Suppr超能文献

两种约束系统的现场有效性:三点式手动安全带与两点式电动肩部/手动腰部安全带。

Field effectiveness of two restraint systems: the 3-point manual belt versus the 2-point motorized-shoulder/manual lap belt.

作者信息

Streff F M

机构信息

University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor 48109-2150, USA.

出版信息

Accid Anal Prev. 1995 Aug;27(4):607-10. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(94)00082-w.

Abstract

The research question addressed in this paper is whether or not occupant death, injury, and ejection outcomes differ between vehicles equipped with 3-point manual belts versus 2-point motorized-shoulder/manual-lap (motorized/manual) belt systems. Census crash data sets for the states of Washington and Texas, and the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) were subset to provide data on front-outboard occupants of Ford Escorts involved in crashes in calendar years 1981-1991. Logistic regression analyses showed that occupants of vehicles equipped with the motorized/manual system experienced 11.7% to 26.4% fewer K- or A-level injuries than occupants of vehicles equipped with the 3-point system. Similar analyses of FARS data showed lower ejection rates for occupants of vehicles with the motorized/manual system in both rollover and nonrollover crashes. The installation of the motorized/manual system provided a substantial safety benefit over the manual 3-point system in the time periods examined.

摘要

本文所探讨的研究问题是,配备三点式手动安全带的车辆与配备两点式电动肩部/手动腰部(电动/手动)安全带系统的车辆相比,驾乘人员的死亡、受伤和弹出情况是否存在差异。对华盛顿州和得克萨斯州的人口普查碰撞数据集以及致命事故报告系统(FARS)进行了子集分析,以提供1981 - 1991历年涉及碰撞事故的福特雅士汽车前排外侧驾乘人员的数据。逻辑回归分析表明,配备电动/手动系统车辆的驾乘人员遭受K级或A级伤害的比例比配备三点式系统车辆的驾乘人员低11.7%至26.4%。对FARS数据的类似分析表明,在翻车和非翻车碰撞事故中,配备电动/手动系统车辆的驾乘人员弹出率较低。在所研究的时间段内,安装电动/手动系统比手动三点式系统具有显著的安全优势。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验