4.3 Article

Analysis of death and disability due to golf cart crashes in The Villages, Florida: 2011-2019

期刊

TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 437-441

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2020.1799995

关键词

Golf cart; 3-point occupant restraint; countermeasure; golf cart crash; injury prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective More than 18 000 Golf Cart (GC)-related injuries occur in the United States (US) annually. However, very few studies have analyzed the causes of such crashes. This study represents the largest single-center analysis of GC crashes performed within the largest GC community in the US, a community in which they are used extensively for local transportation. We examine the nature of these crashes and present potential preventative measures. Methods All GC crashes reported in The Villages, Florida, from July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2019 were analyzed in this study. Data were obtained from multiple sources to create a comprehensive collection of all recorded GC crashes in the area of study. Sources included The Villages Property Owners' Association (POA), The Villages Sun Daily Newspaper, The Villages Public Safety Department (VPSD), Police Dispatch records, and the Sumter County Police data base. Results and conclusions During the observation period, a total of 875 GC-related crashes occurred, representing an average of 136 crashes, 65 hospitalizations, and 9 dead or disabled annually. Of all crashes, 48% resulted in hospitalization, severe trauma, or death. Of these, ejection occurred in 27%, hospitalization in 55%, and death or disability in 15% of crashes. Virtually all death and disability occurred within the setting of GC used on streets or road pathways. Death and disability, particularly due to ejection during GC crashes, occur at an alarming rate when GCs are used for local transportation. We believe public awareness and the use of 3-point seatbelts in these vehicles would significantly reduce death and disability caused by these crashes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据