A biomechanical study of intervertebral foraminal narrowing during simulated automotive head-forward and head-turned rear impacts. The objective of this study was to quantify foraminal width, height and area narrowing during head-forward and head-turned rear impacts, and evaluate the potential for nerve root and ganglion impingement. Muscle weakness and paresthesias, documented in whiplash patients, have been associated with neural compression within the cervical intervertebral foramen. Rotated head posture at the time of rear impact has been correlated with increased frequency and severity of chronic radicular symptoms, as compared to facing forward. No studies have quantified dynamic changes in foramen dimensions during head-forward or head-turned rear impacts. Six whole cervical spine specimens with muscle force replication and surrogate head underwent simulated whiplash at 3.5, 5, 6.5 and 8 g, following non-injurious baseline 2 g acceleration. Continuous dynamic foraminal width, height and area narrowing were recorded, and the peaks were determined during each impact and statistically compared to baseline narrowing. During head-forward rear impacts, significant increases (P<0.05) in average peak foraminal width narrowing above baseline were observed at C5-C6 beginning with 3.5 g impact. No significant increases in average peak foraminal height narrowing were observed, while average peak foraminal areas were significantly narrower than baseline at C4-C5 at 3.5, 5 and 6.5 g. During head-turned rear impacts, significant increases (P<0.05) in average peak foraminal width narrowing above baseline of up to 1.8 mm in the left C5-C6 foramen at 8 g were observed. Average peak dynamic foraminal height was significantly narrower than baseline at right C2-C3 foramen at 5 g and 6.5 g, while no significant increases in foraminal area were observed. Extrapolation of the present head-forward rear impact results indicated that the greatest potential for ganglia compression injury was at the lower cervical spine, C5-C6 and C6-C7. The present head-turned rear impact results indicated that the greatest potential ganglia compression injury exists at C5-C6 and C6-C7. Greater potential for ganglia compression injury exists at C3-C4 and C4-C5 due to head-turned rear impact, as compared to head-forward rear impact. Acute ganglia compression may produce a sensitized neural response to repeat compression leading to chronic radiculopathy following head-forward and head-turned rear impacts. Dynamic ganglion or nerve root compression may also lead to chronic radiculopathy.

Tailgating (maintaining an inadequate headway) is a major road safety concern that emerges because drivers tend to misperceive their following distance. Drivers seldom receive enough feedback to correct this error, leaving them vulnerable to rear-end collisions. While there have been attempts to address this issue through vehicle automation and warning systems, these approaches have not been sensitive to the needs of young drivers. The present investigation sought to implement a headway evaluation system: an in-vehicle display designed to provide motorists with real-time as well as aggregate headway feedback. This system was designed to teach drivers to recognize safe headways and to motivate adherence. Compared to drivers selecting their own headway or those attempting to count a two second headway, drivers using the headway evaluation system maintained longer headways that would be conducive to collision avoidance. This system may be beneficial as a training device for new drivers. / AUTO21, the Ontario Innovation Trust, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

The experiments reported in this thesis investigate whether the current understanding of crossmodal spatial attention can be applied to rear space, and how sound parameters can modulate crossmodal spatial cuing effects. It is generally accepted that the presentation of a brief auditory cue can exogenously orient spatial attention to the cued region of space so that reaction times (RTs) to visual targets presented there are faster than those presented elsewhere. Unlike the conventional belief in such crossmodal spatial cuing effects, RTs to visual targets were equally facilitated from the presentation of an auditory cue in the front or in the rear, as long as the stimuli were presented ipsilaterally. Moreover, when an auditory cue and a visual target were presented from one of two lateral positions on each side in front, the spatial co-location of the two stimuli did not always lead to the fastest target RTs. Although contrasting with the traditional view on the importance of cue-target spatial co-location in exogenous crossmodal cuing effects, such findings are consistent with the evidence concerning multisensory integration in the superior colliculus (SC). Further investigation revealed that the presentation of an auditory cue with an exponential intensity change might be able to exogenously orient crossmodal spatial attention narrowly to the cued region of space. Taken together, the findings reported in this thesis suggest that not only the location but also sound parameters (e.g., intensity change) of auditory cues can modulate the crossmodal exogenous orienting of spatial attention.

The diploma thesis deals with the issue of control the situation behind the vehicle, in the theoretical part discusses the indirect view from the vehicle, reaction time and possibilities of its measurement and the possibilities of measuring eye movements using eye trackers, The second part of the thesis deals with the description of the measurement method used to obtain the needed data and the analysis of the situation behind the vehicle using rear view mirrors by analyzing the duration of the fixations in the rear view mirrors and the total duration of the view in the rear view mirrors.

No description available.

Historically, the rear seat has been considered safer compared to the front seat for all restrained occupants; however, studies have found that the front seat in newer vehicles might be safer for older adults than the rear seat. While adults make up only 19% of rear seat occupants in frontal crashes, they make up 48% of fatalities (Tatem and Gabler, 2019). The rate of rear-seat occupancy by adults is expected to increase due to the use of ride share services and the potential of autonomous vehicles. Minimal research has been done to assess rear-seat occupant protection for a mid-sized adult male. Submarining, in which the lap belt slips off of the pelvis and directly loads the abdomen, is of particular concern as a restraint-based injury mechanism of the abdomen. The objective of this study is to investigate submarining protection and abdominal injury risk for rear-seated mid-sized male occupants in frontal crashes and to assess the biofidelity of two anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) with respect to submarining response when compared to post-mortem human surrogates (PMHS). Twenty-four frontal crash sled tests were conducted with the THOR-50M and Hybrid III 50th-percentile male ATDs in three crash conditions and seven modern vehicles. The vehicles included a minivan, an SUV, 3 compact SUVs, and 2 sedans from the US vehicle fleet (model years 2017-2018). Four vehicles had conventional restraints (ie. 3-point belt with retractor at the shoulder) in the rear seat and three vehicles had advanced restraints (ie. 3-point belts with a pretensioner and load limiter at the retractor). Two of the crash conditions were vehicle-specific pulses: NCAP85 (ΔV = 56 kph) and Scaled (ΔV = 32 kph). The final pulse was a Generic (ΔV = 32 kph) pulse, created by averaging all seven Scaled pulses. Matched PMHS tests were conducted on four of the vehicles in the NCAP85 condition. Two tests were conducted for each vehicle with 8 PMHS for a total of 8 sled tests. The occurrence of submarining was identified and assessed for severity by: symmetry of lap belt slip, degree of abdominal loading, and forward excursion of the pelvis. Pelvis and lap-belt kinematics were assessed for the matched NCAP85 tests to identify trends with respect to submarining. Damage to the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine of the PMHS was identified during post-test autopsy. The Hybrid III did not submarine in any test, but the THOR submarined in 16/24 tests. Three PMHS underwent submarining in 2/4 vehicles, and the THOR submarined in 3/4 vehicles in the matched NCAP85 tests. Three PMHS did not undergo submarining but sustained pelvis fractures at lap belt loads of 7.4 kN and higher, and damage to the abdominal viscera occurred regardless of submarining occurrence. Pelvis and lap-belt kinematics revealed the complex nature of the interactions of the occupant and the restraints within each vehicle environment, but did not clearly differentiate between submarining and non-submarining tests. The Hybrid III was not able to predict submarining risk for the PMHS in the rear seat environment. While the THOR underwent submarining, it was not perfect in predicting submarining risk. Pelvis geometry, lap belt engagement, and other factors contributed to the differences in submarining between the two ATDs and the PMHS. Restraint type was not indicative of whether or not the THOR or PMHS would submarine. Many other factors in the rear seat environments of these vehicles likely contribute in combination to the effectiveness of submarining prevention and occupant protection in the rear seat. This study provides information regarding submarining and abdominal injury for three surrogate types, two crash severities, and seven modern, real-world vehicle environments. Ultimately, this study found substantive gaps in occupant protection in the rear seats of modern vehicles for mid-sized adult male occupants. Tatem, W. M., and Gabler, H. C. (2019). Differential fatality risk between rear and front seat passenger vehicle occupants in frontal crashes. In Proceedings of the 2019 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Injury (pp. 554–560). / Doctor of Philosophy / Historically, the rear seat has been considered safer than the front seat for restrained occupants in frontal crashes. However, with advances in safety systems for the front seat, studies have found that the front seat might be safer for older adult occupants. The objective of this study is to investigate submarining protection and abdominal injury risk for rear-seated mid-sized male occupants in frontal crashes. Submarining occurs when the lap belt slips off of the pelvis and directly loads the abdomen, potentially producing severe abdominal injuries. Twenty-four sled tests were conducted with the THOR-50M and Hybrid III 50th-percentile male anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) in three crash conditions and seven modern vehicles. The vehicles selected included a minivan, SUVs, compact SUVs, and sedans from the US vehicle fleet. Three of the vehicles had advanced restraints in the rear seat and four had conventional restraints. The three crash conditions were a generic low speed test and a low and high-speed vehicle-specific crash pulse. Eight tests were conducted with eight different post-mortem human surrogates on a subset of four vehicles (2 with advanced restraints, 2 with conventional restraints) using the high-speed crash condition. The Hybrid III never submarined, but the THOR submarined in 16 out of 24 tests (5 out of 7 vehicles). Three out of eight PMHS submarined, in two of the four vehicles. Three heavier PMHS sustained pelvis fractures, and all but one PMHS had sustained damage to the abdominal viscera. Restraint type was not an indicator of submarining risk in the rear seat, suggesting that other seat and vehicle design variables contribute to submarining risk. Comparison of the responses of the ATDs with the PMHS suggests that the THOR is a more reasonable surrogate than the Hybrid III for submarining assessment in the rear seat. Inclusion of data from other body regions is necessary to make a definitive determination of the appropriate ATD for the assessment of occupant protection for a mid-sized male in the rear seat during frontal crashes. Overall, this study suggests that protection against submarining and injury to the pelvis and abdomen for mid-sized male passengers in the rear seat of modern vehicles in the US fleet could be improved.

Frontal motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) account for the majority of injuries and fatalities in MVCs according to the Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems (FARS). One of the most commonly injured regions of the body during MVCs is the thorax. While there are fewer adult passengers riding in the rear seat compared to the front seat, the number of adults in the rear seat may increase dramatically in the near future with the rise of ridesharing services and highly automated vehicles (HAVs). With the increase in exposure for adults riding in the rear seat, the safety of these passengers needs to be evaluated. Previous research has shown that occupant protection in the rear seat is disproportionately lower than that of the front seat in modern vehicles due to the focus on front seat occupants in both regulatory and market-driven crash tests. This has resulted in many of the occupant safety systems, e.g., pretensioners (PT), load limiters (LL), and airbags, being widely available in the front seat, but sparsely available in the rear seat. Anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) have been developed to investigate occupant safety during frontal MVCs and can be utilized in the investigation of rear seat occupant injuries. However, the biofidelity and injury risk criteria used for these ATDs has only been validated when seated in the front seat. To validate the response and injury risk predictions of existing frontal ATDs in the rear seat it is necessary to generate new biomechanical data in the rear seat of modern vehicles. The purpose of this work is to quantify the biomechanical responses of two frontal ATDs, i.e., the Hybrid III and THOR-50M 50th percentile male ATDs, and 50th percentile male post mortem human surrogates (PMHS) seated in the rear seat of modern vehicles, which have various seat geometries and restraint types, during frontal MVCs. Emphasis is placed on comparisons between the thoracic responses of the three human surrogates e.g., thoracic deflection time histories, and thoracic injury risks, i.e., ATD injury risk prediction versus instances of PMHS injuries. A series of twenty-four frontal sled tests were first conducted with the HIII and THOR-50M ATDs seated in the rear seats of seven vehicle test bucks with varying seat geometries and two different restraint types. Three vehicles had advanced restraints while four had conventional restraints. Three different crash pulses were used derived from vehicle specific US New Car Assessment Program frontal crash data: Scaled (32kph), Generic (32kph), and NCAP85 (56kph). Thoracic injury metrics were not exceeded in the lower severity pulses for either ATD but were exceeded during some of the high severity tests. A matched comparison analysis between a front and rear seated Hybrid III 50th percentile male ATD is presented second that highlights the disparities between front and rear seat iii occupant safety of modern vehicles during frontal MVCs. The Hybrid III ATD data were used for this comparison. Thoracic injury risk was found to be higher for the rear seated HIII across all vehicles, while thoracic acceleration was lower in the rear than the front for some vehicles. PMHS thoracic responses and injury risk equations were then evaluated in four of the vehicles used for the ATD tests using the high severity sled pulse, i.e., NCAP85 (56kph). Thoracic acceleration and normalized deflection values were higher in vehicles with conventional restraints, and the location of maximum deflection was always inboard of the sternum. The resulting thoracic injuries ranged from AIS 3 to AIS 5. Additionally, there were a larger average number of rib fractures in vehicles with conventional restraints versus advanced restraints. A multi-point deflection injury risk equation predicted injury the best. However the less censored rib fracture data that were obtained suggest that all three of the injury equations evaluated could be improved. Lastly, the PMHS data were used to assess the similarities in thoracic response between the ATDs and PMHS. An objective rating metric was used for the response comparison. The HIII had a slightly better average score than the THOR-50M; however, the THOR-50M had a more biofidelic kinematic response during the tests. This analysis furthers the understanding of the effect of different occupant protection systems on thoracic injury risk in a rear seat environment and the biofidelity of frontal 50th percentile male ATDs in the rear seat. / Doctor of Philosophy / Frontal motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) account for the majority of injuries and fatalities in MVCs according to the Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems (FARS), a nationwide census of fatal injuries suffered during crashes. One of the most commonly injured regions of the body during MVCs is the thorax i.e. the chest. While there are fewer adult passengers riding in the rear seat compared to the front seat, the number of adults in the rear seat may increase dramatically in the near future with the rise of ridesharing services and in the future, the rise of highly automated vehicles (HAVs commonly called "driverless cars"). The safety of adult rear seat passengers needs to be evaluated due to the potential increase in occupancy rates. Previous research has shown that occupant protection in the rear seat is disproportionately lower than that of the front seat in modern vehicles. This is likely due to the focus on front seat occupants in both regulatory tests and market-driven crash tests such as the New Car Assessment Program and IIHS frontal overlap tests. This has resulted in many of the advanced occupant protection systems being widely available in the front seat, but sparsely available in the rear seat. Anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), i.e., crash test dummies, have been developed to investigate occupant safety during frontal MVCs and can be utilized in the investigation of rear seat occupant injuries. However, the biofidelity (similarity of ATD response to a human surrogate) and injury risk criteria used for these ATDs has only been validated when seated in the front seat. To validate the thoracic response and injury risk predictions of the existing frontal ATDs when seated in the rear seat it is necessary to generate new biomechanical data in the rear seat of modern vehicles. The purpose of this work is to quantify the thoracic response of two current 50th percentile male frontal impact ATDs, i.e., the Hybrid III and THOR-50M, and similarly sized male post mortem human surrogates (PMHS) seated in the rear seat during a frontal MVC. Several vehicles were used and chosen to represent various seat geometries and restraint types. There are two restraint types in the rear seat within this body of work, conventional and advanced. A conventional restraint consists of a three point seat belt, while an advanced restraint consists of a three point seat belt with additional safety features installed. Emphasis is placed on the injury risk prediction from the ATD versus actual instances of injuries from the PMHS. A series of frontal sled tests were first performed with the Hybrid III and THOR-50M ATDs. Three different crash pulses derived from vehicle specific US New Car Assessment Program frontal crash data were used: Scaled (32kph), Generic (32kph), and NCAP85 (56kph). v These tests showed that the established injury metrics for the two ATDs were exceeded in some of the high severity tests. A matched comparison analysis between a front and rear seated Hybrid III 50th percentile male ATD is presented and highlights the disparities between front and rear seat occupant safety of modern vehicles during frontal MVCs. The thoracic injury risk was found to be higher in the rear compared to the front for all vehicles. A series of frontal sled tests were then performed with the mid-sized male PMHS using the high severity sled pulse (NCAP85) and four of the vehicles from the ATD tests. The thoracic deflections for the PMHS were normalized by the surrogate chest depth in order to compare them between different sized surrogates, and were found to be higher in vehicles with conventional restraints. All PMHS had severity thoracic injuries. Additionally, there were a larger average number of rib fractures in vehicles with conventional restraints versus advanced restraints. Finally, the thoracic response of each ATD was compared to the PMHS to further the understanding of the effect of different occupant protection systems on thoracic injury risk in a rear seat environment and investigate rear seat biofidelity of each ATD. The THOR-50M had a more biofidelic kinematic response, while the Hybrid III matched the PMHS thoracic deflections and accelerations more accurately when compared with an objective rating metric. The comparison between surrogate responses furthers the understanding of 50th percentile male ATD biofidelity, the ATD injury risk prediction capabilities, and effects of different occupant protection systems on thoracic injuries in the rear seat.

The majority of car crash deaths occur in the front seats because the majority of occupants sit in the front seats. Traditionally, the rear seats were safer than the front seats because a front seated occupant would be closer to rigid structures such as the steering wheel, and they would be closer to the location of the impact. Therefore, government crash test regulations as well as academic and industry testing up to this point have principally focused on the front seats. Since the beginning of efforts to make cars safer, innovations were applied to the front seats first. Only some of these safety innovations have transitioned into the rear seats. Over the years, the front seats have gotten much safer due to advanced seatbelts with pretentioners and load limiters, airbags surrounding the driver, and structural changes to the vehicle frame to prevent intrusion into the occupant compartment. At the same time, occupant safety in the rear seats has also improved, however at only a fraction of the improvement of the front seats. With modern vehicles, the front seats have actually become safer than the rear seats for certain occupants and specific crash types (e.g., adult occupants in frontal crash). The lagging performance of the rear seats represents a problem because thousands of rear-seated occupants are injured or killed each year. With the rise in autonomous driving systems, the amount of occupants sitting in the rear seats, and therefore sustaining injury, could increase dramatically. In this dissertation, rear seats of a range of current vehicles were reconstructed to examine injury risk with the finite element models of two anthropomorphic test devices. These models showed a wide range of injury risks in the reconstructed seats. They were also able to show results similar to sled impact tests with the same vehicles. Knowledge gained from these reconstructions was then used to perform parametric studies on key variables that influence injury risk in the rear seats. From the parametric studies, it was found that the seat back angle, the width of the seatbelt anchors, and the presence of a seatbelt pretensioner had the largest influences on the injury risk. One of the injury mechanisms prevalent in the rear seats is submarining. Submarining likelihood and injury probability is difficult to predict with anthropomorphic test devices; however, human body models can help to improve injury prediction in these cases. To improve the injury prediction capability of human body models, several additions to the models are necessary. This dissertation outlines the investigation of spleen and kidney shapes through statistical shape analysis. This type of analysis allows more customizable human body models which could better capture the injury probability to these organs for a wider range of the population. Finally, subject-specific models of ribs were created to investigate factors affecting the predictive capability of finite element models. The findings and methodology from this body of work have the ability to add critical contributions to the understanding of injury risk and injury mechanisms in the rear seats. / Doctor of Philosophy / The majority of car crash deaths occur in the front seats because the majority of occupants sit in the front seats. Traditionally, the rear seats were safer than the front seats because a front seated occupant would be closer to hard objects such as the steering wheel, and they would be closer to the location of the impact. Therefore, government crash test regulations as well as academic and industry testing up to this point have principally focused on the front seats. Since the beginning of efforts to make cars safer, technology such as seatbelts and airbags were applied to the front seats first. Only some of this technology has been added into the rear seats. Over the years, the front seats have gotten much safer due to all the work focused on the front seats. At the same time, the rear seats have also improved, however at only a fraction of the improvement of the front seats. With modern vehicles, the front seats have actually become safer than the rear seats in some cases. The lagging performance of the rear seats represents a problem because thousands of rear-seated occupants are injured or killed each year. With the rise in self driving cars, the amount of occupants sitting in the rear seats, and therefore sustaining injury, could increase dramatically. In this dissertation, rear seats of a range of current vehicles were reconstructed to examine injury risk with the models of two crash test dummies. These models showed a wide range of injury risks in the reconstructed seats. They were also able to show results similar to physical tests with the same vehicles. Knowledge gained from this work was then used to help look at key variables that influence injury risk in the rear seats. It was found that the angle of the seat back, the width of the seatbelt anchors, and the presence of advanced seatbelts had the largest influences on the injury risk. One of the injury mechanisms prevalent in the rear seats is submarining, where the seatbelt slides up off the hips. Submarining likelihood and injury probability is difficult to predict with crash test dummies; however, human body models can help to improve injury prediction in these cases. To improve the injury prediction capability of human body models, several additions to the models are necessary. This dissertation outlines the investigation of spleen and kidney shapes to allow more customizable human body models which could better capture the injury probability to these organs for a wider range of the population. Finally, subject-specific models of ribs were created to investigate factors affecting the predictive capability of rib models. The findings and methodology from this body of work have the ability to add critical contributions to the understanding of injury risk and injury mechanisms in the rear seats.

Historically, rear seat occupants have been at a lower risk of serious injury and fatality in motor vehicle crashes than their front seat counterparts. However, many passive safety advancements that have occurred over the past few decades such as advanced airbag and seatbelt technology primarily benefit occupants of the front seat. Indeed, safety for front seat occupants has improved drastically in the 21st century, but has it improved so much that the front seat is now safer than the rear? Today, rear-seated occupants account for 10% of all passenger vehicle fatalities. In this era focused on achieving zero traffic deaths, the safety of rear-seated occupants must be further addressed. This dissertation analyzed U.S. national crash data to quantify the risk of injury and fatality to rear-seated passenger vehicle occupants while accounting for the influence of associated crash, vehicle, and occupant characteristics such as crash severity, vehicle model year, and occupant age/sex. In rear impacts, the risk of moderate-to-fatal injury was greater for rear-seated occupants than their front-seated counterparts. In high-severity rear impact crashes, catastrophic occupant compartment collapse can occur and carries with it a great fatality risk. In frontal impacts, there is evidence that the rear versus front seat relative risk of fatality has been increasing in vehicle model years 2007 and newer. Rear-seated occupants often sustained serious thoracic, abdomen, and/or head injuries that are generally related to seatbelt use. Seatbelt pretensioners and load limiters – commonplace technology in the front seating positions – aim to mitigate these types of injuries but are rarely provided as standard safety equipment in the rear seats of vehicles today. Finally, in side impacts, injury and fatality risks to rear- and front-seated occupants are more similar than in the other crash modes studied, though disparities in protection remain, especially in near-side vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. Finally, this work projects great injury reduction benefits if a rear seat belt reminder system were to be widely implemented in the U.S. vehicle fleet. This dissertation presents a comprehensive investigation of the factors that contribute to rear-seated occupant injury and/or fatality through retrospective studies on rear, front, and side impacts. The overall goal of this dissertation is to better quantify the current risk of injury to rear-seated occupants under a variety of crash conditions, compare this to the current risk to front-seated occupants, and, when possible, identify how exactly injuries are occurring and ways in which they may be prevented in the future. The findings can benefit automakers who seek to improve the effectiveness of rear seat safety systems as well as regulatory agencies seeking to improve was vehicle tests targeting rear seat passenger vehicle safety. / Doctor of Philosophy / Historically, if a passenger vehicle such as a sedan or SUV is in a crash, occupants who are rear-seated were less likely to be hurt than someone who was front-seated. In other words, rear-seated occupants have been at a lower risk of injury than front-seated occupants. Indeed, safety for front seat occupants has improved drastically in the 21st century due to advancements in airbag and seatbelt technologies, among others, but has it improved so much that the front seat is now safer than the rear? Today, of all vehicle occupants who are killed in crashes on U.S. roadways, 10% are rear-seated. During this time when conversations surrounding vehicle safety are focused on achieving zero traffic deaths, the safety of rear-seated occupants must be further studied. This dissertation looked at national databases of all police-reported crashes that occur each year in the United States. The risk of injury to rear-seated passenger vehicle occupants was quantified and compared to that of front-seated occupants. Factors that may increase or decrease this risk of injury and fatality such as crash type, vehicle type, and occupant demographics were further explored and reported. In vehicles that were rear-ended, the risk of injury was greater for rear-seated occupants than their front-seated counterparts. When a vehicle crashes into something front-first (the most common type of impact in a vehicle crash), evidence is presented that the risk of fatality is greater in the rear seats than the front seats in model year 2007 and newer vehicles which generally are equipped with the most recent airbag and seatbelt technology. When a vehicle is hit on either of its sides, the risk of injury is closer between rear- and front-seated occupants than it was in the rear-end or frontal crashes previously studied. That said, differences in occupant protection were still observed between the rear and front seats, especially when the occupants studied were seated on the closest side of impact, or the near-side, and the vehicle was struck by another vehicle rather than sliding into an object such as a pole. Finally, this work projects great injury reduction benefits if a rear seat belt reminder system were to be widely implemented in the U.S. vehicle fleet. This dissertation presents a comprehensive investigation of the factors that contribute to rear-seated occupant injury and/or fatality through retrospective studies on rear, front, and side impacts. The overall goal of this dissertation is to better quantify the current risk of injury to rear-seated occupants under a variety of crash conditions, compare this to the current risk to front-seated occupants, and, when possible, identify how exactly injuries are occurring and ways in which they may be prevented in the future. The findings can benefit automakers who seek to improve the effectiveness of rear seat safety systems as well as regulatory agencies seeking to improve was vehicle tests targeting rear seat passenger vehicle safety.

This diploma thesis deals with construction concept of rear upright for a car of the Formula Student category. Further it looks into the details of overall order of the entire rear-wheel carrier. The concept is designed in the CAD Pro-engineer system. The calculation model is created and the tension analysis is performed by MKP method in the Ansys Workbench system.