Background In New York State (NYS), motor vehicle (MV) injury to child passengers is a leading cause of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 0–12 years. NYS laws require appropriate child restraints for ages 0–7 years and safety belts for ages 8 and up while traveling in a private passenger vehicle, but do not specify a seating position. Methods Factors associated with injury in front-seated (n = 11,212) compared to rear-seated (n = 93,092) passengers aged 0–12 years were examined by age groups 0–3, 4–7 and 8–12 years using the 2012–2014 NYS Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES). CODES consists of Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) crash reports linked to ED visits and hospitalizations. The front seat was row 1 and the rear rows 2–3. Vehicle towed from scene and air bag deployed were proxies for crash severity. Injury was dichotomized based on Maximum Abbreviated Injury Severity (MAIS) scores greater than zero. Multivariable logistic regression (odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI) was used to examine factors predictive of injury for the total population and for each age group. Results Front-seated children had more frequent injury than those rear-seated (8.46% vs. 4.92%, p < 0.0001). Children in child restraints experienced fewer medically-treated injuries compared to seat belted or unrestrained children (3.80, 6.50 and 13.62%, p < 0.0001 respectively). A higher proportion of children traveling with an unrestrained vs. restrained driver experienced injury (14.50% vs 5.26%, p < 0.0001). After controlling for crash severity, multivariable adjusted predictors of injury for children aged 0–12 years included riding in the front seat (1.20, 1.10–1.31), being unrestrained vs. child restraint (2.13, 1.73–2.62), being restrained in a seat belt vs. child restraint (1.20, 1.11–1.31), and traveling in a car vs. other vehicle type (1.21, 1.14–1.28). Similarly, protective factors included traveling with a restrained driver (0.61, 0.50–0.75), a driver aged < 25 years (0.91, 0.82–0.99), being an occupant of a later vehicle model year 2005–2008 (0.68, 0.53–0.89) or 2009–2015 (0.55, 0.42–0.71) compared to older model years (1970–1993). Conclusions Compared to front-seated children, rear-seated children and children in age-appropriate restraints had lower adjusted odds of medically-treated injury.

There are reports that historically higher mortality observed for front- compared to rear-seated adult motor vehicle (MV) occupants has narrowed. Vast improvements have been made in strengthening laws and restraint use in front-, but not rear-seated occupants suggesting there may be value in expanding the science on rear-seat safety. Methods. A linked 2016–2017 hospital and MV crash data set, the Crash Outcomes Data Evaluation System (CODES), was used to compare characteristics of front-seated (n = 115,939) and rear-seated (n = 5729) adults aged 18 years and older involved in a MV crash in New York State (NYS). A primary enforced seat belt law existed for front-seated, but not rear-seated occupants. Statistical analysis employed SAS 9.4. Results. Compared to front-seated occupants, those rear-seated were more likely to be unrestrained (21.2% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.0001) and to have more moderate-to-severe injury/death (11.9% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.0001). Compared to restrained rear-seated occupants, unrestrained rear-seated occupants had higher moderate-to-severe injury/death (21.5% vs. 7.5%, p < 0.0001) and 4-fold higher hospitalization. More than 95% of ejections were unrestrained and had 7-fold higher medical charges. Unrestrained occupants’ hospital stays were longer, charges and societal financial costs higher. Conclusions. These findings extend the science of rear-seat safety in seriously injured rear-seated occupants, document increased medical charges and support the need to educate consumers and policy makers on the health and financial risks of adults riding unrestrained in the rear seat. The lack of restraint use in adult rear-seated motor vehicle occupants consumes scarce health care dollars for treatment of this serious, but largely preventable injury.

No abstract

PKR.91229. Furthermore, the out-of-pocket (OOP) is lower in in the helmeted group (PKR.1250) compared to the counterpart (PKR.16800). Conclusion We conclude that there are substantial cost implications of not wearing helmet and the traffic and road safety authorities should make sure that all motorcycle users including riders and pillions wear helmet not for their safety but also as a cost-saving approach to reduce burden on healthcare system.