Analysis of injury characteristics and risks comparison between elderly and young adult pedestrians driven by car-pedestrian collision accidents in China

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2024.02.002

Abstract

Abstract:

496 elderly and 431 young and middle-aged pedestrian accident samples extracted from the China In-depth Accident Survey (CIDAS) database were studied to clarify the differences between the injury characteristics and injury risk of elderly and young adults pedestrians, and to provide a theoretical basis for improving pedestrian collision safety regulations. Firstly, the distribution of injury sites and the similarities and differences of injury types between aged and young adult pedestrians were compared. Furthermore, the injury risk curves of head AIS3+, chest AIS3+ and lower limb AIS2+ of elderly and young pedestrians based on vehicle collision velocity were established. The results show that the difference between the two types of pe-destrians in the proportion of chest injuries is as high as 20.9%. At 40 km/h collision speed, the differences in the risk of head, chest and lower limb injuries are 38.9%, 39% and 21.2%, re-spectively. Therefore, the improvement of pedestrian crash safety regulations in China can consider the test methods or injury criteria of elderly and young pedestrians differently, and it is particularly necessary to include the car-elderly chest crash test evaluation method.

Key words: automobile safety, collision accidents, elderly people, pedestrians, damage type, risk of injury

CLC Number:

U461.91

LIU Zhi, LIN Miao, DAI Bing, WANG Wenxia, MENG Qingnan, MO Fuhao. Analysis of injury characteristics and risks comparison between elderly and young adult pedestrians driven by car-pedestrian collision accidents in China[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2024, 15(2): 154-160.

Figures/Tables 9

References 20

[1]	国家统计局. 中华人民共和国国民经济和社会发展统计公报[S/OL]. (2023-02-28). http://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/zxfb/202302/t20230228_1919011.html.
	National Bureau of Statistics. Statistical bulletin of national economic and social development of the China in 2022[S/OL]. (2023-02-28). http://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/zxfb/202302/t20230228_1919011.html. (in Chinese)
[2]	World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 20188: Summary[R]. Licence:CC BYNC-SA 3.0 IGO. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018.
[3]	Etehad H, Yousefzadeh-Chabok S H, Davoudi-Kiakalaye A, et al. Impact of road traffic ac-cidents on the elderly[J]. *Arch Gero Geri*, 2015, 61(3): 489-493.
[4]	McCoy G F, Johnston R A, Duthie R B. Injury to the elderly in road traffic accidents[J]. *J Trauma*, 1989, 29(4): 494-497. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198904000-00013 URL
[5]	Azami-Aghdash S, Aghaei M H, Sadeghi-Bazarghani H. Epidemiology of road traffic injuries among elderly people: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. *Bull Emerg Trauma*, 2018, 6(4): 279-291. doi: 10.29252/beat-060403 URL
[6]	HUANG Jing, LONG Yongcheng, YAN Yu, et al. Development and validation of an age-specific lower extremity finite element model for simulating pedestrian accidents[J]. *Appl Bion Bio-Mech*, 2018(5): 1-12.
[7]	ZHOU Zhou, LI Xiaogai, Kleiven S. Biomechanics of acute subdural hematoma in the elderly: a fluid-structure interaction study[J]. *J Neurotrauma*, 2019, 36(13): 2099-2108. doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.6143 URL
[8]	Poulard D, Subit D, Nie B, et al. The contribution of pre-impact posture on restrained occupant finite element model response in frontal impact[J]. *Traf Inju Prev*, 2015, 16(sup2): S87-S95.
[9]	LIU Xinran, XIAO Sen, SUN Xiuxiu, et al. Research on lower extremity injury characteristics of elderly pedestrians under different impact loads[J]. *Int’l J Crashworth*, 2022, 27(5): 1287-1297.
[10]	Park S H, Bae M K. Exploring the determinants of the severity of pedestrian injuries by pe-destrian age: A case study of Daegu metropolitan city, South Korea[J]. *Int’l J Envir Res Publ Heal*, 2020, 17(7): 2358-2374.
[11]	Rod J E, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Senserrick T, et al. Older adult pedestrian trauma: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment of injury health outcomes from an aggregate study sample of 1 million pedestrians[J]. *Accid Anal Prev*, 2021, 152: No 105970.
[12]	Zohrevandi B, Rad E H, Kouchakinejad-Eramsadati L, et al. Epidemiology of head injuries in pedestrian-motor vehicle accidents[J]. *Sci Reports*, 2023, 13(1): 20249.e
[13]	Saadé J, Cuny S, Labrousse M, et al. Pedestrian injuries and vehicles-related risk factors in car-to-pedestrian frontal collisions[C]// Proceed 2020 IRCOBI Conf Proceed. Munich: IRCOBI, 2020: 278-289.
[14]	胡林, 易平, 黄晶, 等. 基于真实事故案例的自动紧急制动系统两轮车测试场景研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2018, 40(12): 1435-1446+1453.
	HU Lin, YI Ping, HUANG Jing, et al. Research on test scenarios of automatic emergency braking system for two wheeled vehicles based on real accident cases[J]. *Autom Engineering*, 2018, 40(12): 1435-1446+1453. (in Chinese)
[15]	Hayes W C, Erickson M S, Power E D. Forensic injury biomechanics[J]. *Ann Rev Biom Engi*, 2007, 9: 55-86.
[16]	Isenberg R A, Walz M, Chidester C, et al. Pedestrian crash data study-an interim evaluation[C]// Proceed: Int’l Tech Conf Enhan Safe Vehi. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1996: 1396-1407.
[17]	Harruff R C, Avery A, Alter-Pandya A S. Analysis of circumstances and in juries in 217 pe-destrian traffic fatalities[J]. *Accid Analy Prev*, 1998, 30(1): 11-20.
[18]	Hannawald L. Equal effectiveness study on pedestrian protection[D]. Dresden: Technische Universit at Dresden, 2004.
[19]	王岩. 基于人车事故数据的行人碰撞后运动及损伤规律研究[D]. 北京: 清华大学, 2017.
	WQNG Yan. Research on the movement and injury patterns of pedestrians after collisions based on human vehicle accident data[D]. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2017. (in Chinese)
[20]	中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司. GB/T 24550—2009: 汽车对行人的碰撞保护[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2009: 3-4.
	China Automotive Technology and Research Center Co. GB/T 24550-2009: Collision protec-tion of pedestrians by cars [S]. Beijing: China Standards Press, 2009: 3-4. (in Chinese)

碰撞车速 km·h^-1	头部AIS3+风险			胸部AIS3+风险			下肢AIS2+风险
碰撞车速 km·h^-1	老龄人	青壮年	差异	老龄人	青壮年	差异	老龄人	青壮年	差异
20	6.7	2.9	+3.8	6.2	2.0	+4.2	3.0	3.0	0.0
40	39.0	15.5	+23.5	38.5	11.3	+27.2	21.2	11.1	+10.1
50	68.7	32.7	+36.0	66.4	24.0	+42.4	45.3	24.4	+20.9
70	94.9	77.1	+17.8	100.0	68.4	+31.6	89.0	66.8	+22.2

碰撞车速 km·h^-1	头部AIS3+风险			胸部AIS3+风险			下肢AIS2+风险
碰撞车速 km·h^-1	老龄人	青壮年	差异	老龄人	青壮年	差异	老龄人	青壮年	差异
20	6.7	2.9	+3.8	6.2	2.0	+4.2	3.0	3.0	0.0
40	39.0	15.5	+23.5	38.5	11.3	+27.2	21.2	11.1	+10.1
50	68.7	32.7	+36.0	66.4	24.0	+42.4	45.3	24.4	+20.9
70	94.9	77.1	+17.8	100.0	68.4	+31.6	89.0	66.8	+22.2