session 18 lars leden

Transportforum, Sweden 12.01 2011 1

Improving safety for motorbikes and mopeds - interim results from an analysis of the Finnish in-depth database on fatal accidents

Markus MATTSSON, Lars LEDEN

Transportforum, Sweden, 2011 2

Topics

Introduction 2BESAFE 2 Finnish case-studies

Methodology The DREAM methodology Behavioural analysis

Some results Conclusions


Methodology – Accident data

National databases issuesUK, Greece, Finland, Italy,

France

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario …

MACRO ANALYSIS LEVEL

M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4

MICRO ANALYSIS LEVEL In-depth databasesUK, Finland, France

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario …

M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4

M 1, 2, 3, 4= Model 1, 2, 3, 4

STATE OF THE ART


Methodology

9 scenarios

391 in-depth studies of PTW crashes in the United Kingdom, Finland and France

35 Finnish in-depth studies

4 complementary accidents analysis models


Introduction

4 accident analysis models4 accident analysis models

Description of the DriverVehicleEnvironment system

Description of the evolution of the DVE system

Determination of the Human Functional Failure (HFF)

Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method DREAM


Methodology - DREAM

An accident model


WikipediA

"Genotype" is an organism's full hereditary information, even if not expressed.

"Phenotype" is an organism's actual observed properties, such as morphology, development, or behavior.

This distinction is fundamental in the study of inheritance of traits and their evolution.


Methodology - DREAM

A classification scheme Phenotypes: the observable effects Genotypes: the factors that may have

contributed to phenotypes

GenotypesDriver Vehicle Traffic environment Organisation

B: ObservationG: Temporary HMI problems

J: Weather conditions N: Organisation Timing

C: InterpretationH: permanent HMI problems

K: Obstruction of view due to object

O: Maintenance Speed

D: PlanningI: Vehicle equipment failure

L: State of road P: Vehicle design Distance

E: Temporary personal factors M: Communication Q: Road design DirectionF: Permanent personal factors Force

Object

A: Phenotypes


Methodology - DREAM

A method Links between phenotypes and

genotypes Links between genotypes and genotypes Rules to follow


Methodology - DREAM

A DREAM chart for each rider and driver involved in an accident

Genotype :

K1 - parked vehicles

Genotype :

F2 - expecting other road users to give way to priority traffic

Genotype :

B1 - did not see car waiting to emerge from driveway A1.2 - Too late action -

braked too late to avoid impact with the car crossing his path

Phenotype:

Genotype :

C2 - misjudged situation


A2.1 Too high speed A1.3 No actionA4.1 Wrong directionA5.1 Surplus forceA1.2 Too late actionA6 ObjectA5.2 Insufficient force

Misjudgement Of situation

Misjudgement of Time gaps

Equipment failure

Late observation

Overestimation of skills

Priority error

Inattention

Insufficient skills / knowledge

Road surface

Reduced friction

Inadequate roadgeometry

Missed observation

Reduced visibility

Expectance of behavioursPsychological

stress

Excitement seeking

Habitually stretching rules

Inadequate training

Inadequate road maintenance

Inadequate informationdesign

Inadequate roaddesign

Results: scenario 3 – Single motorcycle accident, outside urban area and no intersection

Inadequate trans-mission from road environment


Results from Vuthy et al (2010)

Motocycle / Passenger car, no intersection

Priority error Observation problem Absence of clues for passenger car manœuvre

Motocycle / Passenger car, at intersection

False or missed observation Temporary visibility mask


Finnish in-depth studies of fatal rider accidents

35 accidents in total 16 single rider accidents

Genotype :

Genotype : Genotype : Genotype : Genotype :



Priority error (D1) Fear (E1)Phenotype:


Late observation (B2)



Genotype :

Genotype :

Reduced visibility (J1)

Genotype :

Equipment failure (I1)

Genotype :

Inadequate training (N4)

Psychological stress (E7) - Peer pressure (E7.1)

Insufficient skills/knowledge (F6) / Overestimation of skills (F5)

Sudden functional impairment (E6)

Excitement seeking (E5)

Misjudgement of situation (C2)

Habitually stretching rules and limitations (F4) No Action (2)

Too High Speed (7) Insufficient Force (1) Wrong Direction (6)

Inadequate information design (Q1)

Inadequate transmission from road environment (M2)

Equipment failure (I1)

Permanenet obstruction to view (K2)

Misjudgement of time gaps (C1)

Inadequate road design (Q2)

Inadequate road geometry (L5)

Under the influence of substances (E4)

Inattention (E2) - mirror (2 cases), using video cam (1 case)

Insufficient skills/knowledge (F6)


Finnish behavioural studies at urban intersection


Finnish behavioural studies at a rural curve


Finnish behavioural studies preliminary results

22 % of the riders were sportsbikers and were involved in 46 % of the conflicts observed

Riders made less errors and conflicts when riding with a passenger

Sportbikers are not less conspicous, than other riders, but custom riders on Harley-Davidson bikes are.


Finnish behavioural studies - Percentage errors and conflicts

Biketype

Riders passing

(%)Errors

(%)Conflicts

(%)

moped 17,3 12,7 23,1

scooter 5,4 7,1 0,0

sportsbike 22,4 31,7 46,2

custom 19,6 19,0 7,7

others 35,3 29,4 23,1

total n 496 126 13


Finnish behavioural studies – Percentage errors and conflicts

Riding with

Riders passing

(%) Errors

(%)Conflicts

(%)

A passenger 13,5 2,3 0

No passenger 86,5 97,7 100

total 496 129 13


Finnish behavioural studies – Conspicuity of helmet %

ot

hers

21.

8

21.

8

56.

3

174

Conspicuity of

Helmet moped scooter sportsbike custom others

bright 30.2 29.6 19.8 6.2 21.8

middle 15.1 11.1 22.5 3.1 21.8

dark 54.7 59.3 57.7 90.7 56.3

n 86 27 111 97 174


Finnish behavioural studies – Conspicuity of clothing %

Conspicuity of clothing moped scooter sportsbike custom others

bright 34.9 37.0 9.9 3.1 6.3

middle 18.6 29.6 27.0 10.3 21.8

dark 46.5 33.3 63.1 86.6 71.8

n 86 27 111 97 174


Finnish behavioural studies – Conspicuity of bike %

Conspicuity of bike moped scooter sportsbike custom others

bright 34.9 37.0 9.9 3.1 6.3

middle 18.6 29.6 27.0 10.3 21.8

dark 46.5 33.3 63.1 86.6 71.8

n 86 27 111 97 174


Finnish case studies conclusions

Sportsbikers make more errors than other riders. Quite often sportsbikers involved in fatal accidents show off to one another.

Riders with an passenger make less errors than riders with no passenger


Conclusions

The contribution of DREAM in understanding accident causation

Consideration of organizational factors Drawing of links representing the relationship

of cause and effect between factors


Conclusions

Advantages and limitations of DREAM A frame and rules

A lack of organizational factors found Factors not adapted to riders Comprehensive methodology


Thank you for your attention

www.ltu.se/forskning publications

www.2besafe.eu


Introduction

To better understand users behaviour when they are riding a motorbike or moped Accident analysis study Naturalistic driving study Risk Awareness: Development of tools: instrumented motor-

cycles and cars, riding simulator, car simulator, video tools and verbal methods

In-depth behavioural studies: conflict studies experimental studies in visual conspicuity,

Guidelines

2-wheeler BEhaviour and SAFEty


Methodology – Accident data for 9 scenarios

A lack of in-depth accident data for several scenarios

Finland FranceThe United Kingdom

1 Moped / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area – No intersection 0 13 2 15

2 Moped / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area –Intersection 3 36 10 49

3 Single motorcycle accident – Outside urban area – No intersection 16 10 25 51

4 Single motorcycle accident – Inside urban area – No intersection 4 26 16 46

5 Single motorcycle accident – Inside urban area – Intersection 0 19 17 36

6 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Outside urban area – No intersection 7 8 27 42

7 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area – No intersection 0 31 10 41

8 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Inside urban area – Intersection 0 40 20 609 Motorcycle / Passenger car accident – Outside urban area – Intersection 3 18 30 51

TOTAL 33 201 157 391

PTW accident configuration Total

Number of in-depth accidents analysed per country

Scenario


Methodology - DREAM

To classify and store information about factors contributing to accidents

Warner, H., et al., (2008). Manual for DREAM 3.0, Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method. Deliverable 5.6 of the european project SafetyNet

DREAM is an adaptation of CREAM (Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method)

Hollnagel, E., (1998). Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method: CREAM. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

.

Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method


A2.1 (12) – Too high speed A1.3 (11) – No actionA4.1 (9) – Wrong directionA5.1 (9) – Surplus forceA1.2 (6) – Too late actionA6 (3) - ObjectA5.2 (1) Insufficient force

C2 (43)Misjudgement ofsituation

C1 (8)C1.1 (1)Misjudgement of Time gaps

I1 (5)I1 / B2 (1) I1 / G1 (2)Equipment failure

E6 (3)Sudden functional impairment

E4 / C2 (1) E4 / E2 (1)E4.1 (1) E4.1 / B3 (1)Under the influence of substances

E1 (4)Fear

E3 (1) E3 / C2 (1)Fatigue

B2 / C1 (2) B2 / C2 (16)Late observation

F5 / C2 (19) F5 / C1 (1)F5 / D1 (2)Overestimation of skills

D1 / C2 (24)Priority error

E2.1 / C2 (1) E2.2 / B2 (2)E2.4 / C2 (1) E2.5 / C2 (1)E2 / C2 (10) E2 / B2 (6)E2 / B1 (4) E2 / B3 (3)Inattention

F6 / C2 (4) F6 / F5 (9)F6 / B2 (1)Insufficient skills / knowledge

P3 / I1 (2)Inadequate construction of vehicle parts and/or structures

L3 / C2 (5)Road surface degradation

L4 / C2 (1) L4.1 / C2 (2)L4 / C1 (1)Object on road

M2 / C2 (4) M2 / B2 (4)M2 / B1 (2)Inadequate transmissionFrom road environment

L2 / C2 (6) L2 / C1 (2)Reduced friction

L5 / C2 (3) L5 / B2 (3)Inadequate roadgeometry

O1 / I1 (4)Inadequate vehiclemaintenance

B1 / C2 (8)Missed observation

J1 / C2 (2) J1 / C1 (1)J1 / B2 (4) J1 / B1 (2)J1 / B3 (1)Reduced visibility

B3 / C1 (3) B3 / C2 (4)False observation

F2 / C2 (11)Expectance of certainbehaviours

L1 / C1 (1)Insufficient guidance

K2 / B2 (3)Permanent Obstruction ofview

E7.1 / D1 (6) E7 / D1 (2)Psychological stress

E5 / D1 (18)Excitement seeking

F4 / D1 (5)Habitually stretching rulesAnd recommendations

N4 / F6 (7)Inadequate training

O2 / L3 (4) O2 / L2 (6)O2 / L4 (1)Inadequate road maintenance

Q1 / M2 (9)Inadequate informationdesign

Q2 / L5 (4) Q2 / L2 (1)Q2 / K2 (2)Inadequate roaddesign

N3 / E3 (1)Heavy physical activity before ride

K1 / B2 (1) K1 / B1 (2)Temporary Obstruction ofview

G1 / B1 (2) G1 / B2 (1)G1 / B3 (1)Temporary illuminationproblem

Results: scenario 3 – Single motorcycle accident, outside urban area, no intersection


Results from Vuthy et al (2010)

Moped / passenger car, inside urban area, no intersection

Inattention Late observation Reduced visibility

Moped / passenger car, inside urban area, at intersection

PTW with a right of way status: expect a certain behaviour from the passenger car driver

PTW without a right of way status: late observation, inattention, priority error, reduced visibility

Lack of riding experience for the moped users


Paper based on Deliverable 1

Phan, V., Regan, M., Moutreuil, M., Minton, R., Mattsson, M. and Leden, L., 2010.

Using the Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method (DREAM) to understand Powered Two-Wheeler accident causation.

International Conference on Safety and Mobility of Vulnerable Road Users: Pedestrians, Motorcyclists and Bicyclists. Jerusalem.

session 18 lars leden

Travel

conflicts transportforum

accident transportforum

phenotypes transportforum

accident model transportforum

lars leden transportforum

rural curve transportforum

france scenario

scenario macro analysis