Viano David C, Parenteau Chantal S
ProBiomechanics LLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304-2952, USA.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2009 Oct;10(5):427-35. doi: 10.1080/15389580903152502.
This study compares belt use in police reports with NASS-CDS investigator-determined belt use. The NASS-CDS cases were analyzed by severity of occupant injury and the crash type.
1993-2007 NASS-CDS was analyzed for occupant injury severity and crash type. Light vehicles were included with model year 1994+. Injury severity was subdivided by MAIS 0, 1-2, 3, 4+F, and fatal. Crash types were frontal, side, rear, and rollover. The NASS-CDS determination of belt use was assumed the gold standard used to determine miscoding by the police.
The fraction of unbelted occupants increased with the severity of injury from 3.8 percent with no injury to 53.9 percent with fatalities in the police reports. NASS-CDS reported no belt use of 7.9 percent (2.18 times greater than the police) with no injury to 58.2 percent (1.08 times) with fatalities. In side impacts, severely injured occupants were unbelted in 46.9 percent of NASS-CDS cases. This was 1.35 times greater than the 34.7 percent unbelted reported by the police. For severely injured occupants (MAIS 4+F), 18.4 percent of the police reported cases with belt use were actually unbelted occupants by NASS-CDS. The reporting error decreased to 5.0 percent for uninjured occupants (MAIS 0). For uninjured occupants, 35.7 percent of the police-reported cases of no belt use were coded as belted by NASS after inspecting the belt system. This difference decreased to 2.6 percent for fatally injured occupants.
For occupants with serious-to-fatal injury, the error in police reporting belt use was 13-18 percent. The police often rely on self-reported belt use, which overestimates actual belt wearing and they do not always conduct in-depth investigation of vehicle, seat belt, and occupant injury to reach a conclusion of belt use. The police generally overreport belt use in motor vehicle crashes.
本研究比较警方报告中的安全带使用情况与美国国家汽车抽样系统-乘员数据系统（NASS-CDS）调查员确定的安全带使用情况。NASS-CDS案例按乘员受伤严重程度和碰撞类型进行分析。
对1993 - 2007年的NASS-CDS进行分析，以确定乘员受伤严重程度和碰撞类型。纳入1994年及以后车型年份的轻型车辆。受伤严重程度分为简明损伤定级（MAIS）0级、1 - 2级、3级、4 + F级和致命伤。碰撞类型包括正面碰撞、侧面碰撞、追尾碰撞和翻车。NASS-CDS对安全带使用情况的判定被视为用于确定警方误编码的金标准。
在警方报告中，未系安全带的乘员比例随着受伤严重程度的增加而上升，从无受伤时的3.8%增至致命伤时的53.9%。NASS-CDS报告显示，无受伤时未使用安全带的比例为7.9%（比警方高出2.18倍），致命伤时为58.2%（比警方高出1.08倍）。在侧面碰撞中，NASS-CDS案例中有46.9%的重伤乘员未系安全带。这比警方报告的未系安全带比例34.7%高出1.35倍。对于重伤乘员（MAIS 4 + F），警方报告中显示系安全带的案例中，实际上有18.4%的乘员按NASS-CDS判定未系安全带。对于未受伤乘员（MAIS 0），报告误差降至5.0%。对于未受伤乘员，警方报告中未使用安全带的案例中，经检查安全带系统后，有35.7%被NASS编码为系安全带。对于致命伤乘员，这一差异降至2.6%。
对于受重伤至致命伤的乘员，警方报告安全带使用情况的误差为13 - 18%。警方通常依赖自我报告的安全带使用情况，这高估了实际佩戴安全带的情况，并且他们并不总是对车辆、安全带和乘员受伤情况进行深入调查以得出安全带使用情况的结论。警方在机动车碰撞事故中通常高估了安全带的使用情况。
