Rollover crashes: predicting serious injury based on occupant, vehicle, and crash characteristics

The purpose of this research was to determine occupant, vehicle, and crash characteristics predicting serious injury during rollover crashes. We compared 27 case occupants with serious or greater severity injuries with 606 control occupants without injury or with only minor or moderate injury. Odds ratios (OR) for individual variables and logistic regression were used to identify predictive variables for serious injury associated with rollovers. Cases more often had thorax, spine, or head injury compared to controls that more often had extremity injuries. Intrusion (especially roof rail or B-pillar intrusion) at the occupant's position, the vehicle interior side and roof as sources of injury, and improper safety belt use were significantly associated with serious injury. Even when safety belt use or proper use was controlled for, occupants with greater magnitude of intrusion at their seat position were about 10 times more likely to receive serious injury. Although prevention of rollover crashes is the ultimate goal, it is important to develop safer vehicles and safety systems to better protect occupants who are involved in rollover crashes. This also requires improvement in data collection systems documenting these types of crashes.     

Hearing loss and automobile airbag deployments

In an on-going research program, on the causation of injuries in motor vehicle accidents, at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, crashes with airbags have been, and are continuing to be, investigated. In order to determine the occurrence, if any, of ‘hearing problems’ associated with airbag deployments, drivers and passengers who had been involved in ‘airbag’ automobile crashes were interviewed by telephone. From the crashes investigated, 225 attempts were made to contact drivers who were exposed to airbag deployments. From these telephone interviews, contacts were made with 177 car occupants. Only three reported that they had experienced any type of hearing-related problems subsequent to their crash. One other case is reported of a driver who had pre-crash hearing loss. It appears that permanent hearing deficit due to airbag deployment, both in cars with the steering wheel airbag alone, and in those with a passenger side airbag, is an infrequent event (1.7%) from the data of this study.     

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.     

Rating the overall secondary safety of vehicles from real world crash data: the Australian and New Zealand Total Secondary Safety Index

Various systems for rating secondary safety of particular makes and models of vehicles have been developed internationally. These measures generally evaluate crashworthiness (the ability of the vehicle to protect its own occupants in the event of a crash) separately from aggressivity (the harm a vehicle is liable to impose on other road users into which it crashes). This paper describes an approach using Australian and New Zealand data that combines these two facets of secondary safety into one ‘Total Secondary Safety Index’ estimated from real world crash outcomes. The Index estimates the risk of death or serious injury to all key road users in crashes involving light passenger vehicles across the full range of crash types. This paper describes the rationale and method for producing this Index, together with some estimates for common Australian and New Zealand makes and models of light passenger vehicles.     

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.     

Injury patterns in frontal crashes: The association between knee-thigh-hip (KTH) and serious intra-abdominal injury

Safety belts protect occupants in frontal impacts by reducing occupant deceleration and preventing the occupant from hitting interior vehicle components likely to cause injury. However, occupants moving forward during the impact may contact the safety belt webbing across their chest and abdomen. We hypothesized that if the occupant loaded their knee-thigh-hip (KTH) region with enough force to result in injury to this region—it might prevent compression (and injury) of their abdomen by the safety belt. Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) data were used to test the association between KTH and intra-abdominal injury related to safety belts. Odds ratios with 95% confidence limits (CL) and logistic regression models were used to assess statistical significance. Analyses were based on 706 CIREN adult, front seat occupants using their safety belt and injured in frontal crashes. Occupants with KTH injury were four times less likely (adjusted odds ratio = 0.25, 95% CL 0.10, 0.62) to have concomitant serious intra-abdominal injury caused by the safety belt. Although safety belts save lives and prevent serious injury, some occupants may sustain serious intra-abdominal injury when the abdomen is loaded by the safety belt during a frontal impact. These results may be useful to motor vehicle manufacturers and others who design and test motor vehicle safety systems.     

Will the light truck bumper height-matching standard reduce deaths in cars?

Background

In a collision between a car and a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or pickup truck, car occupants are more likely to be killed than if they crashed with another car. Some of the excess risk may be due to the propensity of SUVs and pickups with high bumpers to override the lower bumpers in cars. To reduce this incompatibility, particularly in head-on collisions, in 2003 automobile manufacturers voluntarily established a bumper height-matching standard for pickups and SUVs.

Objective

To assess whether height-matching bumpers in pickups and SUVs were associated with the risk of death in either car occupants or pickup and SUV occupants.

Methods

Case–control study of collisions between one car and one SUV or pickup in the US during 2000–2008, in which the SUV or pickup was model year 2000–2006. Cases were all decedents in fatal crashes; one control was selected from each crash in a national probability sample of crashes.

Findings

Occupants of cars that crashed with SUVs or pickups with height-matching bumpers may be at slightly reduced risk of death compared to those that crashed with other SUVs or pickups (adjusted odds ratio: 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.61–1.13)). There was no evidence of a reduction in risk in head-on crashes (1.09 (0.66–1.79)). In crashes in which the SUV or pickup struck the car on the side, height-matched bumpers were associated with a reduced risk of death (0.68 (0.48–0.97)). Occupants of SUVs and pickups with height-matching bumpers may also be at slightly reduced risk of death (0.91 (0.64–1.28)).

Conclusions

Height-matching bumpers were associated with a reduced risk of death among car occupants in crashes in which SUVs or pickups struck cars in the side, but there was little evidence of an effect in head-on crashes. The new bumper height-matching standard may not achieve its primary goal of reducing deaths in head-on crashes, but may modestly reduce overall deaths in crashes between cars and SUVs or pickups because of unanticipated benefits to car occupants in side crashes, and a possible beneficial effect to SUV and pickup occupants.     

Factors affecting pelvic and thoracic forces in near-side impact crashes: a study of US-NCAP, NASS, and CIREN data

The goal of this study was to identify variables related to vehicle design which are associated with pelvic and thoracic accelerations as measured by the driver's (near side) crash dummy during new car assessment program (NCAP) testing of motor vehicles. Vehicle specific parameters were analyzed using NCAP side impact test results. Data from national automotive sampling system, crashworthiness data system (NASS-CDS) and crash injury research and engineering network (CIREN) (both National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) injury databases) were assessed to confirm NCAP test observations. In addition, door armrest stiffness measurements were performed using a mechanical tester on a sample of 40 vehicles. NCAP data showed that of 10 variables tested using multiple linear regression, vehicle weight and door crush correlated with pelvic acceleration of the driver's crash dummy (overall, r2=0.58, p=0.002, n=165). For thoracic trauma index (TTI) vehicle weight and peak door velocity correlated, significantly (overall, r2=0.41, p=0.03, n=165). Mean TTI was 63.7 g with no side airbag (n=108) and 55.6 g with a thoracic side airbag (n=54), p=0.01. The mean vehicle weight and door crush between airbag and no airbag groups were not significantly different. NASS-CDS data demonstrated a direct relationship between increased door crush and increased abbreviated injury score (AIS). CIREN data showed that occupants who sustained pelvic injuries had a median AIS of 3 with 24.9 cm of door crush, with abdominal injuries, a median AIS of 3 and 30 cm of crush, and with thoracic injuries, a median AIS of 4 and 34 cm of door crush. In addition, the frequency of bilateral pelvic injuries was significantly higher for subjects in CIREN crashes who were in a vehicle with a center console, but only if door intrusion was greater than 15 cm. This information may be useful in design of vehicles with greater protection in side impact crashes.     

Knee injuries in motor vehicle collisions: a study of the National Accident Sampling System database for the years 1979-1995

A detailed study of knee injuries recorded in the 1979–1995 National Accident Sampling System database maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was conducted. Injuries to other body regions were also considered in order to illustrate the relative frequency of knee injuries. This study demonstrated that knee injuries constitute ≈10% of all injuries recorded every year. However, the majority of these injuries were of low severity (i.e. contusions, abrasions, lacerations) with an abbreviated injury score (AIS) of 1. Most knee injuries occurred following a frontal collision with no intrusion. The study also indicated most knee fractures occur in crashes where the vehicle velocity differences (ΔVs) were less than 45 kmph, with some occurring at ΔVs as low as 10 kmph. Serious non-fracture knee injuries (i.e. ligament tears) rated AIS 2 accounted for 20 out of every 1000 injuries and predominantly occurred at ΔVs below 25 kmph. In this study it was noted that women were more likely to experience a knee contusion than men. This study further suggests that knee impact scenarios have remained relatively constant over the years as the knee injury rates showed little variation. The rate of lap and shoulder belt use was lower in occupants who experienced a knee injury vs. the rate in the overall database and airbags were present in only a small number of cases. As this study largely included only vehicles without airbags it provides a good baseline for analysis of the influence of the airbag on knee injury trends in the future.     

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%.     

The relationship between body weight and risk of death and serious injury in motor vehicle crashes

We sought to investigate the effect of increased body weight on the risk of death and serious injury to occupants in motor vehicle crashes. We employed a retrospective cohort study design utilizing data from the National Automotive Sampling System, Crashworthiness Data System (CDS), 1993-1996. Subjects in the study included occupants involved in tow-away crashes of passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles. Two outcomes were analyzed: death within 30 days of the crash and injury severity score (ISS). Two exposures were considered: occupant body weight and body mass index (BMI; kg/m2). Occupant weight was available on 27263 subjects (76%) in the CDS database. Mortality was 0.67%. Increased body weight was associated with increased risk of mortality and increased risk of severe injury. The odds ratio for death was 1.013 (95% CI: 1.007, 1.018) for each kilogram increase in body weight. The odds ratio for sustaining an injury with ISS > or = 9 was 1.008 (95% CI: 1.004, 1.011) for each kilogram increase in body weight. After adjustment for potentially confounding variables (age, gender, seatbelt use, seat position and vehicle curbweight), the significant relationship between occupant weight and mortality persisted. After adjustment, the relationship between occupant weight and ISS was present, although less marked. Similar trends were found when BMI was analyzed as the exposure. In conclusion, increased occupant body weight is associated with increased mortality in automobile crashes. This is probably due in part to increased co-morbid factors in the more overweight occupants. However, it is possibly also due to an increased severity of injury in these occupants. These findings may have implications for vehicle safety design, as well as for transport safety policy.     

A matched-cohort analysis of belted front and rear seat occupants in newer and older model vehicles shows that gains in front occupant safety have outpaced gains for rear seat occupants

Previous studies have suggested that rear seat occupants are at lower risk of serious injury and death in crashes. However, over the last 10–15 years there have been significant changes in front seat safety systems. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is still a benefit for rear seated occupants compared to front seat occupants. A matched-cohort approach, using data on restrained occupants from the US National Automotive Sampling System (data years 1993–2007), was adopted. Conditional poisson regression modeling was used to evaluate the relative risk of AIS3+ injury in front (passenger and driver) and rear seat occupants, in vehicles of model year 1990–1996 compared to newer vehicles. Occupant age, belt type, and intrusion were additional variables in the model. The relative risk of AIS3+ injury for front and rear occupants was influenced by age and model year. For those aged 16–50 years in older vehicles, the front and rear seat offered similar levels of protection (RR = 1.14, CI = 1.09–1.19), however in newer model vehicles (1997–2007), the rear seat carried a higher risk of injury (RR = 1.98, CI = 1.90–2.06). For adults over 50 years, the rear seat carried a higher risk in both older and newer vehicles, and for 9–15 year olds, the rear seat carried a lower risk. These findings suggest that safety for front seat occupants has improved over the last decade, to the point where, for occupants over 15 years of age, the front seat is safer than the rear seat. While the benefit of rear seating for children aged 9–15 years has decreased over time, they are still at lower risk in the rear seat.     

Crash fatality risk and unibody versus body-on-frame structure in SUVs

Background

In crashes between cars and SUVs, car occupants are more likely to be killed than if they crashed with another car. An increasing proportion of SUVs are built with unibody, rather than truck-like body-on-frame construction. Unibody SUVs are generally lighter, less stiff, and less likely to roll over than body-on-frame SUVs, but whether unibody structure affects risk of death in crashes is unknown.

Objective

To determine whether unibody SUVs differ from body-on-frame SUVs in the danger they pose to occupants of other vehicles and in the self-protection they offer to their own occupants.

Methods

Case–control study of crashes between one compact SUV and one other passenger vehicle in the US during 1995–2008, in which the SUV was model year 1996–2006. Cases were all decedents in fatal crashes, one control was selected from each non-fatal crash.

Findings

Occupants of passenger vehicles that crashed with compact unibody SUVs were at 18% lower risk of death compared to those that crashed with compact body-on-frame SUVs (adjusted odds ratio 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.94)). Occupants of compact unibody SUVs were also at lower risk of death compared to occupants of body-on-frame SUVs (0.86 (0.72–1.02)).

Conclusions

In two-vehicle collisions involving compact SUVs, unibody structure was associated with lower risk of death both in occupants of other vehicles in the crash, and in SUVs’ own occupants.     

Epidemiology of moderate-to-severe injury patterns observed in rollover crashes

BackgroundPrevious epidemiological studies have highlighted the high risk of injury to the head, thorax, and cervical spine in rollover crashes. However, such results provide limited information on whole-body injury distribution and multiple region injury patterns necessary for the improvement and prioritization of rollover-focused injury countermeasures.MethodsSampled cases representing approximately 133,000 U.S. adult occupants involved in rollover crashes (between 1995 and 2013) sustaining moderate-to-severe injuries were selected from the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System database. A retrospective cohort study, based on a survey of population-based data, was used to identify relevant whole body injury patterns.ResultsAmong belted occupants injured in rollover crashes, 79.2% sustained injuries to only one body region. The three most frequently injured (AIS2+) body regions were head (42.1%), upper extremity (28.0%), and thorax (27.1%). The most frequent multi-region injury pattern involved the head and upper extremity, but this pattern only accounted for 2.3% of all of occupants with moderate or worse injuries.ConclusionsThe results indicated that for rollover-dominated crashes, the frequently observed injury patterns involved isolated body regions. In contrast, multi-region injury patterns are more frequently observed in rollovers with significant planar impacts. Identification of region-specific injury patterns in pure rollover crashes is essential for clarifying injury mitigation targets and developing whole-body injury metrics specifically applicable to rollovers.     

Are airbags a dangerous safety measure? A meta-analysis of the effects of frontal airbags on driver fatalities

A meta-analysis has been conducted of the effectiveness of frontal airbags in reducing driver fatalities, and some potential moderator variables for airbag effectiveness have been investigated. The results confirm the assumption that airbags reduce accident fatalities among belted drivers, but the results are too heterogeneous for drawing conclusions about the size of the overall effect. No support has been found for the hypothesis that airbags increase overall fatality risk, as has been found in the study by Meyer and Finney (Meyer, M., Finney, T., 2005. Who wants Airbags? Chance, 18 (19) 3–16). The results do not seem to be affected by publication bias, and no indications of confounding effects of vehicle characteristics or impact velocity have been found. In frontal collisions belted driver fatalities were found to be reduced by about 22% when all types of airbags are regarded together. The revision of the test criteria for airbags in the USA in 1997 has improved airbag effectiveness. For unbelted drivers airbags are neither effective nor counterproductive, but may increase fatality risk in single vehicle accidents. The results show that there is a lack of knowledge about the effects of airbags in accidents that are not frontal collisions.     

The antilock braking system anomaly: a drinking driver problem?

Antilock braking systems (ABS) have held promise for reducing the incidence of accidents because they reduce stopping times on slippery surfaces and allow drivers to maintain steering control during emergency braking. Farmer et al. (Accident Anal. Prevent. 29 (1997) 745) provide evidence that antilock brakes are beneficial to nonoccupants: a set of 1992 model General Motors vehicles equipped with antilock brakes were involved in significantly fewer fatal crashes in which occupants of other vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists were killed. But, perversely, the risk of death for occupants of vehicles equipped with antilock brakes increased significantly after adoption. Farmer (Accident Anal. Prevent. 33 (2001) 361) updates the analysis for 1996- 1998 and finds a significant attenuation in the ABS anomaly. Researchers have put forward two hypotheses to explain this antilock brake anomaly: risk compensation and improper operation of antilock brake-equipped vehicles. We provide strong evidence for the improper operation hypothesis by showing that the antilock brake anomaly is confined largely to drinking drivers. Further, we show that the attenuation phenomenon occurs consistently after the first three to four years of vehicle service.     

The influence of damage distribution on serious brain injury in occupants in frontal motor vehicle crashes

In spite of improvements in motor vehicle safety systems and crashworthiness, motor vehicle crashes remain one of the leading causes of brain injury. The purpose of this study was to determine if the damage distribution across the frontal plane affected brain injury severity of occupants in frontal impacts. Occupants in "head on" frontal impacts with a Principal Direction of Force (PDOF) equal to 11, 12, or 1o'clock who sustained serious brain injury were identified using the Crash Injury Research Engineering Network (CIREN) database. Impacts were further classified based on the damage distribution across the frontal plane as distributed, offset, and extreme offset (corner). Overall, there was no significant difference for brain injury severity (based on Glasgow Coma Scale<9, or brain injury AIS>2) comparing occupants in the different impact categories. For occupants in distributed frontal impacts, safety belt use was protective (odds ratio (OR)=0.61) and intrusion at the occupant's seat position was four times more likely to result in severe (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)<9) brain injury (OR=4.35). For occupants in offset frontal impacts, again safety belt use was protective against severe brain injury (OR=0.25). Possibly due to the small number of brain-injured occupants in corner impacts, safety belts did not significantly protect against increased brain injury severity during corner impacts. This study supports the importance of safety belt use to decrease brain injury severity for occupants in distributed and offset frontal crashes. It also illustrates how studying "real world" crashes may provide useful information on occupant injuries under impact circumstances not currently covered by crash testing.     

Correlation of head injury to vehicle contact points using crash injury research and engineering network data

Head injury is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in motor vehicle crashes. Efforts to improve vehicle design, which minimize forces exerted to the occupant's head, may lead to a reduction in the frequency and severity of head injury. We therefore set out to identify mechanisms producing severe head injury in motor vehicle crashes (MVC) derived from the crash injury research and engineering network (CIREN) database. CIREN combines crash site analysis, vehicle damage assessment, and occupant kinematics in relation to the occupant's injuries. From the Seattle CIREN database of 101 cases, compiled from 1997 to 1998, we selected those crashes in which the occupant sustained severe head injury (abbreviated injury score, AIS>or=4) for analysis. We examined crash mechanism, energy transfer, point of head contact, vehicle intrusion and resulting injuries.There were 15 cases with severe head injury. These were primarily due to side impacts (n=10) in comparison to front impacts (n=5). The average net change in velocity (delta velocity, DV) was 15 mile/h (range 4-29 mile/h). In cases where the primary point of head contact could be elucidated the B-pillar predominated (4 cases, 33.3%) followed by the striking external object (2 cases, 16.7%), A- (1 case, 8.3%) and C- (1 case, 8.3%) pillars, roof side rail (1 case, 8.3%), windshield header (1 case, 8.3%), windowsill (1 case, 8.3%) and airbag (1 case, 8.3%).In this series the predominant mechanism of head injury was lateral impacts, especially those in which the victims' heads struck the B-pillar. The need for improved head protection from lateral impacts is indicated.     

Assessing the relative risk of severe injury in automotive crashes for older female occupants

A logistic regression model was used in the prediction of injury severity for individuals who are involved in a vehicular crash. The model identified females and older occupants (segmented by age 55-74, and 75 and older) as having a significantly higher risk of severe injuries in a crash. Further, interactions of older females with other factors, such as occupant seat position, crash type, and environmental factors were also shown to significantly impact the relative risk of a severe injury. This study revealed that females 75 years and older had the lowest odds of injury among all female occupants studied (OR=1.16) while females between 55 and 74 years old have higher risk of severe injuries (OR=1.74). All older females (55 and older) were at greater risk for head-on, side-impact and rear-end collisions. Seatbelt use reduced severe injuries for females in this age group, but not to the same extent as the rest of the population studied. Additionally, crashes in severe weather, which were less likely to result in severe injuries for the general population, increased the risk of severe injuries to females that were 55 and older. Among occupants of light trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans, older females were less likely than others to be severely injured. In this case, older females appear better off in vehicles which are larger and protect better in severe crashes. This research demonstrates that circumstances surrounding a crash greatly impact the severity of injuries sustained by older female occupants.