Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14693904

Missing cyclists.

J D Langley·N Dow·S Stephenson·K Kypri
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) For crashes on a public road, to compare serious cyclist crashes involving a motor vehicle with cyclist crashes not involving a motor vehicle, in terms of threat to life and length of stay in hospital. (2) To determine the proportion of all serious crashes involving cyclists on public roads which are recorded by the police. (3) To determine the degree to which under-reporting of serious crashes involving cyclists and motor vehicles on public roads is associated with various demographic, environmental, and injury factors. STUDY DESIGN: Records for the period 1995-99, of cyclists seriously injured on a public road and hospitalised were linked to the traffic crash report (TCR) database maintained by Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA). RESULTS: Of the 2925 cyclist crashes on public roads, only 652 (22%) could be linked to a TCR. Of the crashes involving motor vehicles (n = 1033), only 562 (54%) could be linked to the LTSA database. Age, ethnicity, injury severity, and cumulative length of stay were the only variables that predicted whether hospitalised cycle crash cases were more likely to have a corresponding TCR. There were substantial numbers of cyclist only crashes which typically are not captured in the TCR database. Nine percent of these resulted in serious or worse injury (that is, International Classification of Diseases/abbreviated injury scale score of 3+) and 7% resulted in hospital stays greater than seven days. CONCLUSION: Greater effort and precision needs to be applied to routinely document the burden of cyclist crashes, especially cyclist only crashes.

Explore related subjects

Abbreviated Injury ScaleAccidents, TrafficAdolescentAdultAge DistributionBicyclingChildDatabases as TopicHospitalizationHumansLength of StayLogistic ModelsMedical Record LinkageMiddle AgedMotor VehiclesNew ZealandWounds and InjuriesComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J D Langley, N Dow, S Stephenson, K Kypri. 2003. Missing cyclists.. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.9.4.376

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

[Motor vehicle accidents with entrapment. A medical and technical investigation of crash mechanism, injury pattern and severity of entrapment of motor vehicle occupants between 1983 and 2003].

AIM: Crash mechanisms, injury patterns, and severity of injury of entrapped motor vehicle occupants were analysed by the Accident Research Unit's scientific teams between 1983 and 2003. RESULTS: Of the 1281 vehicle passenger entrapments in our study, 18.3% happened on highways, 25.6% on federal roads, 35.9% on country roads, and 18.3% on city roads. Of those involved, 69.9% were drivers, 19.4% were front passengers, and 8.5% were rear passengers. Coinvolved objects in car collisions were: other cars 30.9%, trucks 50.2%, objects 18.6%, and motorbikes 0.3%. Coinvolved objects in truck collisions were: other trucks 61.8% and objects 38.2%. The mean Delta-V was 42 km/h (cars 46.2, trucks 32.2). Maximum AIS levels were 31% I, 25.2% II, 19.4% III, 7.8% IV, 7.8% V, and 8.6% VI. Of injuries, 68.7% were to the head, 23.5% to the neck, 50.8% to the chest, 43.6% to upper extremities, 15.4% to the abdomen, 16.4% to the pelvis, and 52.9% to lower extremities. The incidence of multiple injuries (ISS>16) was 23.7%, and mortality was 15.9%. CONCLUSION: Car drivers are more at risk of accidents with entrapment on rural streets, and truck drivers are more at risk on highways. In most cases car occupants crash with trucks or other cars, and truck drivers collide more frequently with other trucks or objects. Besides a high degree of severe single injuries, there is also a high incidence of multiple injury victims and high mortality. Of the fatalities, 74.5% occur during the preclinical course and 24.5% during the clinical course.

Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
PubMed2006

AIS 2005: a contemporary injury scale.

To determine and to quantify outcome from injury demands that multiple factors be universally applied so that there is uniform understanding that the same outcome is understood for the same injury. It is thus important to define the variables used in any outcome assessment. Critical to defining outcomes is the need for a universal language that defines individual injuries. The abbreviated injury scale (AIS) is the only dictionary specifically designed as a system to define the severity of injuries throughout the body. In addition to a universal injury language, it provides measures of injury severity that can be used to stratify and classify injury severity in all body regions. Its revision, AIS 2005 will be discussed here.

Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
PubMed2006

Neck injury tolerance under inertial loads in side impacts.

Neck injury remains a major issue in road safety. Current side impact dummies and side impact crashworthiness assessments do not assess the risk of neck injury. These assessments are limited by biofidelity and knowledge regarding neck injury criteria and tolerance levels in side impacts. Side impact tests with PMHS were performed at the Heidelberg University in the 1980s and 1990s to improve primarily the understanding of trunk dynamics, injury mechanisms and criteria. In order to contribute to the definition of human tolerances at neck level, this study presents an analysis of the head/neck biomechanical parameters that were measured in these tests and their relationship to neck injury severity. Data from 15 impact tests were analysed. Head accelerations, and neck forces and moments were calculated from 9-accelerometer array head data, X-rays and anthropometric data. Statistically significant relationships were observed between resultant head acceleration and neck force and neck injury severity. The average resultant head acceleration for AIS 2 neck injuries was 112 g, while resultant neck force was 4925 N and moment 241 Nm. The data compared well to other test data on cadavers and volunteers. It is hoped that the paper will assist in the understanding of neck injuries and the development of tolerance criteria.

Abbreviated Injury Scale↗