ATV Overturn Engineering Controls to Prevent Crush Injuries

摘要

Active controls such as warnings, while potentially useful with training, fall short of curtailing fatal and nonfatal injuries associated with ATV riding. Passive controls include ROPS and CPDs, which are engineered interventions. Since ROPS have been cited as impractical, the CPD has become the next line of defense against injury but it faces intense controversy. While a CPD does not necessarily stop impact-type injuries, it has a positive potential for preventing fatal and nonfatal crush-related injuries and deaths from asphyxiation. One brand of CPD has successfully sold nearly 4,000 units in Australia. The use of these units provides a real-world demonstration of CPD effectiveness-to date, it has been associated with no deaths. Moreover, at least 20 testimonials bear witness to the CPD saving their lives. Indeed, one recent incident brings to the fore a story of another life saved in a forward overturn, considered the most hazardous condition regarding CPD use. A 24-year-old woman ATV driver wore a helmet when the machine overturned to the front. Police credit the roll bar with saving her life. She was sent to the hospital with nonlife-threatening injuries (Crawley, 2015). Active controls have reached their limit of effectiveness. Policies, whether by the public or user, need to focus on requiring passive controls such as alternative but safer vehicles compared to ATVs and equipping or retrofitting ATVs with CPDs. CPDs provide passive protection while seat belts are active protection. Seat belts are secondary protection after CPDs (Baker, 1998). The lack of seat belts should not negate the use of CPDs.