Risk of injury for occupants of motor vehicle collisions from unbelted occupants

[Forensic assessment of seat belt injuries caused to a minor passenger in the rear seat]

The purpose of this work is to draw attention to the problem of child injuries in road traffic accidents. Children are the most vulnerable road users. Seat belts as elements of passive safety of cars cannot always provide the necessary protection. In some cases, they act as traumatic objects. A case of a thoracic spine injury (fractures of the bodies of two thoracic vertebrae) in a minor child who was on a booster and fixed with a standard seat belt is presented. The data of clinical and special research methods are presented, as well as options for solving some forensic issues are considered.

Correlates of front-seat passengers' non-use of seatbelts at night

When properly worn, seatbelts can save lives. They are designed to prevent occupants from hitting objects inside their vehicle and from being ejected out of their vehicle in the event of a crash. Despite their proven effectiveness in reducing the severity of injuries, seatbelt non-use among passengers still remains a problem, especially at night. Although the factors associated with not using a seatbelt have been widely studied, research studies documenting this behavior at night are limited in the literature. The primary objective of this paper is to explore the factors related to front-seat passengers' seatbelt non-use at night using a 2015-2016 longitudinal observation survey conducted in five counties in East Tennessee. The Generalized Estimating Equation, a rigorous modeling technique, is employed for the data analysis. The findings show that front-seat passengers who are most likely to not wear seatbelts at night are males, traveling in passenger cars and pickup trucks, traveling during the first half of the year (January to June), traveling late at night (after 10 p.m) and on local streets. The findings also indicate that drivers may have the greatest influence on their accompanying passengers' seatbelt use. That is, when drivers fail to wear seatbelts at night, their accompanying front-seat passengers are more likely to fail as well. The model results show that there are many consistent correlations between the non-use of seatbelts and personal, vehicle and environmental characteristics. Accounting for these factors may be important when developing intervention strategies that promote nighttime seatbelt use.

Passenger use of and attitudes toward rear seat belts

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to identify attitudes toward belt use in the rear seat and to gain insight into the experiences of rear-seat passengers.

METHOD

A telephone survey conducted between June and August 2016 targeted adult passengers who had recently ridden in the rear and who did not always wear their seat belt when doing so. Respondents were questioned regarding their reasons for not buckling up and possible conditions under which they would be more likely to buckle up during rear-seat travel.

RESULTS

Of 1163 recent rear-seat passengers, 72% reported always using their seat belt in the rear. Full-time belt use was lower among passengers who primarily travel in the rear of hired vehicles compared with personal vehicles. The most common explanation for not buckling up was that the back seat is safer than the front. Four out of five agreed they do not buckle up because of type of trip; two-thirds forget or do not see the need; and two-thirds agreed with reasons related to design, comfort, or usability issues. Nearly 40% agreed that they sometimes do not buckle up in the rear because there is no law requiring it.

CONCLUSION

Many reasons for not using belts in the rear are similar to reasons in the front, such as forgetfulness, inconvenience, or discomfort. One difference is that many rear-seat passengers perceive using the belt is unnecessary because the back seat is safer than the front. More than half of part-time belt users and nonusers reported interventions such as rear seat belt reminders, stronger belt-use laws, and more comfortable belts would make them more likely to use their seat belt in the rear seat. Practical applications: This study identifies barriers to rear seat belt use that point to the need for a multi-faceted approach to increase belt use.

Driver and front passenger injury in frontal crashes: Update on the effect of unbelted rear occupants

PURPOSE

This is a study of the influence of an unbelted rear occupant on the risk of severe injury to the front seat occupant ahead of them in frontal crashes. It provides an update to earlier studies.

METHODS

1997-2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.

RESULTS

The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions.

Patterns of injury sustained by car occupants with relation to the direction of impact with motor vehicle trauma — evidence based review

Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) have been reported as the leading cause of major trauma and subsequent morbidity and mortality, for people under 20 and those between 20 and 64 years of age. Crash fatalities have significantly reduced in number since the introduction of appropriate seat belt restraints and air bags for drivers and front seat passengers. Other factors which have positively influenced the outcome of MVCs include information from pre-hospital personnel at the crash scene, regarding the vehicle's exterior and interior damage, in addition to the direction of impact. The patterns of injury sustained by car occupants during a collision depend upon the direction of impact. We provide an up to date review of the key literature regarding injury patterns sustained to occupants of light passenger vehicles (passenger cars, vans, utility vehicles and pickup trucks) in correlation with the direction of impact. We strongly believe that this knowledge can allow pre-hospital personnel and clinicians in the emergency department to gain foresight when suspecting and identifying the injuries sustained by car occupants during a motor vehicle collision.

How would increasing seat belt use affect the number of killed or seriously injured light vehicle occupants?

The expected effects of increasing seat belt use on the number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) light vehicle occupants have been estimated for three scenarios of increased seat belt use in Norway, taking into account current seat belt use, the effects of seat belts and differences in crash risk between belted and unbelted drivers. The effects of seat belts on fatality and injury risk were investigated in a meta-analysis that is based on 24 studies from 2000 or later. The results indicate that seat belts reduce both fatal and non-fatal injuries by 60% among front seat occupants and by 44% among rear seat occupants. Both results are statistically significant. Seat belt use among rear seat occupants was additionally found to about halve fatality risk among belted front seat occupants in a meta-analysis that is based on six studies. Based on an analysis of seat belt wearing rates among crash involved and non-crash involved drivers in Norway it is estimated that unbelted drivers have 8.3 times the fatal crash risk and 5.2 times the serious injury crash risk of belted drivers. The large differences in crash risk are likely to be due to other risk factors that are common among unbelted drivers such as drunk driving and speeding. Without taking into account differences in crash risk between belted and unbelted drivers, the estimated effects of increasing seat belt use are likely to be biased. When differences in crash risk are taken into account, it is estimated that the annual numbers of KSI front seat occupants in light vehicles in Norway could be reduced by 11.3% if all vehicles had seat belt reminders (assumed seat belt wearing rate 98.9%), by 17.5% if all light vehicles had seat belt interlocks (assumed seat belt wearing rate 99.7%) and by 19.9% if all front seat occupants of light vehicles were belted. Currently 96.6% of all (non-crash involved) front seat occupants are belted. The effect on KSI per percentage increase of seat belt use increases with increasing initial levels of seat belt use. Had all rear seat occupants been belted, the number of KSI front seat occupants could additionally be reduced by about 0.6%. The reduction of the number of KSI rear seat occupants would be about the same in terms of numbers of prevented KSI.

Extending the value of police crash reports for traffic safety research: collecting supplemental data via surveys of drivers

BACKGROUND

Police crash reports have been used to advance motor vehicle safety research, though their value is limited by their focus on the crash event rather than outcomes of the crash.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate the effect of enhanced recruitment methods, including a monetary incentive, on response rates of drivers identified on police reports in a national MVC surveillance system.

METHODS

The National Automotive Sampling System-General Estimates System (NASS-GES) was used to identify passenger vehicle crashes between 1 July and 30 October 2012 involving drivers ≥16 years old with at least one child occupant ≤17 years old. We collected data from the driver via self-administered hardcopy or interviewer-administered telephone surveys. Within each survey mode, half the drivers were randomly assigned to receive a small monetary incentive. Response rates were calculated overall, and by mode of survey administration and incentive condition.

RESULTS

495 drivers were eligible, and 127 completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 25.7% (95% CI 21.8% to 29.5%). The response rate across the two modes was higher for those who received an incentive than for those who did not (35.6% vs 15.7%, p<0.01). The highest response rate (45.9%) was for drivers allocated to the telephone survey who received an incentive.

CONCLUSIONS

The NASS-GES provides a surveillance system from which cases of interest can be identified and supplemental data collected via surveys of drivers identified on police reports. We adapted procedures commonly used in public health surveillance systems, including monetary incentives and branded recruitment materials, to improve driver response rates.

Light-vehicle occupancy and severe injury by vehicle and crash type

PURPOSE

This study investigated the number of occupants involved and severely injured in light-vehicle crashes by vehicle and crash type.

METHODS

1994-2010 NASS-CDS data were analyzed to estimate the risk of severely injured occupants involved in motor vehicle crashes. Crashes were grouped by front, side, rear, and rollovers. The effect of occupancy and vehicle type was investigated. Light vehicles were less than 4536 kg with model year 1994+. The annual number of Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 4+F injuries was estimated and the risk was determined using all occupants with known injury (MAIS 0-6+F).

RESULTS

There were 21,869 MAIS 4+F injuries annually, with 62.7 percent involving passenger cars, 15.9 percent sport utility vehicles (SUVs), 15.3 percent trucks, and 6.1 percent vans. In 36.6 percent of van crashes, MAIS 4+F occurred when there were 4+ occupants and 13.0 percent with 7+ occupants in the vehicle. Overall, 12.8 percent of severely injured were in crashes involving 4+ occupants and 1.4 percent with 7+ occupants. In addition, 30.1 percent of MAIS 4+F occurred in rollovers and only 5.8 percent of crashes were rollovers. Rollovers had the highest injury risks, irrespective of the number of occupants. There was a trend for an increased fraction of injury in frontal crashes and a lower fraction in rollovers. There were high risks in side and rear crashes with 5+ occupants.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, there were 1.35 occupants involved in a crash per vehicle. Severely injured occupants were uncommon in 5+ occupancy vehicles. There was a trend for increased injury risks with occupancy. The risk was 1.65 times higher in vehicles with 7+ occupants compared to those with a driver only.

Drivers' attitudes toward front or rear child passenger belt use and seat belt reminders at these seating positions

OBJECTIVE

Passengers, especially those in rear seating positions, use seat belts less frequently than drivers. In-vehicle technology can inform drivers when their passengers are unbuckled and encourage passengers to use belts. The current study collected information about drivers' attitudes toward passenger belt use and belt reminders for front passengers and children in back seats.

METHODS

A national telephone survey of 1218 people 18 and older was conducted, of which 477 respondents were drivers who transport a front seat passenger at least once a week and 254 were drivers who transport an 8- to 15-year-old child in the back seat. Respondents were asked about their attitudes toward belt use by their front passengers or rear child passengers and preferences for different passenger belt reminder features.

RESULTS

Ninety percent of drivers who regularly transport front seat passengers said that the passengers always use seat belts. Reported belt use was even higher among 8- to 15-year-old children in the back seat (97%). Among the drivers whose children do not always buckle up, about half said their child unbuckled the belt during the trip. Almost every full-time belt use driver (96%) would encourage front passengers to buckle up if not belted, compared to 57 percent of part-time belt users and nonusers. In contrast, nearly every driver who transports children in the back seat would encourage their belt use, regardless of the driver's belt use habits. Most drivers who transport front passengers wanted passenger belt reminders to encourage passengers to buckle up. Most of these drivers wanted a chime/buzzer or warning light or text display and wanted the reminder to last indefinitely. Most drivers who transport child passengers in the rear seat wanted the vehicle to indicate whether child passengers are unbuckled. A large majority of these drivers wanted notifications via a visual diagram of seating positions and belt use, a chime/buzzer, and a warning light or text display. These drivers also wanted the vehicle to provide belt use information until the child buckled up.

CONCLUSIONS

Many drivers, especially those who always use seat belts, said they would encourage unbuckled passengers to buckle up and supported auditory and visual belt reminders for passengers, particularly for children sitting in the back seat. Front and rear passenger reminders that last indefinitely would be acceptable to most drivers who transport these passengers. An auditory alert may be especially useful to alert drivers to children unbuckling in the back seat during a trip.

Crash risk factors related to individuals sustaining and drivers following traumatic brain injuries

OBJECTIVE

Some crashes result in drivers experiencing (or sustaining) a traumatic brain injury (TBI) while other crashes involve drivers that have already experienced a TBI. The objective of this study is to examine the factors that influence these two TBI crash groups.

METHODS

Data from the Iowa Department of Public Health's Brain Injury Registry and Department of Transportation's crash records were linked together and used in logistic regression models to predict the likelihood of a driver sustaining a TBI in a crash and those who drive after a TBI.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2006, there were 2382 crashes in which an individual sustained a TBI. As expected, a higher likelihood of sustaining a TBI was observed for motorcycle drivers who did not wear a helmet and in crashes that resulted in total or disabling vehicle damage. Focusing specifically on the post-TBI drivers (and not occupants), 1583 were involved in crashes. These post-TBI drivers were less likely to wear seatbelts or have passengers in the vehicle at the time of the crash, and were more likely to crash at night. Post-TBI drivers were also involved in significantly more multiple crashes (about 14%) when compared to drivers who have not experienced a TBI (about 10%) during the study period. When controlling for gender, date of injury, and severity of TBI (using Glasgow Coma Scale), individuals that sustained a TBI when they were younger were more likely to be involved in multiple crashes.

CONCLUSIONS

Different factors influence the crash likelihood for those that sustain a TBI in a crash and those that crash following a TBI. In general, post-TBI drivers have a higher occurrence of multiple crashes and this should be further explored to guide driver rehabilitation, evaluation, and training.

Effects of seat belt usage on injury pattern and outcome of vehicle occupants after road traffic collisions: prospective study

BACKGROUND

Injury and death from road traffic collisions (RTCs) is a major health problem worldwide. The seat belt is the most important RTC safety innovation to reduce injury severity and death from RTCs. We aimed to study the effects of seat belt usage on injury patterns and outcomes of restrained vehicle occupants compared with unrestrained occupants after RTCs.

METHODS

RTC trauma patients who were vehicle occupants and admitted to Al-Ain and Tawam Hospitals, or who died after arrival at the emergency departments were prospectively studied during the period of April 2006 to October 2007. Demography of patients, position in the vehicle, usage of seat belts, injury severity markers, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), hospital stay, need for surgery, injured body regions, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 783 vehicle occupants, 766 (98%) patients with known seat belt status were studied. Among them, the 631 (82.4%) who were unrestrained were significantly younger than the restrained patients (P < 0.0001). The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores for the thorax, back, and lower extremity were significantly higher in unrestrained than in restrained patients (P = 0.001, P = 0.036, and P = 0.045 respectively). The GCS was significantly lower in unrestrained than in restrained patients (P = 0.006). More surgical operations were performed in the unrestrained patients (P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Seat belt usage reduces the severity of injury, hospital stay, and number of operations in injured patients. Seat belt compliance is low in our community. More legal enforcement of seat belt usage is mandatory to reduce the severity of injury caused by RTCs.

Seatbelts and road traffic collision injuries

Modification of seatbelts and their legislation played an important role in reducing morbidity and mortality of occupants in road traffic collisions. We aimed to review seatbelt development, its mechanism of action and its effects. Seatbelts reduce injury by preventing the occupant from hitting the interior parts of the vehicle or being ejected from the car. We have made a linear regression correlation between the overall seatbelt compliance and road traffic death rates in 46 high income countries to study the relationship between seatbelt use and mortality. There was a very highly significant negative correlation between the seatbelt compliance and road traffic death rates (R = - 0.77, F = 65.5, p < 0.00001). Seatbelt-related injuries include spinal, abdominal or pelvic injuries. The presence of a seatbelt sign must raise the suspicion of an intra-abdominal injury. These injuries can be reduced if seatbelts were applied correctly. Although seatbelts were recognized as an important safety measure, it still remains underused in many countries. Enforcement of seatbelt usage by law is mandatory so as to reduce the toll of death of road traffic collisions.

Use of a structural deformity index as a predictor of severity among trauma victims in motor vehicle crashes

BACKGROUND

Information obtained from vehicle crash scenes, called kinematics, may prove useful in the management of victims and may complement anatomical and physiological findings.

OBJECTIVES

In addition to analyzing the significance of age, gender, position occupied in the vehicle, the use of restraint systems, and ejection from the vehicle, the objective was to carry out a preliminary study of what we have defined as the Structural Deformity Index (SDI) to verify its usefulness in predicting injury severity at the scene of a motor vehicle crash. The index consists of various parameters that can be easily identified at the crash scene.

METHOD

An historical cohort of vehicle occupants involved in crashes in the Navarra province of Spain from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002 was studied. Information was collected from the database of the Navarra Severe Trauma Victim group study. Bivariate statistical analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were employed for statistical management.

RESULTS

There were 212 vehicle occupants identified. Significant differences in severity of injury, and of mortality, were observed based on age, ejection from the vehicle, and a high SDI. Logistic regression showed significant differences in injury severity by age (odds ratio [OR] 6.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-26.7) and high SDI (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1-3.3), as well as differences in the patient death rate by age (OR 6.92, 95% CI 1.2-38.9) and high SDI (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.5-6.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The SDI is useful to the first responders, enabling them to alert and transmit objective, reliable information to the emergency coordination center, thus efficiently activating health care resources. In addition, use of the SDI may assist prehospital and hospital health care providers to suspect the presence of particular serious injuries when anatomical and physiological criteria are not definitive.

China belting up or down? Seat belt wearing trends in Nanjing and Zhoushan

National seat belt wearing legislation became effective in China May 2004 and associated provincial and city regulations followed. Despite rapid motorisation seat belt studies in China have been scarce. Patterns and trends in urban seat belt wearing were observed for all driver, front and rear seating positions over the years 2005-2007 in two eastern cities Nanjing (Jiangsu Province) and Zhoushan (Zhejiang Province). There were 35,256 vehicles observed in Nanjing, 20,939 in Zhoushan and 95,933 occupants overall. Males dominated all seating positions, especially drivers. Seat belt wearing overall was significantly higher for drivers (49.9% Nanjing, 47.4% Zhoushan) than for front seat passengers (9.1% Nanjing, 1.0% Zhoushan) and virtually nonexistent for rear passengers (0.5% Nanjing, 0.2% Zhoushan). Generally levels declined significantly from year to year (drivers Nanjing 66.7%, 47.7%, 38.6%; Zhoushan 57.4%, 57.9%, 30.6%; front passengers Nanjing 19.2%, 6.6%, 3.2%). Zhoushan wearing did not initially decline, 2006 observations coinciding with anticipation of provincial regulations (July 2006). Observations revealed an absence of child restraints. Pretend wearing/belt tampering was observed almost exclusively in taxi drivers (14.2% of Nanjing taxi drivers, 11.3% of Zhoushan's). Awareness of and attitudes to urban seat belt laws should be investigated, appropriate countermeasures developed and enforcement reassessed.

Pattern of seat belt wearing in Nanjing, China

OBJECTIVE

To describe the patterns of seat belt wearing in Nanjing, China for drivers, front seat passengers, and rear occupants of motor vehicles.

DESIGN

Roadside observational study.

SETTING

Four sites in central and northern Nanjing during daylight hours over 1 week in April 2005.

SUBJECTS

Drivers and passengers of 17 147 cars, taxis, goods vans, and pickups, which traveled in the inside traffic lane.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentage seat belt wearing for each of seating position, age/sex, time of day, vehicle type, day of week.

RESULTS

The rate of seat belt wearing was significantly higher in drivers (67.3%, 95% CI 66.6 to 68.0) than front seat passengers (18.9%, 95% CI, 18.0 to 19.8). It was negligible for second front seat passengers (2.6%, 95% CI 0.3 to 4.9) and rear seat passengers (0.5%, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.7). Belt tampering, such that protection would be reduced in the event of a crash, was observed for 18.5% of taxi drivers. Drivers were most likely to wear seat belts in cars and vans and at a city roundabout; front seat passengers were most likely to wear seat belts in non-taxi vehicles, during the evening rush hour, if the driver was wearing a belt, and on the local north road. Drivers were least likely to wear a belt in the early morning, in pickups and taxis, on Tuesday (or the following week), and on the local north road; front seat passengers were least likely to wear a belt in taxis and if the driver was not wearing a belt.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of seat belt wearing by passengers were low despite national legislation and provincial regulations coming into effect several months before the survey. Combined education and enforcement are necessary accompaniments to legislation.

Rollover injury: effects of near- and far-seating position, belt use, and number of quarter rolls

PURPOSE

Vehicle and occupant responses in rollovers are complex since many factors influence both. This study analyzes the following factors: 1) belt use, 2) seated position with respect to the lead side in the rollover, 3) another front occupant in the crash, and 4) number of quarter rolls. The aim was to improve our understanding of rollover injury mechanisms.

METHOD

Rollover accidents were analyzed using 1992-2004 NASS-CDS data. The sample included adult drivers and right-front passengers. All occupants were evaluated and then a subset of non-ejected occupants was analyzed. Using roll direction and seating position, the sample was divided into near- and far-seated occupants. Injury and fatality risks were determined by seatbelt use, occupancy, rollover direction, and number of quarter rolls. Risk was defined as the number of injured (e.g., MAIS 3+) divided by the number of exposed occupants (MAIS 0-6). Significance in differences was determined. A matched-pair analysis was used to determine the risk of serious injury for near- and far-seated occupants who were either belted or unbelted in the same crash.

RESULTS

For all occupants, serious injury risks were highest for far-seated, unbelted occupants at 18.1% +/- 4.8%, followed by near-seated unbelted occupants at 12.0% +/- 3.5%. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Belted near- and far-seated occupants had a similar injury risk of 4.3% +/- 1.2% and 4.0% +/- 1.2%, respectively. For non-ejected occupants, serious injury risk was 9.5% +/- 3.2% for far-seated unbelted occupants and 4.9% +/- 2.1% for near-seated unbelted occupants, not a statistically significant difference. Serious injury risk was similar for belted near- and far-seated non-ejected occupants, at 3.6% +/- 1.1%. Seatbelts were 64.2%-77.9% effective in preventing serious injury for all occupants and 62.1%-26.5% for far- and near-seated, non-ejected occupants, respectively. Based on the matched pairs, seatbelts were less effective for near-seated (5.0%) compared to far-seated (2.8%) occupant MAIS 3+F risks. This was similar for non-ejected occupants. An unbelted near-seated occupant increased the risk for a belted far-seated occupant by 2.2 times, whereas an unbelted far-seated occupant increased the risk for a belted near-seated occupant by 10.2 times. For all occupants, the risk of serious injury increased with the number of quarter rolls, irrespective of seated position. For near-seated occupants, seatbelt effectiveness was higher in < or =1 roll than 1+ roll, at 72.3% compared to 28.3%. For far-seated occupants, seatbelt effectiveness was similar in < or =1 and 1+ roll samples at 78.3% and 76.8%, respectively. Near-seated occupants had the lowest serious injury risk when they were the sole occupant in the vehicle. This was also true for non-ejected occupants. However, far-seated occupants had a lower injury risk when another occupant was involved in the crash.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of carrying another occupant appears to reduce the risk of serious injury to far-seated occupants. However, near-seated occupants are better off being the sole occupant in the vehicle. Seatbelt effectiveness was lowest at 28.3% for non-ejected, near-seated occupants in 1+ rolls. This finding deserves further evaluation in an effort to improve seatbelt effectiveness in rollovers. For belted drivers alone in a rollover, fatality risks are 2.24 times higher for the far- versus near-seated position. Analysis of rollovers by quarter turns indicates that occupants are both far-side and near-side in rollovers. The extent to which this confounds the relationship between roll direction, seating position, and injury risk is unknown.

The impact of neurotrauma on society: an international perspective

Neurotrauma, in many countries and particularly in the younger age group kills more people than AIDS or cancer but unlike these diseases the causes are known and it is preventable. The costs to communities in terms of suffering and economics are enormous. The common causes are road traffic accidents, falls and violence. Neurotrauma affects particularly the developing world where it consumes already over stretched health resources. In the developed world steps to reduce the incidence of neurotrauma and to treat the victims have had some effect nevertheless it stills remains an endemic problem which does not receive the public awareness or the political support it deserves. For the victims there is general agreement on the principles of clinical management but often difficulties in applying early and effective care in countries with the greatest need because of shortage of facilities and expertise. To reduce the overall burden of neurotrauma demands actions which extend from the political to basic patient care. There have been remarkable advances in the understanding of acute brain and spinal cord injury and encouraging possibilities for effective neuroprotection, repair and regeneration but in the broader context prevention of neurotrauma is the urgent imperative. In this endeavour the neuroscientist has knowledge which informs and encourages policy makers to take the steps necessary to reduce injury. These steps require political will and community support for hard decisions which impact on the way people conduct their daily lives. The WHO predicts that unless there are changes in present policies and if there are no additional road safety countermeasures put in place, there will be a major increase in road traffic fatalities over the next 20 years and beyond (World Health Organisation. (2004). www.who.int).

A comprehensive statewide analysis of seatbelt non-use with injury and hospital admissions: new data, old problem

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association of seatbelt nonuse with injury patterns, injury severity, and in-patient hospital admission among adults presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in a statewide, population-based, sample of motor vehicle crashes.

METHODS

Using data from the 2002 Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) for Wisconsin, 23,920 occupants of motor vehicle crashes, aged 16 years or older, who were treated in an ED, were analyzed. Logistic regression was used to compare the odds ratio of having sustained an injury to specific body regions and of being admitted to an inpatient unit in unbelted individuals compared with those who were belted.

RESULTS

Compared with belted occupants presenting to an ED, their unbelted counterparts were more likely to be male (56% vs. 40%) and to have used alcohol (17% vs. 4%). Unbelted occupants were younger (31 years vs. 38 years) and incurred higher ED charges ($681 vs. $509) than belted occupants. Additionally, unbelted occupants have a higher proportion of single-vehicle crashes, such as rollovers (44% vs. 22%), and rural crashes (56% vs. 44%). Unbelted occupants comprised 20% of study patients treated in the ED and discharged, 44% of patients treated in the ED and admitted, and 68% of patients dying in the ED. Unbelted occupants were more likely to be admitted (odds ratio [OR] = 2.6) than belted individuals and were more likely to suffer severe injuries to the head, face, thorax, abdomen, spine, upper and lower extremities (OR ranging from 1.6 to 3.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients presenting to an ED after a motor vehicle crash, unbelted occupants are more likely to require inpatient admission and to have sustained a severe injury to numerous body regions than are belted occupants.

Effect of increased rear row occupancy on injury to seat belt restrained children in side impact crashes

Previous work identified a similar risk of injury for children seated on the struck side and center rear in side impact crashes in passenger cars. In order to further explain this finding, we investigated the effect of sharing the rear row with other occupants on injury risk and delineated differences in injury patterns among the seat positions. These analyses, conducted from a large child specific crash surveillance system, included: children 4-15 years old, rear seated, seat belt restrained, in a passenger car, and in a side impact crash. Injury risk was compared among each rear seat position stratified by the presence of other occupants on the rear row. Occupants are at an increased risk of injury if they sit alone on their row as compared to sitting with other occupants. Patterns of injuries distinct to each seat position were delineated.