©
Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine
Comparison of Adult and Teen Driver Crash Scenarios in a Nationally Representative Sample of Serious Crashes Allison E. Curry, PhD, MPH,a Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN,a,b,* Venk Kandadai, MPH,a Marilyn S. Sommers, PhD, RN, FAAN,b Flaura K. Winston, MD, PhD.a,c a b
Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadephia, PA University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, Center for Global Women’s Health, Center for Health Equity Research, Philadelphia, PA c Division of General Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, PA
Statement of Purpose: We know very little about the differences in the immediate crash environment of teen and adult crashes. We aimed to: identify the most frequent “crash scenarios” — vehicle’s movement prior to crash, immediate pre-crash event, and crash configuration — among teen drivers in serious crashes; compare these frequencies with those of adult drivers; and, for each crash scenario, compare the critical reason (i.e. the single most important proximate reason) for teens’ and adults’ crashes. Methods: We analyzed data on 642 16- to 19-year-old and 1,167 35- to 54-year-old licensed drivers who were involved in serious crashes (i.e., required EMS response) in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (2005-07) and who were assigned a driver-related critical reason (i.e., critical error) for their crash. NMVCCS categorized driver-related critical errors as non-performance errors (e.g., sleeping, medical condition), recognition errors (e.g., inattention, distraction), decision errors (e.g., too fast, following too closely), or performance errors (e.g., overcompensation). We compared scenarios and driver-related critical errors using unweighted frequencies, weighted percentages, and prevalence ratios (PR). Results: Five crash scenarios accounted for 37.3% and 28.7% of teen and adult crashes, respectively (PR[95% CI]=1.30 [1.02-1.66]): (1) going straight, other vehicle stopped, rear end; (2) stopped in lane, turning left at intersection, turn into path of other vehicle; (3) negotiating curve, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; (4) going straight, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; and (5) stopped in lane, turning left at intersection, turn across path of other vehicle. Teens were more likely than adults to make a critical decision error in crash scenarios #1 (3.12 [1.36-7.15]) and #3 (2.16 [1.13-4.15]); driver-related critical errors in the other scenarios were similar for both groups. Limitations: The NMVCCS study only contained data on serious crashes between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 midnight, and thus the findings may not be generalizable to less serious crashes or to other time periods. Even though the overall NMVCCS sample was large (>5,000 crashes), once we selected our group and stratified by crash scenarios, sample sizes for some analyses were small. Therefore, prevalence ratio estimates for the analysis of driver-related critical errors should be interpreted with caution. Finally, the assignment of a driver-related critical error may be somewhat subjective given that they may in part reflect the driver’s willingness to disclose them. Conclusions: We identified five crash scenarios commonly associated with serious crashes among teens and adults, although these scenarios were more prevalent among teens. Several specific crash scenarios highlighted the increased contribution of decision errors among teen drivers. 57th AAAM Annual Conference Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine September 22-25, 2013
347
Vol 57 • September 2013
Significance & Contribution to the Field: A better understanding of crash scenarios and causative factors for crashes can inform crash avoidance technology, driver assessment, interventions and training aimed at crash risk reduction.
348
Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine
Comparison of Adult and Teen Driver Crash Scenarios in a Nationally Representative Sample of Serious Crashes Allison E. Curry, PhD, MPH,a Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN,a,b,* Venk Kandadai, MPH,a Marilyn S. Sommers, PhD, RN, FAAN,b Flaura K. Winston, MD, PhD.a,c a b
Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadephia, PA University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, Center for Global Women’s Health, Center for Health Equity Research, Philadelphia, PA c Division of General Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, PA
Statement of Purpose: We know very little about the differences in the immediate crash environment of teen and adult crashes. We aimed to: identify the most frequent “crash scenarios” — vehicle’s movement prior to crash, immediate pre-crash event, and crash configuration — among teen drivers in serious crashes; compare these frequencies with those of adult drivers; and, for each crash scenario, compare the critical reason (i.e. the single most important proximate reason) for teens’ and adults’ crashes. Methods: We analyzed data on 642 16- to 19-year-old and 1,167 35- to 54-year-old licensed drivers who were involved in serious crashes (i.e., required EMS response) in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (2005-07) and who were assigned a driver-related critical reason (i.e., critical error) for their crash. NMVCCS categorized driver-related critical errors as non-performance errors (e.g., sleeping, medical condition), recognition errors (e.g., inattention, distraction), decision errors (e.g., too fast, following too closely), or performance errors (e.g., overcompensation). We compared scenarios and driver-related critical errors using unweighted frequencies, weighted percentages, and prevalence ratios (PR). Results: Five crash scenarios accounted for 37.3% and 28.7% of teen and adult crashes, respectively (PR[95% CI]=1.30 [1.02-1.66]): (1) going straight, other vehicle stopped, rear end; (2) stopped in lane, turning left at intersection, turn into path of other vehicle; (3) negotiating curve, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; (4) going straight, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; and (5) stopped in lane, turning left at intersection, turn across path of other vehicle. Teens were more likely than adults to make a critical decision error in crash scenarios #1 (3.12 [1.36-7.15]) and #3 (2.16 [1.13-4.15]); driver-related critical errors in the other scenarios were similar for both groups. Limitations: The NMVCCS study only contained data on serious crashes between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 midnight, and thus the findings may not be generalizable to less serious crashes or to other time periods. Even though the overall NMVCCS sample was large (>5,000 crashes), once we selected our group and stratified by crash scenarios, sample sizes for some analyses were small. Therefore, prevalence ratio estimates for the analysis of driver-related critical errors should be interpreted with caution. Finally, the assignment of a driver-related critical error may be somewhat subjective given that they may in part reflect the driver’s willingness to disclose them. Conclusions: We identified five crash scenarios commonly associated with serious crashes among teens and adults, although these scenarios were more prevalent among teens. Several specific crash scenarios highlighted the increased contribution of decision errors among teen drivers. 57th AAAM Annual Conference Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine September 22-25, 2013
347
Vol 57 • September 2013
Significance & Contribution to the Field: A better understanding of crash scenarios and causative factors for crashes can inform crash avoidance technology, driver assessment, interventions and training aimed at crash risk reduction.
348
