Abstract

Globally there are more than 350,000 PTW fatalities each year. Safety concepts to protect Powered Two-Wheeler (PTW) riders exist and are being developed further, but they need appropriate procedures and test tools (Anthropometric Test Devices (ATDs) for physical testing and Human Body Models (HBMs) for virtual testing) to direct and promote those developments. To aid further development of the tools, we aim to rank the frequency of specific injuries arising from the prevalent impact types, discuss how current ATDs and HBMs are equipped to assess these injuries, and suggest what further development should be prioritized.We analyzed a sample of injured riders from the German In-depth Accident Study (GIDAS) according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2015 classification, using severity thresholds of at-least-moderate (AIS2+) and at-least-serious (AIS3+). PTW rider injuries were ranked by frequency for all crashes and also for sub-samples of specific impact types (impact with passenger cars, ground, and roadside furniture).The most frequent AIS3+ injuries were: femur fracture (17%), rib cage fracture (13%), lung injury (9%), tibia fracture (7%), and cerebrum injury (7%). In all impacts together and as for impacts with the road surface, injuries to the thorax were most frequent. In impacts with cars and road furniture, thorax injuries were also frequent, but outranked by lower extremity injuries. Considering both AIS2+ and AIS3+ injuries, the priorities for PTW rider safety interventions are: fracture of the rib cage, femur fracture, tibia fracture, radius fracture, cerebrum injury, and cerebral concussion.The ATD currently used most frequently, the Hybrid III, is unlikely to provide adequate rib fracture injury assessments, but HBMs are promising in this area. Rib injury assessment may also reasonably predict other injuries that were correlated or in proximity to rib fractures: clavicle, lung, and upper abdomen organ injury. Lower extremity, upper extremity, and head injuries are likely addressable to some extent with current ATDs while HBMs hold the promise of more detailed and mechanism-specific injury assessments. Both ATDs and HBMs need more validation for use in the PTW environment.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.