analysis of fatal crashes involving chennai city's mtc buses
TRANSCRIPT
Analysis of fatal crashes involving Chennai city’s Analysis of fatal crashes involving Chennai city’s Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) busesMetropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) buses
Jeya Padmanaban*, Ravishankar Rajaraman**, Swastik Narayan**, Bharat Ramesh**Jeya Padmanaban*, Ravishankar Rajaraman**, Swastik Narayan**, Bharat Ramesh**
JP Research India Private LimitedJP Research India Private Limited
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
OverviewOverview
• IntroductionIntroduction
MTC busses in Chennai cityMTC busses in Chennai city
The issueThe issue
• Data Collection Methodology Data Collection Methodology
Detailed Accident Reports (DAR)Detailed Accident Reports (DAR)
Creation of Analytical DatabaseCreation of Analytical Database
• ResultsResults
• ConclusionsConclusions
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Chennai City and MTC busesChennai City and MTC buses
• Chennai City Chennai City – spans for over 180 sq.kmspans for over 180 sq.km
– population density of 24,683 persons per population density of 24,683 persons per sq.km.sq.km.
• Metropolitan Transport CorporationMetropolitan Transport Corporation– Government run bus organizationGovernment run bus organization
– MTC has a fleet of 3267 buses (2009)MTC has a fleet of 3267 buses (2009)
– MTC buses carry 5.5 million passengers MTC buses carry 5.5 million passengers every day.every day.
Ordinary
Semi-Low Floor (SLF)
Volvo AC
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
The IssueThe Issue
YearNumberof buses
Number ofbus crashes
CrashesCrashesper bus
Fatal Crashesper 1000 busesFatal Injury No injury
2006 2773 2837 129 982 1726 1.02 46.522007 2934 3857 142 1213 2502 1.31 48.392008 3300 4542 145 1419 2978 1.38 43.932009 3267 4284 138 1489 2657 1.31 42.24
• Over 40 fatal crashes per 1000 buses per year
• Over 1 crash per bus per year
• Lack of in-depth scientific analysis
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Data Collection MethodologyData Collection Methodology
• Detailed Accident Report (DAR)Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
– 2-page handwritten report in local language (Tamil)2-page handwritten report in local language (Tamil)
– Records created and maintained by Accident Branch of MTCRecords created and maintained by Accident Branch of MTC
– Objective is to fix responsibility for the accident Objective is to fix responsibility for the accident
– Researchers used these reports as the base for analysisResearchers used these reports as the base for analysis
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Data Collection MethodologyData Collection Methodology
• Acquisition of Detailed Accident Reports (DARs) Acquisition of Detailed Accident Reports (DARs)
– Using Right To Information (RTI)Using Right To Information (RTI)
– 283 fatal crash reports obtained283 fatal crash reports obtained (2008 - 145; 2009 - 138) (2008 - 145; 2009 - 138)
• Creation of Analytical DatabaseCreation of Analytical Database
– Translation of documents to EnglishTranslation of documents to English
– Extracted information and coded variablesExtracted information and coded variables
– Personal or proprietary information not includedPersonal or proprietary information not included
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Distribution of Fatal Crashes Distribution of Fatal Crashes by Road User Type Involvedby Road User Type Involved
M2Ws, pedestrians and footboard passengers constitute 89% of fatal MTC bus crashes.
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Victim Profile – M2W RidersVictim Profile – M2W Riders
• 92% of the fatal M2W riders and “footboard passengers” were 92% of the fatal M2W riders and “footboard passengers” were malesmales
• 50% of male M2W fatal riders are ages 20-2950% of male M2W fatal riders are ages 20-29
• Helmet usage among the M2W riders are very lowHelmet usage among the M2W riders are very low
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Victim Profile – Pedestrians and Victim Profile – Pedestrians and Footboard PassengersFootboard Passengers
• Pedestrian fatalities about 82% were malePedestrian fatalities about 82% were male
• 85% of male pedestrian fatalities are ages 30 or older 85% of male pedestrian fatalities are ages 30 or older
• 38% of “footboard passengers” are less than 19 years old38% of “footboard passengers” are less than 19 years old
– indicating that fatalities involved school/college studentsindicating that fatalities involved school/college students
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Crash Interaction TypesCrash Interaction Types
• 11stst Event: Fall Down Event: Fall Down
– M2W, Pedestrian or Footboard M2W, Pedestrian or Footboard
Passenger falls downPassenger falls down
• 22ndnd Event: Run Over Event: Run Over
– M2W rider, Pedestrian or M2W rider, Pedestrian or
Footboard Passenger subsequently Footboard Passenger subsequently
gets run over by tiresgets run over by tires
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Crash Interaction Types - Place of Crash Interaction Types - Place of DeathDeath
78% of Run Overs result in fatalities even before victim reaches the hospital
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
““Run Over” by Tire PositionRun Over” by Tire Position
• Rear tires involved in 82% of Rear tires involved in 82% of run oversrun overs
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
““Run Over” by Tire PositionRun Over” by Tire Position
• Run overs involving all footboard passengers
• 88% of M2W riders were due to rear tires
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Head injury involved - “Fall Down” Head injury involved - “Fall Down” onlyonly
• Helmet use for M2Ws can significantly reduce injury severity
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – M2W Crash ConfigurationsM2W Crash Configurations
Sideswipe most predominant crash configuration
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – M2W Crash ConfigurationM2W Crash Configuration
Sideswipe collisions resulted in 80% of M2W run overs
Crash configuration for 5% of fall downs could not be determined
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – PedestriansPedestrians
• 64% impacts involved pedestrian crossing the road
• 82% pedestrians hit by front of the bus
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Pre-Crash Conditions – Pre-Crash Conditions – Footboard PassengersFootboard Passengers
• 59% - Passenger Boarding/alighting a bus 59% - Passenger Boarding/alighting a bus
• 31% - Foot board travellers in a moving bus31% - Foot board travellers in a moving bus
• 94% - Run over of foot board passengers from front door94% - Run over of foot board passengers from front door
• Importance of doors?Importance of doors?– Buses with doors show very low occurrence of foot board passenger Buses with doors show very low occurrence of foot board passenger
crashescrashes
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
Infrastructure ProblemsInfrastructure Problems
• Crashes on divided roadsCrashes on divided roads– 63% of M2W sideswipe crashes63% of M2W sideswipe crashes
– 67% of crossing pedestrian impacts67% of crossing pedestrian impacts
• 30% of pedestrian crashes 30% of pedestrian crashes occurred at or near a bus stopoccurred at or near a bus stop
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
ConclusionsConclusions
• Data does exist but needs to be scientifically analyzedData does exist but needs to be scientifically analyzed
• On-scene crash investigations and in-depth data collection can On-scene crash investigations and in-depth data collection can act as a good feedback loopact as a good feedback loop
JP Research India Pvt Ltd
New buses in 2010New buses in 2010
• Sideswipe with M2W• Run over prevented due to low ground
clearance of bus
THANK YOU [email protected]