Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia

Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 231-244, September 2018

e-ISSN 2550-2239 & ISSN 2600-8092

Motorcycle Accident Scenarios and Post-Crash

Kinematics of Motorcyclists in Thailand
J. Carmai*1, S. Koetniyom1, W. Sungduang1, K. A. Abu Kassim2 and Y. Ahmad2
1
Automotive Safety and Assessment Engineering Research Centre, The Sirindhorn International
Thai-German Graduate School of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology
North Bangkok, Thailand
2
Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research, Lot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang
Sentral, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access

Article History: Abstract – This paper unveils a classification of motorcycle accident data
in Thailand to identify common accident scenarios and impact parameters
Received for multibody dynamics simulation of motorcycle crashes. The simulation
15 May 2018 results were analysed in terms of kinematics of riders and passengers as
well as head impact locations. Motorcycle accident data revealed that
Received in rolling over without any contact with other vehicles was the most common
revised form
scenario, while the side swipe was the most common type of crash involving
31 Jul 2018
other vehicles. The majority of accidents involved passenger cars with
Accepted riders’ age ranging between 10-29 years. Serious and severe injuries
10 Aug 2018 accounted for 20% of the total number of casualties whereas minor
abrasions and bruise accounted for 41%. Four common accident scenarios
Available online were identified together with a range of impact speeds, impact angles and
1 Sep 2018 impact points to generate impact conditions for multibody simulations. The
simulation results revealed two patterns of global kinematics including (i)
the rider together with the child pillion passenger were laterally projected
towards the other vehicle as the other vehicle hit the lateral side of the
motorcycle; and (ii) the rider together with the child pillion were launched
forward in the direction of impact when the front wheel of the motorcycle
hit the other vehicle. The vehicle hood was found to be the most frequently
impacted area by the rider’s and child passenger’s head. The car
windshield was the second most frequently impacted location for the
rider’s head. For pick-up truck, the passenger window was the second most
frequent area of impact. There was a moderate number of A-pillar contact
on the car but such a situation was rare for the pick-up truck.

Keywords: Motorcycle accidents, accident scenario, post-crash kinematics, head

impact location

Copyright © 2018 Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia - All rights reserved.

Journal homepage: www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

231
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Road traffic fatalities among vulnerable road users are intolerably high especially in the
Southeast Asia (SEA) region. World Health Organisation (WHO) reports that accidents
involving powered two wheelers (PTW) in SEA accounts for 34% of overall road fatalities.
This figure was as high as car occupant fatalities as shown in Figure 1 (WHO, 2015).

Figure 1: Southeast Asia traffic deaths by road user category (WHO, 2015)

It is without doubt that the motorcycle is the most popular mode of transportation in
Thailand. As of 30 January 2017, there were 55% of motorcycles registered for both public
transport and personal use (Department of Land and Transport, 2017). Road fatalities involving
PTW make up the highest proportion in Thailand. In total, it constituted 73% of traffic deaths
in the country (WHO, 2015). There have been concerns about PTWs raised by road safety
organizations around the world as evidenced in various international forums and conferences,
leading to a prioritization of PTW safety (Rohit, 2016; WHO, 2017).

Current motorcycle accident data analysis is limited in Thailand. A detail analysis of

motorcycle accidents was, nevertheless, published in 2001 (Kasantikul, 2001). The latest
accident information on the number of motorcycle accidents and fatalities dates back to 2012
(Kantipong, 2015). It is vital to analyse the current available motorcycle accident data. An
updated typical motorcycle accident scenario should be identified. However, macro accident
data have been inadequate to produce effective vehicle-related safety solutions or
countermeasures. Typical post-crash kinematics and injuries sustained by motorcyclists and
pillion passengers during crash are also important in order to support improvements of
countermeasures and vehicle design.

Some researchers have used multibody dynamics simulation to virtually generate

pedestrian and cyclist accidents which subsequently provided understanding of kinematics and
injury mechanisms of the pedestrian/cyclist (Otto, 1989, 2004; Fiest et al., 2009; Untaroiu et
al., 2009, 2010; Watson et al., 2009; Magriet et al., 2012). Otto et al. (1989, 2004) used
simulations to reconstruct real world accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists. They posited
the use of throwing distance as a reconstruction method. On the other hand, Utaroiu et al. (2009,
2010) developed an advanced methodology that combined multibody simulations and an
optimisation technique for identifying the adult and child pedestrians’ pre-impact postures and
vehicle speeds. Fiest et al. (2009) also used combined approaches of multibody simulation and
finite element simulation to investigate the relevance of rotation-induced head injuries to
pedestrians hit by a large flat-front vehicle. In addition, Watson et al. (2009) and Magriet et

232
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

al. (2012) also employed multibody dynamics model as a tool to study cyclist’s kinematics
during crash. They found that the head impact of cyclist was further rearward than the
pedestrian. The head impact angles were also different although the head impact velocity was
similar.

Due to limited in-depth motorcycle accident analyses available in Thailand, multibody

dynamics simulations have been employed to generate various accident cases based on accident
scenarios and parameters identified through real world accidents. Results of these simulations
have enabled analysis of kinematics and head impact location of both rider and child pillion
passenger. The goal of the current study is to classify available motorcycle accident data in
Thailand and identify common motorcycle accident scenarios and parameters for multibody
dynamics simulations. In addition, the kinematics of riders including head impact locations
during a crash have been analysed using results of multibody dynamics simulations.

2.0 CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT

SCENARIO

2.1 Classification Approach

Motorcycle accident data were obtained from the Road Accident Victims Protection Co. Ltd.
(RVP). RVP is an insurance company that insures almost 80% of motorcycles in Thailand. In
addition, RVP employs online accident report. Each claim is recorded online in RVP’s database
including the date and time of accidents, types of accident, details of accident occurrence, age
and type of casualties, details of injury and types of vehicle involved. The detailed description
of accidents depends largely on the insurance claim surveyors. The total number of motorcycle
accidents were 293,544 in 2014 and 321,998 in 2015. All data were coded by the research team
and were classified according to types of motorcycle crash, types of other vehicles involved in
the accidents, number and age range of riders and passengers involved in the accidents and
levels of injury severity. Accident scenarios were identified from only the cases that involved
other vehicles. Accident parameters were also specified for further analysis.

2.2 Results of Motorcycle Accident Classification

Based on the accident information recorded by RVP, eight types of crash were specified
including Loss-of-control/Roll over, Rear-end Collision, Head-on collision, Sideswipe
collision, Fixed object collision, Pedestrian and animal collision, collision at Intersection right
angle and collision of more than two vehicles. Figure 2 shows the distribution of motorcycle
accidents for each type of crash. Motorcycle loss-of-control or roll over with no collision with
other vehicles had the highest proportion of 59% in both years. Sideswipe was the second
highest, accounting for 32.5% in 2014 and 28.6% in 2015. On the other hand, pedestrian/animal
collision accounted for 4.7% and 5.9% in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

Figure 3 shows the proportion of other vehicles (OV) involved in an accident with
motorcycles (MC) (excluding pedestrian/animal collision). It was found that passenger cars
constituted the highest proportion of OVs which were 42% and 40% in 2014 and 2015
respectively. Motorcycle/bicycle was the second highest with 37% and 40% in 2014 and 2015
respectively. Pick-up truck accounted for 15% in both years.

The majority of casualties were to the riders, accounting for 80% while passengers
accounted for 20%. The portion was the same for both years. Figure 4 shows the proportion of

233
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

riders and passengers for each age range in 2014 and 2015. It is obvious that the age ranges of
10-19 and 20-29 years old accounted for similar percentage around 21% in 2014 and 22% in
2015. The 10-29 age range accounted for almost 44% of rider population. Involvement of
passengers aged between 10-19 years old in motorcycle accidents was higher than the other
age groups. It accounted for 29% and 31.5% of the total number of motorcycle passengers in
2014 and 2015 respectively. It is important to note that the age range of 0-6 years old accounted
for 10% of the total number of pillion passengers involved in motorcycle accidents. This clearly
indicates that there was a significant number of child pillion passengers in such accidents.

Figure 2: Comparison of motorcycle accidents classified by type of crash for 2014 and 2015

Figure 3: Other vehicles involved in accidents with motorcycle in (a) 2014 (b) 2015

The levels of injury were categorised into five levels including fatal/death, severe,
serious, moderate and minor. This was interpreted based on the injury details recorded by RVP
claim surveyors. The criteria used to interpret levels of severity are presented in Table 1. The
criteria were also specified in relation to AIS scale (AAAM, 2008). Figure 5 shows the
proportion of levels of injury sustained by the victims. It should be noted that the number of
deaths indicated in these records involved only those who died at the scene. Serious and severe
levels of injury (equivalent to AIS3-AIS5) constituted 20% of the total number of casualties.
Minor injuries accounted for 34% and 41% in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

234
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

Figure 4: Proportion of (a) rider (b) passenger population for each age range in 2014 and 2015

Table 1: Criteria for interpretation of levels of injury in relation to AIS scales

Level of AIS Scale

Example of Injuries
Injury Equivalent
Fatal/Death Death 6
Severe Open fracture or extensive fracture, unconscious more than 6 4-5
hours, multiple rib fractures, aortic injury, liver rupture, lung
rupture
Serious Broken femur, broken rib, invert fracture, unconscious for 1- 6 3
hours. Spleen or kidney rupture
Moderate Skin laceration with 10 or more stiches or broken bone 2
(tibia/arm), small crack on head, no need for hospital
admittance
Minor Minor skin laceration without stitching or skin contusion 1

Figure 5: Percentage of each level of injury in (a) 2014 and (b) 2015

Although the majority of motorcycle accidents revolved around the rider losing control
or rolling over, this type of accidents did not involve other vehicles. Since this study aims to
understand involvement of other vehicles in order to effectively develop vehicle related safety
solutions, this type of crash (loss of control, roll over) was not considered for subsequent
analysis. The second highest type of crash was sideswipe which accounted around 30-33%.
Accidents of the sideswipe type were considered for identification of accident scenario and
further studies.

235
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

2.3 Identification of Accident Scenarios and Parameters

From the accident records, the sideswipe type of crash usually occurred when the motorcycle
or vehicle was changing lane, overtaking, turning to the other road at the T-Junction or from
small alley or taking a U-turn. They were summarised into four accident scenarios as illustrated
in Table 2.

Table 2: Common accident scenarios

Accident Scenario Diagram

1. Other vehicle (OV) was changing lane, overtaking a motorcycle

(MC) or turning left across the path of MC. For this scenario, MC
was moving towards the lateral side of OV.

2. MC was changing lane, overtaking an OV or MC was moving

across the path of OV. For this scenario, OV was moving towards the
lateral side of MC.

3. A vehicle was taking U-turn or turning right at a junction. For this

scenario, the vehicle travelling crashed straight into the lateral of
vehicle that was taking U-turn.

4. MC was turning left from an alley or at a T-junction across the

path of OV. For this scenario, OV was moving towards the lateral
side of MC.

From a total of four accident scenarios, two impact configurations emerged which were:
(a) MC impacting the lateral side of OV; and (b) OV impacting the lateral side of MC. In order
to generate possible accident cases using multibody simulations to cover all identified accident
scenarios, three scenario parameters were specified. They included Impact Point, Impact Angle
and Impact Speed. A sedan passenger car and a pick-up truck were selected as OVs for
subsequent studies using the multibody simulations. In addition, the motorcycle type
considered in this study was the step-through type with engine capacity below 125cc and a
maximum speed of 90 km/h.

2.3.1 Impact Configuration A: MC Impacting Lateral Side of OV

This impact configuration represented Scenario 1 and 3.1. MC was travelling on straight road
and the OV moved across the path of MC. The speed of the MC was usually greater than the
OV. From the accident reconstruction data and the data studied by Kasantikul (2002) and
Karnjanapollert et al. (2018), the range of motorcycle impact speed suggested for this study
was 20 to 60 km/h. As in the reconstruction and data analyses in Kasantikul (2002) and
Karnjanapollert et al. (2018.), the OV impact speed range was 20 to 30 km/h while taking a U-
turn or turning right at a junction. However, if the OV was changing lane, the speed of OV was
higher and about the same as the MC. Four impact points were selected as shown in Figure 6
for both car and pick-up truck. The Scenario Parameters are summarised in Table 3. For impact

236
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

points 1 and 2, the impact angles selected were 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 150. Only 120
and 150 were selected for impact points 3 and 4 since an impact angle greater than 180 did
not represent the scenario of interest. The angle was measured counter-clockwise from the
reference line (axial axis of the OV) to the centre line of the MC. The MC speeds were 40, 50
and 60 km/h and OV speeds were 20, and 30 km/h. Additional lane changing scenarios are
illustrated in column A3 of Table 3. Altogether, there were 208 impact conditions.

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Impact points on the OV (a) a passenger car (b) a pick-up truck

Table 3: Scenario parameters for impact configuration A

A3 (Addition For
Scenario Parameters A1 A2
Lane Changing)
Type of OV Sedan & Pick-up Sedan & Pick-up Sedan & Pick-up
truck Truck Truck
Impact points Lateral 1 & 2 Front 3 & 4 Lateral 1 & 2
OV impact speeds 20, 30 km/h 20, 30 km/h 40, 50 km/h
MC impact speeds 40, 50, 60 km/h 40, 50, 60 km/h 50 km/h
Angle () 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 150 30, 60
120, 150
Number of cases 144 48 16
Total number of cases 208

2.3.2 Impact Configuration B: OV Impacting Lateral Side of MC

This impact configuration represents Scenarios 2, 3.2 and 4 of which the OV was travelling on
straight road and the MC moved across OV. The scenario parameters are summarised in Table
4. Three impact points on MC were specified at the rear wheel (R), mid of wheelbase length
(M) and front wheel (F) as shown in Figure 7. Impact angles of 30, 45, 60 and 90 were
selected. Three OV speeds of 40, 50, 60 km/h, and three MC speeds of 20, 30, 40 km/h were
selected. The total number of impact conditions were 216.

237
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

Table 4: Scenario parameters for impact configuration B

Scenario Parameters B
Type of OV Sedan & Pick-up truck
Impact points Front (F), Mid(M), Rear (R)
OV speeds 40, 50, 60 km/h
MC speeds 20, 30, 40 km/h
Angle () 30, 45, 60, 90
Number of cases 216

Figure 7: Three impact points on MC including rear wheel (R), mid of wheelbase length (M) and
front wheel (F)

3.0 KINEMATICS OF THE RIDER AND THE PILLION PASSENGER

PC-Crash software was employed to perform multibody simulations for each impact condition
defined in Tables 3 and 4. A total of 424 simulation cases were conducted. Since the number
of child pillion passengers in Thailand was as high as 1.3 million (Save the Children Thailand,
2014), the child pillion passenger was also considered in this study. Kinematics of the rider and
the child passenger as well as their head impact locations were investigated as follows.

3.1 Overall Kinematics

All simulations generated for impact configuration A (MC impacting OV) showed similar
overall kinematics as exemplified in Figure 8. When the front wheel of the motorcycle hit the
OV, both rider and child passenger were flung towards the impact point until the rider’s body
hit the MC cover and handlebar. The upper body still moved forward but the movement of the
lower body was blocked by the MC handlebar. The rider’s head was then hurled forward and
impacted the vehicle structure. When the MC impacted at point 2 at a small angle, the rider and
passenger did not impact the OV as shown in Figure 8. The child hit the rider’s back and both
were thrown together. The child’s head mostly did not impact the OV. However, secondary
impact to ground was possible for the child.

238
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

Figure 8: Typical kinematics obtained from simulations with MC impacting OV

All simulations generated for impact configuration B (OV impacting MC) showed
similar overall kinematics as exemplified in Figure 9. When the OV impacted the MC, the rider
and child passenger were projected towards the OV front. If the impact point was at the front
wheel (F) of MC which was before the sitting position of the rider, the rider and child passenger
had no impact with the OV. They fell onto the ground. However, if the impact points were at
the mid of wheelbase length (M) or at the rear wheel (R), the head and upper body then
impacted the vehicle front areas such as the hood, the bumper and the windshield. The child’s
movement after impact was similar to the rider. The location of head impact depended on the
impact angle and speed.

Figure 9: Typical kinematics obtained from simulations with OV impacting MC

3.2 Head Impact Locations

Various head impact locations were recorded for all 424 multibody dynamics simulations for
both the passenger car and pick-up truck.

3.2.1 Motorcycle-Car Collision

The distribution of rider head impact locations on the car is shown in Figure 10. “No impact”
refers to cases where there was no head contact to the OV.

239
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

Figure 10: Percentage of head impact at various locations on a car (a) for the rider and (b) for the
child passenger

The simulation results showed that the hood registered the highest proportion with
28.77% of all rider’s head impacts. The windshield was the second at 16.51% and A-Pillar was
at 6.6%. Figure 11(a) shows the five most frequent locations of rider’s head impact and
contribution of the number of impacts for each impact pattern. Simulations of OV impacting
MC (impact configuration A) and MC impacting OV (impact configuration B) contributed the
same amount of rider’s head impact to the hood. As for the windshield location, simulations
with impact configuration B contributed almost 86%. However, for A-pillar and passenger
window, simulations with impact configuration A contributed more than 90%.

As regards child passenger’s head impact location in Figure 10(b), it was found that a
child pillion passenger mostly hit the rider’s back. There was also a high number of no head
impact cases. Apart from these two situations, the percentage of child’s head impacting the
hood was 20.28% and windshield was at 9.91%. These figures mainly involved impact
configuration B as shown in Figure 11(b).

Figure 11: Proportion of head impacts on a car contributed from each impact configuration (a) the
rider (b) the child

3.2.2 Motorcycle-Pickup Truck Collision

The distribution of rider’s head impact locations for the pick-up truck is shown in Figure 12.
Similar to MC-Car collision, the hood was the most frequently impacted by the rider’s head. It
accounted for 37.3%. Passenger window and fender accounted for 10.8% and 4.7%
respectively. A-pillar and B-Pillar registered the same percentage of 2.4%. It was noticed that
the rider’s head rarely impacted the windshield. Figure 13(a) shows the five most frequent

240
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

locations of rider’s head impact and the number of impacts in each impact configuration.
Simulations with impact configuration A contributed higher rider’s head impacts than
simulations with impact configuration B. The number of head impacts on passenger window,
A-pillar and B-pillar locations was derived from simulations with impact configuration A only.

Figure 12: Percentage of head impact at various locations on a pick-up truck (a) for the rider and (b)
for the child passenger

Most of the simulated cases recorded no impact of the child passenger’s head to the pick-
up truck. 32.5% of simulations resulted in the child’s head impacting the rider’s back. The
pick-up truck’s hood was the most frequent location for the child’s head impact. Simulations
with impact configuration B contributed 72% for the pick-up truck’s hood area.

Figure 13: Proportion of head impacts on the pick-up truck contributed from each impact
configuration for (a) the rider (b) the child passenger

Simulation results obtained from both MC-Car collision and MC-Pick-up truck collision
revealed moderate proportion of head impacts with A, B and C pillars which featured high
strength components. The head that impacts to these locations has high risk of severe injury.

3.3 Limitations

The PC-Crash software for multibody simulations employed in this study cannot provide
information on injury. In this study, only kinematics information was available. It would have
been more beneficial to combine the multibody simulation with finite element analysis to study
the detailed injury mechanism as suggested by Fiest et al. (2009). The other limitation was the

241
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

use of a single-sized young passenger. The distribution of head impact locations might change
if the rider is physically taller. Additional simulations with various sizes of riders and pillion
passengers will make the results more representable of real-world cases. They can then support
the revision of pedestrian safety assessment protocol to cover the evaluation for motorcyclist
safety.

4.0 CONCLUSION

In this study, classification of the motorcycle accident data was successfully performed. When
considering accidents involving other vehicles, the majority of cases were sideswipe. The
passenger car was the most frequent vehicle type involved in motorcycle accidents. The most
common age group of riders in motorcycle accidents ranged between 10 to 29 years. Serious
and severe injuries (equivalent to AIS3-AIS5) accounted for 20% of the total number of
casualties while minor abrasion and bruise accounted for 41%. This information was employed
for development of multibody dynamics models. A passenger car and a pick-up truck were
selected as Other Vehicles for crash simulations. The rider height was selected to represent a
young rider of the mentioned age group. Four accident scenarios were then identified. These
included the other vehicle changing lane or overtaking a motorcycle, motorcycle changing lane
or overtaking the other vehicle, either other vehicle or motorcycle taking U-Turn and
motorcycle turning left from alley while the other vehicle was travelling straight. Impact speed,
impact point and impact angle were employed to generate possible impact conditions to cover
all specified accident scenarios.

The simulations in the study revealed two patterns of global kinematics. When the other
vehicle impacted the motorcycle, the rider and child pillion passenger were laterally projected
towards the other vehicle. When the motorcycle impacted the other vehicle, the rider and the
child passenger were flung forward together. The rider impacted the vehicle structure while the
chance of child impact was low. The hood the highest proportion of head impacts for the rider
and child. The windshield had the second highest proportion of head impacts for the car. The
passenger window was another common location for head impacts for both the car and the
pick-up truck. Moderate proportion of A-pillar contact was recorded for motorcycle-car
collision. This can lead to high risk of severe injuries. Child’s head often hit the rider’s back
when the motorcycle impacting the other vehicle. The simulations should include different
sizes of riders to improve the results which can support the feasibility of revising vulnerable
road user safety assessment protocol of NCAPs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Road Accident Victims Protection Co Ltd (RVP) for allowing the
use of their motorcycle accident data and Proactive Co. Ltd. for providing the PC-Crash software.

242
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

REFERENCES

AAAM (2008). Abbreviated injury scale (AIS) 2005 – Update 2008. Barrington, IL: Association for
the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM).

Department of Land Transport Thailand (2017). Government open statistical data. Retrieved from
www.data.go.th

Fiest, F., Gugler, J., Arregui-Dalmases, C., del Pozo de Dios, E., López-Valdés, F., Deck, C., &
Willinger, R. (2009). Pedestrian collisions with flat-fronted vehicles: Injury patterns and
importance of rotational accelerations as a predictor for traumatic brain injury (TBI). Paper
presented at the 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
Conference (ESV), Stuttgart, Germany.

Kantipong, K. (2015). Thailand motorcycle accident situation. Paper presented at the 70th Session of
UNECE Road Safety Forum. Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/ fileadmin/DAM
/trans/doc/2015/wp1/ECE-TRANS-WP1-2015-Presentation-13.pdf

Karnjanapollert, P., Koetniyom, S., & Carmai, J. (2018). The use of multibody dynamics simulations to
investigate motorcyclist kinematics and injuries in accidents. Paper presented at the 14th
International Conference of Automotive Engineering, Muang Thong Thani, Pak Kret, Thailand.

Kasantikul, V. (2002). Motorcycle accident causation and identification of countermeasures in

Thailand: Volume I: Bangkok study. Retrieved from
http://www.mosac.eu/public/file/Kasantikul%20Motorcycle%20Accident%20Research%20in%
20Thailand%20-%20Bangkok%202002.pdf

Magriet, V.S., Stefanie, H., Radarius, C., & Fredriksson, R. (2012). Cyclist kinematics in car impacts
reconstructed in simulation and full scale testing with Polar dummy. Proceeding of
International Research Council on Biomechanics of injury (IRCOBI), 800-812. Retrieved from
http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc12/pdf_files/85.pdf

Otto, D. (1989). Injury mechanism and crash kinematics of cyclists in accidents-an analysis of real
accidents. Paper presented at the 33rd Stapp Car Crash Conference, Warrendale, PA, USA.

Otto, D. (2004). Use of thrown distances of pedestrians and bicyclists as part of a scientific accident
reconstruction method. Paper presented at SAE 2004 World Congress & Exhibition, Detroit,
Michigan. USA.

Rohit, B. (2016). Powered two wheelers safety in the South East Asian-region. Paper presented at
Europe-Asia Road Safety Forum 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2016/wp1/ECE-TRANS-WP1-73-
Presentation-7e.pdf

Save the Children Thailand (2014). The 7% Project, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.7-
percent.org/about/

Untaroiu, C., Meissner, M., Cradall, J.R., & Takahashi, Y. (2009). Crash reconstruction of pedestrian
accidents using optimization techniques. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36(2),
210-219.

243
© Journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers Malaysia
www.journal.saemalaysia.org.my

Untaroiu, C., Cradall, J.R., Takahashi, Y., Okamoto, M., Ito, O., & Fredriksson, R. (2010). Analysis of
running child pedestrians impacted by vehicle using rigid body models and optimization
techniques. Safety Science, 48(2), 259-267.

Watson, J., Hardy, R., & Kayvantash, K. (2009). Understanding the nature of cyclist’s head impacts.
Proceeding of International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI), 301-314.

WHO (2015). Global status report on road safety 2015 – Supporting a decade of action. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/ road_safety_status /2015/en/

WHO (2017). Powered two- and three- wheeler safety – a road safety manual for decision makers and
practitioner. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254759/1/9789241511926-eng.pdf

244