Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pedestrian Injury Biomechanics and Protection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Accidental Injury

Abstract

Pedestrians account for about one third of road accident fatalities worldwide, but there are large regional variations. In general, in highly motorized countries pedestrians account for around 10–20 % of fatalities, but in less motorized countries, pedestrians can account for over 50 % of fatalities. Pedestrians are frequently classed as vulnerable road users as they have a higher fatality rate than vehicle occupants. Protecting pedestrians from vehicle collisions requires a combination of road engineering, vehicle design, legislation/enforcement and accident avoidance technology. The separation of pedestrians from fast-moving motorized vehicles is preferable and pre-crash sensing methods combined with autonomous braking technology can greatly reduce the occurrence and severity of pedestrian accidents. However, these approaches cannot prevent all accidents, and vehicle/pedestrian collisions remain a real and frequent problem.

Pedestrian kinematics during the vehicle contact phase are strongly correlated to the vehicle speed and the height of the vehicle front-end structures relative to the pedestrian height. However, the subsequent ground contact is a highly variable event, which nonetheless accounts for a significant proportion of head injuries.

Vehicle impact speed is the main determinant in pedestrian injury outcome. However, despite a popular view that pedestrian safety cannot be significantly improved due to the mass and stiffness disparity between unprotected humans and motorized vehicles, it is now well established that vehicle design has a significant effect on the severity and distribution of pedestrian injuries arising from vehicle impact. In particular, the height of the bonnet leading-edge relative to the pedestrian’s centre of gravity is significant for the kinematics and subsequent injuries, and the stiffness of the main contact surfaces on the vehicle also plays a significant role.

Many modern cars feature active pedestrian safety devices such as warnings, autonomous braking, external airbags and pop-up hoods. In the future, the combination of improved vehicle shapes with reduced critical stiffness and auto-braking technology are likely to yield further substantial decreases in pedestrian injuries and fatalities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mackay G (1992) Mechanisms of injury and biomechanics: vehicle design and crash performance. World J Surg 16:420–427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marchal P, Gavrila D, Letellier L, Meinecke M, Morris R, Mathias M (2003) SAVE-U: an innovative sensor platform for vulnerable road user protection. In: Proceedings of World Congress on intelligent transport systems and services, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mlekusch B, Wilfling C, Groger U, Dukart A, Mark F (2004) Active pedestrian protection system development. In: Vehicle aggressivity and compatibility, structural crashworthiness and pedestrian safety, Detroit. SAE paper no 2004-01-1604

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crandall J, Bhalla K, Madeley N (2002) Designing road vehicles for pedestrian protection. Br Med J 324:1145–1148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wakefield H (1961) Systematic automobile design for pedestrian injury prevention. In: Stapp car crash conference, Twin Cities, Minnesota, pp 193–218

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ashton S, Mackay G (1979) Car design for pedestrian injury minimisation. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Paris, pp 630–640

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher A, Hall R (1972) The influence of car frontal design on pedestrian accident trauma. Accid Anal Prev 4:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pritz H, Hassler C, Herridge J, Weis EJ (1975) Experimental study of pedestrian injury minimisation through vehicle design. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE technical paper 751166, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ashton S (1981) Factors associated with pelvic and knee injuries in pedestrians struck by the front of cars. Society of Automotive Engineers, Illinois. SAE paper no 811026

    Google Scholar 

  10. WHO (2009) Global status report on road safety. World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  11. Simms C, Wood D (2009) Pedestrian and cyclist impact – a biomechanical perspective. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. AAAM (2008) Abbreviated injury scale 2008. American Association for Automotive Medicine, Des Plaines, San Diego, California

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mizuno Y (2003) Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety working group activities – proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection offered by passenger cars. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Nagoya. ESV paper no 580

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mizuno Y (2005) Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety working group activities – proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection offered by passenger cars. In: Administration UDoTNHTS (ed) Experimental safety vehicles conference, Washington, DC. ESV paper no 05-0138-O

    Google Scholar 

  15. Danner M, Langwieder K, Wachter W (1979) Injuries to pedestrians in real accidents and their relation to collision and car characteristics. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 791008

    Google Scholar 

  16. Neal-Sturgess C, Coley G, De Olivera P (2002) Pedestrian injuries: effects in impact speed and contact stiffness. In: Vehicle safety. IMechE, London, pp 311–322

    Google Scholar 

  17. Walz F, Hoefliger M, Fehlmann W (1983) Speed limit reduction from 60 to 50 km per hour and pedestrian injuries. In: Stapp car crash conference. SAE paper no 831625, Warendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fildes B, Gabler HC, Otte D, Linder A, Sparke L (2004) Pedestrian impact priorities using real-world crash data and harm. In: IRCOBI conference, Graz, Austria, pp 167–177

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wood D (1991) Pedestrian impact, injury, and injury causation. In: Peters B, Peters G (eds) Automotive engineering and litigation, vol 4. Wiley Law Publications, New York, pp 41–72

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rosen E, Sander U (2009) Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accid Anal Prev 41(3):536–542. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Foret-Bruno J, Faverjon G, Le Coz J (1998) Injury pattern of pedestrians hit by cars of recent design. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 980-S10-O-02, Windsor, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  22. Galloway D, Patel A (1982) The pedestrian problem: a 12 month review of pedestrian accidents. Injury 13(4):294–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Atkins R, Turner W, Duthie R, Wilde B (1988) Injuries to pedestrians in road traffic accidents. Br Med J 297(6661):1431–1434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mizuno K, Kajzer J (1999) Compatibility problems in frontal, side, single car collisions and car to pedestrian accidents in Japan. Accid Anal Prev 31(4):381–391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lefler DE, Gabler HC (2004) The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States. Accid Anal Prev 36(2):295–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Desapriya E, Subzwari S, Sasges D, Basic A, Alidina A, Turcotte K, Pike I (2010) Do light truck vehicles (LTV) impose greater risk of pedestrian injury than passenger cars? a meta-analysis and systematic review. Traffic Inj Prev 11(1):48–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Longhitano D, Ivarsson J, Henary B, Crandall J (2005) Torso injury trends for pedestrians struck by cars and LTVs. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 05-0411, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  28. Longhitano D, Henary B, Bhalla K, Ivarsson J, Crandall J (2005) Influence of vehicle body type on pedestrian injury distribution. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 2005-01-1876

    Google Scholar 

  29. Malini E, Victor D (1990) Measures to improve pedestrian safety: lessons from experience in Madras. J Traffic Med 18(4):266

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mallory A, Fredriksson R, Rosen E, Donnelly B (2012) Pedestrian injuries by source: serious and disabling injuries in us and European cases. Ann Adv Automot Med 56:13–24

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Neal-Sturgess C, Carter E, Hardy R, Cuerden R, Guerra L, Yang J (2007) APROSYS European in-depth pedestrian database. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0177-O, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yang J (2005) Review of injury biomechanics in car-pedestrian collisions. Int J Vehic Saf 1(1/2/3):100–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jarrett K, Saul R (1998) Pedestrian injury – analysis of the PCDS field collision data. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Windsor, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yao J, Yang J, Otte D (2007) Head injuries in child pedestrian accidents – in-depth case analysis and reconstructions. Traffic Inj Prev 8:94–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kerrigan J, Murphy DB, Drinkwater D, Kam C, Bose D, Crandall J (2005) Kinematic corridors for PMHS tested in full-scale pedestrian impact tests. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 05-0394, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ashton S, Pedder J, Mackay G (1978) Pedestrian head injuries. In: AAAM, Ann Arbor, pp 237–244

    Google Scholar 

  37. Otte D (1994) Influence of the fronthood length for the safety of pedestrians in car accidents and demands to the safety of small vehicles. In: Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 942232, Detroit, Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wood D (1995) Determination of speed from throw. In: Bohan TL, Damask AC (eds) Forensic accident investigation. Lexis Law Publishing, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  39. CrashTestServices (2007) www.crashtest-service.com. Accessed 2007

  40. EVU-CTS (2005) crashconferences.com. http://www.crashconferences.com/arccsi/2005Conference.html. Accessed 3 June 2009

  41. Wood D (1988) Impact and movement of pedestrians in frontal collisions with vehicles. Proc Inst Mech Eng D Automob Eng 202:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  42. Simms C, Ormond T, Wood D (2011) The influence of vehicle shape on pedestrian ground contact mechanisms. In: IRCOBI (ed) Proceedings of IRCOBI conference, Poland

    Google Scholar 

  43. Roudsari B, Mock C, Kaufmann R (2005) An evaluation of the association between vehicle type and the source and severity of pedestrian injuries. Traffic Inj Prev 6:185–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. UNECE (2009) Global technical regulation no. 9 pedestrian safety. UNECE

    Google Scholar 

  45. Otte D (1997) Pedestrian impact at front end of car. Accident Research Unit, Medical University of Hannover

    Google Scholar 

  46. Otte D (1997) Injuries to pedestrians caused by impacts with the front edge of car bonnets. EEVC WG17, Brussels, UNECE

    Google Scholar 

  47. FMVSS (1991) FMVSS 208: occupant crash protection. NHTSA

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mizuno K, Ishikawa H (2001) Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety working group activities – proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection offered by passenger cars. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 2001-06-0136

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lawrence G, Hardy B, Caroll J, Donaldson W, Visvikis C, Peel D (2006) A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable Road users – final report. Transport Research Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  50. TRL (2006) Factors influencing pedestrian safety: a literature review. Transport Research Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lawrence G, Thornton S (1996) The development and evaluation of the TRL legform impactor. Transport Research Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  52. Konosu A, Tanahashi M (2003) Development of a biofidelity pedestrian legform impactor – introduction of JAMA JARI legform impactor version 2002. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 378, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wittek A, Konosu A, Matsui Y, Ishikawa H, Shams T, McDonald J (2001) A new legform impactor for evaluation of car aggressiveness in car – pedestrian accidents. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 184, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  54. Notsu M, Nishimoto T, Konosu A, Ishikawa H (2005) J-MLIT research into a pedestrian lower extremity protection – evaluation tests for pedestrian legform impactors. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. Paper number 05-0193, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  55. EEVC (1994) Proposals to evaluate pedestrian protection for passenger cars – EEVC working group 10 report. European Experimental Vehicles Committee

    Google Scholar 

  56. Matsui Y, Wittek A, Konosu A (2002) Comparison of pedestrian subsystem safety tests using impactors and full-scale dummy tests. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 2002-01-1021

    Google Scholar 

  57. Matsui Y (2004) Evaluation of pedestrian subsystem test method using legform and upper legform impactors for assessment of high bumper of vehicle aggressiveness. Traffic Inj Prev 5:76–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. EEVC (2002) EEVC Working Group 17 report: improved test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars (December 1998 with September 2002 updates). EEVC

    Google Scholar 

  59. Chalandon S, Serre T, Masson C, Arnoux P, Perrin C, Borde P, Cotte C, Brunet C, Cesari D (2007) Comparative study between subsystem and global approaches for the Pedestrian impact. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0429, Seoul, Korea

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lawrence J, Hardy B, Harris J (1993) Bonnet leading edge subsystems test for cars to assess protection for pedestrians. In: Proceedings of 13th international technical conference on experimental safety vehicles, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp 402–413

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lawrence G (1989) The influence of car shape on pedestrian impact energies and its application to subsystem tests. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 1253–1265

    Google Scholar 

  62. Janssen E, Nieboer J (1992) Subsystem tests for assessing pedestrian protection based on computer simulations. In: IRCOBI conference, Verona, Italy, pp 263–280

    Google Scholar 

  63. Anderson R, McClean A, Streeter L, Ponte G, Sommariva M, Londsay T, Wundersitz L (2002) Severity and type of pedestrian injuries related to vehicle impact locations and results of subsystem impact reconstruction. In: IRCOBI conference, Munich, pp 289–302

    Google Scholar 

  64. UNECE (2006) Proposal for a global technical regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to their construction in order to improve the protection and mitigate the severity of injuries to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the event of a collision, Brussels, UNECE

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hardy B, Lawrence G, Carroll J, Donaldson W, Visvikis C, Peel D (2006) A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. Transport Research Laboratory, Berks

    Google Scholar 

  66. McClean A (2005) Vehicle design for pedestrian protection. The University of Adelaide, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  67. Glaeser K (1991) Development of head impact procedure for pedestrian protection. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kerrigan J, Arregui C, Crandall J (2009) Pedestrian head impact dynamics: comparison of dummy and PMHS in small sedan and large SUV impacts. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kerrigan J, Crandall J (2008) A comparative analysis of the pedestrian injury risk predicted by mechanical impactors and post mortem human surrogates. Stapp Car Crash J 52:527–567

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Masson C, Serre T, Cesari D (2007) Pedestrian-vehicle accident: analysis of 4 full scale tests with PMHS. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0428, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  71. EURO-NCAP (2012) European New Car Assessment programme, Brussels, EuroNCAP

    Google Scholar 

  72. Gadd C (1966) Use of a weighted impulse criterion for estimating injury hazard. In: SAE conference. SAE paper no 660793

    Google Scholar 

  73. Versace J (1971) A review of the severity index. In: Stapp car crash conference, Colorado, pp 771–796

    Google Scholar 

  74. Margulies S, Thibault L (1990) A proposed tolerance criterion for diffuse axonal injury in man. J Biomech 25(8):917–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. MacLaughlin T, Kessler J (1990) Pedestrian head impact against the central hood of motor vehicles – test procedure and results. In: 34th Stapp car crash conference, Orlando. SAE paper 902315

    Google Scholar 

  76. UNECE (2008) Global technical regulation no. 9 pedestrian safety. UNECE

    Google Scholar 

  77. EC (2003) Directive 2003/102/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 17th November 2003. Protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable Road users before and in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle and amending directive 70/156/EEC, vol OJ L 321, Brussels, EU

    Google Scholar 

  78. Snedeker J, Walz F, Muser M, Lanz C (2005) Assessing femur and pelvis injury risk in current pedestrian collisions: comparison of full-bodied PMTO impacts, and a human body finite element model. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 05-103, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pheasant S, Haslegrave C (2006) Bodyspace – anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ballesteros M, Dischinger P, Langenberg P (2004) Pedestrian injuries and vehicle type in Maryland, 1995–1999. Accid Anal Prev 36(1):73–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Simms C, Wood D (2006) Pedestrian risk from cars and sport utility vehicles – a comparative analytical study. IMechE J Automob Eng 220:1085–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Martinez L, Guerra L, Ferichola G, Garcia A, Yang J (2007) Stiffness corridors of the European fleet for pedestrian simulation. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0267, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  83. Kalliske I, Friesen F (2001) Improvements to pedestrian protection as exemplified on a standard sized car. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 283, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  84. Konosu A, Takahiro I, Tanahashi M (2005) Development of the pedestrian lower extremity protection car using a biofidelic flexible pedestrian legform impactor. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 05-0106

    Google Scholar 

  85. Bacon D, Wilson M (1976) Bumper characteristics for improved pedestrian safety. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 760812, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  86. Stuertz G, Suren E, Gotzen L, Behrens S, Richter K (1976) Biomechanics of real child pedestrian accidents. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 760814, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  87. Bunketorp O, Romanus B, Hansson T, Aldman B, Thorngren L, Eppinger R (1983) Experimental study of a compliant bumper system. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 831623, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  88. Aldman B, Thorngren L, Bunketorp O, Romanus B (1980) An experimental model for the study of the lower leg in car pedestrian impacts. In: IRCOBI conference, Birmingham, UK, pp 180–193

    Google Scholar 

  89. Stcherbarcheff G, Tarriere C, Duclos P, Fayon A, Got C, Patel A (1975) Simulation of collisions between pedestrians and vehicles using adult and child dummies. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 751167, Detroit, Michigan. Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  90. Harris J (1976) Research and development towards improved protection for pedestrian struck by cars. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Arlington, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ishikawa H, Kajzer J, Ono K, Sakurai M (1992) Simulation of car impact to pedestrian lower extremity: influence of different car front shapes and dummy parameters on test results. In: IRCOBI conference, Verona, Italy, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  92. Aldman B, Lundell B, Thorngren L, Bunketorp O, Romanus B (1979) Physical simulation of human leg bumper impacts. In: IRCOBI conference, pp 180–193

    Google Scholar 

  93. Cesari D (1988) Interaction between human leg and car bumper in pedestrian tests. In: IRCOBI conference, Germany, pp 259–269

    Google Scholar 

  94. Yang J, Lovsund P, Cavallero C, Bonnoit J (2000) A human body 3-D mathematical model for simulation of car-pedestrian impacts. J Crash Prev Inj Control 2(2):131–149

    Google Scholar 

  95. Ishikawa H, Yamazaki K (1991) Sasaki A Current situation of pedestrian accidents and research into pedestrian protection in Japan. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Paris, France, pp 281–291

    Google Scholar 

  96. Matsui Y (2005) Effects of vehicle bumper height and impact velocity on type of lower extremity injury in vehicle pedestrian accidents. Accid Anal Prev 37:633–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Kajzer J, Schroeder G, Ishikawa H, Matsui Y, Bosch U (1997) Shearing and bending effects at the knee joint at low speed lateral loading. In: SAE transactions. SAE paper no 1997-01-0712

    Google Scholar 

  98. Kajzer J, Ishikawa H, Schroeder G, Matsui Y, Bosch U (1999) Shear and bending effects at the knee joint at high speed lateral loading. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 973326, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  99. Matsui Y, Schroeder G, Bosch U (2004) Injury pattern and response of human thigh under lateral loading simulating car-pedestrian impact. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 2004-01-1603, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  100. Edwards KJ, Green JF (1999) Analysis of the interrelationship of pedestrian leg and pelvis injuries. In: IRCOBI conference, Bron, pp 355–369

    Google Scholar 

  101. Kajzer J, Schroeder G (1992) Examination of different bumper system using hybrid II, RSPD subsystem and cadavers. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 922519, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, pp 119–127

    Google Scholar 

  102. Schuster P (2006) Current trends in bumper design for pedestrian impact. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 2006-01-0464

    Google Scholar 

  103. Schuster P, Staines B (1998) Determination of bumper styling and engineering parameters to reduce pedestrian leg injuries. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  104. Groesch L, Heiss W (1989) Bumper configurations for conflicting requirements: existing performance versus pedestrian protection. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 1266–1273

    Google Scholar 

  105. Otte D, Haasper C (2005) Technical parameters and mechanisms for the injury risk of the knee joint or vulnerable road users impacted by cars and road traffic accidents. In: IRCOBI conference, Prague, pp 281–298

    Google Scholar 

  106. Pinecki C, Zeitouni R (2007) Technical solutions for enhancing the pedestrian protection. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0307, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  107. Pipkorn B, Fredriksson R, Olsson J (2007) Bumper bag for SUV to passenger vehicle compatibility and pedestrian protection. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0056, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  108. Kajzer J (1991) The biomechanics of knee injuries. Chalmers Technical University, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  109. Bosma F, Gaalman H, Souren W (2001) Closure and trim design for pedestrian impact. In: Experimental safety vehicles. ESV paper no 322, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  110. ETSC (2001) Priorities for EU motor vehicle safety design – pedestrian safety. European traffic safety Council, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  111. Wanke T, Thompson G, Kerkeling C 2005) Pedestrian measures for the Opel Zafira II. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 05-0237, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  112. Matsui Y, Hitosugi M, Mizuno K (2011) Severity of vehicle bumper location in vehicle-to-pedestrian impact accidents. Forensic Sci Int 212(3):205–209. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.06.012

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Ashton S (1979) Some factors influencing the injuries sustained by child pedestrians struck by the fronts of cars. Society Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, pp 353–380

    Google Scholar 

  114. Matsui Y, Ishikawa H, Sasaki A (1999) Pedestrian injuries induced by the bonnet leading edge in current car – pedestrian accidents. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper 1999-01-0713, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  115. Kramer M (1975) Pedestrian vehicle accident simulation through dummy tests. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 751165, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  116. Pritz H, Pereira J (1983) Pedestrian hip impact simulator development and hood edge location consideration on injury severity. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 831627, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  117. Niederer P, Schlumpf MR (1984) Influence of vehicle front geometry on impacted pedestrian kinematics. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 841663, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  118. Lucchini E, Weissner R (1978) Influence of bumper adjustment on the kinematics of an impacted pedestrian. In: IRCOBI conference, Lyon, France, pp 172–182

    Google Scholar 

  119. Ashton S, Mackay G (1979) A review of real-world studies of pedestrian injury. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer Verkehrsmedizin, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  120. Matsui Y, Wittek A, Tanahashi M (2005) Pedestrian kinematics due to impact by various passenger cars using full-scale dummy. J Vehic Saf Res, pp 64–84

    Google Scholar 

  121. Mizuno K, Yonezawa H, Kajzer J (2001) Pedestrian headform impact tests for various vehicle locations. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 278, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  122. Mackay G (1972) Injury to pedestrians. Report to Committee on Pedestrian Safety, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, NATO, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Liu X, Yang J, Lovsund P (2002) A study of influences of vehicle speed and front structure on pedestrian impact responses using mathematical models. Traffic Inj Prev 3:31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Elliot J, Lyons M, Kerrigan J, Wood D, Simms C (2012) Predictive capabilities of the MADYMO multibody pedestrian model: three-dimensional head translation and rotation, head impact time and head impact velocity. IMechE J Multibody Dyn 226(3):266–277

    Google Scholar 

  125. Simms CK, Wood DP (2006) Effects of pre-impact pedestrian position and motion on kinematics and injuries from vehicle and ground contact. Int J Crashworthiness, pp 345–356

    Google Scholar 

  126. Higuchi K, Akiyama A (1989) The effect of vehicle structure’s characteristics on pedestrian behaviour. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 323–329

    Google Scholar 

  127. Liu X, Yang J (2002) Effects of vehicle impact velocity and front-end structure on the dynamic responses of child pedestrians. In: IRCOBI conference, Munich conference, pp 19–30

    Google Scholar 

  128. Liu X, Yang J (2003) Effects of vehicle impact velocity and front-end structure on dynamic responses of child pedestrians. Traffic Inj Prev 4:337–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Fredriksson R, Flink E, Bostrom O, Backman K (2007) Injury mitigation in SUV-to-pedestrian impacts. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0380

    Google Scholar 

  130. Schwarz D, Bachem H, Opbroek E (2004) Comparison of steel and aluminium hood with same design in view of pedestrian head impact. Society of Automotive Engineers. 2004-01-1605, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  131. Kessler J (1987) Development of countermeasures to reduce pedestrian head injury. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference, Washington, DC, pp 784–796

    Google Scholar 

  132. Pritz H (1983) Experimental investigation of pedestrian head impact on hoods and fenders of production vehicles. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 830055, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  133. Kerkeling C, Schaefer J, Thompson G (2005) Structural hood and hinge concepts for pedestrian protection. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 05-0304

    Google Scholar 

  134. Belingardi G, Scattina A (2009) Development of an hybrid hood to improve pedestrian safety in case of vehicle impact. Paper presented at the experimental safety vehicles paper no 09-0026, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  135. Mizuno K, Aiba T, Kajzer J (1999) Influences of vehicle from shape on injuries in vehicle – pedestrian impact. In: Japanese Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, pp 55–60

    Google Scholar 

  136. Kessler J, Monk M (1991) NHTSA pedestrian head injury mitigation research program -status report. In: Experiment safety vehicles conference, Paris, France, pp 1226–1236

    Google Scholar 

  137. Mallory A, Stammen J, Meyerson S (2007) Pedestrian GTR testing of current vehicles. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 07-0313, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  138. Otte D (1994) Design and structure of the windscreen as part of injury reduction for car occupants, pedestrians and bicycles. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 942231, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  139. Lyons M, Simms C (2012) Predicting the influence of windscreen design on pedestrian head injuries. In: IRCOBI, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  140. Pinecki C, Fontaine L, Adalian C, Jeanneau C, Zeitouni Z (2011) Pedestrian protection – physical and numerical analysis of the protection offered by the windscreen. ESV paper number 11-0432, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  141. Xu J, Li Y, Ge D, Liu B, Zhu M, Park T et al (2011) Automotive windshield – pedestrian head impact: energy absorption capability of interlayer material. Int J Automot Technol 12(5):687–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Hannawald L, Kauer F (2004) Equal effectiveness study on pedestrian protection. Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden

    Google Scholar 

  143. Lexus (2011) Advanced pre-collision system (APCS) with driver attention monitor.http://www.lexus.com/models/LS/features/safety/advanced_precollision_system_apcs_with_driver_attention_monitor.html. Accessed 13 Jan 2011

  144. VolvoCars (2010) A revolution in pedestrian safety – Volvo’s automatic braking system now reacts to people as well as vehicles. www.volvocars.com/za/top/about/news-events/pages/default.aspx?itemid=24. Accessed 22 Aug 2010

  145. Rosén E, Källhammer J-E, Eriksson D, Nentwich M, Fredriksson R, Smith K (2010) Pedestrian injury mitigation by autonomous braking. Accid Anal Prev 42(6):1949–1957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Fredriksson R, Haland Y, Yang J (2001) Evaluation of a new pedestrian head injury protection system for the sensor in the bumper and lifting of the bonnets rear part. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 131, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  147. Maki T, Asai T, Kajzer J (2003) Development of future pedestrian protection technologies. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 165, Nagoya, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  148. Krenn M, Mlekusch B, Wilfling C, Dobida F, Deutscher E (2003) Development and evaluation of a kinematic hood for pedestrian protection. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no 2003-01-0897, Warrendale, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  149. Nagatomi K, Hanayama K, Ishizaki T, Sasaki A, Matsuda K (2005) Development and full-scale dummy tests of a pop-up hood system for pedestrian protection. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 05-0113, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  150. Fredriksson R, Zhang L, Boström O (2009) Influence of deployable hood systems on finite element modelled brain response for vulnerable road users. Int J Vehic Saf 4(1):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Autoliv (2002) Annual report 2001. Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  152. Autoliv (2010) Annual report 2009. Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  153. Fredriksson R, Rosén E, Kullgren A (2010) Priorities of pedestrian protection – a real-life study of severe injuries and car sources. Accid Anal Prev 42(6):1672–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Fredriksson R, Rosén E (2012) Integrated pedestrian countermeasures – potential of head injury reduction combining passive and active countermeasures. Saf Sci 50(3):400–407. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.09.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Green J (1998) A technical evaluation of the EEVC proposal on pedestrian protection test methodology. In: Experimental safety vehicles conference. ESV paper no 98-S10-O-04, Windsor, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  156. Strandroth J, Rizzi M, Sternlund S, Lie A, Tingvall C (2011) The correlation between pedestrian injury severity in real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test results. Traffic Inj Prev 12(6):604–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Liers H, Hannawald L (2011) Benefit estimation of secondary safety measures in realworld Pedestrian accidents. ESV paper no 11-0300, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

    Ciaran Knut Simms Ph.D.

  2. Denis Wood Associates, Dublin, Ireland

    Denis Wood Ph.D.

  3. Biomechanics & Restraints, Autoliv Research, Vargarda, Sweden

    Rikard Fredriksson Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Ciaran Knut Simms Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis Wood Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rikard Fredriksson Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ciaran Knut Simms Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

    Narayan Yoganandan

  2. School of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, USA

    Alan M. Nahum

  3. Tandelta Inc., Ann Arbor, USA

    John W. Melvin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Simms, C.K., Wood, D., Fredriksson, R. (2015). Pedestrian Injury Biomechanics and Protection. In: Yoganandan, N., Nahum, A., Melvin, J. (eds) Accidental Injury. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1732-7_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1732-7_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1731-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1732-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation