Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Positioning agricultural vehicle safety in the context of all accidents involving large vehicles Presented by Iain Knight HSE Agricultural vehicle workshop.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Positioning agricultural vehicle safety in the context of all accidents involving large vehicles Presented by Iain Knight HSE Agricultural vehicle workshop."— Presentation transcript:

1 Positioning agricultural vehicle safety in the context of all accidents involving large vehicles Presented by Iain Knight HSE Agricultural vehicle workshop 15 th November 2007

2 Introduction Overview of the safety priorities project Ranking of current casualty groups Characteristics of agricultural vehicle accidents

3 The priorities project Large passenger, goods and agricultural vehicle safety - effectiveness of existing measures and ranking of future priorities in the UK Funded by Department for Transport, TTS5 Aims To determine how previous research and resulting measures have performed To identify and prioritise current issues To propose where best to target resources to deliver further worthwhile casualty savings

4 Scope - Vehicles of interest (VOI) Heavy Goods Vehicles HGV Goods vehicle>3.5t Large Passenger Vehicles LPV Passenger vehicle>16 seats Minibuses Passenger vehicle 9-16 seats Light Commercial Vehicles LCV Goods vehicle≤3.5t* * LCV excludes car derived vans Agricultural Vehicles Other Motor Vehicles OMV * OMV excludes passenger cars

5 Ranking of current casualty groups

6 Based on Stats 19 data from inclusive Derived 244 different casualty groups Hierarchical levels used Fatal serious and slight casualty numbers assigned to each group Groups ranked by different means i.e. Number of fatalities Number of KSI Number of all casualties Casualty prevention value (£) of each of the above Prevention value of KSI selected as most appropriate Reflects 2010 casualty targets Allows for differences in proportions fatally and seriously injured Identifies which groups of casualties most important for meeting targets and allows preliminary assessment of scope of potential new measures but not effectiveness or cost-effectiveness

7 Casualty prevention values Values used are standard DfT valuations (RCGB, 2005). Based on “Willingness to Pay” methods representing: Medical costs Lost output (lost earnings plus non-wage payments by employer, NI etc) Human costs i.e. an amount representing pain, grief and loss of enjoyment of life. Casualty severity Average prevention value(£) Fatal1,428,460 Serious160,510 Slight12,380

8 The most frequent casualty groups based on KSI prevention value (Annual Average) RankAccident Type£M 1Car Occupants in impact with HGV Car Occupants in impact with LCV LCV Occupants Pedestrians in impact with HGV Pedestrians in impact with LPV HGV Occupants Car Occupants in impact with HGV (Front – Front)* Pedestrians in impact with LCV LCV Occupants in impact with other vehicle** LPV Occupants 89.2 *Subset of car occupants in impact with HGV (#1) ** subset of LCV occupants (#3)

9 Ranking of casualty groups relating to agricultural vehicles RankAccident Type£M 1Car Occupants in impact with HGV Car Occupants in impact with LCV Car Occupants in impact with Agricultural TWMV Users in impact with Agricultural Agricultural Vehicle occupants Car Occupants in impact with Agricultural (Front - Rear)* Agricultural Vehicle occupants in rollover accidents** Pedestrians in impact with Agricultural Agricultural vehicle occupants in impact with HGV** 1.0 *Subset of car occupants in impact with agricultural (#47) ** Subset of agricultural vehicle occupants (#69) Agricultural vehicles of lower priority in terms of meeting casualty targets but cost effective measures may still be possible and desirable

10 Agricultural vehicle accident patterns

11 UK Agricultural vehicle casualty trend Serious and slight have decreased Fatal remain approximately constant displaying random behaviour around an average of ~30 fatalities/year Further trend analysis not possible due to lack of traffic data

12 European Comparison (CARE)

13 Distribution of casualties by road user type and severity

14 Most frequent impact configurations Car occupant casualties in impact with Agricultural vehicle (average per year ) Front of car to rear of agricultural – 19 (28%) KSI casualties Front of car to front of agricultural – 17 (25%) KSI casualties Front of car to side of agricultural – 17 (25%) KSI casualties Agricultural vehicle occupants (average per year ) Impact with other vehicle 15 (56%) KSI casualties, evenly distributed between cars and HGVs Rollover 10 (38%) KSI casualties * TWMV casualties in impact with Agricultural vehicle (average per year ) Front of TWMV to side of agricultural – 14 (46%) KSI casualties 78% of these were impacts to the offside Front of TWMV to front of agricultural – 7 (23%) KSI casualties

15 Skidding and jacknifing Suggestion that tractor/trailer combinations over- represented in fatal accidents compared with tractor alone Proportion of agricultural vehicles involving skidding and jacknifing (c.7%) lower than for HGVs (c.16%) Traditional low speeds mitigate risk but speed capability increasing ABS?

16 The HVCIS fatal accident sample HVCIS sample of 29 fatal accidents involving agricultural vehicles from 1997 to 2002 Similar distribution of casualty groups compared with STATS 19 but some smaller groups not represented in the sample

17 HVCIS – car occupant fatalities 10 car occupant fatalities in 9 accidents Driver behaviour 3 of 9 (33.3%) agricultural vehicle drivers Lack of attention Error of judgement Inexperience 7 of 9 (77.8%) car drivers Lack of attention Error of judgement 8 of 9* (88.9%) fatalities wearing seatbelts * 1 where belt use unknown 8 of 9 (88.9%) of accidents were on roads with a speed limit of 60 mile/hr or more

18 HVCIS – agricultural vehicle occupant fatalities 5 agricultural vehicle occupant fatalities 3 rollover accidents 1 occupant ejected 1 vehicle also in collision with an HGV 3 of 5 fatalities ejected from cab Seatbelt use known for 3 of 5 fatalities – all unbelted Behaviour of 4 of the agricultural vehicle drivers was considered contributory to the cause of the accident

19 HVCIS – TWMV fatalities 9 TWMV fatalities in 8 accidents Manoeuvres 7 of 9 (77.8%) where TWMV was overtaking moving vehicle or going ahead other and the Agricultural vehicle was turning right Driver behaviour 2 of 8 (25.0%) agricultural vehicle drivers Lack of attention Error of judgement 7 of 8 (87.5%) TWMV riders Error of judgement Excess speed Reckless/aggressive 7 of 8 (87.5%) of accidents were on roads with a speed limit of 60 mile/hr or more

20 HVCIS - Vehicle Defects 29 agricultural vehicles 10 vehicles defective (c.40% of which were braking defects) (bottom left) Low numbers but compares poorly with other vehicle types Consistent with VOSA prohibition data (right)

21 Conclusions Accidents involving agricultural vehicles are of much lower priority than accidents involving HGVs, LCVs and LPVs Cost effective countermeasures still possible Importance in UK comparable to EU average When considering Agricultural vehicle safety: Protecting car occupants (#47), TWMV users (#67) and agricultural vehicle occupants (#69) is most important. Defects, particularly brakes, are important to all groups Turning right is important, particularly for TWMV users Rollover and seat-belt use are important for agricultural vehicle occupants Braking may become a more important issue with increased speed, if higher speed tractors are permitted or result in reduced compliance with the existing speed limits. Improved standards may be implemented in EU regulation.

22 Positioning agricultural vehicle safety in the context of all accidents involving large vehicles Presented by Iain Knight Tel: +44 (0)


Download ppt "Positioning agricultural vehicle safety in the context of all accidents involving large vehicles Presented by Iain Knight HSE Agricultural vehicle workshop."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google