求篇造成交通事故原因的英文短文
发布网友
发布时间：2022-05-06 08:20
共1个回答
热心网友
时间：2022-06-29 02:48
1. 个别原因深入分析:
To develop an equation between discrete degree of speed and traffic accident on freeway in China and give reasonable suggestions of speed management, the relation model was established between speed standard deviation and accident rate per 100,000,000 vehicle kilometers by regression analysis. The model shows that the more discrete is the speed distribution, the higher is the accident rate, which provides theoretical gist for speed limit on freeway. It is suggested that speed limit should be set according to 85th percentile speed obtained by the relationship between 85th percentile speed and Rcc, (curvature change rate of single circular curve), anddifferent speed limits should be set for cars and trucks. Through analyzing spot speed data of eight freeways in China, regression models were established between 85th percentile speed and RCCs and 15th percentile speed and RCCs. Reasonable speed limit suggestion values are put forward through these models.
2.总体叙述:
A traffic collision (motor vehicle collision, motor vehicle accident, or car crash) is when a road vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or geographical or architectural obstacle. Traffic collisions can result in injury, property damage, and death.
A number of factors contribute to the risk of collision including; vehicle design, speed of operation, road design, and driver impairment. Worldwide motor vehicle collisions lead to significant death and disability as well as significant financial costs to both society and the indivial.
3.第二个回答中具体原因的分析:
Causes
A 1985 study by K. Rumar, using British and American crash reports as data, found that 57% of crashes were e solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors.[8]
[edit] Driver behaviour
A 1985 report based on British and American crash data found driver error, intoxication and other human factors contribute wholly or partly to about 93% of crashes.[8]
An RAC survey found most British drivers think they're better drivers than non-British drivers. Nearly all drivers who'd been in a crash did not believe themselves to be at fault.[9] One survey of drivers reported that they thought the key elements of good driving were:[10]
controlling a car including a good awareness of the car's size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behaviour of other drivers.
Although proficiency in these skills is taught and tested as part of the driving exam, a 'good' driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:
"the feeling of being confident in more and more challenging situations is experienced as evidence of driving ability, and that 'proven' ability reinforces the feelings of confidence. Confidence feeds itself and grows unchecked until something happens – a near-miss or an accident".[10]
An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland.[11]
Accompanying changes to road designs have been wide-scale adoptions of rules of the road alongside law enforcement policies that included drink-driving laws, setting of speed limits, and speed enforcement systems such as speed cameras. Some countries' driving tests have been expanded to test a new driver's behavior ring emergencies, and their hazard perception.
There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, although young people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more young male drivers feature in accidents,[12] with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users.[10] This gets reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, sex, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions would be expected to be involved in more accidents, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, apparently, more cautiously.[13] Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behaviour. In 1969 Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when "improving" the safety of a road:[14]
It can safely be said that many places which look dangerous do not have accidents, or very few. Conversely, a location that does not look dangerous may have a high crash frequency. The reason for this is simple. If drivers perceive a location as hazardous, they take more care and there are no accidents. Accidents happen when hazardous road or traffic conditions are not obvious at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to perceive and react in the time and distance available.
This phenomena has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted rections in accident rates have not occurred after legislative or technical changes. One study observed that the introction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving,[15] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly-attributed fall in overall fatalities.[16]
In the 1990s Hans Monderman's studies of driver behavior led him to the realization that signs and regulations had an adverse effect on a driver's ability to interact safely with other road users. Monderman developed shared space principles, rooted in the principles of the woonerven of the 1970s. He found that the removal of highway clutter, while allowing drivers and other road users to mingle with equal priority, could help drivers recognize environmental clues. They relied on their cognitive skills alone, recing traffic speeds radically and resulting in lower levels of road casualties and lower levels of congestion.[17]
[edit] Motor vehicle speed
Relative risk of speeding in an urban 60 km/hr zone.[18]The U.S. Department of transportation's Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998.[19] The summary states:
That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed.
That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.
That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis.
That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions.
That more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.
The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) asserts speeding (travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions or above the posted speed limit[20]) is a factor in about 40 percent of road deaths.[21] The RTA also say speeding increases the risk of a crash and its severity.[21] On another webpage, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific piece of research from 1997, and stating "research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with small increases above an appropriately set speed limit."[22]
Driving faster or slower than the flow of traffic — which may or may not accord with the posted speed limit — has robustly been demonstrated to increase the likelihood and severity of crashes, as shown by the Solomon Curve.[23]
The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics show for 2006, that "exceeding speed limit" was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and that "travelling too fast for conditions" was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes).[24]
[edit] Driver impairment
Alcohol
Relative risk of an accident based on blood alcohol levels.[18]In Canada 33.8% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with alcohol use.[25] See also: alcohol-related traffic crashes in the United States;
Physical impairment
Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting simple sight tests and/or requiring appropriate vehicle modifications before being allowed to drive;
Old age
Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age;
Sleep deprivation
Fatigue;
Drug use
Including some prescription drugs, over the counter drugs (notably antihistamines, opioids and muscarinic antagonists), and illegal drugs.
Several conditions can work together to create a much worse situation, for example:
Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving performance than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation,[26] or
Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which indivially will not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a younger person's.[27]
Thus there are situations when a person may be impaired, but still legally allowed to drive, and becomes a potential hazard to themselves and other road users. Pedestrians or cyclists are affected in the same way and can similarly jeopardize themselves or others when on the road.
Research suggests that the driver's attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Recent research concted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could relax the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other hand, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road.[28]
[edit] Road design
Main article: Road safety
A potential long fall stopped by an early guardrail, ca. 1920. Guardrails, median barriers, or other physical objects can help rece the consequences of an accident or minimize damage.A 1985 US study showed that about 34% of serious crashes had contributing factors related to the roadway or its environment. Most of these crashes also involved a human factor.[8] The road or environmental factor was either noted as making a significant contribution to the circumstances of the crash, or did not allow room to recover. In these circumstances it is frequently the driver who is blamed rather than the road; those reporting the accident have a tendency to overlook the human factors involved, such as the subtleties of design and maintenance that a driver could fail to observe or inadequately compensate for.[29]
Research has shown that careful design and maintenance, with well-designed intersections, road surfaces, visibility and traffic control devices, can result in significant improvements in accident rates. Indivial roads also have widely differing performance in the event of an impact. In Europe there are now EuroRAP tests that indicate how "self-explaining" and forgiving a particular road and its roadside would be in the event of a major incident.
In the UK, research has shown that investment in a safe road infrastructure programme could yield a ⅓ rection in road deaths saving as much as £6billion per year.[30] A consortium of 13 major road safety stakeholders have formed the Campaign for Safe Road Design which is calling on the UK Government to make safe road design a national transport priority.[31]
[edit] Vehicle design and maintenance
Main article: Automobile safety
A Chevrolet Malibu involved in a rollover crashSeatbelts
Research has shown that, across all collision types, it is less likely that seat belts were worn in collisions involving death or serious injury, rather than light injury; wearing a seat belt reces the risk of death by about two thirds.[32] Seat belt use is controversial, with notable critics such as Professor John Adams suggesting that their use may lead to a net increase in road casualties e to a phenomenon known as risk compensation.[33]
Maintenance
A well-designed and well-maintained vehicle, with good brakes, tires and well-adjusted suspension will be more controllable in an emergency and thus be better equipped to avoid collisions. Some mandatory vehicle inspection schemes include tests for some aspects of road worthiness, such as the UK's MOT test or German TÜV conformance inspection.
The design of vehicles has also evolved to improve protection after collision, both for vehicle occupants and for those outside of the vehicle. Much of this work was led by automotive instry competition and technological innovation, leading to measures such as Saab's safety cage and reinforced roof pillars of 1946, Ford´s 1956 Lifeguard safety package, and Saab and Volvo's introction of standard fit seatbelts in 1959. Other initiatives were accelerated as a reaction to consumer pressure, after publications such as Ralph Nader's 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed accused motor manufacturers of indifference towards safety.
In the early 1970s British Leyland started an intensive programme of vehicle safety research, procing a number of prototype experimental safety vehicles demonstrating various innovations for occupant and pedestrian protection such as: air bags, anti-lock brakes, impact-absorbing side-panels, front and rear head restraints, run-flat tyres, smooth and deformable front-ends, impact-absorbing bumpers, and retractable headlamps.[34] Design has also been influenced by government legislation, such as the Euro NCAP impact test.
Common features designed to improve safety include: thicker pillars, safety glass, interiors with no sharp edges, stronger bodies, other active or passive safety features, and smooth exteriors to rece the consequences of an impact with pedestrians.
The UK Department for Transport publish road casualty statistics for each type of collision and vehicle through its Road Casualties Great Britain report.[35] These statistics show a ten to one ratio of in-vehicle fatalities between types of car. In most cars, occupants have a 2–8% chance of death in a two-car collision.
Center of gravity
Some types of crash tend to have more serious consequences; rollovers have become more common in recent years, perhaps e to the increase in popularity of taller SUVs, people carriers and minivans which have more top weight than standard passenger cars. Rollovers can be fatal, especially if the occupants are ejected because they were not wearing seat belts (83% of ejections ring rollovers were fatal when the driver did not wear a seat belt, compared to 25% when they did).[32] After a new design of Mercedes Benz notoriously failed a 'moose test' (sudden swerving to avoid an obstacle), some manufacturers enhance suspension using stability control linked to an anti-lock braking system in order to rece the likelihood of rollover. After retrofitting these systems to its models in 1999–2000, Mercedes saw its models feature in fewer crashes[36]
Now about 40% of new US vehicles, mainly the SUVs, vans and pickup trucks that are more susceptible to rollover, are being proced with a lower center of gravity and enhanced suspension with stability control linked to its anti-lock braking system in order to rece the risk of rollover, and meet US federal requirements that will mandate anti-rollover technology by September 2011.[37]
Motorcycles
Motorcyclists have little protection other than their clothing; this difference is reflected in the casualty statistics, where they are more than twice as likely to suffer severely after a collision. In 2005 there were 198,735 road crashes with 271,017 reported casualties on roads in Great Britain. This included 3,201 deaths (1.1%) and 28,954 serious injuries (10.7%) overall. Of these casualties 178,302 (66%) were car users and 24,824 (9%) were motorcyclists, of whom 569 were killed (2.3%) and 5,939 seriously injured (24%).[38]
