...
首页> 外文期刊>Traffic Injury Prevention >Belt Use: Comparison of NASS-CDS and Police Crash Reports
【24h】

Belt Use: Comparison of NASS-CDS and Police Crash Reports

机译:皮带使用:NASS-CDS和警察失事报告的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: This study compares belt use in police reports withNASS-CDS investigator-determined belt use. TheNASS-CDS cases were analyzed by severity of occupant injury and the crash type. Methods: 1993-2007 NASS-CDS was analyzed for occupant injury severity and crash type. Light vehicles were included with model year 1994+. Injury severity was subdivided by MAIS 0, 1-2, 3, 4+F, and fatal. Crash types were frontal, side, rear, and rollover. The NASS-CDS determination of belt use was assumed the gold standard used to determine miscoding by the police. Results: The fraction of unbelted occupants increased with the severity of injury from 3.8 percent with no injury to 53.9 percent with fatalities in the police reports. NASS-CDS reported no belt use of 7.9 percent (2.18 times greater than the police) with no injury to 58.2 percent (1.08 times) with fatalities. In side impacts, severely injured occupants were unbelted in 46.9 percent of NASS-CDS cases. This was 1.35 times greater than the 34.7 percent unbelted reported by the police. For severely injured occupants (MAIS 4+F), 18.4 percent of the police reported cases with belt use were actually unbelted occupants by NASS-CDS. The reporting error decreased to 5.0 percent for uninjured occupants (MAIS 0). For uninjured occupants, 35.7 percent of the police-reported cases of no belt use were coded as belted by NASS after inspecting the belt system. This difference decreased to 2.6 percent for fatally injured occupants. Conclusions: For occupants with serious-to-fatal injury, the error in police reporting belt use was 13-18 percent. The police often rely on self-reported belt use, which overestimates actual belt wearing and they do not always conduct in-depth investigation of vehicle, seat belt, and occupant injury to reach a conclusion of belt use. The police generally overreport belt use in motor vehicle crashes.
机译:目的:本研究将警察报告中的安全带使用与NASS-CDS调查人员确定的安全带使用情况进行比较。通过乘员伤害的严重程度和碰撞类型分析了NASS-CDS案件。方法:分析1993-2007年NASS-CDS的乘员伤害严重程度和碰撞类型。轻型车辆已包含在1994+车型年中。损伤严重程度按MAIS 0、1-2、3、4 + F细分,并致命。碰撞类型为正面,侧面,背面和侧翻。 NASS-CDS确定皮带使用被认为是警察用来确定误码的黄金标准。结果:警方报告中,随身携带的人数比例随伤害的严重程度从无伤害的3.8%增加到有死亡的53.9%。 NASS-CDS报告未使用安全带的比例为7.9%(是警察的2.18倍),没有受伤,而使用安全带的死亡人数为58.2%(1.08倍)。在侧面影响中,NASS-CDS案件中有46.9%的乘员受了重伤。这是警方报告的34.7%的不安全行为的1.35倍。对于严重受伤的乘员(MAIS 4 + F),NASS-CDS实际报告的使用安全带的案件中有18.4%的警察实际是不系安全带的乘员。未受伤乘员的报告错误降至5.0%(MAIS 0)。对于未受伤的乘员,在检查安全带系统后,警察报告的不使用安全带的案件中有35.7%被NASS编码为安全带。致命伤乘客的这一差异降低到2.6%。结论:对于重伤人员,在警察报告中使用安全带的错误率为13-18%。警察经常依靠自我报告的安全带使用情况,这会高估实际的安全带佩戴情况,因此他们并不总是对车辆,安全带和乘员受伤进行深入调查以得出安全带使用的结论。警察通常会在机动车碰撞中夸大安全带的使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号