大型卡车侧面碰撞中防钻入装置的潜在好处。

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia 22201, USA.

Traffic Inj Prev. 2012;13(6):592-9. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2012.666595.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the maximum potential for side underride guards (SUGs) to reduce passenger vehicle occupant fatalities and injuries in crashes with large trucks in the United States.

METHODS

Examination of the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) identified 206 crash events involving a passenger vehicle impact with the side of a large truck. Each case was evaluated to determine whether the most severe injury sustained by a passenger vehicle occupant was a result of the impact with the side of the truck and whether an SUG could have reduced the injury severity. Data from the 2006-2008 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) survey were used to compare the types of trucks involved in all fatal side impacts with passenger vehicles with the truck types in the LTCCS cases that were studied. FARS and TIFA data also were used to estimate the total annual number of passenger vehicle occupants killed in truck side impacts.

RESULTS

In 143 of the 206 cases, the truck side impact produced the most severe injury sustained by a passenger vehicle occupant. In the other cases, no passenger vehicle occupant was injured or the most severe injury was due to an event preceding or following the truck side impact. Forty-nine of these occupants sustained injuries coded as level 3 or higher on the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) or were killed. SUGs could have reduced injury severity in 76 of the 143 cases, including 38 of the 49 cases with an AIS ≥ 3 coded injury or fatality. Semi-trailers were the most common type of impacted truck unit, both overall and when considering only cases where an SUG could have mitigated injury severity. Crashes where the front of the passenger vehicle struck the side of the semi-trailer perpendicularly or obliquely from the oncoming direction were less common overall than side-to-side and oblique/same direction crashes but more often produced an AIS ≥ 3 injury or fatality. The distribution of truck types in the LTCCS sample was similar to that in the FARS and TIFA data. Overall, around 1600 passenger vehicle occupants were killed in 2-vehicle truck side impact crashes during 2006-2008, or 22 percent of all passenger vehicle occupants who died in 2-vehicle crashes with large trucks.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural incompatibility was a common factor in LTCCS crashes between passenger vehicles and the sides of large trucks. SUGs could have reduced injury risk in around three fourths of the crashes that produced an AIS ≥ 3 injury or fatality. Most of these crashes involved semi-trailers. However, the necessary strength and location of these SUGs present technical challenges that need to be addressed.

目的

评估侧下防护装置（SUG）在减少美国大卡车碰撞中乘用车乘客伤亡的最大潜力。

方法

对大型卡车碰撞因果研究（LTCCS）进行了检查，确定了 206 起涉及乘用车与大型卡车侧面碰撞的碰撞事件。对每个案例进行评估，以确定乘用车乘客最严重的伤害是否是由于与卡车侧面碰撞造成的，以及 SUG 是否可以减轻伤害程度。使用 2006-2008 年伤亡分析报告系统（FARS）和涉及致命事故的卡车（TIFA）调查的数据，比较了与 LTCCS 案例中研究的卡车类型相比，所有涉及乘用车侧面碰撞的致命卡车类型，以及 FARS 和 TIFA 数据还用于估计每年因卡车侧面碰撞而死亡的乘用车乘客总数。

结果

在 206 起案例中，143 起卡车侧面碰撞造成乘用车乘客最严重的伤害。在其他情况下，没有乘客受伤，或者最严重的伤害是在卡车侧面碰撞之前或之后发生的事件造成的。在这些乘客中，有 49 人受到了简明损伤量表（AIS）编码为 3 级或更高的伤害，或死亡。在 143 起案例中，SUG 可以减轻 76 起案例的伤害严重程度，其中包括 38 起 AIS≥3 编码损伤或死亡案例。半挂车是最常见的受影响卡车单元类型，无论是总体还是仅考虑可以减轻伤害严重程度的案例都是如此。总体而言，与侧面碰撞和斜向/同一方向碰撞相比，乘用车前部垂直或斜向从迎面方向撞击半挂车的碰撞更为常见，但更经常导致 AIS≥3 损伤或死亡。LTCCS 样本中的卡车类型分布与 FARS 和 TIFA 数据相似。总体而言，在 2006-2008 年期间，有 1600 名左右的乘用车乘客在 2 车卡车侧面碰撞事故中死亡，占乘用车乘客在与大型卡车 2 车碰撞中死亡人数的 22%。