D1.2 – REPORT ON MOTORCYCLISTS IMPACTS WITH ROAD ......main parameters of these accidents...

WP 1 Report on the Characteristics of Motorcycle Accidents

Project nº 218741

Co-financed by European Commission

D1.2 – REPORT ON MOTORCYCLISTS IMPACTS WITH ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE BASED OF AN INDEPTH INVESTIGATION OF MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS

Project Acronym: Smart RRS Project Full Title: Innovative Concepts for smart road restraint systems to provide greater safety for vulnerable road users. Grant Agreement No.: 218741 Responsible: Università degli Studi di Firenze Internal Quality Reviewer: Centro Zaragoza

WP _ Report on the Characteristics of Motorcycle Accidents

Project nº 218741


2

SUMMARY:

The objective of the “Innovative concepts for smart road restraint systems to provide greater safety for vulnerable road users” (Smart RRS) project is to reduce the number of injuries and deaths caused by road traffic accidents to vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists, cyclists and passengers through the development of a smart road restraint system. Within the WP1 “Characteristics of severe road traffic accidents concerning vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists” the task 1.2, “In depth Motorcycle Accident Investigation”, aims at identifying the specific characteristics of motorcycle accidents where motorcyclists impact with road infrastructure (poles, signals, barriers, etc.). Moreover, it also intends to define the main parameters of these accidents (kinematics, injured body regions, etc), based on an in-depth investigation of a wide sample of motorcycle accidents, and establish the basis for assessing the effectiveness of new protection devices, taking into account “real life” conditions. A total of 239 accidents from three different in-depth databases have been collected and analysed. The selection criteria for the accidents was:

• At least one motorcycle involved.

• The motorcyclist collided with any element of the road infrastructure (poles, signals, barriers, etc).

The main findings can be summarised as follow: PTW kinematics and surrounding conditions Fatal (serious) accidents & PTW impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing

• In the majority of accidents the PTW's speed > 70 (> 50) km/h, the roll angle is ≠ 0 (≅ 0), the sideslip angle is little and the first part of PTW involved in the accidents is the front or the centre.

• Regarding the surround and environmental conditions in the majority of accidents the road is curve left, the road do not present defects, the accident occurred with traffic, there are not visibility limitation, the roadside is not contaminated (in 53% of the cases the roadside is contaminated) and in the end the weather is clear.

PTW kinematics and surrounding conditions Fatal (serious) accidents & PTW impact against a Building structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression

• In the majority of accidents the PTW’s speed is > 50 (< 70) km/h, the roll angle = 0, the sideslip angle is little and the first part of PTW involved in the accidents is the front or the centre.

• Regarding the surround and environmental condition, the 45% of the accidents occurred in a straight road (majority in a curve); moreover for the majority of accidents the road do not present defects, the accident occurred in a light or absent traffic conditions, there aren’t visibility, the roadside is not contaminated and in the end the weather is clear (in the 53% is not clear).


Project nº 218741


3

PTW riders kinematics Fatal (serious) accidents & impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing

• All (43%) the riders have a speed at impact > 70 km/h.

• 41% (all) of the riders slide on the pavement.

• 60% of the riders have an impact angle, < 40°. 67% of the riders have an angle > 50°.

• 24% (7%) of the riders impact on the barrier post.

• 21% (14%) of the riders impact on the rail of barrier. PTW riders kinematics Fatal (serious) accidents & impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression

• 50% of the riders have a speed at impact between 50 and 70 (< 50) km/h.

• 90% (33%) of the riders do not slide on the pavement.


Project nº 218741


4

INDEX SUMMARY: ........................................................................................................ 2 1 Aim of the study ........................................................................................... 9 2 UNIFI: in-depth motorcycle accident investigation ....................................... 9

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 9 2.2 Methodology ......................................................................................... 9 2.3 PTW accidents summary characteristic ............................................. 10 2.4 Data analysis ...................................................................................... 11

2.4.1 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW kinematics of accident ...... 11 2.4.1.1 PTW impact speed .................................................................. 11 2.4.1.2 PTW roll attitude angle at impact ............................................. 15 2.4.1.3 PTW sideslip angle at impact .................................................. 18 2.4.1.4 PTW first collision contact code ............................................... 22

2.4.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematic of .............. 26 2.4.2.1 PTW rider number of impacts .................................................. 26

2.4.3 Roadside obstacles & features of roadside alignment .................... 30 2.4.3.1 Roadside horizontal alignment ................................................ 30

2.4.4 Roadside infrastructure & accident causation ................................. 33 2.4.4.1 Roadside condition and defects ............................................... 33 2.4.4.2 Traffic control on path of travel visibility ................................... 36 2.4.4.3 Traffic density at the time of accident ...................................... 39 2.4.4.4 Visibility limitation .................................................................... 42 2.4.4.5 Stationary view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event ..................................... 45 2.4.4.6 Mobile view obstructions along the rider’s line of

sight at the time of the precipitating event ............................... 48 2.4.4.7 Weather description ................................................................. 51 2.4.4.8 Roadside contamination obstacles .......................................... 54

2.4.5 Roadside infrastructures & consequences...................................... 57 2.4.5.1 Trauma status .......................................................................... 57 2.4.5.2 Head injury due to impact with the obstacles ........................... 59 2.4.5.3 Upper extremities injury due to impact with the obstacles ....... 61 2.4.5.4 Thorax injury due to impact with the obstacles ........................ 63 2.4.5.5 Spine injury due to impact with the obstacles .......................... 65 2.4.5.6 Abdomen injury due to impact with the obstacles .................... 67 2.4.5.7 Lower extremities injury due to impact with the obstacles ....... 69 2.4.5.8 Whole body injury due to impact with the obstacles ................ 71

2.4.6 Personal protective equipment ....................................................... 73 2.4.6.1 Wearing helmet on head .......................................................... 73 2.4.6.2 Was helmet retained in place on head during accident? ......... 75 2.4.6.3 Type of helmet ......................................................................... 77 2.4.6.4 PTW fatal rider injuries: Wearing helmet on head?.................. 79 2.4.6.5 PTW fatal rider injuries: Body coverage material ..................... 81 2.4.6.6 Body coverage material & upper extremities AIS .................... 82 2.4.6.7 Body coverage material & Thorax AIS ..................................... 83 2.4.6.8 Body coverage material & lower extremities AIS ..................... 85 2.4.6.9 Footwear material/type & lower extremities AIS ...................... 87


Project nº 218741


5

2.4.6.10 Body coverage material & Whole body AIS ......................... 89 2.4.7 Relationship between features of PTW kinematics ......................... 91

2.4.7.1 PTW impact speed & PTW roll attitude angle at impact .......... 91 2.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 94

3 Centro Zaragoza: in-depth motorcycle accident investigation ................... 96 3.1 PTW accidents summary characteristic ............................................. 96 3.2 Data analysis ...................................................................................... 97

3.2.1 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW kinematics of accident ...... 97 3.2.1.1 PTW impact speed .................................................................. 97 3.2.1.2 PTW roll attitude angle at impact ............................................. 99 3.2.1.3 PTW sideslip angle at impact ................................................ 101 3.2.1.4 PTW first collision contact code ............................................. 103

3.2.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematic of ............ 105 3.2.2.1 PTW rider speed at impact .................................................... 105 3.2.2.2 PTW rider impact angle ......................................................... 107 3.2.2.3 PTW rider impact speed & PTW rider impact angle .............. 110 3.2.2.4 PTW rider sliding on back/front ? ........................................... 111 3.2.2.5 PTW rider impact orientation with respect to road tangent .... 113 3.2.2.6 PTW rider impact on barrier post? ......................................... 115 3.2.2.7 PTW rider impact on rail of barrier? ....................................... 115 3.2.2.8 PTW rider number of impacts ................................................ 116 3.2.2.9 Rider motion (post crash) ...................................................... 118

3.2.3 Roadside obstacles & features of roadside alignment .................. 120 3.2.3.1 Roadway horizontal alignment ............................................... 120

3.2.4 Roadside infrastructure & accident causation ............................... 122 3.2.4.1 Roadside condition and defects ............................................. 122 3.2.4.2 Traffic control on path of travel is visible to PTW rider? ......... 124 3.2.4.3 Traffic density at time of accident .......................................... 126 3.2.4.4 PTW rider visibility limitation due to ....................................... 128 3.2.4.5 Stationary view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the

time of precipitating event ...................................................... 130 3.2.4.6 Mobile view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at time of

precipitating event ................................................................. 132 3.2.4.7 Weather description ............................................................... 134 3.2.4.8 Roadside contamination obstacles ........................................ 136

3.2.5 Roadside infrastructures & consequences.................................... 138 3.2.5.1 PTW rider trauma status ........................................................ 138 3.2.5.2 Head injury due to impact with the obstacles ......................... 139 3.2.5.3 Upper extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles .. 140 3.2.5.4 Thorax injuries due to impact with the obstacles ................... 141 3.2.5.5 Spine injuries due to impact with the obstacles ..................... 143 3.2.5.6 Abdomen injuries due to impact with the obstacles ............... 144 3.2.5.7 Lower extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles .. 145 3.2.5.8 Whole body injuries due to impact with the obstacles ........... 146

3.2.6 Personal protective equipment ..................................................... 147 3.2.6.1 Wearing helmet on head & Head AIS .................................... 147 3.2.6.2 Was helmet retained in place on head during accidents?...... 148 3.2.6.3 Type of helmet & Head AIS ................................................... 149


Project nº 218741


6

3.2.6.4 Fatal riders: wearing helmet on head? ................................... 149 3.2.6.5 Body coverage material ......................................................... 150 3.2.6.6 Body coverage material & upper extremities AIS .................. 151 3.2.6.7 Body coverage material & Thorax AIS ................................... 151 3.2.6.8 Body coverage material & Spine AIS ..................................... 152 3.2.6.9 Body coverage material & abdomen AIS ............................... 152 3.2.6.10 Body coverage material & lower extremities AIS ............... 153 3.2.6.11 Body coverage material & whole body AIS ........................ 153

3.2.7 Relation between the features of the PTW kinematics ................. 154 3.2.7.1 PTW impact speed & PTW roll attitude angle at impact ........ 154

3.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 155 4 Applus IDIADA: in-depth motorcycle accident investigations .................. 159

4.1 PTW accidents summary characteristic ........................................... 159 4.2 Data analysis .................................................................................... 160

4.2.1 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW kinematics of accident .... 160 4.2.1.1 PTW impact speed ................................................................ 160 4.2.1.2 PTW roll attitude angle at impact ........................................... 162 4.2.1.3 PTW sideslip angle at impact ............................................... 164 4.2.1.4 PTW first collision contact ...................................................... 166

4.2.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematic ................ 168 4.2.2.1 PTW rider speed at impact .................................................... 168 4.2.2.2 PTW rider impact angle ......................................................... 170 4.2.2.3 PTW rider impact speed & PTW rider impact angle .............. 170 4.2.2.4 PTW rider sliding on back/front? ............................................ 171 4.2.2.5 PTW rider impact orientation with respect to road tangent .... 173 4.2.2.6 PTW rider impact on barrier post? ......................................... 174 4.2.2.7 PTW rider impact on rail of barrier? ....................................... 174 4.2.2.8 PTW rider number of impacts ................................................ 175 4.2.2.9 Rider motion (post crash) ...................................................... 177


4.2.4 Roadside infrastructure & accident causation ............................... 182 4.2.4.1 Condition and defects ............................................................ 182 4.2.4.2 Traffic control on path of travel visibility ................................. 184 4.2.4.3 Traffic density at time of accident .......................................... 186 4.2.4.4 Visibility limitation .................................................................. 188 4.2.4.5 Stationary view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event ...................................................... 190 4.2.4.6 Mobile view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the

time of precipitating event ...................................................... 192 4.2.4.7 Weather description ............................................................... 194 4.2.4.8 Roadside contamination obstacles ........................................ 196

4.2.5 Roadside infrastructures & consequences.................................... 198 4.2.5.1 Trauma status ........................................................................ 198 4.2.5.2 Head injuries due to impact with the obstacles ...................... 199

4.2.6 Personal protective equipment ..................................................... 200 4.2.6.1 Wearing helmet on head & head AIS..................................... 200


Project nº 218741


7

4.2.6.2 Was helmet retainded in place on head during accidents? & Head AIS ............................................................................ 201

4.2.6.3 Type of helmet & Head AIS ................................................... 202 4.2.6.4 Wearing helmet on head? & roadside obstacles ................... 203 4.2.6.5 Roadside obstacles & body coverage material ...................... 204

4.2.7 Relation between the features of the PTW kinematics ................. 205 4.2.7.1 PTW impact speed & PTW roll attitude angle at impact ........ 205

4.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 206 5 Comparison between the different databases and summary Information 209

5.1 Number of cases and motorcycle motor displacement ..................... 209 5.2 Data analysis .................................................................................... 211

5.2.1 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW kinematics of accidents .. 211 5.2.1.1 PTW impact speed ................................................................ 211 5.2.1.2 PTW Roll attitude angle at impact ......................................... 215 5.2.1.3 PTW sideslip angle at impact ................................................ 219 5.2.1.4 PTW first collision contact code ............................................. 223

5.2.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematics of accidents ...................................................................................................... 227

5.2.2.1 PTW rider number of impacts ................................................ 227 5.2.2.2 PTW rider speed at impacts .................................................. 231 5.2.2.3 PTW rider impact angle ......................................................... 234 5.2.2.4 PTW rider impact speed & PTW rider impact angle .............. 235 5.2.2.5 PTW rider sliding on back/front? ............................................ 236 5.2.2.6 PTW rider impact orientation with respect to road tangent .... 239 5.2.2.7 PTW rider impact on barrier post? ......................................... 240 5.2.2.8 PTW rider impact on rail of barrier? ....................................... 242 5.2.2.9 Rider motion post crash ......................................................... 244


5.2.4 Roadside infrastructures & accidents causation ........................... 250 5.2.4.1 Roadside condition and defects ............................................. 250 5.2.4.2 Traffic density at the time of accidents ................................... 254 5.2.4.3 Visibility limitation due to ........................................................ 258 5.2.4.4 Roadside obstacles & stationary view obstructions along the

rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event .............. 262 5.2.4.5 Roadside obstacles & mobile view obstructions along the rider’s

line of sight at the time of precipitating event ......................... 266 5.2.4.6 Weather description ............................................................... 270 5.2.4.7 Roadside contamination obstacles ........................................ 274

5.2.5 Roadside infrastructures & consequences.................................... 278 5.2.5.1 Trauma status ........................................................................ 278 5.2.5.2 Head injuries due to impact with the obstacles ...................... 281 5.2.5.3 Upper extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles .. 284 5.2.5.4 Thorax injuries due to impact with the obstacles ................... 286 5.2.5.5 Spine injuries due to impact with the obstacles ..................... 288 5.2.5.6 Abdomen injuries due to impact with the obstacles ............... 290 5.2.5.7 Lower extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles .. 292

5.2.6 Personal protective equipment ..................................................... 294


Project nº 218741


8

5.2.6.1 Was helmet retained in place on head during accident? ....... 294 5.2.6.2 Body coverage material & upper extremities AIS .................. 297 5.2.6.3 Body coverage material & thorax AIS .................................... 298

5.3 Conclusion........................................................................................ 300 5.4 Summary information ....................................................................... 302


Project nº 218741


9

1 Aim of the study

This in-depth accident investigation has the objective to make a snapshot of the moment of the accident, in which either only one vehicle, the PTW (motorcycle or moped) is involved, or more vehicles are involved (one of them should be a PTW), without impact between the moving vehicles. We have focussed our attention especially on the impact against Guardrail barrier / Posts fencing. We have analyzed the accidents with regard to the PTW and rider kinematics, roadside infrastructure and surrounding conditions, trauma suffered by the riders and the effectiveness of the body coverage material. The analysis has considered real accidents provided by three “In-deph accidents databases”: MAIDS (by ACEM), CENTRO ZARAGOZA, APPLUS IDIADA for a total of 239 accidents.

2 UNIFI: in-depth motorcycle accident investigation

2.1 Introduction

The study has investigated the features of the PTW accidents focusing the motorcycle and rider kinematics, roadside and weather conditions, single body part injuries analysis and the effectivity of the body coverage materials. These information have been collected with an in-depth accidents investigation on a sample of PTW accidents. We have based our analysis on the MAIDS database realized by ACEM (Association of European Motorcycle Manufacturers) with the support of the European Commission and other partners during the period 1999-2000 in five sampling areas located in France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Italy. The database collected 921 motorcycle accidents, which were investigated in detail resulting in approximately 2000 variables for each accident, and 923 controllers, which provided comparative information on riders and PTWs that were not involved in accidents in the same sample areas. These information on accidents were collected with the (OECD) methodology for on-scene in-depth motorcycle accident investigations: the methodology developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was used by all five research groups in order to maintain consistency in the data collected in each sampling area.

2.2 Methodology

In our analysis we have considered, from the MAIDS database, the accidents where only one vehicle, the PTW (motorcycle or moped), is involved and those involving more vehicles (one of these should be a PTW), without impact between moving vehicles. Our sample has accounted for 193 accidents that we have investigated respect the different features of accidents. All the injuries in the analysis are concerned PTW riders. In the analysis of PTW and rider kinematics and for the roadside condition we have analysed the different variables respect to a three levels scale of accident severity: slight injuries (AIS 1 or 2), serious injuries (AIS 3+) and fatal injuries; whereas for the body parts injuries analysis and for the protective equipments analysis we have reported the severity of injuries with a single value of the AIS scale. The riders impact roadside obstacles have been grouped in three subcategories, Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing - Buildings structures / embankment / tree(small plants, vegetation) - Parked vehicles / other unknown, according to the aim of the study and to obtain categories with a significative number of data. In the analysis of the singular parameters, which characterize the accidents, we have arranged the data in the crosstable form; for each configuration we have provided the statistical tests like the Pearson Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test (and depending on the expected counts and the type of variables, nominal or ordinal, we have considered the right test) in order to assess the statistical significance of relationship whereas for the strength of association we have reported the Cramer’s V and other specific tests depending on the type of data.


Project nº 218741


10

2.3 PTW accidents summary characteristic

Table. 1 Summary information “ Number of accidents and fatal accidents by motor displacement”

counts % on total

n° of accidents

moped 49 25,4

motorcycle 144 74,6

total 193 100,0

n° of fatal accidents

moped 5 17,2

motorcycle 24 82,8

total 29 100,0

This table (Table. 1) is helpful to know the summary information respect to the composition of our sample: concern to the motor displacement, and the fatality of the accidents. How we can see the highest percentage of PTWs, involved in accidents, were motorcycle (74,6%) whereas the moped accounted for about the 25% of accidents. In general, every one hundred of accidents there are 15 dead riders: the majority (82,8%) drove a motorcycle whereas the 17,2% drove a moped.

Table. 2 Summary information “ Number of accidents related to: roadside obstacle & severity of the accidents”

Fatal Serious Slight Total

count 14 10 8 32

row % 43,8% 31,3% 25,0% 100,0%

count 9 12 83 104

row % 8,7% 11,5% 79,8% 100,0%

count 6 15 36 57

row % 10,5% 26,3% 63,2% 100,0%

count 29 37 127 193

row % 15,0% 19,2% 65,8% 100,0%

Severity of the accidents

Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing

Buildings structures/embankment/tree

Parked vehicles/other unknown

Total

Roadside obstacles

In Table. 2 we can see that the accidents for which the riders impacted against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing have a higher fatality (43,8%) respect to the accidents for which the impact happened with the other types of the roadside obstacles.


Project nº 218741


11

2.4 Data analysis

2.4.1 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW kinematics of accident

In the first step of the analysis we have considered several of the principal features of the PTW kinematics at the time of the accident, starting with the PTW impact speed. In the following crosstables we have grouped together the information concerning the L1 and L3 motorcycle legal category.

2.4.1.1 PTW impact speed Table. 3 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED

severity of the accidents

PTW Impact Speed categories [km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71- unknown

slight injuries

roadside obstacles


Count 5 3 8

row % 62,5% 37,5%


Count 59 10 12 2 83

row % 71,1% 12,0% 14,5% 2,4%


Count 24 5 7 36

row % 66,7% 13,9% 19,4%

Total Count 88 15 22 2 127

row % 69,3% 11,8% 17,3% 1,6% 100,0%

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


Count 4 5 1 10

row % 40,0% 50,0% 10,0%


Count 6 6 12

row % 50,0% 50,0%


Count 6 2 7 15

row % 40,0% 13,3% 46,7%

Total Count 16 13 8 37

row % 43,2% 35,1% 21,6% 100,0%

fatal

roadside obstacles


Count 2 3 9 14

row % 14,3% 21,4% 64,3%


Count 5 4 9

row % 55,6% 44,4%


Count 3 3 6

row % 50,0% 50,0%


row % 17,2% 37,9% 44,8% 100,0%

In the Table.3 we have analyzed the PTW impact speed versus the different types of the roadside obstacles within the three categories of the accidents severity. Moving from the slight injuries to the fatal injuries, we see that the percentage concentration of accidents, with a PTW impact speed over the 70 km/h, shifts from 17,3% to 44,8%.


Project nº 218741


12

Especially for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing obstacle the speed category with the highest percentage of cases accounting for about the 60% of accidents: this figure for slight injuries is represented by the 0-50 speed band whereas for fatal injuries is represented by the > 70 band. For the Buildings structures-embankment-tree we notice the same percentage movement of Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing if we pass from the slight injuries to the fatal injuries. From the described data, appear a clear relationship between the impact speed and the severity of the accident; in the Table.3A we have put in relationship the two variables in order to assess the presence of a statistical significative relationship. How we can see from the Chi-Square Tests table, especially from the linear-by-linear association (23,181),there is a significative relationship between the two variables (p-value 0,000) and a moderate association (Kendall's tau-b ,335).

Table. 3A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW IMPACT SPEED


Total 0-50 51-70 71-


slight injuries

Count 88 15 22 125

row % 70,4% 12,0% 17,6% 100,0%

serious injuries

Count 16 13 8 37

row % 43,2% 35,1% 21,6% 100,0%

Fatal Count 5 11 13 29

row % 17,2% 37,9% 44,8% 100,0%


row % 57,1% 20,4% 22,5% 100,0%

*accidents with a known PTW impact speed

Chi-Square Tests (for the Table 3A)

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided) Point Probability

Pearson Chi-Square 33,579a 4 ,000 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 34,322 4 ,000 ,000

Fisher's Exact Test 34,196 ,000

Linear-by-Linear

Association

23,181b 1 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N of Valid Cases 191

a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,92.

b. The standardized statistic is 4,815.


Project nº 218741


13

Symmetric Measures (for the Table 3A)

Value

Asymp. Std.

Errora Approx. T

b Approx. Sig. Exact Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,419 ,000 ,000

Cramer's V ,296 ,000 ,000

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b ,335 ,063 5,087 ,000 ,000

Kendall's tau-c ,274 ,054 5,087 ,000 ,000


a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

In the Table.3B we have put in relationship the roadside obstacles and the PTW impact speed regardless of the severity of the accidents. The PTW impact speed, when the roadside obstacle is Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, is higher than for other obstacles which have more than the fifty percent of cases in the speed band 0-50 km/h. The relationship between the variables is significative (Pearson Chi-Square 11,128 p-value=0,025) and the strength of the association is 0,171. Table. 3B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED

PTW Impact Speed categories

[km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 11 8 13 32

row % 34,4% 25,0% 40,6% 100,0%

Buildings structures/embankment/tree Count 65 21 16 102

row % 63,7% 20,6% 15,7% 100,0%

Parked vehicles/other unknown Count 33 10 14 57

row % 57,9% 17,5% 24,6% 100,0%


row % 57,1% 20,4% 22,5% 100,0%



Project nº 218741


14

Chi-Square Tests (for the Table 3B)

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,621b 1 ,105 ,116 ,060 ,014



b. The standardized statistic is -1,619.

Symmetric Measures (for the Table 3B)

Value Approx. Sig. Exact Sig.


Cramer's V ,171 ,025 ,024



Project nº 218741


15

2.4.1.2 PTW roll attitude angle at impact Table. 4 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


PTW roll attitude angle at impact [deg]

Total -90-1 0 1-90 unknown

slight injuries

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 4 2 1 1 8

row % 50,0% 25,0% 12,5% 12,5% 100,0%


Count 24 14 38 7 83

row % 28,9% 16,9% 45,8% 8,4% 100,0%

Parked vehicles/other unknown Count 6 18 11 1 36

row % 16,7% 50,0% 30,6% 2,8% 100,0%

Total Count 34 34 50 9 127

row % 26,8% 26,8% 39,4% 7,1% 100,0%

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


row % 20,0% 40,0% 40,0% 100,0%


Count 2 2 8 12

row % 16,7% 16,7% 66,7% 100,0%


row % 46,7% 20,0% 26,7% 6,7% 100,0%

Total Count 11 9 16 1 37

row % 29,7% 24,3% 43,2% 2,7% 100,0%

fatal

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 4 1 8 1 14

row % 28,6% 7,1% 57,1% 7,1% 100,0%


Count 3 3 2 1 9

row % 33,3% 33,3% 22,2% 11,1% 100,0%


row % 50,0% 33,3% 16,7% 100,0%


row % 24,1% 24,1% 41,4% 10,3% 100,0%

From the marginal row (Table. 4), of each modality of the accidents severity, we can see that the roll angle band with the highest percentage of cases is the category which comprises the angles between one and ninety degree. Inside the fatal injuries we find some differences between the roadside obstacles: for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the 57,1% of accidents have a positive PTW impact angle and only the 7,1% have happened in upright position; instead for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree the highest percentages (33,3%) are referred to the upright position and to the negative roll angles. For serious injuries, when the roadside obstacles is Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, there are 40% of cases both for the positive roll angles and for the upright position; with Buildings structures/embankment/tree in the 66,7% of cases there is a positive roll angle of the PTW.


Project nº 218741


16

Table. 4A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -90-1 0 1-90

severity of the accidents slight injuries Count 34 34 50 118

row % 28,8% 28,8% 42,4% 100,0%

serious injuries Count 11 9 16 36

row % 30,6% 25,0% 44,4% 100,0%

fatal Count 7 7 12 26

row % 26,9% 26,9% 46,2% 100,0%


row % 28,9% 27,8% 43,3% 100,0%

*accidents with a known PTW roll attitude angle at impact

In Table 4A we have put in relationship the severity of the accident with the PTW roll attitude angle at impact. if we look the Pearson Chi-Square (0,305) test we don’t find a significative relationship between the variables.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability

Pearson Chi-Square ,305a 4 ,989 ,990

Likelihood Ratio ,307 4 ,989 ,990

Fisher's Exact Test ,355 ,992

Linear-by-Linear

Association

,077b 1 ,782 ,810 ,416 ,046



b. The standardized statistic is ,277.




Cramer's V ,029 ,989 ,990



Project nº 218741


17

Table. 4B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -90-1 0 1-90

Roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 10 7 13 30

row % 33,3% 23,3% 43,3% 100,0%


Count 29 19 48 96

row % 30,2% 19,8% 50,0% 100,0%


row % 24,1% 44,4% 31,5% 100,0%


row % 28,9% 27,8% 43,3% 100,0%


The relationship between “Roadside obstacles” and “PTW roll attitude angle at impact” (Table. 4B) is statistical significative: the Pearson Chi-Square is 11,249, p-value=0,024 and the Cramer’s V is equal to 0,177.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,107b 1 ,744 ,792 ,398 ,050



b. The standardized statistic is -,327.




Cramer's V ,177 ,024 ,023



Project nº 218741


18

2.4.1.3 PTW sideslip angle at impact Table. 5 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT


PTW Sideslip angle at impact [deg]

Total

-50-4

1

-40-3

1

-30-2

1

-20-1

1

-10-1

0-10

11-2

0

21-3

0

41-5

0

un

kno

wn

slig

ht in

juries

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing

Count

3

5 8

row %

37,5%

62,5% 100,0%

Buildings structures/ embankment/tree

Count

1

1

53 3 3 2 20 83

row %

1,2%

1,2%

63,9% 3,6% 3,6% 2,4% 24,1% 100,0%

Parked vehicles/ other unknown

Count

30 1

5 36

row %

83,3% 2,8%

13,9% 100,0%

Total Count

1

1

86 4 3 2 30 127

row %

,8%

,8%

67,7% 3,1% 2,4% 1,6% 23,6% 100,0%

serious inju

ries

roadside obstacles


Count

7 1

2 10

row %

70,0% 10,0%

20,0% 100,0%


Count

1

8

3 12

row %

8,3%

66,7%

25,0% 100,0%


Count

13

2 15

row %

86,7%

13,3% 100,0%

Total Count

1

28 1

7 37

row %

2,7%

75,7% 2,7%

18,9% 100,0%

fata

l

roadside obstacles


Count 1

6 1

6 14

row % 7,1%

42,9% 7,1%

42,9% 100,0%


Count

1

1 5

2 9

row %

11,1%

11,1% 55,6%

22,2% 100,0%


Count

5

1 6

row %

83,3%

16,7% 100,0%

Total Count 1

1

1 16 1

9 29

row %

3,4%

3,4%

3,4% 55,2% 3,4%

31,0% 100,0%

All the accidents (Table. 5) are characterized by a PTW sideslip angle at impact in the range from -50 to 50 degree. On the whole the angle category with the highest percentage of cases is 0°-10°. If we consider accidents with a known angle (Table. 5A), grouped in three category, we can see that the category (-10°,10°) gathers about the 90% of the cases. The relationship between the severity of the accident and the PTW sideslip angle at impact is no statistical significative (Table. 5A): the Fisher's Exact Test is 3,996 (Exact sig. 0,340).


Project nº 218741


19

Table. 5A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT

PTW Sideslip angle at

impact [deg]

Total -50-11 -10,10 11-50


slight injuries Count 2 86 9 97

row % 2,1% 88,7% 9,3% 100,0%


row % 3,3% 93,3% 3,3% 100,0%


row % 10,0% 85,0% 5,0% 100,0%


row % 3,4% 89,1% 7,5% 100,0%

*accidents with a known PTW sideslip angle at impact


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

3,472b 1 ,062 ,061 ,048 ,014


a. 5 cells (55,6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,68.





Cramer's V ,123 ,349 ,333



Project nº 218741


20

Table. 5B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT

PTW Sideslip angle at impact

[deg]

Total -50-11 -10,10 11-50

Roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 1 16 2 19

row % 5,3% 84,2% 10,5% 100,0%


Count 4 67 8 79

row % 5,1% 84,8% 10,1% 100,0%

Parked vehicles/other unknown Count 48 1 49

row % 98,0% 2,0% 100,0%


row % 3,4% 89,1% 7,5% 100,0%


The relationship, in table 5B, between the roadside obstacles and the PTW sideslip angle at impact, regardless the severity of the accident, is no statistical significative (Fisher's Exact Test 6,540 p-value=0,113). Nevertheless for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing and the Buildings structures/embankment/tree we find a very similar distribution of the frequencies (Table.5B) between the PTW sideslip angle categories: about the 84% of cases are gathered in the central interval and for the other we find the double of cases in positive angle band respect to the negative angle band.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,335b 1 ,563 ,612 ,316 ,068





Project nº 218741


21




Cramer's V ,144 ,195 ,184


Table. 5C Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT**

PTW Sideslip angle at

impact [deg]

Total |0-10| |11-50|

Roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 16 3 19

row % 84,2% 15,8% 100,0%

Buildings structures/embankment/tree Count 67 12 79

row % 84,8% 15,2% 100,0%

Parked vehicles/ other unknown Count 48 1 49

row % 98,0% 2,0% 100,0%

Total Count 131 16 147

row % 89,1% 10,9% 100,0%

* accidents with a known PTW sideslip angle at impact

** we have considered in this table the absolute value of the angle

In Table 5C we have considered the wideness of the angle ignoring if it is positive or negative. By the Chi-Square Tests (5,932) we see that there is a quite close significative relationship between the roadside obstacles and the wideness of the sideslip angle; the association is moderate 0,201.

Chi-Square Tests (for the Table 5C)

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

4,588b 1 ,032 ,041 ,027 ,017


a. 1 cells (16,7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,07.



Project nº 218741


22

Symmetric Measures (for the Table 5C)



Cramer's V ,201 ,052 ,050


2.4.1.4 PTW first collision contact code

Table. 6 Number of accidents by severity related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE


PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE

Total

front

centre

rear

oth

er/

unknow

n/

no c

onta

ct

slight injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts

fencing Count 6 2 8

row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


Count 26 46 6 5 83

row % 31,3% 55,4% 7,2% 6,0% 100,0%


Count 23 11 1 1 36

row % 63,9% 30,6% 2,8% 2,8% 100,0%


row % 43,3% 46,5% 5,5% 4,7% 100,0%

serious injuries


fencing Count 6 4 10

row % 60,0% 40,0% 100,0%


Count 3 6 1 2 12

row % 25,0% 50,0% 8,3% 16,7% 100,0%


Count 9 6 15

row % 60,0% 40,0% 100,0%


row % 48,6% 43,2% 2,7% 5,4% 100,0%

fatal


fencing Count 7 6 1 14

row % 50,0% 42,9% 7,1% 100,0%


Count 7 1 1 9

row % 77,8% 11,1% 11,1% 100,0%


Count 4 1 1 6

row % 66,7% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0%


row % 62,1% 27,6% 3,4% 6,9% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


23

In the Table 6 we have analyzed the relationship between the motorcycle impact area and the roadside obstacles. From Table 6A we can see that in about 90% of accidents the first collision contact has involved the front and the centre of the PTW; if we move from slight to fatal injuries there is an increment in the percentage of accidents for which the first impact has involved the front of the motorcycle (43,3% to 62,1%) whereas decrease the percentage of accidents for which the first impact has involved the centre of the motorcycle (46,5 to 27,6%). Only in a small number of accidents (especially for serious and fatal injuries) the first collision contact has been in the rear part of the PTW. Nevertheless the relationship between the two variables is not statistical significative (Fisher's Exact Test 4,667 p-value=0,571). Table. 6A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE

PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT

CODE

Total

front

centre

rear

oth

er/unkn

ow

n/n

o

conta

ct

severity of the accidents slight injuries Count 55 59 7 6 127

row % 43,3% 46,5% 5,5% 4,7% 100,0%

serious injuries Count 18 16 1 2 37

row % 48,6% 43,2% 2,7% 5,4% 100,0%

fatal Count 18 8 1 2 29

row % 62,1% 27,6% 3,4% 6,9% 100,0%

Total Count 91 83 9 10 193

row % 47,2% 43,0% 4,7% 5,2% 100,0%


Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,083b 1 ,298 ,328 ,165 ,030





Project nº 218741


24




Cramer's V ,109 ,602 ,613


Table. 6B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE

PTW FIRST COLLISION

CONTACT CODE

Total

front

centre

rear

oth

er/unkn

ow

n/ no

conta

ct

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 19 12 1 32

row % 59,4% 37,5% 3,1% 100,0%


Count 36 53 8 7 104

row % 34,6% 51,0% 7,7% 6,7% 100,0%


row % 63,2% 31,6% 1,8% 3,5% 100,0%

Total Count 91 83 9 10 193

row % 47,2% 43,0% 4,7% 5,2% 100,0%

In Table 6B we see that about the 60% of accidents, for which the roadside obstacles has been the Guardrail barrier/ Post fencing, the first motorcycle impact has involved the front part. When the roadside obstacles is Buildings structures/embankment/tree in 51% of accidents the PTW first collision part has been the centre. If we look the Fisher’s Exact Test we find a statistical significative relationship (p-value=0,011).


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,664b 1 ,415 ,454 ,228 ,039





Project nº 218741


25




Cramer's V ,208 ,011 ,010



Project nº 218741


26

2.4.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematic of

accident

2.4.2.1 PTW rider number of impacts Table. 7 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS


PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS

Total 1 2 3 3+

slight injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 6 2 8

row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


Count 52 21 8 2 83

row % 62,7% 25,3% 9,6% 2,4% 100,0%


row % 80,6% 11,1% 8,3% 100,0%

Total Count 87 27 11 2 127

row % 68,5% 21,3% 8,7% 1,6% 100,0%

serious injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 1 4 3 2 10

row % 10,0% 40,0% 30,0% 20,0% 100,0%


Count 7 2 1 2 12

row % 58,3% 16,7% 8,3% 16,7% 100,0%


row % 66,7% 20,0% 13,3% 100,0%


row % 48,6% 24,3% 16,2% 10,8% 100,0%

fatal

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 7 3 3 1 14

row % 50,0% 21,4% 21,4% 7,1% 100,0%


Count 5 2 1 1 9

row % 55,6% 22,2% 11,1% 11,1% 100,0%


row % 66,7% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0%


row % 55,2% 20,7% 13,8% 10,3% 100,0%

In Table 7A we can see that in the 62,7% of accidents the rider sufferred only one impact, with the object which caused the injurie; inside the variable PTW rider number of impacts the percentages are inversely related with the number of impacts. We can appreciate that, for the serious and the fatal injuries, the amount of the category 3+ impacts (about 10%) is different respect to the same figure for the slight injuries (1,6%). The relationship between the severity of the accidents and the PTW rider number of impact is statistical significative: the Fisher Exact’s Test is 12,169 which corresponds to an exact p-value of 0,042. The strength of association, Kendall's tau-c, is moderate 0,135.


Project nº 218741


27

Table. 7A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS


Total 1 2 3 3+


slight injuries Count 87 27 11 2 127

row % 68,5% 21,3% 8,7% 1,6% 100,0%

serious injuries Count 18 9 6 4 37

row % 48,6% 24,3% 16,2% 10,8% 100,0%


row % 55,2% 20,7% 13,8% 10,3% 100,0%

Total Count 121 42 21 9 193

row % 62,7% 21,8% 10,9% 4,7% 100,0%


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

7,493b 1 ,006 ,007 ,005 ,001





Project nº 218741


28


Value

Asymp. Std.

Errora Approx. T



Cramer's V ,174 ,071 ,068


Kendall's tau-c ,135 ,054 2,502 ,012 ,009




Table. 7B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS

PTW RIDER NUMBER OF

IMPACTS

Total 1 2 3 3+

roadside obstacles


row % 43,8% 28,1% 18,8% 9,4% 100,0%


Count 64 25 10 5 104

row % 61,5% 24,0% 9,6% 4,8% 100,0%


Count 43 8 5 1 57

row % 75,4% 14,0% 8,8% 1,8% 100,0%

Total Count 121 42 21 9 193

row % 62,7% 21,8% 10,9% 4,7% 100,0%

In Table. 7B we have put in relationship the roadside obstacles with PTW rider number of impacts; the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing is the obstacle for which the PTW rider number of impacts accounts for the highest percentage in the categories above the two impacts. For the collision against the Buildings structures/embankment/tree the highest percentage of riders suffer only one impact. The Fisher's Exact Test of 10,509 with a p-value of 0,087 indicates that the relationship is no statistical significative, but it is not far from the threshold of 0,05.


Project nº 218741


29


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-





Linear-by-Linear Association 8,547b 1 ,003 ,004 ,002 ,001







Cramer's V ,165 ,105 ,102



Project nº 218741


30

2.4.3 Roadside obstacles & features of roadside alignment

2.4.3.1 Roadside horizontal alignment Table. 8 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT


ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

Total straight curve right

curve left

corner right

corner left other

slight injuries

roadside obstacles


Count 1 2 5 8

row % 12,5% 25,0% 62,5%

100,0%


Count 47 15 19 1 1 83

row % 56,6% 18,1% 22,9% 1,2%

1,2% 100,0%


Count 17 8 11 36

row % 47,2% 22,2% 30,6% 100,0%

Total Count 65 25 35 1 1 127

row % 51,2% 19,7% 27,6% ,8% ,8% 100,0%

serious injuries



row % 40,0% 20,0% 40,0% 100,0%


Count 3 5 4 12

row % 25,0% 41,7% 33,3%

100,0%


Count 6 4 5 15

row % 40,0% 26,7% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 35,1% 29,7% 35,1% 100,0%

fatal



row % 42,9% 14,3% 42,9% 100,0%


Count 6 1 2 9

row % 66,7% 11,1% 22,2%

100,0%


Count 4 1 1 6

row % 66,7% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0%


row % 55,2% 13,8% 27,6% 3,4% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


31

Table. 8A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT


Total

straight curve left curve right other


slight injuries Count 65 35 25 2 127

row % 51,2% 27,6% 19,7% 1,6% 100,0%


row % 35,1% 35,1% 29,7% 100,0%


row % 55,2% 27,6% 13,8% 3,4% 100,0%

Total Count 94 56 40 3 193

row % 48,7% 29,0% 20,7% 1,6% 100,0%

From the marginal row of the Table 8A we see that about the 50% of accidents are happened in a straight road: if we compare the serious with the fatal injuries appears that for the serious both the straight and the curve left road have the highest percentage of 35,1% whereas for the fatal injuries the 55,2% of accidents have happened in a straight road and the 27,6% in a curve left road, in line with the general tendency. The relationship is no statistical significative how we can see from the Fisher’s Exact test 5,921 p-value 0,387.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,036b 1 ,850 ,862 ,445 ,045







Cramer's V ,123 ,443 ,435



Project nº 218741


32

Table. 8B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

ROADWAY HORIZONTAL

ALIGNMENT

Total

straight curve left

curve right other

roadside obstacles


row % 34,4% 46,9% 18,8% 100,0%


Count 56 25 21 2 104

row % 53,8% 24,0% 20,2% 1,9% 100,0%


row % 47,4% 28,1% 22,8% 1,8% 100,0%

Total Count 94 56 40 3 193

row % 48,7% 29,0% 20,7% 1,6% 100,0%

We notice, from Table 8B, that the curve left is the type of road alignment which have characterized the highest percentage (46,9%) of impacts against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing obstacle; whereas for the other types of obstacles, the roadway horizontal alignment category which have characterized the highest percentage of accidents is the straight road. The relationship between the variables is no statistical significative Fisher’s Exact Test 6,697 p-value 0,311.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,010b 1 ,919 ,949 ,485 ,051







Cramer's V ,136 ,307 ,306



Project nº 218741


33

2.4.4 Roadside infrastructure & accident causation

2.4.4.1 Roadside condition and defects Table. 9 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS


ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS

Total none other

slight injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 4 4 8

row % 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%


row % 63,9% 36,1% 100,0%


row % 61,1% 38,9% 100,0%


row % 62,2% 37,8% 100,0%

serious injuries


row % 80,0% 20,0% 100,0%


row % 83,3% 16,7% 100,0%


row % 73,3% 26,7% 100,0%

Total Count 29 8 37

row % 78,4% 21,6% 100,0%

fatal


row % 64,3% 35,7% 100,0%


row % 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 83,3% 16,7% 100,0%

Total Count 20 9 29

row % 69,0% 31,0% 100,0%

From the marginal row of Table 9A appears that in the 66,3% of accidents the roadside don’t present defects; the percentages are differented passing by serious to fatal injuries: for the serious injuries in the 78,4% of cases the roadside don’t present defect whereas for fatal injuries the same figure decrease about ten percentage points. The relationship between the variables is no statistical significative (Pearson Chi-Square 3,462 p-value=0,177).


Project nº 218741


34

Table. 9A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS

ROADSIDE CONDITION AND

DEFECTS

Total none other


slight injuries Count 79 48 127

row % 62,2% 37,8% 100,0%

serious injuries Count 29 8 37

row % 78,4% 21,6% 100,0%

fatal Count 20 9 29

row % 69,0% 31,0% 100,0%


row % 66,3% 33,7% 100,0%


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-





Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,507b 1 ,220 ,260 ,130 ,039







Cramer's V ,134 ,177 ,172



Project nº 218741


35

Table. 9B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLE & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS


Total none other

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 21 11 32

row % 65,6% 34,4% 100,0%


row % 66,3% 33,7% 100,0%


row % 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 66,3% 33,7% 100,0%

We find a very similar percentage distribution between the different roadside obstacles (Table. 9B) with values close to the marginal row. The relationship, even in this case, between the variables is no statistical significative and the p-value is closed to 1.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-


Pearson Chi-Square ,010a 2 ,995 1,000

Likelihood Ratio ,010 2 ,995 1,000

Fisher's Exact Test ,045 1,000

Linear-by-Linear

Association

,009b 1 ,924 1,000 ,507 ,090






Nominal by Nominal Phi ,007 ,995 1,000

Cramer's V ,007 ,995 1,000



Project nº 218741


36

2.4.4.2 Traffic control on path of travel visibility Table. 10 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY


TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL

VISIBILITY

Total no not

applicable yes

slight injuries


row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


Count 1 57 25 83

row % 1,2% 68,7% 30,1% 100,0%


row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


row % ,8% 70,9% 28,3% 100,0%

serious injuries


row % 80,0% 20,0% 100,0%


Count 8 4 12

row % 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 93,3% 6,7% 100,0%

Total Count 30 7 37

row % 81,1% 18,9% 100,0%

fatal

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 14 14

row % 100,0% 100,0%


Count 6 3 9

row % 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%

Total Count 24 5 29

row % 82,8% 17,2% 100,0%

How we can see from the Table 10A in the 98% of cases, with a valid value for the variable traffic control on path of travel visibility, the traffic control has been visible to the PTW riders. There are not differences, respect to the traffic control visibility, between the modalities of the severity of the accidents. From the Fisher’s Exact Test results a no statistical significative relationship between the two variables (exact p-value 1).


Project nº 218741


37

Table. 10A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS &TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY

TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY

Total no yes

Severity of the accidents

slight injuries

Count 1 36 37

row % 2,7% 97,3% 100,0%

serious injuries

Count 7 7

row % 100,0% 100,0%

fatal Count 5 5

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 1 48 49

row % 2,0% 98,0% 100,0%

*accidents with a valid answer for the TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-




Fisher's Exact Test 1,436 1,000

Linear-by-Linear

Association

,279b 1 ,597 1,000 ,755 ,755

N of Valid Cases 49






Cramer's V ,082 ,847 1,000

N of Valid Cases 49


Project nº 218741


38

Table. 10B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY

TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY

Total no yes

Roadside obstacles


Count 4 4

row % 100,0% 100,0%

buildings structures/embankment/tree

Count 1 32 33

row % 3,0% 97,0% 100,0%

parked vehicles/other unknown

Count 12 12

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 1 48 49

row % 2,0% 98,0% 100,0%

*accidents with a valid answer for the TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY

For this crosstable (Table. 10B) there is not a statistical significative relationship between the roadside obstacles variable and the traffic control on path of travel visibility variable (Fisher’s Exact Test 1,464 and the p-value is 1).


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability



Fisher's Exact Test 1,464 1,000

Linear-by-Linear

Association

,089b 1 ,766 1,000 ,755 ,673

N of Valid Cases 49






Cramer's V ,101 ,781 1,000

N of Valid Cases 49


Project nº 218741


39

2.4.4.3 Traffic density at the time of accident Table. 11 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT


TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT

Total light traffic

moderate traffic

heavy traffic, traffic

moving

heavy traffic,

congested roadway

other/ unknown

no other traffic

slight injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail

barrier/Posts fencing

Count 2 2 4 8

row % 25,0% 25,0% 50,0% 100,0%


Count 37 28 6 1 11 83

row % 44,6% 33,7% 7,2% 1,2% 13,3% 100,0%


Count 14 4 2 3 1 12 36

row % 38,9% 11,1% 5,6% 8,3% 2,8% 33,3% 100,0%

Total Count 53 34 8 3 2 27 127

row % 41,7% 26,8% 6,3% 2,4% 1,6% 21,3% 100,0%

serious injuries



Count 5 2 3 10

row % 50,0% 20,0% 30,0% 100,0%


Count 6 1 5 12

row % 50,0% 8,3%

41,7% 100,0%


Count 5 5 5 15

row % 33,3% 33,3% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 43,2% 21,6% 35,1% 100,0%

fatal



Count 5 6 3 14

row % 35,7% 42,9% 21,4% 100,0%


Count 3 2 1 1 2 9

row % 33,3% 22,2% 11,1%

11,1% 22,2% 100,0%


Count 3 1 2 6

row % 50,0% 16,7% 33,3% 100,0%

Total Count 11 9 1 1 7 29

row % 37,9% 31,0% 3,4% 3,4% 24,1% 100,0%

The kind of traffic density at the time of accident (Table. 11) with the highest percentage is the light traffic: for the different possibilities of the accident severity, the light traffic modality assumes a percentage that range from 37,9 (fatal) to 43,2% in serious injuries. If we compare serious and fatal injuries, which have happened with an impact against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, appears that for the serious injuries the highest percentage of cases (50%) are gathered in the light traffic category whereas for the fatal accidents the highest percentage (42,9%) are gathered in the moderate traffic category. Light traffic and moderate traffic are the two condition of traffic more representative for the serious and fatal injuries.


Project nº 218741


40

In the Table 11A we have restricted the modalities of traffic density to traffic (as aggregation of all the traffic modalities) or no traffic; we can see that the 75,3% of accidents happened in a road with traffic: this percentage is a little higher for fatal than for the serious injuries. Table. 11A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF

ACCIDENT

Total Traffic** no traffic



row % 78,4% 21,6% 100,0%


row % 64,9% 35,1% 100,0%

fatal Count 21 7 28

row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


row % 75,3% 24,7% 100,0%

* considerering only the cases with a known value for the traffic density at the time of accident

** aggregation of all the traffic modalities Using the Pearson Chi-square test (2,811) we see that don’t exist a statistical significative relationship between the traffic density and the severity of the accidents (p-value=0,245).


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,824b 1 ,364 ,427 ,212 ,058







Cramer's V ,122 ,245 ,254



Project nº 218741


41

Table. 11B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF

ACCIDENT

Total Traffic** no traffic

roadside obstacles


row % 68,8% 31,3% 100,0%


Count 84 18 102

row % 82,4% 17,6% 100,0%


row % 66,1% 33,9% 100,0%


row % 75,3% 24,7% 100,0%

* considerering only the cases with a known value for the traffic density at the time of accident

** aggregation of all the traffic modalities

The impact against a Guardrail barrier / Post fencing in the 68,8 % of accidents, as we see in Table 11B, happened in a condition of traffic whereas the percentage jumps to the 82,4 % when we consider the Buildings structures /embankment/ tree obstacle. We find a statistical significative relationship, Pearson Chi-Square 6,024 p-value 0,049, between the two variables. The strength of association, Cramer’s V 0,178, is moderate.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,590b 1 ,442 ,455 ,261 ,075







Cramer's V ,178 ,049 ,046



Project nº 218741


42

2.4.4.4 Visibility limitation

Table. 12 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION


Visibility limitation due to

Total precipitation glare other/

unknown

none, visibility not significantly

limited

slight injuries


row % 12,5% 87,5% 100,0%


Count 6 77 83

row % 7,2%

92,8% 100,0%


row % 2,8% 97,2% 100,0%


row %

6,3%

93,7% 100,0%

serious injuries


row % 10,0% 90,0% 100,0%


Count 12 12

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Parked vehicles/ other unknown Count 1 1 13 15

row % 6,7% 6,7% 86,7% 100,0%


row %

5,4% 2,7%

91,9% 100,0%

fatal


row % 100,0% 100,0%


Count 1 8 9

row % 11,1% 88,9% 100,0%

Parked vehicles/ other unknown Count 6 6

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 1 28 29

row %

3,4% 96,6% 100,0%

Limiting our attention to serious and fatal injuries (Table. 12) we see that only the first type of injuries present known disturb elements to the rider visibility: these elements are precipitation (5,4%) and glare (2,7%). From the marginal row, Table 12A, results that in the 93,8 % of accidents there is not visibility limitation and the same figure between the modalities of accident severity is always over the ninety percent.


Project nº 218741


43

In the Chi-square Tests table, especially from the Fisher's Exact Test equal to 0,582 and p-value 0,821, we see that there is not a statistical significative relationship between the visibility limitation and the severity of the accidents. Table. 12A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & VISIBILITY LIMITATION


Total

no limitation limitation/other

/unknown



row % 93,7% 6,3% 100,0%


row % 91,9% 8,1% 100,0%

fatal Count 28 1 29

row % 96,6% 3,4% 100,0%


row % 93,8% 6,2% 100,0%


Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,132b 1 ,716 ,845 ,456 ,154







Cramer's V ,056 ,737 ,749



Project nº 218741


44

Table. 12B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION


Total

no limitation limitation/other/

unknown

roadside obstacles


row % 93,8% 6,3% 100,0%


Count 97 7 104

row % 93,3% 6,7% 100,0%


row % 94,7% 5,3% 100,0%


row % 93,8% 6,2% 100,0%

The relationship (Table. 12B) between the roadside obstacles and the visibility limitation is no statistical significative how we see from the Fisher's Exact Test equal to 1.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,061b 1 ,805 ,826 ,488 ,170







Cramer's V ,027 ,934 ,924



Project nº 218741


45

2.4.4.5 Stationary view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event

Table. 13 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT


STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING

EVENT

Total

build

ings

vegeta

tion,

trees, bushes,

walls

,

vegata

tion

hill

blin

d c

urv

e

sta

tionary

or

park

ed

vehic

les

oth

er

none

slig

ht in

juries

roadside obstacles

Guardrail_barrier/ Posts_fencing

Count 8 8

row % 100,0%

100,0%

buildings_structures/embankment/tree

Count 1 1 1 1 2 77 83

row % 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% 2,4% 92,8% 100,0%

parked_vehicles/ other_unknown

Count 3 1 1 1 30 36

row % 8,3% 2,8% 2,8% 2,8% 83,3% 100,0%

Total Count 1 4 1 2 3 1 115 127

row % ,8% 3,1% ,8% 1,6% 2,4% ,8% 90,6% 100,0%

serious inju

ries

roadside obstacles


Count 10 10

row %

100,0%

100,0%


Count 1 11 12

row %

8,3%

91,7% 100,0%


Count 2 1 12 15

row %

13,3%

6,7%

80,0% 100,0%


row %

5,4%

2,7% 2,7%

89,2% 100,0%

fata

l

roadside obstacles


Count 1 13 14

row %

7,1%

92,9% 100,0%


Count 9 9

row %

100,0%

100,0%


Count 1 5 6

row %

16,7%

83,3% 100,0%


row %

3,4% 3,4%

93,1% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


46

If we consider only serious and fatal injuries (Table. 13) we see that for the first type of injuries only for about the 10 percent of cases is present a known stationary view obstruction and for the fatal injuries only in the 6,8% of cases is present a known view obstruction. By the marginal row of Table 13A appears that in the 90,7% of accidents is not present a stationary view obstruction: this percentage assumes the maximum value for the fatal injuries, also for the other injuries level there are percentages close to 90%. Table. 13A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE

RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total

none obstruction/other/

unknown



row % 90,6% 9,4% 100,0%


row % 89,2% 10,8% 100,0%

fatal Count 27 2 29

row % 93,1% 6,9% 100,0%


row % 90,7% 9,3% 100,0%

The relation between the two variables is not statistical significative: Fisher's Exact Test is 0,313 p-value 0,873.


Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,082b 1 ,775 ,870 ,468 ,130





Project nº 218741


47




Cramer's V ,040 ,860 ,879


Table. 13B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total


unknown

roadsise obstacles


row % 96,9% 3,1% 100,0%


Count 97 7 104

row % 93,3% 6,7% 100,0%


row % 82,5% 17,5% 100,0%


row % 90,7% 9,3% 100,0%

In the Table 13B we find a statistical significative relationship between the roadside obstacles and the stationary view obstruction variable: Pearson Chi-square 6,835 and p-value 0,033. The strength of the association is expressed by Cramer’s V: in this case there is a moderate level of association 0,188.


Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

6,100b 1 ,014 ,015 ,010 ,007





Project nº 218741


48




Cramer's V ,188 ,033 ,036


2.4.4.6 Mobile view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the time of the precipitating event

Table. 14 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT


MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME

OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total vehicles:

automobiles

vehicles: light

trucks and vans other none

slight injuries

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 8 8

row % 100,0% 100,0%


Count 3 2 1 77 83

row % 3,6% 2,4% 1,2% 92,8% 100,0%


row % 8,3% 91,7% 100,0%


row % 4,7% 1,6% ,8% 92,9% 100,0%

serious injuries

roadside

obstacles


row % 100,0% 100,0%


Count 12 12

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 37 37

row % 100,0% 100,0%

fatal

roadside

obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 1 13 14

row % 7,1% 92,9% 100,0%


Count 9 9

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 1 28 29

row % 3,4% 96,6% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


49

In the 94,8% of accidents, how we see from marginal row of the below crosstable (Table. 14A), there is not a mobile view obstruction along the rider’s line of sigh; no statistical significative relationship appears between the severity of the accidents and the mobile view obstruction variable: Fisher's Exact Test 2,616 p-value 0,232. There are not clear differences between the percentages relative to the severity levels.

Table. 14A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF

SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total


unknown



row % 92,9% 7,1% 100,0%

serious injuries Count 37 37

row % 100,0% 100,0%

fatal Count 28 1 29

row % 96,6% 3,4% 100,0%


row % 94,8% 5,2% 100,0%


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,628b 1 ,202 ,280 ,146 ,090





Project nº 218741


50




Cramer's V ,128 ,208 ,201


Table. 14B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF

SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total

none obstruction/

other/unknown

roadiside obstacles


row % 96,9% 3,1% 100,0%


row % 94,2% 5,8% 100,0%


row % 94,7% 5,3% 100,0%


row % 94,8% 5,2% 100,0%

There are not differences (Table. 14B) between the percentages of the “none” obstruction modality of the column variable, between the roadside obstacles dimension: all the percentages are between 94,2 and 96,9%. The relationship is no statistical significative: the Fisher’s Exact Test is 0,251 and the p-value 1.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,117b 1 ,732 ,811 ,464 ,183





Project nº 218741


51




Cramer's V ,043 ,840 ,914


2.4.4.7 Weather description Table. 15 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEATHER DESCRIPTION


WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

cle

ar

clo

udy,

partly

clo

udy

overc

ast

drizzle

,

light ra

in

modera

te

or heavy

rain

snow

unknow

n

slig

ht in

juries

roadside obstacles


Count 2 5 1 8

row % 25,0% 62,5% 12,5% 100,0%


Count 43 16 9 5 7 1 2 83

row % 51,8% 19,3% 10,8% 6,0% 8,4% 1,2% 2,4% 100,0%


Count 20 9 2 3 1 1 36

row % 55,6% 25,0% 5,6% 8,3% 2,8% 2,8% 100,0%

Total Count 65 30 11 9 8 1 3 127

row %

51,2% 23,6% 8,7% 7,1% 6,3% ,8% 2,4% 100,0%

serious inju

ries

roadside obstacles


Count 7 1 1 1 10

row % 70,0% 10,0% 10,0% 10,0% 100,0%


Count 3 7 1 1 12

row % 25,0% 58,3% 8,3% 8,3% 100,0%


Count 5 6 2 1 1 15

row % 33,3% 40,0% 13,3% 6,7% 6,7% 100,0%

Total Count 15 14 4 1 3 37

row %

40,5% 37,8% 10,8% 2,7% 8,1% 100,0%

fata

l

roadside obstacles


Count 2 7 3 2 14

row % 14,3% 50,0% 21,4% 14,3% 100,0%


Count 6 1 2 9

row % 66,7% 11,1% 22,2% 100,0%


Count 3 1 1 1 6

row % 50,0% 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0%


row %

37,9% 27,6% 17,2% 10,3% 6,9% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


52

In Table 15A we present the weather description in a synthetic form: the modalities are clear and other (which group together all the remaining weather conditions). In the 52,8% of accidents the weather is not clear. If we analyse in details all the components of the weather variable, Table 15, we see that the category clear amount for the highest percentage of cases follows with decreasing percentages by cloudy-party cloudy and overcast: this trend remains valid for the differents modalities of the accidents severity. For overcast and drizzle-light rain categories the percentages are higher for the fatal injuries than for the serious injuries whereas for the clear weather and cloudy the percentages are higher for serious injuries than for the fatal one. An interesting point is that for serious injuries there is moderate-heavy rain in the 8,1% of accidents whereas for fatal injuries there is a similar percentage for the drizzle-light rain (10,3%). If we return back to Table 15A and we move from slight to fatal injuries the percentage of clear weather modality decreases whereas the percentage of other weather increases. Nevertheless the relationship between the two variables is no statistical significative: Pearson Chi-square 2,466 p-value 0,291.

Table. 15A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & WEATHER DESCRIPTION

WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total clear Other**



row % 51,2% 48,8% 100,0%


row % 40,5% 59,5% 100,0%

fatal Count 11 18 29

row % 37,9% 62,1% 100,0%


row % 47,2% 52,8% 100,0%

** aggregation of all the weather conditions with the exception of clear weather


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,282b 1 ,131 ,146 ,078 ,025





Project nº 218741


53




Cramer's V ,113 ,291 ,297


Table. 15B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEATHER DESCRIPTION

WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total clear Other**

roadside obstacles


34,4% 65,6% 100,0%


50,0% 50,0% 100,0%


49,1% 50,9% 100,0%


47,2% 52,8% 100,0%

** aggregation of all the weather conditions with the exception of clear weather

In Table 15B, except the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, that shows the highest percentage for the other weather, there is a balanced situation for weather description between the different roadside obstacles. The relation even in this case is no statistical significative (Pearson Chi-Square 2,524 p-value 0,283).


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,265b 1 ,261 ,282 ,155 ,046





Project nº 218741


54




Cramer's V ,114 ,283 ,293


2.4.4.8 Roadside contamination obstacles Table. 16 Number of accidents by severity related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES


ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES

Total

wate

r

oil,

petrole

um

derivatives

sand, soil,

dirt

gra

vel

snow

ice

park

ed v

ehic

les

loads d

ropped fro

m

anoth

er vehic

le

tem

pora

ry s

ign

board

oth

er/unknow

n

none

slig

ht in

juries

roadside obstacles


row % 12,5% 87,5% 100,0%


Count 13 5 7 1 2 1 1 1 52 83

row % 15,7% 6,0% 8,4% 1,2% 2,4% 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% 62,7% 100,0%


Count 2 1 2 31 36

row % 5,6% 2,8% 5,6% 86,1% 100,0%

Total Count 15 5 9 1 2 3 1 1 90 127

row %

11,8% 3,9% 7,1%

,8% 1,6% 2,4% ,8%

,8% 70,9% 100,0%

serious inju

ries

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 2 1 7 10

row % 20,0% 10,0% 70,0% 100,0%


Count 1 2 9 12

row % 8,3% 16,7% 75,0% 100,0%


Count 3 1 1 10 15

row % 20,0% 6,7% 6,7% 66,7% 100,0%

Total Count 4 1 1 2 2 1 26 37

row %

10,8% 2,7% 2,7% 5,4%

5,4%

2,7%

70,3% 100,0%

fata

l

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 2 1 1 10 14

row % 14,3% 7,1% 7,1% 71,4% 100,0%


Count 1 8 9

row % 11,1% 88,9% 100,0%


Count 1 1 1 3 6

row % 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 50,0% 100,0%

Total Count 3 1 1 1 2 21 29

row %

10,3%

3,4% 3,4%

3,4%

6,8% 72,4% 100,0%

In the Table 16A we see, from the marginal row, that in the 71% of cases there are not contamination obstacles. In general (Table. 16) the most common contamination obstacle is the water; if we consider the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing, we find that for serious injuries the


Project nº 218741


55

highest percentage, between known contamination obstacles, is represented by gravel (20%) whereas in fatal injuries by the water (14,3%). In the below crosstable (Table. 16A) emerges a very little higher percentage of none contamination obstacles for fatal injuries than for the serious and light injuries. The relationship is no statistical significative (Pearson Chi-Square 0,039 p-value 0,981). Table. 16A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES


Total none other


slight injuries

Count 90 37 127

row % 70,9% 29,1% 100,0%

serious injuries

Count 26 11 37

row % 70,3% 29,7% 100,0%

fatal Count 21 8 29

row % 72,4% 27,6% 100,0%


row % 71,0% 29,0% 100,0%


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,015b 1 ,904 ,916 ,500 ,084







Cramer's V ,014 ,981 1,000



Project nº 218741


56

Table. 16B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES


Total none other

roadside obstacles


row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


Count 69 35 104

row % 66,3% 33,7% 100,0%


row % 77,2% 22,8% 100,0%


row % 71,0% 29,0% 100,0%

In Table 16B we evaluate the relationship between the roadside obstacles and roadside contamination obstacles: when roadside obstacle is the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing we find that the none category, of contamination, has a higher percentage (75%) than for Buildings structures/embankment/tree. The Pearson Chi-Square 2,404 is no statistical significative (p-value 0,301).


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,286b 1 ,593 ,636 ,338 ,082







Cramer's V ,112 ,301 ,325



Project nº 218741


57

2.4.5 Roadside infrastructures & consequences

2.4.5.1 Trauma status Table. 17 Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAUMA STATUS

TRAUMA STATUS

Total

firs

t a

id a

t scen

e

on

ly

tre

ate

d a

t h

osp

ital,

clin

ic, a

nd

rele

ase

d

ho

spita

lise

d f

or

less t

ha

n 2

4 h

ou

rs

ho

spita

lise

d

fata

l, d

ead

on

scen

e

fata

l, d

ead

upo

n

arr

ival a

t h

osp

ita

l

Fa

tal <

= 3

0 d

ays

un

kno

wn

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 1 17 12 1 1 32

row % 3,1% 53,1% 37,5% 3,1% 3,1% 100,0%


Count 5 35 8 46 4 3 2 1 104

row % 4,8% 33,7% 7,7% 44,2% 3,8% 2,9% 1,9% 1,0% 100,0%


Count 13 8 29 5 1 1 57

row % 22,8% 14,0% 50,9% 8,8% 1,8% 1,8% 100,0%

Total Count 5 48 17 92 21 5 3 2 193

row % 2,6% 24,9% 8,8% 47,7% 10,9% 2,6% 1,6% 1,0% 100,0%

Table. 17A Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & GROUPED TRAUMA STATUS*

TRAUMA STATUS

Total fatal hospidalized slight**

Roadside obstacles


Count 14 18 32

row % 43,8% 56,3% 100,0%


Count 9 54 40 103

row % 8,7% 52,4% 38,8% 100,0%

parked vehicles/ other unknown

Count 6 37 13 56

row % 10,7% 66,1% 23,2% 100,0%


row % 15,2% 57,1% 27,7% 100,0%

* considerering only the cases with a known value for the trauma status **This category merges the modalities first aid at scene only – treated at hospital clinic and released

In Table 17A we see, from the marginal row, that in the majority (57,1%) of accidents the rider is hospitalized. On 15 accidents out 100 the PTW rider died. If we move between the roadside obstacles, we find interesting information about the injuries suffer by the rider when impacts in the different objects. Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing represents (Table. 17A) the type of obstacle with the highest percentage (43,8%) of fatal injuries; the same figure for the other obstacles is clearly lower. It is interesting that for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing there are not riders with slight injuries but only fatal injuries and hospitalized riders.


Project nº 218741


58

In Table 17 we analyse the single components of the trauma status groups; for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing obstacle in the 85,7% of fatal accident the riders died in the scene of accident and for the 94,4% of the hospitalized riders the confinement is over the 24 hours. These percentages for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree are lower than for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing: in the 44,4% of fatal accidents the riders died on scene of it and for the 85,2% of hospitalized riders the confinement is over the 24 hours. The relationship between the roadside obstacles and the trauma status (Table. 17A) results, from the Pearson Chi-Square 35,798 p-value 0,000, statistical significative and the strength is evidenced by the Cramer’s V 0,306.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

9,155b 1 ,002 ,003 ,002 ,001







Cramer's V ,306 ,000 ,000



Project nº 218741


59

2.4.5.2 Head injury due to impact with the obstacles Table. 18 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

HEAD AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 NFS

no head injury

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 11

row % 9,1% 9,1% 27,3% 9,1% 9,1% 9,1% 27,3% 100,0%


Count 9 16 2 3 3 2 35

row % 25,7% 45,7% 5,7% 8,6% 8,6% 5,7% 100,0%


Count 6 6 2 1 1 16

row % 37,5% 37,5% 12,5% 6,3% 6,3% 100,0%

no head contact Count 131 131

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 16 23 5 6 5 2 5 131 193

row %

8,3% 11,9% 2,6% 3,1% 2,6% 1,0% 2,6% 67,9% 100,0%

For the 32,1% of accidents (Table. 18) there is a rider head contact; in the Table 18A we see that the severity, of the majority of the head injuries, is “AIS 1-2” follows by a 29% of injuries with AIS between 3 and 6. The marginal percentages (Table. 18A) are different respect to the specific roadside obstacles percentages: for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing there is a percentage of 54,5% of trauma with an AIS 3-6 that is higher than for the other obstacles percentages, in the AIS 3-6 band, that instead express percentages over the 70% for the injuries with AIS 1-2. From the Fisher’s Exact Test equal to 12,431 and the p-value 0,007 we find a statistical significative relationship between the two (Table. 18A) variables. If we consider the known value, in Table 18, we find that for the obstacles category Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the 27,3% of injuries have an AIS equal to 3 whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree the highest percentage ( 45,7%) is for the AIS 2.

Table. 18A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

HEAD AIS (Abbreviated

Injury Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6 NFS

roadside obstacles


row % 18,2% 54,5% 27,3% 100,0%


Count 25 8 2 35

row % 71,4% 22,9% 5,7% 100,0%


row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


row % 62,9% 29,0% 8,1% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


60


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

9,519b 1 ,002 ,002 ,001 ,001

N of Valid Cases 62






Cramer's V ,334 ,008 ,008

N of Valid Cases 62


Project nº 218741


61

2.4.5.3 Upper extremities injury due to impact with the obstacles Table. 19 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & UPPER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

UPPER EXTREMITIES AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total

1 2 3

no upper extremities

injury

roadside obstacles


row % 45,5% 45,5% 9,1% 100,0%


Count 38 29 67

row % 56,7% 43,3% 100,0%


row % 45,8% 45,8% 8,3% 100,0%

no upper extremities contact Count 1 3 87 91

row % 1,1% 3,3% 95,6% 100,0%

Total Count 55 48 3 87 193

row % 28,5% 24,9% 1,6% 45,1% 100,0%

In the 52,8% of accidents the riders report (Table. 19) an upper extremities contact; respect to the head injuries we find in this case a higher number of injuries but the severity of these is lower. The global percentage (Table. 19A) of injuries with an AIS 3-6 is only the 2,9% whereas the percentage of the slight injuries (AIS 1-2) moves between the 90,9% for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing to the 100% for Buildings structures/embankment/tree. From Table 19 we see that the injuries caused by an impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing are severer than those for Buildings structures/embankment/tree: for the first of these the amount of cases with AIS 2+ is equal to the 54,6% whereas for second roadside obstacle is 43,3% and there are not injuries with an AIS equal to 3.

Table. 19A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & UPPER EXTREMITIES INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

UPPER EXTREMITIES AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 90,9% 9,1% 100,0%


Count 67 67

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 91,7% 8,3% 100,0%


row % 97,1% 2,9% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


62

The relationship between the two variables (Table. 19A) results statistical significative, Fisher’s Exact Test 6,351 p-value 0,038.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,397b 1 ,529 ,618 ,446 ,327







Cramer's V ,241 ,052 ,060



Project nº 218741


63

2.4.5.4 Thorax injury due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 20 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & THORAX INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

THORAX AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total

1 2 3 4 5 NFS

no thorax injury

roadside obstacles


Count 3 3 2 3 11

row % 27,3% 27,3% 18,2% 27,3% 100,0%


Count 8 2 3 2 1 1 17

row % 47,1% 11,8% 17,6% 11,8% 5,9% 5,9% 100,0%


Count 3 1 1 3 8

row % 37,5% 12,5% 12,5% 37,5% 100,0%

no contact thorax contact Count 2 1 1 1 152 157

row % 1,3% ,6% ,6% ,6% 96,8% 100,0%

Total Count 16 4 5 8 3 5 152 193

row %

8,3% 2,1% 2,6% 4,1% 1,6% 2,6% 78,8% 100,0%

The riders only for the 18,7% of the accident (Table. 20) reports a thorax contact: as we can see from the marginal row of the Table 20.A, the majority (47,2%) of riders have an injurie equal to AIS 1-2 and the 41,7% of injuries have an AIS3-6. Between the different categories of the roadside obstacles, we find that for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the percentage of injuries with AIS3-6 is bigger than for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree that instead reports the highest percentage of injuries with the AIS1-2. Nevertheless the relationship between the two variables (Table. 20A) is no statistical significative, Fisher's Exact Test 4,713 p-value 0,304. In the Table 20 we notice that the 45,5% of accidents, for which the rider impacts against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing, the injuries reports an index of severity equal or over to AIS 4 (excluding NFS injuries).

Table. 20A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & THORAX INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

THORAX AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6 NFS

roadside obstacles


row % 27,3% 45,5% 27,3% 100,0%


Count 10 6 1 17

row % 58,8% 35,3% 5,9% 100,0%


row % 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%


row % 47,2% 41,7% 11,1% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


64


Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,958b 1 ,085 ,093 ,060 ,032

N of Valid Cases 36






Cramer's V ,280 ,226 ,231

N of Valid Cases 36


Project nº 218741


65

2.4.5.5 Spine injury due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 21 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & SPINE INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

SPINE AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total

1 2 5 6 NFS

no spine injury

roadside obstacles


Count 2 1 2 5

row % 40,0% 20,0% 40,0% 100,0%


Count 10 6 1 1 18

row % 55,6% 33,3% 5,6% 5,6% 100,0%


Count 1 3 1 1 6

row % 16,7% 50,0% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0%

no spine contact Count 2 162 164

row % 1,2% 98,8% 100,0%

Total Count 13 11 3 3 1 162 193

row % 6,7% 5,7% 1,6% 1,6% ,5% 83,9% 100,0%

Only for the 15% of accidents (Table. 21) the rider reports a spine contact against the roadside obstacles. In general (Table. 21A) the majority of the spine injuries (75,9%) have an AIS1-2 whereas the percentage of injuries with AIS3-6 is the 20,7%: the latter figure is equal to the 60% for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and to the 5,6% for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree. We find an opposite situation when we consider the AIS1-2 band: the percentage is equal to 88,9% for Buildings structures/embankment/tree and equal to 40% for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing. In Table 21 we see that inside the AIS 3-6 band, for Guardrail barrier / Post fencing, are collected AIS equal or over to 5, whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree the AIS 1-2 band is composed for the majority by injuries with an AIS 1. The relationship between the two variables, in Table 21A, is statistical significative Fisher’s Exact test 8,183 p-value 0,031.

Table. 21A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & SPINE INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

SPINE AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6 NFS

roadside obstacles


row % 40,0% 60,0% 100,0%


Count 16 1 1 18

row % 88,9% 5,6% 5,6% 100,0%


row % 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 75,9% 20,7% 3,4% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


66


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,533b 1 ,465 ,575 ,330 ,174

N of Valid Cases 29






Cramer's V ,374 ,087 ,086

N of Valid Cases 29


Project nº 218741


67

2.4.5.6 Abdomen injury due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 22 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ABDOMEN INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

ABDOMEN AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 NFS

no abdomen

injury

roadside obstacles


Count 1 2 1 4

row % 25,0% 50,0% 25,0% 100,0%

Buildings structures/embankment/ tree

Count 3 2 5

row % 60,0% 40,0% 100,0%


Count 2 2 1 2 1 1 9

row % 22,2% 22,2% 11,1% 22,2% 11,1% 11,1% 100,0%

no abdomen contact Count 175 175

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 6 4 1 1 4 1 1 175 193

row %

3,1% 2,1% ,5% ,5% 2,1% ,5% ,5% 90,7% 100,0%

Table. 22A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ABDOMEN INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

ABDOMEN AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6 NFS


row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


Count 3 2 5

row % 60,0% 40,0% 100,0%


row % 44,4% 44,4% 11,1% 100,0%


row % 55,6% 38,9% 5,6% 100,0%

In general for the 9,3% of accidents (Table. 22) the rider has an abdomen contact; the marginal row of the Table 22A reports that for the 55,6% of injuries the AIS is 1 or 2: between the obstacles we find the same injuries imbalance (even if with different percentual distributions) towards the slight level. For the Buildings structures/embankment/tree and for the Parked vehicles/ other unknown we find, Table 22, the more severe injuries for this body part. The relationship between the variables is no statistical significative Fisher’s exact test 2,151 p-value 0,914.


Project nº 218741


68


Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,408b 1 ,235 ,354 ,177 ,104

N of Valid Cases 18






Cramer's V ,221 ,780 ,914

N of Valid Cases 18


Project nº 218741


69

2.4.5.7 Lower extremities injury due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 23 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total

1 2 3 5 NFS

no lower extremities

injury

roadside obstacles


row % 25,0% 18,8% 56,3% 100,0%


Count 37 6 4 1 1 49

row % 75,5% 12,2% 8,2% 2,0% 2,0% 100,0%


row % 44,1% 32,4% 23,5% 100,0%

no lower extremities contact Count 3 1 90 94

row % 3,2% 1,1% 95,7% 100,0%

Total Count 59 21 21 1 1 90 193

row % 30,6% 10,9% 10,9% ,5% ,5% 46,6% 100,0%

Table. 23A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside obstacles


row % 43,8% 56,3% 100,0%


Count 43 5 48

row % 89,6% 10,4% 100,0%


Count 26 8 34

row % 76,5% 23,5% 100,0%


row % 77,6% 22,4% 100,0%

In the 51,3% of accidents (Table. 23) the rider has a lower extremities contact against a roadside obstacles; from the marginal row of Table 23A we see that the 77,6% of lower extremities injuries have an AIS1-2: between the roadside obstacles this imbalance towards the slight injuries remains effective except for the Guardrail barrier / Post fencing which presents the highest percentage of cases (56,3%) in the AIS 3-6 band. All the cases (Table. 23) which are in the AIS 3-6, due to an impact with Guardrail barrier / Post fencing, have an AIS equal to 3. The majority of injuries (Table. 23) which are inside the category AIS 1-2, independently from the type of roadside obstacles, have an AIS equal to 1.


Project nº 218741


70

The relationship between the roadside obstacles and the lower extremities injuries bands, Table 23A, is statistical significative: the Pearson Chi-square is equal to 14,515, the p-value is 0,001 and the strength of association is Cramer’s V 0,385.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

3,094b 1 ,079 ,083 ,057 ,030

N of Valid Cases 98






Cramer's V ,385 ,001 ,001

N of Valid Cases 98


Project nº 218741


71

2.4.5.8 Whole body injury due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 24 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WHOLE BODY INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

WHOLE BODY AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 NFS

roadside obstacles


Count 2 7 11 1 3 2 6 32

row % 6,3% 21,9% 34,4% 3,1% 9,4% 6,3% 18,8% 100,0%


Count 41 42 7 3 6 5 104

row % 39,4% 40,4% 6,7% 2,9% 5,8% 4,8% 100,0%


Count 19 18 11 2 4 2 1 57

row % 33,3% 31,6% 19,3% 3,5% 7,0% 3,5% 1,8% 100,0%

Total Count 62 67 29 6 13 4 12 193

row % 32,1% 34,7% 15,0% 3,1% 6,7% 2,1% 6,2% 100,0%

Table. 24A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WHOLE BODY INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

WHOLE BODY AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside obstacles


Count 9 17 26

row % 34,6% 65,4% 100,0%


Count 83 16 99

row % 83,8% 16,2% 100,0%


Count 37 19 56

row % 66,1% 33,9% 100,0%


row % 71,3% 28,7% 100,0%

From the marginal row of the Table 24A, where we consider only trauma with a definite AIS, we see that the 28,7% of injuries report an AIS between 3 and 6: between the roadside obstacles this percentage assumes the maximum (65,4%) for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing and the minimum (16,2%) for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree. In the Table 24 we find that inside the band AIS 3-6, for every type of obstacles, the highest percentage of cases is represented by the AIS equal to 3; if we consider AIS equal or over to 5, for impacts against the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the percentage is equal to 15,7% whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree is equal to 5,8%.The relationship between the two variables, in Table 24A, is statistical significative: Pearson Chi-Square 25,437 p-value 0,000 and the strength of association is Cramer’s V 0,375.


Project nº 218741


72


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,762b 1 ,097 ,103 ,062 ,025







Cramer's V ,375 ,000 ,000



Project nº 218741


73

2.4.6 Personal protective equipment

2.4.6.1 Wearing helmet on head Table. 25 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WEARING HELMET ON HEAD & HEAD AIS


Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 NFS

Wearing helmet on head

no Count 5 2 2 1 10

row % 50,0% 20,0% 20,0% 10,0% 100,0%

Yes* Count 7 18 5 2 4 1 5 42

row % 16,7% 42,9% 11,9% 4,8% 9,5% 2,4% 11,9% 100,0%

Total Count 12 20 5 4 5 1 5 52

row % 23,1% 38,5% 9,6% 7,7% 9,6% 1,9% 9,6% 100,0%

Yes,but ejected from head during crash

Count 2 1 1 4

row % 50,0% 25,0% 25,0% 100,0%

*this category includes also the category “yes, but ejected from head during crash”

Table. 25A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WEARING HELMET ON HEAD & HEAD AIS BANDS


Total 1-2 3-6 NFS


no Count 7 3 10

row % 70,0% 30,0% 100,0%

yes Count 25 12 5 42

row % 59,5% 28,6% 11,9% 100,0%


row % 61,5% 28,8% 9,6% 100,0%

From the Table 25A we see that if the riders wore the helmet, ignoring if it remained on head at the time of accident, the percentage of injuries with AIS 3-6 is a little lower (28,6%) than for the riders who didn’t wear the helmet at the time of accident. How we can see from the Fisher’s Exact test 0,887 and p-value 0,758 the relationship between the two variables is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


74


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)




N of Valid Cases 52

a. 3 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is

,96.




Cramer's V ,161 ,512 ,671

N of Valid Cases 52


Project nº 218741


75

2.4.6.2 Was helmet retained in place on head during accident? Table. 26 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS? & HEAD AIS


Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 NFS

WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON

HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS?

yes, helmet retained in place to completion of accident

Count 2 16 3 2 2 4 29

row % 6,9% 55,2% 10,3% 6,9% 6,9% 13,8% 100,0%

yes, helmet moved on head but was retained

Count 1 1 2

row % 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%

no, helmet ejected from head during pre-crash time

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

no, helmet ejected from head during crash

Count 2 1 1 4

row % 50,0% 25,0% 25,0% 100,0%

no, helmet ejected from head after collision

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

other/unknown/ no helmet

Count 7 3 1 2 1 1 15

row %

46,7% 20,0% 6,7% 13,3% 6,7% 6,7% 100,0%

Total Count 12 20 5 4 5 1 5 52

row %

23,1% 38,5% 9,6% 7,7% 9,6% 1,9% 9,6% 100,0%

In the Table 26A we see that for the riders who retained the helmet in place on head at the time of accidents the percentage of head injuries with AIS 3-6 is the 25,8% whereas the percentage for the riders who didn’t retain the helmet in place of head is the 50%. Another find is that for the 11,5% of riders the helmet ejects from head during the accidents (always between the riders who experiment and head contact). Even with a low number of cases we see in Table 26 that, between riders who lost the helmet during pre-crash or at the time of crash, for 3 riders out of 5 the relative head AIS is equal or over 5. The relationship observed in Table 26A is no statistical significative Fisher’s Exact test 1,892 p-value 0,802.


Project nº 218741


76

Table. 26A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS? & HEAD AIS BANDS


Total 1-2 3-6 NFS

WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS?

Ejected* Count 3 3 6

row % 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%

Retained** Count 19 8 4 31

row % 61,3% 25,8% 12,9% 100,0%


Count 10 4 1 15

row % 66,7% 26,7% 6,7% 100,0%


row % 61,5% 28,8% 9,6% 100,0%

* aggregation of the modalities, of table. 26, “no, helmet ejected from head during pre-crash time” and “no, helmet ejected from head during crash” and “no, helmet ejected from head after collision” ** aggregation of the modalities, of table. 26, “yes, helmet retained in place to completion of accident” and “yes, helmet moved on head but was retained”


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,201b 1 ,654 ,738 ,390 ,120

N of Valid Cases 52






Cramer's V ,149 ,679 ,701

N of Valid Cases 52


Project nº 218741


77

2.4.6.3 Type of helmet Table. 27 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: TYPE OF HELMET & HEAD AIS


Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 NFS

Type of helmet

half/police motor vehicle, motorcycle helmet

Count 2 1 2 5

row % 40,0% 20,0% 40,0% 100,0%

open face motor vehicle, motorcycle helmet

Count 3 1 4

row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%

full face motor vehicle, motorcycle helmet

Count 5 14 4 2 1 1 5 32

row % 15,6% 43,8% 12,5% 6,3% 3,1% 3,1% 15,6% 100,0%

other/unknown/no helmet

Count 5 3 2 1 11

row % 45,5% 27,3% 18,2% 9,1% 100,0%

Total Count 12 20 5 4 5 1 5 52

row % 23,1% 38,5% 9,6% 7,7% 9,6% 1,9% 9,6% 100,0%

Table. 27A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: TYPE OF HELMET & HEAD AIS CATEGORIES

HEAD AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6 NFS

Type of helmet full face motor vehicle, motorcycle helmet

Count 19 8 5 32

row % 59,4% 25,0% 15,6% 100,0%

half/police motor vehicle, motorcycle helmet

Count 2 3 5

row % 40,0% 60,0% 100,0%


Count 3 1 4

row % 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%


row % 58,5% 29,3% 12,2% 100,0%

The distribution of data in the Table 27A is quite irregulars so we can’t individuate a clear relationship between the variables modalities. From the Fisher’s Exact Test 2,809 p-value 0,632 we see that between the type of helmet and Head AIS don’t exist a statistical significative relationship.


Project nº 218741


78


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,569b 1 ,451 ,491 ,283 ,079

N of Valid Cases 41






Cramer's V ,213 ,444 ,430

N of Valid Cases 41


Project nº 218741


79

2.4.6.4 PTW fatal rider injuries: Wearing helmet on head?

Table. 28 Number of PTW fatal rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEARING HELMET ON HEAD?

Wearing helmet on head ?

no yes* Total

Yes, helmet ejected from head during crash

roadside obstacles


row % 11,1% 88,9% 100,0% 22,2%


Count 1 7 8 1

row % 12,5% 87,5% 100,0% 12,5%


row % 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%


row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 6,9% 93,1% 100,0% 20,7%

*this category includes also the category “yes, helmet ejected from head during crash”

Table. 28A Number of PTW fatal rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEARING HELMET ON HEAD?


Total no yes

Roadside obstacles


Count 1 8 9

row % 11,1% 88,9% 100,0%

buildings structures/ embankment/tree

Count 1 7 8

row % 12,5% 87,5% 100,0%


Count 3 3

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 2 18 20

row % 10,0% 90,0% 100,0%

The 90% of dead riders (Table. 28A), who had a head contact, wore the helmet on head and the percentages between the roadside obstacles are close to the marginal row values. The 20,7% of riders (Table. 28) lost the helmet during the crash: the percentage of riders who impacted the head against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing and lost the helmet is the 22,2% whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree is the 12,5% and for the Parked vehicles/other unknown is the 100%. The relationship between the variables in the Table 28A is no statistical significative: Fisher’s exact test 0,701 p-value 1.


Project nº 218741


80


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)




N of Valid Cases 20


,30.




Cramer's V ,142 ,818 1,000

N of Valid Cases 20


Project nº 218741


81

2.4.6.5 PTW fatal rider injuries: Body coverage material

Table. 29 Number of PTW fatal rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL

Body coverage material

Total

light cloth

garment, i.e., thin cotton

medium cloth

garment, i.e.,

denim, nylon

heavy cloth

garment, i.e.,

Kevlar or

imitation leather

leather garment unknown

Roadside obstacles


row % 14,3% 35,7% 35,7% 14,3% 100,0%


Count 1 1 2 2 3 9

row % 11,1% 11,1% 22,2% 22,2% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 16,7% 50,0% 33,3% 100,0%


row % 6,9% 20,7% 31,0% 24,1% 17,2% 100,0%

In Table. 29 we see that the kind of body coverage material, with the highest percentage, wore by the dead riders is heavy cloth garment, i.e., Kevlar or imitation leather (31%) follows by the leather garment (24,1%). Between the types of the roadside obstacles we find some differences concern the type of riders body coverage material: for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing and the Buildings structures/embankment/tree the highest percentage is for heavy cloth garment and leather garment whereas when the roadside obstacle is the Parked vehicles/other unknown the body coverage material with the highest percentage is the medium cloth garment. From the Fisher’s Exact test 9,296 and p-value 0,261 we find that the relationship between the type of roadside obstacles and the body coverage material is no statistical significative.

Chi-Square Tests (for the Table 29)

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)




N of Valid Cases 29


,41.


Project nº 218741


82

Symmetric Measures (for the Table 29)



Cramer's V ,420 ,249 ,262

N of Valid Cases 29

2.4.6.6 Body coverage material & upper extremities AIS

Table. 30 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & UPPER EXTREMITIES AIS


Total 1 2 3


light cloth garment, i.e., thin cotton Count 10 3 13

row % 76,9% 23,1% 100,0%

medium cloth garment, i.e., denim, nylon Count 14 11 1 26

row % 53,8% 42,3% 3,8% 100,0%

heavy cloth garment, i.e., Kevlar or imitation leather Count 11 8 1 20

row % 55,0% 40,0% 5,0% 100,0%

leather garment Count 12 9 21

row % 57,1% 42,9% 100,0%

unknown Count 4 4

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 56,0% 41,7% 2,4% 100,0%

There is not a clear relationship between the body coverage material and the severity of the upper extremities injuries: we find a similar level of protection for medium and heavy coverage material whereas the leather reduces by 1 point the AIS level respect to the other. Appear strange that the leather coverage material has the same level of protection, or worse, of light cloth: it’s probable that other factors influence this course. In the below table we see that there is not a statistical significative relationship between the two variables: Fisher’s exact test 9,731 p-value 0,213.


Project nº 218741


83


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)




N of Valid Cases 84


,10.




Cramer's V ,236 ,312 ,308

N of Valid Cases 84

2.4.6.7 Body coverage material & Thorax AIS

Table. 31 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & THORAX AIS


Total 1 2 3 4 5 NFS


light cloth garment, i.e., thin cotton Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

medium cloth garment, i.e., denim, nylon

Count 3 3 1 7

row % 42,9% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%

heavy cloth garment, i.e., Kevlar or imitation leather

Count 3 1 1 2 7

row % 42,9% 14,3% 14,3% 28,6% 100,0%

leather garment Count 4 1 1 1 4 11

row % 36,4% 9,1% 9,1% 9,1% 36,4% 100,0%

unknown Count 1 1 2

row % 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%

Total Count 11 2 3 5 3 4 28

row % 39,3% 7,1% 10,7% 17,9% 10,7% 14,3% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


84

Table. 31A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & THORAX AIS CATEGORIES


Total 1-2 3-6


light cloth garment, i.e., thin cotton

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%


Count 3 4 7

row % 42,9% 57,1% 100,0%


Count 4 3 7

row % 57,1% 42,9% 100,0%


row % 71,4% 28,6% 100,0%

unknown Count 1 1 2

row % 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%


row % 54,2% 45,8% 100,0%

How we can see in the Table 31A the percentage relative to the serious injuries(AIS 3-6) decreases if we move from the light cloth to the leather garment cloth: the range is from the 100% to the 28,6%. There is not a statistical significative relationship between the variables, Fisher’s exact test 2,633 p-value 0,863.


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)




N of Valid Cases 24


,46.




Cramer's V ,318 ,659 ,863

N of Valid Cases 24


Project nº 218741


85

2.4.6.8 Body coverage material & lower extremities AIS

Table. 32 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS

LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS (Abbreviated

Injury Scale)

Total 1 2 3 5 NFS


light cloth garment, i.e., thin cotton Count 5 5

row % 100,0% 100,0%


Count 24 2 7 33

row % 72,7% 6,1% 21,2% 100,0%


Count 7 9 4 1 21

row % 33,3% 42,9% 19,0% 4,8% 100,0%

leather garment Count 8 1 5 14

row % 57,1% 7,1% 35,7% 100,0%

unknown Count 4 1 5

row % 80,0% 20,0% 100,0%

Total Count 48 12 16 1 1 78

row % 61,5% 15,4% 20,5% 1,3% 1,3% 100,0%

The strength of the low extremities coverage material don’t have a clear effect in reducing the severity of low extremities injuries: probably other factors have influenced the severity of the injuries. There is not a statistical significative relationship between the two variables Fisher’s exact test 3,139 p-value 0,498.

Table. 32A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS CATEGORIES


Total 1-2 3-6



Count 5 5

row % 100,0% 100,0%


Count 26 7 33

row % 78,8% 21,2% 100,0%

heavy cloth garment, i.e., Kevlar or imitation lea

Count 16 5 21

row % 76,2% 23,8% 100,0%


row % 64,3% 35,7% 100,0%

unknown Count 4 4

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 77,9% 22,1% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


86


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)




N of Valid Cases 77


,88.




Cramer's V ,231 ,391 ,400

N of Valid Cases 77


Project nº 218741


87

2.4.6.9 Footwear material/type & lower extremities AIS

Table. 33 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: FOOTWEAR MATERIAL / TYPE & LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS

LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1 2 3 5 NFS

FOOTWEAR MATERIAL / TYPE

medium street shoe, loafer

Count 6 1 3 10

row % 60,0% 10,0% 30,0% 100,0%

athletic, training shoe Count 11 7 5 23

row % 47,8% 30,4% 21,7% 100,0%

heavy shoe or boot Count 15 3 3 21

row % 71,4% 14,3% 14,3% 100,0%

reinforced work boot or motorcycle boot

Count 10 1 5 1 17

row % 58,8% 5,9% 29,4% 5,9% 100,0%

unknown Count 6 1 7

row % 85,7% 14,3% 100,0%

Total Count 48 12 16 1 1 78

row %

61,5% 15,4% 20,5% 1,3% 1,3% 100,0%

In the Table 33A if we move, inside the footwear material/type variable, from medium to heavy shoes we can appreciate that the percertage of injuries with a severity of AIS 3-6 decreases from the 30 to the 14,3%: heavy shoes or boot is the type of feet protection with the highest (85,7%) percentage of injuries with AIS 1-2. The relationship between the two variables is no statistical significative Fisher’s exact test 4,133 p-value 0,383.


Project nº 218741


88

Table. 33A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: FOOTWEAR MATERIAL / TYPE & LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS CATEGORIES


Total 1-2 3-6

FOOTWEAR MATERIAL / TYPE

athletic, training shoe Count 18 5 23

row % 78,3% 21,7% 100,0%

medium street shoe, loafer Count 7 3 10

row % 70,0% 30,0% 100,0%

heavy shoe or boot Count 18 3 21

row % 85,7% 14,3% 100,0%

reinforced work boot or motorcycle boot

Count 11 6 17

row % 64,7% 35,3% 100,0%

unknown Count 6 6

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 77,9% 22,1% 100,0%


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)




N of Valid Cases 77


1,32.




Cramer's V ,243 ,339 ,346

N of Valid Cases 77


Project nº 218741


89

2.4.6.10 Body coverage material & Whole body AIS

Table. 34 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & WHOLE BOBY AIS


Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 NFS



Count 12 5 3 1 21

row % 57,1% 23,8% 14,3% 4,8% 100,0%


Count 14 19 6 1 3 43

row % 32,6% 44,2% 14,0% 2,3% 7,0% 100,0%


Count 8 16 5 1 2 2 3 37

row % 21,6% 43,2% 13,5% 2,7% 5,4% 5,4% 8,1% 100,0%

leather garment Count 10 10 7 3 1 5 36

row % 27,8% 27,8% 19,4% 8,3% 2,8% 13,9% 100,0%

unknown Count 3 4 2 1 3 13

row % 23,1% 30,8% 15,4% 7,7% 23,1% 100,0%

Total Count 47 54 21 4 10 3 11 150

row % 31,3% 36,0% 14,0% 2,7% 6,7% 2,0% 7,3% 100,0%

How we have already seen with some of the specific body parts coverage material, the whole body coverage material corroborates that the strenght of coverage material is not inversely realted to the severity of injuries. Many other factors determinate the severity of injuries. The relationship between body coverage material and whole body AIS is no statistical significative Pearson Chi-square 2,232 p-value 0,693.

Table. 34A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & WHOLE BOBY AIS CATEGORIES


Total 1-2 3-6

BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL


Count 17 4 21

row % 81,0% 19,0% 100,0%


Count 33 10 43

row % 76,7% 23,3% 100,0%

heavy cloth garment, i.e., Kevlar or imitation lea

Count 24 10 34

row % 70,6% 29,4% 100,0%


row % 64,5% 35,5% 100,0%

unknown Count 7 3 10

row % 70,0% 30,0% 100,0%


row % 72,7% 27,3% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


90


Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)






2,73.




Cramer's V ,127 ,693 ,698



Project nº 218741


91

2.4.7 Relationship between features of PTW kinematics

2.4.7.1 PTW impact speed & PTW roll attitude angle at impact

Table. 35 Number of PTW rider injuries, by severity, related to: PTW IMPACT SPEED & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT



Total 0-50 51-70 71-

slight injuries


-90-1 Count 21 6 6 33

% of Total 18,1% 5,2% 5,2% 28,4%

0 Count 26 2 5 33

% of Total 22,4% 1,7% 4,3% 28,4%

1-90 Count 36 4 10 50

% of Total 31,0% 3,4% 8,6% 43,1%


% of Total 71,6% 10,3% 18,1% 100,0%

serious injuries


-90-1 Count 3 3 5 11

% of Total 8,3% 8,3% 13,9% 30,6%

0 Count 5 3 1 9

% of Total 13,9% 8,3% 2,8% 25,0%

1-90 Count 7 7 2 16

% of Total 19,4% 19,4% 5,6% 44,4%


% of Total 41,7% 36,1% 22,2% 100,0%

fatal PTW roll attitude angle at impact [deg]

-90-1 Count 3 4 7

% of Total 11,5% 15,4% 26,9%

0 Count 1 3 3 7

% of Total 3,8% 11,5% 11,5% 26,9%

1-90 Count 3 5 4 12

% of Total 11,5% 19,2% 15,4% 46,2%


% of Total 15,4% 42,3% 42,3% 100,0%

In the Table.35 we have put in relationship the PTW impact speed and the PTW roll attitude angle at impact. If we move from the slight to the fatal injuries, how we have highlighted, the highest percentages shift from the low to the high speed and from the no concentrate angles to 1-90 roll angle. The relationships is not statistical significative how we can see in the next table.


Project nº 218741


92


Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability

slig

ht

inju

rie

s




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,074b 1 ,786 ,832 ,419 ,054


se

riou

s in

juri

es

Pearson Chi-Square 5,348c 4 ,253 ,276



Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,234d 1 ,135 ,140 ,086 ,033

N of Valid Cases 36

fata

l

Pearson Chi-Square 2,399e 4 ,663 ,749



Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,996f 1 ,158 ,197 ,107 ,050

N of Valid Cases 26



c. 7 cells (77,8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,00.

d. The standardized statistic is -1,495.

e. 7 cells (77,8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,08.

f. The standardized statistic is -1,413.


Project nº 218741


93



slight injuries Nominal by Nominal Phi ,176 ,463 ,472

Cramer's V ,125 ,463 ,472


serious injuries Nominal by Nominal Phi ,385 ,253 ,276

Cramer's V ,273 ,253 ,276

N of Valid Cases 36

fatal Nominal by Nominal Phi ,304 ,663 ,749

Cramer's V ,215 ,663 ,749

N of Valid Cases 26


Project nº 218741


94

2.5 Conclusions

The cases that we have analysed, reveal the high severity of PTW accidents: about 15 dead riders out of 100 accidents (Table. 1 – page 10). The 43,8% of accidents (Table. 2 – page 10), for which the rider impacts against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, are fatal whereas for the other roadside obstacles there is about the 10% of rider fatality. The PTW impact speed is one of the more decisive factors of accident severity (Table. 3A – page 12): 44,8 % of the fatal injuries have an impact speed over 70km/h whereas for the 43,2% of serious injuries the PTW impact speed is under 50km/h. Another important find is that the impact speed differs between the roadside obstacles (Table. 3B – page 13): the 40,6% of impacts against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing happen with a speed over 70km/h whereas the majority (63,7%) of impacts against the Buildings structures/embankment/tree are characterized by a speed under 50km/h. For each levels of the accident severity the PTW roll angle category (Table. 4A – page 16 ) with the highest percentage is 1°-90°. If we consider together the information relative to PTW impact speed and the PTW roll angle at impact (Table. 35 – page 91), emerges that the high speed and positive roll angle are important decisives of the accident fatality: in the 34,6% of the fatal accidents, the PTW had a speed over than 50km and a positive roll angle. The 89,1% of the PTW (Table. 5A – page 19) had a value of the sideslip angle at impact inside the bracket -10°, 10° (between the PTW with a known value for this kind of angle). Also the PTW part that impact as first against the obstacle is an important factor that influences the severity of the accident: in the 62,1% of fatal accidents (Table. 6A – page 23) the front of the PTW impacts as first whereas for serious injuries this percentage is lower (48,6%). There is a difference between the percentages when we consider the type of the roadside obstacles: in the impact against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing (Table. 6B – page 24) the PTW first impact part, with the highest percentage is the front (59,4%) whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree is the centre of PTW with the 51%. The PTW rider number of impacts, against the same roadside obstacle which causes the injury, is another crucial factor of the accident severity: for the serious and the fatal injuries (Table. 7A – page 27) there is about the 10% of triple+ impacts whereas the same figure for the slight injuries is only the 1,6%. Respect to this variable there are some differences between the roadside obstacles (Table. 7B – page 28): the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing reports, respect to the other obstacles, the lowest percentage (43,8%) of PTW rider mono impact modality and the highest percentages for all the other modalities of the number of impacts variable. The majority of fatal injuries (55,2%) happen in a straight roadway (Table. 8A – page 31) whereas for the serious injuries the curve roadway (left and right) amounts for the highest percentage (64,8%) with and imbalance towards to the left direction. The horizontal alignment of the roadway is very different when the impact happens with a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing or against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree: for the first (Table. 8B – page 32) the majority of accidents happen in a curve road, especially the left (46,9%), whereas for the second obstacle the 53,8% of accidents happen in a straight road. In general, for the 66,3% of accidents the roadside doesn’t report defects (Table. 9A – page 34): between levels of the accident severity this percentage assumes the maximum value (78,4%) for the serious injuries whereas for the fatal injuries is lower (69%); there are not differences between the kinds of the roadside obstacles (Table. 9B – page 35). The traffic controls on the path of travel were visible for the 98% of the riders (Table. 10A – page 37) and there are not significative differences between levels of accident severity (Table. 10A – page 37) and between the kinds of the roadside obstacles (Table. 10B – page 38). The majority of the accidents happened with a traffic condition (Table. 11A – page 40) and there is a difference between fatal and serious injuries: the first for the 75% are relative to accidents with a traffic condition whereas for the second the percentage loses about ten points. When the obstacle of impact is the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing (Table. 11B – page 41) there is a condition of traffic in the 68,8% of accidents whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree the same figure is 82,4%. In the majority of accidents there is not visibility limitation (Table. 12A – page 43) and the riders don’t experiment stationary (Table. 13A – page 46) or mobile (Table. 14A – page 49) view


Project nº 218741


95

obstruction at the time of precipitant event, without significative differences between the levels of the injury severity. There are not significant percentual differences between the roadside obstacles, even for visibility limitation (Table. 12B – page 44) and mobile view obstruction (Table. 14B – page 50) whereas for the stationary view obstruction (Table. 13B – page 47) we find that the roadside obstacle “Parked vehicles/other unknown” reveals a lower percentage (82,5%) relatives to the absence of obstruction, respect to the others obstacles. Respect to the weather condition, we find that about the 60 % of fatal and serious accidents (Table. 15A – page 52) happen with no clear weather whereas the 51,2% of slight injuries happen with clear weather; another important find is that the impact against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing for the majority of case happens with no clear weather (Table. 15B – page 53) whereas for the other roadside obstacles the percentage are balanced between the weather conditions. Considering the single body part injuries, for the head (Table. 18A – page 59) we find that the 54,5% of injuries, due to an impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, have an AIS equal or over 3; whereas for the impacts with the others roadside obstacles about the 70% of head injuries have an AIS 1 or 2. The majority (over the 90%) of the upper extremities injuries, regardless the roadside obstacles, have an AIS equal to 1 or 2 (Table. 19A – page 61). For the injuries relative to the thorax (Table. 20A – page 63), the spine (Table. 21A – page 65) and lower extremities (Table. 23A – page 69) we find that the riders, when impact against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, have the highest percentage of injuries for AIS category 3-6 whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree impact object the highest percentage is for AIS 1-2. Concerning the use of the helmet, it’s important to consider if it retained in place of head during the accident (Table. 26A – page 76): between the riders for which the helmet is retained, the majority (61,3%) of head injuries have an AIS of 1 or 2 whereas for the riders for which the helmet is not retained the 50% of injuries have an AIS of 3+.


Project nº 218741


96

3 Centro Zaragoza: in-depth motorcycle accident investigation


Table. 36 Summary information “ Number of accidents and fatal accidents by motor displacement”

counts % on total

n° of accidents

moped 3 16,7

motorcycle 15 83,3

total 18 100,0


moped 2 40,0

motorcycle 3 60,0

total 5 100,0

The Centro Zaragoza in-depth motorcycle accident investigation concerns 18 single vehicle accidents: in the 83,3% of cases is involved a motorcycle. There are 5 fatal accidents: three concerned motorcycle and the others moped; in summary the 27,8% of the accidents by the Centro Zaragoza database are fatal and the others are serious.


Project nº 218741


97

3.2 Data analysis


3.2.1.1 PTW impact speed Table. 37 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED



Total 0-50 51-70 71-

serious injuries


row % 25,00% 25,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression

Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 38,46% 23,08% 38,46% 100,00%

fatal


row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%

In the majority (55,5%) of accidents the PTW impact speed is over 50 km/h, but there is a difference if we move between (Table. 37A) the categories of the accidents severity: for the fatal accidents the speed band with the highest percentage (60%) is 0-50 km/h whereas for the serious injuries the 61,5% of cases have a PTW impact speed over 50km/h, although the lowest and the highest speed bands have the same percentage (38,5%). In the Table. 37B we find that the PTW impact speed is different when the roadside obstacle is a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing or a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression: for the formers in the 72,7% of accidents the speed is over 50km/h, and the 45,5% of these have a speed over 70 km/h, whereas for the second obstacle the PTW impact speed, in the 71,4% of accidents, is lower than 51 km/h.


Project nº 218741


98

Table.37A

Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW IMPACT SPEED


Total 0-50 51-70 71-


serious injuries

Count 5 3 5 13

row % 38,46% 23,08% 38,46% 100,00%

Fatal Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 44,44% 22,22% 33,33% 100,00%

Table. 37B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED


Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Roadside obstacles


row % 27,27% 27,27% 45,45% 100,00%


Count 5 1 1 7

row % 71,43% 14,29% 14,29% 100,00%


row % 44,44% 22,22% 33,33% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


99




Total -90-1 0 1-90

serious injuries


row % 50,00% 37,50% 12,50% 100,00%


Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%


row % 38,46% 53,85% 7,69% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

In the 61,1% of accidents the impact with the roadside obstacle has happened with a PTW roll angle equal to zero; in the majority (33,3%) of the other accidents the PTW impacted with a negative roll angle. The fatal accidents have a higher percentage (80%) of cases with a zero roll angle respect to the serious. The roll angle as well the impact speed differs between the types of roadside obstacles: the majority of impacts against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing have happened with a roll angle different by zero and imbalance toward the negative part whereas considering the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression obstacle we find that in the 85,7% of accidents the PTW roll angle is equal to zero.


Project nº 218741


100

Table. 38A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -90-1 0 1-90


serious injuries

Count 5 7 1 13

row % 38,46% 53,85% 7,69% 100,00%

fatal Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%


row % 33,33% 61,11% 5,56% 100,00%

Table. 38B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -90-1 0 1-90

Roadside obstacles


row % 45,45% 45,45% 9,09% 100,00%


Count 1 6 7

row % 14,29% 85,71% 100,00%


row % 33,33% 61,11% 5,56% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


101




Total

-70

-61

-60

-51

-30

-21

-20

-11

0-10

11

-20

21

-30

un

kno

wn

serious injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/

Posts fencing Count 1 1 3 3 8

row % 12,5% 12,5% 37,5% 37,5% 100,0%

Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression

Count 1 2 1 1 5

row % 20,0% 40,0% 20,0% 20,0% 100,0%

Total

Count 1 1 3 1 3 4 13

row % 7,7% 7,7% 23,1% 7,7% 23,1% 30,8% 100,0%

fatal

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,3% 33,3% 33,3% 100,0%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%

Total

Count 1 1 1 1 1 5

row % 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 100,0%

The PTW sideslip angle at impact ranges between -70 to 30 degree; the angle band which accounts for the highest (46,15%) percentage, how we can see in Table. 39A, is -20,20 degree even if the majority of accidents have happened with a wider angle. Between serious and fatal injuries there is a difference: the former has a percentage distribution that follows the general tendency whereas the fatal injuries has the same amount of case with an angular width over and under 20 degree. Between the different obstacles the PTW sideslip angle at impact is not the same: for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing in the 71,5% of accidents the sideslip angle is over 20 degree whereas for the other type of obstacle the majority of cases report an angle lower or equal to 20 degree.


Project nº 218741


102



Total -21 -20,20 21+



row % 22,22% 44,44% 33,33% 100,00%

fatal Count 1 2 1 4

row % 25,00% 50,00% 25,00% 100,00%


row % 23,08% 46,15% 30,77% 100,00%


Table. 39B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -21 -20,20 21+

Roadside obstacles


row % 14,29% 28,57% 57,14% 100,00%


Count 2 4 6

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 23,08% 46,15% 30,77% 100,00%



Project nº 218741


103

3.2.1.4 PTW first collision contact code Table. 40 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE



Total

front centre other/

unknown/ no contact

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


row % 62,50% 37,50% 100,00%


Count 5 5

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 10 3 13

row % 76,92% 23,08% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%

The PTW part which impacts as first in the majority (77,8%) of accidents is the frontal: considering the known PTW first contact part, we find that all the fatal accidents have as first contact the front of PTW whereas the serious injuries in about the 23% of accidents have as first contact the centre of PTW. Even for this variable, as well the previous, there are some difference between the roadside obstacles. Impacting against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, the PTW first contact regards in the majority of accident the frontal part follows by the central part; whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression obstacle the 100% of accidents have involved, in the first contact, the front of the PTW.


Project nº 218741


104

Table. 40A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE


Total front centre other/unknown/

no contact


serious injuries

Count 10 3 13

row % 76,92% 23,08% 100,00%

fatal Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 77,78% 16,67% 5,56% 100,00%

Table. 40B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE


Total front centre other/unknown/

no contact

roadside obstacles


row % 63,64% 27,27% 9,09% 100,00%


Count 7 7

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 77,78% 16,67% 5,56% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


105

3.2.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematic of

accident

3.2.2.1 PTW rider speed at impact Table. 41 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT


PTW Rider Speed at Impact categories [km/h]


serious injuries


row % 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 100,00%


Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 38,46% 23,08% 23,08% 15,38% 100,00%

fatal


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

For the fatal accidents, the majority of the riders have an unknown value for the column variable, so we can appreciate the rider speed at impact only by the serious injuries. The band with the highest percentage comprises the speed under 50 km/h but the majority of rider have a speed over 50 km/h. Generally the rider impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing with a speed over 50 km/h and the majority of these report a speed over 70 km/h; whereas for the impacts against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the rider speed in the 60% of cases is lower 50 km/h.


Project nº 218741


106

Table. 41A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT

PTW Rider Speed at Impact

categories [km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71-



row % 45,45% 27,27% 27,27% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 41,67% 25,00% 33,33% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW rider speed at impact

Table. 41B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT


Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Roadside obstacles


row % 28,57% 28,57% 42,86% 100,00%


Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 41,67% 25,00% 33,33% 100,00%



Project nº 218741


107

3.2.2.2 PTW rider impact angle Table.42 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE


PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE [deg]

Total

101-1

10

121-1

30

141-1

50

Unknow

n

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


H

Count

row %

F

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,3% 33,3% 33,3% 100,0%

UN

Count 5 5

row % 100,0% 100,0%


H

Count

row %

F

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 4 4

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 7,7% 15,4% 7,7% 69,2% 100,0%

fatal

roadside obstacles


H

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

F

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%


H

Count row %

F

Count

row %

UN

Count 2 2

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 2 3 5

row % 40,0% 60,0% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


108

For this variable the number of known riders impact angle is reduced to six cases. The riders, who died in the accident, impacted with an angle in the band 141°-150° whereas the rider, who received a serious injuries from the accident, impacted for the 75% of cases with an angle between 101° and 130°: in the serious injuries all the riders impacted with the feet towards front whereas in the fatal accidents half of riders had head towards front. Table.42A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE



101-1

10

121-1

30

141-1

50

Unknow

n

Total

serious

H

Count

row %

F

Count 1 2 1 4

row % 25,0% 50,0% 25,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 9 9

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 7,7% 15,4% 7,7% 69,2% 100,0%

fatal

H

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

F

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 3 3

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 2 3 5

row % 40,0% 60,0% 100,0%


Project nº 218741


109

When the rider impacted against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the majority of these had the feet toward front and in the 60% of accidents the impact angle was included between 141°-150°. Whereas for the impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression we have only one accident that is characterized by an angle in the band 121°-130°. Table.42B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

roadside obstacles


Total

101-1

10

121-1

30

141-1

50

Unknow

n


H

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

F

Count 1 1 2 4

row % 25,0% 25,0% 50,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 6 6

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 9,1% 9,1% 27,3% 54,5% 100,0%

Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or

low lying depression

H

Count

row %

F

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

UN

Count 6 6

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 6 7

row % 14,29% 85,71% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


110

3.2.2.3 PTW rider impact speed & PTW rider impact angle Table.43 Number of accidents related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT SPEED & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

PTW RIDER IMPACT SPEED [km/h]

0-50 51-70 71+ Unknown Total


101-110

Count 1 1

total % 5,56% 5,56%

121-130

Count 1 1 2

total % 5,56% 5,56% 11,11%

141-150

Count 1 1 1 3

total % 5,56% 5,56% 5,56% 16,67%

unknown

Count 5 2 5 12

total % 27,78% 11,11% 27,78% 66,67%

Total

Count 5 3 4 6 18

row % 27,78% 16,67% 22,22% 33,33% 100,00%

Table.43A Number of accidents related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT SPEED & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE


0-50 51-70 71+ Total

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ANGLE [deg] 101-110

Count 1 1

total % 20,00% 20,00%

121-130 Count 1 1 2

total % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00%

141-150 Count 1 1 2

total % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00%

Total

Count 3 2 5

total % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW rider impact speed and a known PTW rider impact angle

How we can see in the Table. 43A we have only five cases which report a known value for the two variables; the cases are quite sparse but we can summarize that these are characterized by speeds over 50 km/h and impact angle between 101° and 150° degree.


Project nº 218741


111

3.2.2.4 PTW rider sliding on back/front ? Table. 44 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK / FRONT ?


PTW Rider sliding on back/front?

Total yes no unknown

serious injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 8 8

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 84,62% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%

fatal


row % 75,00% 25,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%

Considering if the rider, during the accident, suffers a slide on the pavement we find that both fatal and serious injuries are characterized in the majority of accidents by a rider slide on the pavement; the percentage of these riders is higher for serious injuries (91,7%) than for the fatal (80%). Another important find is that when the impact object is a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the percentage of riders who slide on the pavement is higher than for the riders who impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression.


Project nº 218741


112

Table. 44A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK / FRONT ?


Total yes no


serious injuries

Count 11 1 12

row % 91,67% 8,33% 100,00%

Fatal Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%

Total Count 15 2 17

row % 88,24% 11,76% 100,00%

*accidents with a known value for the variable “PTW rider sliding on back/front?”

Table. 44B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK / FRONT ?


Total yes no

roadside obstacles


row % 91,67% 8,33% 100,00%


Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%

Total Count 15 2 17

row % 88,24% 5,88% 100,00%

*accidents with a known value for the variable “PTW rider sliding on back/front?”


Project nº 218741


113

3.2.2.5 PTW rider impact orientation with respect to road tangent Table. 45 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT


PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT

21-30 31-40 51-60 71-80 Unknown Total

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


H

Count

row %

F

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,3% 33,3% 33,3% 100,0%

UN

Count 5 5

row % 100,0% 100,0%


H

Count

row %

F

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 4 4

row % 100,0% 100,0%


row % 7,7% 15,4% 7,7% 69,2% 100,0%

fatal

roadside obstacles


H

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

F

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 1 1

row % 100,0% 100,0%

UN

Count 2 2

row % 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 1 1 3 5

row % 20,0% 20,0% 60,0% 100,0%

We have six PTW riders with a known value of the orientation with respect to the road tangent: the distribution of variable is split to half by the value of 40°. All the fatal cases report an angle lower or equal to 40° whereas in the serious injuries for the 75% of riders the angle is over the split half value. In the majority (60%) of impacts against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the orientation angle is lower or equal to 40° whereas for the other roadside obstacle the angle belongs to the upper band.


Project nº 218741


114

Table. 45A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT

TO ROAD TANGENT

Total <=40 41+


serious injuries

Count 1 3 4

row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 3 6

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW rider impact orientation with respect to road tangent

Table. 45B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT

TO ROAD TANGENT

Total <=40 41+

roadside obstacles


row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 3 6

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%



Project nº 218741


115

3.2.2.6 PTW rider impact on barrier post? Table. 46 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON BARRIER POST?

PTW Rider impact on barrier post ?



serious injuries

Count 1 10 2 13

row % 7,69% 76,92% 15,38% 100,00%

Fatal Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%


row % 16,67% 72,22% 11,11% 100,00%

We find a different distribution of the variable, PTW rider impact on barrier post?, respect to the severity of the accident: for the fatal injuries the 40% of riders have impacted against a post whereas for the serious injuries the same figure is only the 7,7%.

3.2.2.7 PTW rider impact on rail of barrier? Table. 47 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON RAIL OF BARRIER ?

PTW Rider impact on rail of barrier?



serious injuries

Count 2 9 2 13

row % 15,38% 69,23% 15,38% 100,00%

Fatal Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%


row %

22,22% 66,67% 11,11% 100,00%

Even for the variable relatives to the impact agaist the rail of barrier, we find a variable distribution like to the previous variable, but in this case the percentage on “yes” modality for the serious injuries is higher (15,4%) respect to the same percentage for riders that impact against the post of barrier.


Project nº 218741


116




Total 1 2 3+

serious injuries


row % 87,50% 12,50% 100,00%


Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 84,62% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%

fatal


row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 2 5

row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%

In the 77,8% of accidents the rider suffers only one impact and the percentages decrease if we move from two to three or more impacts. Respect to the severity of accident we find that for serious injuries the 84,6% of riders suffers one impact whereas the same figure for fatal injuries is the 60% and the others riders have two impacts. The two types of obstacles have the highest percentage for the “one” impact modality of the column variable: the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression ,differently by the other obstacle, has about the 30% of riders who suffer two impacts.


Project nº 218741


117


PTW RIDER NUMBER OF

IMPACTS

Total 1 2 3+



row % 84,62% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%

Fatal Count 3 2 5

row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%


row % 77,78% 16,67% 5,56% 100,00%

Table. 48B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS

PTW RIDER NUMBER OF

IMPACTS

Total 1 2 3+

roadside obstacles


row % 81,82% 9,09% 9,09% 100,00%

Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression

Count 5 2 7

row % 71,43% 28,57% 100,00%


row % 77,78% 16,67% 5,56% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


118

3.2.2.9 Rider motion (post crash) Table. 49 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & RIDER MOTION CODE (POST-CRASH)


RIDER MOTION CODE (POST-CRASH)

03 04 12 16 98 Total

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


row % 25,00%

62,50% 12,50% 100,00%


Count 1 1 1 2 5

row % 20,00%

20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 100,00%


row % 23,08%

7,69% 46,15% 23,08% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33%

33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00%

100,00%


row % 20,00%

20,00% 40,00% 20,00% 100,00%

03-tumbled and rolled from POI to POR 04-tumbled and rolled from POI, then impacted other object at POR 12-caught by or landed on other vehicle; carried to POR, different from other vehicle POR 16-rider departed scene immediately after collision, but motorcycle still at scene 98-other /unknown

The rider post crash motion with the highest (57,14%) percentage is the modality “16” for which the rider departs the scene immediately after collision, but motorcycle still at scene. The second higher percentage (28,57%) is represented by the situation for which the rider tumbles and rolls from point of impact (POI) to point of rest (POR). The distributions by severity of accident is quite similar between fatal and serious injuries; further the just mentions modalities, for the fatal injuries we find a 25% of riders that “catch by or land on other vehicle; carry to POR, different from other vehicle POR”.


Project nº 218741


119

Table. 49A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & RIDER MOTION CODE (POST-CRASH)

RIDER MOTION CODE

(POST-CRASH)

03 04 12 16 Total



row % 30,00% 10,00% 60,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 1 2 4

row % 25,00% 25,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 28,57% 7,14% 7,14% 57,14% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW rider post-crash motion

Table. 49B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & RIDER MOTION CODE (POST-CRASH)

RIDER MOTION CODE

(POST-CRASH)

03 04 12 16 Total

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 11,11% 55,56% 100,00%


Count 1 1 3 5

row % 20,00% 20,00% 60,00% 100,00%


row % 28,57% 7,14% 7,14% 57,14% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW rider post-crash motion

Considering the type of the roadside obstacles we find for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing a higher percentage, respect to Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression, of cases for which the rider tumbles and rolls from POI to POR; the post crash motion code “12” is presented (11,1%) only for the impact against Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing whereas the post crash motion code “04” concerns (20%) only the impact with the other type of obstacle.


Project nº 218741


120


3.2.3.1 Roadway horizontal alignment Table. 50 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT




curve left other

serious injuries


row % 12,50% 75,00% 12,50% 100,00%


Count 1 1 1 2 5

row % 20,00% 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 100,00%


row % 15,38% 7,69% 53,85% 23,08% 100,00%

fatal


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 2 5

row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%

The majority (55,6%) of accidents happened in a curve road and specially towards the left (38,9%) direction; the straight road represents, with a percentage of 27,8%, the second type of alignment for which happened most of the accidents. The type of horizontal alignment discriminates the severity of the accident: the fatal accidents happened for the 60% in a straight road follows by a curve right road; whereas the serious injuries was reported, in the most of cases, by riders who suffered an accident in curve left road (53,9%). Regard to the type of roadside obstacles appears that when the object of impact is a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the road alignment most (72,7%) present is the curve road (especially the left direction) whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the straight road characterizes the 42,9% of accidents and we find a curve road in the 28,6% of cases.


Project nº 218741


121

Table. 50A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT


Total straight curve right curve left other


serious injuries

Count 2 1 7 3 13

row % 15,38% 7,69% 53,85% 23,08% 100,00%

Fatal Count 3 2 5

row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%


row % 27,78% 16,67% 38,89% 16,67% 100,00%

Table. 50B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT



roadside obstacles


row % 18,18% 18,18% 54,55% 9,09% 100,00%


Count 3 1 1 2 7

row % 42,86% 14,29% 14,29% 28,57% 100,00%


row % 27,78% 16,67% 38,89% 16,67% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


122


3.2.4.1 Roadside condition and defects Table. 51 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS



Total none other/unknown

serious injuries


fencing Count 4 4 8

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Buildings structures/embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression

Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

Total Count 5 8 13

row % 38,46% 61,54% 100,00%

fatal


fencing Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

The roadside, in the majority (66,7%) of the accidents, is not characterized by known defects or doesn’t report defects. The fatal accidents have a higher percentage, for the other/unknown category of column variable, than the serious injuries. When the impact happened against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing we find only ten percentage point of gap between the modalities of column variable whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression only in the 14,3% of accidents the roadside doesn’t present defects.


Project nº 218741


123

Table. 51A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS


none other/unknown Total


serious injuries

Count 5 8 13

row % 38,46% 61,54% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

Total Count 6 12 18

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

Table. 51B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS


none other/unknown Total

roadside obstacles


row % 45,45% 54,55% 100,00%


Count 1 6 7

row % 14,29% 85,71% 100,00%

Total Count 6 12 18

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


124

3.2.4.2 Traffic control on path of travel is visible to PTW rider? Table.52 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES &TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY


Traffic control on path of travel is visible to PTW

rider?

Total

none

ye

s

oth

er/unknow

n

serious injuries


row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%


Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 10 13

row % 23,08% 76,92% 100,00%

fatal


row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 2 2 5

row % 20,00% 40,00% 40,00% 100,00%

In the 66,7% of accidents the traffic control on path of travel is visible to PTW rider: this percentage increases, arriving to 76,9%, for serious injuries whereas for fatal accidents only in the 40% we know that the traffic control is visible: but the same percentage accounts even for the accidents for which the variable has an other/unknown value.


Project nº 218741


125

Table.52A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS &TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY

Traffic control on path of travel is

visible to PTW rider?

Total none yes other/unknown


serious injuries

Count 3 10 13

row % 23,08% 76,92% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 2 2 5

row % 20,00% 40,00% 40,00% 100,00%


row % 22,22% 66,67% 11,11% 100,00%

When the PTW impacts against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing in the 27,3% of accidents the traffic control on path of travel is not visible to the rider whereas this figure for the other type of obstacle presents a lower percentage (14,3%). Table.52B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES &TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY

Traffic control on path of travel is

visible to PTW rider?

Total none yes other/

unknown

roadside obstacles


row % 27,27% 63,64% 9,09% 100,00%


Count 1 5 1 7

row % 14,29% 71,43% 14,29% 100,00%


row % 22,22% 66,67% 11,11% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


126

3.2.4.3 Traffic density at time of accident Table. 53 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT



Total light traffic

moderate traffic


moving

serious injuries


fencing Count 2 6 8

row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%


Count 1 3 1 5

row % 20,00% 60,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 23,08% 69,23% 7,69% 100,00%

fatal


fencing Count 2 1 3

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%

All the accidents happened in a traffic road: this for the 55,6% of cases is moderate, for the 33,3% is light and in the 11,1% is heavy. Respect to the severity of the accidents the traffic level is a very useful discriminant: the 60% of fatal injuries emerge by a road with light traffic whereas the serious injuries happened in the 69,2% of cases with moderate traffic. The 36,4% of accidents, for which the PTW impacted, against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing are related to a condition of light traffic; the same figure for the impact against the other type of obstacle is 28,6%. For the moderate and heavy traffic the percentages are little higher for the Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression than for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing.


Project nº 218741


127

Table. 53A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME

OF ACCIDENT

Total light traffic

moderate traffic


moving


serious injuries

Count 3 9 1 13

row % 23,08% 69,23% 7,69% 100,00%

Fatal Count 3 1 1 5

row % 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 33,33% 55,56% 11,11% 100,00%

Table. 53B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT


Total light traffic moderate traffic heavy traffic, traffic moving

roadside obstacles


Count 4 6 1 11

row % 36,36% 54,55% 9,09% 100,00%

Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression

Count 2 4 1 7

row % 28,57% 57,14% 14,29% 100,00%


row % 33,33% 55,56% 11,11% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


128

3.2.4.4 PTW rider visibility limitation due to

Table. 54 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION



Total pre

cip

itation

mis

alig

ned/

obscure

d roadsid

e

curv

ed m

irro

r

oth

er/ u

nknow

n

none, vis

ibili

ty n

ot

sig

nific

antly

limited

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


row % 12,50% 12,50% 25,00% 50,00% 100,00%


Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row %

7,69% 7,69% 46,15% 38,46% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 4 5

row %

20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

In the half of accidents the visibility is not significantly limited and for the 38,9% of accident we don’t have categorized information regard to this variable. For the 80% of fatal accidents there is not a visibility limitation for the PTW rider whereas for the serious injuries the same figure is about the half (38,5%). The serious injuries, with the figure of 7,7% are characterized one time for limitation due to precipitation and another time by misaligned/ obscured roadside curved mirror.


Project nº 218741


129

Table. 54A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & VISIBILITY LIMITATION


Total precipitation

misaligned/ obscured roadside

curved mirror other/

unknown

none, visibility not

significantly limited


serious injuries

Count 1 1 6 5 13

row % 7,69% 7,69% 46,15% 38,46% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%


row %

5,56% 5,56% 38,89% 50,00% 100,00%

For the impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing in the 54,6% of accidents there is not visibility limitation whereas for the other type of obstacle the same figure is twelve percentual points lower; for the other accidents only in the impacts against the Guardrail barrier / Post fencing is presented a known visibility limitation, with the figure of 9,1%, like precipitation and misaligned/ obscured roadside curved mirror. Table. 54B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION


Total precipitation

misaligned/ obscured roadside

curved mirror other/

unknown

none, visibility not significantly

limited

roadside obstacles


row % 9,09% 9,09% 27,27% 54,55% 100,00%


Count 4 3 7

row % 57,14% 42,86% 100,00%


row %

5,56% 5,56% 38,89% 50,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


130


Table. 55 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT


STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS

ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT

TIME OF PRECIPITATING

EVENT

Total buildings none

serious inju

ries

roadside obstacles Guardrail_barrier/ Posts_fencing Count 8 8

row % 100,00% 100,00%

buildings_structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression

Count 1 4 5

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 12 13

row % 7,69% 92,31% 100,00%

fata

l

roadside obstacles Guardrail_barrier/ Posts_fencing Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 5 5

row % 100,00% 100,00%

In the 94,4% of accidents there is not a stationary view obstruction along the rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event; between the level of injuries severity the percentage don’t differ significantly from the marginal row percentages. Even between the types of roadside obstacles we don’t find significantly difference: these are closed to the marginal percentages.


Project nº 218741


131

Table. 55A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF

PRECIPITATING EVENT

buildings none Total


serious injuries

Count 1 12 13

row % 7,69% 92,31% 100,00%

Fatal Count 5 5

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 17 18

row % 5,56% 94,44% 100,00%

Table. 55B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING

EVENT

buildings none Total

roadside obstacles

Guardrail_barrier/ Posts_fencing Count 11 11

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 6 7

row % 14,29% 85,71% 100,00%

Total Count 1 17 18

row % 5,56% 94,44% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


132

3.2.4.6 Mobile view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at time of precipitating event

Table. 56 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT


MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total vehicles:

automobiles other/

unknown none

serious injuries


row % 87,50% 12,50% 100,00%


Count 5 5

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 12 1 13

row % 92,31% 7,69% 100,00%

fatal


row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%

In the 77,8% of accidents the mobile view obstruction is an automobile and only for the 5,6% of accidents there is not view obstruction. Considering the severity of the accident, for about the 90% of serious injuries the automobile is the obstruction whereas for the fatal injuries in the 60% of accidents the obstruction is other / unknown object.


Project nº 218741


133


MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF

PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total vehicles:

automobiles other/unknown none


serious injuries

Count 12 1 13

row % 92,31% 7,69% 100,00%

Fatal Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%


row % 77,78% 16,67% 5,56% 100,00%

When the object of impact is a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the view obstruction due to an automobile has a higher (81,8%) percentage than the other roadside impact obstacle which instead for the 28,6% of cases reports a other/unknown mobile view obstruction. Table. 56B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME

OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total vehicles:

automobiles other/unknown none

roadside obstacles


row % 81,82% 9,09% 9,09% 100,00%


Count 5 2 7

row % 71,43% 28,57% 100,00%


row % 77,78% 16,67% 5,56% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


134



WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

cle

ar

clo

udy,

partly

clo

udy

modera

te

or heavy

rain

serious inju

ries


row % 87,50% 12,50% 100,00%


Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 84,62% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%

fata

l


row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%

The 83,3% of accidents happened with clear weather follows, in a decreasing order, by cloudy-party cloudy (11,1%) and moderate or heavy rain (5,6%). Comparing the levels of accident severity we find that for the fatal injuries there is the 20% of cases that happened with cloudy whereas the same figure for the serious injuries is the 7,7%; for serious injuries one accidents happened with a condition of rain and the percentage related to the clear weather is a little higher (84,6%) than for the fatal injuries.


Project nº 218741


135


WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

cle

ar

clo

udy,

partly

clo

udy

modera

te

or heavy

rain


serious injuries

Count 11 1 1 13

row % 84,62% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%

Fatal Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 83,33% 11,11% 5,56% 100,00%

Comparing the different roadside obstacles, when the PTW impacts against a Buildings structures/embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression we find a little higher percentages for clear (85,7%) and cloudy (14,3%) weather than for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing; the latter shows a percentage of 9,1% for rain weather. Table. 57B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEATHER DESCRIPTION

WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

cle

ar

clo

udy,

partly

clo

udy

modera

te

or heavy

rain

roadside obstacles


Count 9 1 1 11

row % 81,82% 9,09% 9,09% 100,00%


Count 6 1 7

row % 85,71% 14,29% 100,00%


row % 83,33% 11,11% 5,56% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


136

3.2.4.8 Roadside contamination obstacles Table. 58 Number of accidents by severity related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES



Total

wate

r

gra

vel

oth

er/unknow

n

none

serious inju

ries

roadside obstacles


row % 25,00% 12,50% 50,00% 12,50% 100,00%


Count 4 1 5

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 15,38% 7,69% 61,54% 15,38% 100,00%

fata

l

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 20,00% 100,00%

In the majority (83,3%) of accidents was presented a roadside contamination obstacle even if in the 55,6% of case the obstacles is categorized like other/unknown. Fatal injuries have, between known contamination obstacles, the same percentual (20%) for each contamination category and these values are little higher than the same figures relative to serious injuries; anyhow for each level of severity the contamination obstacle category with the highest percentage (61,5% for serious injuries and 40% for fatal injuries) is other/unknown.


Project nº 218741


137

Table. 58A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES

ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION

OBSTACLES

Total

wate

r

gra

vel

oth

er/

unknow

n

none


serious injuries

Count 2 1 8 2 13

row % 15,38% 7,69% 61,54% 15,38% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 1 2 1 5

row % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 16,67% 11,11% 55,56% 16,67% 100,00%

Considering the different type of the roadside obstacles, when the PTW impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the water represents the most common (27,3%) contamination obstacle (between known contamination); whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the gravel together to the absence of obstacles account for the same percentage of accidents, 14,3%. Table. 58B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES


OBSTACLES

Total

wate

r

gra

vel

oth

er/unknow

n

none

roadside obstacles


row % 27,27% 9,09% 45,45% 18,18% 100,00%


Count 1 5 1 7

row % 14,29% 71,43% 14,29% 100,00%


row % 16,67% 11,11% 55,56% 16,67% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


138


3.2.5.1 PTW rider trauma status Table. 59 Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAUMA STATUS

TRAUMA STATUS

Total

ho

spita

lise

d

dis

ab

led

,

institu

tio

nalis

ed

fata

l, d

ead

on

scen

e

fata

l, d

ead

upo

n

arr

ival a

t h

osp

ita

l

Fa

tal <

=3

0 d

ays

roadside obstacles


row % 36,36% 36,36% 9,09% 9,09% 9,09% 100,00%


Count 3 2 1 1 7

row % 42,86% 28,57% 14,29% 14,29% 100,00%


row % 38,89% 33,33% 5,56% 11,11% 11,11% 100,00%

The riders, by the Centro Zaragoza dataset, who suffer the less severity injuries is hospedalized (38,9%) and the remainders die or are disabled as consequence of the accident. For the 80 % of fatal injuries the riders die upon arrival at hospital or in the days after. The impact against the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing is more severe than the impact with the other roadside obstacle: for the former the 63,6% of riders are disabled or suffers a more severe damage (one rider dies on scene of accident) whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the same figure is the 57,1%. Table. 59A Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & GROUPED TRAUMA STATUS

TRAUMA STATUS

Total

fatal disabled,

institutionalised hospidalized

Roadside obstacles


row % 27,27% 36,36% 36,36% 100,00%


Count 2 2 3 7

row % 28,57% 28,57% 42,86% 100,00%


row % 27,78% 33,33% 38,89% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


139

3.2.5.2 Head injury due to impact with the obstacles Table. 60 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 1 2 3 4 6

roadside obstacles


row % 28,57% 14,29% 14,29% 28,57% 14,29% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Other/unknown

Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 40,00% 10,00% 10,00% 30,00% 10,00% 100,00%

The 70% of the head injuries are relatived to the impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and only the 10% of the impacts are against Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression. The half of head injuries report an AIS 3+ but if we consider the impacts, with known objects, the majority of injuries have an AIS equal or over 3. Inside AIS 3+ band we see that, for the injuries due to Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing, 3 out 4 riders have an AIS of 4 or more. Table.60A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 42,86% 57,14% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Other/unknown

Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 5 5 10

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


140

3.2.5.3 Upper extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles Table. 61 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & UPPER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

UPPER EXTREMITIES AIS

(Abbreviated Injury Scale)

Total 2 3 5

roadside obstacles


row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

other / unknown Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 3 1 7

row % 42,86% 42,86% 14,29% 100,00%

About the 57% of upper extremities injuries are due to the impacts against Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the 28,6% against the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression; the majority of this body part injuries are in the upper band but there are some differences according to the type of impact object. The riders who impact with the first type of obstacle, suffers for the 75% of cases, an AIS 3 whereas for the second type of obstacle all the injuries have an AIS 2. Nevertheless the severity level for upper extremities injuries is lower than for head injuries: the maximum AIS, due to impact against known objects, is 3.


Project nº 218741


141

Table. 61A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & UPPER EXTREMITIES INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 4 7

row % 42,86% 57,14% 100,00%

3.2.5.4 Thorax injuries due to impact with the obstacles Table. 62 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & THORAX INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 2 3 4 6

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 16,67% 33,33% 16,67% 33,33% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


142

Table. 62A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & THORAX INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

THORAX AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 5 6

row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%

For this body part half of injuries are due to an impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the 33% of riders receive an injuries impacting with the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression. The percentage of injuries with an AIS 3-6 in this case is very high (83,3%). Looking inside the single injuries categories, Table. 62, we see that the AIS value are similar between the first and second types of obstacles even if the severity of impact with Guardrail Barrier / Post fencing is a little more high.


Project nº 218741


143

3.2.5.5 Spine injuries due to impact with the obstacles Table. 63 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & SPINE INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 3 4 5 6

roadside obstacles


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

other / unknown Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 28,57% 42,86% 14,29% 14,29% 100,00%

The majority of spine injuries are caused by an impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the injuries that concern this body part are all inside the serious AIS band. The injuries with the highest AIS value, how we see in Table. 63, are caused by object that are categorized like other/unknown whereas the maximum AIS caused by known obstacles is 4. Table. 63A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & SPINE INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 7 7

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


144

3.2.5.6 Abdomen injuries due to impact with the obstacles Table. 64 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ABDOMEN INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 2 3 4 6

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 14,29% 28,57% 28,57% 28,57% 100,00%

In this case both the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression are involved in the same numbers of accidents; in general the severity of injuries is high. Looking inside the serious injury band it appears that, even in this case, the severity of injuries due to an impact against the first type of obstacle is a little more higher (the 66,7% of injuries have AIS 4+) than the other obstacles. Table. 64A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ABDOMEN INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

ABDOMEN AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 6 7

row % 14,29% 85,71% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


145

3.2.5.7 Lower extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 65 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 2 3 4 5

roadside obstacles


row % 16,67% 66,67% 16,67% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 22,22% 55,56% 11,11% 11,11% 100,00%

The 67% of low extremities injuries are due to an impact against Guardrail barrier / Post fencing. More than 70 % of injuries have a severity of AIS 3-6 and the type of the impact object have an influence on the level of severity: the 83,3% of injuries due to an impact against the first type of obstacle are serious whereas the injuries due to an impact against the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression are split half in the two bands of severity. The specific AIS associated to the singular injuries don’t never exceed the AIS of 4, except a value of AIS 5 for an injury due to an impact against a other/unknown roadside obstacle. Table. 65A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 7 9

row % 22,22% 77,78% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


146

3.2.5.8 Whole body injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 66 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WHOLE BODY INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 3 4 5 6

roadside obstacles


row % 44,44% 22,22% 11,11% 22,22% 100,00%


Count 2 3 1 6

row % 33,33% 50,00% 16,67% 100,00%


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 33,33% 27,78% 11,11% 27,78% 100,00%

From the whole body injuries, which summarize the single body part injuries, it appears that the half of injuries are caused by impacts against the Guardrail barrier / Post fencing follows by the 33,3% of injuries that the riders suffer when they impacts against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression; in the end 1 out 6 of all injuries are relatived to the impact with other/unknown objects. All the injuries are gather up in the serious injury band regardless the type of roadside obstacles. Nevertheless if we look in details the injuries that stay in this category it appears that the level of injuries severity is higher for the impact with the first type of obstacle than Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression; even the injuries due to an impact with a other/ unknown object have a level of severity over or equal to AIS 5. Table. 66A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WHOLE BODY INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

WHOLE BODY AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 6 6

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 18 18

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


147


3.2.6.1 Wearing helmet on head & Head AIS Table. 67 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WEARING HELMET ON HEAD & HEAD AIS


Total

1 2 4 6


no Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Yes* Count 2 2 3 7

row % 28,57% 28,57% 42,86% 100,00%


row % 25,00% 25,00% 37,50% 12,50% 100,00%

Yes,but ejected from head during crash

Count 1 1

% on yes*modality

33,33% 14,29%


The 87,5% of riders who suffer an head impact wore the helmet at the time of accident. The 57,1% of the riders who wore the helmet report a head injury of AIS 1-2 whereas the only rider that didn’t wear the helmet suffered an head injuries with AIS 6. One out seven riders loses the helmet during crash and the damage reports by this rider is AIS 4 the same that concerns the other two rider for who the helmet didn’t eject during crash. Table. 67A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WEARING HELMET ON HEAD & HEAD AIS BANDS


Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6


no Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

yes Count 4 3 7

row % 57,14% 42,86% 100,00%

Total Count 4 4 8

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


148

3.2.6.2 Was helmet retained in place on head during accidents?

Table. 68 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS? & HEAD AIS


Total 1 2 4 6

WAS HELMET RETAINED IN

PLACE ON HEAD DURING

ACCIDENTS?


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

other/unknown/no helmet Count 1 1 2 1 5

row % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 25,00% 25,00% 37,50% 12,50% 100,00%

Only for three riders we know the behavior of helmet during the accident. The rider for who the helmet remains on head during the accident, modality one of the row variable, has a head AIS equal to 1 whereas the riders who lose the helmet during the accident report an AIS higher than previous rider. Table. 68A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS? & HEAD AIS BANDS


Scale)

Total 1-2 3-6

WAS HELMET RETAINED IN

PLACE ON HEAD DURING

ACCIDENTS?


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

other/unknown/no helmet Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%

Total Count 4 4 8

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


149

3.2.6.3 Type of helmet & Head AIS Table. 69 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: TYPE OF HELMET & HEAD AIS


Total

1 2 4 6

Type of helmet


Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

other/unknown/no helmet

Count 1 1 2 1 5

row % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 20,00% 100,00%


row % 25,00% 25,00% 37,50% 12,50% 100,00%

In this case we go to evaluate if the type of helmet has an influence regard the severity of injuries suffer from the riders. From the data we see that the full face helmet is the only known type of helmet: only three riders wore this type of helmet at the time of accidents. The riders who wear a full face helmet report an AIS that in general is lower than for the riders for who we don’t know the type of helmet wore at the time of accident.

3.2.6.4 Fatal riders: wearing helmet on head?

Table. 70 Number of PTW fatal rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEARING HELMET ON HEAD?


no yes Total

roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Count

row %


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 3 4

row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

We have fatal injuries for which the riders impacted the head against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing: in the 66,7% of cases the riders wore the helmet on head.


Project nº 218741


150

3.2.6.5 Body coverage material Table. 71 Number of PTW fatal rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL


Total

medium cloth

garment, i.e.,

denim, nylon

leather garment unknown

Roadside obstacles


row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 3 5

row % 20,00% 20,00% 60,00% 100,00%

The number of known information, about the body coverage material, is low and the percentage are quite sparse so don’t emerge a clear relationship between the two variables.


Project nº 218741


151

3.2.6.6 Body coverage material & upper extremities AIS Table. 72 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & UPPER EXTREMITIES AIS


Total 2 3



Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

leather garment Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

other/unknown Count 2 1 3

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

Total Count 3 2 5

row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%

Even in this case the body coverage material assumes a known material only for two riders: however we can see that passing from medium cloth to leather garment the severity of injuries are reduced by one AIS point.

3.2.6.7 Body coverage material & Thorax AIS Table. 73 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & THORAX AIS


Total 2 3 4 6


leather garment

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

other/unknown Count 1 1 1 1 4

row % 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 100,00%


row % 20,00% 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 100,00%

For this query we have only one case with a known body coverage material: even if the coverage material is one of the most strong the injuries reported from the rider is the maximum.


Project nº 218741


152

3.2.6.8 Body coverage material & Spine AIS Table. 74 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & SPINE AIS

SPINE AIS (Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total 3 4



Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%

In this case we have only one rider, with a known coverage material, who wore a medium cloth garment: the injuries report an AIS 3 whereas for the other/unknown coverage material the 75% of injuries have an AIS equal to 4.

3.2.6.9 Body coverage material & abdomen AIS Table. 75 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & ABDOMEN AIS


Total 2 3 4 6



Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

other/unknown Count 1 2 1 4

row % 25,00% 50,00% 25,00% 100,00%


row % 16,67% 16,67% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

For the abdomen we see that the strength of the coverage material don’t have a direct influence on prevent the severity of injuries: the leather garment is associated with an injuries AIS 6 whereas the medium cloth is wore by a rider who suffers a less severe injuries respect to the previous rider. In this case many other variables have influenced the severity of abdomen injuries suffered by the riders.


Project nº 218741


153

3.2.6.10 Body coverage material & lower extremities AIS Table. 76 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & LOWER EXTREMITIES AIS


Total 2 3 4



Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%

Total Count 2 5 1 8

row % 25,00% 62,50% 12,50% 100,00%

We know the low extremities coverage material for two riders, who wore a medium cloth garment: for these riders half of injuries is lower and higher than the threshold of AIS 3. Whereas for the other/unknown coverage material the 83,3% of injuries suffer from the riders have an AIS equal to 3.

3.2.6.11 Body coverage material & whole body AIS Table. 77 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL & WHOLE BODY AIS


Total 3 4 5 6



Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

other/unknown Count 6 5 1 1 13

row % 46,15% 38,46% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%


row % 40,00% 33,33% 6,67% 20,00% 100,00%

The whole body coverage material assumes a known value only for two riders but regardless the strength of the material the injuries suffered by the riders is the maximum. For the riders who wore other/unknown type of coverage material the severity category with the highest (46,2%) percentage is AIS 3 follows by AIS 4 (38,5%).


Project nº 218741


154

3.2.7 Relation between the features of the PTW kinematics

3.2.7.1 PTW impact speed & PTW roll attitude angle at impact Table. 78 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: PTW IMPACT SPEED & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT



Total 0-50 51-70 71-

serious injuries


-90-1 Count 1 2 2 5

% of Total 7,69% 15,38% 15,38% 38,46%

0 Count 4 1 2 7

% of Total 30,77% 7,69% 15,38% 53,85%

1-90 Count 1 1

% of Total 7,69% 7,69%


% of Total

38,46% 23,08% 38,46% 100,00%


-90-1 Count 1 1

% of Total 20,00% 20,00%

0 Count 3 1 4

% of Total 60,00% 20,00% 80,00%

1-90 Count

% of Total

Total Count 3 1 1 5

% of Total

60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%

In this crosstable we put in relationship the PTW impact speed with the PTW roll attitude angle at impact with the aim to check if the synergy between the variables has an influence on the severity of the accident. The 60% of fatal injuries happened with a PTW impact speed lower than 50 km/h and a roll angle equal to zero. For the serious injuries about the 30% of accidents happened with the same configuration reports for fatal injuries whereas the 30,8% of accident happened with a speed over 50 km/h and a negative roll angle. Moreover the 15,38% of serious accidents are characterized by a speed over 70 km/h and a roll angle equal to zero.


Project nº 218741


155

3.3 Conclusions

The riders, by the Centro Zaragoza database, who suffer the less severe injuries is hospitalized (38,9%) and the remainders die or are disable as consequence of the accident. For the 80 % of fatal injuries the riders die upon arrival at hospital or in the days after. The impact against the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing is more severe than the impact with the other roadside obstacle: for the former the 63,6% of riders are disabled or suffer a more severe damage (one rider dies on scene of accident) whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the same figure is the 57,1%. In the majority of accidents the PTW impact speed is over 50 km/h, but there is a difference according to the accidents severity: for the fatal accidents in the 60% of cases the speed is lower than 50 km/h whereas for the 61,5% of serious injuries it is higher than 50km/h. The PTW speed at impact changes with the roadside obstacles: for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing in the 72,7% of accidents is higher than 50km/h, whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression in the 71,4% of cases is lower than 51 km/h. Concern to the PTW roll angle: in the 61,1% of accidents the impact on the roadside obstacle have happened with a zero angle and for the 33,3% with a negative roll angle. In the 80% of fatal accidents the roll angle is zero whereas the same figure for the serious is lower (53,9%). The majority of impacts against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing have happened with a roll angle different by zero and imbalance towards the negative value whereas in the 85,7% of the impact against the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the roll angle is zero. Joining the information at impact relative to the PTW speed and roll angle, it emerges that the 60% of fatal injuries happened with a speed less to 50km/h and an angle equal to zero. The 30% of serious injuries happened with a configuration like the fatal whereas the 30,8% are characterized by a speed higher than 50 km/h and a negative roll angle; in the end the 15,38% of accidents, with this level of severity, have a speed higher than 70km/h and a roll angle equal to zero. The PTW sideslip angle at impact ranges between -70 to 30 degree; the 53,9% of accidents have happened with a angle wider than 20 degree. Respect to the severity of accidents, fatal injuries have half of cases inside and outside the 20° bracket around the zero whereas serious injuries have a frequency distribution that follows the marginal row trend. The 71,4% of impact against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing are characterized by a the sideslip angle wider than 20 degree whereas the majority of impact against the other obstacle report an angle inside the (-20,20) degree band. In about the 80% of accidents the frontal part of PTW impacts as first; all the fatal accidents, with a known PTW impact part, have as first contact the front of PTW whereas in the 23% of serious injuries the first contact regards the centre of PTW. Changing the roadside obstacles, we find that for the impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, in the majority (63,6%) of accident the first contact regards the frontal part of PTW follows by the central part; whereas all the accidents against Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression have involved the front of the PTW in the first contact. With regard to the PTW riders speed at impact, we can derive useful information by the serious injuries: the bracket “0-50 km/h” has the highest percentage but in the majority of accidents the rider has a speed higher than 50km/h. The riders, that impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing in the 42,9% of cases, have a speed higher than 71 km/h; whereas for the riders, that impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression, the bracket “0-50 km/h” accounts for the 60% of accidents. The impact angle for the riders who died in the accident was included between 141° and 150° whereas the 75% of riders who received a serious injuries impacted with an angle between 101° and 130°; all the riders who received a serious injuries had the feet towards front at the time of impact whereas in the fatal accidents half of riders had head towards front. The impact angle against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing for the 60% of riders, who had in the majority of cases the feet toward front, was included between 141° and 150°. Whereas the rider that impact


Project nº 218741


156

against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression reports an angle between 121°and 130°. Putting in relationship the above two variables, concern the kinematics of rider at the time of impact, we can summarize that the speed is higher than 50km/h and the angle changes in the bracket 101° - 150° degree. The majority of the riders, during the accident, suffer a slide on the pavement but for the serious injuries the percentage is higher (91,7%) than for the fatal (80%): so we can image that the 20% of the latter suffer a different movement that the slide. When the impact is against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the percentage of riders who slide on the pavement is higher than for those who hit a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression. The figure of 40° split to half the distribution of the variable “rider orientation with respect to the road tangent”. In all the fatal accidents the riders report an angle lower or equal to 40° whereas the 75% riders, who report a serious injuries, impact with an angle higher than 41° degree. In the majority (60%) of impacts against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the orientation angle is lower or equal to 40° whereas the only one rider who impact with the other obstacle reports an angle higher than 41°. In the 40% of fatal injuries the riders have impacted against a barrier post whereas for the serious injuries the same figure is only the 7,7%. The 40% of riders who die in the accident have impacted with the rail of barrier whereas for serious injuries the same figure is about the 15%, the double that the figure relative to the riders who impact against the barrier post. In the 77,8% of accidents the rider suffers only one impact and the percentages decrease if we move from two to three or more impacts. The 84,6% of riders who suffer a serious injuries have one impact with the roadside obstacles whereas for the fatal injuries the same figure is lower. The two types of obstacles have the highest percentage for the “one” impact modality of the variable “PTW rider number of impact”: in the accident with the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing about the 80% of riders have one impact with this obstacle; differently about the 30% of riders suffer two impacts when impact against the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression. Considering the accidents in which the riders remain at scene, after the impact, appear that the 66,7% of these tumble and roll from the point of impact to the point of rest; respect to the severity of the accident the serious injuries have the highest percentage like the total whereas in half of fatal injuries the rider catches by or lands on other vehicle; carries to POR, different from other vehicle POR. For the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing (75%), respect to Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression (50%), is more frequent the situation in which the rider tumbles and rolls from the POI to the POR. In summary the 55,6% of accidents happen in a curve road and specially towards the left (38,9%) direction; the straight road characterized the 27,8% of accidents. The type of horizontal alignment is discriminating respect to the severity of the accident: the majority (60%) of the fatal accidents happened in a straight road follows by the curve right; whereas the 53,9% serious injuries happened in a curve left road. The impact with the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing happened in the 54,6% of accidents in a curve left road whereas only the 14,3% considering the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression; for the latter obstacle the straight road, with the 42,9%, is the type of alignment with the high number of accidents. The roadside in the majority (66,7%) of the accidents is characterized by other/unknown defects and for the remaining cases there aren’t defects; the percentage, for the other/unknown category, is higher for the fatal than for the serious one. The impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing in the 45,5% of accidents happened in a roadside without defects whereas the same figure for the remained obstacles is the 14,3%. The traffic control on path of travel is visible for the 40% of riders involved in a fatal accident and for the 76,9% of riders who suffered a serious injuries. The percentage related to the “no visibility of traffic control in path of travel” is more higher (27,3%) for the impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing than for Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression (14,3%). All the accidents happened in a traffic road: this for the 55,6% is moderate, for the 33,3% is light and in the 11,1% is heavy.


Project nº 218741


157

The level of traffic is related in inverse way with the severity: a higher percentage of fatal accidents happened with light traffic than serious one. The light traffic characterized more frequently the impact with Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing (36,4%) than with Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression (28,6%): the latter reports generally higher percentage for moderate and heavy traffic. For half of the accidents the visibility is not significantly limited; in the 80% of fatal accidents the riders don’t suffer visibility limitation whereas for the serious injuries the same figure is about the half (38,5%). The impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing is less influenced by visibility limitation (for 54,6% of cases there is not visibility limitation) than the impact with the others obstacles (42,9%). The view is obstructed only by mobile obstacle, that in the 77,8% of accidents is represented by an automobile; only for the 5,6% of accidents there is not mobile view obstruction. The automobile obstructs the view of 90% of riders who suffers a serious injuries whereas the 60% of view of dead rider is obstructed by a other/unknown object. When the object of impact is a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing in 81,8% of accidents the view is obstructed by an automobile whereas for the others impact obstacle the same figure is lower. The 83,3% of accidents happened with clear weather and the 11,1% with a cloudy-party cloudy sky. The 20% of fatal injuries happened with cloudy weather whereas the same figure for the serious injuries is the 7,7%; nevertheless the precipitation don’t have an important influence on the accidents: only the impact with Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing is influenced by the rain in 9,1% of accidents. In the majority (83,3%) of accidents was presented a roadside contamination obstacle but only for the 33,3% of these is represented by a known element: water or gravel. For the PTW impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the water represents the most known common (27,3%) contamination obstacle. Considering the specific body part damage we find that the 70% of the head injuries are relative to the impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the 57,1% of these have a severity of AIS 3+: for 3 out 4 riders the AIS is equal to 4 or high. The 87,5% of riders who suffer an head impact wore the helmet at the time of accident and the 57,1% of these report a head injury with AIS 1-2; whereas the only rider that didn’t wear the helmet reports AIS 6. One out seven riders loses the helmet during crash and the damage reports by this rider is AIS 4. Whereas the rider, for who the helmet retains in place to completion of accident, the head AIS is equal to 1. The riders who wore a full face helmet reported an AIS that in general is lower than for the riders for who we don’t know the type of helmet wore at the time of accident. Between the rider who died in the accidents, the 66,7% of these wore the helmet on head and impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing. Coming down from head to upper extremities we find that the 57% of injuries are due to the impacts against Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the 28,6% to the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression; the 75 % of riders who impact with the first type of obstacle suffer an AIS equal to 3 whereas impacting with the second type of obstacle all the injuries have an AIS of 1 or 2. For the thorax half of injuries are due to an impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the 33% of the remainders injuries are due to the impact with a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression. Looking inside the single injuries categories appears that the severity of impact, with Guardrail Barrier / Post fencing, is higher respect to the other obstacles. The majority of spine injuries, caused by the impact with known obstacles, are suffered against the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the severity is AIS 3 or more.The injuries with the highest AIS (5 or 6) are caused by object that are categorized like other/unknown. There is the same number of riders that receive an abdomen injury by the impact against Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression: even for this body part the severity of injuries due to the impact with the former obstacle is a little more higher (the 66,7% of injuries have an AIS over 3) than the second. The 67% of low extremities injuries are due to an impact against Guardrail barrier / Post fencing: the 83,3% of these injuries are serious (AIS 3-6) whereas the 50% of injuries due to an


Project nº 218741


158

impact against the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression are slight (AIS1-2). The maximum AIS, between known obstacle, don’t never exceed the AIS 4. The information regard the body coverage material are not very significative and they are relative to a low number of riders; considering the upper extremities protection it appears that passing from medium cloth to leather garment the severity of injuries are reduced by one AIS point. However others variables have a higher influence, than coverage material, in relationship with the severity of accident because we see that the strength of the coverage material don’t have a direct influence on prevent the severity of body injuries.


Project nº 218741


159

4 Applus IDIADA: in-depth motorcycle accident investigations


Table. 79 Summary information “ Number of accidents, fatal accidents and fatalities by motor displacement”

counts % on total

n° of accidents

moped

motorcycle 28 100,00%

total 28 100,00%


moped


total 24 100,00%

n° of fatalities

moped


total 25 100,00%

The Applus IDIADA in-depth accident investigation concerns only motorcycle: in total there are 28 accidents of which 24 are fatal and one of these accounts for two fatalities.


Project nº 218741


160

4.2 Data analysis


4.2.1.1 PTW impact speed

Table. 80 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED




slight injuries

roadside

obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

roadside

obstacles

Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 1 3

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 46,15% 53,85% 100,00%


Count 2 2 5 9

row % 22,22% 22,22% 55,56% 100,00%

Other / unknown Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 8,33% 33,33% 58,33% 100,00%

fatalities

roadside obstacles


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2 5 9

row % 22,22% 22,22% 55,56% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 8,00% 36,00% 56,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


161

We have a known PTW impact speed for twelve accidents: for all of these the speed is over 50km/h. Especially for the 83,3% of these the impact speed is higher than 70 km/h. Respect to the severity of the accidents there are some differences between serious and fatal injuries: the former are represented by two accidents for which the speed is over 70 km/h whereas for the 20% of fatal injuries the PTW speed is included between 51 and 70 km/h. Considering the type of the roadside obstacle we find that the PTW speed changes with the obstacle: when the impact is against a Guardrail barrier / Post fencing the speed for all the PTW is higher than 70 km/h whereas the 40% of PTWs that impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression have a speed between 51 and 70km/h. Table. 80A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW IMPACT SPEED


[km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71-


serious injuries

Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 2 8 10

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 10 12

row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%


Table. 80B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED


Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 10 12

row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%



Project nº 218741


162




Total -90-1 0 1-90 unknown

slight injuries

roadside

obstacles


row % 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 30,77% 30,77% 23,08% 15,38% 100,00%


Count 1 3 1 4 9

row % 11,11% 33,33% 11,11% 44,44% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 20,83% 29,17% 25,00% 25,00% 100,00%

fatalities


row % 28,57% 28,57% 21,43% 21,43% 100,00%


Count 1 3 1 4 9

row % 11,11% 33,33% 11,11% 44,44% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 20,00% 28,00% 24,00% 28,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


163

Table. 81A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -90-1 0 1-90


serious injuries

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 27,78% 38,89% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 28,57% 38,10% 33,33% 100,00%


The PTW roll angle category which accounts for the highest percentage (38,10%) is zero degree follows by the positive roll angle (33,3%). Comparing the PTW roll angle respect to the severity of the accidents we find that in the accidents, that are fatal for the rider, the roll angle category with the highest percentage (38,9%) is zero whereas for the serious injuries the frequencies are equal-distributed between the roll angle categories. Considering the obstacles we find that the roll angle wideness change with the type of obstacle: for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the majority o accidents are characterized by an angle different from zero and the category with accounts for the highest (41,7%) percentage is that which regards negative angles. Whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the 57,1% of accidents have happened with a roll angle equal to zero. In the end for the other / unknown obstacle all the accidents are characterized by a positive angle. Table. 81B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -90-1 0 1-90

Roadside obstacles


row % 41,67% 33,33% 25,00% 100,00%


Count 1 4 2 7

row % 14,29% 57,14% 28,57% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 28,57% 38,10% 33,33% 100,00%



Project nº 218741


164




Total

-90-8

1

0-1

0

41-5

0

61-7

0

171-1

80

un

kno

wn

slig

ht in

juries

roadside

obstacles Guardrail barrier/

Posts fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious inju

ries



row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

fata

l

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 1 10 13

row % 7,69% 7,69% 7,69% 76,92% 100,00%


Count 1 1 7 9

row % 11,11% 11,11% 77,78% 100,00%

Other / unknown Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total

Count 1 1 2 1 1 18 24

row % 4,17% 4,17% 8,33% 4,17% 4,17% 75,00% 100,00%

fata

litie

s

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 1 11 14

row % 7,14% 7,14% 7,14% 78,57% 100,00%


Count 1 1 7 9

row % 11,11% 11,11% 77,78% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total

Count 1 1 2 1 1 19 25

row % 4,00% 4,00% 8,00% 4,00% 4,00% 76,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


165



Total -1 0-10 11+


serious injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

fatal Count 1 1 4 6

row % 16,67% 16,67% 66,67% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 5 7

row % 14,29% 14,29% 71,43% 100,00%


We have only seven accidents with a known PTW sideslip angle at impact and the majority of cases (71,4%) report an angle equal or over eleven degree whereas the others sideslip angle categories have the same percentage (14,3%). For the fatal injuries we find a percentual distribution that respects the marginal row trend. Comparing the types of obstacle we find a different percentual trend between the types of obstacle: Buildings structures/embankment/tree and other/unknown obstacles have all the cases in the 11+ category whereas for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the frequencies are equal-distributed between the categories of the column variable. Table. 82B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT


Total -1 0-10 11+

Roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 5 7

row % 14,29% 14,29% 71,43% 100,00%



Project nº 218741


166

4.2.1.4 PTW first collision contact

Table. 83 Number of accidents by severity related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE



Total front

centre

rear

oth

er/

unknow

n/

no c

onta

ct

slight injuries

roadside

obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts

fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries


fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


Count 6 4 1 2 13

row % 46,15% 30,77% 7,69% 15,38% 100,00%


Count 4 1 1 3 9

row % 44,44% 11,11% 11,11% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 45,83% 25,00% 8,33% 20,83% 100,00%

fatalities


fencing Count 6 4 1 3 14

row % 42,86% 28,57% 7,14% 21,43% 100,00%


Count 4 1 1 3 9

row % 44,44% 11,11% 11,11% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 44,00% 24,00% 8,00% 24,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


167

Table. 83A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE


Total

front

centre

rear

oth

er/

unknow

n/

no c

onta

ct


slight injuries

Count

1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 45,83% 25,00% 8,33% 20,83% 100,00%


row % 42,86% 28,57% 7,14% 21,43% 100,00%

The motorcycle part most involved (42,9%) as first in the accidents is the front follows by the centre (28,6%). Considering if the PTW part, of first impact with the obstacle, influenced the severity of the accident it appears that in the 45,8% of fatal injuries the first contact regards the front of PTW whereas for the serious injuries the same figure is about ten percentual points lower. The serious injuries are characterized by the 66,7% of first impacts in the centre o PTW. Another difference between fatal and serious regards the fact that the former have a percentage of the 8,33 for the rear of PTW (as first impact) whereas the serious injuries don’t report any cases for this part of PTW. For the impact against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing and Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the PTW part most involved for the first contact is the front, with a percentage about 40%, even if for the first obstacle, respect to the second, there is a higher percentage for the centre of PTW (33,3%). Table. 83B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE


Total

front

centre

rear

oth

er/

unknow

n/

no c

onta

ct

roadside obstacles


Count 6 5 1 3 15

row % 40,00% 33,33% 6,67% 20,00% 100,00%


Count 5 2 1 3 11

row % 45,45% 18,18% 9,09% 27,27% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 42,86% 28,57% 7,14% 21,43% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


168

4.2.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematic

4.2.2.1 PTW rider speed at impact Table. 84 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT




slight injuries

roadside

obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 1 3

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 46,15% 53,85% 100,00%


Count 2 2 5 9

row % 22,22% 22,22% 55,56% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 8,33% 33,33% 58,33% 100,00%

fatalities

roadside obstacles


row % 53,85% 53,85% 100,00%


Count 4 5 9

row % 44,44% 55,56% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 41,67% 58,33% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


169

Table. 84A Number of accidents* related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT

PTW Rider Speed at Impact

categories [km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71-


serious injuries Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 2 8 10

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 10 12

row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%


For about the 83% of riders the speed at impact is higher than 70 km/h: for serious injuries, only two cases, all the riders report the maximum speed whereas for the fatal injuries this percentage is the 80%. The object of impact is related to the speed of the rider: when this impacts against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the speed is always higher than 70 km/h whereas for the other obstacle the 40% of riders have impacted with a speed between 51 and 70 km/h. Table. 84B Number of accidents* related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT


Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 2 3 5

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 10 12

row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%



Project nº 218741


170

4.2.2.2 PTW rider impact angle Table.85 Number of accidents*, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE



90-1

00

121-1

30

Total

fatal roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing

H

Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

fatalities roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing

H

Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW rider impact angle

We know the impact angle only for two riders that impact against a Guardrail barrier / Post fencing with the head towards front. For one rider the angle is included between 90 and 100° and for the other is included in the band 121-130°.

4.2.2.3 PTW rider impact speed & PTW rider impact angle

Table.86 Number of fatal accidents* related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT SPEED & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

Fatal accidents


0-50 51-70 71+ Total

PTW RIDER

IMPACT

ANGLE [deg]

90-100

Count 1 1

total % 100,00% 100,00%

121-130 Count 1 1

total % 100,00% 100,00%

Total

Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW rider impact angle and rider impact speed

Summarizing the information about the PTW rider impact speed and impact angle, it emerges that in fatal accidents the speed is high, over 70 km/h, and the impact angle ranges between 90 and 130 degree.


Project nº 218741


171

4.2.2.4 PTW rider sliding on back/front?

Table. 87 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK / FRONT ?



Total yes no

slight injuries

roadside

obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 1 3

row %

66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 30,77% 69,23% 100,00%


Count 9 9

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 6 18 24

row %

25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

fatalities

roadside obstacles


row % 28,57% 71,43% 100,00%


Count 9 9

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 6 19 25

row %

24,00% 76,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


172

Table. 87A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK / FRONT ?


Total yes no


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 2 1 3

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

Fatal Count 6 18 24

row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

Total Count 9 19 28

row % 32,14% 67,86% 100,00%

The 67,9% of the riders during the accident don’t slide on the roadside pavement. Between the levels of accidents severity we find an interesting findings: in the 75% of fatal accidents the rider don’t suffer a slide movement whereas for the serious injuries the 66,7% of riders slide on back or front on the pavement. Both for the impact against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing and Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the riders in the majority of cases don’t suffer a slide on the pavement: nevertheless the percentage of “no sliding” for the second type of obstacle is more higher (90,9%) than for the former. Table. 87B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK / FRONT ?


Total yes no

roadside obstacles


row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%


Count 1 10 11

row % 9,09% 90,91% 100,00%

Other/unknown Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 9 19 28

row % 32,14% 67,86% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


173

4.2.2.5 PTW rider impact orientation with respect to road tangent

Table. 88 Number of accidents*, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT


PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD

TANGENT

31-40 81-90 Total

fatal roadside obstacles


H

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,3% 66,7% 100,0%

Total Count 1 2 3

row % 33,3% 66,7% 100,0%

fatalities roadside obstacles


H

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,3% 66,7% 100,0%

Total Count 1 2 3

row % 33,3% 66,7% 100,0%


The information on rider orientation with respect to road tangent is available only for the fatal injuries and the number of valid information accounts to three cases. All the riders impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing and with the head towards front; the angle of impact respect to road tangent in the 66,7% of cases is between 81 and 90 degree and the remaining rider has an angle included in the 31-40 degree band.


Project nº 218741


174

4.2.2.6 PTW rider impact on barrier post?

Table. 89 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ON BARRIER POST?

PTW Rider impact on barrier post ?

Total yes no


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 5 19 24

row % 20,83% 79,17% 100,00%

Total Count 5 23 28

row % 17,86% 82,14% 100,00%

Fatalities

Count 5 20 25

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

In the 82,1% of accidents the riders don’t impact on barrier post: if we look inside the level of injuries severity it appears that for fatal injuries in the 20,8% of accidents the riders impact on barrier post whereas for the less severe injuries the rider doesn’t impact on the post of barrier.

4.2.2.7 PTW rider impact on rail of barrier?

Table. 90 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ON RAIL OF BARRIER ?

PTW Rider impact on rail barrier post ?

Total yes no


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 4 20 24

row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%

Total Count 4 24 28

row % 14,29% 85,71% 100,00%

Fatalies

Count 4 21 25

row % 16,00% 84,00% 100,00%

Even in this case only for the fatal injuries the rider impacts against one elements of roadside barrier: the percentage of riders who impact against the rail of barrier is lower (16,67%) than the number of rider who impact against the post of barrier (20,8%).


Project nº 218741


175




Total 1 2 3+

slight injuries

roadside

obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 1 1

row % 100,00%

100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00%

100,00%

serious injuries


row % 100,00%

100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 2 1 3

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles


row % 61,54% 30,77% 7,69% 100,00%


Count 8 1 9

row % 88,89% 11,11% 100,00%

Other/ unknown Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 70,83% 25,00% 4,17% 100,00%

fatalities

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 9 4 1 14

row % 64,29% 28,57% 7,14% 100,00%


Count 8 1 9

row % 88,89% 11,11% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 72,00% 24,00% 4,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


176


PTW RIDER NUMBER OF

IMPACTS

Total 1 2 3+


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 2 1 3

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 70,83% 25,00% 4,17% 100,00%


row % 71,43% 25,00% 3,57% 100,00%

The 71,4% of riders suffer only one impact, with the obstacle, during the accident following by decreasing percentages as the number of impact increases. Across the categories of accident severity we see that the fatal injuries, respect to the serious, has a higher percentage of cases for the rider who suffers one and three or more impacts whereas the serious injuries reports, respect to the fatal, a higher percentage for the rider who suffers two impacts. Between the known roadside obstacles the number of impacts differs respect to the kind of obstacle: the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing has a higher percentage for the two and three+ impacts categories than Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression which instead have a higher percentage for the one impact category (81,8%). Table. 91B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS

PTW RIDER NUMBER

OF IMPACTS

Total 1 2 3+

roadside obstacles


row % 66,67% 26,67% 6,67% 100,00%


Count 9 2 11

row % 81,82% 18,18% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 71,43% 25,00% 3,57% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


177

4.2.2.9 Rider motion (post crash)

Table. 92 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & RIDER MOTION CODE (POST-CRASH)



02 03 05 06 07 08 09 11 14 98 Total

slig

ht in

juries

roadside


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

serious inju

ries


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 1 3

row %

33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

fata

l in

juries

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 13

row % 7,69% 7,69% 15,38% 23,08% 7,69% 15,38% 7,69% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%


Count 3 2 1 2 1 9

row % 33,33% 22,22% 11,11% 22,22% 11,11% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 4 1 1 2 5 1 3 2 3 2 24

row %

16,67% 4,17% 4,17% 8,33% 20,83% 4,17% 12,50% 8,33% 12,50% 8,33% 100,00%

fata

litie

s

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 14

row % 7,14% 7,14% 14,29% 28,57% 7,14% 14,29% 7,14% 7,14% 7,14% 100,00%


Count 3 2 1 2 1 9

row % 33,33% 22,22% 11,11% 22,22% 11,11% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 4 1 1 2 6 1 3 2 3 2 25

row %

16,00% 4,00% 4,00% 8,00% 24,00% 4,00% 12,00% 8,00% 12,00% 8,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


178

02-stopped within 2 m of POI 03-tumbled and rolled from POI to POR 05-skidded, slid from POI to POR 06-skidded, slid from POI, then impacted other object at POR 07-vaulted above ride height from POI, then rolled to POR 08-vaulted above ride height from POI, then slid to POR 09-vaulted above ride height from POI, then impacted other object at POR 11-run over, dragged from POI to POR 14-did not separate from motorcycle, rode from POI to POR; POR same as motorcycle POR 98-other /unknown

Table. 92A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & RIDER MOTION (POST-CRASH)


02 03 05 06 07 08 09 11 14 98 Total


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

Fatal Count 4 1 1 2 5 1 3 2 3 2 24

row % 16,67% 4,17% 4,17% 8,33% 20,83% 4,17% 12,50% 8,33% 12,50% 8,33% 100,00%

Total Count 4 2 3 2 5 1 3 2 4 2 28

row % 14,29% 7,14% 10,71% 7,14% 17,86% 3,57% 10,71% 7,14% 14,29% 7,14% 100,00%

The motion categories with the highest (17,9%) percentage is the modality number 7 for which the rider “vaults above ride height from POI, then rolls to POR” follows by a percentage of 14,3% for the modalities in which the rider “stops within 2 m of POI” or “do not separate from motorcycle, ride from POI to POR; POR same as motorcycle POR”; in the end with a percentual value of 10,7% we find the motion in which the rider “skids, slides from POI to POR” and “vaults above ride height from POI, then impacts other object at POR”. All the other modalities have a percentual values lower than ten percentual points. Considering the values of the column variable inside the levels of accidents severity, for the fatal injuries we find a frequency distribution similar to the marginal row whereas for serious injuries we find cases, with the same percentage of 33,3%, only for the follow modalities: the rider “tumbles and rolls from POI to POR” or “skids, slides from POI to POR” or “do not separate from motorcycle, rides from POI to POR; POR same as motorcycle POR”.


Project nº 218741


179

Table. 92B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & RIDER MOTION (POST-CRASH)


02 03 05 06 07 08 09 11 14 98 Total



Count 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 15

row % 6,67% 6,67% 13,33% 13,33% 20,00% 6,67% 13,33% 6,67% 6,67% 6,67% 100,00%

Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression

Count 3 1 2 1 3 1 11

row % 27,27% 9,09% 18,18% 9,09% 27,27% 9,09% 100,00%

Other / unknown

Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 4 2 3 2 5 1 3 2 4 2 28

row % 14,29% 7,14% 10,71% 7,14% 17,86% 3,57% 10,71% 7,14% 14,29% 7,14% 100,00%

The rider post crash motion shows some differences between the types of roadside obstacles. For the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the post crash motions modalities with a percentage higher than ten are: “vault above ride height from POI, then roll to POR ( 20%)”,” skid, slide from POI to POR (13,3%)”, “skid, slide from POI, then impact other object at POR (13,3%)” and “vault above ride height from POI, then impact other object at POR (13,3%)” . For this type of obstacle we can summarize that in the first step of motion development there are two typical situation: “the rider is vault above ride height from POI” and for the other “the rider skids, slides from POI”. Whereas for the impact against a Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression the post crash motions modalities with the highest percentage are: “stop within 2 m of POI (27,3%)”, “do not separate from motorcycle, rode from POI to POR; POR same as motorcycle POR (27,3%)” and “vaults above ride height from POI, then rolls to POR (18,2%)”.


Project nº 218741


180


4.2.3.1 Roadway horizontal alignment Table. 93 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT




curve left other

slight injuries

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

roadside


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 2 3

row %

33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

fatal injuries


row % 15,38% 61,54% 23,08% 100,00%


Count 1 4 4 9

row % 11,11% 44,44% 44,44% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row %

8,33% 29,17% 50,00% 12,50% 100,00%

fatalities


row % 14,29% 64,29% 21,43% 100,00%


Count 1 4 4 9

row % 11,11% 44,44% 44,44% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row %

8,00% 28,00% 52,00% 12,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


181

Table. 93A Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ACCIDENT SEVERITY & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT




slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 8,33% 29,17% 50,00% 12,50% 100,00%


row % 7,14% 28,57% 53,57% 10,71% 100,00%

How we can see, in Table. 93A, the majority (82,1%) of accidents happen in a curve road whereas only the 7,1% of these happen in a straight roadway. Anyway, regardless the severity of the accident, the curve left is the modality of the roadway alignment which accounts for the highest percentage. Fatal injuries, differently from the others levels of severity, in the 8,3 and 12,5% happened respectively in a straight and other alignment roadway. Respect to the curve roadway we find a higher percentage of accidents in which the PTW impact in a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression than for the impact against a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing: nevertheless for the former obstacles the frequencies are balanced between the left and right curve whereas for the second obstacle the curve left accounts for the 66,7% of accidents. For the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression differently than for Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the 9,01% off accidents happen in a straight roadway whereas for the second the 20% of accidents are characterize by a roadway with a no defined modality. Table. 93B Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT



curve left other

roadside obstacles


row % 13,33% 66,67% 20,00% 100,00%


Count 1 5 5 11

row % 9,09% 45,45% 45,45% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 7,14% 28,57% 53,57% 10,71% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


182


4.2.4.1 Condition and defects Table. 94 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & CONDITION AND DEFECTS


CONDITION AND DEFECTS

Total sp

alli

ng

, i.e

.,

bre

akin

g u

p,

sp

linte

rin

g

bu

mp

pa

inte

d

roa

dw

ay

ma

rkin

gs

oth

er

/

un

kno

wn

no

ne

slig

ht

inju

rie

s

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

se

riou

s in

juri

es

roadside

obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row %

50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

fata

l

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 11 13

row % 7,69% 7,69% 84,62% 100,00%


Count 1 8 9

row %

11,11% 88,89% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 4,17% 4,17% 4,17% 4,17% 83,33% 100,00%

fata

litie

s


Posts fencing Count

1 1 12 14

row % 7,14% 7,14% 85,71% 100,00%


Count 1 8 9

row % 11,11% 88,89% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 4,00% 4,00% 4,00% 4,00% 84,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


183

Table. 94A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & CONDITION AND DEFECTS


Total spalli

ng, i.e.,

bre

akin

g u

p,

splin

tering

bum

p

pain

ted

roadw

ay

mark

ings

oth

er /

unknow

n

none


slight injuries Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 1 1 1 20 24

row % 4,17% 4,17% 4,17% 4,17% 83,33% 100,00%


row % 3,57% 3,57% 3,57% 7,14% 82,14% 100,00%

Only for three fatal accidents we have a known value (“spalling, i.e., breaking up, splintering” or “bump” or “painted roadway markings”) for the condition and defects variable. In the 82,1% of accidents are not present conditions or defects and this figure have a higher value for fatal injuries than for the serious one. When the roadside obstacles of impact is a Guardrail barrier / Post fencing in the 13,3% of accidents are present condition and defect like “bump” or “painted roadway markings”. Table. 94B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & CONDITION AND DEFECTS


Total spalli

ng, i.e.,

bre

akin

g u

p,

splin

tering

bum

p

pain

ted

roadw

ay

mark

ings

oth

er /

unknow

n

none

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 13 15

row % 6,67% 6,67% 86,67% 100,00%


Count 2 9 11

row % 18,18% 81,82% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 3,57% 3,57% 3,57% 7,14% 82,14% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


184

4.2.4.2 Traffic control on path of travel visibility Table.95 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES &TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY


Traffic control on path of travel is visible to PTW rider?

Total none yes other/unknown

slig

ht

inju

rie

s

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

se

riou

s in

juri

es

roadside



row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 2 3

row %

33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

fata

l


Posts fencing Count 2 10 1 13

row % 15,38% 76,92% 7,69% 100,00%


Count 3 6 9

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row %

29,17% 66,67% 4,17% 100,00%

fata

litie

s



row % 14,29% 78,57% 7,14% 100,00%


Count 3 6 9

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row %

28,00% 68,00% 4,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


185

Table.95A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY




unknown


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 29,17% 66,67% 4,17% 100,00%


row % 32,14% 64,29% 3,57% 100,00%

The traffic control on path of travel for the 64,3% of accidents is visible to the PTW rider and for the levels of severity the percentuals are quite similar between fatal and serious injuries whereas the traffic control is not visible for the rider that reports a slight injury. For the impact against a Guardrail barrier / Post fencing the percentage related to the visibility condition is higher than for the other types of obstacles that instead reports a higher percentage for the no visibility of traffic control on path of travel. Table.95B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES &TRAFFIC CONTROL ON PATH OF TRAVEL VISIBILITY



unknown

roadside obstacles


Count 3 11 1 15

row % 20,00% 73,33% 6,67% 100,00%


Count 4 7 11

row % 36,36% 63,64% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 32,14% 64,29% 3,57% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


186

4.2.4.3 Traffic density at time of accident Table. 96 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT



Total light traffic

moderate traffic

no other traffic

slig

ht in

juries

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious inju

ries

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

fata

l in

juries

roadside obstacles


Count 9 1 3 13

row % 69,23% 7,69% 23,08% 100,00%


Count 5 4 9

row % 55,56% 44,44% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 62,50% 4,17% 33,33% 100,00%

fata

litie

s

roadside obstacles


Count 9 1 4 14

row % 64,29% 7,14% 28,57% 100,00%


Count 5 4 9

row % 55,56% 44,44% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 60,00% 4,00% 36,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


187

Table. 96A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT


Total light traffic

moderate traffic

no other traffic


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 62,50% 4,17% 33,33% 100,00%


row % 60,71% 7,14% 32,14% 100,00%

The majority (67,8%) of accidents happen in a traffic road and the 89,5% of these are characterized by a light traffic. Between the severity levels of the accidents we find some difference: the 62,5% of fatal accidents are characterized by light traffic and the 33,3% by no traffic; whereas for the serious injuries the frequencies are equal-distributes between the column variable. Respect to the impact object type we find that the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing is the obstacle with the highest (66,7%) percentage of accidents that happen with a light traffic whereas the other/unknown and Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression obstacles have a percentual distribution quite balanced between light and no other traffic conditions. The first type of obstacle, according to the row order in Table. 96B, is the unique that reports accidents in a condition of moderate traffic. Table. 96B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT TIME OF ACCIDENT


Total light traffic

moderate traffic

no other traffic

roadside obstacles


Count 10 2 3 15

row % 66,67% 13,33% 20,00% 100,00%


Count 6 5 11

row % 54,55% 45,45% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 60,71% 7,14% 32,14% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


188

4.2.4.4 Visibility limitation Table. 97 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION



Total glare


significantly limited

slig

ht

inju

rie

s

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

se

riou

s in

juri

es

roadside


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%

fata

l in

juri

es


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 8 9

row % 11,11% 88,89% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 23 24

row % 4,17% 95,83% 100,00%

fata

litie

s


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 8 9

row % 11,11% 88,89% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 24 25

row % 4,00% 96,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


189

Table. 97A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & VISIBILITY LIMITATION



Total glare none, visibility not significantly limited


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 23 24

row % 4,17% 95,83% 100,00%

Total Count 1 27 28

row % 3,57% 96,43% 100,00%

In the 96,4% of accidents the rider visibility isn’t limited: between the levels of the severity of the accidents are not present appreciable differences: only for the fatal accidents in the 4,2% of cases the visibility is limited by glare. Only for the impact against Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression in the 9,1% of accidents the visibility is limited whereas for the others obstacles is not present any type of limitation. Table. 97B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION


Total glare none, visibility not significantly limited

roadside obstacles


Count 15 15

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 10 11

row % 9,09% 90,91% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 27 28

row % 3,57% 96,43% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


190


Table. 98 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT severity of the accidents

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT

TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total signs hill

blind curve none

slig

ht

inju

rie

s

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

se

riou

s in

juri

es

roadside



row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 2 3

row %

33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

fata

l in

juri

es



row % 7,69% 30,77% 61,54% 100,00%


Count 1 1 7 9

row % 11,11% 11,11% 77,78% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row %

4,17% 4,17% 20,83% 70,83% 100,00%

fata

litie

s



row % 7,14% 28,57% 64,29% 100,00%


Count 1 1 7 9

row % 11,11% 11,11% 77,78% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row %

4,00% 4,00% 20,00% 72,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


191

Table. 98A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT


STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF

PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total signs hill blind curve none


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 4,17% 4,17% 20,83% 70,83% 100,00%


row % 3,57% 7,14% 25,00% 64,29% 100,00%

The riders in the 64,3% of accidents, at the time of the precipitating event, don’t have stationary view obstructions whereas the blind curve is the most common type of view obstructions for the 25% of accidents follows by hill and signs. We notice a clear difference, respect to this variable, between fatal and serious injuries: for the former in the 70,8% of accidents there isn’t view obstructions whereas the serious injuries for the majority (66,7%) of accidents reports a view obstruction represented by a blind curve and for the 33,3% by a hill: the same figures for the fatal accident are lower. The different obstacles show the highest percentage for the absence of obstruction: this modality for the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing is followed, with a decreasing percentage, by blind curve (33,3%) whereas for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression is followed, with the same percentage of 18,2%, by hill and blind curve obstructions. Table. 98B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE

RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total signs hill

blind curve none

roadside obstacles


row % 6,67% 33,33% 60,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2 7 11

row % 18,18% 18,18% 63,64% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row %

3,57% 7,14% 25,00% 64,29% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


192

4.2.4.6 Mobile view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event

Table. 99 Number of accidents, by severity, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT severity of the accidents


PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total animal none

slig

ht

inju

rie

s

roadside obstacles


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

se

riou

s in

juri

es

roadside


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 3

row %

100,00% 100,00%

fata

l in

juri

es


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 9 9

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 23 24

row %

4,17% 95,83% 100,00%

fata

litie

s


row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 9 9

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 24 25

row %

4,00% 96,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


193


MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING

EVENT

Total animal none


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 1 23 24

row % 4,17% 95,83% 100,00%

Total Count 1 27 28

row % 3,57% 96,43% 100,00%

The riders in the 96,4% of accidents don’t suffer a mobile view obstruction, only for the 4,2% of fatal accidents the view is occluded by an animal. Regard to the type of obstacle there are no differences respect to the mobile view obstruction: only the other/unknown obstacles reports one case for which the view is occluded whereas for the other types of obstacles the view is never obstructed by a mobile obstacle. Table. 99B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT


PRECIPITATING EVENT

Total animal none

roadside obstacles


Count 15 15

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 11 11

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 27 28

row %

3,57% 96,43% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


194



WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

cle

ar

clo

udy,

partly

clo

udy

slig

ht

inju

rie

s

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

se

riou

s in

juri

es

roadside



row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%

fata

l in

juri

es



row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 8 1 9

row % 88,89% 11,11% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 23 1 24

row % 95,83% 4,17% 100,00%

fata

litie

s



row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 8 1 9

row % 88,89% 11,11% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 24 1 25

row % 96,00% 4,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


195



WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

cle

ar

clo

udy, partly

clo

udy


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 3 3

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal Count 23 1 24

row % 95,83% 4,17% 100,00%

Total Count 27 1 28

row % 96,43% 3,57% 100,00%

In about the 96% of accidents the weather is clear, only for the fatal one in the 4,2% of cases the weather is cloudy or partly cloudy. The accidents, according to the different types of obstacles, don’t show change in the weather condition: the only accident, for which the weather is cloudy, regards a PTW which impacts against a Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression. Table. 100B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEATHER DESCRIPTION

WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

cle

ar

clo

udy,

partly

clo

udy

roadside obstacles


Count 15 15

row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 10 1 11

row % 90,91% 9,09% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 27 1 28

row % 96,43% 3,57% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


196

4.2.4.8 Roadside contamination obstacles

Table. 101 Number of accidents by severity related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES



Total

gra

vel

tem

pora

ry s

ign

board

oth

er/unknow

n

none

slig

ht

inju

rie

s

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

se

riou

s in

juri

es

roadside



row % 100,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

fata

l in

juri

es



row % 7,69% 7,69% 84,62% 100,00%


Count 2 1 6 9

row % 22,22% 11,11% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 12,50% 4,17% 4,17% 79,17% 100,00%

fata

litie

s



row % 7,14% 7,14% 85,71% 100,00%


Count 2 1 6 9

row % 22,22% 11,11% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 12,00% 4,00% 4,00% 80,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


197

Table. 101A Number of accidents related to: SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENTS & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES


Total

gra

vel

tem

pora

ry s

ign

board

oth

er/unknow

n

none


slight injuries

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

serious injuries

Count 1 2 3

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


row % 12,50% 4,17% 4,17% 79,17% 100,00%


row % 17,86% 3,57% 3,57% 75,00% 100,00%

The accidents in the 75% of cases is not characterized by roadside contamination obstacles; the most common type (17,7%) of contamination obstacles is gravel follows by temporary sign board (3,6%). The fatal injuries have a more higher percentual (79,2%) of cases of no contamination obstacles than serious injuries: the 33,3% of serious injuries come from accidents for which the gravel is present on the roadside, the same figures for fatal injuries is lower. For the impact against Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression for the 27,3% of accidents, on the roadside, is present the gravel; the latter contamination obstacle characterized the 13,3% of the impact against the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing for which in the 6,7% of cases is present roadside temporary sign board. Table. 101B Number of accidents related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES


Total

gra

vel

tem

pora

ry s

ign

board

oth

er/unknow

n

none

roadside obstacles


Count 2 1 12 15

row % 13,33% 6,67% 80,00% 100,00%


Count 3 1 7 11

row %

27,27% 9,09% 63,64% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 17,86% 3,57% 3,57% 75,00% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


198


4.2.5.1 Trauma status Table. 102 Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAUMA STATUS

TRAUMA STATUS

Total

firs

t aid

at

scene o

nly

hospitaliz

ed

fata

l, d

ead o

n

scene

fata

l, d

ead

upon a

rriv

al at

hospital

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 13 1 16

row % 6,25% 6,25% 81,25% 6,25% 100,00%


Count 2 8 1 11

row % 18,18% 72,73% 9,09% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 3,45% 10,34% 79,31% 6,90% 100,00%

The 86,2% of riders suffer a fatal injury and the 10,4% of riders are hospitalized. The impact against Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing has a higher (87,5%) fatality than the impact against Buildings structures/embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression:for the former the 6,25% of riders is hospitalized and the same percentage of riders receive a first aid whereas for the second obstacles the 18,2% of riders is hospitalized. Moreover there are two fatal accidents for which the riders impact against a other/unknown object. In the high majority of fatal accident, regardless the type of obstacles, the riders dead on scene of accident: the fatality on scene is the highest for other / unknown obstacle follows, with decreasing percentages, by Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and Buildings structures/embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression. Table. 102A Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & GROUPED TRAUMA STATUS

TRAUMA STATUS

Total first aid hospitalized fatal

roadside obstacles


Count 1 1 14 16

row % 6,25% 6,25% 87,50% 100,00%


Count 2 9 11

row % 18,18% 81,82% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 3,45% 10,34% 86,21% 100,00%


Project nº 218741


199

4.2.5.2 Head injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 103 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 6 NFS

roadside obstacles


row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%


Count 3 8 11

row % 27,27% 72,73% 100,00%

Other/unknown

Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 7 22 29

row % 24,14% 75,86% 100,00%

For the head impact against the roadside obstacle we have only seven cases, with a known AIS code: this assumes the maximum value regardless the type of the roadside obstacles. The 57,1% of AIS 6 head injuries,Table.103A, regards the impact against the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the remaining 42,9% regards the impacts against Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression. Table.103A Number of PTW rider injuries related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY BANDS DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Scale)

6

roadside obstacles

Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing Count 4

column % 57,14%


Count 3

column % 42,86%

Total Count 7

column % 100,00%


Project nº 218741


200


4.2.6.1 Wearing helmet on head & head AIS

Table. 104 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WEARING HELMET ON HEAD & HEAD AIS Wearing helmet on head


Scale)

Total

6 NFS

no Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Yes* Count 7 21 28

row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

Totale Count 7 22 29

row % 24,14% 75,86% 100,00%

Yes, but ejected from head during crash

Count 3 3

column % (between people with “yes” answer)

42,86% 10,71%


All the riders with a head injuries AIS 6 wore the helmet on head at the time of accident and for the 42,9% of these the helmet ejected from head during the crash. The 95,5% of riders, for who we don’t know the head injuries AIS, wore the helmet on head at the time of accident.


Project nº 218741


201

4.2.6.2 Was helmet retainded in place on head during accidents? & Head AIS

Table. 105 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS? & HEAD AIS


Total 6 NFS

WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS?


Count 4 21 25

column% 57,14% 95,45% 86,21%


Count 3 3

column% 42,86% 10,34%

Other/ Unknown Count 1 1

column% 4,55% 3,45%

Total Count 7 22 29

column% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

For the majority (57,1%) of riders who suffer a head injuries AIS 6 the helmet retained in place of head to completion of the accident whereas for the remaining the helmet ejected from head during the crash. For the riders, with an unknown head AIS, in the 95,5% of cases the helmet retained in place of head to completion of the accident.


Project nº 218741


202

4.2.6.3 Type of helmet & Head AIS

Table. 106 Number of PTW rider injuries related to: TYPE OF HELMET & HEAD AIS


Total

6 NFS

Type of helmet


Count 1 1 2

column % 14,29% 4,76% 7,14%


Count 4 6 10

column % 57,14% 28,57% 35,71%

other / unknown

Count 2 14 16

column % 28,57% 66,67% 57,14%

Total Count 7 21 28

column % 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

The 57,1% of riders, with a known head AIS, wore a full face motor vehicle helmet follows by the 14,3% of riders who wore a open face helmet. Between the riders with a unknown head AIS the 28,6% of these wore a full face helmet whereas the percentage for the riders with a open face helmet is lower (4,8%) than for the previous riders.


Project nº 218741


203

4.2.6.4 Wearing helmet on head? & roadside obstacles Table. 107 Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEARING HELMET ON HEAD?


no

yes

Tota

l

roadside obstacles


row % 6,25% 93,75% 100,00%


Count 11 11

row % 100,00% 100,00%


row % 100,00% 100,00%

Total Count 1 28 29

row % 3,45% 96,55% 100,00%

The 96,6% of the riders wore the helmet on head at the time of accident. Considering the different type of roadside obstacles we find that for the impact against Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression all the riders wore helmet on head; whereas for the impact against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the 93,8% of riders wore the helmet.


Project nº 218741


204

4.2.6.5 Roadside obstacles & body coverage material Table. 108 Number of PTW rider related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL


Total

light cloth

garment, i.e., thin cotton

medium cloth

garment, i.e.,

denim, nylon

leather garment

Other / unknown

roadside obstacles


row % 13,33% 6,67% 80,00% 100,00%


Count 1 1 2 7 11

row % 9,09% 9,09% 18,18% 63,64% 100,00%


row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%


row % 3,57% 10,71% 14,29% 71,43% 100,00%

For the majority (71,4%) of the riders the body coverage material type results Other/unknown; between the known coverage cloth the materials with the highest (14,3%) percentage is the leather garment follows with decreasing percentages by medium cloth garment, i.e., denim, nylon (10,7%) and light cloth garment, i.e., thin cotton (3,6%). If the obstacle of impact is a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the known cloth material type most (13,3%) wore by riders is medium cloth garment whereas for the impact against Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the same figure is represented by leather garment (18,2%).


Project nº 218741


205

4.2.7 Relation between the features of the PTW kinematics

4.2.7.1 PTW impact speed & PTW roll attitude angle at impact Table. 109 Number of accidents*, by severity, related to: PTW IMPACT SPEED & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT severity of the accidents


Total 0-50 51-70 71-

serious injuries


-90-1 Count 1 1

% of Total 50,00% 50,00%

0 Count

% of Total

1-90 Count 1 1

% of Total 50,00% 50,00%

Total Count 2 2

% of Total

100,00% 100,00%


-90-1 Count 3 3

% of Total 50,00% 50,00%

0 Count 2 2

% of Total 33,33% 33,33%

1-90 Count 1 1

% of Total 16,67% 16,67%

Total Count 6 6

% of Total

100,00% 100,00%

*accidents with a known PTW impact speed and PTW roll attitude angle at impact

In this table we put in relationship the PTW speed and roll angle at impact with the aim to evaluate if the relation between these two variable have an influence on the severity of the accident. One aspect that characterized the two levels of severity is the speed higher than 70 km/h; for serious injuries half of accidents have a positive roll angle and the other 50% have a negative angle whereas for the fatal accidents the angle category with the highest (50%) percentage is (-90-1) degree and about the 30% of PTW have impact with a roll angle equal to zero. Summarizing we can say that for these levels of severity we have at impact, with roadside obstacles, the contingency of high speed and roll angle different from zero.


Project nº 218741


206

4.3 Conclusions

The Applus IDIADA database concerns only motorcycle: in total there are 28 accidents of which 24 are fatal, 3 are serious and one is slight. In all the accidents the PTW speed is over 50 km/h and the majority (83,3%) of these are concentrated in the upper bracket speed, 71+ km/h. For the 80% of fatal injuries the PTW speed is over 71 km/h whereas all the serious injuries have a speed represented by the upper speed band. In the impact against the Guardrail barrier / Post fencing the PTW speed is more higher (all PTW have a speed over 70 km/h) than for the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression. In summary the PTW roll angle equal to zero has the highest percentage (38,10%) follows by the positive direction (33,3%): this trend remark the distribution of fatal accident that account for about the 85% of cases, whereas for the serious injuries the frequencies are equal-distributed between the categories. In the impact with Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the majority of accidents have a no zero angle and especially for the 41,7% of these is negative whereas the 57,1% of impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression happened with a zero angle. Putting in relationship the PTW speed and the roll angle at impact we see that the common factor for the two levels of severity is the high speed (over 70 km/h) after which for serious injuries half of accidents have a positive roll angle and negative for the remainders whereas for the fatal accidents the angle category with the highest (50%) percentage is (-90°-1°) and about the 30% of PTW have impacted with an angle equal to zero. Summarizing, at impact, we have the contingency of high speed and no zero roll angle. Regard to the PTW sideslip angle at impact, the majority of fatal cases (66,7%) report an angle equal or over eleven degree. For the impact against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing don’t emerge a dominant sideslip angle category whereas the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree is characterized, for all cases, by angle higher than 10 degree.The motorcycle part most involved (42,9%) as first in the accidents is the front follows by the centre (28,6%); between fatal accidents the percentage relative to the frontal part is higher (45,8%) than the marginal row whereas the 66,7% of serious injuries are relative to the impact, as first, with the PTW central part. Between the two defined types of obstacles there aren’t significative difference : the percentages decrease passing form the front to the rear of PTW. Respect to the rider speed at impact we find a trend that remark the speed of PTW: about the 80% of riders impact with a speed higher than 70 km/h. The riders impact angles, regard to the Guardrail barrier / Post fencing, with the head towards front are included between 90 and 130 degree. By the information, report for rider kinematics, we can summarize that in the fatal accident the riders impact with a speed over 70 km/h and a angle between 90 and 130 degree. In the 75% of fatal accidents the rider don’t slide in the pavement, so we can suppose a different dynamic, whereas the 66,7% of riders, who suffer a serious injuries, follow a slide movement. In the impact against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing the percentage of riders that slide (40%) in the pavement is higher than for the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree (9,1%). By the information on the rider orientation with respect to road tangent we see that, in fatal accident and impacting with Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, the majority (66,7%) of angles are between 81 and 90 degree. In the 20,8% of fatal accidents the riders impact on barrier post and the 16,7% of rider with the same severity level impact on rail of barrier, whereas nobody riders with serious injuries impact in any elements of guardrail. The 71,4% of riders, suffer only one impact during the accident, following by decreasing percentages as the number of impact increases; the 25% of fatal riders suffer two impact and the same figure for serious injuries is higher. The obstacle “Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression” reports the higher percentage of one rider impact, respect to the others obstacle, whereas about the 33% of rider injuries against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing are characterized by two o more impacts.


Project nº 218741


207

The rider post crash motion with the highest (17,9%) percentage is represented by the situation in which the rider “vaults above ride height from POI, then rolls to POR” follows by a 14,3% of riders that “stops within 2 m of POI” or “do not separate from motorcycle, ride from POI to POR”. For the impact against Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing we can summarize that in the first step of motion development there are two typical situation: “the rider is vault above ride height from POI” and “the rider skids, slides from POI”. Whereas for the impact against a Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression the rider tends to be closed to the motorcycle point of rest. The 53,6% of accidents happened in a curve left road and only the 7,1% in a straight roadway; the former (curve left) percentage is higher for serious injuries (66,7%) than for the fatal one. In general the percentage of accident that happened in a curve road is higher for the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression than for Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing but for the latter the accident are imbalanced towards the left direction (66,7%). In summary for the 82,1% of cases, in scene of accidents are not present conditions or defects: this figure have a higher value for fatal injuries than for the serious one (66,7%). In the 13,3% of accidents against Guardrail barrier / Post fencing are present conditions and defects like “bump” or “painted roadway markings”. The traffic control on path of travel for the 64,3% of accidents is visible to the PTW rider and there aren’t significative difference between fatal and serious injuries. In the 73,3% of impacts against Guardrail barrier / Post fencing there is not visibility limitation of traffic controls; for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression the percentage of visibility is lower respect to the previous and for the 36,4% of riders the visibility is limited. The high majority of fatal accidents are characterized by light traffic or absence of it. The 80% of impacts against Guardrail barrier / Post fencing happened in a condition of traffic (light or moderate) whereas the impact with Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression happened for the 54,5% of cases in a light traffic condition and for the remainders there is the absence of it. In general the visibility is not limited for the riders except for the 4,2% of fatal accidents for which the obstruction is the glare. In the 9,1% of impact against Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression the visibility is limited whereas for the others obstacles is not present any type of limitation. The blind curve is the most common type of view obstructions, at the time of precipitating event, for the 25% of accidents follows by hill and signs. In the 70,8% of fatal accident is not present any kind of view obstruction whereas in all the serious injuries we find a view obstruction: the blind curve concern the 66,7% of accidents. Impacting with Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing the rider for the 60% doesn’t experiment a view obstruction but for the 33,3% of impacts the view has obstructed by a blind curve; for the Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression we find the same figure of 18,2% for the hill and the blind curve. The riders in the 96,4% of accidents don’t suffer a mobile view obstruction and only for the 4,2% of fatal accidents the view is occluded by an animal. In all the accidents the weather is clear at exception of one fatal accident for which the sky is cloudy or party cloudy. The accidents in the 75% of cases is not characterized by roadside contamination obstacles; the most common type (17,7%) of contamination obstacles is gravel. The fatal injuries have a more higher percentual (79,2%) of cases of no contamination obstacles than serious injuries. In the 80% of impact with Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing there aren’t contaminations obstacles on the road whereas the same figure for Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression is lower: for both the obstacles the gravel is the contamination obstacle with the highest percentage. In the high majority of fatal accident, regardless the type of obstacles, the riders dead on scene of this: the fatality on scene, and in general, is higher for Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing than for Buildings structures/embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression. For the head impact against the roadside obstacle we have only riders with injuries categorized as AIS 6 regardless the type of the impact obstacle. The 57,1% of injuries regards the impact against the Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing and the remaining (42,9%) regard the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression.


Project nº 218741


208

All the riders, with the maximum head injuries, wore the helmet on head at the time of accident and the 42,9% of these lost the helmet during the crash. From the information about the type of helmet we see that the full face helmet don’t guarantee a better protection than the open face helmet; but is important to remember that many other variables, as the PTW and rider speed, have a high influence on the severity of the accidents.


Project nº 218741


209

5 Comparison between the different databases and summary

Information

In this chapter we have merged together the data relative to the separate databases with the aim to conduct the analysis on a bigger number of cases that give our results a higher statistical significance. We have adopted this action with the consciousness that the databases are different: they are gathered by different institutes, with different methodologies and degree of details. But we believe that, putting together heterogeneous information, the loss of the result quality is rewarded by a gain of significance of the results, moreover considering that after a short presentation of the data in the next paragraph we’ll execute all the successive analysis only for serious and fatal injuries, because they are more reliable for damage entity than slight injuries.

5.1 Number of cases and motorcycle motor displacement

Table. 110

Number of accidents and severity of these, by partners databases

SLIGHT

SERIOUS

FATAL

TOTALACCIDENTS SEVERITY

APPLUS IDIADA CENTRO ZARAGOZAACEM

1 (3,6%)

3 (10,7%)

24 (85,7%)

13 (72,2%)

DATABASES

28 18193

37 (19,2%)

29 (15%) 5 (27,8%)

127 (65,8%)

In total we have 239 accidents (Table. 110) with a severity that ranges by slight to fatal: in the ACEM database the majority of accidents are slight and the number of cases decreases with the increases of the accidents severity, whereas for the Centro Zaragoza database the majority of accidents are serious and in the Applus Idiada database the 85,7% of cases are fatal. In summary, we are considering databases with a different accidents severity: so we have a global image of the characteristic of the accidents for which the PTW impacts against the roadside obstacles.


Project nº 218741


210

Table. 111 PTW motor displacement

L1

L3

TOTAL

MOTOR DISPLACEMENT

3 (16,7%)49 (25,4%)

28 (100%) 15 (83,3%)144 (74,6%)

28 18193

DATABASES

APPLUS IDIADA CENTRO ZARAGOZAACEM

The majority (Table. 111) of PTW are L3: especially in the Applus Idiada database, which is constituted only by motorcycle; in the ACEM and Centro Zaragoza databases the majority of PTW are L3, moreover there are even L1 vehicles, but the percentage of these in each database is lower than the 30%.

WP _

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

ina

nce

d b

y E

uro

pea

n C

om

mis

sio

n

211

5.2 Data analysis

5.2.1 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW kinematics of accidents

5.2.1.1 PTW impact speed

Table

. 11

2

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o: R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

PT

W IM

PA

CT

SP

EE

D

0-5

051-7

071-

0-5

051-7

071-

unknow

n0-5

051-7

071-

Cou

nt

45

110

11

22

48

row

%4

0,0

0%

50

,00%

10

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

25

,00

%2

5,0

0%

50

,00%

100,00%

Cou

nt

66

12

11

23

11

5

row

%5

0,0

0%

50

,00%

100,00%

50

,00%

50,0

0%

100,00%

60

,00

%2

0,0

0%

20

,00%

100,00%

Cou

nt

23

914

67

13

11

13

row

%1

4,3

0%

21

,40%

64

,30

%100,00%

46

,15%

53,8

5%

100,00%

33

,33

%3

3,3

3%

33

,33%

100,00%

Cou

nt

54

92

25

92

2

row

%55

,60%

44

,40

%100,00%

22,2

2%

22

,22%

55,5

6%

100,00%

100

,00%

100,00%



[km/h]

serious

injuries

Total

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fencin

g

Build

ings

str

uctu

res/

em

ban

km

ent/

tree

/ditch o

r lo

w

lyin

g d

ep

ressio

n

Total

ZA

RA

GO

ZA


[km/h]

Total

AC

EM


IDIA

DA

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fencin

g

Build

ings

str

uctu

res/

em

ban

km

ent/

tree

/ditch o

r lo

w

lyin

g d

ep

ressio

n


Project nº 218741


212

Table. 113 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED

0-50 51-70 71-

Count 6 7 6 19

row % 31,58% 36,84% 31,58% 100,00%

Count 9 7 2 18

row % 50,00% 38,89% 11,11% 100,00%

Count 3 4 16 23

row % 13,04% 17,39% 69,57% 100,00%

Count 2 7 6 15

row % 13,33% 46,67% 40,00% 100,00%


[km/h]

Totaleseverity of the accidents

serious

injuries


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

fatal


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

Considering the fatal accidents (Table. 113) we see that the higher percentages are represented by the speed categories over 50km/h; this characteristic is remarked by the impact against Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing for which about the 70% of PTW have a speed at impact over 70km/h. For the serious injuries we find a high percentage of cases even for the 0-50 speed bracket: but even at this level of severity the impact against the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing reports about the 32% of accident for which the PTW speed is over 70km/h whereas the same figure for the other obstacle is the 11%. The relation between the PTW impact speed and the severity of the accidents is statistical significative, Table. 113A, how we can see by the test Linear-by-Linear Association 11,550 and p-value 0,001; the strength of the relationship is expressed by the Kendall's tau-c 0,430. Even the relation between PTW impact speed and the type of the Roadside obstacles, Table.113B, is statistical significative how we can see by the test Pearson Chi-Square 6,101 and p-value 0,047; the strength of the relationship is express by Cramer's V 0,285.


Project nº 218741


213

Table. 113A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW IMPACT SPEED


Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Severity

of the

accidents

serious Count 15 14 8 37

% within row 40,5% 37,8% 21,6% 100,0%


% within row 13,2% 28,9% 57,9% 100,0%


% within row 26,7% 33,3% 40,0% 100,0%

Symmetric Measures

Value

Asymp. Std.

Errora Approx. T



Cramer's V ,398 ,003 ,002


Kendall's tau-c ,430 ,111 3,876 ,000 ,001

N of Valid Cases 75



Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

11,550b 1 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,000

N of Valid Cases 75




Project nº 218741


214

Table. 113B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW IMPACT SPEED


[km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 9 11 22 42

% within row 21,4% 26,2% 52,4% 100,0%

2** Count 11 14 8 33

% within row 33,3% 42,4% 24,2% 100,0%


% within row 26,7% 33,3% 40,0% 100,0%

1* Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing 2** Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

4,506b 1 ,034 ,044 ,024 ,012

N of Valid Cases 75



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,285 ,047 ,057

N of Valid Cases 75

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

215

5.2.1.2 PTW Roll attitude angle at impact

Table

. 11

4

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

PT

W R

OLL A

TT

ITU

DE

AN

GLE

AT

IM

PA

CT

-90-1

01-9

0unknow

n-9

0-1

01-9

0unknow

n-9

0-1

01-9

0unknow

n

Co

un

t2

44

10

11

43

18

row

%2

0,0

0%

40

,00

%4

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

50

,00

%3

7,5

0%

12

,50

%100,00%

Co

un

t2

28

12

11

21

45

row

%1

6,7

0%

16

,70

%6

6,7

0%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

20

,00

%8

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t4

18

114

44

32

13

12

3

row

%2

8,6

0%

7,1

0%

57

,10

%7

,10

%100,00%

30

,77

%3

0,7

7%

23

,08

%1

5,3

8%

100,00%

33

,33

%6

6,6

7%

100,00%

Co

un

t3

32

19

13

14

92

2

row

%3

3,3

0%

33

,30

%2

2,2

0%

11

,10

%100,00%

11

,11

%3

3,3

3%

11

,11

%4

4,4

4%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

Total



serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

Total


Total


Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n


Project nº 218741


216

Table. 115 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT

-90-1 0 1-90

Count 7 7 5 19

row % 36,84% 36,84% 26,32% 100,00%

Count 3 7 9 19

row % 15,79% 36,84% 47,37% 100,00%

Count 9 7 11 27

row % 33,33% 25,93% 40,74% 100,00%

Count 4 8 3 15

row % 26,67% 53,33% 20,00% 100,00%

Total

serious

injuries


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

fatal


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

PTW roll attitude angle at impact

[deg]


The PTW roll angle (Table. 115) for the impact against a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing in the majority of fatal accidents is different from zero: the category with the highest percentage includes the angle between 1 and 90 degree. Whereas for the serious injuries (Table. 115), in the impact with Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, we find the same figure of 36,8% for zero degree angle and for the negative direction. In summary for the impact against this type of obstacles over than half of the PTW are out of the roll angle central category (zero). Instead in fatal accidents (Table. 115) for which the PTW impacts against Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ ditch or low lying depression the majority (53,3%) of vehicles have a roll angle at impact equal to zero. The relationship, Table.115A, between the “PTW roll attitude angle at impact” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.115B, between the “PTW roll attitude angle at impact” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


217

Table. 115A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


[deg]

Total -90-1 0 1-90

Severity

of the

accidents

Serious Count 10 14 14 38

% within row 26,3% 36,8% 36,8% 100,0%


% within row 31,0% 35,7% 33,3% 100,0%


% within row 28,8% 36,3% 35,0% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,206b 1 ,650 ,677 ,377 ,100

N of Valid Cases 80



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,053 ,893 ,922

N of Valid Cases 80


Project nº 218741


218

Table. 115B - used for statistical analysis- Number accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW ROLL ATTITUDE ANGLE AT IMPACT


[deg]

Total -90-1 0 1-90

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 16 14 16 46

% within row 34,8% 30,4% 34,8% 100,0%

2** Count 7 15 12 34

% within row 20,6% 44,1% 35,3% 100,0%


% within row 28,8% 36,3% 35,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,659b 1 ,417 ,481 ,252 ,081

N of Valid Cases 80



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,173 ,304 ,310

N of Valid Cases 80

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

219

5.2.1.3 PTW sideslip angle at impact

Table

. 11

6

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

PT

W S

IDE

SLIP

AN

GL

E A

T IM

PA

CT

-50-4

1-3

0-2

1-1

0-1

0-1

011

-20

un

k*

-90-8

10

-10

41

-50

61

-70

17

1-1

80

unk*

-70-6

1-6

0-5

1-3

0-2

1-2

0-1

10

-10

11

-20

21-3

0un

k*

Cou

nt

71

210

11

11

33

8

row

%70

,00

%10

,00

%2

0,0

0%

100,00%

100

,00%

100,00%

12

,50%

12

,50

%3

7,5

0%

37

,50%

100,00%

Cou

nt

18

312

11

21

21

15

row

%8

,30

%66

,70

%2

5,0

0%

100,00%

50

,00

%50

,00

%100,00%

20

,00

%40

,00

%2

0,0

0%

20

,00%

100,00%

Cou

nt

16

16

14

11

11

013

11

13

row

%7

,10%

42

,90

%7,1

0%

42,9

0%

100,00%

7,6

9%

7,6

9%

7,6

9%

76

,92

%100,00%

33

,30

%3

3,3

0%

33

,30%

100,00%

Cou

nt

11

52

91

17

91

12

row

%1

1,1

0%

11

,10%

55

,60

%2

2,2

0%

100,00%

11

,11

%1

1,1

1%

77

,78

%100,00%

50,0

0%

50,0

0%

100,00%

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA


Total


Total


Total


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

ent/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

ent/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n


Project nº 218741


220

Table. 117 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT

-90-81 -70-61 -60-50 -50-41 -30-21 -20-11 -10-1 0-10 11-20 21-30 41-50 61-70 171-180

Count 1 8 1 3 13

row % 7,69% 61,54% 7,69% 23,08% 100,00%

Count 2 10 1 1 14

row % 14,29% 71,43% 7,14% 7,14% 100,00%

Count 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 13

row % 7,69% 7,69% 7,69% 53,85% 7,69% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%

Count 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 11

row % 9,09% 9,09% 9,09% 45,45% 9,09% 9,09% 9,09% 100,00%

Total

serious

injuries


fencing

Buildings structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or low lying

depression

fatal


fencing


embankment/

tree/ditch or low lying

depression



The PTW sideslip angle category, regardless the roadside obstacles, with the highest percentage (Table. 117A) of cases is represented by the bracket 0°-10°: it important to remark that for serious injuries the percentages in this category are higher than for the correspondents in fatal injuries, especially for the impact (Table. 117) with Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ ditch or low lying depression. This trend shows that for fatal injuries about the half of accidents regard PTW with a sideslip angle wider than 10 degree. The range of the sideslip angle is between -90 and 70 degree (Table. 117); moreover there is one outsider with an angle in the bracket 171°-180°. Between fatal accidents, out of 0°-10° bracket, the distribution of cases is quite sparse; for the serious injuries we find that the bracket with 21-30° accounts for the 23,1% of impact against Guardrail barrier/Post fencing and the same bracket, but in the negative direction, collects the 14,3% of impact against the other type of obstacle. The relationship, Table.117A, between the “PTW sideslip angle at impact” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.117B, between “PTW sideslip angle at impact” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


221

Table. 117A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT

PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT

[deg]

Total 0-10 Other value

Severity

of the

accidents

serious Count 18 9 27

% within row 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


% within row 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%


% within row 58,8% 41,2% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-


Pearson Chi-Square 1,457a 1 ,227 ,265 ,178

Continuity Correctionb ,850 1 ,356

Likelihood Ratio 1,462 1 ,227 ,265 ,178


Linear-by-Linear Association 1,429c 1 ,232 ,265 ,178 ,111

N of Valid Cases 51


b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

c. The standardized statistic is 1,195.

Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,169 ,227 ,265

N of Valid Cases 51


Project nº 218741


222

Table. 117B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW SIDESLIP ANGLE AT IMPACT

PTW SIDESLIP

ANGLE AT IMPACT

[deg]

Total 0-10 Other value

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 15 11 26

% within row 57,7% 42,3% 100,0%

2** Count 15 10 25

% within row 60,0% 40,0% 100,0%


% within row 58,8% 41,2% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability

Pearson Chi-Square ,028a 1 ,867 1,000 ,547

Continuity Correctionb ,000 1 1,000

Likelihood Ratio ,028 1 ,867 1,000 ,547


Linear-by-Linear

Association

,027c 1 ,868 1,000 ,547 ,221

N of Valid Cases 51



c. The standardized statistic is -,166.

Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,023 ,867 1,000

N of Valid Cases 51

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

223

5.2.1.4 PTW first collision contact code

Table

. 11

8

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

PT

W F

IRS

T C

OLLIS

ION

CO

NT

AC

T C

OD

E

front

centre

rear

oth

er

front

centre

rear

oth

er

front

centre

rear

oth

er

Co

unt

64

10

11

53

8

row

%6

0,0

0%

40,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

62

,50

%3

7,5

0%

100,00%

Co

unt

36

12

12

11

25

5

row

%2

5,0

0%

50,0

0%

8,3

0%

16

,70%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

unt

76

114

64

12

13

21

3

row

%5

0,0

0%

42,9

0%

7,1

0%

100,00%

46

,15

%3

0,7

7%

7,6

9%

15

,38%

100,00%

66

,67

%3

3,3

3%

100,00%

Co

unt

71

19

41

13

92

2

row

%7

7,8

0%

11,1

0%

11,1

0%

100,00%

44

,44

%1

1,1

1%

11,1

1%

33

,33%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

barr

ier/

Posts

fen

cin

g

Build

ing

s

str

uctu

res/

em

ban

km

ent/

tree

/ditch o

r

low

lyin

g

dep

ressio

n

ZA

RA

GO

ZA


Total


Total


Total

AC

EM

IDIA

DA


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

barr

ier/

Posts

fen

cin

g

Build

ing

s

str

uctu

res/

em

ban

km

ent/

tree

/ditch o

r

low

lyin

g

dep

ressio

n


Project nº 218741


224

Table. 119 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE

front centre rear

Count 11 8 19

row % 57,89% 42,11% 100,00%

Count 9 7 1 17

row % 52,94% 41,18% 5,88% 100,00%

Count 15 10 1 26

row % 57,69% 38,46% 3,85% 100,00%

Count 13 2 2 17

row % 76,47% 11,76% 11,76% 100,00%

fatal


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

Total

PTW FIRST COLLISION

CONTACT CODE


serious

injuries


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

For the impact against the different types of roadside obstacles, regardless the severity of the accidents, the PTW first collision concerns in the majority of cases the frontal part: especially the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing reports (Table. 119) about the 57% of accidents even for fatal and serious injuries. In general the centre of PTW, reports the second higher percentage of impact, as first part of contact in the accident. Focusing in fatal accidents with the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, about the 38,5% of impacts regard as first time the central part of PTW whereas for the other type of obstacles we find a higher percentage, respect to the previous obstacle, for the front (76,5%) and rear (11,8%) part of PTW. The relationship, Table.119A, between the “PTW first collision contact” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.119B, between “PTW first collision contact” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


225

Table. 119A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE


Total front centre rear

Severity

of the

accidents

Serious Count 20 15 1 36

% within row 55,6% 41,7% 2,8% 100,0%


% within row 65,1% 27,9% 7,0% 100,0%


% within row 60,8% 34,2% 5,1% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,160b 1 ,689 ,708 ,416 ,139

N of Valid Cases 79



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,162 ,357 ,373

N of Valid Cases 79


Project nº 218741


226

Table. 119B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW FIRST COLLISION CONTACT CODE

PTW FIRST COLLISION

CONTACT CODE

Total front centre rear

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 26 18 1 45

% within row 57,8% 40,0% 2,2% 100,0%

2** Count 22 9 3 34

% within row 64,7% 26,5% 8,8% 100,0%


% within row 60,8% 34,2% 5,1% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,001b 1 ,981 1,000 ,568 ,151

N of Valid Cases 79



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,190 ,240 ,292

N of Valid Cases 79

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

227

5.2.2 Roadside obstacles & features of PTW rider kinematics of accidents

5.2.2.1 PTW rider number of impacts

Table

. 12

0

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

PT

W R

IDE

R N

UM

BE

R O

F IM

PA

CT

S

12

33+

12

33+

12

33+

Co

un

t1

43

210

11

71

8

row

%1

0,0

0%

40

,00

%3

0,0

0%

20

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

87

,50

%1

2,5

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t7

21

212

11

24

15

row

%5

8,3

0%

16

,70

%8

,30

%1

6,7

0%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

80

,00

%2

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t7

33

114

84

113

21

3

row

%5

0,0

0%

21

,40

%2

1,4

0%

7,1

0%

100,00%

61

,54

%3

0,7

7%

7,6

9%

100,00%

66

,67

%3

3,3

3%

100,00%

Co

un

t5

21

19

81

91

12

row

%5

5,6

0%

22

,20

%1

1,1

0%

11

,10

%100,00%

88

,89

%1

1,1

1%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

Total

AC

EM

IDIA

DA


fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

ZA

RA

GO

ZA


Total


Total



Project nº 218741


228

Table. 121 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS

1 2 3 3+

Count 9 4 3 3 19

row % 47,37% 21,05% 15,79% 15,79% 100,00%

Count 12 4 1 2 19

row % 63,16% 21,05% 5,26% 10,53% 100,00%

Count 17 8 3 2 30

row % 56,67% 26,67% 10,00% 6,67% 100,00%

Count 14 4 1 1 20

row % 70,00% 20,00% 5,00% 5,00% 100,00%

fatal


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

severity of the accidents Total

serious

injuries


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression


We notice first of all that the mono impact (Table. 121) characterized the majority of riders; in general the accidents against the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing are characterized by a little higher percentages for 2+, impact categories, respect to the Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression which has the highest percentage for the mono impact regardless the accidents severity. Inside the same type of roadside obstacle (Table. 121), for Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, we can observe that for the fatal accident, respect to the serious, we have a higher percentage for mono impact and double impact whereas for the 3 and 3+ categories the percentage are higher for the serious injuries. The relationship, Table.121A, between the “PTW rider number of impacts” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.121B, between “PTW rider number of impacts” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


229

Table. 121A - used for statistical analysis Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW RIDERS NUMBER OF IMPACTS

PTW RIDERS NUMBER OF IMPACTS

Total 1 2+

Severity of

the

accidents

Serious Count 21 17 38

% within row 55,3% 44,7% 100,0%

Fatal Count 31 19 50

% within row 62,0% 38,0% 100,0%


% within row 59,1% 40,9% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability

Pearson Chi-Square ,405a 1 ,524 ,662 ,338


Likelihood Ratio ,405 1 ,525 ,662 ,338


Linear-by-Linear

Association

,401c 1 ,527 ,662 ,338 ,142

N of Valid Cases 88

a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15,55. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table


Symmetric Measures a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. T


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,068 ,524 ,662

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b -,068 ,107 -,636 ,525 ,662

Kendall's tau-c -,066 ,104 -,636 ,525 ,662

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


230

Table. 121B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER NUMBER OF IMPACTS

PTW RIDER

NUMBER OF

IMPACTS

Total 1 2+

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 26 23 49

% within row 53,1% 46,9% 100,0%

2** Count 26 13 39

% within row 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


% within row 59,1% 40,9% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability


Continuity Correctionb 1,148 1 ,284



Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,644c 1 ,200 ,275 ,142 ,077

N of Valid Cases 88


c. The standardized statistic is -1,282.

Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,137 ,197 ,275

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


231

5.2.2.2 PTW rider speed at impacts

Table. 122 Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT

0-50 51-70 71- unknown 0-50 51-70 71- unknown

Count 1 1 2 2 2 2 8

row % 100,00% 100,00% 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1 2 3 1 1 5

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00% 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%

Count 6 7 13 1 2 3

row % 46,15% 53,85% 100,00% 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

Count 2 2 5 9 2 2

row % 22,22% 22,22% 55,56% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

IDIADA

serious

injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing


embankment/ tree/ditch or low

lying depression

fatal




lying depression

ZARAGOZA


PTW rider Speed at impact categories [km/h]

Total

PTW rider Speed at impact categories [km/h]

Total

Table. 123 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT

0-50 51-70 71-

Count 2 2 3 7

row % 28,57% 28,57% 42,86% 100,00%

Count 3 1 2 6

row % 50,00% 16,67% 33,33% 100,00%

Count 7 7

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 2 2 4

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Total

serious

injuries

roadside

obstacles Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing



lying depression

fatal

roadside




lying depression

PTW rider Speed at impact

categories [km/h]


The rider has a high speed (Table. 123) for the impact against a Guardrail barrie/Post fencing: the 71- bracket speed accounts for the highest percentage regardless the severity level of injuries; in fatal accident all the riders have a speed over 70km/h. For the other type of obstacle we observe a different trend: half of the riders, who suffer a serious injury, have a speed lower than 51km/h and between fatal injuries we have the same percentage of cases in 51-70 and 71-km/h brackets. The relationship, Table.123A, between the “PTW rider speed at impact” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative, even if it is very near to this ( Exact significance of the


Project nº 218741


232

Fisher's Exact Test is 0,059). The relationship, Table.123B, between the “PTW rider speed at impact” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative. Table. 123A - used for statistical analysis Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT

PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT [km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 38,5% 23,1% 38,5% 100,0%

fatal Count 2 9 11

% within row 18,2% 81,8% 100,0%


% within row 20,8% 20,8% 58,3% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

5,871b 1 ,015 ,022 ,012 ,010

N of Valid Cases 24



Symmetric Measures

Value

Asymp. Std.

Errora Approx. T



Cramer's V ,509 ,045 ,059


Kendall's tau-c ,500 ,167 2,990 ,003 ,023

N of Valid Cases 24




Project nº 218741


233

Table. 123B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SPEED AT IMPACT

PTW RIDER SPEED AT

IMPACT [km/h]

Total 0-50 51-70 71-

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 2 2 10 14

% within row 14,3% 14,3% 71,4% 100,0%

2** Count 3 3 4 10

% within row 30,0% 30,0% 40,0% 100,0%


% within row 20,8% 20,8% 58,3% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,908b 1 ,167 ,212 ,130 ,078

N of Valid Cases 24



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,314 ,306 ,315

N of Valid Cases 24


Project nº 218741


234

5.2.2.3 PTW rider impact angle

Table. 124 Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

Count1 1 1 3

row % 33,30% 33,30% 33,30% 100,00%

Count1 1

row %100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1 21

1

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Guardrail barrier/Posts

fencing

roadside

obstacles


fencing

12

1-1

30


embankment/ tree/ditch or


Total

Fatal

roadside

obstacles H

F


serious

injuries F

F

Total


IDIADA

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ANGLE [deg]

90

-10

0

ZARAGOZA

10

1-1

10

14

1-1

50

12

1-1

30

Table. 125 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

Count1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

Count1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Fatal

roadside

obstacles


fencing

H

F

10

1-1

10

serious

injuries

roadside

obstacles


fencing


embankment/ tree/ditch or


F

F

Totalseverity of the accidents 90

-10

0

12

1-1

30

14

1-1

50


The riders impact angles are included (Table. 125) in the range 90-150 degree and the majority of these are higher than 120 degree. The 71,4% of the riders who impact against a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing have an impact angle over 120°: the serious injuries are split to half in the brackets 121-130° and 141-150° whereas the 66,7% of fatal injuries (with an angle over 120 degree) are in the bracket 141-150 degree.


Project nº 218741


235

5.2.2.4 PTW rider impact speed & PTW rider impact angle

Table.126A (CENTRO ZARAGOZA) Number of riders related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT SPEED & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

51-70 71+ Total

Count 1 1

total % 20,00% 20,00%

Count 1 1 2

total % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00%

Count 1 1 2

total % 20,00% 20,00% 40,00%

Count 3 2 5

row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%Total


PTW RIDER IMPACT

ANGLE [deg] 101-110

121-130

141-150

Table.126B (APPLUS IDIADA) Number of riders related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT SPEED & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

0-50 51-70 71+ Total

Count 1 1

total % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1

total % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%Total


PTW RIDER

IMPACT

ANGLE [deg]

90-100

121-130

Table.126C (SUMMARY INFORMATION) Number of riders related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT SPEED & PTW RIDER IMPACT ANGLE

51-70 71+ Total

Count 1 1

total % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1

total % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 2 3

total % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

Count 1 1 2

total % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Count 3 4 7

row % 42,86% 57,14% 100,00%Total

90-100

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ANGLE [deg]


101-110

121-130

141-150


Project nº 218741


236

By the summary information, Table. 126C, we see that for the majority of the riders there is the joint of the speed over 50km/h and the impact angle over 120 degree.

5.2.2.5 PTW rider sliding on back/front?

Table. 127 Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK/FRONT?

yes no yes no unknown

Count1 1 8 8

row % 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count

1 1 2 3 1 1 5

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00% 60,00% 20,00% 20,00% 100,00%

Count4 9 13 3 1 4

row % 30,77% 69,23% 100,00% 75,00% 25,00% 100,00%

Count

9 9 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

PTW Rider sliding on

back/front?

Total

IDIADA ZARAGOZA

fatal


Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ ditch

or low lying depression



Total

serious

injuries




Table. 128 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK/FRONT?

yes no

Count 9 9

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 4 2 6

row % 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

Count 7 10 17

row % 41,18% 58,82% 100,00%

Count 1 9 10

row % 10,00% 90,00% 100,00%

Total

serious

injuries

roadside




fatal

roadside





PTW Rider sliding on

back/front?

Between fatal and serious accidents (Table. 128A) we notice tha for the former the majority of riders don’t slide on the pavement during the accident whereas for the serious we notice a opposite situation. Regardless the severity of the accident (Table. 128B) it appears that for the impact against Guardrail barrier/Post fencing there is a higher percentage of riders that slide on the pavement respect to the other type of obstacles. The relationship, Table.128A, between the variables “PTW rider sliding on back/front?” and “Severity of the accidents” is statistical significative: Pearson Chi-Square 12,548 p-value 0,000; the strenght of relation is expressed by Cramer's V 0,547.


Project nº 218741


237

The relation, Table. 128B, between the variables “PTW rider sliding on back/front?” and type of “roadside obstacles” is near to the statistical significance: Pearson Chi-Square 3,635 and p-value

0,057; the strength is expressed by Cramer's V 0,294. Table. 128A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK/FRONT?

PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK/FRONT?

Total yes no

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 86,7% 13,3% 100,0%

fatal Count 8 19 27

% within row 29,6% 70,4% 100,0%


% within row 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

12,249c 1 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000

N of Valid Cases 42




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,547 ,000 ,001

N of Valid Cases 42


Project nº 218741


238

Table. 128B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER SLIDING ON BACK/FRONT?

PTW RIDER

SLIDING ON

BACK/FRONT?

Total Yes no

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 16 10 26

% within row 61,5% 38,5% 100,0%

2** Count 5 11 16

% within row 31,3% 68,8% 100,0%


% within row 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

3,548c 1 ,060 ,111 ,055 ,043

N of Valid Cases 42




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,294 ,057 ,111

N of Valid Cases 42


Project nº 218741


239

5.2.2.6 PTW rider impact orientation with respect to road tangent

Table. 129 Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,30% 33,30% 33,30% 100,00%

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 2 3 1 1

row % 33,30% 66,70% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

H

31

-40


fencingF

Fatal

roadside

obstacles

serious

injuries

roadside

obstacles


fencingF


embankment/ tree/ ditch


F


31

-40

81

-90

21

-30

51

-60

71

-80

IDIADA ZARAGOZA

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ORIENTATION WITH

RESPECT TO ROAD

TANGENT

Total

PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH

RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT

Total

Table. 130 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TANGENT

Count 1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 2 2 4

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

F


embankment/ tree/ ditch


F

severity of the accidents 31

-40

81

-90

21

-30

51

-60

71

-80

Total

PTW RIDER IMPACT ORIENTATION WITH RESPECT TO

ROAD TANGENT

Fatal

roadside

obstacles


fencing

H

F

serious

injuries

roadside

obstacles


fencing

In fatal accidents (Table. 130), for which the rider impact against a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, the majority of riders reports an angle at impact equal or lower to 50 degree and the remainders impact with an angle of 81-90°; whereas for the serious injuries the majority of riders report an angle over 50 degree. For the impact with Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ ditch or low lying depression we have only one cases in which the rider impact with an angle of 51-60 degree.


Project nº 218741


240

5.2.2.7 PTW rider impact on barrier post? Table. 131 Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON BARRIER POST?

Count 3 3 1 10 2 13

row % 100,00% 100,00% 7,69% 76,92% 15,38% 100,00%

Count 5 19 24 2 3 5

row % 20,83% 79,17% 100,00% 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%

un

kn

ow

n

Fatal

IDIADA ZARAGOZA

PTW Rider impact on

barrier post ?

Total Total

no

ye

s

PTW Rider impact on barrier post

?

serious

injuries


ye

s

no

Table. 132 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON BARRIER POST?

Count 1 13 14

row % 7,14% 92,86% 100,00%

Count 7 22 29

row % 24,14% 75,86% 100,00%

serious

injuries

Fatal

PTW Rider impact on

barrier post ?

Totalseverity of the accidents

ye

s

no

We find (Table. 132) that for the fatal injuries there is a higher percentage (24,1%) of riders who impact on barrier post respect to the serious (7,1%) one. The relationship between the “PTW rider impact on barrier post?” and the “Severity of the accidents”, Table.132A, is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


241

Table. 132A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON BARRIER POST?

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ON BARRIER

POST?

Total Yes no

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 7,1% 92,9% 100,0%

fatal Count 7 22 29

% within row 24,1% 75,9% 100,0%

Total Count 8 35 43

% within row 18,6% 81,4% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

1,759c 1 ,185 ,240 ,180 ,151

N of Valid Cases 43




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,205 ,180 ,240

N of Valid Cases 43


Project nº 218741


242

5.2.2.8 PTW rider impact on rail of barrier?

Table. 133 Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON RAIL OF BARRIER?

Count 3 3 2 9 2 13

row % 100,00% 100,00% 15,38% 69,23% 15,38% 100,00%

Count 4 20 24 2 3 5

row % 16,67% 83,33% 100,00% 40,00% 60,00% 100,00%

no

un

kno

wn

IDIADA ZARAGOZA

PTW Rider impact on

rail of barrier ?

Total

PTW Rider impact on rail of barrier

?

Total

serious injuries

Fatal

severity of the accidents yes

no

yes

Table. 134 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON RAIL OF BARRIER?

PTW Rider impact on rail of barrier ?

Total

severity of the accidents ye

s

no

serious injuries

Count 2 12 14

row % 14,29% 85,71% 100,00%

Fatal Count 6 23 29

row % 20,69% 79,31% 100,00%

The number of riders that impact against the rail of barrier (Table. 134) is higher for fatal injuries than for the serious, but the gap between the two percentages is lower, in this situation, respect that we have seen for the impact against the post of the barrier. The relationship, Table.134A, between the “PTW rider impact on rail of barrier?” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


243

Table. 134A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: PTW RIDER IMPACT ON RAIL OF BARRIER?

PTW RIDER IMPACT

ON RAIL OF

BARRIER?

Total yes no

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 14,3% 85,7% 100,0%

fatal Count 6 23 29

% within row 20,7% 79,3% 100,0%

Total Count 8 35 43

% within row 18,6% 81,4% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-






Linear-by-Linear

Association

,250c 1 ,617 ,702 ,478 ,298

N of Valid Cases 43




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,077 ,613 ,702

N of Valid Cases 43


Project nº 218741


244

5.2.2.9 Rider motion post crash Table. 135A (APPLUS IDIADA) Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & RIDER MOTION POST CRASH

2 3 5 6 7 8 9 11 14 98 Total

Count1 1

row %

100,00% 100,00%

Count

1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Count1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 13

row % 7,69% 7,69% 15,38% 23,08% 7,69% 15,38% 7,69% 7,69% 7,69% 100,00%

Count

3 2 1 2 1 9

row %

33,33% 22,22% 11,11% 22,22% 11,11% 100,00%

fata

l in

juri

es


Posts fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/tree/

ditch or low lying

depression



IDIADA

se

rio

us in

juri

es


Posts fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/tree/

ditch or low lying

depression

02-stopped within 2 m of POI 03-tumbled and rolled from POI to POR 05-skidded, slid from POI to POR 06-skidded, slid from POI, then impacted other object at POR 07-vaulted above ride height from POI, then rolled to POR 08-vaulted above ride height from POI, then slid to POR 09-vaulted above ride height from POI, then impacted other object at POR 11-run over, dragged from POI to POR 14-did not separate from motorcycle, rode from POI to POR; POR same as motorcycle POR 98-other /unknown

For the fatal accidents (Table. 135A) against the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, the 38,5% of riders, in the first part of accident evolution, vaulted above ride height from POI; than the riders rolled to POR (23,1%), or impacted other object at POR (15,4%). Whereas for the fatal accidents in which the rider impact with Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression: the 33,3% of riders stopped within 2 m of POI, the 22% vaulted above ride height from POI, then rolled to POR and the other 22% did not separate from motorcycle, rode from POI to POR; POR same as motorcycle POR.


Project nº 218741


245

Table. 135B (CENTRO ZARAGOZA) Number of serious and fatal accidents, by singular database, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & RIDER MOTION POST CRASH

3 4 12 16 98 Total

Count2 5 1 8

row % 25,00% 62,50% 12,50% 100,00%

Count

1 1 1 2 5

row % 20,00% 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 100,00%

Count1 1 1 3

row % 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 100,00%

Count

2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

ZARAGOZA



serious

injuries

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/embankment/t

ree/ditch or low lying

depression

fatal

roadside obstacles Guardrail barrier/ Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/embankment/t

ree/ditch or low lying

depression

03-tumbled and rolled from POI to POR 04-tumbled and rolled from POI, then impacted other object at POR 12-caught by or landed on other vehicle; carried to POR, different from other vehicle POR 16-rider departed scene immediately after collision, but motorcycle still at scene 98-other /unknown

In some cases (Table. 135B) it not possible to identify the post crash rider position, because this departs the scene immediately after collision. In general the post crash movement which gathered the majority of significative cases, especially for the impact with Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, is the situation for which the rider tumbled and rolled from POI to POR.

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

246


5.2.3.1 Roadway horizontal alignment

Table

. 13

6

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

RO

AD

WA

Y H

OR

IZO

NT

AL A

LIG

NM

EN

T

straig

ht

curv

e rig

ht

curv

e left

straig

ht

curv

e rig

ht

curv

e left

oth

er

straig

ht

curv

e rig

ht

curv

e left

oth

er

Co

un

t4

24

10

11

16

18

row

%4

0,0

0%

20,0

0%

40

,00%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

12

,50

%7

5,0

0%

12,5

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t3

54

12

11

21

11

25

row

%2

5,0

0%

41,7

0%

33

,30%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

20

,00

%2

0,0

0%

20

,00

%4

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t6

26

14

28

313

12

3

row

%4

2,9

0%

14,3

0%

42

,90%

100,00%

15

,38

%6

1,5

4%

23

,08

%100,00%

33

,33

%6

6,6

7%

100,00%

Co

un

t6

12

91

44

92

2

row

%6

6,7

0%

11,1

0%

22

,20%

100,00%

11

,11

%44

,44

%4

4,4

4%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

AC

EM


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

ROADWAY HORIZONTAL

ALIGNMENT

Total


Total


Total

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

IDIA

DA


Project nº 218741


247

Table. 137 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

straight curve right curve left

Count 5 2 11 18

row % 27,78% 11,11% 61,11% 100,00%

Count 4 7 6 17

row % 23,53% 41,18% 35,29% 100,00%

Count 7 6 14 27

row % 25,93% 22,22% 51,85% 100,00%

Count 9 5 6 20

row % 45,00% 25,00% 30,00% 100,00%

fatal


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression


ROADWAY HORIZONTAL

ALIGNMENTTotal

serious

injuries


barrier/Posts

fencing

Buildings

structures/

embankment/

tree/ditch or

low lying

depression

The accidents (Table. 137), concerning the impact with Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, happened in the majority of cases in a curve left road: between the severity levels we see that accidents have place for about the 75% of cases in a curve road. For the fatal accidents, for which the PTW impacts with Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression, appears that about half of impacts have taken place in a straight road whereas for the other obstacle the same figure is about twenty percentual points lower. Moreover the impact with Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression that caused serious (Table. 137) injuries reports the higher (41,2%) percentage for the right curve. The relationship, Table.137A, between the “Roadway horizontal alignment” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.137B, between “Roadway horizontal alignment” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


248

Table. 137A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT


Total Straight Curve right Curve left

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 25,7% 25,7% 48,6% 100,0%


% within row 34,0% 23,4% 42,6% 100,0%


% within row 30,5% 24,4% 45,1% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,555b 1 ,456 ,518 ,270 ,078

N of Valid Cases 82



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,090 ,718 ,777

N of Valid Cases 82


Project nº 218741


249

Table. 137B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADWAY HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

ROADWAY HORIZONTAL

ALIGNMENT

Total Straight Curve right Curve left

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 12 8 25 45

% within row 26,7% 17,8% 55,6% 100,0%

2** Count 13 12 12 37

% within row 35,1% 32,4% 32,4% 100,0%


% within row 30,5% 24,4% 45,1% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-





Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,725b 1 ,099 ,122 ,064 ,027

N of Valid Cases 82



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,239 ,097 ,098

N of Valid Cases 82

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

250

5.2.4 Roadside infrastructures & accidents causation

5.2.4.1 Roadside condition and defects

Table

. 13

8

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

RO

AD

SID

E C

ON

DIT

ION

AN

D D

EF

EC

TS

none

oth

er

none

oth

er

none

oth

er/

unknow

n

Co

un

t8

210

11

44

8

row

%8

0,0

0%

20

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t1

02

12

11

21

45

row

%8

3,3

0%

16

,70

%100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

20

,00

%8

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t9

514

11

213

12

3

row

%6

4,3

0%

35

,70

%100,00%

84

,62

%1

5,3

8%

100,00%

33

,33

%6

6,6

7%

100,00%

Co

un

t6

39

81

92

2

row

%6

6,7

0%

33

,30

%100,00%

88

,89

%1

1,1

1%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

AC

EM


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

ROADSIDE CONDITION

AND DEFECTS

Total

ROADSIDE CONDITION

AND DEFECTS

Total

ROADSIDE CONDITION

AND DEFECTS

Total

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

IDIA

DA


Project nº 218741


251

Table. 139 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS

none other

Count 13 6 19

row % 68,42% 31,58% 100,00%

Count 12 7 19

row % 63,16% 36,84% 100,00%

Count 21 9 30

row % 70,00% 30,00% 100,00%

Count 14 6 20

row % 70,00% 30,00% 100,00%

fatal

roadside


Buildings structures/ embankment/

tree/ditch or low lying depression


ROADSIDE CONDITION

AND DEFECTS

Total

serious

injuries

roadside




Regards the status (Table. 139) of the roadside emerges that, for about the 70% of accidents, this doesn’t report defect and there aren’t significative differences between the obstacles. In general the serious injuries have a little lower percentages, respect to the fatal, for the “none” modality of column variable. The relationship between the “Roadside condition and defects” and the “Severity of the accidents”, Table. 139A, is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.139B, between “Roadside condition and defects” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


252

Table. 139A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS

ROADSIDE CONDITION AND

DEFECTS

Total none other

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 65,8% 34,2% 100,0%


% within row 70,0% 30,0% 100,0%


% within row 68,2% 31,8% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,174c 1 ,676 ,818 ,424 ,167

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,045 ,674 ,818

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


253

Table. 139B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONDITION AND DEFECTS

ROADSIDE CONDITION

AND DEFECTS

Total none other

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 34 15 49

% within row 69,4% 30,6% 100,0%

2** Count 26 13 39

% within row 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


% within row 68,2% 31,8% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,073c 1 ,787 ,821 ,482 ,175

N of Valid Cases 88



c. The standardized statistic is ,271.

Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,029 ,785 ,821

N of Valid Cases 88

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

254

5.2.4.2 Traffic density at the time of accidents

Table

. 14

0

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

TR

AF

FIC

DE

NS

ITY

AT

TH

E T

IME

OF

AC

CID

EN

TS

light traffic

modera

te

traffic

heavy

traffic

,

traffic

movin

g

oth

er

unknow

n

no o

ther

traffic

light traffic

modera

te

traffic

no o

ther

traffic

light traffic

modera

te

traffic

heavy

traffic

,

traffic

movin

g

Co

un

t5

23

10

11

26

8

row

%5

0,0

0%

20

,00

%3

0,0

0%

100,00%

100,0

0%

100,00%

25,0

0%

75

,00%

100,00%

Co

un

t6

15

12

11

21

31

5

row

%5

0,0

0%

8,3

0%

41,7

0%

100,00%

50

,00

%50

,00

%100,00%

20,0

0%

60

,00%

20,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t5

63

14

91

313

21

3

row

%3

5,7

0%

42

,90

%2

1,4

0%

100,00%

69

,23

%7,6

9%

23

,08

%100,00%

66,6

7%

33,3

3%

100,00%

Co

un

t3

21

12

95

49

11

2

row

%3

3,3

0%

22

,20

%1

1,1

0%

11

,10

%2

2,2

0%

100,00%

55

,56

%44

,44

%100,00%

50,0

0%

50

,00%

100,00%

AC

EM


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

barr

ier/

Posts

fencin

g

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENTS

Total

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE TIME

OF ACCIDENTS

Total

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE TIME

OF ACCIDENTS

Total

Build

ings

str

uctu

res/

em

ban

km

en

t/

tree

/ditch

or

low

lyin

g

dep

ressio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

barr

ier/

Posts

fencin

g

Build

ings

str

uctu

res/

em

ban

km

en

t/

tree

/ditch

or

low

lyin

g

dep

ressio

n

IDIA

DA


Project nº 218741


255

Table. 141 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENTS

light traffic

moderate

traffic

heavy

traffic,

traffic

moving

other

unknown

no other

traffic

Count 7 9 3 19

row % 36,84% 47,37% 15,79% 100,00%

Count 8 4 1 6 19

row % 42,11% 21,05% 5,26% 31,58% 100,00%

Count 16 7 1 6 30

row % 53,33% 23,33% 3,33% 20,00% 100,00%

Count 9 3 1 1 6 20

row % 45,00% 15,00% 5,00% 5,00% 30,00% 100,00%

fatal

roadside





TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENTS

Total

serious

injuries

roadside




The majority of accidents happened in a condition of traffic, light or moderate, and especially the impact with Guardrail barrier /Post fencing: we see that the percentage of fatal accidents that happened in a light traffic condition is higher than for the serious injuries that instead are characterized by moderate traffic for the 47,4% of accidents (Table. 141). For the impact with the Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression we see that the light traffic category is the condition that account for the highest percentage in each of the severity levels (Table. 141). The relationship between the “Traffic density at the time of accidents” and the “Severity of the accidents”, Table. 141A, is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.141B, between “Traffic density at the time of accidents” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


256

Table. 141A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENTS

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE

TIME OF ACCIDENTS

Total

Light traffic Moderate

traffic

No other

traffic

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 40,5% 35,1% 24,3% 100,0%


% within row 53,2% 21,3% 25,5% 100,0%


% within row 47,6% 27,4% 25,0% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,397b 1 ,529 ,596 ,309 ,087

N of Valid Cases 84



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,160 ,340 ,382

N of Valid Cases 84


Project nº 218741


257

Table. 141B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENTS

TRAFFIC DENSITY AT THE

TIME OF ACCIDENTS

Total

Light traffic Moderate

traffic

No other

traffic

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 23 16 9 48

% within row 47,9% 33,3% 18,8% 100,0%

2** Count 17 7 12 36

% within row 47,2% 19,4% 33,3% 100,0%


% within row 47,6% 27,4% 25,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,703b 1 ,402 ,426 ,240 ,075

N of Valid Cases 84



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,195 ,202 ,208

N of Valid Cases 84

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

258

5.2.4.3 Visibility limitation due to

Table

. 14

2

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

VIS

IBIL

ITY

LIM

ITA

TIO

N D

UE

TO

pre

cip

itation

oth

er/

unknow

n

none,

vis

ibili

ty n

ot

sig

nific

antly

limited

gla

renone,

vis

ibili

ty n

ot

sig

nific

antly

limited

pre

cip

itation

mis

alig

ned/

obscure

d

roadsid

e

curv

ed

mirro

r

oth

er/

unknow

n

none,

vis

ibili

ty n

ot

sig

nific

antly

limited

Coun

t1

910

11

11

24

8

row

%10,0

0%

90,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

12

,50

%1

2,5

0%

25,0

0%

50,0

0%

100,00%

Coun

t12

12

22

41

5

row

%10

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

80,0

0%

20,0

0%

100,00%

Coun

t14

14

13

13

12

3

row

%10

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

33,3

3%

66,6

7%

100,00%

Coun

t1

89

18

92

2

row

%1

1,1

0%

88,9

0%

100,00%

11

,11%

88,8

9%

100,00%

100

,00

%100,00%

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA


Total


Total


Total


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fencin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

ent/

tre

e/d

itch o

r

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gua

rdra

il

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fencin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

ent/

tre

e/d

itch o

r

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n


Project nº 218741


259

Table. 143 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION DUE TO

other/

unknown

none,

visibility not

significantly

limited

Count 5 14 19

row % 26,32% 73,68% 100,00%

Count 4 15 19

row % 21,05% 78,95% 100,00%

Count 1 29 30

row % 3,33% 96,67% 100,00%

Count 2 18 20

row % 10,00% 90,00% 100,00%

fatal

roadside


Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or



serious

injuries

roadside





The visibility at the time of accident is not limited for the high majority of cases: the percentages of good visibility are higher for fatal accidents than for the serious; for the former the percentage that regards the impact with Guardrail barrier /Post fencing is closed to 97% (Table. 143). The relationship, Table.143A, between the “Visibility limitation due to” and the “Severity of the accidents” is statistical significative: Pearson Chi-Square 5,733 p-value ,017; the strength is expressed by Cramer's V 0,255. Whereas the relation, Table.143B, between “Visibility limitation due to” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


260

Table. 143A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: VISIBILITY LIMITATION DUE TO

VISIBILITY LIMITATION DUE TO

Total

other/ unknown


significantly

limited

Severity of

the

accidents


% within row 23,7% 76,3% 100,0%

fatal Count 3 47 50

% within row 6,0% 94,0% 100,0%


% within row 13,6% 86,4% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

5,668c 1 ,017 ,026 ,019 ,016

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,255 ,017 ,026

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


261

Table. 143B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & VISIBILITY LIMITATION DUE TO

VISIBILITY LIMITATION

DUE TO

Total

other/ unknown

none, visibility

not significantly

limited

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 6 43 49

% within row 12,2% 87,8% 100,0%

2** Count 6 33 39

% within row 15,4% 84,6% 100,0%


% within row 13,6% 86,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-






Linear-by-Linear

Association

,180c 1 ,672 ,759 ,452 ,222

N of Valid Cases 88



Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,045 ,670 ,759

N of Valid Cases 88

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

262

5.2.4.4 Roadside obstacles & stationary view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event

Table

. 14

4

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

ST

AT

ION

AR

Y V

IEW

OB

ST

RU

CT

ION

S A

LO

NG

TH

E R

IDE

R’S

LIN

E O

F S

IGH

T A

T T

IME

OF

PR

EC

IPIT

AT

ING

EV

EN

T

blin

d c

urv

enone

sig

ns

hill

blin

d c

urv

enone

build

ings

none

Cou

nt

10

10

11

88

row

%1

00

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

100

,00

%100,00%

Cou

nt

11

112

11

21

45

row

%8

,30

%9

1,7

0%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

20,0

0%

80

,00

%100,00%

Cou

nt

11

314

14

813

33

row

%7

,10

%9

2,9

0%

100,00%

7,6

9%

30,7

7%

61

,54%

100,00%

100

,00

%100,00%

Cou

nt

99

11

79

22

row

%1

00

,00

%100,00%

11

,11

%1

1,1

1%

77

,78%

100,00%

100

,00

%100,00%


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Build

ings

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g d

ep

ressio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Build

ings

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g d

ep

ressio

n

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

STATIONARY VIEW

OBSTRUCTIONS

Total

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS

Total

STATIONARY VIEW

OBSTRUCTIONS

Total


Project nº 218741


263

Table. 145 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

other none

Count 1 18 19

row % 5,26% 94,74% 100,00%

Count 4 15 19

row % 21,05% 78,95% 100,00%

Count 6 24 30

row % 20,00% 80,00% 100,00%

Count 2 18 20

row % 10,00% 90,00% 100,00%

Total

serious

injuries

roadside

obstacles

fatal

roadside





STATIONARY VIEW

OBSTRUCTIONS




The rider at the time of precipitating event in the majority of cases don’t experiment a view obstruction due to a stationary object. For the impact against Guardrail barrier / Post fencing we see that for the 20% of fatal accidents (Table. 145) there is a view obstruction whereas the same figure for serious injuries is lower; whereas for the other type of obstacles the percentage of view obstruction is higher for serious injuries than for the fatal (Table. 145). The relationship, Table.145A, between the “Stationary view obstructions” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.145B, between “Stationary view obstructions” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


264

Table. 145A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTION

STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTION

Total Other none

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 13,2% 86,8% 100,0%

fatal Count 8 42 50

% within row 16,0% 84,0% 100,0%


% within row 14,8% 85,2% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,137c 1 ,711 ,770 ,477 ,224

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,040 ,710 ,770

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


265

Table. 145B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & STATIONARY VIEW OBSTRUCTION

STATIONARY VIEW

OBSTRUCTION

Total Other none

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 7 42 49

% within row 14,3% 85,7% 100,0%

2** Count 6 33 39

% within row 15,4% 84,6% 100,0%


% within row 14,8% 85,2% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,021c 1 ,886 1,000 ,559 ,233

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,015 ,885 1,000

N of Valid Cases 88

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

266

5.2.4.5 Roadside obstacles & mobile view obstructions along the rider’s line of sight at the time of precipitating event

Table

. 14

6

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

MO

BIL

E V

IEW

OB

ST

RU

CT

ION

S A

LO

NG

TH

E R

IDE

R’S

LIN

E O

F S

IGH

T A

T T

IME

OF

PR

EC

IPIT

AT

ING

EV

EN

T

MOBILE VIEW

OBSTRUCTIONS

vehic

les:

auto

mobile

snone

none

vehic

les:

auto

mobile

s

oth

er/

unknow

nnone

Co

un

t1

010

11

71

8

row

%1

00

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

87

,50

%1

2,5

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t1

212

22

55

row

%1

00

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t1

13

14

13

13

21

3

row

%7

,10

%9

2,9

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

66

,67

%3

3,3

3%

100,00%

Co

un

t9

99

92

2

row

%1

00

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g d

ep

ressio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g d

ep

ressio

n

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

MOBILE VIEW

OBSTRUCTIONS

Total

Total

MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS

Total


Project nº 218741


267

Table. 147 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE RIDER’S LINE OF SIGHT AT TIME OF PRECIPITATING EVENT

other none

Count 7 12 19

row % 36,84% 63,16% 100,00%

Count 5 14 19

row % 26,32% 73,68% 100,00%

Count 4 26 30

row % 13,33% 86,67% 100,00%

Count 2 18 20

row % 10,00% 90,00% 100,00%

fatal

roadside





MOBILE VIEW

OBSTRUCTIONS

Total

serious

injuries

roadside




The rider experiments a mobile view obstruction more frequently in serious injuries than in the fatal: comparing the percentages (Table. 147), for the impact with Guardrail barrier / Post fencing, between the fatal and serious injuries we see that for the second there are respectively higher value respect to the fatal injuries. The relationship, Table.147A, between the “Mobile view obstructions” and the “Severity of the accidents” is statistical significative: Pearson Chi-Square 5,087 p-value ,024; the strength of relation is Cramer's V 0,240. Whereas the relation, Table.147B, between “Mobile view obstructions” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


268

Table. 147A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTION

MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTION

Total Other none

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 31,6% 68,4% 100,0%

fatal Count 6 44 50

% within row 12,0% 88,0% 100,0%


% within row 20,5% 79,5% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

5,029c 1 ,025 ,033 ,024 ,018

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,240 ,024 ,033

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


269

Table. 147B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & MOBILE VIEW OBSTRUCTION

MOBILE VIEW

OBSTRUCTION

Total other none

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 11 38 49

% within row 22,4% 77,6% 100,0%

2** Count 7 32 39

% within row 17,9% 82,1% 100,0%


% within row 20,5% 79,5% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-






Linear-by-Linear

Association

,267c 1 ,605 ,791 ,402 ,185

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,055 ,603 ,791

N of Valid Cases 88

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

270

5.2.4.6 Weather description

Table

. 14

8

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

WE

AT

HE

R D

ES

CR

IPT

ION

clear

cloudy,

partly

cloudy

overcast

drizzle,

light rain

moderate

or heavy

rain

unknown

clear

cloudy,

partly

cloudy

clear

cloudy,

partly

cloudy

moderate

or heavy

rain

Co

un

t7

11

110

11

71

8

row

%7

0,0

0%

10

,00

%1

0,0

0%

10

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

87

,50

%1

2,5

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t3

71

112

22

41

5

row

%2

5,0

0%

58

,30

%8

,30

%8

,30

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

80

,00

%2

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t2

73

214

13

13

21

3

row

%1

4,3

0%

50

,00

%2

1,4

0%

14

,30

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

66

,67

%3

3,3

3%

100,00%

Co

un

t6

12

98

19

22

row

%6

6,7

0%

11

,10

%2

2,2

0%

100,00%

88

,89

%1

1,1

1%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

WEATHER DESCRIPTION


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

Total

Total

WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total

AC

EM

WEATHER

DESCRIPTION


Project nº 218741


271

Table. 149 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & WEATHER DESCRIPTION

clear other*

Count 15 4 19

row % 78,95% 21,05% 100,00%

Count 9 10 19

row % 47,37% 52,63% 100,00%

Count 17 13 30

row % 56,67% 43,33% 100,00%

Count 16 4 20

row % 80,00% 20,00% 100,00%

serious

injuries

roadside




fatal

roadside





WEATHER

DESCRIPTION

* aggregation of all the weather conditions with the exception of clear weather

The weather at the time of accident in the majority of accidents is clear: if we compare the impact with Guardrail barrier /Post fencing between the level of accidents severity (Table. 149) it emerges that for fatal injuries in about the 43% of cases is not presented clear weather, whereas the same figure for the less severe level is about the half; whereas for the impact with the other type of obstacle we find a inverse percentual movement. The relationship, Table.149A, between the “Weather description” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative; even the relation, Table.149B, between “Weather description” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


272

Table. 149A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: WEATHER DESCRIPTION

WEATHER DESCRIPTION

Total clear Other*

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 63,2% 36,8% 100,0%


% within row 66,0% 34,0% 100,0%


% within row 64,8% 35,2% 100,0%

* aggregation of all the weather conditions with the exception of clear weather

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,076c 1 ,783 ,824 ,478 ,171

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,029 ,782 ,824

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


273

Table. 149B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLE & WEATHER DESCRIPTION

WEATHER

DESCRIPTION

Total clear Other***

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 32 17 49

% within row 65,3% 34,7% 100,0%

2** Count 25 14 39

% within row 64,1% 35,9% 100,0%


% within row 64,8% 35,2% 100,0%

1* Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing 2** Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression *** aggregation of all the weather conditions with the exception of clear weather

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-






Linear-by-Linear

Association

,014c 1 ,907 1,000 ,542 ,176

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,013 ,907 1,000

N of Valid Cases 88

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

274

5.2.4.7 Roadside contamination obstacles

Table

. 15

0

Num

ber

of

serious a

nd f

ata

l accid

ents

, b

y s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

R

OA

DS

IDE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S &

RO

AD

SID

E C

ON

TA

MIN

AT

ION

OB

ST

AC

LE

S

water

sand, soil, dirt

gravel

ice

temporary sign

board

other/unknown

none

gravel

temporary sign

board

other/unknown

none

water

gravel

other/unknown

none

Co

un

t2

17

10

11

21

41

8

row

%2

0,0

0%

10

,00

%7

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

25

,00

%1

2,5

0%

50

,00

%1

2,5

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t1

29

12

11

24

15

row

%8

,30

%1

6,7

0%

75

,00

%100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

80

,00

%2

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t2

11

10

14

11

11

13

11

13

row

%1

4,3

0%

7,1

0%

7,1

0%

71

,40

%100,00%

7,6

9%

7,6

9%

84

,62

%100,00%

33

,33

%3

3,3

3%

33

,33

%100,00%

Co

un

t1

89

21

69

11

2

row

%1

1,1

0%

88

,90

%100,00%

22

,22

%1

1,1

1%

66

,67

%100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%


serious

injuries

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

fatal

roadside obstacles

Gu

ard

rail

ba

rrie

r/P

osts

fen

cin

g

Bu

ildin

gs

str

uctu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch

or

low

lyin

g

de

pre

ssio

n

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA


Total


OBSTACLES

Total


OBSTACLES

Total


Project nº 218741


275

Table. 151 Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES

oth

er

no

ne

Count 10 9 19

row % 52,63% 47,37% 100,00%

Count 8 11 19

row % 42,11% 57,89% 100,00%

Count 8 22 30

row % 26,67% 73,33% 100,00%

Count 6 14 20

row % 30,00% 70,00% 100,00%

fatal

roadside





serious

injuries

roadside




ROADSIDE

CONTAMINATION

OBSTACLES

It’s interesting to notice that for the majority of the accidents the roadside doesn’t report contamination obstacles; only for the impact against Guardrail barrier / Post fencing, at the serious level of severity (Table. 151), is more higher the percentage for the presence of contamination, even if the figures is quite balanced between the modality of column variable. Between the level of severity we see that for fatal injuries, inside the two categories of obstacle, the percentage of presence of contamination obstacle is lower than for the serious one. The relationship, Table.151A, between the “Road contamination obstacles” and the “Severity of the accidents” is not statistical significative (Pearson Chi-Square 3,500 p-value 0,061) ; even the relation, Table.151B, between “Road contamination obstacles” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


276

Table. 151A - used for statistical analysis- Number of serious and fatal accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES


Total Other none

Severity

of the

accidents


% within row 47,4% 52,6% 100,0%


% within row 28,0% 72,0% 100,0%


% within row 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

3,460c 1 ,063 ,076 ,050 ,032

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,199 ,061 ,076

N of Valid Cases 88


Project nº 218741


277

Table. 151B - used for statistical analysis- Number of accidents, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ROADSIDE CONTAMINATION OBSTACLES

ROADSIDE

CONTAMINATION

OBSTACLES

Total other none

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 18 31 49

% within row 36,7% 63,3% 100,0%

2** Count 14 25 39

% within row 35,9% 64,1% 100,0%


% within row 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-






Linear-by-Linear

Association

,007c 1 ,936 1,000 ,557 ,176

N of Valid Cases 88




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,009 ,935 1,000

N of Valid Cases 88

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

278


5.2.5.1 Trauma status

Table

. 15

2

Num

ber

of

PT

W r

ider,

by s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

RO

AD

SID

E O

BS

TA

CLE

S &

TR

AU

MA

ST

AT

US

(F

AT

AL A

CC

IDE

NT

S)

fatal, dead on

scene

fatal, dead

upon arrival at

hospital

fatal

<=30 days

fatal, dead on

scene

fatal, dead

upon arrival at

hospital

fatal, dead on

scene

fatal, dead

upon arrival at

hospital

fatal

<=30 days

Co

unt

12

11

14

13

114

11

13

row

%8

5,7

1%

7,1

4%

7,1

4%

100,00%

92

,86

%7

,14

%100,00%

33

,33

%33

,33

%3

3,3

3%

100,00%

Co

unt

43

29

81

91

12

row

%4

4,4

4%

33

,33

%2

2,2

2%

100,00%

88

,89

%1

1,1

1%

100,00%

50

,00

%5

0,0

0%

100,00%

Gu

ard

rail

barr

ier/

Posts

fe

ncin

g

Bu

ildin

gs s

tructu

res/

em

ba

nkm

en

t/

tre

e/d

itch o

r lo

w lyin

g d

ep

ressio

n

Roadside obstacles

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

TRAUMA STATUS

Total

TRAUMA STATUS

Total

TRAUMA STATUS

Total


Project nº 218741


279

Table. 153 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAUMA STATUS (FATAL)

fata

l, d

ea

d o

n

sce

ne

fata

l, d

ea

d

up

on

arr

iva

l at

ho

sp

ita

l

fata

l

<=

30

da

ys

Count 26 3 2 31

row % 83,87% 9,68% 6,45% 100,00%

Count 12 5 3 20

row % 60,00% 25,00% 15,00% 100,00%




TRAUMA STATUS

TotalRoadside obstacles

It’s interesting to notice that the type of the roadside obstacles has a influence on the effective date of the death. For the impacts with Guardrail/Post fencing (Table. 153) there are a higher percentage (83,9%) of riders, respect to Buildings structures/ embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression, that dead on scene of accident; whereas for the second type of obstacle, respect to the former, we find higher percentage for the dead in the time following the accident (until 30 days by the accident). The relationship, Table.153A, between the “Trauma status” and the “Roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


280

Table. 153A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & TRAUMA STATUS (FATAL)

TRAUMA STATUS

Total

fata

l, d

ead

on

scen

e

fata

l, d

ead

up

on

arr

iva

l

at

hosp

ita

l

fata

l

<=

30

da

ys

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 26 3 2 31

% within row 83,9% 9,7% 6,5% 100,0%

2** Count 12 5 3 20

% within row 60,0% 25,0% 15,0% 100,0%


% within row 74,5% 15,7% 9,8% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,951b 1 ,086 ,126 ,069 ,041

N of Valid Cases 51



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,268 ,161 ,217

N of Valid Cases 51

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

281

5.2.5.2 Head injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table

. 15

4

Num

ber

of

PT

W r

ider,

by s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

RO

AD

SID

E O

BS

TA

CL

ES

& H

EA

D I

NJU

RY

DU

E T

O IM

PA

CT

WIT

H T

HE

OB

ST

AC

LE

S

1-2

3-6

NFS

6N

FS

1-2

3-6

Co

un

t2

63

11

41

216

34

7

row

%1

8,2

0%

54

,50

%2

7,3

0%

100,00%

25

,00

%7

5,0

0%

100,00%

42

,86

%5

7,1

4%

100,00%

Co

un

t2

58

235

38

11

11

row

%7

1,4

0%

22

,90

%5

,70

%100,00%

27

,27

%7

2,7

3%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

HEAD AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

HEAD AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total

HEAD AIS


Total

Guard

rail

barr

ier/ P

osts

fencin

g

Build

ings

structu

res/e

mbankm

ent/tree/d

itch o

r

low

lyin

g d

epre

ssio

n

roadside obstacles


Project nº 218741


282

Table. 155 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6

Count 5 14 19

row % 26,32% 73,68% 100,00%

Count 25 12 37

row % 67,57% 32,43% 100,00%

Total


Buildings structures/embankment/tree/

ditch or low lying depression

HEAD AIS


roadside obstacles

For the head impacts, against the obstacles, we find that the severity of damage is influenced by the type of obstacles: when the head impact (Table. 155) with a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing, the 73,7% of accidents, have an injuries gathered in the bracket AIS 3-6 whereas for the other type of obstacles the majority of the injuries concern AIS 1-2. The relationship, Table.155A, between “Head AIS” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is statistical significative: Pearson Chi-Square 8,589 p-value 0,003 and the strength of relation is expressed by Cramer's V 0,392.


Project nº 218741


283

Table. 155A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & HEAD INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

HEAD AIS

Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 5 14 19

% within row 26,3% 73,7% 100,0%

2** Count 25 12 37

% within row 67,6% 32,4% 100,0%


% within row 53,6% 46,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

8,435c 1 ,004 ,005 ,004 ,003

N of Valid Cases 56




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,392 ,003 ,005

N of Valid Cases 56


Project nº 218741


284

5.2.5.3 Upper extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 156 Number of PTW rider, by singular database, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & UPPER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6 1-2 3-6

Count10 1 11 1 3 4

row % 90,90% 9,10% 100,00% 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

Count

67 67 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

ACEM ZARAGOZA

roadside obstacles

UPPER EXTREMITIES

AIS


Total

UPPER EXTREMITIES

AIS


Total


Buildings

structures/embankment/tree/ ditch


Table. 157 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & UPPER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6

Count11 4 15

row %73,33% 26,67% 100,00%

Count69 69

row %100,00% 100,00%

roadside obstacles UPPER EXTREMITIES

AIS


Total


Buildings



The upper extremities injuries for the majority of riders are slight; but if we compare the information (Table. 157), inside the type of the roadside obstacles, we find that about the 27% of riders that impact, the upper extremities, with a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing suffer an AIS 3-6 injuries whereas for the impact with the other roadside obstacles all the injuries are slight. The relationship, Table.157A, between “Upper extremities AIS” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is statistical significative: Exact significance of the Fisher's Exact Test is 0,001 and the strength of relation is expressed by Cramer's V 0,480.


Project nº 218741


285

Table. 157A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & UPPER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES


Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 11 4 15

% within row 73,3% 26,7% 100,0%

2** Count 69 69

% within row 100,0% 100,0%

Total Count 80 4 84

% within row 95,2% 4,8% 100,0%

1* Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing

2** Buildings structures/ embankment/ tree/ditch or low lying depression

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

19,090c 1 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,001

N of Valid Cases 84




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,480 ,000 ,001

N of Valid Cases 84


Project nº 218741


286

5.2.5.4 Thorax injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 158 Number of PTW rider, by singular database, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & THORAX INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6 NFS 1-2 3-6

Count3 5 3 11 1 2 3

row % 27,30% 45,50% 27,30% 100,00% 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

Count10 6 1 17 2 2

row % 58,80% 35,30% 5,90% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

ACEM ZARAGOZA

roadside obstacles

THORAX AIS


Total

THORAX

AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total


Buildings



Table. 159 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & THORAX INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6

Count 4 7 11

row % 36,36% 63,64% 100,00%

Count10 8 18

row % 55,56% 44,44% 100,00%

roadside obstacles

Total


Buildings



THORAX AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

The riders when impact the thorax against a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing in the majority (63,6%) of accidents (Table. 159) report a serious injury (AIS 3-6) whereas for the impact against the other type of obstacle the percentage are more balanced even if the 55,6% of injuries are slight. The relationship, Table.159A, between “Thorax AIS” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


287

Table. 159A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & THORAX INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

THORAX AIS

Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 4 7 11

% within row 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%

2** Count 10 8 18

% within row 55,6% 44,4% 100,0%


% within row 48,3% 51,7% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

,972c 1 ,324 ,450 ,268 ,186

N of Valid Cases 29




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,186 ,316 ,450

N of Valid Cases 29


Project nº 218741


288

5.2.5.5 Spine injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 160 Number of PTW rider, by singular database, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & SPINE INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6 NFS 1-2 3-6

Count2 3 5 4 4

row % 40,00% 60,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count16 1 1 18 1 1

row % 88,90% 5,60% 5,60% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%


Buildings



ACEM ZARAGOZA

roadside obstacles

SPINE AIS


Total

SPINE

AIS

(Abbreviated

Injury Scale)

Total

Table. 161 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & SPINE INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6

Count2 7 9

row % 22,22% 77,78% 100,00%

Count16 2 18

row % 88,89% 11,11% 100,00%

roadside obstacles

Total




SPINE AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Respect to the spine the type of obstacle has an important influence in determinating the severity of injurie (Table. 161): in fact the 77,8% of injuries due to an impact agaist a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing have an AIS 3-6 whereas about the 90% of injuries due to the other type of obstacle are slight (AIS 1-2). The relationship, Table.161A, between “Spine AIS” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is statistical significative: the exact significance, of the Fisher's Exact Test, is 0,001.


Project nº 218741


289

Table. 161A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & SPINE INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

SPINE AIS

Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 2 7 9

% within row 22,2% 77,8% 100,0%

2** Count 16 2 18

% within row 88,9% 11,1% 100,0%

Total Count 18 9 27

% within row 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-






Linear-by-Linear

Association

11,556c 1 ,001 ,001 ,001 ,001

N of Valid Cases 27




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,667 ,001 ,001

N of Valid Cases 27


Project nº 218741


290

5.2.5.6 Abdomen injuries due to impact with the obstacles

Table. 162 Number of PTW rider, by singular database, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ABDOMEN INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6 NFS 1-2 3-6

Count3 1 4 3 3

row % 75,00% 25,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count3 2 5 1 2 3

row % 60,00% 40,00% 100,00% 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%


Buildings

structures/embankment/tree/


ACEM ZARAGOZA

roadside obstacles

ABDOMEN AIS


Total

ABDOMEN

AIS

(Abbreviated

Injury Scale)

Total

Table. 163 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ABDOMEN INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6

Count 3 4 7

row % 42,86% 57,14% 100,00%

Count4 4 8

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

roadside obstacles

Total


Buildings

structures/embankment/tree/


ABDOMEN AIS


Comparing the injuries due to the different roadside obstacles it appears that the level of severity is quite balanced between slight and serious brackets. Nevertheless for the impact against the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, the majority (57,1%) of riders suffer an AIS 3-6 injury (Table. 163). The relationship, Table.163A, between “Abdomen AIS” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


291

Table. 163A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & ABDOMEN INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

ABDOMEN AIS

Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 3 4 7

% within row 42,9% 57,1% 100,0%

2** Count 4 4 8

% within row 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%

Total Count 7 8 15

% within row 46,7% 53,3% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-






Linear-by-Linear

Association

,071c 1 ,789 1,000 ,595 ,381

N of Valid Cases 15




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,071 ,782 1,000

N of Valid Cases 15


Project nº 218741


292

5.2.5.7 Lower extremities injuries due to impact with the obstacles Table. 164 Number of PTW rider, by singular database, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6 1-2 3-6

Count7 9 16 1 5 6

row % 43,80% 56,30% 100,00% 16,67% 83,33% 100,00%

Count43 5 48 1 1 2

row % 89,60% 10,40% 100,00% 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%




ACEM ZARAGOZA

roadside obstacles LOWER EXTREMITIES

AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total

LOWER EXTREMITIES

AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total

Table. 165 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

1-2 3-6

Count 8 14 22

row % 36,36% 63,64% 100,00%

Count44 6 50

row % 88,00% 12,00% 100,00%

roadside obstacles LOWER EXTREMITIES

AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale) Total




Impacting in different objects the riders report different severity levels injueris: about the 90% of injuries (Table. 165) due to an impact with a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ ditch or low lying depression are slight whereas the majority of injuries suffered by the riders that impact with a Guardrail barrier/ Posts fencing are serious. The relationship, Table.165A, between “Lower extremities AIS” and the type of “roadside obstacles” is statistical significative: Pearson Chi-Square 20,305 p-value 0,000 and the strength of relation is expressed by Cramer's V 0,531.


Project nº 218741


293

Table. 165A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to:ROADSIDE OBSTACLES & LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE OBSTACLES

LOWER EXTREMITIES

AIS

Total 1-2 3-6

Roadside

obstacles

1* Count 8 14 22

% within row 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%

2** Count 44 6 50

% within row 88,0% 12,0% 100,0%


% within row 72,2% 27,8% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

20,023c 1 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N of Valid Cases 72




Symmetric Measures


Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V ,531 ,000 ,000

N of Valid Cases 72

WP 1

Report

on t

he C

hara

cte

ristics o

f M

oto

rcycle

Accid

ents

Project nº 218741

C

o-f

inanced b

y E

uro

pean C

om

mis

sio

n

294


5.2.6.1 Was helmet retained in place on head during accident?

Table

. 16

6

Num

ber

of

PT

W r

ider,

by s

ingu

lar

data

base, re

late

d t

o:

WA

S H

ELM

ET

RE

TA

INE

D I

N P

LA

CE

ON

HE

AD

DU

RIN

G A

CC

IDE

NT

& H

EA

D IN

JU

RY

1-2

3-6

NFS

6N

FS

1-2

3-6

Co

un

t

18

74

29

42

125

11

row

%6

2,0

7%

24

,14

%1

3,7

9%

100,00%

16

,00

%8

4,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t1

12

row

%5

0,0

0%

50

,00

%100,00%

Co

un

t

11

row

%1

00

,00

%100,00%

Co

un

t2

24

33

11

row

%5

0,0

0%

50

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t1

11

1

row

%1

00

,00

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

Co

un

t1

04

115

11

23

5

row

%6

6,6

7%

26

,67

%6

,67

%100,00%

10

0,0

0%

100,00%

40

,00

%6

0,0

0%

100,00%

Count

32

15

552

722

29

44

8

row %

61,54%

28,85%

9,62%

100,00%

24,14%

75,86%

100,00%

50,00%

50,00%

100,00%

Total

AC

EM

IDIA

DA

HEAD AIS

Total

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

HEAD AIS

Total

HEAD AIS

Total

WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING

ACCIDENTS?

yes, helm

et

reta

ined in p

lace to

com

ple

tion o

f

accid

ent

yes, helm

et m

oved

on h

ead b

ut w

as

reta

ined

no, helm

et eje

cte

d

from

head d

uring

pre

-cra

sh tim

e

no, helm

et eje

cte

d

from

head d

uring

cra

sh

no, helm

et eje

cte

d

from

head a

fter

colli

sio

n

oth

er/unknow

n/

no h

elm

et


Project nº 218741


295

Table. 167 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENT & HEAD INJURY

1-2 3-6

Count 19 11 30

row % 63,33% 36,67% 100,00%

Count 1 1 2

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 2 6 8

row % 25,00% 75,00% 100,00%

Count 2 2

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 12 7 19

row % 63,16% 36,84% 100,00%

Count 36 26 62

row % 58,06% 41,94% 100,00%Total

Total

HEAD AIS

WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON

HEAD DURING ACCIDENTS?

yes, helmet retained in place to

completion of accident

yes, helmet moved on head but

was retained

no, helmet ejected from head

during pre-crash time


during crash


after collision


The riders who retained the helmet on head during the accident, the modalities of row variable “yes, helmet retained in place to completion of accident ” and “yes, helmet moved on head but was retained ”, report in the majority (62,5%) of accidents a slight head injuries (AIS 1-2) (Table. 167A) whereas the riders who lost the helmet during the accident reports in the majority (63,6%) of cases a head AIS 3-6. The relationship between “Was helmet retained in place on head during accident” and “Head AIS” (Table. 167A) is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


296

Table. 167A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: WAS HELMET RETAINED IN PLACE ON HEAD DURING ACCIDENT & HEAD INJURY

HEAD AIS

Total 1-2 3-6

Was

helmet

retained?

1* Count 20 12 32

% within row 62,5% 37,5% 100,0%

2** Count 4 7 11

% within row 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%


% within row 55,8% 44,2% 100,0%

1* “yes, helmet retained in place to completion of accident ” - “yes, helmet moved on head but was retained” 2** “no, helmet ejected from head during pre-crash time” – “no, helmet ejected from head during crash” – “no, helmet ejected from head after collision ”

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability





Linear-by-Linear

Association

2,215c 1 ,137 ,170 ,125 ,093

N of Valid Cases 43




Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,230 ,132 ,170

N of Valid Cases 43


Project nº 218741


297

5.2.6.2 Body coverage material & upper extremities AIS Table. 168 Number of PTW rider, by singular database, related to: LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL

1 2 3 2 3

Count 10 3 13

row % 76,90% 23,10% 100,00%

Count 14 11 1 26 1 1

row % 53,80% 42,30% 3,80% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count11 8 1 20

row % 55,00% 40,00% 5,00% 100,00%

Count 12 9 21 1 1

row % 57,10% 42,90% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count 4 4 2 1 3

row % 100,00% 100,00% 66,67% 33,33% 100,00%

Count 47 35 2 84 3 2 5

row % 56,00% 41,70% 2,40% 100,00% 60,00% 40,00% 100,00%


ACEM ZARAGOZA



Total

UPPER EXTREMITIES

AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

Total


medium cloth garment, i.e., denim,

nylon

heavy cloth garment, i.e., Kevlar

or imitation leather

leather garment

other/unknown

Total

Table. 169 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: LOWER EXTREMITIES INJURY & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL

1-2 3

Count 13 13

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 25 2 27

row % 92,59% 7,41% 100,00%

Count 19 1 20

row % 95,00% 5,00% 100,00%

Count 22 22

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 6 1 7

row % 85,71% 14,29% 100,00%

Count 85 4 89

row % 95,51% 4,49% 100,00%

heavy cloth garment, i.e., Kevlar

or imitation leather

leather garment

other/unknown

Total

UPPER EXTREMITIES

AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

TotalBody coverage material



nylon

Considering the strength of body coverage material (Table .169) we find that, for the upper extremities injuries, passing by medium to leather garment the percentage of AIS 3 injuries decreases by 7,4 to zero percent. Anyhow the relationship between strength of cloth and


Project nº 218741


298

injuries severity is influenced by other variables that have a more strong effect on the column variable, respect to the body coverage material.

5.2.6.3 Body coverage material & thorax AIS

Table. 170 Number of PTW rider, by singular database, related to: THORAX INJURY & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL

1 2 3 4 5 NFS 2 3 4 6

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 3 3 1 7

row % 42,90% 42,90% 14,30% 100,00%

Count 3 1 1 2 7

row % 42,90% 14,30% 14,30% 28,60% 100,00%

Count 4 1 1 1 4 111 1

row % 36,40% 9,10% 9,10% 9,10% 36,40% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Count 1 1 21 1 1 1 4

row % 50,00% 50,00% 100,00% 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 25,00% 100,00%

Count 11 2 3 5 3 4 281 1 1 2 5

row % 39,30% 7,10% 10,70% 17,90% 10,70% 14,30% 100,00% 20,00% 20,00% 20,00% 40,00% 100,00%

ZARAGOZA

THORAX AIS


Total

ACEM

THORAX AIS


Total

Total


light cloth garment,

i.e., thin cotton

medium cloth

garment, i.e., denim,

nylon

heavy cloth garment,

i.e., Kevlar or

imitation leather

leather garment

other/unknown

Table. 171 Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: THORAX INJURY & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL

1-2 3-6

Count 1 1

row % 100,00% 100,00%

Count 3 4 7

row % 42,86% 57,14% 100,00%

Count 4 3 7

row % 57,14% 42,86% 100,00%

Count 5 3 8

row % 62,50% 37,50% 100,00%

Count 2 4 6

row % 33,33% 66,67% 100,00%

Count 14 15 29

row % 48,28% 51,72% 100,00%

heavy cloth garment, i.e.,

Kevlar or imitation leather

leather garment

other/unknown

Total

TotalBody coverage material



nylon

THORAX AIS

(Abbreviated Injury

Scale)

The streght of protective cloths has an influence in reducing the thorax injuries: moving by light to leather garment (Table. 171) we attend to the decrease of AIS 3-6 injurie bracket percentages. The 62,5% of the riders, who wear lather garment, suffer an AIS 1-2 injurie. The relationship between “Thorax AIS” and the type of “Body coverage material” (Table. 171A) is not statistical significative.


Project nº 218741


299

Table. 171A - used for statistical analysis- Number of PTW rider, summary information, related to: THORAX INJURY & BODY COVERAGE MATERIAL (medium – heavy – lather cloth garment)

THORAX AIS

Total 1-2 3-6

Body

coverage

material

Medium Count 3 4 7

% within row 42,9% 57,1% 100,0%

Heavy Count 4 3 7

% within row 57,1% 42,9% 100,0%

Lather Count 5 3 8

% within row 62,5% 37,5% 100,0%


% within row 54,5% 45,5% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Point

Probability




Linear-by-Linear

Association

,545b 1 ,460 ,614 ,315 ,154

N of Valid Cases 22



Symmetric Measures



Cramer's V ,166 ,738 ,867

N of Valid Cases 22


Project nº 218741


300

5.3 Conclusion

We have analysed fatal and serious accidents for which an impact of the PTW against a “Guardrail barrier/Post fencing” or against a “Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression” occurred. Considering the differences, regarding the PTW kinematics and surrounding conditions, between the fatal and serious accidents and respect to the obstacle of impact we noticed some interesting findings. The majority of fatal accidents are characterized by a higher PTW speed (Table. 113A – page 213), than the serious, especially those for which included impact with a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing: in about the 70% of the latter accidents (Table. 113 – page 212) the PTW speed is over 70km/h; it’s interesting to remark that the impact with this obstacle, even for serious accidents, is characterized (68,4%) by a PTW speed over 50km/h. Differently, in about 90% of the serious accidents, for which there was an impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression, the PTW had a speed lower than 70km/h (moreover 50% of PTW had a speed lower than 51km/h). The PTW roll angle in the majority of fatal accidents (Table. 115 – page 216), in which there was an impact against a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, is different from zero; whereas if we consider the other obstacles, the higher percentage (53,3%) of PTW had an angle at impact equal to zero. The roll angle in the serious accidents, for which there was an impact with Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, is generally equal or lower to zero whereas for the impact with the other obstacle it assumes an opposite direction (>=0). The fatal accidents (Table. 117A – page 221) are characterized by a more wide PTW sideslip angle, respect to the serious even if in general (Table. 117 – page 220) the bracket (-30,30) degree accounts for the higher percentage. The majority of the accidents, independently from the severity, (Table. 137A – page 248) occurred in a curve. Nevertheless there are some differences between the obstacles (Table. 137 – page 247): the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing is hit essentially in a curve to the left; moreover the 45% of fatal accidents, characterized by the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression, occurred in a straight road. Generally the impact with the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing occurred in a more crowded (light or moderate) traffic condition (Table. 141 – page 255) respect to the impact with other obstacles (light or absent). There is a higher percentage (Table. 143A – page 260) of fatal accidents occurred with a good visibility respect to the serious. Considering the mobile view obstruction experienced by the rider at the time of precipitating event (Table. 147A – page 268), we found that it is present more frequently for serious accidents respect to the fatal and especially (Table. 147 – page 267) for the impact with Guardrail barrier/Post fencing. The accidents occurred (Table. 149A – page 272) in the majority of cases with clear weather. However, it’s interesting to remark that in the case of impact with Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, about 40% of fatal accidents, (Table. 149 – page 271) occurred with not clear weather; moreover (Table. 149 – page 271) the 52,6% of serious accidents, relating to the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression, occurred with not clear weather. The roadside did not present contamination obstacles (Table. 151A – page 276) more frequently for the fatal accidents respect to the serious. Apart from the variables that show some differences in terms of severity of accidents and the obstacle of impact, we found that there are some common factors (variable modality with the higher percentage) for all the accidents: the PTW part (Table. 119A – page 225) involved as first in the accident is the front or the centre, the roadside do not present defects (Table. 139A – page 252) and the riders do not experiment view obstruction (Table. 145A – page 264), at the time of the precipitating event, due to stationary obstacle. Moving our attention towards the PTW rider kinematics, respect to the severity of the accidents and the obstacles of impact, we found some interesting results. The PTW rider impact speed decreases (Table. 123A – page 232) passing from fatal to serious accidents and from the impact with the Guardrail barrier/Post fencing (Table. 123B – page 233) to the impact with other


Project nº 218741


301

obstacles; all the fatal accidents due to an impact with a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing, (Table. 123 – page 231) occurred at a speed over 70km/h and even the 42,9% of serious injuries, were above the mentioned speed. In the impact with a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression, the 50% of fatal accidents (Table. 123 – page 231) occurred at a speed between 51 and 70km/h whereas the same percentage of serious injuries occurred at a speed lower than 51km/h. The rider sliding on the pavement is a characteristic more common (Table. 128A – page 237) for serious than fatal accidents, so for the latter riders we can suppose that they suffer a movement different that the sliding; moreover the riders that impact against a Guardrail barrier/Post fencing (Table. 128B – page 238) show a higher percentage of slides respect to the rider that impact in the other obstacle. With the available information, regarding the rider's orientation respect to the road tangent, especially for the impact with Guardrail barrier/Post fencing it appears (Table. 130 – page 239) that the angle for fatal accidents is lower than for the serious ones. Among the fatal accidents there is a higher percentage of riders, respect to the serious, that impact against the elements of the Guardrail barrier: the 24,1% (Table. 132 – page 240) and 20,7% of riders (Table. 134 – page 242), dead within 30 days, impacted respectively with the post and the rail of the barrier. Respect to the impact with a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing, the riders who die within 30 days report a higher percentage (Table. 121 – page 228) for the “one single impact (56,7%)” modality respect to the serious (52,6% for the 2+ modality); moreover, even for the impact with the other type of obstacle we found a similar trend between the levels of severity, but the difference is little. It’s very interesting to notice that the number of riders dead at the scene of accident is higher (Table. 153 – page 279) for the impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing than for the impact with the other obstacles. Considering the severity of the single body part injuries, express by the AIS scale, suffered by the rider impacting with the different roadside obstacles it appears very clearly that the severity of injury is influenced by the impact obstacle. In general the injury severity of the impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing is higher than for the impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression (Table. 155 – page 282, Table. 159 – page 286, Table. 161 – page 288, Table. 165 – page 292): passing from the former to the latter obstacle we move from AIS (3-6) to AIS (1-2); the percentages are similar, between obstacles, for the abdomen injuries (Table. 163 – page 290) even if these injuries respect the general trend (more severe injures for the Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing). Only the upper extremities injuries (Table. 157 – page 284) show the higher percentage, for each of the roadside obstacles, in the same injury levels (AIS 1-2).


Project nº 218741


302

5.4 Summary information

PTW kinematics and surrounding conditions, in: Fatal accidents & PTW impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing - 69,6% of PTWs have a speed at impact over 70km/h (Table. 113 – page 212) - 74% of PTWs have a roll angle at impact different from zero (Table. 115 – page 216) - 76,9% of PTWs have a sideslip angle at impact included between -30° and 30° (Table. 117 – page 220) - 96,1% of PTWs have involved as first part the centre or the front (Table. 119 – page 224) - 51,9% of accidents occurred in a curve to the left (Table. 137 – page 247) - 70% of accidents do not present roadside defects (Table. 139 – page 251) - 76,7% of accidents occurred with light or moderate traffic condition (Table. 141 – page 255) - 96,7% of accidents are not influenced by visibility limitation (Table. 143 – page 259) - in 80% of accidents there is not stationary view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event) (Table. 145 – page 263) - in 86,7% of accidents there is not mobile view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event) (Table. 147 – page 267) - in 56,7% of accidents the weather is clear (Table. 149 – page 271) - in 73,3% of accidents the roadside does not present contamination obstacles (Table. 151 – page 275) In the majority of accidents the PTW's speed is over 70km/h, the roll angle is different from zero, the sideslip angle is little and the first part of PTW involved in the accidents is the front or the centre. Regarding the surround and environmental conditions we can say that in the majority of accidents the road is curve left, the road do not present defects, the accident occurred with traffic, there are not visibility limitation (mobile or stationary or general), the roadside is not contaminate and in the end the weather is clear. Fatal accidents & PTW impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression - 86,7% of PTWs have a speed at impact over 50km/h (Table. 113 – page 212) - 53,3% of PTWs have a roll angle at impact equal to zero (Table. 115 – page 216) - 72,7% of PTWs have a sideslip angle at impact included between -30° and 30° (Table. 117 – page 220) - 88,2% of PTWs have involved as first part the centre or the front (Table. 119 – page 224) - 45% of accidents occurred in a straight road (Table. 137 – page 247) - 70% of accidents do not present roadside defects (Table. 139 – page 251) - 75% of accidents occurred in a light or absent traffic condition (Table. 141 – page 255) - 90% of accidents are not influenced by visibility limitation (Table. 143 – page 259) - in 90% of accidents there is not stationary view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event) (Table. 145 – page 263) - in 90% of accidents there is not mobile view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event) (Table. 147 – page 267) - in 80% of accidents the weather is clear (Table. 149 – page 271) - in 70% of accidents the roadside do not present contamination obstacles (Table. 151 – page 275) We can summarize that in the majority of accidents the PTW speed is over 50km/h, the roll angle is equal to zero, the sideslip angle is little and the first part of PTW involved in the accidents is the front or the centre. Regarding the surround and environmental condition we can say that 45% of the accidents occurred in a straight road; moreover for the majority of accidents the road do not present


Project nº 218741


303

defects, the accident occurred in a light or absent traffic conditions, there aren’t visibility limitation (mobile or stationary or general), the roadside is not contaminate and in the end the weather is clear. Serious accidents & PTW impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing - 68,4% of PTWs have a speed at impact over 50km/h (Table. 113 – page 212) - 73,7% of PTWs have a roll angle at impact equal or lower to zero (Table. 115 – page 216) - 92,3% of PTWs have a sideslip angle at impact included between -30° and 30° (Table. 117 – page 220) - all the PTWs have involved as first part the centre or the front (Table. 119 – page 224) - 61,1% of accidents occurred in a curve left road (Table. 137 – page 247) - 68,4% of accidents do not present roadside defects (Table. 139 – page 251) - 84,2% of accidents occurred in a light or moderate traffic condition (Table. 141 – page 255) - 73,7% of accidents are not influenced by visibility limitation (Table. 143 – page 259) - in 94,7% of accidents there is not stationary view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event (Table. 145 – page 263) - in 63,2% of accidents there is not mobile view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event (Table. 147 – page 267) - in 79% of accidents the weather is clear (Table. 149 – page 271) - in 52,6% of accidents the roadside present contamination obstacles (Table. 151 – page 275) In the majority of accidents the PTW speed is over 50km/h, the roll angle is equal or lower to zero, the sideslip angle is little and the first part of PTW involved in the accidents is the front or the centre. Regarding the surround and environmental conditions we can summarize that in the majority of accidents the road is curve left, the road do not present defects, the accident occurred with traffic, there are not visibility limitation (mobile or stationary or general), in the 52,6% of the cases the roadside is contaminate and in the end the weather is clear. Serious accidents & PTW impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression - 88,9% of PTWs have a speed at impact lower than 70km/h (Table. 113 – page 212) - 84,2% of PTWs have a roll angle at impact equal or higher than zero (Table. 115 – page 216) - 92,9% of PTWs have a sideslip angle at impact included between -30° and 30° (Table. 117 – page 220) - 94,1% of PTWs have involved as first part the centre or the front (Table. 119 – page 224) - 76,5% of accidents occurred in a curve (left or right) (Table. 137 – page 247) - 63,1% of accidents do not present roadside defects (Table. 139 – page 251) - 73,7% of accidents occurred in a light or absent traffic condition (Table. 141 – page 255) - 79% of accidents are not characterized by visibility limitation (Table. 143 – page 259) - in 79% of accidents there is not stationary view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event (Table. 145 – page 263) - in 73,7% of accidents there is not mobile view obstructions (for the rider’s line of view at the time of precipitating event (Table. 147 – page 267) - in 52,6% of accidents the weather is not clear (Table. 149 – page 271) - in 57,9% of accidents the roadside does not present contamination obstacles (Table. 151 – page 275) We can summarize that in the majority of the accidents the PTW's speed is lower than 70km/h, the roll angle is equal or higher to zero, the sideslip angle is little and the first part of PTW involved in the accidents is the front or the centre. Regarding the surround and environmental conditions we can say that the majority of accidents occurred in a curve road, the road do not present defects, the accident occurred with light or absent traffic, there are not visibility limitation (mobile or stationary or general), the roadside is not contaminate and in the end the weather in the 52,6% of accidents is not clear.


Project nº 218741


304

PTW riders kinematics Fatal accidents & impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing - all the riders have a speed at impact over 70 km/h (Table. 123 – page 231) - 58,8% of the riders do not slide on the pavement (Table. 128 – page 236) - 60% of the riders have an angle, that represented the orientation respect to the road tangent, equal or lower to 40 degree (Table. 130 – page 239) - 24,1% of the riders impact on the barrier post (Table. 132 – page 240) - 20,7% of the riders impact on the rail of barrier (Table. 134 – page 242) Fatal accidents & impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression - 50% of the riders have a speed at impact between 51 and 70 km/h (Table. 123 – page 231) - 90% of the riders do not slide on the pavement (Table. 128 – page 236) Serious accidents & impact against a Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing - 42,9% of the riders have a speed at impact over 70 km/h (Table. 123 – page 231) - all the riders slide on the pavement (Table. 128 – page 236) - 66,7% of the riders have an angle, that represented the orientation respect to the road tangent, higher than 50 degree (Table. 130 – page 239) - 7,1% of the riders impact on the barrier post (Table. 132 – page 240) - 14,3% of the riders impact on the rail of barrier (Table. 134 – page 242) Serious accidents & PTW impact against a Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression - 50% of the riders have a speed at impact lower than 51 km/h (Table. 123 – page 231) - 66,7% of the riders slide on the pavement (Table. 128 – page 236) - the rider has an angle, that represented the orientation respect to the road tangent, between 51 and 60° (Table. 130 – page 239)


Project nº 218741


305

PTW rider trauma status Fatal & impact with Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing - 56,7% of riders suffer 1 impact (Table. 121 – page 228) - 83,9% of fatal dead on scene (% between fatal accidents) (Table. 153 – page 279) Fatal & Impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression - 70% of riders suffer 1 impact (Table. 121 – page 228) - 60% of fatal dead on scene (% between fatal accidents) (Table. 153 – page 279) Serious & impact with Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing - 52,6% of riders suffer 2+ impacts (Table. 121 – page 228) Serious & Impact with Buildings structures/embankment/tree/ditch or low lying depression - 63,2% of riders suffer 1 impact (Table. 121 – page 228)

Single body part injuries (AIS score) & impact with Guardrail barrier/Posts fencing - Head 73,7% of injuries with AIS(3-6) (Table. 155 – page 282) - Upper extremities 73,3% of injuries with AIS(1-2) (Table. 157 – page 284) - Thorax 63,6% of injuries with AIS(3-6) (Table. 159 – page 286) - Spine 77,8% of injuries with AIS(3-6) (Table. 161 – page 288) - Abdomen 57,1% of injuries with AIS(3-6) (Table. 163 – page 290) - Lower extremities 63,6% of injuries with AIS(3-6) (Table. 165 – page 292) Single body part injuries (AIS score) & Impact with Buildings structures /embankment/ tree/ ditch or low lying depression - Head 67,6% of injuries with AIS(1-2) (Table. 155 – page 282) - Upper extremities all injuries with AIS(1-2) (Table. 157 – page 284) - Thorax 55,6% of injuries with AIS(1-2) (Table. 159 – page 286) - Spine 88,9% of injuries with AIS(1-2) (Table. 161 – page 288) - Abdomen 50% of injuries with AIS(1-2) (Table. 163 – page 290) - Lower extremities 88% of injuries with AIS(1-2) (Table. 165 – page 292)

D1.2 – REPORT ON MOTORCYCLISTS IMPACTS WITH ROAD ......main parameters of these accidents...

Documents

Transcript of D1.2 – REPORT ON MOTORCYCLISTS IMPACTS WITH ROAD ......main parameters of these accidents...