a University of Minnesota , School of Public Health, Division of Health Policy and Management , Minneapolis , Minnesota.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15(2):165-71. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2013.803279.
This study examined 2-car crashes including one passenger car and one light truck (van, minivan, pickup truck, or sport utility vehicle) and investigated the likelihood of hospitalization, hospitalization charges, and the likelihood of fatality of an occupant by vehicle type differentiating between passengers and drivers.
We used unique data from Minnesota's Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) linked with hospital discharge data from 2004 to 2005. We focused on police-reported crashes that involved 2 vehicles, one car and one light truck. First, we estimated models to predict the likelihood of hospitalization. Next, we estimated models to predict hospitalization charges among the hospitalized. Finally, we modeled the likelihood of fatality. In all models, we distinguished between the 2 vehicle types and controlled for a broad range of occupant, crash, and vehicle characteristics. We estimated separate models for passengers and drivers.
We found that in a crash between a car and a light truck, drivers of light trucks were less likely to be hospitalized (odds ratio [OR] = 64%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 59-70%) and killed (OR = 35%; 95% CI, 18-68%) relative to the drivers of cars. Similarly, passengers of light trucks had a lower likelihood of hospitalization (OR = 66%; 95% CI, 57-77%) and fatality (OR = 14%; 95% CI, 3-54%) relative to the passengers of cars. Among hospitalized occupants, we did not find statistically significant differences in hospital charges between light truck drivers and car drivers, but hospital charges for hospitalized light truck passengers were 59% (95% CI, 40-87%) of the hospital charges of hospitalized car passengers.
Though previous studies have shown high fatality costs associated with light trucks, this study is the first to explore the hospitalization costs associated with these vehicles. The existing traffic liability systems (tort or no-fault systems) likely fail to fully make light trucks accountable for costs they impose on other cars, pedestrians, and other road occupants. Our findings suggest the importance of a close examination of a broad range of cost implications even beyond hospitalization and fatality costs to evaluate the optimal amount of corrective taxes or other corrective policies in future research. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the supplemental file.
本研究调查了包括乘用车和轻型卡车（厢式货车、小型货车、皮卡或运动型多用途车）在内的两车碰撞事故，并通过区分乘客和驾驶员，按车辆类型研究了乘员住院、住院费用和死亡的可能性。
我们使用了明尼苏达州碰撞后果数据评估系统（CODES）的独特数据，并结合了 2004 年至 2005 年的医院出院数据。我们重点研究了涉及 2 辆车（一辆乘用车和一辆轻型卡车）的警方报告的碰撞事故。首先，我们建立了预测住院可能性的模型。接下来，我们建立了预测住院患者住院费用的模型。最后，我们建立了死亡率模型。在所有模型中，我们都区分了这 2 种车型，并控制了广泛的乘员、碰撞和车辆特征。我们为乘客和驾驶员分别建立了单独的模型。
我们发现，在乘用车和轻型卡车的碰撞中，轻型卡车的驾驶员住院的可能性较小（优势比[OR] = 64%；95%置信区间[CI]，59-70%），死亡的可能性也较小（OR = 35%；95% CI，18-68%），而乘用车驾驶员的住院和死亡风险则相对较高。同样，轻型卡车乘客的住院可能性（OR = 66%；95% CI，57-77%）和死亡率（OR = 14%；95% CI，3-54%）也低于乘用车乘客。在住院的乘员中，我们没有发现轻型卡车驾驶员和乘用车驾驶员之间住院费用存在统计学上的显著差异，但住院的轻型卡车乘客的住院费用仅为住院的乘用车乘客的 59%（95% CI，40-87%）。
尽管之前的研究表明，轻型卡车的死亡率成本很高，但本研究首次探讨了与这些车辆相关的住院费用。现有的交通责任制度（侵权或无过错制度）可能未能使轻型卡车充分承担其对其他汽车、行人和其他道路使用者造成的成本。我们的研究结果表明，即使超出住院和死亡成本，也需要仔细研究广泛的成本影响，以评估未来研究中纠正性税收或其他纠正性政策的最佳数额。本文提供了补充材料。请访问出版商的《交通伤害预防》在线版查看补充文件。
