automotive websites

Traffic collision

Posted on November 27, 2017 by admin_en

Traffic collision

A traffic collision, also called a motor vehicle collision (MVC) among other terms, occurs when a vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, road debris, or other stationary obstruction, such as a tree, pole or building. Traffic collisions often result in injury, death, and property harm.

A number of factors contribute to the risk of collision, including vehicle design, speed of operation, road design, road environment, and driver skill, impairment due to alcohol or drugs, and behavior, notably speeding and street racing. Worldwide, motor vehicle collisions lead to death and disability as well as financial costs to both society and the individuals involved.

In 2013, fifty four million people sustained injuries from traffic collisions. [1] This resulted in 1.Four million deaths in 2013, up from 1.1 million deaths in 1990. [Two] About 68,000 of these occurred in children less than five years old. [Two] Almost all high-income countries have decreasing death rates, while the majority of low-income countries have enhancing death rates due to traffic collisions. Middle-income countries have the highest rate with twenty deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, 80% of all road fatalities by only 52% of all vehicles. While the death rate in Africa is the highest (24.1 per 100,000 inhabitants), the lowest rate is to be found in Europe (Ten.Three per 100,000 inhabitants). [Trio]

Traffic collisions can be classified by general type. Types of collision include head-on, road departure, rear-end, side collisions, and rollovers.

Many different terms are commonly used to describe vehicle collisions. The World Health Organization use the term road traffic injury, [Four] while the U.S. Census Bureau uses the term motor vehicle accidents (MVA), [Five] and Transport Canada uses the term “motor vehicle traffic collision” (MVTC). [6] Other common terms include auto accident, car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle collision (MVC), private injury collision (PIC), road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), road traffic accident and later road traffic collision, as well as more unofficial terms including smash-up, pile-up, and fender bender.

Some organizations have begun to avoid the term “accident”. Albeit auto collisions are infrequent in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, decent signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more. [7] That is why these organizations choose the term “collision” to “accident”. In the UK the term “incident” is displacing “accident” in official and quasi-official use. [8] [9]

Historically in the United States, use of terms other than “accidents” had been criticized for holding back safety improvements, based on the idea that a culture of blame may discourage the involved parties from fully disclosing the facts, and thus frustrate attempts to address the real root causes. [Ten]

Psychological Edit

Following some collisions long lasting psychological problems may occur. [11] These issues may make those who have been in a crash afraid to drive again. In some cases, the psychological trauma may affect individuals’ capability to work and take on family responsibilities.

Physical Edit

A number of physical injuries can commonly result from the blunt force trauma caused by a collision, ranging from bruising and contusions to catastrophic physical injury (e.g., paralysis) or death.

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five explore by R. Kumar, using British and American crash reports as data, suggested 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors, and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors. [12] Reducing the severity of injury in crashes is more significant than reducing incidence and ranking incidence by broad categories of causes is misleading regarding severe injury reduction. Vehicle and road modifications are generally more effective than behavioral switch efforts with the exception of certain laws such as required use of seat belts, motorcycle helmets and graduated licensing of teenagers. [13]

Human factors Edit

Human factors in vehicle collisions include all factors related to drivers and other road users that may contribute to a collision. Examples include driver behavior, visual and auditory acuity, decision-making capability, and reaction speed.

Intent is also a factor, a vehicle-ramming attack for a example happens largely due to a driver choosing to cause a traffic collision.

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five report based on British and American crash data found driver error, intoxication and other human factors contribute wholly or partly to about 93% of crashes. [12]

Drivers dispelled by mobile devices had almost four times greater risk of crashing their cars than those who were not. Dialing a phone is the most dangerous distraction, enlargening a drivers’ chance of crashing by twelve times, followed by reading or writing, which enhanced the risk by ten times. [14]

An RAC survey of British drivers found that most [ quantify ] thought they were better than average drivers; a contradictory result displaying overconfidence in their abilities. [ citation needed ] Almost all drivers who had been in a crash did not believe themselves to be at fault. [15] One survey of drivers reported that they thought the key elements of good driving were: [16]

controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behavior of other drivers.

Albeit proficiency in these abilities is instructed and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:

. the feeling of being certain in more and more challenging situations is experienced as evidence of driving capability, and that ‘proven’ capability reinforces the feelings of confidence. Confidence feeds itself and grows unchecked until something happens – a near-miss or an accident. [16]

An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland. [17]

Accompanying switches to road designs have been wide-scale adoptions of rules of the road alongside law enforcement policies that included drink-driving laws, setting of speed thresholds, and speed enforcement systems such as speed cameras. Some countries’ driving tests have been expanded to test a fresh driver’s behavior during emergencies, and their hazard perception.

There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, albeit youthful people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more youthfull masculine drivers feature in collisions, [Legitimate] with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. [16] This is reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, hook-up, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions might be expected to be involved in more collisions, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, evidently, more cautiously. [Nineteen] Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behavior. In one thousand nine hundred sixty nine Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road: [20]

Conversely, a location that does not look dangerous may have a high crash frequency. This is, in part, because if drivers perceive a location as hazardous, they take more care. Collisions may be more likely to happen when hazardous road or traffic conditions are not evident at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to perceive and react in the time and distance available. High incidence of crashes is not indicative of high injury risk. Crashes are common in areas of high vehicle congestion but fatal crashes occur disproportionately on rural roads at night when traffic is relatively light.

This phenomenon has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in collision rates have not occurred after legislative or technical switches. One explore observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, [21] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly attributed fall in overall fatalities. [22] Most claims of risk compensation offsetting the effects of vehicle regulation and belt use laws has been discredited by research using more refined data. [13]

In the 1990s, Hans Monderman’s studies of driver behavior led him to the realization that signs and regulations had an adverse effect on a driver’s capability to interact securely with other road users. Monderman developed collective space principles, rooted in the principles of the woonerven of the 1970s. He concluded that the removal of highway clutter, while permitting drivers and other road users to mix with equal priority, could help drivers recognize environmental clues. They relied on their cognitive abilities alone, reducing traffic speeds radically and resulting in lower levels of road casualties and lower levels of congestion. [23]

Some crashes are intended; staged crashes, for example, involve at least one party who hopes to crash a vehicle in order to submit lucrative claims to an insurance company. [24] In the USA in the 1990s, criminals recruited Latin immigrants to deliberately crash cars, usually by cutting in front of another car and stuffing on the brakes. It was an illegal and risky job, and they were typically paid only $100. Jose Luis Lopez Perez, a staged crash driver, died after one such maneuver, leading to an investigation that uncovered the enlargening frequency of this type of crash. [25]

Motor vehicle speed Edit

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. [26] The summary says:

The evidence shows the risk of having a crash is enhanced both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
The risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much swifter than the median speed.
The severity/lethality of a crash depends on the vehicle speed switch at influence.
There is limited evidence suggesting lower speed boundaries result in lower speeds on a system-wide basis.
Most crashes related to speed involve speed too prompt for the conditions.
More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.

The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of Fresh South Wales (NSW) asserts speeding (traveling too swift for the prevailing conditions or above the posted speed limit [27] ) is a factor in about forty percent of road deaths. [28] The RTA also say speeding increases the risk of a crash and its severity. [28] On another web page, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific chunk of research from 1997, and writes “research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with puny increases above an appropriately set speed limit.” [29]

The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics demonstrate for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and “traveling too rapid for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes). [30]

Driver impairment Edit

Driver impairment describes factors that prevent the driver from driving at their normal level of skill. Common impairments include:

According to the Government of Canada, coroner reports from two thousand eight suggested almost 40% of fatally injured drivers consumed some quantity of alcohol before the collision. [32]

Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting plain glance tests and/or requiring suitable vehicle modifications before being permitted to drive;

Insurance statistics demonstrate a notably higher incidence of collisions and fatalities among drivers aged in their teenagers or early twenties, with insurance rates reflecting this data. These drivers have the highest incidence of both collisions and fatalities among all driver age groups, a fact that was observed well before the advent of mobile phones.

Females in this age group exhibit somewhat lower collision and fatality rates than masculines but still register well above the median for drivers of all ages. Also within this group, the highest collision incidence rate occurs within the very first year of licensed driving. For this reason many US states have enacted a zero-tolerance policy wherein receiving a moving disturbance within the very first six months to one year of obtaining a license results in automatic license suspension. No US state permits fourteen year-olds to obtain drivers’ licenses any longer.

Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age.

Research suggests that the driver’s attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Latest research conducted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could loosen the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other palm, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road. [34]

Cell phone use is an increasingly significant problem on the roads. [ citation needed ] The U.S. National Safety Council compiled more than thirty studies postulating that hands-free is not a safer option, because the brain remains dispelled by the conversation and cannot concentrate solely on the task of driving. [35]

Combinations of factors

Several conditions can combine to create a much worse situation, for example:

Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving spectacle than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation, [36] or
Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which individually do not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a junior person’s. [37]

Thus there are situations when a person may be impaired, but still legally permitted to drive, and becomes a potential hazard to themselves and other road users. Pedestrians or cyclists are affected in the same way and can similarly jeopardize themselves or others when on the road.

Road design Edit

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five US probe displayed that about 34% of serious crashes had contributing factors related to the roadway or its environment. Most of these crashes also involved a human factor. [12] The road or environmental factor was either noted as making a significant contribution to the circumstances of the crash, or did not permit room to recover. In these circumstances it is frequently the driver who is blamed rather than the road; those reporting the collisions have a tendency to overlook the human factors involved, such as the subtleties of design and maintenance that a driver could fail to observe or inadequately compensate for. [38]

Research has shown that careful design and maintenance, with well-designed intersections, road surfaces, visibility and traffic control devices, can result in significant improvements in collision rates.

Individual roads also have widely differing spectacle in the event of an influence. In Europe there are now EuroRAP tests that indicate how “self-explaining” and forgiving a particular road and its roadside would be in the event of a major incident.

In the UK, research has shown that investment in a safe road infrastructure program could yield a ⅓ reduction in road deaths, saving as much as £6 billion per year. [39] A consortium of thirteen major road safety stakeholders have formed the Campaign for Safe Road Design, which is calling on the UK Government to make safe road design a national transport priority.

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Research has shown that, across all collision types, it is less likely that seat belts were worn in collisions involving death or serious injury, rather than light injury; wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of death by about forty five percent. [40] Seat belt use is controversial, with notable critics such as Professor John Adams suggesting that their use may lead to a net increase in road casualties due to a phenomenon known as risk compensation. [41] However, actual observation of driver behaviors before and after seat belt laws does not support the risk compensation hypothesis. Several significant driving behaviors were observed on the road before and after the belt use law was enforced in Newfoundland, and in Nova Scotia during the same period without a law. Belt use enhanced from sixteen percent to seventy seven percent in Newfoundland and remained virtually unchanged in Nova Scotia. Four driver behaviors (speed, stopping at intersections when the control light was amber, turning left in front of oncoming traffic, and gaps in following distance) were measured at various sites before and after the law. Switches in these behaviors in Newfoundland were similar to those in Nova Scotia, except that drivers in Newfoundland drove slower on expressways after the law, contrary to the risk compensation theory. [42]

A well-designed and well-maintained vehicle, with good brakes, tires and well-adjusted suspension will be more controllable in an emergency and thus be better tooled to avoid collisions. Some mandatory vehicle inspection schemes include tests for some aspects of roadworthiness, such as the UK’s MOT test or German TÜV conformance inspection.

The design of vehicles has also evolved to improve protection after collision, both for vehicle occupants and for those outside of the vehicle. Much of this work was led by automotive industry competition and technological innovation, leading to measures such as Saab’s safety cell and reinforced roof poles of 1946, Ford´s one thousand nine hundred fifty six Lifeguard safety package, and Saab and Volvo’s introduction of standard fit seatbelts in 1959. Other initiatives were accelerated as a reaction to consumer pressure, after publications such as Ralph Nader’s one thousand nine hundred sixty five book Unsafe at Any Speed accused motor manufacturers of indifference towards safety.

In the early 1970s British Leyland embarked an intensive programme of vehicle safety research, producing a number of prototype experimental safety vehicles demonstrating various innovations for occupant and pedestrian protection such as air bags, anti-lock brakes, impact-absorbing side-panels, front and rear head restraints, run-flat tires, sleek and deformable front-ends, impact-absorbing bumpers, and retractable headlamps. [43] Design has also been influenced by government legislation, such as the Euro NCAP influence test.

Common features designed to improve safety include thicker piles, safety glass, interiors with no acute edges, stronger bods, other active or passive safety features, and sleek exteriors to reduce the consequences of an influence with pedestrians.

The UK Department for Transport publish road casualty statistics for each type of collision and vehicle through its Road Casualties Superb Britain report. [44] These statistics display a ten to one ratio of in-vehicle fatalities inbetween types of car. In most cars, occupants have a 2–8% chance of death in a two-car collision.

Center of gravity

Some crash types tend to have more serious consequences. Rollovers have become more common in latest years, perhaps due to enhanced popularity of taller SUVs, people carriers, and minivans, which have a higher center of gravity than standard passenger cars. Rollovers can be fatal, especially if the occupants are ejected because they were not wearing seat belts (83% of ejections during rollovers were fatal when the driver did not wear a seat belt, compared to 25% when they did). [40] After a fresh design of Mercedes Benz notoriously failed a ‘moose test’ (unexpected swerving to avoid an obstacle), some manufacturers enhanced suspension using stability control linked to an anti-lock braking system to reduce the likelihood of rollover. After retrofitting these systems to its models in 1999–2000, Mercedes spotted its models involved in fewer crashes. [45]

Now, about 40% of fresh US vehicles, mainly the SUVs, vans and pickup trucks that are more susceptible to rollover, are being produced with a lower center of gravity and enhanced suspension with stability control linked to its anti-lock braking system to reduce the risk of rollover and meet US federal requirements that mandate anti-rollover technology by September 2011. [46]

Motorcyclists have little protection other than their clothing and helmets. This difference is reflected in the casualty statistics, where they are more than twice as likely to suffer severely after a collision. In two thousand five there were 198,735 road crashes with 271,017 reported casualties on roads in Good Britain. This included Three,201 deaths (1.1%) and 28,954 serious injuries (Ten.7%) overall. Of these casualties 178,302 (66%) were car users and 24,824 (9%) were motorcyclists, of whom five hundred sixty nine were killed (Two.3%) and Five,939 gravely injured (24%). [47]

Other Edit

Other possibly hazardous factors that may alter a driver’s soundness on the road includes:

Irritability, [48]
Following specifically distinct rules too bureaucratically, inflexibly or rigidly when unique circumstances might suggest otherwise [49]
Unexpected swerving into somebody’s blind spot without very first clearly making oneself visible through the wing mirror[50]
Unfamiliarity with one’s dashboard features, center console or other interior treating devices after a latest car purchase [51]
Lack of visibility due to windshield design or sun glare [52]
Distraction by scenery, a sexually attractive person or sexually suggestive advertising [53][54]

A large figure of skill has been amassed on how to prevent car crashes, and reduce the severity of those that do occur. See Road Traffic Safety.

United Nations Edit

Owing to the global and massive scale of the issue, with predictions that by two thousand twenty road traffic deaths and injuries will exceed HIV/AIDS as a cargo of death and disability, [55] the United Nations and its subsidiary bods have passed resolutions and held conferences on the issue. The very first United Nations General Assembly resolution and debate was in two thousand three [56] The World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims was proclaimed in 2005. In two thousand nine the very first high level ministerial conference on road safety was held in Moscow.

The World Health Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations Organization, in its Global Status Report on Road Safety 2009, estimates that over 90% of the world’s fatalities on the roads occur in low-income and middle-income countries, which have only 48% of the world’s registered vehicles, and predicts road traffic injuries will rise to become the fifth leading cause of death by two thousand thirty [57]

Collision migration Edit

Collisions migration refers to a situation where activity to reduce road traffic collisions in one place may result in those collisions resurfacing elsewhere. [58] For example, an accident blackspot may occur at a dangerous arch. [59] The treatment for this may be to increase signage, post an advisory speed limit, apply a high-friction road surface, add crash barriers or any one of a number of other visible interventions. The instant result may be to reduce collisions at the arch, but the subconscious refreshment on leaving the “dangerous” arch may cause drivers to act with fractionally less care on the rest of the road, resulting in an increase in collisions elsewhere on the road, and no overall improvement over the area. In the same way, enlargening familiarity with the treated area will often result in a reduction over time to the previous level of care (regression to the mean) and may result in swifter speeds around the arch due to perceived enhanced safety (risk compensation).

Traffic collision

Traffic collisions can be classified by general type. Types of collision include head-on, road departure, rear-end, side collisions, and rollovers.

Many different terms are commonly used to describe vehicle collisions. The World Health Organization use the term road traffic injury, [Four] while the U.S. Census Bureau uses the term motor vehicle accidents (MVA), [Five] and Transport Canada uses the term “motor vehicle traffic collision” (MVTC). [6] Other common terms include auto accident, car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle collision (MVC), individual injury collision (PIC), road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), road traffic accident and later road traffic collision, as well as more unofficial terms including smash-up, pile-up, and fender bender.

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

A number of physical injuries can commonly result from the blunt force trauma caused by a collision, ranging from bruising and contusions to catastrophic physical injury (e.g., paralysis) or death.

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five investigate by R. Kumar, using British and American crash reports as data, suggested 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors, and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors. [12] Reducing the severity of injury in crashes is more significant than reducing incidence and ranking incidence by broad categories of causes is misleading regarding severe injury reduction. Vehicle and road modifications are generally more effective than behavioral switch efforts with the exception of certain laws such as required use of seat belts, motorcycle helmets and graduated licensing of teenagers. [13]

Human factors Edit

Intent is also a factor, a vehicle-ramming attack for a example happens largely due to a driver choosing to cause a traffic collision.

Drivers dispersed by mobile devices had almost four times greater risk of crashing their cars than those who were not. Dialing a phone is the most dangerous distraction, enhancing a drivers’ chance of crashing by twelve times, followed by reading or writing, which enlargened the risk by ten times. [14]

An RAC survey of British drivers found that most [ quantify ] thought they were better than average drivers; a contradictory result demonstrating overconfidence in their abilities. [ citation needed ] Almost all drivers who had been in a crash did not believe themselves to be at fault. [15] One survey of drivers reported that they thought the key elements of good driving were: [16]

controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behavior of other drivers.

Albeit proficiency in these abilities is instructed and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:

An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland. [17]

There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, albeit youthful people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more youthfull masculine drivers feature in collisions, [Legitimate] with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. [16] This is reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, hookup, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions might be expected to be involved in more collisions, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, evidently, more cautiously. [Nineteen] Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behavior. In one thousand nine hundred sixty nine Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road: [20]

Conversely, a location that does not look dangerous may have a high crash frequency. This is, in part, because if drivers perceive a location as hazardous, they take more care. Collisions may be more likely to happen when hazardous road or traffic conditions are not visible at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to perceive and react in the time and distance available. High incidence of crashes is not indicative of high injury risk. Crashes are common in areas of high vehicle congestion but fatal crashes occur disproportionately on rural roads at night when traffic is relatively light.

This phenomenon has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in collision rates have not occurred after legislative or technical switches. One probe observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, [21] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly attributed fall in overall fatalities. [22] Most claims of risk compensation offsetting the effects of vehicle regulation and belt use laws has been discredited by research using more refined data. [13]

Some crashes are intended; staged crashes, for example, involve at least one party who hopes to crash a vehicle in order to submit lucrative claims to an insurance company. [24] In the USA in the 1990s, criminals recruited Latin immigrants to deliberately crash cars, usually by cutting in front of another car and jamming on the brakes. It was an illegal and risky job, and they were typically paid only $100. Jose Luis Lopez Perez, a staged crash driver, died after one such maneuver, leading to an investigation that uncovered the enlargening frequency of this type of crash. [25]

Motor vehicle speed Edit

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. [26] The summary says:

The evidence shows the risk of having a crash is enlargened both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
The risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much quicker than the median speed.
The severity/lethality of a crash depends on the vehicle speed switch at influence.
There is limited evidence suggesting lower speed boundaries result in lower speeds on a system-wide basis.
Most crashes related to speed involve speed too rapid for the conditions.
More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.

The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of Fresh South Wales (NSW) asserts speeding (traveling too quick for the prevailing conditions or above the posted speed limit [27] ) is a factor in about forty percent of road deaths. [28] The RTA also say speeding increases the risk of a crash and its severity. [28] On another web page, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific chunk of research from 1997, and writes “research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with petite increases above an appropriately set speed limit.” [29]

The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics showcase for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and “traveling too swift for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes). [30]

Driver impairment Edit

Driver impairment describes factors that prevent the driver from driving at their normal level of skill. Common impairments include:

According to the Government of Canada, coroner reports from two thousand eight suggested almost 40% of fatally injured drivers consumed some quantity of alcohol before the collision. [32]

Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting plain glance tests and/or requiring adequate vehicle modifications before being permitted to drive;

Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age.

Research suggests that the driver’s attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Latest research conducted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could ease off the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other forearm, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road. [34]

Cell phone use is an increasingly significant problem on the roads. [ citation needed ] The U.S. National Safety Council compiled more than thirty studies postulating that hands-free is not a safer option, because the brain remains dissipated by the conversation and cannot concentrate solely on the task of driving. [35]

Combinations of factors

Several conditions can combine to create a much worse situation, for example:

Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving spectacle than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation, [36] or
Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which individually do not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a junior person’s. [37]

Road design Edit

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five US probe showcased that about 34% of serious crashes had contributing factors related to the roadway or its environment. Most of these crashes also involved a human factor. [12] The road or environmental factor was either noted as making a significant contribution to the circumstances of the crash, or did not permit room to recover. In these circumstances it is frequently the driver who is blamed rather than the road; those reporting the collisions have a tendency to overlook the human factors involved, such as the subtleties of design and maintenance that a driver could fail to observe or inadequately compensate for. [38]

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

The design of vehicles has also evolved to improve protection after collision, both for vehicle occupants and for those outside of the vehicle. Much of this work was led by automotive industry competition and technological innovation, leading to measures such as Saab’s safety cell and reinforced roof piles of 1946, Ford´s one thousand nine hundred fifty six Lifeguard safety package, and Saab and Volvo’s introduction of standard fit seatbelts in 1959. Other initiatives were accelerated as a reaction to consumer pressure, after publications such as Ralph Nader’s one thousand nine hundred sixty five book Unsafe at Any Speed accused motor manufacturers of indifference towards safety.

In the early 1970s British Leyland commenced an intensive programme of vehicle safety research, producing a number of prototype experimental safety vehicles demonstrating various innovations for occupant and pedestrian protection such as air bags, anti-lock brakes, impact-absorbing side-panels, front and rear head restraints, run-flat tires, slick and deformable front-ends, impact-absorbing bumpers, and retractable headlamps. [43] Design has also been influenced by government legislation, such as the Euro NCAP influence test.

Common features designed to improve safety include thicker poles, safety glass, interiors with no acute edges, stronger figures, other active or passive safety features, and sleek exteriors to reduce the consequences of an influence with pedestrians.

The UK Department for Transport publish road casualty statistics for each type of collision and vehicle through its Road Casualties Excellent Britain report. [44] These statistics display a ten to one ratio of in-vehicle fatalities inbetween types of car. In most cars, occupants have a 2–8% chance of death in a two-car collision.

Center of gravity

Other Edit

Other possibly hazardous factors that may alter a driver’s soundness on the road includes:

Irritability, [48]
Following specifically distinct rules too bureaucratically, inflexibly or rigidly when unique circumstances might suggest otherwise [49]
Unexpected swerving into somebody’s blind spot without very first clearly making oneself visible through the wing mirror[50]
Unfamiliarity with one’s dashboard features, center console or other interior treating devices after a latest car purchase [51]
Lack of visibility due to windshield design or sun glare [52]
Distraction by scenery, a sexually attractive person or sexually suggestive advertising [53][54]

A large bod of skill has been amassed on how to prevent car crashes, and reduce the severity of those that do occur. See Road Traffic Safety.

United Nations Edit

Owing to the global and massive scale of the issue, with predictions that by two thousand twenty road traffic deaths and injuries will exceed HIV/AIDS as a cargo of death and disability, [55] the United Nations and its subsidiary figures have passed resolutions and held conferences on the issue. The very first United Nations General Assembly resolution and debate was in two thousand three [56] The World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims was proclaimed in 2005. In two thousand nine the very first high level ministerial conference on road safety was held in Moscow.

Collision migration Edit

Collisions migration refers to a situation where act to reduce road traffic collisions in one place may result in those collisions resurfacing elsewhere. [58] For example, an accident blackspot may occur at a dangerous arch. [59] The treatment for this may be to increase signage, post an advisory speed limit, apply a high-friction road surface, add crash barriers or any one of a number of other visible interventions. The instantaneous result may be to reduce collisions at the arch, but the subconscious refreshment on leaving the “dangerous” arch may cause drivers to act with fractionally less care on the rest of the road, resulting in an increase in collisions elsewhere on the road, and no overall improvement over the area. In the same way, enlargening familiarity with the treated area will often result in a reduction over time to the previous level of care (regression to the mean) and may result in swifter speeds around the arch due to perceived enhanced safety (risk compensation).

Traffic collision

Traffic collisions can be classified by general type. Types of collision include head-on, road departure, rear-end, side collisions, and rollovers.

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

A number of physical injuries can commonly result from the blunt force trauma caused by a collision, ranging from bruising and contusions to catastrophic physical injury (e.g., paralysis) or death.

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five probe by R. Kumar, using British and American crash reports as data, suggested 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors, and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors. [12] Reducing the severity of injury in crashes is more significant than reducing incidence and ranking incidence by broad categories of causes is misleading regarding severe injury reduction. Vehicle and road modifications are generally more effective than behavioral switch efforts with the exception of certain laws such as required use of seat belts, motorcycle helmets and graduated licensing of teenagers. [13]

Human factors Edit

Intent is also a factor, a vehicle-ramming attack for a example happens largely due to a driver choosing to cause a traffic collision.

Drivers dispelled by mobile devices had almost four times greater risk of crashing their cars than those who were not. Dialing a phone is the most dangerous distraction, enhancing a drivers’ chance of crashing by twelve times, followed by reading or writing, which enlargened the risk by ten times. [14]

An RAC survey of British drivers found that most [ quantify ] thought they were better than average drivers; a contradictory result showcasing overconfidence in their abilities. [ citation needed ] Almost all drivers who had been in a crash did not believe themselves to be at fault. [15] One survey of drivers reported that they thought the key elements of good driving were: [16]

controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behavior of other drivers.

Albeit proficiency in these abilities is instructed and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:

An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland. [17]

There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, albeit youthfull people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more youthful masculine drivers feature in collisions, [Eighteen] with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. [16] This is reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, lovemaking, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions might be expected to be involved in more collisions, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, evidently, more cautiously. [Nineteen] Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behavior. In one thousand nine hundred sixty nine Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road: [20]

This phenomenon has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in collision rates have not occurred after legislative or technical switches. One investigate observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, [21] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly attributed fall in overall fatalities. [22] Most claims of risk compensation offsetting the effects of vehicle regulation and belt use laws has been discredited by research using more refined data. [13]

In the 1990s, Hans Monderman’s studies of driver behavior led him to the realization that signs and regulations had an adverse effect on a driver’s capability to interact securely with other road users. Monderman developed collective space principles, rooted in the principles of the woonerven of the 1970s. He concluded that the removal of highway clutter, while permitting drivers and other road users to mix up with equal priority, could help drivers recognize environmental clues. They relied on their cognitive abilities alone, reducing traffic speeds radically and resulting in lower levels of road casualties and lower levels of congestion. [23]

Some crashes are intended; staged crashes, for example, involve at least one party who hopes to crash a vehicle in order to submit lucrative claims to an insurance company. [24] In the USA in the 1990s, criminals recruited Latin immigrants to deliberately crash cars, usually by cutting in front of another car and jamming on the brakes. It was an illegal and risky job, and they were typically paid only $100. Jose Luis Lopez Perez, a staged crash driver, died after one such maneuver, leading to an investigation that uncovered the enhancing frequency of this type of crash. [25]

Motor vehicle speed Edit

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. [26] The summary says:

The evidence shows the risk of having a crash is enlargened both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
The risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much swifter than the median speed.
The severity/lethality of a crash depends on the vehicle speed switch at influence.
There is limited evidence suggesting lower speed thresholds result in lower speeds on a system-wide basis.
Most crashes related to speed involve speed too rapid for the conditions.
More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.

The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of Fresh South Wales (NSW) asserts speeding (traveling too swift for the prevailing conditions or above the posted speed limit [27] ) is a factor in about forty percent of road deaths. [28] The RTA also say speeding increases the risk of a crash and its severity. [28] On another web page, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific lump of research from 1997, and writes “research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with puny increases above an appropriately set speed limit.” [29]

The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics demonstrate for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and “traveling too prompt for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes). [30]

Driver impairment Edit

Driver impairment describes factors that prevent the driver from driving at their normal level of skill. Common impairments include:

According to the Government of Canada, coroner reports from two thousand eight suggested almost 40% of fatally injured drivers consumed some quantity of alcohol before the collision. [32]

Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting ordinary view tests and/or requiring suitable vehicle modifications before being permitted to drive;

Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age.

Research suggests that the driver’s attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Latest research conducted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could ease off the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other mitt, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road. [34]

Combinations of factors

Several conditions can combine to create a much worse situation, for example:

Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving spectacle than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation, [36] or
Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which individually do not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a junior person’s. [37]

Road design Edit

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five US explore demonstrated that about 34% of serious crashes had contributing factors related to the roadway or its environment. Most of these crashes also involved a human factor. [12] The road or environmental factor was either noted as making a significant contribution to the circumstances of the crash, or did not permit room to recover. In these circumstances it is frequently the driver who is blamed rather than the road; those reporting the collisions have a tendency to overlook the human factors involved, such as the subtleties of design and maintenance that a driver could fail to observe or inadequately compensate for. [38]

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

The design of vehicles has also evolved to improve protection after collision, both for vehicle occupants and for those outside of the vehicle. Much of this work was led by automotive industry competition and technological innovation, leading to measures such as Saab’s safety box and reinforced roof piles of 1946, Ford´s one thousand nine hundred fifty six Lifeguard safety package, and Saab and Volvo’s introduction of standard fit seatbelts in 1959. Other initiatives were accelerated as a reaction to consumer pressure, after publications such as Ralph Nader’s one thousand nine hundred sixty five book Unsafe at Any Speed accused motor manufacturers of indifference towards safety.

Common features designed to improve safety include thicker poles, safety glass, interiors with no acute edges, stronger bods, other active or passive safety features, and sleek exteriors to reduce the consequences of an influence with pedestrians.

The UK Department for Transport publish road casualty statistics for each type of collision and vehicle through its Road Casualties Excellent Britain report. [44] These statistics showcase a ten to one ratio of in-vehicle fatalities inbetween types of car. In most cars, occupants have a 2–8% chance of death in a two-car collision.

Center of gravity

Other Edit

Other possibly hazardous factors that may alter a driver’s soundness on the road includes:

Irritability, [48]
Following specifically distinct rules too bureaucratically, inflexibly or rigidly when unique circumstances might suggest otherwise [49]
Unexpected swerving into somebody’s blind spot without very first clearly making oneself visible through the wing mirror[50]
Unfamiliarity with one’s dashboard features, center console or other interior treating devices after a latest car purchase [51]
Lack of visibility due to windshield design or sun glare [52]
Distraction by scenery, a sexually attractive person or sexually suggestive advertising [53][54]

A large assets of skill has been amassed on how to prevent car crashes, and reduce the severity of those that do occur. See Road Traffic Safety.

United Nations Edit

Owing to the global and massive scale of the issue, with predictions that by two thousand twenty road traffic deaths and injuries will exceed HIV/AIDS as a cargo of death and disability, [55] the United Nations and its subsidiary figures have passed resolutions and held conferences on the issue. The very first United Nations General Assembly resolution and debate was in two thousand three [56] The World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims was proclaimed in 2005. In two thousand nine the very first high level ministerial conference on road safety was held in Moscow.

Collision migration Edit

Collisions migration refers to a situation where activity to reduce road traffic collisions in one place may result in those collisions resurfacing elsewhere. [58] For example, an accident blackspot may occur at a dangerous arch. [59] The treatment for this may be to increase signage, post an advisory speed limit, apply a high-friction road surface, add crash barriers or any one of a number of other visible interventions. The instantaneous result may be to reduce collisions at the arch, but the subconscious refreshment on leaving the “dangerous” arch may cause drivers to act with fractionally less care on the rest of the road, resulting in an increase in collisions elsewhere on the road, and no overall improvement over the area. In the same way, enhancing familiarity with the treated area will often result in a reduction over time to the previous level of care (regression to the mean) and may result in swifter speeds around the arch due to perceived enhanced safety (risk compensation).

Traffic collision

Traffic collisions can be classified by general type. Types of collision include head-on, road departure, rear-end, side collisions, and rollovers.

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

A number of physical injuries can commonly result from the blunt force trauma caused by a collision, ranging from bruising and contusions to catastrophic physical injury (e.g., paralysis) or death.

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five examine by R. Kumar, using British and American crash reports as data, suggested 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors, and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors. [12] Reducing the severity of injury in crashes is more significant than reducing incidence and ranking incidence by broad categories of causes is misleading regarding severe injury reduction. Vehicle and road modifications are generally more effective than behavioral switch efforts with the exception of certain laws such as required use of seat belts, motorcycle helmets and graduated licensing of teenagers. [13]

Human factors Edit

Intent is also a factor, a vehicle-ramming attack for a example happens largely due to a driver choosing to cause a traffic collision.

controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behavior of other drivers.

Albeit proficiency in these abilities is trained and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:

An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland. [17]

There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, albeit youthful people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more youthfull masculine drivers feature in collisions, [Legitimate] with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. [16] This is reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, hookup, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions might be expected to be involved in more collisions, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, evidently, more cautiously. [Nineteen] Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behavior. In one thousand nine hundred sixty nine Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road: [20]

Conversely, a location that does not look dangerous may have a high crash frequency. This is, in part, because if drivers perceive a location as hazardous, they take more care. Collisions may be more likely to happen when hazardous road or traffic conditions are not demonstrable at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to perceive and react in the time and distance available. High incidence of crashes is not indicative of high injury risk. Crashes are common in areas of high vehicle congestion but fatal crashes occur disproportionately on rural roads at night when traffic is relatively light.

This phenomenon has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in collision rates have not occurred after legislative or technical switches. One probe observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, [21] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly attributed fall in overall fatalities. [22] Most claims of risk compensation offsetting the effects of vehicle regulation and belt use laws has been discredited by research using more refined data. [13]

In the 1990s, Hans Monderman’s studies of driver behavior led him to the realization that signs and regulations had an adverse effect on a driver’s capability to interact securely with other road users. Monderman developed collective space principles, rooted in the principles of the woonerven of the 1970s. He concluded that the removal of highway clutter, while permitting drivers and other road users to blend with equal priority, could help drivers recognize environmental clues. They relied on their cognitive abilities alone, reducing traffic speeds radically and resulting in lower levels of road casualties and lower levels of congestion. [23]

Motor vehicle speed Edit

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. [26] The summary says:

The evidence shows the risk of having a crash is enhanced both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
The risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much swifter than the median speed.
The severity/lethality of a crash depends on the vehicle speed switch at influence.
There is limited evidence suggesting lower speed thresholds result in lower speeds on a system-wide basis.
Most crashes related to speed involve speed too quick for the conditions.
More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.

The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of Fresh South Wales (NSW) asserts speeding (traveling too rapid for the prevailing conditions or above the posted speed limit [27] ) is a factor in about forty percent of road deaths. [28] The RTA also say speeding increases the risk of a crash and its severity. [28] On another web page, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific chunk of research from 1997, and writes “research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with petite increases above an appropriately set speed limit.” [29]

The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics demonstrate for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and “traveling too quick for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes). [30]

Driver impairment Edit

Driver impairment describes factors that prevent the driver from driving at their normal level of skill. Common impairments include:

According to the Government of Canada, coroner reports from two thousand eight suggested almost 40% of fatally injured drivers consumed some quantity of alcohol before the collision. [32]

Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting elementary view tests and/or requiring adequate vehicle modifications before being permitted to drive;

Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age.

Research suggests that the driver’s attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Latest research conducted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could ease off the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other arm, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road. [34]

Combinations of factors

Several conditions can combine to create a much worse situation, for example:

Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving spectacle than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation, [36] or
Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which individually do not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a junior person’s. [37]

Road design Edit

A one thousand nine hundred eighty five US investigate showcased that about 34% of serious crashes had contributing factors related to the roadway or its environment. Most of these crashes also involved a human factor. [12] The road or environmental factor was either noted as making a significant contribution to the circumstances of the crash, or did not permit room to recover. In these circumstances it is frequently the driver who is blamed rather than the road; those reporting the collisions have a tendency to overlook the human factors involved, such as the subtleties of design and maintenance that a driver could fail to observe or inadequately compensate for. [38]

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Research has shown that, across all collision types, it is less likely that seat belts were worn in collisions involving death or serious injury, rather than light injury; wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of death by about forty five percent. [40] Seat belt use is controversial, with notable critics such as Professor John Adams suggesting that their use may lead to a net increase in road casualties due to a phenomenon known as risk compensation. [41] However, actual observation of driver behaviors before and after seat belt laws does not support the risk compensation hypothesis. Several significant driving behaviors were observed on the road before and after the belt use law was enforced in Newfoundland, and in Nova Scotia during the same period without a law. Belt use enlargened from sixteen percent to seventy seven percent in Newfoundland and remained virtually unchanged in Nova Scotia. Four driver behaviors (speed, stopping at intersections when the control light was amber, turning left in front of oncoming traffic, and gaps in following distance) were measured at various sites before and after the law. Switches in these behaviors in Newfoundland were similar to those in Nova Scotia, except that drivers in Newfoundland drove slower on expressways after the law, contrary to the risk compensation theory. [42]

The design of vehicles has also evolved to improve protection after collision, both for vehicle occupants and for those outside of the vehicle. Much of this work was led by automotive industry competition and technological innovation, leading to measures such as Saab’s safety box and reinforced roof piles of 1946, Ford´s one thousand nine hundred fifty six Lifeguard safety package, and Saab and Volvo’s introduction of standard fit seatbelts in 1959. Other initiatives were accelerated as a reaction to consumer pressure, after publications such as Ralph Nader’s one thousand nine hundred sixty five book Unsafe at Any Speed accused motor manufacturers of indifference towards safety.

In the early 1970s British Leyland began an intensive programme of vehicle safety research, producing a number of prototype experimental safety vehicles demonstrating various innovations for occupant and pedestrian protection such as air bags, anti-lock brakes, impact-absorbing side-panels, front and rear head restraints, run-flat tires, slick and deformable front-ends, impact-absorbing bumpers, and retractable headlamps. [43] Design has also been influenced by government legislation, such as the Euro NCAP influence test.

Common features designed to improve safety include thicker piles, safety glass, interiors with no acute edges, stronger figures, other active or passive safety features, and slick exteriors to reduce the consequences of an influence with pedestrians.

The UK Department for Transport publish road casualty statistics for each type of collision and vehicle through its Road Casualties Good Britain report. [44] These statistics showcase a ten to one ratio of in-vehicle fatalities inbetween types of car. In most cars, occupants have a 2–8% chance of death in a two-car collision.

Center of gravity

Some crash types tend to have more serious consequences. Rollovers have become more common in latest years, perhaps due to enlargened popularity of taller SUVs, people carriers, and minivans, which have a higher center of gravity than standard passenger cars. Rollovers can be fatal, especially if the occupants are ejected because they were not wearing seat belts (83% of ejections during rollovers were fatal when the driver did not wear a seat belt, compared to 25% when they did). [40] After a fresh design of Mercedes Benz notoriously failed a ‘moose test’ (unexpected swerving to avoid an obstacle), some manufacturers enhanced suspension using stability control linked to an anti-lock braking system to reduce the likelihood of rollover. After retrofitting these systems to its models in 1999–2000, Mercedes eyed its models involved in fewer crashes. [45]

Motorcyclists have little protection other than their clothing and helmets. This difference is reflected in the casualty statistics, where they are more than twice as likely to suffer severely after a collision. In two thousand five there were 198,735 road crashes with 271,017 reported casualties on roads in Fine Britain. This included Trio,201 deaths (1.1%) and 28,954 serious injuries (Ten.7%) overall. Of these casualties 178,302 (66%) were car users and 24,824 (9%) were motorcyclists, of whom five hundred sixty nine were killed (Two.3%) and Five,939 earnestly injured (24%). [47]

Other Edit

Other possibly hazardous factors that may alter a driver’s soundness on the road includes:

Irritability, [48]
Following specifically distinct rules too bureaucratically, inflexibly or rigidly when unique circumstances might suggest otherwise [49]
Unexpected swerving into somebody’s blind spot without very first clearly making oneself visible through the wing mirror[50]
Unfamiliarity with one’s dashboard features, center console or other interior treating devices after a latest car purchase [51]
Lack of visibility due to windshield design or sun glare [52]
Distraction by scenery, a sexually attractive person or sexually suggestive advertising [53][54]

A large assets of skill has been amassed on how to prevent car crashes, and reduce the severity of those that do occur. See Road Traffic Safety.

United Nations Edit

Owing to the global and massive scale of the issue, with predictions that by two thousand twenty road traffic deaths and injuries will exceed HIV/AIDS as a cargo of death and disability, [55] the United Nations and its subsidiary figures have passed resolutions and held conferences on the issue. The very first United Nations General Assembly resolution and debate was in two thousand three [56] The World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims was proclaimed in 2005. In two thousand nine the very first high level ministerial conference on road safety was held in Moscow.

Collision migration Edit

Collisions migration refers to a situation where act to reduce road traffic collisions in one place may result in those collisions resurfacing elsewhere. [58] For example, an accident blackspot may occur at a dangerous arch. [59] The treatment for this may be to increase signage, post an advisory speed limit, apply a high-friction road surface, add crash barriers or any one of a number of other visible interventions. The instantaneous result may be to reduce collisions at the arch, but the subconscious refreshment on leaving the “dangerous” arch may cause drivers to act with fractionally less care on the rest of the road, resulting in an increase in collisions elsewhere on the road, and no overall improvement over the area. In the same way, enlargening familiarity with the treated area will often result in a reduction over time to the previous level of care (regression to the mean) and may result in quicker speeds around the arch due to perceived enhanced safety (risk compensation).

Traffic collision

In 2013, fifty four million people sustained injuries from traffic collisions. [1] This resulted in 1.Four million deaths in 2013, up from 1.1 million deaths in 1990. [Two] About 68,000 of these occurred in children less than five years old. [Two] Almost all high-income countries have decreasing death rates, while the majority of low-income countries have enlargening death rates due to traffic collisions. Middle-income countries have the highest rate with twenty deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, 80% of all road fatalities by only 52% of all vehicles. While the death rate in Africa is the highest (24.1 per 100,000 inhabitants), the lowest rate is to be found in Europe (Ten.Three per 100,000 inhabitants). [Trio]

Traffic collisions can be classified by general type. Types of collision include head-on, road departure, rear-end, side collisions, and rollovers.

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

A number of physical injuries can commonly result from the blunt force trauma caused by a collision, ranging from bruising and contusions to catastrophic physical injury (e.g., paralysis) or death.

Human factors Edit

Intent is also a factor, a vehicle-ramming attack for a example happens largely due to a driver choosing to cause a traffic collision.

Drivers dissipated by mobile devices had almost four times greater risk of crashing their cars than those who were not. Dialing a phone is the most dangerous distraction, enlargening a drivers’ chance of crashing by twelve times, followed by reading or writing, which enlargened the risk by ten times. [14]

controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behavior of other drivers.

Albeit proficiency in these abilities is trained and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:

An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland. [17]

Accompanying switches to road designs have been wide-scale adoptions of rules of the road alongside law enforcement policies that included drink-driving laws, setting of speed boundaries, and speed enforcement systems such as speed cameras. Some countries’ driving tests have been expanded to test a fresh driver’s behavior during emergencies, and their hazard perception.

There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, albeit youthfull people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more youthful masculine drivers feature in collisions, [Eighteen] with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. [16] This is reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, hookup, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions might be expected to be involved in more collisions, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, evidently, more cautiously. [Nineteen] Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behavior. In one thousand nine hundred sixty nine Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road: [20]

Conversely, a location that does not look dangerous may have a high crash frequency. This is, in part, because if drivers perceive a location as hazardous, they take more care. Collisions may be more likely to happen when hazardous road or traffic conditions are not demonstrable at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to perceive and react in the time and distance available. High incidence of crashes is not indicative of high injury risk. Crashes are common in areas of high vehicle congestion but fatal crashes occur disproportionately on rural roads at night when traffic is relatively light.

This phenomenon has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in collision rates have not occurred after legislative or technical switches. One examine observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, [21] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly attributed fall in overall fatalities. [22] Most claims of risk compensation offsetting the effects of vehicle regulation and belt use laws has been discredited by research using more refined data. [13]

In the 1990s, Hans Monderman’s studies of driver behavior led him to the realization that signs and regulations had an adverse effect on a driver’s capability to interact securely with other road users. Monderman developed collective space principles, rooted in the principles of the woonerven of the 1970s. He concluded that the removal of highway clutter, while permitting drivers and other road users to blend with equal priority, could help drivers recognize environmental clues. They relied on their cognitive abilities alone, reducing traffic speeds radically and resulting in lower levels of road casualties and lower levels of congestion. [23]

Some crashes are intended; staged crashes, for example, involve at least one party who hopes to crash a vehicle in order to submit lucrative claims to an insurance company. [24] In the USA in the 1990s, criminals recruited Latin immigrants to deliberately crash cars, usually by cutting in front of another car and sticking on the brakes. It was an illegal and risky job, and they were typically paid only $100. Jose Luis Lopez Perez, a staged crash driver, died after one such maneuver, leading to an investigation that uncovered the enlargening frequency of this type of crash. [25]

Motor vehicle speed Edit

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. [26] The summary says:

The evidence shows the risk of having a crash is enlargened both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
The risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much swifter than the median speed.
The severity/lethality of a crash depends on the vehicle speed switch at influence.
There is limited evidence suggesting lower speed boundaries result in lower speeds on a system-wide basis.
Most crashes related to speed involve speed too quick for the conditions.
More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.

The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of Fresh South Wales (NSW) asserts speeding (traveling too swift for the prevailing conditions or above the posted speed limit [27] ) is a factor in about forty percent of road deaths. [28] The RTA also say speeding increases the risk of a crash and its severity. [28] On another web page, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific chunk of research from 1997, and writes “research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with petite increases above an appropriately set speed limit.” [29]

The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics showcase for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and “traveling too rapid for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes). [30]

Driver impairment Edit

Driver impairment describes factors that prevent the driver from driving at their normal level of skill. Common impairments include:

According to the Government of Canada, coroner reports from two thousand eight suggested almost 40% of fatally injured drivers consumed some quantity of alcohol before the collision. [32]

Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting ordinary glance tests and/or requiring adequate vehicle modifications before being permitted to drive;

Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age.

Research suggests that the driver’s attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Latest research conducted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could ease off the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other arm, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road. [34]

Combinations of factors

Several conditions can combine to create a much worse situation, for example:

Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving spectacle than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation, [36] or
Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which individually do not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a junior person’s. [37]

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

In the early 1970s British Leyland commenced an intensive programme of vehicle safety research, producing a number of prototype experimental safety vehicles demonstrating various innovations for occupant and pedestrian protection such as air bags, anti-lock brakes, impact-absorbing side-panels, front and rear head restraints, run-flat tires, sleek and deformable front-ends, impact-absorbing bumpers, and retractable headlamps. [43] Design has also been influenced by government legislation, such as the Euro NCAP influence test.

Common features designed to improve safety include thicker poles, safety glass, interiors with no acute edges, stronger figures, other active or passive safety features, and slick exteriors to reduce the consequences of an influence with pedestrians.

Center of gravity

Motorcyclists have little protection other than their clothing and helmets. This difference is reflected in the casualty statistics, where they are more than twice as likely to suffer severely after a collision. In two thousand five there were 198,735 road crashes with 271,017 reported casualties on roads in Excellent Britain. This included Three,201 deaths (1.1%) and 28,954 serious injuries (Ten.7%) overall. Of these casualties 178,302 (66%) were car users and 24,824 (9%) were motorcyclists, of whom five hundred sixty nine were killed (Two.3%) and Five,939 earnestly injured (24%). [47]

Other Edit

Other possibly hazardous factors that may alter a driver’s soundness on the road includes:

Irritability, [48]
Following specifically distinct rules too bureaucratically, inflexibly or rigidly when unique circumstances might suggest otherwise [49]
Unexpected swerving into somebody’s blind spot without very first clearly making oneself visible through the wing mirror[50]
Unfamiliarity with one’s dashboard features, center console or other interior treating devices after a latest car purchase [51]
Lack of visibility due to windshield design or sun glare [52]
Distraction by scenery, a sexually attractive person or sexually suggestive advertising [53][54]

A large assets of skill has been amassed on how to prevent car crashes, and reduce the severity of those that do occur. See Road Traffic Safety.

United Nations Edit

Collision migration Edit

Collisions migration refers to a situation where act to reduce road traffic collisions in one place may result in those collisions resurfacing elsewhere. [58] For example, an accident blackspot may occur at a dangerous arch. [59] The treatment for this may be to increase signage, post an advisory speed limit, apply a high-friction road surface, add crash barriers or any one of a number of other visible interventions. The instantaneous result may be to reduce collisions at the arch, but the subconscious refreshment on leaving the “dangerous” arch may cause drivers to act with fractionally less care on the rest of the road, resulting in an increase in collisions elsewhere on the road, and no overall improvement over the area. In the same way, enlargening familiarity with the treated area will often result in a reduction over time to the previous level of care (regression to the mean) and may result in quicker speeds around the arch due to perceived enhanced safety (risk compensation).

Traffic collision

In 2013, fifty four million people sustained injuries from traffic collisions. [1] This resulted in 1.Four million deaths in 2013, up from 1.1 million deaths in 1990. [Two] About 68,000 of these occurred in children less than five years old. [Two] Almost all high-income countries have decreasing death rates, while the majority of low-income countries have enlargening death rates due to traffic collisions. Middle-income countries have the highest rate with twenty deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, 80% of all road fatalities by only 52% of all vehicles. While the death rate in Africa is the highest (24.1 per 100,000 inhabitants), the lowest rate is to be found in Europe (Ten.Trio per 100,000 inhabitants). [Trio]

Traffic collisions can be classified by general type. Types of collision include head-on, road departure, rear-end, side collisions, and rollovers.

Many different terms are commonly used to describe vehicle collisions. The World Health Organization use the term road traffic injury, [Four] while the U.S. Census Bureau uses the term motor vehicle accidents (MVA), [Five] and Transport Canada uses the term “motor vehicle traffic collision” (MVTC). [6] Other common terms include auto accident, car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle collision (MVC), individual injury collision (PIC), road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), road traffic accident and later road traffic collision, as well as more unofficial terms including smash-up, pile-up, and fender bender.

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

A number of physical injuries can commonly result from the blunt force trauma caused by a collision, ranging from bruising and contusions to catastrophic physical injury (e.g., paralysis) or death.

Human factors Edit

Intent is also a factor, a vehicle-ramming attack for a example happens largely due to a driver choosing to cause a traffic collision.

controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behavior of other drivers.

Albeit proficiency in these abilities is instructed and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:

An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland. [17]

There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, albeit youthfull people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more youthful masculine drivers feature in collisions, [Legal] with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. [16] This is reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, lovemaking, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions might be expected to be involved in more collisions, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, evidently, more cautiously. [Nineteen] Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behavior. In one thousand nine hundred sixty nine Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road: [20]

This phenomenon has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in collision rates have not occurred after legislative or technical switches. One examine observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, [21] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly attributed fall in overall fatalities. [22] Most claims of risk compensation offsetting the effects of vehicle regulation and belt use laws has been discredited by research using more refined data. [13]

Motor vehicle speed Edit

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. [26] The summary says:

The evidence shows the risk of having a crash is enhanced both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
The risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much quicker than the median speed.
The severity/lethality of a crash depends on the vehicle speed switch at influence.
There is limited evidence suggesting lower speed thresholds result in lower speeds on a system-wide basis.
Most crashes related to speed involve speed too prompt for the conditions.
More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.

The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics display for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and “traveling too swift for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes). [30]

Driver impairment Edit

Driver impairment describes factors that prevent the driver from driving at their normal level of skill. Common impairments include:

According to the Government of Canada, coroner reports from two thousand eight suggested almost 40% of fatally injured drivers consumed some quantity of alcohol before the collision. [32]

Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting ordinary glance tests and/or requiring adequate vehicle modifications before being permitted to drive;

Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age.

Research suggests that the driver’s attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Latest research conducted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could loosen the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other arm, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road. [34]

Cell phone use is an increasingly significant problem on the roads. [ citation needed ] The U.S. National Safety Council compiled more than thirty studies postulating that hands-free is not a safer option, because the brain remains dissipated by the conversation and cannot concentrate solely on the task of driving. [35]

Combinations of factors

Several conditions can combine to create a much worse situation, for example:

Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving spectacle than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation, [36] or
Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which individually do not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a junior person’s. [37]

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Research has shown that, across all collision types, it is less likely that seat belts were worn in collisions involving death or serious injury, rather than light injury; wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of death by about forty five percent. [40] Seat belt use is controversial, with notable critics such as Professor John Adams suggesting that their use may lead to a net increase in road casualties due to a phenomenon known as risk compensation. [41] However, actual observation of driver behaviors before and after seat belt laws does not support the risk compensation hypothesis. Several significant driving behaviors were observed on the road before and after the belt use law was enforced in Newfoundland, and in Nova Scotia during the same period without a law. Belt use enlargened from sixteen percent to seventy seven percent in Newfoundland and remained virtually unchanged in Nova Scotia. Four driver behaviors (speed, stopping at intersections when the control light was amber, turning left in front of oncoming traffic, and gaps in following distance) were measured at various sites before and after the law. Switches in these behaviors in Newfoundland were similar to those in Nova Scotia, except that drivers in Newfoundland drove slower on expressways after the law, contrary to the risk compensation theory. [42]

The design of vehicles has also evolved to improve protection after collision, both for vehicle occupants and for those outside of the vehicle. Much of this work was led by automotive industry competition and technological innovation, leading to measures such as Saab’s safety box and reinforced roof piles of 1946, Ford´s one thousand nine hundred fifty six Lifeguard safety package, and Saab and Volvo’s introduction of standard fit seatbelts in 1959. Other initiatives were accelerated as a reaction to consumer pressure, after publications such as Ralph Nader’s one thousand nine hundred sixty five book Unsafe at Any Speed accused motor manufacturers of indifference towards safety.

The UK Department for Transport publish road casualty statistics for each type of collision and vehicle through its Road Casualties Superb Britain report. [44] These statistics demonstrate a ten to one ratio of in-vehicle fatalities inbetween types of car. In most cars, occupants have a 2–8% chance of death in a two-car collision.

Center of gravity

Motorcyclists have little protection other than their clothing and helmets. This difference is reflected in the casualty statistics, where they are more than twice as likely to suffer severely after a collision. In two thousand five there were 198,735 road crashes with 271,017 reported casualties on roads in Good Britain. This included Trio,201 deaths (1.1%) and 28,954 serious injuries (Ten.7%) overall. Of these casualties 178,302 (66%) were car users and 24,824 (9%) were motorcyclists, of whom five hundred sixty nine were killed (Two.3%) and Five,939 gravely injured (24%). [47]

Other Edit

Other possibly hazardous factors that may alter a driver’s soundness on the road includes:

Irritability, [48]
Following specifically distinct rules too bureaucratically, inflexibly or rigidly when unique circumstances might suggest otherwise [49]
Unexpected swerving into somebody’s blind spot without very first clearly making oneself visible through the wing mirror[50]
Unfamiliarity with one’s dashboard features, center console or other interior treating devices after a latest car purchase [51]
Lack of visibility due to windshield design or sun glare [52]
Distraction by scenery, a sexually attractive person or sexually suggestive advertising [53][54]

A large bod of skill has been amassed on how to prevent car crashes, and reduce the severity of those that do occur. See Road Traffic Safety.

United Nations Edit

Owing to the global and massive scale of the issue, with predictions that by two thousand twenty road traffic deaths and injuries will exceed HIV/AIDS as a cargo of death and disability, [55] the United Nations and its subsidiary figures have passed resolutions and held conferences on the issue. The very first United Nations General Assembly resolution and debate was in two thousand three [56] The World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims was proclaimed in 2005. In two thousand nine the very first high level ministerial conference on road safety was held in Moscow.

Collision migration Edit

Collisions migration refers to a situation where act to reduce road traffic collisions in one place may result in those collisions resurfacing elsewhere. [58] For example, an accident blackspot may occur at a dangerous arch. [59] The treatment for this may be to increase signage, post an advisory speed limit, apply a high-friction road surface, add crash barriers or any one of a number of other visible interventions. The instant result may be to reduce collisions at the arch, but the subconscious entertainment on leaving the “dangerous” arch may cause drivers to act with fractionally less care on the rest of the road, resulting in an increase in collisions elsewhere on the road, and no overall improvement over the area. In the same way, enlargening familiarity with the treated area will often result in a reduction over time to the previous level of care (regression to the mean) and may result in swifter speeds around the arch due to perceived enhanced safety (risk compensation).

Recent Posts

Traffic collision

Traffic collision

Contents

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

Human factors Edit

Motor vehicle speed Edit

Driver impairment Edit

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Other Edit

United Nations Edit

Collision migration Edit

Traffic collision

Contents

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

Human factors Edit

Motor vehicle speed Edit

Driver impairment Edit

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Other Edit

United Nations Edit

Collision migration Edit

Traffic collision

Contents

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

Human factors Edit

Motor vehicle speed Edit

Driver impairment Edit

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Other Edit

United Nations Edit

Collision migration Edit

Traffic collision

Contents

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

Human factors Edit

Motor vehicle speed Edit

Driver impairment Edit

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Other Edit

United Nations Edit

Collision migration Edit

Traffic collision

Contents

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

Human factors Edit

Motor vehicle speed Edit

Driver impairment Edit

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Other Edit

United Nations Edit

Collision migration Edit

Traffic collision

Contents

Psychological Edit

Physical Edit

Human factors Edit

Motor vehicle speed Edit

Driver impairment Edit

Road design Edit

Vehicle design and maintenance Edit

Other Edit

United Nations Edit

Collision migration Edit

Related movie:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply