Side impact motor vehicle crashes: driver, passenger, vehicle and crash characteristics for fatally and nonfatally-injured rear-seated adults

Abstract

BackgroundMost studies of rear-seated occupants have focused on or included pediatric occupants which may not translate to adults. This study examines passenger, driver, vehicle and crash characteristics for rear-seated adult occupants involved in side crashes.MethodsThe National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS/GES) for calendar years 2011–2014 was used with accompanying weights to examine the occupant, vehicle and crash characteristics associated with injury in rear-seated adults (n = 395,504) involved in a side crash. A weighted subpopulation analysis includes occupants travelling in a vehicle with an IIHS safety rating (n = 39,208), which was used to control for vehicle safety. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests and multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) are reported with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs).ResultsRear-seated occupants on the same side as the crash impact were more likely to be severely/fatally injured than occupants seated on the opposite side (Multivariable adjusted OR: 2.54, 95 % CI: 2.31–2.79), as were those in angle crashes (Multivariable adjusted OR: 10.85, 95 % CI: 9.24–12.73). Rear-seated occupants of belted drivers were 3.28 times more likely to be belted compared to rear-seated occupants of an unbelted driver. In a subpopulation analysis of all same-side crashes, unrestrained occupants were 5.96 times more likely to be severely/fatally injured compared to restrained occupants.ConclusionRestraint use was protective for rear-seated adult occupants involved in side crashes, including those in same-side crashes. Angle and same-side crashes are associated with increased injury severity.

Motor Vehicle Crash and Hospital Charges in Front- and Rear-Seated Restrained and Unrestrained Adult Motor Vehicle Occupants

“…The finding of higher restraint use in females, older ages, weekday crashes, daytime crashes, and being unimpaired is consistent with prior studies [ 1 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 31 ]. This study is also consistent with previous studies, performed in children or that included child occupants, that found reduced injury severity and/or lower hospital charges in restrained occupants [ 2 , 11 , 18 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].…”

“…Much of the public opinion regarding rear-seat safety is based on the historically lower mortality rates for rear-seated compared to front-seated occupants, particularly those involved in frontal crashes [ 14 , 15 ]. However, as restraint use approached 90% in front-seated, but not rear-seated occupants, and vehicle designs advanced to protect front-seated occupants with improved occupant cages and advanced airbags, there are reports that the safety advantage between front- and rear-seated occupants has narrowed [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].…”

The Effect of Suspected Alcohol Intoxication on Fatality and Injuries of Road Users in Metro Manila — 2005-2020

“…This is similar to a study wherein occupants of vehicles involved in angle crashes were nearly 11 times more likely to be seriously/fatally injured compared to opposite direction sideswipe crashes (OR: 10.85, 95 % CI: 9.24-12.73). 24 In Brazil, dos Santos et al showed that alcohol consumption is associated with other risky road behaviors such as speeding, failure to use helmets, and not having a driver's license. 12 Drivers who are multiple offenders of drunk driving are more likely to have injuries related to risky behaviors.…”

Using Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCS) to Examine Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crash Injury and Enforcement in New York State

“…Seating position. Occupant seating position, previously noted to be associated with injury and mortality, was analyzed by individual seating positions for the front and rear seating positions [24,25]. Due to sample size, categories were collapsed into front seated-driver, front seated-passenger and rear-seated passenger.…”