SafetyNet Building The European Road Safety Observatory

1
SafetyNet Building The European Road Safety
Observatory

• Work Package 5
• In-Depth Accident Databases
• SafetyNet Conference
• Prague, Czech Republic, May 2006

2
The European Road Safety Action Programme A
Shared Responsibility

• EU Instruments
• Legislation (only when necessary)
• Best practice guidelines
• Technical guidelines accepted by experts drafted
  by professionals for the use of professionals
• Research and development
• Studies
• Framework programme research
• Financial support
• Road accident data and information

3
What is accident data?

• Factual information about crashes
• Interpreted information about crashes
• Factual information about non-crashes exposure
  data

4
In-depth data

• Detailed investigation of crashes in order to
  establish accident and injury causation
• Either on-scene or retrospective investigations
• Can be combined with administrative or other data
• Can have emphasis on certain elements of data

Morris et al, IRCOBI Workshop, 2004
5
Research priorities follow casualty reduction
Source TRL (2000)
6
In-depth Data to Support Policy Vehicle Safety

• Effectiveness of existing regulations
• Technical development of new requirements
• New priorities in regulation
• Assessment of non-regulatory activities e.g.
  Euro-NCAP
• Support for Industry new products and
  technologies

EuroNCAP
7
In-depth Data to Support Policy Highway Design

• Highway design requirements
• System interactions eg vehicle and barrier
• Requirements for ITS

8
In-depth Data to Support Policy Road Users

• Effectiveness of enforcement measures
• Understanding driver decision making
• New priorities in accident prevention

9
What are the different levels of accident data
Increasing detail
Increasing numbers
No single database can meet all needs
10
What do we mean by the co-ordinated approach?

• All databases should work together
• A set of building blocks
• Statistical links

11
Co-ordination of accident data UK accident
databases
12
EU Level Accident Information Gaps

• Lack of co-ordinated approach
• Absence of detailed exposure data
• Slow feedback for countermeasures
• Limited in-depth data on accident causation
  (until SafetyNet data are available)
• No systematic supplementary information (eg
  enforcement, traffic rules, etc)

13
SafetyNet
Policy Makers (National Administrations)
Consultation with Data Users
SafetyNet IP Steering Committee
Macroscopic data
In-depth data
Data application
WP 1 CARE
WP 2 Risk-Exposure data
WP 3 Safety Performance Indicators
WP 4 Independent accident investigation
recommend-ations
WP 5 In-depth Accident and Injury Causation
databank
WP 6 EU Safety Information system
WP 7 Data analysis and synthesis
14
In-Depth Accident Analysis
15
WP 5

• Microscopic Data From In-depth Investigations
• What happened?
• Why did it happen?
• How could this crash have been avoided?
• What could we learn from this crash that will
  prevent future crashes?
• What else should we consider for future accident
  avoidance?

16
The purpose of WP5

• To collect microscopic data from in-depth
  investigations, to record the findings in a
  database, to conduct analysis, and to form
  recommendations for policy and practice

17
SafetyNet WP 5 Partners
VSRC (Loughborough, UK, Co-ordinators) TNO
(Delft, NL) INRETS (Lyon, FR) CTH (Gothenburg,
SE) MUH (Hannover, GE) VALT (Helsinki, FI) DITS
(Rome, IT)
VALT
Chalmers
TNO
VSRC
MUH
INRETS
DITS
18

• WP 5 Accident Databases

• Task 5.1
• Develop new fatal accident database with 1300
  cases using Police Data (intermediate level data)
• Task 5.2
• Develop new accident causation database with
  1000 cases concentrating on infrastructure
  safety and eSafety (in-depth data)

19
WP 5 Data Spectrum
Macroscopic
Microscopic
CARE
very detailed, small numbers (,000)
little detail, large numbers (,000,000)
Task 5.2
Task 5.1
Intermediate level of detail
20
WP 5 - Methodology
21
Task 5.1 Fatal Accident Database
22
What Data??
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Data Levels

• Accident level (approx 10 data fields or
  variables)
• Vehicle level (approx 25 data fields or
  variables)
• Roadway Level (approx 25 data fields)
• Road-user (including driver) level (approx 40
  data fields or variables)

28
Safetynet Task 5.1 - Examples
29
Case List

• Case one Peugeot 306 Vs Volvo coach
• Case two Kawasaki motorcycle Vs HGV
• Case Three Cyclist Vs Ford Mondeo

30
Case 1

• Vehicles
• Vehicle 1
• Vehicle 1 Peugeot 306 Meridian
• Manufactured 2000
• 2.0HDI Diesel, Manual
• Equipped with ABS
• One female occupant
• Vehicle 2
• Volvo Coach
• Manufactured 1990
• One Male driver and 19 passengers

31
Scenario

• Accident occurred on an unclassified rural road
• Speed limit was 60mph(97kmh), coach restricted to
  50mph(80kmh)
• Local cut through between two major roads
• Road conditions were wet but drying rapidly
• Weather conditions were fine and dry, it was
  daylight
• Peugeots approach was downhill into gently
  tightening left hand bend
• Coach was also slightly downhill into a right
  hand bend

• Both vehicles would have had good early
  visibility across the bend, obscured at accident
  scene by hedgerow
• Tarmac road surface free of contaminants

Coach approach
Peugeot approach
Coach approach
Peugeot approach
32
Scenario

• Driver of Peugeot loses control in the left hand
  bend when the vehicle begins to yaw in an
  anticlockwise direction then overcorrects
  presenting the N/S of the vehicle to the front of
  the Volvo coach

33
Scene pictures
34
Vehicle Photos
Direct contact damage from coach
35
Additional Information

• Driver of Peugeot was familiar with the road
• The Peugeots rear brake disks and pads had been
  changed earlier in the day
• A witness at the scene had found an unlit
  cigarette and lighter on the lap of the Peugeot
  driver
• No calculations for Peugeot pre impact speed
• Coach Taco graph trace shows 24mph(39kmh) at
  impact point

36
Conclusions

• Driver of Peugeot dies 8 days later as a result
  of severe head injuries
• Coach driver and passengers all uninjured
• Was the accident causation related to
  distraction?
• Was a brake defect on vehicle one contributory?
• Could the road signing or conditions been a
  factor?

37
Case 2

• Vehicles
• Vehicle 1
• Kawasaki ZZR1200 Motorcycle
• Manufactured 2003
• 1164cc producing 158bhp(116KW)
• 236kg
• Vehicle 2
• DAF 95XF tractor unit
• 3 axle articulated chassis trailer
• 38 tonnes

38
Scenario

• Accident occurred on a 60mph (97kmh) A-class road
• The road was level and straight for 950m
• Witness statements suggest thick fog with
  visibility lt50m
• Road conditions were
• dry with the surface in
• good condition
• Sunrise was at 0618,
• just before accident time
• at 0630
• Kawasaki ZZR1200 was
• travelling South
• DAF truck was attempting
• a U-turn from a lay-by
• intending to travel north

39
Scene Pictures
Resultant position of rider
Motorcycle skid marks
Resultant position of motorcycle
40
Scene Photos
Damage from striking trailer support leg
41
Additional Information

• Police calculations show the motorcycles speed to
  be 43mph(69kmh)
• The motorcycle slid into the truck after locking
  its front wheel during emergency braking
• The truck displayed headlights, these would have
  been visible in the opposite lane for the
  approaching motorcyclist, the trailer would only
  have had warning lights on

42
Conclusions

• The motorcyclist was killed at scene from
  injuries sustained from striking the DAF trailer
• The driver of the DAF truck was uninjured
• Was the motorcyclist travelling too fast for the
  foggy conditions?
• Would the impact be survivable if the motorcycle
  had stayed upright?
• Should the truck trailer carry brighter warning
  lights?

43
Case 3

• Vehicles
• Vehicle 1
• Blue and silver Carrera Kraken
• Mountain Bicycle
• Front and Rear disc brakes
• Reflectors front and rear
• No Lights
• Vehicle 2
• Red Ford Mondeo
• Manufactured 1999
• Not fitted with ABS

44
Scenario

• Accident occurred on an urban, street lit,
  40mph(64kmh) B road
• It was dark and the weather was fine, road
  surface was wet
• Ford Mondeo approached from the Right
• Cyclist was crossing at the pedestrian refuge

45
Scene Photographs
Daylight view
46
Vehicle photographs
Ford Mondeo
Carrera bicycle
47
Additional Information

• Two separate areas of damage on the Ford Mondeo
• Frontal impact and cleaning marks to underside
  attributed to Rider
• Damage to front wing from bicycle
• Efficiency of front disc brake has thrown rider
  into path of Ford

48
Conclusions

• Cyclist died at scene from severe head injuries
  as a result of contact with Ford Mondeo
• Driver of Ford Mondeo uninjured
• Was the efficiency of the front disc brake on the
  cycle related to the rider being thrown in front
  of the Ford?