Policy for purchase and use of vehicles at MUARC

(See also Report 166 "Review of best practice road safety initiatives in the corporate and/or business environment")

(See also Haworth, N. (2004) 'Updating MUARC's car policy - research meets practice', Proceedings 2004 Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, 14-16 November, Perth, Western Australia, Vol 1, 6p) [.pdf 124KB]

MUARC is a world-leading centre in injury prevention in most areas which potentially produce harm to the human. Traffic safety research, as well as research in occupational health and safety, are areas where MUARC has a long tradition of innovative and significant contributions. There are numerous examples where findings and recommendations from MUARC have been translated into action in society. Where possible, it seems natural that such findings and recommendations should be used internally at MUARC.

The future as well as the past success of MUARC is dependent on its staff. It is fundamental that MUARC care for the safety and well-being of its staff. In the past, there have been several examples of events where MUARC staff have been injured, or nearly injured. Since mid-1998, four events in road traffic have been serious enough to either cause injuries, or possibly could have led to injuries.

It is also of importance that MUARC is seen as a good citizen, behaving in a way that is acceptable in terms of using resources and not causing potential harm to society and its citizens. This relates both to potential accidental harm as well as the impact on the environment.

Traffic and transport are major contributors to injuries and fatalities in society, as well as being contributors to the environmental problems of modern society. Both the design and the use of the road transport system are fundamental in developing a safe and environmentally sustainable system. MUARC, given its role in the society, should contribute to this development in its own use of the road transport system, as well as in its care for all the employees at the centre. MUARC should also do its best to fulfil the OHS acts and regulations. MUARC should also set an example to the rest of society, where appropriate, and encourage all partners to follow this example, thus stimulating technological development and the market for safety.

A policy for vehicle purchase and how these vehicles should be used in order to maximise safety and minimise environmental impact, at lowest possible cost and without causing negative impact on the effective operations of the Centre, is therefore natural. The policy should build on current knowledge and should be reviewed at least once per year, given the rapid development of knowledge and technology.

The status of the MUARC car fleet should be included in the Annual Report, together with the total and average fuel consumption as performance indicators for a non-aggressive and environmentally friendly driving style.

Basic requirements for MUARC car (purchased or rented):

Safety

Mandatory requirements, passive safety

• Highest possible score in consumer tests like NCAP (or similar) and, if available, high rank in statistical safety rating. If there is a disagreement between results from crash test based rating and real life statistical rating, good real life statistical accident rating is preferred.
• Dual front airbags
• Side airbags, at least in the front seat, including head protection (separate or integrated)
• Three point seat belts at all positions, at least in the front seat with pretensioners.
• Head restraint for all positions, possible to adjust (or fixed) to an appropriate position. (At least for four positions).
• Curb weight 1300-1700 kg, not sports utility vehicle, van or off-road vehicle
• If the car is a station wagon, or hatchback, there should be a cargo barrier installed.

Highly desired, passive safety (to be mandatory requirements later)

• Anti whiplash system, at least in the front seat, proposal in IRCOBI-99 could be used (Hell, et.al.)
• Load limiters for seat belts
• Seat belt reminder system
• Well proven good pedestrian protection, according to NCAP or proposed European regulation.

Mandatory, active safety

• ABS
• Speed alert system

Highly desired, active safety (to be mandatory requirements later)

• Intelligent speed alert system
• Alcohol interlock
• Automatic head-lamps

Environment

• Most fuel-efficient engine option (normally smallest engine) for the vehicle chosen.
• Fuel consumption maximum below the Australian average target for new cars, currently approx. 10 l/100 km (AS 2877/1986/55/45). When a national target is set, MUARC vehicles should be below the target.
• Fuel consumption monitoring device (trip computer)

Economy

• Base price (list price except on road cost) max $40,000 AUD
• Good trade-in value
• Low maintenance costs

Use of vehicle

It is important that MUARC staff members using Centre vehicles, rental cars, or their own car, do not exceed speed limits and comply with road traffic laws in general. It is even more important that we drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions, recognising that such speed will often be below the posted speed limit. Our driving and, in particular, our choice of speed, must acknowledge the inherent vulnerability in a collision of people walking and cycling.

A low fuel consumption is generally a sign of a non-aggressive driving style. Whilst this is currently the only way to monitor our own behaviour, fuel consumption will be used as an indicator for careful and environmentally friendly driving. Average fuel consumption should be fed back for every Centre car on a monthly basis. MUARC will gradually purchase vehicles with features that promote safer driving, such as Intelligent Speed Adaptation, Alcohol Interlock, seat belt reminder systems and automatic daytime running lights.

While there is a legal limit of maximum 0.05% BAC for fully licensed drivers, even lower levels have been found to influence driving. It is therefore important that MUARC staff have a restrictive alcohol policy before driving. There should be no driving under the influence of medications or other drugs likely to affect alertness or driving.

Driving when fatigued can be as dangerous as driving drunk. Drivers and their supervisors should plan realistic schedules, be rested before departure, stop for appropriate rest breaks (every two hours, even if not feeling tired) and avoid driving during normal sleeping hours. A general rule is that driving occurring more than 16 hours since the previous night of sleep is equivalent to driving with a BAC of over .05. Therefore this practice should not occur. Driving back from the airport after a day trip interstate may not be wise for this reason. Consider alternatives, such as a taxi.

Use of mobile phones when driving has been found to be associated with increased crash risk. No mobile phones (including hands-free) are to be used whilst driving.

Centre vehicles should be driven with daytime running lights (or dipped head lamps).

Cars belonging to staff members may be used. If this is on a regular basis, such cars should have a driver side airbag, and must be at least a mid-sized car. An employee at MUARC has always the right to rent a car for safety reasons, rather than using their own, less safe car.

Rental cars should, in principle, be of at least the same standard as Centre cars. MUARC should gradually ensure that rental car companies are prepared to supply such vehicles to MUARC staff, by distributing the requirements.

Similarly, the Centre will attempt to determine which taxi company offers the safest service and, where possible, give preference to that company.

Background Information
for the MUARC Fleet Safety Policy

Compiled by Naomi Kowadlo, with contributions from MUARC staff. November 1999

The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) is adopting various measures for a fleet safety policy. These measures have previously been found to be effective in improving road safety.

Alcohol

Consuming alcohol, or alcohol in conjunction with other drugs, is known to increase the risk of accident. Haworth and Vulcan (1997) conducted a study of Victorian drivers within a 200km radius of Melbourne who died in single vehicle collisions and compared them with a control sample. Where the BACs of crashed drivers was known, 40% showed a BAC over 0.05% compared with 0.5% of control drivers. In addition, 16% of crashed drivers were found to have consumed both cannabis and alcohol whereas none of the control drivers were found to have consumed both.

Studies have found that consuming moderate amounts of alcohol can also impact on skills necessary for driving. Dawson and Reid (1997) administered 10-15 grams of vodka at 30 minute intervals until participants reached a BAC of 0.10%. Participants were required to complete a hand-eye coordination tracking task also at 30 minute intervals. Results demonstrated that for each 0.01% increase in BAC, performance on this task decreased on average by 1.16%.

Lenné, Triggs and Redman (1998) examined the effects of moderate consumption of alcohol on driving performance in a simulator. Driving performance was measured by lateral deviation of the simulator car. Lateral deviation was found to be significantly higher (p<0.05) for those with peak BACs of between 0.036% and 0.048% compared to the same participants at times when they had not consumed any alcohol.

Fatigue

Driving when fatigued significantly increases accident risk (eg. Lenné et al., 1998). This increase in risk may be through fatigue reducing driving skill, or it may be due to drivers falling asleep at the wheel and subsequently loosing control of the vehicle. A number of studies investigating fatigue in road safety have found that it plays a significant role in accident occurrence.

Dawson and Reid (1997) conducted a laboratory study to measure cognitive psychomotor performance using a hand-eye coordination task. It was found that moderate levels of fatigue produced higher levels of impairment than the proscribed level of alcohol intoxication. In a separate laboratory study in which subjects were required to drive a driving simulator, 24 to 36 hours of sleep loss was found to produce greater impairments to driving skill than alcohol at around 0.04% BAC, depending on the time of day (Lenné et al., 1998).

A study of crashes in which it was believed the driver fell asleep at the wheel was conducted by Horne and Reyner (1995). It was found that 16% of crashes to which police were summoned on major roads in Southwest England and 20% of those on midland motorways, were sleep related. There were peaks in accident incidence at 0200, 0600 and 1600.

Speeding

In Victoria, speeding is a factor in almost 20% of all fatal crashes and in almost one third of single-vehicle crashes (VicRoads, Victoria Police, Transport Accident Commission, 1995).

Current research suggests that as speed increases (and the road environment remains the same):

• the possibility for road users to communicate and perceive the intentions of other road users in time to react appropriately decreases, as does the ability to detect hazards,
• stopping distances increase and other manoeuvres to avoid accidents become more difficult, and
• the severity of outcome of an impact increases.

The overall effect of reducing or increasing mean travel speed (in particular) has been studied in many parts of the world. There are also numerous studies of the relationship between velocity at impact and risk of injury in car crashes, based on physical laws as well as empirical studies. Such studies show increased number and severity of injuries with increased impact speed. Furthermore, there are several studies showing the correlation between speed at impact and injury severity for pedestrians.

The road trauma outcome of a change in mean travel speed can be described with power functions, with the power increasing with crash severity. The power function for fatalities appears to be around four. This means that a 10% reduction of mean speed results in a reduction of the number of fatalities of approximately 36%. Figure 1 shows the predicted outcome of a change in mean speed on the number of injury accidents, severe injuries and fatal injuries. The results are based on Swedish studies (Carlsson, ??). Results from the US (Finch, 1994) have shown that an increase in mean speed of 3-6 km/h results in an increase of the number of fatalities of 19-34%.

Figure 1. The predicted number of injury accidents, severe injuries and fatal injuries (y-axis)
as a function of changes in mean speeds (x-axis).
The steepness of the curve increases with accident severity.

It should be noted that these values are based on changes in the mean travel speed. Generally, a lower speed limit results in a reduction of the mean travel speed of about half of the reduction in speed limit. For example, lowering the speed limit by 10 km/h generally results in a drop in mean speed of about 5 km/h. The results seem to be applicable to both high speed and low speed environments.

Kloeden and McLean (1998) found that each 5km/h increase in speed above 60 km/h increases the risk of being involved in a casualty crash by about the same amount as each increase in BAC of 0.05.

Several studies have shown that the risk of a pedestrian receiving fatal injuries at an impact speed of 50 km/h is approximately 10 times higher than at an impact speed of 30 km/h. It has been suggested that the power functions are even steeper for pedestrians.

In summary, reducing speed is probably the most powerful instrument to overcome the defects in a system that is not designed for current travel speeds. Even small reductions in mean travel speed have a substantial impact on injuries and a greater effect on fatalities. Reducing speed is therefore often a very cost-effective measure to reduce the incidence and severity of crashes.

Mobile phones

Using mobile phones while driving increases the risk of being involved in a vehicle crash (Donoho, 1996).

A study using an epidemiological case-control design found that talking on mobile phones in the car for more than 50 minutes a month was associated with a 5.59-fold increased risk of being involved in a crash (Violanti and Marshall, 1996). A separate study performed by the University of Toronto (cited in Anonymous, 1997a) indicates that talking on a mobile phone while driving quadruples the risk of having a crash. This is the same risk as driving with a BAC at the legal limit. The study also indicates that hands-free devices offer no advantage over traditional hand-held devices.

Vehicle design

A report on the crashworthiness of a number of makes and models of Australian cars reveals that, after taking a number of assumptions into account, different cars do vary in their crashworthiness (Newstead, Cameron and Le, 1999).

One feature that impacts on the crashworthiness of a vehicle is its weight. This has a number of implications for the occupant safety of that vehicle as well as for the occupant safety of other vehicles on the road (Fildes, Lee and Lane, 1993). Weight is primarily important in relation to collisions involving more than one vehicle. In single vehicle collisions, weight is inherently, but not causally, related to the safety of the vehicle. Thus, if a single vehicle collides against a fixed object, the weight of that vehicle has no bearing on occupant protection. Larger vehicles, which are often heavier, would normally offer greater occupant protection.

In collisions involving more than one vehicle, the difference in mass between the vehicles plays an important role. In a collision involving a heavy car and a light car, the heavy car will undergo a lesser change of velocity, decreasing the risk of injury, while the lighter car will experience a greater change in velocity, increasing the risk of injury to occupants in that car. In a frontal collision, a 100 kg difference will increase injury risk by 5-10 % in the lighter vehicle, and reduce injury risk by the same amount in the heavier vehicle (Buzemann, 1997). In side impacts the result is more complex, but in rear impacts the same tendency exists (Krafft, 1998).

The safest scenario is one in which all vehicles on the road have close to equal weight. It has been suggested that variation of weights should be kept to plus or minus 200 kg from the average weight of the vehicle population (Buzeman, 1997). Thus, it is important to choose vehicles that have a weight close to the average weight of the vehicle population in order to offer protection to both occupants of individual vehicles as well as to occupants of other cars on the road.

While there is much evidence demonstrating the large differences in crash protection depending on the design of the car (eg. Krafft, Kullgren, Lie and Tingvall, 1998), accident avoidance has not been studied very extensively. The likely benefits of choosing safer cars are therefore based on crashworthiness ratings, although there may be substantial benefits from some of the technology related to driving behaviour or vehicle defects. For instance, Intelligent Speed Adaptation Systems (ISA) and alcohol interlocks have been mentioned as items that have the potential for substantial safety benefits. However, these have not been described in as much detail as better occupant protection.

Newer cars offer greater levels of occupant protection than do older cars, including protection from skull and brain injuries (Krafft et al., 1998; Larsson, Lie, Tingvall, Krafft and Kullgren, 1996).

Over the whole spectrum of cars, there is a 1:5 ratio between the best and worst cars in terms of occupant protection. If taking size (or rather weight) into account, the ratios are in the order of 1:2.5 between best and worst cars. In Sweden, it has been shown that the best available car model is 60% better than the average car in the general car population and at least 30% better than the average new car of the same size. The potential safety gains in choosing the best car are therefore substantial.

There are two main methods to determine the differences in crashworthiness of vehicles: crash tests or statistical analysis of crashes. While crash tests can be performed on vehicles that have just been launched on the market, there is a substantial delay in feedback from the field data. There have been efforts to link pre-ratings of cars using crash tests and technical inspections of cars, to field experiences, but such models are still not generally used. The best way to demonstrate the potential of choosing the best possible car is to study the experience rating schemes available. Folksam in Sweden, MUARC in Australia and DETV in the UK all publish results for individual makes and models. There is enough evidence to show that cars that score well in crash tests also perform well in real life accidents (Newstead and Cameron, 1999).

Daytime Running Lights (DRLs)

Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) are weak headlights that are illuminated during the day in order to make vehicles more conspicuous and thus reduce their crash risk. In some countries it is possible to fit vehicles with a device that will automatically activate DRLs when the ignition is switched on, but will be overridden by the full strength headlights.

A large study into the effectiveness of DRLs on road safety is being conducted by SWOV in the Netherlands (Koornstra, 1998). Initial evidence from this study indicates that the ability of drivers to see other cars on the road during normal daylight conditions is not as effective as expected. Previous in-depth accident studies have found that 50% of daytime accidents are the result of one driver failing to see another vehicle. For accidents at intersections, this figure increases to 80%. DRLs have been found to influence the timely peripheral perception of vehicles making conflicting movements. Also, cars with DRLs are better identified as cars and their distances are estimated more safely. These results are especially relevant to conditions of ambient lighting.

Kornsta's (1998) study has found that DRLs have a statistically significant effect on reducing accidents and injuries. This effect changes over different latitudes, as the natural light in different countries has different qualities. There is lower ambient illumination at higher latitudes. In addition, it has been found that in collisions where one or more cars are fitted with DRLs, the cars were travelling at lower speeds.

According to Koornstra (1998), an estimation of the effect of full DRL usage in the EU is that it would prevent;

• 24.6% of fatalities in multiple daytime accidents,
• 20.0% of casualties in multiple daytime accidents, and
• 12.4% of multiple daytime accidents.

This would give a total annual saving of 4.78 billion ECU. The cost of implementation, including fuel costs, car costs, bulb costs and environmental costs would still yield a beneficial cost ratio of 1.80. It is recommended that DRL should be implemented as an automatic in-vehicle system rather than an intervention that would require behavioural change by motorists (Koornstra, 1998).

In a review of a number of studies from Scandinavia, Canada and the USA on the effectiveness of DRLs, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (1999) has cited that DRLs reduce daytime crashes from 6% to 37% for left hand turns (the equivalent of right hand turns in Australia).

Based on latitude, Koornstra (1998) has predicted that DRLs in Victoria would reduce fatalities by around 16%.

Seatbelts

Seatbelts have been extremely effective in reducing injuries to car occupants in the event of a collision. Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of seatbelts in saving lives and preventing serious injury in the event of a crash. There is evidence that they may even reduce occupant fatalities by up to 50% (Evans, 1989; Nygren, 1984).

There is the possibility that intense contact with seatbelt hardware during a crash may injure occupants. However, new seatbelt designs may reduce the likelihood of sustaining seatbelt injuries (Fildes, Lane, Lenard and Vulcan, 1991, 1994). These features include:

• a closer coupling of the occupant to the seat through pre-tensioning devices and webbing clamps,
• seat backs manufactured in a more sculptured design,
• total seat belt extension should be reduced,
• belt geometry needs improving to reduce submarining and other injuries,
• attaching belt anchorage points to the seat,
• D-ring adjustment,
• load limiter.

These changes may result in fewer chest and neck injuries through violent contact with the seatbelt itself. In addition, these changes may result in reduced head and face injuries due to reduced number and intensity of impacts of the head with interior components of the car.

More than 20% of car occupants killed in Victoria were not wearing seatbelts. Therefore reminder systems may be useful.

ABS

Anti-lock brakes (ABS), are designed to improve the manoeuvrability of a vehicle when braking. They are believed to be beneficial in preventing accidents through improved braking and thus avoiding an accident.

Kullgren, Lie and Tingvall (1994) conducted a real-life study examining accidents that to some extent involved the braking system. Cars with and without ABS, but otherwise identical, that had been involved in accidents, were compared on a number of crash characteristics. It was found that overall, cars with ABS were significantly less likely to be involved in a rear impact collision. On dry roads, there was no difference between cars with and without ABS in terms of accident incidence. However, on icy surfaces, cars with ABS were less likely to hit another car, but were more likely to be hit than a car without ABS. No statistically significant difference was found for injury risk between the two populations. In addition, no statistically significant difference was found for the severity of crashes caused by cars with and without ABS. Thus, overall, the effect of ABS on improving road safety was found to be significant only on icy roads and primarily in relation to rear impact collisions. Other studies have shown similar results, also relating to wet surfaces.

Evans and Gerrish (1995) also found that overall, ABS reduces the risk of having a two-vehicle crash. When driving on dry roads there is little difference in crash risk between a car with ABS and one without. When driving on wet roads, however, a car with ABS is less likely to crash into a vehicle in front of it, but more likely to be hit by a car travelling behind, than a car without ABS.

Evans and Gerrish (1995) suggest that drivers with ABS take larger risks when driving. These risks include shorter headways and higher speeds.

Airbags

In a large study by Fildes et al. (1991) recommendations were put forward for countermeasures to protect front seat occupants involved in frontal collisions, the most common type of collision. Airbags were recommended as a useful countermeasure to reduce injury in case of a frontal collision as a supplement to 3-point seat belt protection. Airbags would help to reduce contact with the steering wheel and dashboard, cushion these impacts and help to reduce seat belt loadings.

Zador and Ciccone (1991, cited in Evans and Frick, 1992) found that airbags reduce fatalities by 21% for unbelted drivers and by 9% for belted drivers. In addition, airbags were found to be more effective in larger cars than in smaller cars. Airbags reduce driver fatalities by 9% if the wheelbase length of the car is less than 100 inches, by 13% if the wheelbase length is between 100 and 109 inches and by 36% if it is more than 110 inches.

For side impact collisions, which are often extremely severe, side airbags have the potential to make significant improvements to occupant protection for both front and back seat occupants. They have particular usefulness if they can provide both chest and head protection (Fildes et al., 1994). Side door airbags have been fitted to BMW production cars over the past few years (McLean, Fildes, Kloeden, Digges, Anderson, Moore and Simpson, 1997). Recently some models of the locally produced VT Commodore have been fitted with side airbags that inflate from the side of the seat. This placement of the airbag means they are automatically adjusted for the position of the occupant. In addition, they expand upwards which gives some head protection to the occupant (Newstead, 1999).

The benefit of full size airbags over facebags, even when seatbelt wearing rates are high, has been demonstrated (Fildes, Cameron, Vulcan, Digges and Taylor, 1992). In addition, in conjunction with seatbelt webbing clamps, airbags have been shown to reduce injury generally as well as seatbelt injury, in a crash (Fildes, Deery and Vulcan, 1997). They may be reducing seatbelt injury by spreading the deceleration load on the torso and improving occupant kinetics at the time of the crash. Those in cars fitted with airbags, however, experienced a higher rate of slight shoulder injuries.

Airbags have sometimes been found to result in adverse effects due to severe impact with the airbag by an occupant. These results are primarily gleaned from crashes where occupants were not wearing seatbelts, but airbags have been known to cause injury to belted occupants also (NHTSA, 1999).

When comparing American studies with Australian studies, it is useful to note that American airbags differ from Australian airbags in a number of fundamental ways. In the USA, airbags are designed as primary restraint systems to protect unbelted car occupants, whereas in Australia, airbags are designed to protect belted occupants. There are therefore differences in deployment thresholds as well as the power and velocity of deployment. US car occupants suffer more injuries to the face, thorax and upper extremities as a result of airbag contact than Australian occupants (McKay, Fitzharris and Fildes, 1999).

Vehicle Design and Pedestrian Protection

At present in Australia, and indeed worldwide, vehicle manufacturers do not have to conform to design legislation for pedestrian protection but it is anticipated that this will change over the next 3 or 4 years.

In Europe, consumer tests (known as the New Car Assessment Programme, or NCAP tests) are carried out on new vehicles. These tests assess their performance in terms of both occupant protection in front and side impacts as well as pedestrian protection. Whilst vehicles do not need to pass these tests, there is some marketing advantage if they perform well. Therefore the vehicle manufacturers strive to design for good performance at least in terms of occupant protection. However, they are marginally less concerned about vehicle performance in relation to the pedestrian as the marketing advantages are not so great. As a consequence, all vehicles perform disappointingly on the pedestrian test.

Whilst Australia has its own NCAP tests, pedestrian protection is not currently incorporated in the program but this will change over the next year when Australia conforms with the European NCAP.

The European NCAP pedestrian tests are thought to be forerunners of legislation, which will enforce manufacturers to design better pedestrian protection. It is predicted that this can be achieved for pedestrian impacts up to 50km/h. As pedestrian kinematics can be fairly well predicted (e.g. McClean, 1998), it is possible to predict pedestrian contact points on the vehicle and optimise these areas for injury reduction. This could involve bumpers which are less aggressive (e.g. softer) to pedestrian lower legs and bonnets which provide a yielding surface when contacted by the pedestrian's head.

Real-world data (Isenberg, Chidester and Mavros, 1998; Otte, 1999) have shown that modern vehicle designs are less aggressive to pedestrians when compared to older vehicles, but there is still a long way to go before we see the advent of a true "pedestrian-friendly" vehicle.

Neck injuries

Soft tissue neck injuries, often called whip-lash, are one of the main causes of long term consequences following road trauma. The majority of the soft tissue injuries to the neck occur in rear end impacts, but almost 30% (Krafft, 1998) occur in frontal or side impacts. While the kinematics of the cervical spine in an impact is fairly well known, the mechanism of the injury is still partly unknown, or rather, there are several possible mechanisms, each of them related to different protection strategies.

Conventional head restraints have been shown to be of little value in protecting occupants from soft tissue injuries, although they seem to offer some protection. In rear end impacts, they offer up to a 10-15% improvement (Nygren, 1984). A well positioned head restraint is therefore of some value, although current research suggests that it is the whole seat back, and not the head restraint alone, that must be modified in order to protect vehicle occupants from serious soft tissue neck injuries.

New technology has recently been introduced to the market (Volvo and Saab), but it is based on a number of assumptions that have not been fully validated. For the moment, Neck Injury Criterion (NIC) (Boström, Krafft, Aldmann, Eichberger, Frederiksson, Haland, Lövsund, Steffan, Svensson and Tingvall, 1997) has been used as the main injury criteria, and the new technology has been shown to reduce this substantially. Hell, Langwieder, Walz, Muser, Kramer and Hartwig (1999) have suggested a number of evaluation criteria, with NIC being just one, that could serve as an intermediate guide for development and consumer choice. In these guidelines, the rebounding velocity is also included, which partly covers a mechanism of injury that has been discussed recently (Grzebieta, Przychodski, 1999; Krafft, 1998).

In frontal impacts, an effective seat belt pretensioner might be beneficial to prevent these injuries (Kullgren, 1998; Kullgren, Thompson and Krafft, 1999).

Environment

Motor vehicle use is a major contributor to Melbourne's main air problems; photochemical smog, fine particles and nitrogen dioxide. In addition, road vehicles produce 10.5% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in Australia (Government of Victoria, 1996).

While fuel consumption is directly linked to the environmental impact of vehicles as well as to the economy of running vehicles, the link between fuel consumption and safety is not fully understood. However, there seem to be some indirect links that can be used to encourage low fuel consumption within organisations.

Fuel consumption can be divided into to two components;

• steady state speed consumption and
• consumption in change of velocity (transients).

While fuel consumption increases over 60 or 70 km/h, transients at any speed will increase the use of fuel. It is therefore beneficial to use the car in a manner that results in as few transients as possible. A non-aggressive driving style with few stop/starts will decrease fuel consumption. At the same time, this style of driving has the potential to improve safety through increasing headway, planning the driving more efficiently and overtaking less often. However, there is lack of research about the overall link between safety and a non-aggressive driving style.

There are large differences in the standardised fuel consumption between different car models and engine options. Australia has made a commitment to reduce fuel consumption and has set national targets to this end. The aim is to reduce fuel consumption to 10 litres/100 km in the standardised cycle by 2000. This is a mixture of 55% urban cycle and 45% freeway cycle (AS2877/1986/55/45). By 2005, the national target should be even lower, at 7.2 litres/100 km for new vehicles (Government of Victoria, 1996). In order to contribute to the national target, it may be meaningful to purchase vehicles that consume fuel at a rate that is at or below targets.

Maintaining and tuning a vehicle can reduce its emissions by up to 25%, and newer cars give off less emissions (RACV). Drivers can contribute to reducing the adverse effects of vehicles by planning trips to reduce unnecessary distance, using alternative forms of transport and car pooling. Avoiding the purchase of 4WDs is beneficial as they have enormous capacity to harm the environment (Anonymous, 1997b). Enforcing vehicle emission standards, maintaining vehicles well and monitoring performance can also contribute to reducing the environmental impact of vehicles (Government of Victoria, 1996).

References

• Anonymous. (1997a). Cell phones may increase wreck rate. Purchasing, 122(10), 64.
• Anonymous. (1997b). Will motor vehicles be the cigarettes of next century? Motoring Directions, 4(3), 11-12.
• Boström, O., Krafft, M., Aldmann, B., Eichberger, A., Frederiksson, R., Haland, Y., Lövsund, P., Steffan, H., Svensson, M., & Tingvall, C. (1997). Prediction of neck injuries in rear impacts based on accident data and simulations. Proceedings of the 1997 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts, p. 251-264.
• Buzeman D. (1997). Car-to-car and single car crash compatibility: Individual effects of mass, structure, stiffness and geometry. Thesis for the degree of licenciate in engineering. Chalmers University of Technology.
• Carlsson. Full reference forthcoming.
• Dawson, D., & Reid, K. (1997). Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature, 388, 235.
• Donoho, R. (1996). Gearing up for driver safety. Sales and marketing management, 148(12), 66-67.
• Evans, L. (1989). Airbag effectiveness in preventing fatalities predicted according to type of crash, driver age and blood alcohol concentration. 33rd Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Baltimore, p. 307-322.
• Evans, L, & Frick, M.C. (1992). Car mass and fatality risk: Has the relationship changed? 36th Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Portland, p. 83-92.
• Evans, L., & Gerrish, P.H. (1995). Anti-lock brakes and risk of front and rear impact in two-vehicle crashes. 39th Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Chicago, p. 311-325.
• Fildes, B.N., Cameron, M.H., Vulcan, A.P., Digges, K.H., & Taylor, D. (1992). Airbag and facebag benefits and costs. Proceedings of the 1992 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts, Verona. p. 323-335.
• Fildes, B.N., Lee, S.J., and Lane, J.C. (1993). Vehicle mass, size and safety. Federal Office of Road Safety, Report No. CR 133.
• Fildes, B., Deery, H., & Vulcan, P. (1997). A preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of airbag technology in reducing seatbelt injuries. Proceedings of the 1997 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, Hanover, p. 387-397.
• Fildes, B.N., Lane, J.C., Lenard, J., & Vulcan, A.P. (1991). Passenger cars and occupant injury. Federal Office of Road Safety, Report No. CR 95.
• Fildes, B.N., Lane, J.C., Lenard, J., & Vulcan, A.P. (1994). Passenger cars and occupant injury: Side impact crashes. Federal Office of Road Safety, Report No.CR 134.
• Finch (1994). Full reference forthcoming.
• Folksam. (1999). Safe and Dangerous Cars. Sweden: Folksam Insurance Group.
• Government of Victoria. (1996). Transporting Melbourne: A Summary for Public Consultation. Melbourne: CPR Communications and Public Relations.
• Grzebieta, R., Przychodski, D., Tingvall, C., Krafft, M. (1999). Investigation into the physics governing seat back behaviour in whiplash injuries. Monash University.
• Haworth, N., & Vulcan, P. (1997). The roles of alcohol and other drugs in single vehicle crashes. In C. Mercier-Guyon (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (Vol. 1). p. 111-118.
• Hell, W., Langwieder, K., Walz, F., Muser, M., Kramer, M., Hartwig, E. (1999). Consequences for seat design due to rear end accident analysis, sled tests and possible test criteria for reducing cervical spine injuries after rear-end collision. Proceedings of the 1999 IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, Barcelona, p, 243-259.
• Horne, J.A., & Reyner, L.A. (1995). Sleep related vehicle accidents. British Medical Journal, 310, 567-567.
• Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (1999). Daytime Running Lights. www.highwaysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm
• Isenberg, R.A., Chidester, A., & Marvos, S. (1998). Update on pedestrian crash data study. Proceedings of the 16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Windsor, Canada. Paper No. 98-S6-O-05.
• Koornstra, M. (1998). The safety effects of Daytime Running Lights. SWOV Research Activities, 9, 1-3.
• Kloeden, C., & McLean, J. (1998). Speed and the risk of involvement in a casualty crash. Proceedings of the Road Safety Research Policing, Education Conference, Wellington, Vol. 1, p. 188-190.
• Krafft, M. (1998). Non-fatal injuries to car occupants. Injury assessment and analysis of impacts causing short and long term consequences with special reference to neck injuries. Thesis. Karolinska Institute.
• Krafft, M., Kullgren, A., Lie, A., & Tingvall, C. (1998). The risk of skull/brain injuries in modern cars. Paper No. 98-S6-O-14.
• Kullgren, A. (1998). Validity and reliability of vehicle collision data. Crash pulse recorders for impact severity and injury risk assessments in real-life frontal impacts. Karolinska Institute.
• Kullgren, A., Lie, A., & Tingvall, C. (1994). The effectiveness of ABS in real life accidents. Paper No. 94-S9-O-11.
• Kullgren, A., Thomson, R., Krafft, M. (1999). The effect of crash pulse shape on AIS 1 neck injuries in frontal impacts. Proceedings of the 1999 IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, Hanover, p. 231-242.
• Larsson, P., Lie, A., Tingvall, C., Krafft, M., & Kullgren, A. (1996). The crash safety of new car models: A comparative accident study of new versus old car models. Paper No. 96-S9-O-13.
• Lenné, M., Triggs, T., & Redman, J. (1998). Sleep loss or alcohol: Which has the greater impact upon driving ability? Proceedings of the Road Safety Research Policing, Education Conference, Wellington, Vol. 2 ,p 23-26.
• McLean, J. (1998). Pedestrian injuries. Paper presented at the Biomechanics course, Monash University, Melbourne. Feb, 1998.
• McLean, A.J., Fildes, B.N., Kloeden, C.N., Digges, K.H., Anderson, R.W.G., Moore, V.M., & Simpson, D.A. (1997). Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: An investigation of interior padding options. Federal Office of Road Safety, Report No. CR160.
• McKay, M.P., Fitzharris, M., & Fildes, B. (1999). Driver injury patterns in the United States and Australia: Does beltwearing or airbag deployment make a difference? 43rd Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Barcelona. p. 409-424.
• Newstead, S. (1999). Personal communication.
• Newstead, S., & Cameron, M. (1999). Updated correlation of results from the Australian New Car Assessment Program with real crash data from 1986 to 1996. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Report No. 152.
• Newstead, S., Cameron, M., & Le, C.M. (1999). Vehicle crashworthiness ratings and crashworthiness by year of vehicle manufacture: Victoria and NSW crashes during 1987-97, Queensland crashes during 1991-96. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Report No. 150.
• NHTSA. (1999). Safety Fact Sheet. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/airbags/factsheets/numbers.html
• Nygren, Å. (1984). Injuries to car occupants some aspects of the interior safety of cars. Thesis. Karolinska Institute.
• Otte, D. (1999). Severity and mechanism of head impacts in car to pedestrian accidents. Proceedings of the 1999 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact. Barcelona, p. 329-341.
• RACV. (year unknown). Driving the Issues.
• VicRoads, Victoria Police and Transport Accident Commission. (1995). Safety First: Victoria's Road Safety Strategy, 1995-2000.
• Violanti, J.M., & Marshall, J.R. (1996). Cellular phones and traffic accidents: An epidemiological approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28(2), 265-270.