Advertisement

Vehicle Interactions with Pedestrians

  • Thomas F. MacLaughlin
  • David S. Zuby
  • Jeffrey C. Elias
  • C. Brian Tanner

Abstract

Each year in the United States motor vehicles kill nearly 7,000 pedestrians, accounting for 15% of the nation’s motor vehicle traffic fatalities.1 Nonfatally injured pedestrians number over 110,000,2 and many suffer serious, disabling injuries. Developing vehicle-based countermeasures to reduce the severity of this trauma has often been considered an intractable problem, consequently limiting efforts in this area. In recent years, however, accident data analyses have provided a more thorough understanding of the pedestrian accident environment. The most frequently and seriously injured body regions, as well as sources for those injuries have been identified. Based on this knowledge, research to reduce pedestrian trauma has begun to yield encouraging results.

Keywords

Head Impact National Technical Information Bumper Height National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Highway Traffic Safety 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fatal Accident Reporting System 1989. A decade of progress. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 807 693, March 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of Regulatory Analysis, Plans and Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Analysis of target population-injuries received by contacting the hood, upper fender and cowl of passenger cars and light trucks. 13. January 1990 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacLaughlin TF, Hoyt TA, Chu S-M. NHTSA’s Advanced Pedestrian Protection Program. Eleventh International Technical Conference 14. on Experimental Safety Vehicles, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoyt TA, TO1 report-problem determination-vehicle/pedestrian collisions. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, March 1985 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malliaris AG, Hitchcock RJ, Hedlund JH. A search for priorities in crash protection. SAE 820242. Crash Protection SP-513. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warredale, PA, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Genarelli TA, et al. The Abbreviated Injury Scale, 1985 revision. The American Association of Automotive Medicine, Arlington Heights, IL, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    States JD, Viano DC. Injury impairment and disability scales to assess the permanent consequences of trauma. Accident analysis and prevention. Vol 22, No. 2. Pergamon Press, Great Britain, pp 151–160, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pritz HB. Comparison of the dynamic responses of anthropometric test devices and human anatomic specimens in experimental pedestrian impacts. Twenty-Second Stapp Car Crash Conference P-77. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, SAE 780894, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    King AI, Krieger KW, Padgaonker AJ. Full-scale experimental simulation of pedestrian-vehicle impacts. Twentieth Stapp Car Crash Conference P-66. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, SAE 760813, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brun-Cassan F, et al. Comparison of experimental collisions performed with various modified side impact dummies and cadavers. Twenty-Eighth Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings P-152. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, SAE 841664, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Wijk J, Wismans J, Wittebrood L. MADYMO pedestrian simulations. Pedestrian Impact Injury and Assessment P-121. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, SAE 830060, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoyt TA, Chu S-M. Analytical pedestrian accident reconstruction using computer simulation. (Report# DOT HS 806 970.) National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pritz HB. Effects of hood and fender design on pedestrian head protection. (Report# DOT HS 806 537.) National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cavallero C, et al. Improvement of pedestrian safety: influence of shape of passenger car-front structures upon pedestrian kinematics and injuries: evaluation based on 50 cadaver tests. Pedestrian Impact Injury and Assessment P-121, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, SAE 830624, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pritz HB. Experimental investigation of pedestrian head impacts on hoods and fenders of production vehicles. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 830055, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brooks DL, Collins JA, Guenther DA. Experimental reconstructions of real world pedestrian head impacts. (DOT/NHTSA Basic Agreement #DTNH22–83-A-072779, VRTC Task Order #OSU-84–4059.) The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gadd CW. Use of a weighted impulse criterion for estimating injury hazard. Proceedings of the Tenth Stapp Car Crash Conference P-12. Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, NY, SAE 660793, 1966.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stalnaker RL, McElahney JH, Roberts VL. MSC tolerance curve for head impacts. ASME paper ul-WA/BHF-10. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1971.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saul RA. An overview of the mean strain criterion development. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, October 1991 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoyt TA, MacLaughlin TF, Kessler JW. Experimental pedestrian accident reconstructions-head impacts. (Report# DOT HS 807 288.) National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacLaughlin TF, Kessler JW. Pedestrian head impact against the central hood of motor vehicles-test procedure and results. Thirty-Fourth Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings P-236. Society of Automotive Eng ineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, SAE 902315, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kessler JW, Hoyt TA, Monk MW. Pedestrian head injury reduction concepts. (#DOT HS 807 432.) National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kessler JW. Development of countermeasures to reduce pedestrian head injury. Eleventh International Technical Conference on Experi mental Safety Vehicles-Proceedings. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sturtz G. Experimental simulation of the pedestrian impact. Tenth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (DOT HS 806 916). National Tech Vehicles (DOT HS 806 916 ). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zuby DS, Elias JC, Tanner CB, MacLaughlin TF. NHTSA pedestrian protection programs- status report. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, September 1991(unpublished).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamilton MN. Experimental study of thoracic injury in child pedestrians. Eleventh International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles-Proceedings. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamilton MN, Wiechel JF, Guenther DA. Development of a child lateral thoracic impactor. Passenger comfort, convenience and safety: test tools and procedures P-174. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 860368, 1986.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brooks D, Wiechel J, Sens M, Guenther D. A comprehensive review of pedestrian impact reconstruction. Accident reconstruction: automobiles, tractor-semitrailers, motorcycles, and pedestrians P-193. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, SAE 870605, 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO recommendations for body segment response in lateral impacts. ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5, Document N139, February, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eppinger RH, Morgan RM, Marcus JH. Development of dummy and injury index for NHTSA’s thoracic side impact protection research program. SAE transactions. Vol 93. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 840885, 1984.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morgan RM, Marcus JH, Eppinger RH. Side impact-the biofidelity of NHTSA’s proposed ATD and efficacy of TTI. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Stapp Car Crash Conference P-189.Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 861877, 1986.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hamilton MN, Chew H, Guenther DA. Adult to child scaling and normalization of lateral thoracic impact data. Proceedings of theThirtieth Stapp Car Crash Conference P-189. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1986.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Federal Register Part II Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration. 49 CFR Parts 571, et al., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection; Rules, Vol 55. No. 210, Oct 30, 1990 Rules and Regulations pp 45722–45780Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Melvin JW, Webber K. Review of biomechanical response and injury in the automotive environment. The engineering design, development, testing and evaluation of an advanced anthropomorphic test device, phase 1: concept definition (DOT HS 807 224 ). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Viano DC, Lau IV. Thoracic impact: a viscous tolerance criterion. Tenth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (DOT HS 806 916 ). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1986.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lau IV, Viano DC. The viscous criterionbasis and applications of an injury severity index for soft tissues. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Stapp Car Crash Conference P-189. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Elias JC, Monk MW, Hamilton MN. Experimental child pedestrian accident reconstruction-thoracic impact (Report #DOT HS 807 420 ). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1988.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elias JC, Monk MW. NHTSA pedestrian thoracic injury mitigation program-status report. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles, 1989.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yates DW, et al. A system for measuring the severity of temporary and permanent disability after injury. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Arlington Heights, IL, 1989.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zeidler F, et al. Development of a new injury cost scale. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Arlington Heights, IL, 1989.Google Scholar
  41. Gibson TJ, Hinrichs RW, McLean AJ. Pedes trian head impacts: development and validation of a mathematical model. Proceedings of the 1986 IRCOBI Conference-Zurich,Switzerland. IRCOBI Secretariat, BRON, France, 1986.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cesari D, Cavallero H, Roche H. Mechanisms producing lower extremity injuries in pedestrian accident situations. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Arlington Heights, IL, 1989.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kajzer J. Bumper system evaluation using an experimental pedestrian dummy. Proceedings, Twelfth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (U.S. G.P.O. 1990–268–345:20365). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1986.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Snider JN, Fuller PM, Wasserman JF. The response of the human lower leg to impact loading. Proceedings, 1988 IRCOBI Conference-Bergisch Gledbach, W. Germany. IRCOBI Secretariat, BRON, France, 1988.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fowler JE, Harris J. Practical vehicle design for pedestrian protection. Proceedings, Ninth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1982.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nyquist GW, et al. Tibia bending and response.Proceedings, 29th Stapp Car Crash Conference P-167. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 851728, 1985.Google Scholar
  47. Aldman B, Thorngren L, Bunketorp O, Romanus B. An experimental model system for the study of lower leg and knee injuries in car pedestrian accidents. Proceedings, 1980 IRCOBI Conference-Oxford, England. Secretariat, BRON, France, 1980.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pritz HB. Comparison of the dynamic responses of anthropomorphic test devices and human anatomic specimens in experimental pedestrian impacts. Proceedings of the 22nd Stapp Car Crash Conference P-77. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 781024, 1978.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bunketorp O, Aldman B, Thorngren L, Romanus B. Clinical and experimental studies on leg injuries in car pedestrian accidents. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 826049, 1982.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pritz HB, Pereira JM. Pedestrian hip impact simulator development and hood edge location consideration on injury severity. Proceedings, 27th Stapp Car Crash Conference P-134. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, SAE 831627, 1983.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Aldman B, et al. Load transfer from the striking vehicle in side and pedestrian impacts. Proceedings, Tenth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (DOT HS 806 916). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1986.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cesari D, Cavallero C, Roche H. Evaluation of the round symmetrical pedestrian dummy leg behavior. Proceedings, Twelfth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles (U. S. G.P.O. 1990–268–345:20365). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1989.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cesari D. Presentation at the 6th meeting of ISO/TC22/SC10/WG2, Columbus, Ohio, November 9, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas F. MacLaughlin
  • David S. Zuby
  • Jeffrey C. Elias
  • C. Brian Tanner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations