DG RTD SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME THEME 7 TRANSPORT - SST SST.2011.RTD-1 GA No

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG RTD SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME THEME 7 TRANSPORT - SST SST.2011.RTD-1 GA No ASPECSS Assessment methodologies for forward looking Integrated Pedestrian and further extension to Cyclists Safety Deliverable No. ASPECSS D1.5 Deliverable Title Dissemination level Written By Benefit estimate based on previous studies for pre-crash bicyclist systems and recommendations for necessary changes to pedestrian test and assessment protocol Carmen Rodarius, Maurice Kwakkernaat (TNO) Mervyn Edwards (TRL) June 2014 Checked by Ma Stefanie de Hair (TNO) June 2014 Approved by Monica Pla (IDIADA) June 9 th 2014

2 Executive summary Though the main focus of the AsPeCSS project lies on pedestrian safety systems, this deliverable is dedicated to bicyclists and respective measures to also protect this group of vulnerable road users. Within this deliverable, the car-to-bicyclist accidents situation has been investigated for the UK and the Netherlands. The main differences between car-to-bicyclist and car-to-pedestrian accidents have been pointed out and general test scenarios for bicyclist safety systems have been proposed. Additionally, RCS measurements of bicyclist and pedestrian (dummies) have been conducted that can be used as baseline information for further development of a bicyclist dummy target. In a last step, the effectiveness of bicyclist helmets has been estimated based on UK data and the effectiveness of AEB systems addressing bicyclists and VRU airbags have been summarized based on SaveCAP data. SaveCAP is a project on Saving Cyclist and Pedestrian by car bounded measures ( 2/49

3 Contents 1 Introduction The EU project AsPeCSS Structure of this deliverable Objectives Data sources Cyclist casualties in Great Britain Characteristics of accidents involving an injured bicyclists Pedal bicyclist casualties Contributory factors in accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty Defining the target population Target population characteristics Pedal bicyclist casualties Contributory factors in accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty Accident scenarios Comparison to the Netherlands Radar cross section measurements of dummies and humans Introduction Measurement method and setup RCS signatures Pedestrian 24 GHz Pedestrian 77 GHz Cyclist 24 GHz Cyclist 77 GHz Comparison RCS signatures Preliminary Test Scenarios Differences between bicyclists and pedestrians General boundary conditions for car-to-bicyclist accidents Preliminary bicyclist test scenarios General proposed test conditions Benefit estimate based on previous studies UK study on cycle helmets based on literature review AEB systems and VRU airbag based on SaveCAP Risk Register Conclusions and Recommendations Literature Acknowledgment /49

4 4/49

5 1 Introduction 1.1 The EU project AsPeCSS The overall purpose of the AsPeCSS project is to contribute towards improving the protection of vulnerable road users, in particular pedestrians and bicyclists, by developing harmonized test and assessment procedures for forward-looking integrated pedestrian safety systems. The output of the project will be a suite of tests and assessment methods for use in future regulatory procedures and consumer rating protocols. Implementation of such procedures / protocols will encourage widespread introduction of such systems in the vehicle fleet, resulting in a significant reduction of casualties and their injury severity for vulnerable road users. The ASPECSS project is divided into five work packages (WPs) as follows: WP1 aims to identify accident scenarios of pedestrians and bicyclists and develop weighting factors. Furthermore, WP1 aims to develop a methodology for the overall assessment of pedestrian pre-crash systems and to provide a benefit estimate and a proposal for test and assessment protocols for forward looking integrated pedestrian safety systems. In addition, a benefit estimate will be provided for pre-crash bicyclist systems and recommendations will be given for the work needed to update the pedestrian test and assessment protocols to include bicyclists. WP2 will develop a test protocol for the assessment of the effectiveness of preventive pedestrian protection systems and a test protocol for quantifying unjustified system responses (sometimes referred to as false positives ). Additionally, prototype test targets will be selected. WP3 will provide specifications of new impact conditions for head- and legform impactors given by the introduction of active systems. Simulations and experimental tests will be conducted for vehicles with different levels of passive safety performance. Finally, WP3 will generate risk curves for single vehicle points as functions of vehicle impact speed for different vehicle types. WP4 is the central work package for dissemination activities. WP5 coordinates the project in terms of research quality and on time delivery of results. 1.2 Structure of this deliverable This document is structured as follows: Chapter 1 provides an overall introduction to the AsPeCSS project as well as this subtask; Chapter 2 briefly describes the data sources used for this sub task; Chapter 3 gives an overview on the bicyclist casualties in Great Britain; Chapter 4 compares the UK situation to the Dutch situation; Chapter 5 gives an overview on the conducted RCS measurements; Chapter 6 provides a general description of the proposed test scenarios for bicyclists including an overview of differences between bicyclists and pedestrians with respect to accidents involving passenger cars and recommendations for further work; Chapter 7 gives an estimate on bicyclist helmet as well as AEB and VRU airbag effectiveness based on information from previous projects; Chapter 8 includes the risk register and Chapter 9 provides overall conclusions. 5/49

6 1.3 Objectives The objectives of the work reported in this deliverable were: To provide recommendations for the additional work necessary to adopt test scenarios and extend the methodology from WP1/WP2 to include bicyclists To analyze differences between bicyclist and pedestrian accidents in terms of test scenarios (UK data) and test conditions To conduct RCS measurements on bicyclist (dummies) for comparison with pedestrian (dummy) RCS To estimate the benefit of helmets (UK data) as well as active and passive means on cars (SaveCAP data) from previous studies conducted 6/49

7 2 Data sources Data was gathered mainly from the following sources dealing with bicyclist safety: 1.) SaveCAP project ( The SaveCAP project consortium consisted of the new Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, research institute TNO, the Dutch Cyclists Union, insurance company Centraal Beheer Achmea, and 1st Tier supplier Autoliv. The project ran until October It focused on the development and testing of vehicle systems for passenger cars, protecting bicyclists and pedestrians in case of a crash. This could be an airbag system, or a mitigation system like automatic braking. Important feature of the systems worked on, was the detection system that takes care of a timely detection and recognition of a pedestrian or bicyclist in the driving path of the vehicle. The system s output was used to trigger the safety system. The SaveCAP project consisted of the following activities: Effectiveness study Pre-development of the prototype sensor Sensor field testing in crowded urban area Pre-development prototype airbag Prototype field testing specifications System evaluation, using Beyond NCAP Protocol 2.) TNO work on bicyclist safety for the Dutch government Besides the SaveCAP project, TNO has conducted work for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment looking into bicyclist accidents (mainly on Dutch roads) and common accident configurations. For as far these results were released by the Ministry, they were included into this report. 3.) BRON The Bestand geregistreede Ongevallen in Nederland (BRON) is a national accident database in the Netherlands, where all traffic accidents which were reported to and processed by the police are registered. Though not being an in-depth database like GIDAS, BRON does contain a variety of parameters with respect to the accident circumstances as well as the parties involved. Data is available from 1976 onwards. The database can be considered to cover approximately 90% of all fatal Dutch traffic accidents. The degree of registration for non-fatal accidents is less, though it can be estimated in combination with other sources. It should be noted, that the database is filled based on information gathered by the police gather on the accident scene. The injury levels and therewith the severity of the accident is not always as accurate.. Therefore, SWOV (Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research) updates (if possible) the available information based on information from the Landelijke Medische Registratie (LMR) (country based medical registration). 4.) STATS19 From Road accidents on the public highway in Great Britain, reported to the police and which involve human injury or death, are recorded by police officers onto a STATS19 report form. The form collects a wide variety of information about the accident (such as time, date, location, road conditions) together with the vehicles and casualties involved and contributory factors to the accident (as interpreted by the police). The form is completed at either the scene of the accident, or when the accident is reported to the police. 7/49

8 The Department for Transport has overall responsibility for the design and collection system of the STATS19 data. The Standing Committee on Road Accident Statistics (SCRAS) is the body set up to oversee the STATS19 process for road accident data collection. The STATS19 data is the only national source to provide detailed information on accident circumstances, vehicles involved and resulting casualties and is the most detailed and reliable single source on accidents that can be used for longitudinal research in Great Britain. However, it should be borne in mind that is not a complete record of all injury accidents and resulting casualties, due to some accidents not being reported. The STATS19 data is available from the Department for Transport. Non disclosive data is also deposited with the Economic and Social Data Service. 8/49

9 3 Cyclist casualties in Great Britain Between 2008 and 2010, 661,669 casualties were injured in road accidents in Great Britain. Of these, 50,546 were bicyclist casualties. Figure 3-1 shows the breakdown of the casualties by road user type and injury severity. Figure 3-1: Casualties by road user type and injury severity ( ) 1% (330) of bicyclist casualties between 2008 and 2010 were killed, 15% (7,716) were seriously injured and 84% (42,500) were slightly injured. 3.1 Characteristics of accidents involving an injured bicyclists This section details the characteristics of accidents which involve at least one bicyclist casualty. Section looks at the characteristics of the casualties themselves, section details the most common contributory factors in these collisions and section defines the target population of interest Pedal bicyclist casualties Figure 3-2 shows the number of bicyclist casualties injured between 2008 and 2010 by age and gender. Figure 3-2: Pedal bicyclist casualties by age and gender ( ) 9/49

10 Over 80% of bicyclist casualties were male, mainly because of exposure issues. A higher proportion of these male casualties were killed or seriously injured than their female counterparts (16% KSI compared to 15%). Pedal bicyclist casualties were most commonly years old; however this age group contains the widest range of ages so this may explain some of this trend. Relatively few casualties were aged or over 80; appropriate exposure data, such as the number of vehicle-miles travelled split by age group, would be required to determine the casualty rate (or number of casualties per mile travelled) for each age group. Figure 3-3 displays bicyclist casualties by junction type. Figure 3-3: Pedal bicyclist casualties by junction type ( ) Three quarters of all bicyclist casualties were injured at a junction; most commonly at T or staggered junctions, followed by roundabouts or crossroads. The number of bicyclist casualties by speed limit and area is shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Pedal bicyclist casualties by speed limit of road and area ( ) Speed limit Area Urban Rural Unknown Total Built-up ( 40mph 64 km/h) 41,716 5, ,892 Non-built-up (>40mph) 428 3, ,654 Total 42,144 8, ,546 The majority of bicyclists were injured in urban areas on roads with a speed limit of 40mph or less. Table 3-2: Pedal bicyclist casualties by road class ( ) Number of Road class casualties Motorway 1 A-road 20,992 B-road 6,201 C-road 5,122 Unclassified 18,230 Total 50,546 10/49

11 Note: UK roads are classified as follows: [15] Motorways: Motorways A-Road: A main recommended route which can be either single carriageway or dual carriageway B-road: Regional in nature and used to connect areas of lesser importance. C-road: Roads within local area often not shown on road maps. Unclassified: Local roads with no defined destination. 42% of bicyclist casualties were injured on A-roads and 36% were injured on unclassified roads; the majority of these roads had a speed limit of 30mph. Figure 3-4: Pedal bicyclist casualties by lighting condition ( ) Figure 3-4 shows that 81% of casualties were injured in daylight conditions, 17% were injured at night in locations where the street lights were lit and only 1% were injured where no street lights were lit. Table 3-3 displays the number of bicyclist casualties, injured between 2008 and 2010, by weather condition at the time of the accident. Table 3-3: Pedal bicyclist casualties by weather condition ( ) Weather condition Number of casualties Proportion of casualties Fine without high winds 43,177 85% Raining without high winds 4,130 8% Snow without high winds 150 0% Fine with high winds 489 1% Raining with high winds 434 1% Snowing with high winds 18 0% Fog or mist 150 0% Other 836 2% Unknown 1,162 2% Total 50, % The vast majority of bicycle casualties were injured in accidents when the weather was fine without high winds. 11/49

12 3.1.2 Contributory factors in accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty In total between 2008 and 2010, 50,010 accidents involved at least one bicyclist casualty. Of these accidents 32,968 (66%) were attended by the police and had at least one contributory factor recorded. For the remainder of this section only accidents attended by the police with at least one contributory factor will be examined; this number is the divisor in any percentages reported. In the 32,968 accidents, 78,028 contributory factors were recorded: an average of 2.4 contributory factors per accident. The top ten most common contributory factors in these accidents are shown in Table 3-4. These factors can be assigned to either the bicyclist, another vehicle/driver in the accident or to a pedestrian or passenger (who may or may not be injured). Table 3-4: Top 10 most common contributory factors in accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty CF number Contributory factor description Proportion of accidents with CF 405 Failed to look properly 70% 406 Failed to judge other person's path or speed 25% 602 Careless, reckless or in a hurry 18% 403 Poor turn or manoeuvre 17% 310 Cyclist entering road from pavement 10% 407 Passing too close to bicyclist, horse rider or pedestrian 10% 701 [vision affected by] stationary or parked vehicle(s) 7% 410 Loss of control 6% 302 Disobeyed 'Give Way' or 'Stop' sign or markings 5% 507 Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night 4% The most common contributory factor (recorded in 75% of all accidents involving a bicyclist casualty, attended by the police with at least one contributory factor) is failed to look properly. Not surprisingly, contributory factors which specifically relate to accidents involving bicyclists (e.g. bicyclist entering road from pavement, passing too close to bicyclist, horse rider or pedestrian and bicyclist wearing dark clothing at night ) also feature in the top 10 most common contributory factors Defining the target population Table 3-5 shows accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty split by the number of vehicles involved in the accident. Table 3-5: Accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty by number of vehicles involved ( ) Number of vehicles involved Number of accidents Proportion of accidents 1 (single vehicle bicycle accident) 1 1,587 3% 2 (bicycle + 1 other vehicle) 47,026 94% 3 (bicycle + 2 other vehicles) 1,286 3% 4 (bicycle + 3 other vehicles) 90 0% 5 (bicycle + 4 other vehicles) 15 0% 6 (bicycle + 5 other vehicles) 4 0% 7 (bicycle + 6 other vehicles) 2 0% Total 50, % 12/49

13 1 Single-vehicle bicycle accidents are likely to be under-reported. Please note that this figure will also include accidents involving a pedestrian and a bicycle. Accidents involving two vehicles (i.e. the bicycle and one other vehicle) account for 94% of all accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty. These accidents will be examined further to determine target population : accidents involving at least one injured bicyclist where the bicycle is impacted by the front of a car or taxi. Specifically, we are interested in the number of bicyclist casualties in these accidents. In defining the target population a number of caveats are required: Only two vehicle accidents will be considered as it is often difficult to tell which vehicle(s) collided with the bicycle in an accident involving three or more vehicles. STATS19 records the first point of impact of each vehicle involved in a collision; this may refer to the first point of impact with another vehicle or with an object or pedestrian (either on or off the carriageway). For the purposes of this analysis, it will be assumed that the first point of impact recorded for the car/taxi in the collision refers to the first point of impact with the bicyclist and not with a pedestrian or object. This may result in the target population overestimating the number of bicyclist casualties in accidents where the bicycle is impacted by the front of a car or taxi. Table 3-6 displays the number of two vehicle accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty by impact partner and first point of contact on the impact partner. The target population of accidents is highlighted in yellow. The figure in the top left hand corner represents accidents involving two bicycles. Table 3-6: Two vehicle accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty by impact partner and first point of contact ( ) First point of impact on impact partner Impact partner Bicycle Did not impact Front Back Offside Nearside Unknown Total Pedal cycle PTW Car or taxi 1,629 19,092 2,183 7,107 10, ,529 Minibus Bus or coach ,122 Other vehicle Goods vehicle 218 1, , ,741 Unknown Total 244 2,031 21, , ,026 The target population consists of 19,092 accidents involving 19,565 casualties, of which 19,172 were bicycle casualties. The characteristics of the 19,172 bicyclist casualties will be examined in more detail in section Target population characteristics This section details the characteristics of the target population accidents (as defined in section 3.1.3). Section looks at the characteristics of the casualties themselves and section details the most common contributory factors in these collisions. The final section (3.2.3) defines the accident scenarios for these collisions. 13/49

14 3.2.1 Pedal bicyclist casualties The breakdown of bicyclist casualties in the target population by injury severity is shown in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-5: Pedal bicyclist casualties in target population by injury severity ( ) Overall, 15% of casualties in the target population were killed or seriously injured. The casualty figures show that 81% of bicyclist casualties in the target population are male; this is the same proportion of casualties which were male when all bicyclist casualties were examined (see Figure 3-2). Casualties in the target population were split by age group; Figure 3-6 displays the proportion of casualties which were killed, seriously injured and slightly injured in each of these age groups. Figure 3-6: Pedal bicyclist casualties in target population by age and injury severity ( ) A higher proportion of older bicyclist casualties (aged 50+) were killed or seriously injured compared to casualties in the younger age brackets; however these proportions are based on much smaller samples: for example, only 81 bicyclist casualties were aged 80 or over. The increase in KSI proportion between the 14/49

15 youngest and oldest groups may be due to differences in the fragility of casualties and/or differences in road user factors such as the locations where bicycle s are used. Figure 3-7 shows the percentage of casualties (in the target population) who were killed or seriously injured by junction type. Figure 3-7: Percentage of bicyclist casualties in target population killed or seriously injured by junction type ( ) Over 80% of casualties in the target population were injured in an accident at a junction. Accidents on slip roads and at multiple junctions most commonly resulted in KSI injuries. Table 3-7: Pedal bicyclist casualties in target population by speed limit of road and area ( ) Speed limit Area Urban Rural Unknown Total Built-up ( 40mph 64 km/h) 15,888 2, ,935 Non-built-up (>40mph) 176 1, ,237 Total 16,064 3, ,172 The majority of casualties were involved in accidents in urban areas on roads with a speed limit of 40mph or less. Table 3-8: Pedal bicyclist casualties in target population by road class ( ) Number of Road class casualties % KSI A-road 7,212 15% B-road 2,422 16% C-road 1,902 15% Unclassified 7,636 14% Total 19,172 15% Just under 40% of bicyclist casualties were injured on unclassified roads. In addition 7,212 (38%) were injured on A-roads. 15/49

16 Figure 3-8 shows the proportion of casualties which were killed, seriously injured and slightly injured in each of the lighting conditions. Figure 3-8: Pedal bicyclist casualties in target population by lighting condition and injury severity ( ) 78% of casualties in the target population were injured in collisions which occurred during daylight hours; 14% of these were killed or seriously injured. This compares to a KSI proportion of 15% for casualties injured in darkness when street lights were lit and 29% in darkness with no street lights. Figure 3-9: Percentage of bicyclist casualties in target population killed or seriously injured by weather condition ( ) 84% of casualties were injured in accidents when the weather was fine without high winds ; of these casualties 15% were killed or seriously injured. The highest proportion (17%) of casualties were killed or seriously injured in snow without high winds however this proportion is based on a small sample of just 69 casualties. The manoeuvre each vehicle was completing at the time of the collision is recorded. Table 3-9 shows the number of bicyclist casualties injured as the car or taxi was performing each of the listed manoeuvres. 16/49

17 Table 3-10 shows the manoeuvre of the bicyclist at the time of the collision. Table 3-9: Pedal bicyclist casualties in target population and % KSI by other vehicle manoeuvre ( ) Other vehicle manoeuvre Number of casualties % KSI Reversing 35 3% Parked % Waiting to go ahead but held up 217 8% Slowing or stopping % Moving off 2,003 11% U turn 84 4% Turning left 2,043 9% Waiting to turn left 117 5% Turning right 4,129 14% Waiting to turn right 138 8% Changing lane to left 55 16% Changing lane to right 46 17% Overtaking moving vehicle on its offside % Overtaking stationary vehicle on its offside % Overtaking on nearside 67 22% Going ahead left hand bend % Going ahead right hand bend % Going ahead other 8,426 17% Unknown 1 0% Total 19,172 15% The most common maneuvers for the car/taxi to be performing when the bicyclist was injured were going ahead other, turning right, turning left and moving off. Overtaking maneuvers and going ahead right hand bend resulted in the highest proportions of KSI bicyclist casualties. 17/49

18 Table 3-10: Pedal bicyclist casualties in target population and % KSI by bicycle maneuver ( ) Number of Bicycle manoeuvre casualties % KSI Reversing 11 9% Parked 27 4% Waiting to go ahead but held up 302 7% Slowing or stopping % Moving off % U turn 19 16% Turning left % Waiting to turn left 29 14% Turning right 1,554 18% Waiting to turn right % Changing lane to left 99 22% Changing lane to right % Overtaking moving vehicle on its offside 44 14% Overtaking stationary vehicle on its offside % Overtaking on nearside 95 9% Going ahead left hand bend % Going ahead right hand bend % Going ahead other 14,262 15% Unknown 2 0% Total 19,172 15% Almost three quarters of bicyclists were going ahead other when the collision occurred. Changing lanes to the left or right resulted in the highest proportions of KSI casualties. The number of bicyclist casualties in the target population split by impact point on the bicycle is displayed in Figure Figure 3-10: Bicyclist casualties in target population by impact point on the bicycle ( ) Bicycle s were most commonly hit on the front; however back, offside and nearside collisions were also common. 168 bicyclists were injured in the collision but were not impacted. 18/49

19 3.2.2 Contributory factors in accidents involving at least one bicyclist casualty In total there were 19,092 accidents in the target population. Of these accidents 12,585 (66%) were attended by the police and had at least one contributory factor recorded. In the 12,585 accidents, 29,747 contributory factors were recorded: an average of 2.4 contributory factors per accident. Of these 29,747 contributory factors, 29,114 were assigned to a vehicle i.e. the factor applies to a vehicle, driver/rider or to the road environment. Table 3-11 shows how the contributory factors in these accidents are assigned to each of the vehicles. Table 3-11: Contributory factor(s) assignment by vehicle type ( ) Number of Contributory factor assignment accidents Contributory factor(s) assigned to bicycle only 3,860 Contributory factor(s) assigned to car/taxi only 5,990 Contributory factors assigned to both bicycle and car/taxi 2,512 Target population accidents attended by the police with at least on contributory factor assigned to a vehicle in the accident 12,362 In just under half of these accidents the contributory factor(s) were assigned only to the car/taxi. For the remainder of this section only these 12,362 accidents are examined; this number is the divisor in any percentages reported. The top ten most common factors assigned to the car or taxi are shown in Table The top 10 assigned to the bicycle are shown in 19/49

20 Table Table 3-12: Top 10 most common contributory factors assigned to the car or taxi in target population accidents ( ) CF number Contributory factor description Proportion of accidents with CF 405 Failed to look properly 47% 406 Failed to judge other person's path or speed 15% 602 Careless, reckless or in a hurry 11% 403 Poor turn or manoeuvre 10% 407 Passing too close to bicyclist, horse rider or pedestrian 6% 302 Disobeyed 'Give Way' or 'Stop' sign or markings 5% 701 [vision affected by] stationary or parked vehicle(s) 4% 706 [vision affected by] dazzling sun 4% 707 [vision affected by] rain, sleet, snow or fog 2% 402 Junction restart (moving off at junction) 2% 20/49

21 Table 3-13: Top 10 most common contributory factors assigned to the bicycle in target population accidents ( ) CF Proportion of number Contributory factor description accidents with CF 405 Failed to look properly 28% 310 Cyclist entering road from pavement 13% 406 Failed to judge other person's path or speed 9% 602 Careless, reckless or in a hurry 8% 403 Poor turn or manoeuvre 5% 507 Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night 4% 701 [vision affected by] stationary or parked vehicle(s) 3% 506 Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility 3% 410 Loss of control 2% 401 Junction overshoot 2% Failed to look properly was the most common contributory factor assigned to the car/taxi (47%) and to the bicycle (28%) in these accidents Accident scenarios This section splits the casualties in the target population into a number of different accident scenarios. In defining each of the accident scenarios a number of assumptions were required. The fields used to classify casualties into each of the accident scenarios were: Junction detail (at a junction, not at a junction) Car manoeuvre ( 1 ) Bicycle manoeuvre ( 1 ) Bicycle first point of impact (did not impact, front, back, offside, nearside) given that bicycle s are nearly 2D objects the first point of impact can be difficult to define; as such most of the accident scenarios defined in section specify more than one possible point of contact (the exception to this is scenario 4). Direction of vehicle travel this field records the from and to directions of travel (based on the compass points) for each of the vehicles in the collision e.g. if a vehicle travels from the North to the East this would be recorded as shown: These fields can be used to define differences in the direction of travel between the two vehicles. This is done by calculating the absolute difference between the to and from values and applying some criteria; where applicable these are described. 1 reversing, parked, waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, U-turn, turning left, waiting to turn left, turning right, waiting to turn right, changing lane to left, changing lane to right, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead left hand bend, going ahead right hand bend, going ahead other, unknown 21/49

22 Defining the accident scenarios 1. Car turning Near-side o car turning off the road to the near side with bicyclist moving straight forward Assumptions: Junction detail: at a junction Car manoeuvre: turning near side, waiting to turn to the near side Bicycle manoeuvre: waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, changing lane to the near side, changing lane to the far side, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead near side bend, going ahead far sight bend, going ahead other Bicycle first point of impact: front, back, nearside, offside 2. Car turning far-sight o car turning off the road to the right with bicyclist moving straight forward Assumptions: Junction detail: at a junction Car manoeuvre: turning right, waiting to turn right Bicycle manoeuvre: waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, changing lane to the near side, changing lane to far sight, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead near sight bend, going ahead far sight bend, going ahead other Bicycle first point of impact: front, back, nearside, offside 3. Longitudinal o car travelling straight forward hitting bicyclist driving straight from behind Assumptions: Junction detail: at a junction, not at a junction Car manoeuvre: waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, changing lane to near sight, changing lane to far sight, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead near sight bend, going ahead far sight bend, going ahead other Bicycle manoeuvre: waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, changing lane to near sight, changing lane to far sight, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead near sight bend, going ahead far sight bend, going ahead other Bicycle first point of impact: back from direction for bicyclist - from direction for other vehicle : 0, 1, 7 4. Crossing o car and bicycle moving straight forward but at perpendicular angles to one another Assumptions: Junction detail: at a junction, not at a junction 22/49

23 Car manoeuvre: waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, changing lane to near sight, changing lane to far sight, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead near sight bend, going ahead far sight bend, going ahead other Bicycle manoeuvre: waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, changing lane to left, changing lane to right, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead left hand bend, going ahead right hand bend, going ahead other Bicycle first point of impact: front, back, nearside, offside from direction for bicyclist - to direction for bicyclist : 4, 3, 5 from direction for other vehicle - to direction for other vehicle : 4, 3, 5 from direction for bicyclist - from direction for other vehicle : 2, 6, 3, 5 5. Cyclist turning to far sight o bicyclist turning right while car going straight ahead Assumptions: Junction detail: at a junction Car manoeuvre: waiting to go ahead but held up, slowing or stopping, moving off, changing lane to near sight, changing lane to far sight, overtaking moving vehicle on offside, overtaking stationary vehicle on offside, overtaking on nearside, going ahead near sight bend, going ahead far sight bend, going ahead other waiting to turn far sight, turning far sight Bicycle manoeuvre: turning to far sight, waiting to turn to far sight Bicycle first point of impact: front, back, nearside, offside Casualties by accident scenario Table 3-14 shows the number of casualties in each of the accident scenarios. Table 3-14: Target population casualties split by accident scenario and injury severity ( ) Injury Severity Seriously Slightly Total Accident scenario Killed injured injured casualties % KSI 1. Car turning near sight (left) ,729 1,910 9% 2. Car turning far sight (right) ,180 3,702 14% 3. Longitudinal ,698 2,046 17% 4. Crossing ,578 5,391 15% 5. Cyclist turning far sight (right) ,133 19% Other ,253 4,990 15% Total 116 2,699 16,357 19,172 15% Other includes all those casualties not included in any of the scenarios described in section , this includes (but is not limited too) the following examples: bicyclist turning left accidents involving no impact to the bicycle longitudinal accidents where the bicycle was impacted on the front, nearside or offside head-on collisions - bicycle and other vehicle travelling from opposite directions 23/49

24 4 Comparison to the Netherlands When looking at the collision partners for bicycles, it can be found that they are most often injured either in single vehicle accidents (meaning without the involvement of any other traffic participant), in collisions with passenger cars, or in collisions with other VRU s. The distribution of collision partners for fatally and severely injured bicyclists in the Netherlands [9] is presented in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: Crash partners in bicyclist accidents for the Netherlands, BRON [9] Most data from the Netherlands ([2], [4], [5], [6], [8], [9], [10]) is based on BRON which is not as detailed as the German GIDAS data. In consequence, less detailed insight into the Dutch car to bicyclist accident configurations is available compared to the German situation. It should also be noted, that from the information within BRON it is not possible to see which movement was made by which crash partner. BRON data is openly accessible. Therefore, some parameters related to car to bicyclist accidents could be investigated on the newest complete dataset available which is currently dated from Some findings are presented in Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-4. From [5] (data from 2007), the following accident configurations could be identified: vehicle going straight forward, bicyclist is crossing the path also traveling straight forward (40%) one partner turned left while other went straight-on (12%), one partner crossed road laterally while other went straight-on (12%) one partner turned left while other was going straight-on for opposite direction (8%) A new analysis of 2009 BRON data provided the following configurations for car to bicyclist accidents: Side impact on crossing (26%) Other side impact (25%) Frontal without lane change (8%) Parked vehicle (7%) With respect to the boundary conditions of the accidents the following can be found: Accidents usually happen on intersections, with the bicyclist crossing a road (~65%). In more than 50% this is a side and not the main road. [4] 24/49