated by assuming that they do not affect ejection probability, and protect only in frontal, or near frontal, crashes with impact-reducing effectiveness equal to that of lap/shoulder belts. In order to compute airbag effectiveness, lap/shoulder belt effectiveness and the fraction of fatalities preventable by eliminating ejection are estimated using Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data. Ejection prevention is found to account for almost half of the effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts (essentially all for lap belts only). Airbag effectiveness is estimated as (18 +/- 4)% in preventing fatalities to drivers and (13 +/- 4)% to right front passengers. Drivers switching from lap/shoulder belt to airbag-only protection increase their fatality risk by 41%.     

Pooling data from fatality analysis reporting system (FARS) and generalized estimates system (GES) to explore the continuum of injury severity spectrum

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and Generalized Estimates System (GES) data are most commonly used datasets to examine motor vehicle occupant injury severity in the United States (US). The FARS dataset focuses exclusively on fatal crashes, but provides detailed information on the continuum of fatality (a spectrum ranging from a death occurring within thirty days of the crash up to instantaneous death). While such data is beneficial for understanding fatal crashes, it inherently excludes crashes without fatalities. Hence, the exogenous factors identified as critical in contributing (or reducing) to fatality in the FARS data might possibly offer different effects on non-fatal crash severity levels when a truly random sample of crashes is considered. The GES data fills this gap by compiling data on a sample of roadway crashes involving all possible severity consequences providing a more representative sample of traffic crashes in the US. FARS data provides a continuous timeline of the fatal occurrences from the time to crash – as opposed to considering all fatalities to be the same. This allows an analysis of the survival time of victims before their death. The GES, on the other hand, does not offer such detailed information except identifying who died in the crash. The challenge in obtaining representative estimates for the crash population is the lack of readily available “appropriate” data that contains information available in both GES and FARS datasets. One way to address this issue is to replace the fatal crashes in the GES data with fatal crashes from FARS data thus augmenting the GES data sample with a very refined categorization of fatal crashes. The sample thus formed, if statistically valid, will provide us with a reasonable representation of the crash population.This paper focuses on developing a framework for pooling of data from FARS and GES data. The validation of the pooled sample against the original GES sample (unpooled sample) is carried out through two methods: (1) univariate sample comparison and (2) econometric model parameter estimate comparison. The validation exercise indicates that parameter estimates obtained using the pooled data model closely resemble the parameter estimates obtained using the unpooled data. After we confirm that the differences in model estimates obtained using the pooled and unpooled data are within an acceptable margin, we also simultaneously examine the whole spectrum of injury severity on an eleven point ordinal severity scale – no injury, minor injury, severe injury, incapacitating injury, and 7 refined categories of fatalities ranging from fatality after 30 days to instant death – using a nationally representative pooled dataset. The model estimates are augmented by conducting elasticity analysis to illustrate the applicability of the proposed framework.     

Fatalities to occupants of cargo areas of pickup trucks

We sought to describe the fatalities to occupants of pickup truck cargo areas and to compare the mortality of cargo area occupants to passengers in the cab. From the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) files for 1987-1996, we identified occupants of pickup trucks with at least one fatality and at least one passenger in the cargo area. Outcomes of cargo area occupants and passengers in the cab were compared using estimating equations conditional on the crash and vehicle. Thirty-four percent of deaths to cargo occupants were in noncrash events without vehicle deformation. Fifty-five percent of those who died were age 15-29 years and 79% were male. The fatality risk ratio (FRR) comparing cargo area occupants to front seat occupants was 3.0 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 2.7-3.4). The risk was 7.9 (95% CI = 6.2-10.1) times that of restrained front seat occupants. The FRR ranged from 92 (95% CI = 47-179) in noncrash events to 1.7 (95% CI = 1.5-1.9) in crashes with severe vehicle deformation. The FRR was 1.8 (95% CI = 1.4-2.3) for occupants of enclosed cargo areas and 3.5 (95% CI = 3.1-4.0) for occupants of open cargo areas. We conclude that passengers in cargo areas of pickup trucks have a higher risk of death than front seat occupants, especially in noncrash events, and that camper shells offer only limited protection for cargo area occupants.     

Effectiveness of the revision to FMVSS 301: FARS and NASS-CDS analysis of fatalities and severe injuries in rear impacts

PurposeThis study investigated the change in the fatality and severe injury risks in rear impacts with vehicle model years (MY) grouped prior to, during the phase-in and after the revision to FMVSS 301.MethodsFARS and NASS-CDS data were used to determine the injury risks of non-ejected occupants in light vehicles involving non-rollover, rear impacts. The data were analyzed by MY groups: 1996–2001, 2002–2007 and 2008+ to represent the years prior to, during the phase-in and post-revision phase-in of FMVSS 301. The 1996–2013 FARS data were analyzed for rear crashes defined by the initial crash direction (IMPACT1) and direction with most damage (IMPACT2) to the rear. Fatality risk was determined by the number of fatally injured occupants per all occupants with known injury status.The 1994–2013 NASS-CDS was analyzed for rear crashes defined by the damage area variable. The risk of severe injury (MAIS 4+F) was determined as the number of occupants with MAIS 4+F injury per all occupants with known injury status. The distribution of rear crashes was determined by impact location and crash severity. NASS-CDS electronic cases with 2008+ MY vehicles were analyzed to evaluate the vehicle and occupant performance.ResultsThe fatality risk was 20.6% in the 1996–2001, 17.3% in the 2002–2007 and 15.0% in the 2008+ MY vehicles using FARS with the initial crash direction variable (IMPACT1) to the rear. There was a 27.1% reduction in risk with post-FMVSS 301 vehicles 2008+ MY. The risk was 19.0%, 15.4% and 12.8% with the most damage variable (IMPACT2) to the rear. There was 32.8% reduction in risk with 2008+ MY vehicles.The NASS-CDS analysis showed that the risk of severe injury (MAIS 4+F) was 0.27 ± 0.05% for 1996–2001, 0.30 ± 0.13% for 2002–2007 and 0.08 ± 0.04% for 2008+ MY year vehicles. There was a 70.2% reduction in the risk for severe injury with 2008+ MY vehicles.The NASS-CDS case review of MAIS 4+F injury in rear impacts of 2008+ MY vehicles that comply with the revised FMVSS 301 indicated that the crashes were very severe and generally involved significant 2nd row intrusion.ConclusionsThe revision to FMVSS 301 has effectively reduced the risks for fatal and severe injury in vehicles compliant with the revision (2008+ MY). The reduction was 27.1–32.8% in fatality risk using FARS data and 70.2% in severe injury risk using the NASS-CDS when compared to vehicles prior to the phase-in of the revised FMVSS 301 (1996–2001 MY vehicles). It is not possible to parse the effects of other design changes in seats and restraint systems that also increased safety over the study years.     

The effectiveness of safety belts in preventing fatalities

The effectiveness of safety belts in preventing fatalities to drivers and right front passengers is estimated by applying the double pair comparison method to 1974 or later model year cars coded in the Fatal Accident Reporting System. The method focuses on "subject" occupants (drivers or right front passengers) and "other" occupants (any except the subject occupant). Fatality risks to belted and unbelted subject occupants are compared using the other occupant to estimate exposure. In this study, drivers and right front passengers are subject occupants; choosing other occupants differing in age, seating positions, and belt use, generated 46 essentially independent estimates of safety belt effectiveness. The weighted average and standard error of these is (41 +/- 4)%. This finding agrees with the 40%-50% range reported in a recent major review and synthesis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Combining this with the present determination gives (43 +/- 3)%; that is, if all presently unbelted drivers and right front passengers were to use the provided three point lap/shoulder belt, but not otherwise change their behavior, fatalities to this group would decline by (43 +/- 3)%.     

Injuries to unrestrained occupants in small car-small car and large car-large car head-on collisions

Estimates were made of the effects of observed differences in the crash responses of small and large cars on the likelihood of injury to unrestrained occupants in small car-small car and large car-large car head-on collisions using a simple spring-mass model. Two measures of the likelihood of injury were computed: the relative velocity of an unrestrained occupant and car at the instant the occupant strikes the interior, and the approximate closing speed at which occupant compartment intrusion would be expected to begin. Model estimates of the intrusion thresholds for large ear-large car and small car-small car head-on crashes were comparable. However, unrestrained occupants were predicted to strike the interiors of their cars at a lower relative velocity in a head-on crash involving two large cars than in a similar crash involving two small cars. Head-on crashes involving a large and small car were also modelled for purposes of comparison. The estimated intrusion thresholds for small cars in such crashes were considerably lower than in small car-small car crashes. Also, calculations indicated that in a small car-large car head-on crash, an unrestrained small car occupant strikes the interior of his car with a higher relative velocity than an unrestrained large car occupant, and this velocity is higher than if his car struck another small car. However, the difference in the relative velocities with which unrestrained small and large car occupants impact the interiors of their cars in small car-large car collisions was found to diminish with increasing closing speed. These results suggest that the frontal structures of small cars should be longer and less stiff than on current models and the occupant compartment should be stiffer. Such designs would help to reduce injuries to restrained and unrestrained small car occupants in collisions with both small and large cars.     

Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach

A new approach to estimating exposure is presented and applied to determining relations between car mass and driver fatality likelihood. The new approach considers two groups of fatal crashes in the FARS files. The first group contains crashes in which car drivers are killed in single car crashes or in crashes with trucks. These are both examples of non-two car crashes. It is hypothesized that the likelihood of a car driver fatality in such crashes depends on car mass. The second group of fatal crashes contains crashes in which either pedestrians or motorcyclists are killed in crashes with cars. It is hypothesized that the likelihood of the pedestrian or motorcyclist being killed in such crashes is independent of the mass of the car. The new exposure approach implies that the ratio of the number of people killed in the mass dependent crash to those killed in the mass independent crash gives an estimate of how car mass affects the likelihood of a driver fatality. The approach further implies that the estimate obtained is an estimate of the physical effect of mass, essentially independent of driver behavior. It is found that the new exposure approach yields relationships between driver fatality likelihood and car mass that are more precise and consistent than can normally be obtained in accident research. The effects found, which are attributed to the physical properties of the vehicle, essentially independent of driver behavior, are larger (for example, a driver of a 900 kg car is 2.6 times as likely to be killed as is a driver of a 1800kg car) than those based on fatalities per car.     

Serious or fatal driver injury rate versus car mass in head-on crashes between cars of similar mass

This work was performed to determine relations between car mass and driver injuries (serious or fatal) when cars of similar mass crash into each other head-on. This type of crash is examined because it is considered similar in some respects to a barrier crash. Data from the United States Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) are used to examine driver fatality likelihood as a function of car mass when cars of similar mass crash into each other. Pedestrian fatalities involving cars of the same mass are used to estimate exposure. Two additional sources of data (State data from North Carolina and New York) are used to generate information on the number of drivers seriously injured or killed per police reported crash when cars of similar mass crash into each other. The present study finds that the likelihood of driver injury (fatal or serious) when cars of similar mass crash into each other increases with decreasing car mass, both for head-on crashes and for crashes in all directions. The study does not address possible mechanisms that might lead to such relations. All the data analyzed reveal a fairly consistent picture--a driver in a 900 kg car crashing head-on into another 900 kg car is about 2.0 times as likely to be seriously injured or killed as is a driver of a 1800 kg car crashing head-on into another 1800 kg car.     

Differences in reported car weight between fatality and registration data files

Two national-level data sources are commonly used together to estimate and compare fatality rates by car weight. The weight of each car in a fatal crash is available on the automated files of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatal Accident Reporting System; weight is derived by interpreting the Vehicle Identification Number of each car using a computer algorithm developed and maintained by R. L. Polk & Co. Counts of cars in use, by weight, are available on R. L. Polk & Co.'s National Vehicle Population Profile files; weights are coded from information in state vehicle registration files. However, it appears that there are systematic differences in car weight coding that complicate the use of these two sources together for calculating fatality rates (fatalities per registered car). Overall, the registration data appear to describe a car (of a particular make, model, and model year) as about one hundred pounds heavier than that car is described in the fatality data. The effect is to bias the comparison of fatalities per registered vehicle against lighter cars. Failure to consider this difference can lead to very misleading results. For example, the uncorrected data produce an estimate that the number of occupant fatalities per registered minicompact car (those under 1,950 pounds) was five times the rate in the largest cars (those weighing at least 3,950 pounds). Correcting for differences in car weight reporting produces estimates that the fatality rate in minicompact cars was twice that in the largest cars. Differences by car weight remain, but they are much less than would be concluded from the biased comparison.     

Relative fatality risk in different seating positions versus car model year

Fatality risk of drivers compared to right-front passengers is examined vs. car model year (MY) using Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data for 1975 through 1986. Confounding effects are removed by comparing unrestrained occupants matched in sex and age (to within three years). MY ≥ 1968 cars, which complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 203 (impact protection for the driver) and FMVSS 204 (rearward column displacement), are compared to MY ≤ 1966 cars, which did not comply with these standards. It is found that, compared to right-front passengers in the same cars, drivers had higher relative fatality risks in MY ≥ 1968 cars and lower relative fatality risks in MY ≤ 1966 cars. Because there are so few fatal frontal crash data for MY 1966 and MY 1968 cars, definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of FMVSS 203 and 204 in reducing driver fatalities are not possible. However, our analysis, together with the assumption that right-front-passenger fatality risk was the same in 1966 and 1968 MY cars, does suggest that a previous 12% effectiveness estimate is more likely to be high than low.