By Francisco J. Lopez-Valdes
In Spain, the number of fatal car occupants decreased by almost 59% between 2006 and 2015 (from 4,104 in 2006 to 1,689 in 2015), according to the national road traffic statistics (DGT, 2016). While there is no official estimate for the increase of km driven during the same period, road mobility in Spain followed trends of countries of similar economic development. In the same period, the number of fatal bicyclists changed from 75 to 58 (23%) and from 481 to 329 (32%) in the case of motorcyclists. Interestingly, while the number of fatalities decreased in major roads, there were more fatal injuries within urban areas in both groups. These raw figures are far from explaining the whole picture of road traffic fatalities in Spain, but they suggest dramatic differences in the injury prevention effectiveness of safety policies among different groups of road users.
Back in 1993, in his AAAM Presidential Address, Tom Gennarelli pointed out the need to “develop newer, more bold designs for injury mitigation” (Gennarelli, 1993). In particular, he referred to the little design changes experimented by helmets over the decades despite the fact that half of motorcyclist fatalities were helmeted riders at the time. In 2015, 94% of the motorcyclists killed in Spain used a helmet (DGT, 2016). Except for few innovative solutions involving advanced materials, most helmets are designed according to the same principles used in 1993. The slow progress made in helmet design is likely related to the relatively little research present in existing helmet testing standards. Assessing the performance of helmets exposed to rotational effects, the link between long-term disabling and apparently low-severity head injuries and the inertial problems associated with current testing head forms are just some of the missing topics not included in any existing helmet testing standard so far.
Focusing on motorcyclists’ deaths, run- off- the road crashes involving barriers pose a much higher fatality risk than other crash modes. Only a handful of countries in Europe has developed dedicated testing programs for road solutions intended to protect the motorcyclists in these crashes. These initiatives have resulted in the approval of Technical Specification CEN (Centre European de Normalization) TS1317-8 in 2008 (FEMA, 2012). Despite the well-intended effort of assessing the performance of motorcyclist protective systems (MPS), the testing methods and the injury criteria proposed in these standards are obsolete and present little to no relationship with the observed real-world injuries. From the impact configuration that do not include upright impacts (accounting for approximately 50% of the crashes (Bambach et al., 2011; Rizzi, 2015)), to the use of the Hybrid III dummy to measure compression loads in the neck in head-first impacts, through the proposed injury thresholds and relevant body regions (that exclude the thorax, which is the most frequent body region injured at the AIS3+ level in impacts against roadside barriers (Daniello and Gabler, 2012)), these standards deserve a critical review so that they can contribute more effectively to the protection of motorcyclists.
Most motorized countries are moving towards a transportation model in which human-powered two-wheelers are proposed as a smart, green alternative to traditional passenger cars. Not so long ago, Spain allowed licensed car drivers to ride motorcycles up to 125cc without any formal licensing process. While the law intended to facilitate mobility, it also resulted in a 28% increase of motorcycles’ fatalities in the following two years (Segui-Gomez and Lopez-Valdes, 2007). In parallel, the number of hospitalized cyclists increased from 483 in 2006 to 652 in 2015 (DGT, 2016). At the same time, motorcycles, mopeds, and electric bikes are the most frequent means of transport in motorizing countries.
In a scenario in which the road will be shared by different vehicles, the bold promotion of two-wheelers may result in an unintended increase of injuries and fatalities unless other structural changes are addressed in parallel. Changes that require further research and evidence-based interventions, avoiding shortcuts and impossible translations of protective strategies developed for restrained car occupants to unrestrained riders of motorcycles and bicycles.
From the collection of relevant injury data and follow-up studies to understand disability, to the development of appropriate injury criteria and the corresponding assessment tools, including the creation of the right environment so that these findings can inform existing and future regulations, all these tasks fall within AAAM’s mission and challenge the work of all AAAM members.
REFERENCES
Bambach, M., Grzebieta, R., McIntosh, A., 2011. Motorcycle crashes into roadside barriers. Stage 2: Crash mechanics and injury causation.
Daniello, A., Gabler, H., 2012. Characteristics of Injuries in Motorcycle-to-Barrier Collisions in Maryland. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2281, 92-98.
DGT, 2016. Las principales cifras de la Seguridad Vial. Espana 2015.
FEMA, 2012. New Standards for Road Restraint Systems for Motorcyclist.
Gennarelli, T. A., 1993. The challenges after all the easy things have been done.
Rizzi, M., 2015. Can a Boxer Engine Reduce Leg Injuries Among Motorcyclists? Analysis of Injury Distributions in Crashes Involving Different Motorcycles Fitted with Antilock Brakes (ABS). Traffic Injury Prevention 16, 739-746.
Segui-Gomez, M., Lopez-Valdes, F. J., 2007. Recognizing the importance of injury in other policy forums: the case of motorcycle licensing policy in Spain. Injury Prevention 13, 429-430.