Download - Analysis of fatal crashes involving Chennai city's MTC buses

Analysis of fatal crashes involving Chennai city’s Analysis of fatal crashes involving Chennai city’s Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) busesMetropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) buses

Jeya Padmanaban*, Ravishankar Rajaraman**, Swastik Narayan**, Bharat Ramesh**Jeya Padmanaban*, Ravishankar Rajaraman**, Swastik Narayan**, Bharat Ramesh**

JP Research India Private LimitedJP Research India Private Limited

JP Research India Pvt Ltd

OverviewOverview

• IntroductionIntroduction

MTC busses in Chennai cityMTC busses in Chennai city

The issueThe issue

• Data Collection Methodology Data Collection Methodology

Detailed Accident Reports (DAR)Detailed Accident Reports (DAR)

Creation of Analytical DatabaseCreation of Analytical Database

• ResultsResults

• ConclusionsConclusions


Chennai City and MTC busesChennai City and MTC buses

• Chennai City Chennai City – spans for over 180 sq.kmspans for over 180 sq.km

– population density of 24,683 persons per population density of 24,683 persons per sq.km.sq.km.

• Metropolitan Transport CorporationMetropolitan Transport Corporation– Government run bus organizationGovernment run bus organization

– MTC has a fleet of 3267 buses (2009)MTC has a fleet of 3267 buses (2009)

– MTC buses carry 5.5 million passengers MTC buses carry 5.5 million passengers every day.every day.

Ordinary

Semi-Low Floor (SLF)

Volvo AC


The IssueThe Issue

YearNumberof buses

Number ofbus crashes

CrashesCrashesper bus

Fatal Crashesper 1000 busesFatal Injury No injury

2006 2773 2837 129 982 1726 1.02 46.522007 2934 3857 142 1213 2502 1.31 48.392008 3300 4542 145 1419 2978 1.38 43.932009 3267 4284 138 1489 2657 1.31 42.24

• Over 40 fatal crashes per 1000 buses per year

• Over 1 crash per bus per year

• Lack of in-depth scientific analysis


Data Collection MethodologyData Collection Methodology

• Detailed Accident Report (DAR)Detailed Accident Report (DAR)

– 2-page handwritten report in local language (Tamil)2-page handwritten report in local language (Tamil)

– Records created and maintained by Accident Branch of MTCRecords created and maintained by Accident Branch of MTC

– Objective is to fix responsibility for the accident Objective is to fix responsibility for the accident

– Researchers used these reports as the base for analysisResearchers used these reports as the base for analysis


Data Collection MethodologyData Collection Methodology

• Acquisition of Detailed Accident Reports (DARs) Acquisition of Detailed Accident Reports (DARs)

– Using Right To Information (RTI)Using Right To Information (RTI)

– 283 fatal crash reports obtained283 fatal crash reports obtained (2008 - 145; 2009 - 138) (2008 - 145; 2009 - 138)

• Creation of Analytical DatabaseCreation of Analytical Database

– Translation of documents to EnglishTranslation of documents to English

– Extracted information and coded variablesExtracted information and coded variables

– Personal or proprietary information not includedPersonal or proprietary information not included


Distribution of Fatal Crashes Distribution of Fatal Crashes by Road User Type Involvedby Road User Type Involved

M2Ws, pedestrians and footboard passengers constitute 89% of fatal MTC bus crashes.


Victim Profile – M2W RidersVictim Profile – M2W Riders

• 92% of the fatal M2W riders and “footboard passengers” were 92% of the fatal M2W riders and “footboard passengers” were malesmales

• 50% of male M2W fatal riders are ages 20-2950% of male M2W fatal riders are ages 20-29

• Helmet usage among the M2W riders are very lowHelmet usage among the M2W riders are very low


Victim Profile – Pedestrians and Victim Profile – Pedestrians and Footboard PassengersFootboard Passengers

• Pedestrian fatalities about 82% were malePedestrian fatalities about 82% were male

• 85% of male pedestrian fatalities are ages 30 or older 85% of male pedestrian fatalities are ages 30 or older

• 38% of “footboard passengers” are less than 19 years old38% of “footboard passengers” are less than 19 years old

– indicating that fatalities involved school/college studentsindicating that fatalities involved school/college students


Crash Interaction TypesCrash Interaction Types

• 11stst Event: Fall Down Event: Fall Down

– M2W, Pedestrian or Footboard M2W, Pedestrian or Footboard

Passenger falls downPassenger falls down

• 22ndnd Event: Run Over Event: Run Over

– M2W rider, Pedestrian or M2W rider, Pedestrian or

Footboard Passenger subsequently Footboard Passenger subsequently

gets run over by tiresgets run over by tires


Crash Interaction Types - Place of Crash Interaction Types - Place of DeathDeath

78% of Run Overs result in fatalities even before victim reaches the hospital


““Run Over” by Tire PositionRun Over” by Tire Position

• Rear tires involved in 82% of Rear tires involved in 82% of run oversrun overs


““Run Over” by Tire PositionRun Over” by Tire Position

• Run overs involving all footboard passengers

• 88% of M2W riders were due to rear tires


Head injury involved - “Fall Down” Head injury involved - “Fall Down” onlyonly

• Helmet use for M2Ws can significantly reduce injury severity


Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – M2W Crash ConfigurationsM2W Crash Configurations

Sideswipe most predominant crash configuration


Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – M2W Crash ConfigurationM2W Crash Configuration

Sideswipe collisions resulted in 80% of M2W run overs

Crash configuration for 5% of fall downs could not be determined


Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – PedestriansPedestrians

• 64% impacts involved pedestrian crossing the road

• 82% pedestrians hit by front of the bus


Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – Footboard PassengersFootboard Passengers

• 59% - Passenger Boarding/alighting a bus 59% - Passenger Boarding/alighting a bus

• 31% - Foot board travellers in a moving bus31% - Foot board travellers in a moving bus

• 94% - Run over of foot board passengers from front door94% - Run over of foot board passengers from front door

• Importance of doors?Importance of doors?– Buses with doors show very low occurrence of foot board passenger Buses with doors show very low occurrence of foot board passenger

crashescrashes


Infrastructure ProblemsInfrastructure Problems

• Crashes on divided roadsCrashes on divided roads– 63% of M2W sideswipe crashes63% of M2W sideswipe crashes

– 67% of crossing pedestrian impacts67% of crossing pedestrian impacts

• 30% of pedestrian crashes 30% of pedestrian crashes occurred at or near a bus stopoccurred at or near a bus stop


ConclusionsConclusions

• Data does exist but needs to be scientifically analyzedData does exist but needs to be scientifically analyzed

• On-scene crash investigations and in-depth data collection can On-scene crash investigations and in-depth data collection can act as a good feedback loopact as a good feedback loop


New buses in 2010New buses in 2010

• Sideswipe with M2W• Run over prevented due to low ground

clearance of bus

THANK YOU [email protected]

Download - Analysis of fatal crashes involving Chennai city's MTC buses

Top Related