(cid:48)(cid:85)(cid:66)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:69)(cid:68)(cid:0)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:74)(cid:69)(cid:67)(cid:84)(cid:0)(cid:50)(cid:69)(cid:80)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:84)(cid:0) (cid:48)(cid:48)(cid:50)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:0) (cid:35)(cid:79)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:65)(cid:84)(cid:73)(cid:86)(cid:69)(cid:0)(cid:65)(cid:78)(cid:65)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:83)(cid:73)(cid:83)(cid:0)(cid:79)(cid:70)(cid:0)(cid:77)(cid:79)(cid:84)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:67)(cid:89)(cid:67)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:0) (cid:65)(cid:67)(cid:67)(cid:73)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:78)(cid:84)(cid:0)(cid:68)(cid:65)(cid:84)(cid:65)(cid:0)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:77)(cid:0)(cid:47)(cid:52)(cid:51)(cid:0)(cid:65)(cid:78)(cid:68)(cid:0)(cid:45)(cid:33)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:51) (cid:45)(cid:0)(cid:39)(cid:0)(cid:45)(cid:67)(cid:35)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:84)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:12)(cid:0)(cid:44)(cid:0)(cid:43)(cid:0)(cid:55)(cid:65)(cid:76)(cid:84)(cid:69)(cid:82)(cid:12)(cid:0)(cid:50)(cid:0)(cid:40)(cid:85)(cid:84)(cid:67)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:78)(cid:83)(cid:12)(cid:0)(cid:50)(cid:0)(cid:52)(cid:79)(cid:78)(cid:71)(cid:0)(cid:65)(cid:78)(cid:68)(cid:0)(cid:45)(cid:0)(cid:43)(cid:69)(cid:73)(cid:71)(cid:65)(cid:78) Comparative analysis of motorcycle accident data from OTS and MAIDS M G McCarthy, L K Walter, R Hutchins, R Tong and M Keigan PPR 168 Client Project Reference Number T501G PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT TRL Limited PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR 168 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT DATA FROM OTS AND MAIDS Version: 3 by M G McCarthy, L K Walter, R Hutchins, R Tong, M Keigan (TRL Limited) Prepared for: Project Record: T501G Analysis of OTS Data in comparison with MAIDS Motorcycle Study Client: Road User Safety Division, Department for Transport (Dr Sofia Marçal-Whittles) Copyright TRL Limited April 2007 This report has been prepared for Department for Transport, Road User Safety Division. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of Department for transport. Published Project Reports are written primarily for the Customer rather than for a general audience and are published with the Customer’s approval. Approvals Project Manager Maureen Keigan Quality Reviewed Barry F Sexton This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a Contract placed by Department for Transport Any views expressed are not necessarily those of Department for Transport. TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post- consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process. Executive summary The Department for Transport commissioned TRL to compare two motorcycle accident studies: The European Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study (MAIDS) and the UK On The Spot (OTS) study. The overall aim of the project was to compare the findings of the MAIDS study as reported in the MAIDS final report with UK data from the DfT-funded OTS study. Using the OTS and MAIDS accident databases, the main objectives of the project were to: • Conduct a comparative analysis highlighting areas of commonality and difference; and • Carry out additional analyses of issues of particular relevance to the UK context. The MAIDS study involved collection of ‘on the spot’ accident data from five European countries: France, Spain, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands. The data were collected using the OECD common methodology designed for two-wheeled motor vehicle accident investigation. The OECD common methodology is intended to provide a system capable of identifying risk factors affecting motorcyclists. The MAIDS data used in this study comprise 921 accidents involving 921 motorcycles. The OTS data were collected from two areas of England: the Thames Valley and South Nottinghamshire. Investigators attended accident scenes immediately following accidents. This enabled unstable scene data (e.g. temporary highway factors, weather) and witness statements to be collected. The full OECD common methodology is not used in the collection of OTS data. The OTS data used in this study comprise 302 accidents involving 306 motorcycles. OTS and MAIDS protocols were compared against one another, and both were compared with the protocols of the OECD common methodology. Despite the different protocols being used in the two databases, both collect compatible basic accident information. In most cases, the data collected for MAIDS have a greater level of detail. Compared with OTS, MAIDS performs more detailed accident reconstruction and collects more mechanical (e.g. braking system) and human factors (e.g. rider age) information. Unlike OTS, MAIDS includes exposure data and thus enables accident risk factors to be quantified. MAIDS also codes accident information into more detailed categories. OTS data collection is broader, covering all road accidents, not just those involving motorcycles. The differences in protocols are largely attributable to the different purposes for which the OTS and MAIDS data were collected. There are considerable differences between the accident populations of OTS and MAIDS data: • Engine sizes: compared with the MAIDS data (57%) the OTS data contained higher proportions (80%) of powered two wheelers with larger engines (L31 vehicles). The magnitude of this difference, and its statistical significance, indicates a difference in the distribution of engine sizes of vehicles in accidents which suggest an underlying difference in the fleet make-up between OTS and MAIDS sampling areas. This difference is likely to be linked to many other factors such as journey purpose, length and environment. These factors are, in turn, likely to affect accident types, severity and perhaps also causation within the sampling regions. • Protective Equipment: the proportions of motorcyclists wearing protective equipment were statistically different, between OTS and MAIDS samples, at the 99% confidence level; the types of equipment worn were also different: higher proportions of leathers and full face helmets were worn in the OTS sample. Protective equipment choices are influenced by factors including climate, bike style, engine capacity, trip purpose and trip length. These differed between sampling region. 1 ACEM (2004). MAIDS In depth investigations of accidents involving powered two-wheelers Final Report. Available from http://MAIDS.acembike.org 5 5 TRL Limited PPR 168 • Accident factors: accident type (e.g. junction, bend) and accident environment (e.g. rural or urban) data from MAIDS do not reflect UK circumstances. This is not surprising given the different countries sampled and methodologies used. The MAIDS study was based on a case- control methodology and focussed on determining accident causation and accident risk, so the study was not designed to compare with the national statistics of the countries. • Severity: accident severity data is recorded in MAIDS using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS2). PTW injuries recorded in OTS and MAIDS data were compared using this scale and showed that a higher proportion of higher severity injuries (AIS>2) were reported in OTS (49%) compared to MAIDS data (41%). There is a higher proportion of high severity motorcycle accidents recorded in OTS data. This is considered to be a result of the OTS sampling - investigators are called to a higher proportion of more severe accidents in general. • Injuries: significant differences are found between the accidents in OTS and MAIDS in terms of the injuries recorded. OTS data reports higher proportions of neck, thorax and abdomen injuries than MAIDS. MAIDS data shows significantly higher proportions of head and lower extremity injuries. • Conspicuity: this is an important consideration with respect to the interaction of motorcycles with other road traffic. OTS data collected at the time of the accident shows that motorcycle headlights were off in 40% of cases whereas for the exposure data this proportion was 23%. This suggests that the use of motorcycle headlights appears to be beneficial in terms of alerting other road users to the presence of a powered two-wheeler. A significantly higher proportion of PTWs had headlights in operation at the time of the accident in the MAIDS study. Some similarities exist in the accident populations of OTS and MAIDS data: • Collision partner: both OTS and MAIDS show that the major collision partner in motorcycle accidents are passenger cars, accounting for approximately two-thirds of accidents. This is the case regardless of whether the accident occurred in a rural or urban setting. • Junction accidents: the proportions of accidents which occur away from a junction are similar between the studies (38% for MAIDS and 42% for OTS). • Causation: a traffic scan error by the motorcycle rider contributed to the accident in 28% of MAIDS records and 22% of OTS records. Traffic scan errors by other vehicles users in the collision accounted for 64% of accidents in MAIDS and 67% of accidents in OTS. It is recommended that future OTS phases should consider the feasibility and implications of collecting accident reconstruction information in a more OECD-compatible format. This would allow further comparison with European data. 2 Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM) (1990). The Abbreviated Injury Scale, 1990 Rev. (pp. 1–75), AAAM, Des Plaines, IL. 6 6 TRL Limited PPR 168 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 2 Project objectives 2 3 Motorcycling accidents in the UK 3 3.1 Motorcycle accident overview 4 3.2 Accident causation factors 4 4 Identification of differences and similarities between the OTS and MAIDS protocols 5 4.1 OTS and MAIDS: a brief overview 5 4.2 The similarities and differences between OTS and MAIDS 6 5 Examination of OTS and MAIDS data 8 5.1 Comparison of MAIDS and OTS: data comparison methodology 8 5.1.1 Merging Variables 8 5.1.2 Accident causation 9 5.1.3 Weighting the OTS data 10 5.1.4 Exposure data 13 5.2 Comparisons results 13 5.2.1 OTS data overview 13 5.2.2 Comparing of National data with study data 13 5.2.3 Human factors 16 5.2.4 Vehicle factors 23 5.2.5 Accident factors 26 5.2.6 Environmental factors 32 5.2.7 Accident causation 36 6 Discussion 40 6.1 General 40 6.2 Accident factors 41 6.3 Accident causation 41 6.4 Human factors, personal protective equipment and injury 42 6.5 Vehicle factors 43 7 Conclusions 44 7.1 Protocols 44 7.2 Data comparisons 44 Acknowledgments 46 References 47 Appendix A: Information recorded in the OTS database 49 7 7 TRL Limited PPR 168 Appendix B: Compatibility of OTS with OECD Common Methodology and MAIDS 54 Appendix C: Raw data of MAIDS and OTS databases 77 Appendix D: OTS contributory factors linked with primary and tertiary MAIDS contributory factors 81 Appendix E: Statistical details of weighting procedure 84 Appendix F: Examples of OTS Case Studies 85 Appendix G: Additional information on subjects in the main report 86 Appendix H: OTS exposure data of riders’ and passengers’ clothing 88 Appendix I: Accident characteristics of OV 91 Appendix J: OTS accidents Contributory factors tables 93 8 8 TRL Limited PPR 168 1 Published Project Report Version: 3 1 Introduction In 2006, motorcycles accounted for approximately one percent of traffic on UK roads, but accounted for 19% of fatal and serious casualties (DfT, 2007) indicating that they are over-represented in the national casualty statistics. Although the rate of motorcyclists killed and seriously injured per distance travelled has had a general declining trend over recent years, casualty statistics reveal that the rate is around 30 times higher for motorcyclists than car occupants (DfT, 2007). At present, approximately 1 in 5 of serious and fatal road casualties in the UK are motorcyclists (DfT, 2007). In order to address this, the UK government published a motorcycle strategy document (DfT, 2005a) which set out the targets for future research and the strategy to encourage safer motorcycling. Furthermore, the increasing popularity of motorcycles, the encouragement of ‘greener’ transport modes, and rapid advances in the safety of other vehicle types, suggest that motorcyclists may continue to become a greater percentage of the road traffic fatality distribution in the future. Motorcycle safety is also an important topic within Europe. The CARE database indicates that in 2004, for the EU 15, there were 32,951 people killed on EU roads; 3,998 of these were riders and passengers of motorcycles and mopeds (CARE database, July 2006). Indeed, the safety of vulnerable road users, including motorcycle and moped riders, is one of the priorities of the European Community as stated in the White Paper on Transport Policy for 2010 (The European Commission, 2001) and underlined by the Council of Ministers in June 2003 in the application of these policies. The aims of this project were to compare data collected by the UK On-The-Spot (OTS) study with the findings of the Motorcycle Accident In Depth Study (MAIDS), which collected motorcycle accident data from discrete sampling areas within five European countries. A broad range of motorcycle issues important to UK motorcycle safety were identified from existing literature. As an integral part of this comparison process, the MAIDS and OTS data collection methodologies were examined to identify similarities and differences which influence the collection and interpretation of the data. Once protocols were compared, differences between data from compatible variables could be investigated. Fundamental differences in ‘known’ variables in the motorcycling populations were found, for example, rider age and engine size. A procedure for weighting the data was adopted in order to make them compatible. In order to account for differences between countries, the OTS data were compared with MAIDS both in terms of raw and weighted data. The raw data were presented in order to indicate any fundamental differences due to sampling or population differences. The weighted data were presented to better reflect the underlying parameters of the motorcycle and motorcyclist population of the MAIDS study. The weighted data allowed for comparisons between the European and UK data to be made with a better understanding of the context of the data, allowing judgements on the agreement between MAIDS and OTS data to be made, as well as some interpretation and explanations for apparent differences. 111 1 TRL Limited 1 PPR 168