golf cart type vehicle safety report and improvement ... safety report.pdf · safety standards, and...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Golf Cart Type Vehicle Safety
Report and Improvement
Recommendations for Public
Road Transit & LSV Trial
17th November 2015
Prepared for the Department of Transport and Main Road Safety,
Australian Councils, CTP Insurers and Residential Community Body Corporate
Report Correspondence
Jason Hayes
P.O. Box 1050, Sanctuary Cove, QLD, 4212
Email: [email protected]
2
Contents
Section (1) – Safety Standard Report and Recommended Improvements
1. Introduction ........................................................................... 4
2. Purpose and Recommendation ............................................. 6
Global Situation
3. What is an LSV? ..................................................................... 7
4. Where are LSV’s used? .......................................................... 7
5. Safety Features ...................................................................... 7
6. Environmental Benefits ......................................................... 8
7. Ease of Use and Convenience ............................................... 9
Australian Situation
8. Overview ............................................................................... 10
9. Current Transit Risk Factors .................................................. 10
10. Speed Limits .......................................................................... 11
11. Current ‘Basic Golf Cart’ Dangers ……………………………………… 11
12. The Next Step LSV or Equivalent ........................................... 14
13. LSV or Equivalent Safety Features ......................................... 14
14. Current LSV Models in Australia ............................................ 17
15. Vehicle Inspection and Registration.......................... ............ 20
16. Section (1) Report Conclusion ................................................ 20
Section (2) – Proposed Pilot Trail LSV or Equivalent in Residential Regions
17. Initiative ……………………………………………………………………………. 21
18. Global Alignment ………………………………………………………………. 21
19. An Exceptional Means of Transport ………………………………….. 21
20. Gated Community Resort vs Non Gated Community …………. 22
21. Pilot Trial Evaluation ………………………………………………………….. 23
22. Global Reports …………………………………………………………………… 23
Appendix
1. Golf Cart vs LSV – Canadian Department of Transport ……….. 25
2. Summary of International Manufacturing Standards …………. 26
3. Golf Cart Accident Report - QLD Injury Surveillance Unit … 28
4. Golf Cart Related Injury Report – Mackay Based Hospital ….. 36
5. VIC Roads ‘Machinery Pack’ ……………………………………………….. 39
6. LivingStone Automotive TOPS Certification ……………………….. 42
3
Report Sources
____________________________________
Report by
Jason Hayes
Jason Hayes has contributed to the electric golf cart industry for over 10 years and is an Australian
expert when it comes to understanding global Low Speed Vehicle legislation and vehicle activity.
During his 10 years he has held several prominent positions including Distributor and Director of
Australian Operations for Tomberlin products, QLD State Manager for Club Car AVS, Director of
National Cart Traders and National Sales Manager for New Mobility Electric Vehicles. He has a
thorough understanding of all aspects of the industry’s business requirements and a broad
understanding of all product platforms.
In 2011 he identified the need and began working towards the introduction of a Low Speed Vehicle
‘or equivalent’ classification to align Australia with more advanced countries in respect to vehicle use
activity, environmental considerations, and above all necessary vehicle safety features that currently
fall well short of international standards. This report brings to attention the need for required
changes in product standards and the potential for new vehicle use environments.
Australian Statistics Supplied by
Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit
Mackay Base Hospital
Information Sources
Guidelines for Conditional Registration QLD
Conditional Registration Guide RTA NSW
VIC Roads Machinery Pack
US Department of Transport
USA Federal Motor Safety Standards 500 Title 49: Transportation 571.500
US Electric Transport Applications Canada Motor Safety Standards 500
Highway Traffic Act Code Ontario
European Directive 2002/24/EEC
Quebec Advanced Transportation Institute 2008 ‘Worldwide Situation of Low Speed Vehicles’
Legality of LSV by Jurisdiction www.econogics.com/ev/lsvlegal.htm
American Journal of Preventative Medicine Golf Cart Injuries USA
Technology Associates USA Engineering Experts
European Commission, Transport Research Laboratory Report CPR810 Electric Vehicles
US Department of Transportation - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
QLD Police
4
(SECTION 1) - Safety Standard Report and Recommended Improvements
Introduction
Electric Golf Carts have been utilised as a recreational vehicle for the golfing community for almost
60 years and were originally designed to carry two golfers and their golf clubs around a golf course.
The design platform for these vehicles were manufactured in accordance with the American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) Z130.1. This standard allowed the design characteristic of a Golf
Cart to suit the recreation application for golf course use with standard safety features such as speed
and brake options limited for such application. The designated ‘safe speed’ established by the ANSI
for a Golf Cart vehicle was 22km/h or less which allowed for basic safety design features such as go-
cart style braking, accelerator controlled brake release, zero passenger restraint, plastic or light
weight metal roof construction and perspex windscreens.
Still today these basic design vehicles are an ideal way for easily commuting around a golf course
and are conveniently enjoyed by golfers worldwide, though their engineering standards were only
ever tailored with this sole purpose in mind.
In 1998 a new class of Electric Golf Cart style vehicles was introduced in the USA, which was soon
followed by Canada, Europe and many other regions around the world. This vehicle clearly separated
itself from the basic Golf Cart platform and became referred to as an LSV or NEV. (Low Speed
Vehicle) or (Neighbouring Electric Vehicle). While commonly similar in overall presentation, including
length, width and height there are clear differences between the two. These differences take into
account that vehicle application had become commonly used outside golf courses and was being
utilised in residential and commercial environments as a means of personal transport on public
roadways. As a result, a new vehicle safety standard class was introduced by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Association for the general safety of all motorists and pedestrians. This standard is the
Low Speed Vehicle standard. A breakdown description of the differences between a Golf Cart and an
LSV is broadly described by the Canadian Department of Transport in Appendix 1 and page 25.
Nowadays most major countries accept electric LSV’s as a common means of personal transport
under strict guidelines, usually pertaining to stipulated road speeds and adequate safety protection.
In America an LSV is classified under the Federal Motor Safety Standards (FMSS500) as a road legal
vehicle across 47 states within 40 - 50km/h speed limits. In Europe their Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 2002/24/EEC or ‘L6e’ allow vehicle top speed of 45km/h, and in Canada its (CMVSS500)
allow LSV’s to travel at 40km/h within 50km speed zones.
In Australia Golf Cart usage on public roads and/or most non golf course applications are required to
be registered under the ‘Conditional Registration’ guidelines. The Department of Transport and Main
Roads (TMR) introduced the Conditional Registration Scheme (CRS) for the purpose of enabling non-
standard type vehicles to have Compulsory Third Party insurance cover (CTP). While all states have
individual rulings for Conditional Registration Guidelines it is in Queensland and NSW where Golf
Cart use is most prominent. For example, in QLD any licensed driver can register a Golf Cart for
personal use through QLD Transport providing it complies with required vehicle standards and is
operated under the following restrictions:
5
L03 – Restricted to designated areas
L06A – Restricted to designated route
L07 – Restricted to loading and unloading tasks and
SP20 – Governed to maximum speed as specified. (20km/h)
In Victoria Conditional Registration for Golf Carts is approved on a case by case situation by
appointment through VIC Roads. Once a permit for use is approved the vehicle then needs to comply
with Vic Roads ‘Machinery Pack’ guidelines. Currently Victoria has very limited options for Golf Cart
use as a personal means of transport and most registered vehicles are used for commercial or
government application. It is interesting to note that while Victoria has very few registered Golf
Carts in use compared to QLD and NSW they in fact have unrivalled vehicle safety standard
guidelines in respect to a potential LSV option that can exceed 25km/h in speed.
For the most part this report focuses on the QLD and NSW guidelines as these States comprise of
most vehicle activity, however where relevant Victoria’s safety standard features will be addressed to
highlight established standards correlating to Low Speed Vehicles.
There are a number of small changes that a basic Golf Cart needs to undergo to comply with QLD
and NSW guidelines to make it suitable for limited commercial or personal transport on public
roadways. In QLD these items fall within the code guidelines of L03 in QLD’s Conditional Registration
guidelines and include headlights, tail lights, number plate light, direction indicator lights and
reflective markers. In NSW the guidelines are much the same though an amber flashing roof light is
required. The current stipulated maximum speed for Golf Carts on public roads is 20km/h.
These current guidelines governing Conditionally Registered Golf Carts were implemented in May
2003. At the time they were introduced Golf Cart manufactures had very basic safety requirements
to adhere to and subsequently the Australian guidelines were based on very basic type vehicles.
These basic vehicles had a manufactured top speed of 25km/h and there were very little safety
requirements needed to protect passengers in the event of an accident.
Since 2003 Golf Cart manufactures have made enormous leaps in vehicle performance, passenger
safety standards, and eco-technology. So much so that the current Condition Registration Guidelines
pertaining to Golf Cart usage is well out of date and in fact now possess many threats to passenger
safety.
The overall objective of this report is to highlight the serious shortfalls in current safety standards for
Golf Cart usage on public roads, as well as highlight current global benchmarks in Golf Cart vehicle
standards that significantly increase motorist and pedestrian safety, protecting them from the
potential risk of severe injury or fatality.
6
Purpose and Recommendation
The purpose of this report is to:
a. Highlight serious dangers relevant to the current Conditional Registration Guidelines
that are based on old vehicle manufacturing technology, subjecting commuters and
the public to potential sever injury and or fatal accidents.
b. Highlight new safety standard available in Golf Cart style vehicles (LSV’s) and the
necessity for these standards to be implemented.
c. Propose a new class of registration or amendments to current registration rulings
that identifies the difference between a basic Golf Cart and an LSV type vehicle.
d. Suggested recommendation for pilot trail under a new class of registration or
amended current guidelines for the purpose of introducing these vehicles to non-
gated residential communities and low speed residential areas.
7
Global Situation
What is an LSV?
A Low Speed Vehicle is a legal class of 4-wheel vehicle that has a maximum capacity speed no less
than 32km/h and no more than 40km/h, and is no more than 1361kg in weight. Its dimensions are
generally no wider than 1.5m, and approximately 2.4 to 3m in length. The vehicle operating platform
is electric, with zero tailpipe emission and has the necessary safety features that comply with motor
vehicle safety standards implemented by individual countries to allow vehicle use on main roads
within speed limited areas.
Where are LSV’s used?
In 1998 the USA introduced the LSV classification by which its standards are now compliant across 47
of its 50 States. Between 2000 and 2002 Canada, Japan and many areas of Europe followed suit
including Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands,
Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. To date over 45 countries worldwide have an LSV or
equivalent standard.
Initially the electric powered LSV class was introduced in the USA to meet the needs of gated
communities for short distance commuting. By 2010 there were over 20,000 gated communities
worldwide hosting 8.4 million people safely using LSV’s as a silent low-polluting means of transport.
While this initial growth provided a substantial foundation for the LSV industry to become well
established the further acceptance of LSV’s beyond gated communities and onto public roads has set
a global movement for the continuous expansion of LSV’s in becoming a dominant force in the
current generation of min-emission vehicles.
While Dealers in most countries are restricted to retailing LSV’s with a top speed of 40km/h the
actual stipulated legal speed limits in which they can operate varies from country to country as well
as from state to state. For example, in Washington DC an LSV is legal on a roadway with a speed limit
of 40km/h or less however in Illinois the road speed that an LSV can be driven on is 50km/h. While
there is a broad debate on safe ‘top speed’ rulings there is a global consensus that 40km/h speed
limits are a safe environment for all LSV operation.
Safety Features
In the USA, under the Code of Federal Regulation, FMSS500, Title 49: Transport, Part 571, it defines
“the purpose of the LSV created standard is to ensure LSV’s operated on public streets, roads, and
highways are equipped with the minimum motor vehicle equipment appropriate for motor vehicle
safety”.
As pre-mentioned, the manufacturing safety features on an LSV vehicle clearly separate it from a
basic Golf Cart. In fact, in the USA the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA) states that an
LSV is more closely related to an automotive vehicle than that of a Golf Cart. Features that are
excluded from a basic Golf Cart and that greatly enhance LSV safety include, an occupant Crush
Proof Structure, (often referred to as a Tip Over or Roll Over Protection System: TOPS, ROPS),
automotive approved seat belts, four-wheel braking, full automotive safety windscreen and wiper,
8
automotive vehicle lighting, braking and indicator lights, as well as dash board communication
displaying speed and vehicle operational feedback. The significant difference in safety that is offered
to vehicle occupants with these inclusions goes a long way in separating ‘legal’ and ‘non legal’ road
vehicles globally, and they are the defining features in the LSV standard.
Environmental Benefits
A major consideration in current Global thinking is sustainability and carbon emission reduction. This
has brought enormous attention to the drawbacks of oil consuming combustion motors and we are
now in the infancy stage of introducing somewhat ‘old’ but advanced technologies to a new eco
conscientious world. Why old? Electric Vehicles have been around since the early 1900’s. In fact, the
war between electric and combustion oil based systems is well documented for that period of
motoring history and there is a clear reason why the combustion motor won out... it added much
more financial value to the economy. At the time there was no real consideration for the
environmental impacts that we would face 100 years thereafter and the truth is there was no way of
knowing at the time. In 2015 however governments and vehicle/oil manufacturing companies
globally are only too aware of the environmental threats that exist and the direction we now need to
pursue for the future.
Over the last 20 years there have been contentious debates on the drawbacks of electric vehicles
and their shortfalls compared to oil combustion vehicles. These debates have placed un-warranted
anchors on the electric vehicle movement, much as it did back in the 1900’s. Most of the arguments
debated, particularly by the automotive and oil companies are only serving to maintain their current
industry and have little validity in fact. This point can be highlighted by asking the following question,
‘if the introduction of electric vehicles provided much higher financial profits than oil combustion
vehicles and created millions more jobs would electric vehicles be an everyday household means of
transport in 2015’? The simple answer is YES!
Despite this obvious statement, there is however warranted consideration needed in relation to how
much of an impact ‘too quick’ a transition from oil combustion vehicles to electric vehicles (or other)
will have on today’s global economy... which in contrast is the real and genuine argument
underlying the oil combustion industries imposed anchor on the electric vehicle movement. There is
no delusion by any sector of the motoring industry that moving from oil combustion to electric could
in fact half the motoring industry economy, taking into account every channel of industry that exists,
be it retail or service. While it’s easy to take a healthy position on climate change the fact is there
are currently millions of families around the world whose everyday survival is solely dependent on
the oil combustion industry. In short, too quick a change would have catastrophic results
economically on a global scale.
Taking this into account it would be fair to say governments, automotive and oil companies may
actually be getting it right, at least for now, and that having a medium term approach to vehicle
emission reduction and the transition toward new propulsion platform technology is the best
solution for all. This approach, currently in motion, is evident in many of the new type of motor
vehicles that exist today, be it hybrids or electric generation platforms like the Holden Volt. While
the US Department of Transport conducted a fuel consumption report in 2012 showing minimal fuel
9
consumption saving for LSV’s, government bodies and motor industry sectors are still maintaining a
conscientious effort and thoughtful plan of attack for the future.
While LSV’s and automotive vehicles will always be on a different page when it comes to commuting
application they both have their own ideal suited purpose. LSV’s are in fact a perfect alternative for
short distance travel and an ideal addition of convenience as the second vehicle for family
households, which as pre-mentioned many countries globally now take advantage of.
While commonly referred to as zero emission vehicles, all LSV’s produce emissions through vehicle
charging and tyre wear, and therefore would be more accurately described as minimal emission or
‘min-emission’ vehicles. The small though important decrease in carbon emission by using battery
based vehicles is becoming more significant as the industry grows and should be of genuine interest
for all individuals to consider for environmental reasons, as well as taking into account the obvious
cost savings. For example, the cost of purchasing an LSV is considerably cheaper than most motor
vehicles. Further to this, cost per distance travelled is considerably less. The equivalent of one full
LSV charge will cost approximately $1.50 and will achieve approximately 50km, while the same
distance in a motor vehicle would cost approximately $7.00 in fuel. There are variances to this
equation as LSV’s may be ½ charged several times during a distance trial increasing the overall cost,
though the savings are significant over time.
In regards to vehicle maintenance both LSV’s and automotive vehicles are much on par. The cost of
automotive maintenance, including servicing, parts, oils, tyres and registration etc is significantly
higher to maintain, however as an LSV will require battery replacement approximately every 4 years
the costs work out to be comparatively close at the end of the day. It is also worth noting that lead
batteries, which are installed in 98% of Golf Carts, have a recycle value of 97%, with lead being the
most recycled metal in the world.
Finally, the significant reduction in operational noise between combustion and electric vehicles is
one of the most attractive aspects of an LSV. From a global perspective this is one of the most
appealing parts of an electric vehicle, particularly in densely populated areas throughout Europe.
Studies completed globally on the effects of noise in relation to individual health highlight many
adverse effects from motor noise pollution. While these factors may not be broadly conveyed or
taken into consideration when it comes to the purpose of LSV’s it most certainly is a favourable
benefit.
Ease of Use and Convenience
One of the most important aspects of LSV’s on a global scale is the benefits to traffic congestion in
densely populated urban or city environments. While Australia in general has much less congestion
than other countries there are many areas that would greatly benefit from small platform vehicles.
To view a “summary of international manufacturing standards” supplied to the ministry of Transport
Quebec, based on the USA, Canada and Europe, please refer to Appendix 2 on page 26.
10
Australian Situation
Overview
While Australia currently has no registration class for LSV use, the states of NSW and QLD have the
option of Conditional Registration for personal Golf Cart use within residential communities, as well
as the standard national varying approval for other commercial environments under ‘Limited or
Zone Access’. The primary purpose of Conditional Registration is to ensure ‘non-standard vehicles’
maintain insurance coverage (CTP). It’s important to note that personal Golf Cart use under the
Conditional Registration guidelines has minimal focus on vehicle safety standards other than a few
minor requirements such as basic lighting. These requirements can be certified by the vehicle owner
upon registration and require no formal inspection by an authorised vehicle service dealer.
The current Conditional Registration guideline requirements established in 2003 which incorporated
Golf Cart use are based on very old vehicle technology and platform safety structures, and are out of
date in relation to current vehicle standards as well as an understanding of daily driver pattern use,
particularly in relation to speed. Basic Golf Carts are currently operated over 90% of time by owners
exceeding the current safety rulings specified within residential communities. In short the
combination of these out of date guidelines in relation to modern vehicle standards, and the daily
average operational use by drivers poses serious safety threats to vehicle occupants as well as other
motorists and pedestrians.
While the introduction of an LSV class in Australia may have great benefits in the future for many
areas of City and Urban transport activity the main focal point at present is the necessary
improvements for the severe lack of vehicle safety standards for current ‘Limited’ or ‘Zone’ access
use, and in particular regarding residential community transport. It is for this reason that a new LSV
or Australian equivalent class of vehicle registration is recommended by either creating a new class
of its own accord or incorporating amendments to the current Conditional Registration Guidelines.
Current Transit Risk Factors
Golf Cart accidents have increased substantially over the past several years. While no specific data
exists tracking usage activity compared to accident events it is evident that the increase is a result of
higher vehicle speeds combined with a lack of adequate safety features. There are several
prominent types of accidents that occur in Golf Carts that cause serious injury to the driver and or
occupants. The two most common types of accidents are ‘vehicle roll over’ and ‘passenger ejection’.
A report completed by Dr. Alexey Borshch and Dr. Ruth Barker of Mackay Based Hospital, based on
statistics supplied by the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit (QISU), show that 32 % of injuries
occur from vehicle rollover and 42% from passenger ejection, totalling almost 3/4 of all accidents.
The most common type of injuries associated with these accidents was the head and neck at 25%,
and upper limb and shoulder at 30%.
It is important to note that many Golf Cart related accidents go statistically unreported. These
include minor, severe and even fatal accidents. The reason being is that not all Emergency
Departments participate in supplying statistical information to QISU, and or in the event that the
11
injury is severe or fatal the patient may bypass the emergency department with no information
being recorded.
In relation to the main type of accidents mentioned above there are three prominent reasons that
these occur, speed, ineffective braking and insufficient passenger restraint during transit. Dr. Alexey
Borshch’s report also makes a clear recommendation that improved safety standards in braking and
passenger restraint would significantly decrease transit accidents and injury severity.
To view the full report supplied by the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit on injuries and related
causes please refer to Appendix 3 on page 28.
To view to Dr. Alexey Borshch’s report please refer to Appendix 4 on page 36.
Speed Limits
The current maximum speed stipulated for a Golf Carts under the Conditional Registration
Guidelines is 20km/h, while in a residential community the legal speed limit for automotive vehicles
is 40km/h. This variation in speed rulings between the two types of vehicles on the same road at the
same time poses significant dangers for Golf Cart occupants, other motorists and pedestrians.
Motorists who get stuck behind a slow Golf Cart in transit are enticed to dangerously pass the Golf
Cart, placing the motorist on the wrong side of the road with the obvious potential for creating an
accident. It is simply not practical to have two different speed variations for different vehicles on the
same public road. In comparison, it’s as dangerous as having motorists travelling on a 110km/h
freeway at 55km/h. It’s not a question of ‘if ‘but ‘when’ a serious and or fatal accident will occur.
An example of common sense responsibility on this issue is highlighted by the intelligent approach
Hamilton Island in the Whitsundays has adopted for transit safety. To accommodate the 20km/h
ruling for Golf Carts, the Island has implemented an across the board rule that ALL vehicles are to
maintain a speed of 20km/h or less. As Golf Carts are the main source of transport on the Island this
significantly increases transit safety and helps in reducing accidents.
Taking into account that as of 2015 all new electric Golf Cart style vehicle sold in Australia, be it an
LSV or basic Golf Cart have a operating speed limit that can exceed 34km/h, it is recommended that
there is either a reduced speed limit for ALL automotive vehicles in residential communities to
20km/h, or alternatively an increase in the speed for Golf Cart style vehicles under improved vehicle
safety conditions.
Current ‘Basic Golf Cart’ Dangers
When Golf Carts are operated on golf courses they are driven in open grass fields or routed around a
Golf Cart track in one direction. In the event of a vehicle failure or driver at fault accident the
potential for personal injury is considered low. Statistics show that most driver at fault accidents are
related to hooliganism and or alcohol. While accidents are common due to these factors Golf Carts
are usually speed governed between 12 and 16km/h and as a result the overall accident severity is
greatly reduced.
Taking into account the above circumstances Golf Cart manufactures create ‘ease of use’ features
that are designed to improve the enjoyment of a round of golf by minimising vehicle operation
12
activities. While these features are perfectly suitable for playing golf they significantly decrease the
overall safety of vehicle use on public roads or in public areas.
The following points highlight convenient features that are ideally suited for playing golf but are
dangerous and fall well short in necessary safety for public roads or for vehicles driven in public
areas.
1. Zero Seat Belts
Wearing seat belts on a Golf Cart while playing golf would be genuinely unpractical.
However, driving an automotive vehicle at 10km/h on a public road without a seat belt is a
road rule violation that attracts a fine. Despite this there are currently NO rules governing
the use of seat belts on a Golf Cart while being operated on public roads despite the fact
basic Golf Carts are now achieving speeds of 40km/h and are being used at these speeds in
zones where other automotive vehicles are also travelling at the same speed. Furthermore,
in comparison, a conditionally registered forklift operating at low speeds in a warehouse
must comply with sea belt use and must have ROPS.
2. Zero Roll Over Protection (ROPS/TOPS) or Crush Proof Structure (CPS)
Roof supports on basic Golf Carts are either plastic or light weight box metal. In the event of
a vehicle rollover such a lightweight structure collapses and poses serious threat to vehicle
occupants. Further to this, if the vehicle has seat belts installed it is vitally important to
have an effective Crush Proof Structure system installed. The American Golf Cart
association states that a Golf Cart utilising seat belts without crush protection is in fact more
dangerous for the occupants than having no seat belts at all. In the event of a roll over the
occupants are restrained within the vehicle while the light weight roof structure collapses,
trapping occupants under the total weight of the vehicle.
It is worth noting that in 2008 Hamilton Island made the conscientious decision to install a
(TOPS) (CPS) system and seat belts on all Golf Carts used for Island transit. This decision was
inspired by the Club Car pathway which was the first of the LSV generation to hit Australian
shores in 2003. Once again an intelligent decision by Hamilton Island management,
significantly increasing the overall safety for all residents and visiting guests.
3. Two Wheel Rear Cable Braking
Most basic Golf Cart brakes consist of rear wheel cable brakes only. Once again suitable on a
golf course at 16km/h though on a public road, it’s a recipe for disaster. This is also
compounded by the fact there is absolutely no requirement for a Golf Cart to pass any
automotive registration approval standard. It’s well known within the industry that there are
enormous variations in how responsive rear cable braking can be from vehicle to vehicle.
Brakes can be either too sensitive or not sensitive enough. Brakes that are too sensitive can
easily lock the rear tyres and veer the vehicle out of control, while non responsive brakes
take far too long to bring the vehicle to a stop and are downright dangerous. This is a very
common issue for basic Golf Carts.
13
4. Electromagnetic Braking
Electromagnetic braking is a fairly new introduction to the Golf Cart industry for golf course
usage. However, as the brakes are based on an electrical system with no other form of
braking over-ride there are serious considerations to be made as to whether they are safe
for public road use. All electric systems are subject to degradation or failure over time and it
is very hard to assess from a service point of view when or where such failures will take
place. A failed electrical system in this case can lock the brakes while in transit and career
the vehicle out of control. Furthermore, as the electromagnetic brake is the only form of
braking, should a mechanical fault occur within the brake mechanism the vehicle could lose
all braking function. On a golf course at 16km/h such a failure may pose a medium level
injury risk, though on a public roadway injury could be devastating.
Please note that points (3) and (4) above are clearly highlighted as non-satisfactory forms of
braking in the Vic Roads ‘Machinery Pack’ for a Conditionally Registered vehicle that can
achieve a speed exceeding 25km/h. Refer to Appendix 5 on page 39.
5. Brake Controlled by Accelerator
Nowhere in the automotive industry would you find brakes that are controlled by the
accelerator, other than on a basic Golf Cart. Yet again a wonderful feature for ‘ease of use’
while playing golf but when it comes to automotive standards it would leave even the most
open minded safety inspectors scratching their heads in confusion. For example, let’s park a
Golf Cart with this feature in front of a bustling cafe, the owner drops a personal item on the
accelerator, this immediately disengages the brake and with the accelerator depressed the
vehicle takes off at full acceleration. You can imagine the rest. There are many variations of
this scenario and it’s the cause of many Golf Cart accidents, particularly with occupants who
are not familiar with the brake feature and or children playing on the vehicle. The risk
factors of this feature are very high and it belongs no-where else other than on a golf course.
6. Zero Dash Console Display
While Conditional Registration requires basic Golf Carts to be fitted with lights and indicators
there is no requirement for a vehicle to have operational activity communication displayed
back to the driver. As a result, basic Golf Carts simply don’t have this feature. A common
situation is where drivers leave indicators on without being aware and confuse other
motorists on public roads as to their transit intentions.
7. Generic Key Set and Barrel
Usually golf course vehicles are stored and locked overnight within a vehicle shed and
monitored on their whereabouts throughout the day. Even then from time to time Golf Carts
are stolen and used for joy rides, often resulting in personal injury, property damage and or
Golf Cart damage. Course vehicles most commonly use a generic key for the whole fleet
which helps the management process and efficiency of operation. This option is simply not
suitable for a privately owned Golf Cart. Every year reports surface of Golf Carts being stolen
from private homes and used for joy rides. A personalised key for a residential vehicle is a
sure way to help in the prevention of Golf Cart theft and ‘damage creating’ joy rides.
14
The Next Step LSV or Equivalent
As pre-mentioned, in the year 2015 there are significant differences between a basic Golf Cart and
that of an LSV. Irrespective of how long it may take to introduce an LSV classification on a national
scale it is clearly necessary to introduce current LSV safety features as part of the Conditional
Registration Guidelines for residential transit as soon as practical. There is significant data available
globally that captures the current inadequacies in old style Golf Carts safety as well as relevant data
highlighting the decrease in accidents in relation to the improved safety features on an LSV.
LSV or Equivalent Safety Features
All major brands of Golf Cart manufactures have an LSV equivalent vehicle as part of their sale
inventory, or at least have the option to install the required features and the awareness of how to
do it. As LSV’s are still relatively new in Australia there may be some variance in perception as to the
actual features required.
Following is an overview and recommendations of what a standard LSV should contain in regards to
safety features and performance for public road use in Australia.
1. Speed Governed to 40km/h
In most LSV regions globally it is illegal for a Dealer to sell an LSV that exceeds 40km/h. The
platform on an LSV is designed to offer adequate passenger safety at this speed. Exceeding this
speed makes the vehicle unsafe.
2. Roll over Protection System (ROPS/TOPS) or Crush Proof Structure (CPS)
In Australia the closest protection standard we have is AS2294 for ROPS. A CPS as per global
standards is the most appropriate protection system for an LSV. Note in 2009 Hamilton Island
requested an engineering certification, supplied by LivingStone Automotive (QLD Registered
Professional Engineer #MA2075) for the installation of a TOPS system including child seat
restraint latch for a Club Car Precedent Model. This document was used for fleet certification for
all non–LSV Club Car Precedent vehicles on the Island at the time. To view the certificate, refer
to Appendix 6 on page 42.
3. Automotive Compliant 3 Point Lap Sash Seat Belts Front, and Lap Sash Rear
4. Frame and Suspension Platform Designed for 40km/h
5. Four Wheel Hydraulic or Cable Braking System
Please note VIC Roads ‘Machinery Pack’ in section 7 for Conditional Registration requires all 4
wheels to have braking. (refer to Appendix 5 on page 39) There is a significant difference in
braking performance between 2 and 4-wheel braking systems, particularly in wet weather.
6. Vehicle Shut-Down Hand Brake Over ride
The vehicle shut down hand brake, or commonly referred to as a redundant handbrake,
disengages the vehicles electrical power system when applied. This means that even with the
key active and the forward button switched to the ‘on’ position the vehicle will not activate until
15
the handbrake is released. Once again a handbrake is a requirement for a VIC Roads
Conditionally Registered vehicle exceeding 25km/h, which is highlighted in section 10 of the
‘Machinery Pack’.
7. Vehicle Walkaway Feature
The term walkaway describes the safety feature in which in the event a vehicle is left
unattended with key on or off and the brake is not engaged the vehicle motor braking will not
allow the vehicle to roll more than 1.6 km/h. This is a standard safety feature on all modern golf
carts.
8. Automotive Type Headlights with Hi & Low Beam Options
Most basic Golf Cart style vehicles have very dim lighting and commonly have aftermarket light
attachments. A common complaint for motorists in residential communities is that Golf Cart
lighting is very poor. Having automotive globes eradicates this commonly expressed issue
however a hi/low beam option may be required if lighting is increased to prevent lighting glare
to oncoming traffic.
9. Indicator Lights – a standard requirement as per Conditional Registration
10. Tail Lights – a standard requirement as per Conditional Registration
11. Number Plate Light – a standard requirement as per Conditional Registration
12. Horn – a standard requirement as per Conditional Registration
13. Emergency Flashers
14. Brake Lights
Brake Lights are currently not required under the Condition Registration Guidelines for Golf
Carts as the stipulated speed is only 20km/h. Taking into account current day manufacturing
standards, vehicle performance and the above mentioned driver pattern usage it would be
logical to include brake lights as a standard safety requirement.
15. Side Mirrors and Internal Rear View Mirror
16. Automotive Style Glass Windscreen
17. Windscreen Wiper
18. Console Vehicle Communication - including Digital Speedometer plus blinker and headlight
status.
19. Pneumatic D.O.T Radial Tyre
20. Front Side Reflectors Yellow, and Rear Side Reflectors Red
16
21. LSV or Slow Moving Emblem Sticker for Vehicle Class Identification
17
Current LSV Models in Australia
Following are several well-known LSV brands currently available in Australia that provide adequate,
though debatable safety features for public road passenger transport. There are some variances in
safety features between the models, particularly in respect to both global and local state approval
guidelines. It is recommended that each vehicle is initially investigated and assessed for its safety
compliance features for the purpose of creating an overall standard.
1. Tomberlin E-Merge
Until recently the Tomberlin E-Merge is the No: 1 Residential LSV Golf Cart worldwide. It
sets the standard in vehicle platform safety as was designed specially with LSV safety
standards in mind as a road legal vehicle.
Dimensions Overall Length 280cm (4 Seat) Overall Width 122cm Overall Height 190cm
Wheel Base 163cm
Power Power Source Electric 48 Volt, AC Platform Motor Type 48 Volt, AC Motor Power 6.7hp (S2 60min) Electric System 48 Volt Battery (qty/type) 8x6 or 6x8 Volt, Deep Cycle Key or Pedal Start Pedal start Speed Controller 450amp AC controller Drive Train Motor shaft direct drive Transaxle Double reduction Helical gear Gear Selection Steering Column fwd-n-rev Rear Axle Ratio 12.25:1
Performance Seating Capacity Four people Dry Weight (no battery) 335kg Vehicle Load Capacity 360kg Outside Clearance Circle 6m Forward Ground Speed 41 kph adjustable Reverse Ground Speed 12kph adjustable
Steering and Suspension Steering Double Ended Rack & Pinion Front Suspension Independent A-arm Coil over Rear Suspension Independent Coil over Service Brake 4-W brake front disc+ rear drum Full-time regenerative braking Parking Brake Independent Hand Brake Vehicle Over-ride Tyres DOT Radial 215-40 R12
Safety 3 point safety seat belts
Occupant protective crush proof structure Independent Key Ignition Automotive Safety Glass Windscreen
18
2. Club Car Pathway
Club Car pioneered the LSV Golf Cart style vehicle in 2003. This same model still exists today
with some advanced improvements. A highly respected brand globally that has a large range
of small platform electric vehicle solutions.
Dimensions Overall Length 280cm (4 Seat) Overall Width 129cm Overall Height 189cm
Wheel Base 171cm
Power Power Source Electric 48 Volt, DC Motor Type 48 Volt, DC Motor Power 5h continuous Electric System 48 Volt Battery (qty/type) Six 8 Volt, Deep Cycle Key or Pedal Start Pedal start Speed Controller 350 amp DC controller Drive Train Motor shaft direct drive Transaxle Double reduction Helical gear Gear Selection Dash-mounted fwd-n-rev Rear Axle Ratio 10.3:1
Performance Seating Capacity Four people Dry Weight (no battery) 337kg Vehicle Load Capacity 363kg Outside Clearance Circle 5.9m Forward Ground Speed 38.6 kph Reverse Ground Speed 12kph adjustable
Steering and Suspension Steering Self adjusting rack & pinion Front Suspension Leaf spring + hydraulic shocks Rear Suspension Leaf springs + hydraulic shocks Service Brake Four-wheel drum brake Full-time regenerative braking Parking Brake Foot operated Tyres DOT rated 205-50 R10
Safety 3 point safety seat belts Operator protective crush proof structure
19
3. Ezgo 2five
In 2010 Ezgo launched their 2five LSV residential community vehicle series to compete is the
growing LSV market. Once again, a highly respected brand globally that has a large range of
small platform electric vehicle solutions.
Dimensions Overall Length 272cm (4 Seat) Overall Width 120cm Overall Height 191cm
Wheel Base 167cm
Power Power Source 48 Volt, DC Motor Type 48 Volt, AC Motor Power 3.3kW (4.4hp) continuous Electric System 48 Volt Battery (qty/type) Four, 12 Volt, Deep Cycle Key or Pedal Start Pedal start Speed Controller 235 amp AC controller Drive Train Motor shaft direct drive Transaxle Helical gears Gear Selection Dash-mounted fwd-n-rev Rear Axle Ratio 14.76:1 (forward)
Performance Seating Capacity Four people Dry Weight (no battery) 396kg Curb Weight 544kg Vehicle Load Capacity 363kg Outside Clearance Circle 6m Forward Ground Speed 40.2 kph Reverse Ground Speed 12.9kph
Steering and Suspension Steering Double Ended Rack and Pinion Front Suspension Independent A-arm Coil Over Rear Suspension Mono-leaf spring with hydraulic Service Brake Four-wheel hydraulic disc brake Full-time regenerative braking Parking Brake Spring applied electro-magnetic Tyres DOT Street Legal 205-50-10
Safety 3 point safety seat belts Operator protective crush proof structure
20
Vehicle Inspection and Registration
Under the Conditional Registration Guideline rulings in QLD and NSW there are currently no
protective measures to check or maintain vehicle safety standards for a Golf Cart being used on
public roads. On the Conditional Registration Application form an owner can personally sign the
vehicle inspection section (Section 19 QLD) without any formal inspection. For example, a Golf Cart
may have poor brakes, bald tyres, poor wheel alignment and a rusted out frame and the local
Transport Department will issue registration based on the owners uneducated of even negligent
opinion of vehicle safety necessities. The result of this ineffective process has allowed a large
number of ‘unsafe’ Golf Carts to operate within residential communities and on public roads. This
presents ongoing serious dangers to Golf Cart occupants as well as other motorists and pedestrians.
It is recommended that a thorough investigation into the vehicle registration and approval process is
undertaken to significantly reduce the potential for serious accidents in the future.
Recommendations for Golf Cart approval process
1. Retailer and or Dealer supplied compliance form for registration on new vehicles
2. Dealer supplied compliance form for second hand vehicles
3. Obtained and supplied compliance form provided by private sellers to private buyers
Section (1) Report Conclusion
This report in whole communicates the following two very distinct statements;
1. That current safety features and guidelines for basic Golf Cart vehicles on public roads is
currently not adequate and,
2. highlights the necessary vehicle safety standards and features required to achieve a safe
operation for Golf Carts to be used on public roads.
To further conclude the report and to convey its ultimate objective we can use two words... Public
Safety.
It’s not a matter of when or where a Golf Cart accident will take place, the fact is accidents happen
often and are increasing. The overall question is will it take a severe of even a fatal accident before
an investigation into the current vehicle safety standards and registration guidelines takes place.
There are sufficient reports, not just in Australia but globally to show the catastrophic effects of how
dangerous basic type Golf Carts being used beyond their engineered design can be. This reports
communicates the significant differences between a ‘Golf Cart’ for the purpose of playing golf and
an ‘LSV Golf Cart’ for the purpose of public road transport and playing golf, and that a new class of
registration is required to separate these two types of vehicle.
21
SECTION (2) - Proposed Pilot Trail LSV or Equivalent in Residential Regions
Initiative
Section 2, while linked in content to much of Section 1, stands as a separate initiative. Both sections
should be assessed independently. Section 1 is focused on the necessary improvements required for
passenger safety on public roadways. Section 2 is intended to set in motion an investigation into the
introduction of a new LSV or equivalent class of registration, or amendment to the current
Conditional Registration Guidelines, for the purpose of expanding the current ‘zones’ of use, with
particular focus on ‘non gated’ residential communities and regions. This of course takes into
account the introduction of new safety standards highlighted in Section 1.
Global Alignment
With the USA allowing the safe operation of LSV’s in 47 states under the FMSS500, as well as
Canada, Europe, Japan and China all having across the board LSV legislation for many years it’s
evident that Australia is well behind this global trend when it comes to this safe means of transport.
While we have accepted Golf Cart vehicles as ‘safe’ in gated residential communities, schools, parks
and resorts with a speed limit of 20km/h, to date there has been no formal investigation to
incorporate latest vehicle technologies and safety standards for the benefit of an Australia LSV class.
In fact, we are almost 10 years behind the United States Department of Transport who conducted
laboratory test procedures for approval of FMVSS 500 Low Speed Vehicles in Washington DC back in
2006 and were conducting pilot trials as early as 2001 that were introduced as NEV’s around 2003.
America’s Low Speed Vehicle program since being introduction has followed out under independent
assessment and criteria by most advanced countries and LSV’s have become part of daily transport
activity on a global scale.
An Exceptional Means of Transport
In April this year researchers at Harvard Business School commented on the prevailing impact that
LSV momentum could have as an electric vehicle option over developing products as we move into
the next phase of motoring innovation.
Efficient, quiet, safe, convenient, resourceful, economical, ecofriendly and above all enjoyable to
drive, LSV’s have become an exciting movement that has allowed an alternate means of transport
for short distance residential commuting and recreational activities globally.
In the conclusion of the City of Vancouver’s LSV Administrative report in 2008, after implementing
LSV ruling amendments the following was conveyed:
“senior levels of government have given the City of Vancouver an opportunity to demonstrate a
commitment to sustainable initiatives, and further strengthen its role as a progressive, forward-
thinking City. Although these vehicles may possess apparent drawbacks when compared to
conventional gasoline powered vehicles, they are a step toward more sustainable transport
technology and their adoption will help accelerate future development.”
22
There is no question that Low Speed Vehicles would be a positive and beneficial addition as a
transport option in Australia. Why the Department of Transport has not recognised this to date is
unfortunate, particularly taking into account the opinion expressed by Vancouver City Council is one
that is shared across most developed and forward thinking countries around the world.
Gated Community Resort vs Non Gated Residential Community
When it comes to the safe and responsible operation of a Low Speed Vehicle there is realistically no
difference between vehicle use in a ‘gated’ or ‘non-gated’ residential community outside the limited
control of gated entry points, which can be managed in a non-gated community with appropriate
TMR signage. An example of two prominent residential communities that highlight this point are (1)
Sanctuary Cove Resort (gated residential community) and (2) Brookwater Estate (non-gated
residential community). Both locations are golfing communities where many properties are situated
on golf course frontage. Both communities currently allow a conditionally registered Golf Cart to
travel from residential property to the golf course, however Sanctuary Cove has the added benefit in
utilising a Golf Cart to travel anywhere in the community at any time, including into the shopping
village. Brookwater Estate conversely only allows transit direct from residential properties to the golf
course and back. This means Brookwater currently does not have the option to use Golf Carts to
travel socially around the community or utilise the shopping centre which is situated within close
proximity to all residential homes and accessible via a short 50km (optional 40km) residential Street.
In regards to main road access both Sanctuary Cove and Brookwater Estate have (3) main entry/exit
points of which all points are monitored by security cameras. In Sanctuary Cove (2) of the (3) security
points allow a Golf Cart to exit beyond the gates which has direct access to main roads. There are 2
other entry/exit points in Sanctuary Cove that are for independent estates. Both communities also
have vehicle security patrol and back to base communication.
In short, there are no real differing factors that separate these two communities when it comes to
Golf Cart use and safety other than the stipulated rulings of LO3 in the Conditional Registration
Guidelines. Brookwater has shown genuine interest in participating in a Vehicle Trail Program for its
community and would incorporate well strategically into their current plans of expanding into newly
proposed location divisions. Taking into account an introduction of new safety standard features
provided by an LSV style vehicle to allow vehicle speeds of 40km/h, there is no sufficient reason why
Golf Cart LSV’s could not become a part of residential transit for Brookwater Estate.
There are many residential communities like Brookwater throughout Australia, particularly in QLD
that would greatly benefit from a Low Speed Vehicle scheme, however as Brookwater Estate closely
reflects current ‘gated communities’ it is a perfect location to pilot trial an LSV or equivalent class of
registration. It is recommended that this initiative receives thoughtful consideration and legitimate
investigation by department of transport sectors.
Other potential trial locations in Queensland include:
Gainsborough Greens Sovereign Island Coomera Waters
Hope Harbour Bribie Island Stradbroke Island
Macleay Island Lamb Island Russell Island
Calypso Bay Surfers Paradise City Salt at Kingscliff (NSW)
Byron Bay (NSW) Over 50 Communities Retirement Villages
23
Pilot Trial Evaluation
As the USA, Canada, Europe and many other countries have completed an evaluation process for
Low Speed Vehicles use in accordance with their stipulated vehicle safety standards there are
substantial reports available, both evaluation procedures as well as report results, that can be
utilised as supplementary resources to assist in the evaluation of an LSV class in Australia. While
Australian ADR compliance may vary from the rest of the world there seems no evident reason why
Low Speed Vehicles could not be responsibly incorporated as part of modern day global transit trend
in Australia.
There are many important steps that need to be considered when it comes to vehicle evaluation,
environmental factors and consumer education when introducing an LSV pilot trial. Following are a
number of broad subjects presented in reports by other countries during LSV introduction.
a. Location Suitability
b. Traffic Safety
c. Vehicle Guidelines
d. Registration Requirements
e. Required Road Signage
f. Policing Strategies
g. Dealer and Service Provider Obligations
h. Driver and Community Education
i. Pilot Trail Monitoring, Reporting and Reporting Procedures
Global Reports
Following are available reports that provide extensive information on both LSV manufacturing
standards and Pilot Trial evaluation and commencement.
1. U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS500, Low Speed Vehicles
www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-
500-02.pdf
2. US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA 98-3949] RIN 2127-AG58 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/lsv/lsv.html
3. NEV America: Neighbourhood Electric Vehicle Technical Specifications Electric Transport Applications http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/nev/nevtechspec.pdf
24
4. US Department of Energy
Field Operations Program
Neighbourhood Electric Vehicle Fleet Use
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/nev/nevstudy.pdf
5. Transport Research Laboratory Europe
Electric Vehicles: Review of type-approval legislation and potential risks
Report CPR810
http://www.emic-bg.org/files/report_electric_vehicles_en.pdf
6. Highway Traffic Act Code
Ontario Regulation 449/06
Pilot Projects – Low Speed Vehicles
http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060449
7. Worldwide Situation of Electric Vehicles
Prepared for the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec
Quebec Advanced Transportation Institute
http://www.itaq.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/LSV_ITAQ.pdf
8. Pilot Trial on Low Speed Vehicles Quebec
http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/publications/dossiers_speciaux/gen_info_lsv.pdf
9. U.S. Department of Transport
Operation of NEV on Roadways with a Maximum Speed Limit of 64km/h
file:///C:/Users/Jason/Desktop/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicles.201206.pdf
Please note this report, while informative is insufficient in regards to LSV recommendations
for Australian purpose as it is based on ‘Medium Speed Vehicles’ that achieve a top speed of
65km/h. The investigation report was based on the intention of vehicle use on minor
highways.
25
Appendix 1 - Golf Cart vs LSV – Canadian Department of Transport
Low Speed Vehicles — what are they? Speed Vehicles (LSVs) are four wheeled electric powered vehicles that are manufactured to travel at
speeds of 40 km/h or less and are designed for limited operation on roadways. They are also known in B.C.
as Neighbourhood Zero Emission Vehicles (NZEVs). I-SV and NZEV are different names for the same
vehicle.
LSVs, like other prescribed classes of manufactured vehicles that meet federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Regulations, bear a federal compliance label with the National Safety Mark affixed. I-SVs
contains "LSV/VBV" in the "Type" (of vehicle) box within the compliance label. If an I-SV meets
the federal standards, it will meet the provincial standards as originally equipped.
The best way to determine if a vehicle is a I-SV is to look for the compliance label with the National Safety Mark. If there is no compliance label or the "Type" box does not indicate " LSV/VBV f' then it is not an LSV.
Golf Carts — what are they and how do they compare to LSVs? Golf carts are motor vehicles originally designed and manufactured to carry golfers and their
equipment. Some golf cart models may share similar characteristics with LSVs. However, golf carts
either will not have a compliance label or they will have a label indicating off-highway use only. Unlike
LSVs, golf carts do not meet minimum safety design standards and are not approved for use on
roadways.
Where can I drive an I-SV or a golf cart? Low Speed Vehicles can be operated:
1 . on roads where there is a speed limit of 40 km/h or less;
2. on roads with a speed limit of between 40 and 50 km/h if authorized by a municipal bylaw (applies to all LSVs on that road) or a Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure permit (issued to an individual) if the roadway is outside of a municipality; and
3. across roads with a higher speed limit only at an intersection.
To determine whether there are any municipal by-laws authorizing expanded I-SV use on roads in a
municipality, contact your local city hall. For operation outside of a municipality, contact the local
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regional manager to determine permit availability and to
obtain an LSV permit.
Golf carts can be operated:
1. on golf course parking lots;
2 to cross a road from one part of a golf course to another part of the same golf course; and
3. on the road of an island that is not accessible by bridge or vehicle ferry.
"Off-roadway" operation (e.g., on golf course greens, paths or trails where regular motor vehicles don't travel) of an CSV or a golf cart is not covered by B.C.'s Motor Vehicle Act so "off-roadway" operation
does not require a licence or insurance with ICBC. However, local government rules may apply.
26
Appendix 2 - Summary of International Manufacturing Standards
27
28
Appendix 3: Golf Cart Accident Report - Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit
Mater Hospital
Lvl 1 Whitty Building Raymond Terrace
South Brisbane, QLD 4101
Date: 10th August 2012
Jason Hayes
Director
Tomberlin Australia Pty Ltd
8/122 Brisbane Rd, Labrador, QLD, 4212
Email: [email protected]
Dear Jason, Reference: Data Request Submitted to QISU's Website. Reference #
1474 Request Title: Golf Buggy/ Cart Related injuries in Queensland
Submission Date: 5/07/2012
Please find below summary of data analysis by QISU.
Summary of your request:
All information on all recorded accidents, injuries and fatalities relating to the golf buggy,
golf cart passenger vehicles.
Purpose:
Tomberlin Australia retails an electric LSV golf vehicle and is currently working on a
submission to QLD traffic governing bodies to increase the safety guidelines of electric
vehicles in resort and residential communities as well as golf courses. This data will be used
in the submission to support evidence of required improvements following on from previous
reports such as 'golf buggy related injuries in QLD' by Dr. Alexey Borshch in Mackay based
hospital in 2009.
QISU Report
Background: QISU Data:
QISU collects injury data from emergency departments (ED) at participating hospitals across
Queensland. The data is estimated to represent roughly one quarter to one fifth of all ED
injury presentations in the state depending on the age group and injury type studied. The
29
QISU database contains injury data collected over a 13 year period (Jan 1999-Dec 2011)
from 29 collecting hospitals. Not all hospitals have collected for the full 13 year period
and there are currently 23 active collection hospitals in Queensland comprising four
sample regions: metropolitan (Brisbane), regional (Mackay and Moranbah Health Districts),
tropical northern coast (Atherton, Mareeba, Tully and Innisfail) and remote (Mt Isa).
Data is coded for Injury Surveillance by using the National Data Standards for Injury
Surveillance (NDSIS v.2c).
Not all cases identified in the QISU database will have been admitted to hospital
as the majority of patients are discharged from the emergency department
following treatment.
QISU data will miss cases that present at other non-participating EDs. These cases
may be severe and could be transferred directly to intensive care or other inpatient
units at QISU participating hospitals, without being registered by the ED based
injury surveillance system.
Fatalities that occur at the scene of an injury or after admission to hospital will
not be captured in QISU data.
We analysed QISU data for the 13 year period from 1999 to 2011. A brief summary of the
search criteria and methodology is described.
Search Criteria:
Year: 1999 - 2011;
All ages
Injury Description:
(Like "*buggy*" Or Like "*buggi*" Or Like "*buggey*") OR ((Like "*island*" Or Like
"*beach*" Or Like "*golf*") And (Like "*buggy*" Or Like "*buggie*" Or Like "*buggey*" Or
Like "*cart*"))
Methods: The “Injury Description” consists of a brief free text field entered by the Triage Nurse when a person initially presents to the Emergency Department (ED) with an injury. This free text is examined in order to elicit additional non coded information in relation to the injury event. This analysis is limited by the fact that the entry in this field can vary depending upon triaging style and clinical circumstances at the time when the nurse is attending to the injured person. In addition to reviewing the coded data, the results of the above search strategy were further examined by reviewing the “Injury Description” field for possible cases and selecting only cases specifically related to “golf buggy” and other similar vehicles, (island buggy, beach buggy and dune buggy). The following cases were excluded from the analysis:
- Injuries related to ‘pram buggy’ or ‘go-cart buggy’ or ‘push bike buggy’ or ‘shopping buggy’.
30
Golf buggy related injuries Source: QISU data 1999 – 2011(n=258)
Source: QISU data 1999 - 2011 (n=258)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
- Injuries while on a buggy that were not related to the functionality of the buggy (e.g. bitten while on a buggy, foreign bodies in eye while on a buggy, assault cases while on a buggy)
- Fell from or struck by stationary buggy - Over-exertion while getting off a buggy
Results:
Demographic
Figure 1 - Age and gender distribution of golf buggy related injuries
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Total 4 17 40 35 36 27 26 19 22 10 6 8 2 6
Female 2 8 17 12 14 10 10 5 5 4 4 5 2 3
Male 2 9 23 23 22 17 16 14 17 6 2 3 3
Overall, there were 258 cases of golf buggy related injuries recorded in QISU
database between January 1999 to December 2011
Males accounted for 61% (n=157) of all golf buggy related injuries.
The peak at the age group for golf buggy related injuries was 10 to 14 (15%, n=40).
Approximately 56% (n=145) of all golf buggy related injuries were admitted to EDs
in the Proserpine and Mackay areas of which 37% (n=54) of these injuries were
identified to have occurred on an island.
Specific type of buggy
Table 1 – Type of buggy by age group
Type of buggy Age group
Total 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Golf buggy 3 9 12 20 28 16 20 12 10 5 6 6 2 6 155
Buggy 1 7 17 7 8 8 3 4 8 4 2 69
Dune buggy 1 9 5 3 2 3 4 1 28
Mud/dirt buggy 2 3 1 6
Total 4 17 40 35 36 27 26 19 22 10 6 8 2 6 258
31
Mechanism of injury by age group Source: QISU data 1999 -2011 (n=258)
Source: QISU data 1999 - 2011 (n=258) 20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Approximately 60% of all related injuries were described as occurring in a golf
buggy or island buggy.
Sixty nine cases did not specify the type of buggy. However these cases were
included as they are either coded under transport/motorised vehicles or described
as occurring on the beach/island.
Thirty four cases were related to dune buggy and mud buggy.
Mechanism of injury
Table 2 – Mechanism of injury by age group
Mechanism of injury Age group
Total 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Rollover 1 6 15 17 16 13 7 9 8 3 1 1 2
1 98
Fell out of a buggy 2 9 15 10 12 11 18 4 5 4 2 3 2 99*
Collision
1
2 3 3 1 1
1
2 3 1 1 2
2
19 Struck by/run over by a buggy
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
11
Other mechanism 2 1
1 1 2
1 10
Unspecified crash 3 2 5 2 1 1 21
Total 4 17 40 35 36 27 26 19 22 10 6 8 2 6 258
* Three cases were run over after falling from the buggy
Figure 2 – Mechanism of injury by age group
Rollover Fell out of a buggy Collision
Struck by/run over by buggy Other mechanism Unspecified crash
32
Table 3 – Mechanism of injury by gender
Mechanism of injury Gender
Total Female Male
Rollover 36 62 98
Fell out of a buggy 43 56 99*
Collision 8 11 19
Struck by/run over by a buggy
4
7
11
Other mechanism 3 7 10
Unspecified crash 7 14 21
Grand Total 101 157 258
* Three cases were run over after falling from the buggy
Approximately 38% (n=98) of all golf buggy related injuries were associated with rollover incidents with a peak in young people aged 15 to 24 years old (34%, n=33).
Ninety nine cases were associated with falls (including ejection) from the buggy.
Nineteen cases were associated with collision incidents. In ten of these cases the buggy
collided with a tree, three cases with another vehicle, five cases with stationary object
and one case with motorcycle.
Eleven injuries were related to people being run over or struck by a buggy. It is not
clear whether all cases were pedestrians.
Table 4 – Role of injured person and Mechanism of injury (n = 64)
Role of the injured person by Mechanism of injury
Age group Total
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 55-59 60-64 65+
Driver 1 2 3 8 3 1 4 2 2 1 1 28
Rollover 1 2 5 2 1 3 1
1
1
1
14
Fell out of a buggy 1
2
1
2 1 1
6
Collision 1
1
1
5
Other mechanism 1
Unspecified crash 3
Passenger 1 6 8 5 1 3 2 3 2 31
Rollover 1 2 5 1 1
1 1
1
1
11
Fell out of a buggy
1
2 3 2 2 2 13
Collision 1
1
1
1
1
2
4
Other mechanism
1 1
1 1
Unspecified crash 2
Pedestrian 5
Struck by/run over by a buggy 1 1 1 2 5
Grand Total 1 2 6 11 8 10 6 3 9 2 4 1 1 64
The role of the injured person was able to be identified in 25% of cases (64/258) with 31
patients identified as being a passenger and 28 the driver of the buggy.
Children and young adults (aged 0 – 14) were more likely to be the passenger (7 cases) than
driver (1 case).
33
Events leading to the incidents were mentioned in the injury descriptions of 28 cases. Crash
incidents were associated with buggies going downhill, braking, failed braking, turning, and
loss of control.
Table 5 – Events leading to injury incidents
Mechanism of injury Event leading to the incident
Total Downhill Braking Brake failed Hit obstacle Turning Lost control
Rollover 8 1
2 1 5 1 17
Fell off (unspecified) 2
1 4 1 8
Collision
2 1
Unspecified crash 2
Total 10 1 3 1 9 4 28
Table 6 – Mechanism of injury by type of buggy
Mechanism of injury Golf buggy Buggy
(unspecified)
Dune buggy
Mud/dirt buggy
Total
Rollover 43 31 20 4 98
Fell out of a buggy 73 19 6 1 99*
Collision 14 4 1 19
Struck by/run over by a buggy 7 2 2 11
Other mechanism 7 3 10
Unspecified crash 11 10 21
Total 155 69 28 6 258
Severity by triage
Table 7 – Triage category by mechanism
Mechanism of injury Resuscitation (immediate)
Emergency (10 mins)
Urgent (30 mins)
Semi urgent
(60 mins)
Non urgent
(120 mins)
Unspecified
Total
Rollover 4 14 2 41 23 14 98
Fell out of a buggy 2 1 38 43 15 99
Collision 2 1 2 10 3 18
Struck by/run over by a buggy 3 7 2 12
Other mechanism 1 1 5 3 10
Unspecified crash 2 1 1 8 9 21
Total 8 19 4 93 97 37 258
34
Table 8 – Triage category by age group
Type of buggy Age group
Total 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Resuscitation (immediate) 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 Emergency (10 mins) 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 19
Urgent (30 mins) 1 8 10 13 12 11 10 8 8 2 3 4 1
3 93
Semi urgent (60 mins) 1 5 8 17 15 14 12 7 7 3 2 4 1 97
Non urgent (120 mins) 2 4 4 5 8 3 1 5 2 1 1 1 37
Unspecified 1 1 2 4
Total 4 17 27 40 35 36 26 19 22 10 6 8 2 6 258
Severity by Mode of Separation
Table 9 – Mode of separation by mechanism
Mechanism of injury Admitted
(excl.ED Bed) Did not
wait ED service completed
Discharged Transfer to
another hospital Total
Rollover 23 2 67 6 98
Fell out of a buggy 24 71 4 99
Collision 3 14 1 18
Struck by/run over by a buggy 3 1 8 12
Other mechanism 10 10
Unspecified crash 7 3 11 21
Grand Total 60 6 181 11 258
Table 10 – Mode of separation by age group
Type of buggy Age group
Total 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Admitted(excl.ED Bed) 2 5 10 4 7 10 3 6 5
1
2 2 1 3 60
Transfer to another hospital
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
11
Did not wait
2
12
1 2 1 1
21
12
17
9
4
1
1
2
6
ED service event completed - Discharged
28
28
26
14
5
181
Total 4 17 40 35 36 27 26 19 22 10 6 8 2 6 258
Approximately 27% (n=71) of all golf buggy related cases were admitted/ transferred to
another hospital after treatment at ED.
Approximately 80% (n=57/71) of those requiring hospital admissions were related to either
a rollover event or a fall from a buggy.
Approximately 10% (n=27/71) of all golf buggy related cases who were admitted to ED
required emergency treatment (within <10 minutes) with eight of these cases requiring
immediate resuscitation.
Approximately 63% (n=17/ 27) of all severe injuries (requiring treatment less than
10 mins) were related to rollover accidents.
35
We hope this summary report is useful to you. If you require any further assistance in this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit.
Document prepared by:
Jesani Limbong
Research Assistant
Mater Hospital; Level 1 Whitty Building
Raymond Terrace; South Brisbane, Qld 4101
Ph: 07 3163 8569 Email: [email protected]
36
Appendix 4 – Golf Cart Related Injuries in Queensland – Mackay Base Hospital
Dr. Alexey Borshch
37
38
39
Appendix 5 – VIC Roads ‘Machinery Pack’
40
41
42
Appendix 6 – LivingStone Automotive TOPS Certification
43