Pedestrian safety on the road to net zero: cross-sectional study of collisions with electric and hybrid-electric cars in Great Britain.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Phil J Edwards, Siobhan Moore, Craig Higgins
{"title":"Pedestrian safety on the road to net zero: cross-sectional study of collisions with electric and hybrid-electric cars in Great Britain.","authors":"Phil J Edwards, Siobhan Moore, Craig Higgins","doi":"10.1136/jech-2024-221902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Plans to phase out fossil fuel-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and to replace these with electric and hybrid-electric (E-HE) vehicles represent a historic step to reduce air pollution and address the climate emergency. However, there are concerns that E-HE cars are more hazardous to pedestrians, due to being quieter. We investigated and compared injury risks to pedestrians from E-HE and ICE cars in urban and rural environments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study of pedestrians injured by cars or taxis in Great Britain. We estimated casualty rates per 100 million miles of travel by E-HE and ICE vehicles. Numerators (pedestrians) were extracted from STATS19 datasets. Denominators (car travel) were estimated by multiplying average annual mileage (using National Travel Survey datasets) by numbers of vehicles. We used Poisson regression to investigate modifying effects of environments where collisions occurred.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During 2013-2017, casualty rates per 100 million miles were 5.16 (95% CI 4.92 to 5.42) for E-HE vehicles and 2.40 (95%CI 2.38 to 2.41) for ICE vehicles, indicating that collisions were twice as likely (RR 2.15; 95% CI 2.05 to 2.26) with E-HE vehicles. Poisson regression found no evidence that E-HE vehicles were more dangerous in rural environments (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11); but strong evidence that E-HE vehicles were three times more dangerous than ICE vehicles in urban environments (RR 2.97; 95% CI 2.41 to 3.7). Sensitivity analyses of missing data support main findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>E-HE cars pose greater risk to pedestrians than ICE cars in urban environments. This risk must be mitigated as governments phase out petrol and diesel cars.</p>","PeriodicalId":54839,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health","volume":" ","pages":"487-492"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2024-221902","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Plans to phase out fossil fuel-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and to replace these with electric and hybrid-electric (E-HE) vehicles represent a historic step to reduce air pollution and address the climate emergency. However, there are concerns that E-HE cars are more hazardous to pedestrians, due to being quieter. We investigated and compared injury risks to pedestrians from E-HE and ICE cars in urban and rural environments.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of pedestrians injured by cars or taxis in Great Britain. We estimated casualty rates per 100 million miles of travel by E-HE and ICE vehicles. Numerators (pedestrians) were extracted from STATS19 datasets. Denominators (car travel) were estimated by multiplying average annual mileage (using National Travel Survey datasets) by numbers of vehicles. We used Poisson regression to investigate modifying effects of environments where collisions occurred.

Results: During 2013-2017, casualty rates per 100 million miles were 5.16 (95% CI 4.92 to 5.42) for E-HE vehicles and 2.40 (95%CI 2.38 to 2.41) for ICE vehicles, indicating that collisions were twice as likely (RR 2.15; 95% CI 2.05 to 2.26) with E-HE vehicles. Poisson regression found no evidence that E-HE vehicles were more dangerous in rural environments (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11); but strong evidence that E-HE vehicles were three times more dangerous than ICE vehicles in urban environments (RR 2.97; 95% CI 2.41 to 3.7). Sensitivity analyses of missing data support main findings.

Conclusion: E-HE cars pose greater risk to pedestrians than ICE cars in urban environments. This risk must be mitigated as governments phase out petrol and diesel cars.

通往零排放道路上的行人安全:英国电动汽车和混合电动汽车碰撞的横断面研究。
背景:逐步淘汰以化石燃料为动力的内燃机(ICE)汽车,代之以电动和混合动力(E-HE)汽车的计划是减少空气污染和应对气候紧急情况的历史性一步。然而,有人担心电动和混合动力汽车由于噪音更低,对行人的危害更大。我们调查并比较了在城市和农村环境中,电动和混合动力汽车与内燃机汽车对行人造成伤害的风险:我们对英国被汽车或出租车撞伤的行人进行了横断面研究。我们估算了电动紧急制动汽车和内燃机汽车每行驶 1 亿英里的伤亡率。分母(行人)来自 STATS19 数据集。分母(汽车出行)通过年平均里程数(使用全国出行调查数据集)乘以车辆数估算得出。我们使用泊松回归法调查碰撞发生环境的修正效应:2013-2017年期间,每1亿英里的伤亡率分别为:E-HE车辆5.16(95% CI 4.92至5.42),ICE车辆2.40(95%CI 2.38至2.41),这表明E-HE车辆发生碰撞的可能性是ICE车辆的两倍(RR 2.15;95% CI 2.05至2.26)。泊松回归结果显示,没有证据表明在农村环境中电动-高能车辆的危险性更高(RR 0.91;95% CI 0.74 至 1.11);但有强有力的证据表明,在城市环境中电动-高能车辆的危险性是内燃机车的三倍(RR 2.97;95% CI 2.41 至 3.7)。对缺失数据的敏感性分析支持主要结论:结论:在城市环境中,电动和混合动力汽车比内燃机汽车对行人造成的风险更大。随着政府逐步淘汰汽油车和柴油车,这种风险必须得到缓解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health is a leading international journal devoted to publication of original research and reviews covering applied, methodological and theoretical issues with emphasis on studies using multidisciplinary or integrative approaches. The journal aims to improve epidemiological knowledge and ultimately health worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信