Levels of data collection
Depth of detail
Base
Intermediate
Police Data
Traffic Data
Injury coding
In-depth multidisciplinary causativeCrash reconstruction
PRIMARY LEVEL DATA
The analyses of primary level data is expected to accomplish the
following important functions:
• 1. To give perspective view of the RTC situation in terms of
who is involved (the type of road user) where (Urban or rural
area, road layout), when (day or night) and under what
circumstances.
• 2. To enable trends to be examined, and provide a basis
for comparison against which road safety workers may match
their performance, either within or between state or national
administrations.
To provide a basis for establishing priorities for action.
For the primary level data to be meaningful other
important issues are:
1. How to improve the reliability and consistency of
reporting the data elements, and
2. Integrating it with reliable exposure data for
distance traveled in different modes of transport to
examine trends.
Establishment of a quality data base at the
primary level requires improving the quality of
police recording system.
It is a complex task because
(1) The data base maintained by the police -- the
primary level data -- is expected to accomplish multiple
objectives, ranging from providing epidemiological
information to documenting the baseline information upon
which the evaluation of countermeasures can be judged,
and
(2) in countries like India, the police or the traffic police, if
it exists as a separate entity, does not have the resources
or the level of training required to carry out a systematic
collection of data as it is done in many high income
countries.
Table: Minimum Common Variables in Data Recording System
S.No. VARIABLES NAME OF COUNTRIES
1
Name of
Town/Village/Road 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
2 Date Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3 Month Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
4 Time Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
5 Weekday Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
6 Light/Illumination Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
7 Weather Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NO Y Y
8
Type of control at
junction Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
9 Road Surface condition Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NO Y Y
10 Accident Severity Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
11 Victim Name add Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
12 Vehicle Type Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Note:
[1] Virginia/USA [2] Illinois/USA [3] Maryland/USA [4] Mass. /USA [5] Australia [6]FDR (Germany) [7] Switzerland
[8] Singapore[9] Barbados [10] Malaysia [11] Indonesia [12] Pakistan [13] Sri lanka [14] India*
[15]Mumbai/India* [16] Bangalore/India* [17] TRL, UK
* Forms similar to TRL form; Information from Police records is transcribed.
* * Police forms maintained in case file
Y: YES and N: NO
Traffic Police data comparison HIC vs LIC
Table: Detail Comparison of Data Collection System Forms
NAME OF COUNTRIES
S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 General Details
Identification (police station
code etc) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Date, Day, Time O O O O O O O O □ O O O O O O O O
Lighting O O O O □ O O □ O O O O O O O O O
Weather O O O O O • • • ◊ O O O O O □ ◊ O
Traffic Type O O O O O O O O ∆ O O O O O ∆ □ O
2 Locational Details
Site description O O O O O O O O O ◊ ◊ O □ ◊ ∆ ∆ ∆
Road Surface ◊ ◊ O O ◊ • • • ◊ O O O O O O O O
Character of Road O O O O O O O O ∆ O O O □ □ □ □ O
3 Vehicle Details
Vehicles type O O O O O O □ O ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ◊
Vehivles identification O O O O O O O O ◊ O O O O □ □ O O
Manoeuvre • O O O O • • ◊ ∆ ∆ ∆ ◊ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆
4 Driver Details O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
5 Victim Details
Name, Age, Address O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Position in vehicle/manoeuvre O O O O O O O O O □ ∆ O □ ◊ ◊ ◊ □
Injury O O O O O O O O O O O O O □ □ O •
Note:
[1] Virginia/USA [2] Illinois/USA [3] Maryland/USA [4] Mass. /USA [5] Australia [6]FDR (Germany) [7] Switzerland
[8] Singapore[9] Barbados [10] Malaysia [11] Indonesia [12] Pakistan [13] Srilanka [14] India*
[15]Mumbai/India* [16] Bangalore/India* [17] TRL, UK
O Minimum number of items present in majority of the form
□ Minimum number of items present in majority of the form + 1 additional item
◊ Minimum number of items present in majority of the form + 2 additional items
∆ Minimum number of items present in majority of the form + 3 or more additional items
• <Minimum number of items present in majority of the form
Form analysis in Indian
cities
Table : Results of the Field Test of the Preliminary form in Lucknow
VARIABLE REMARKS
General Information:
With the exception ,of "Holiday"
and "Hit and Run" all other
variables filled in all forms
In more than 50% of the forms ,these variables were not
understood
Description Difficulty in writing description in English
Sketch
Sketch was attempted in 60% of the forms ,however ,it
was generally unclear and the minimum required
information was also missing
Type of accident Properly marked in 95% of the forms
Accident spot Properly marked in 95% of the forms
Type of road
Properly marked in 75% of the forms .Term "with
median" and "without median" not well understood
Junction Control
Properly filled in 60% of the forms only. Sometimes
filled for straight roads also.
Type of Vehicle Properly filled in 95% of the forms
Vehicle Manoeuvre
Properly filled in 20% of the forms .
Difficulty in distinguishing and filling type and
manoeuvre of vehicle 1 and vehicle 2.
Name, address, sex, age of victims Properly filled in 95% of the forms
Severity of Injury Only 10% of the forms had indicated.
Position in vehicle Not understood at all.
Table : Error Analysis of Forms
About 1,200 forms maintained by the accident cell of Delhi Police were obtained for analysis of accidents
in Delhi. A random sample of these forms indicates that the following variables were not filled in more
than 50% of the cases:
General Data:
Vehicle damage, Type of road, Type of location, Traffic Management, Traffic volume, Light condition,
Road Condition
Victim Data:
Insurance, Accident caused by vehicle, Damage to vehicle, Driver's License No., License type, Driver's
education, Victim's responsibility, Victim's Injury.
An analysis of the forms show that those filling the forms have difficulty in filling the following variables:
S.No. Variable Difficulty
1 Location
what "near" means in descriptors like "near college"," near office
complex" etc.
2 Type of road what "bend", "narrow bridge"," gradient" mean
3 Traffic condition
"light controlled", "blinker", "police controlled", "traffic light not
operating". what to fill in when these exist but not operative.
4 Traffic volume
how to distinguish "heavy", "moderate", "light", etc what to include
,whether that stretch of road has heavy traffic during accident or at
most times.
5 Type of collision They cannot distinguish thing like" side swipe" and "sliding"
6 Light condition
Descriptors like "twilight"," dark with good street light" and "dark
with street light" not understood.
police personnel have difficulty in understanding the following terms( IIT
study -1991-94):
• a. Traffic and road geometry terminology with which they are not
familiar with, e.g. vertical and horizontal grade of the road, median,
etc.
• b. The complexities involved in the operation of the
heterogeneous traffic makes the interpretation of certain terms
definitions difficult e.g. merging and diverging are not easily
identifiable because of the nature of the traffic where lane driving is at
a limited scale only.
Bangalore example of MAAP
TRRL, 1993-94
Data from case files to coding sheets, not at the site
New coding sheets to save paper, not the original form
Data entered in the computer, variable definitions?
• 2. Instead of directly filling the recommended form at
the site of the crash, the preferred method was continue
the practice of maintaining a case file for each crash
which contains:
(a) Site plan drawn by the investigating officer,
(b) Mechanical inspection report of the vehicle,
(c) Autopsy report or injury report of the victim, and
(d) First Information reports.
• 3. Generally, a simplified version of the
recommended form is used to transfer information from
case file to the form.
The police departments main objective is to
assign blame or fault to a single "cause".
Definitions and terms are interpreted in that light.
For example, yellow marking on the road was
interpreted as median because crossing yellow
marking is illegal.
Vehicle 1 coded as the vehicle at fault or the
accused vehicle and vehicle 2 as the complainant
vehicle. Accordingly, the details of vehicle 1 and
vehicle 2 get biased when they get recorded on
the recommended forms.
MUTP Form(1997-98)
Road Accident Recording Form
Form No:
Filled by: Date filled:
Police report available: Yes/ No If yes, FIR No.
1. Time of accident: (24hr) 2. Date (DD) (MM) (YY)
3. Day: 4. Holiday: 5. Hit & Run: 6. Accident severity:
7. Number of fatalities: 8. No. injured: 9. Number vehicles:
10. Collision type: 11. Collision spot: 12. Type of road:
13. Divider:
14. Location:
15. City/Town/Village name:
16.RoadCategory 17. Distance
Km
m 18. From
Road 2
Road
1
Road
3
19. Name Road 1: 20. Name Road 2:
21. Name Road 3: 22. Landmark:
Brief description of accident:
Form No.
23. Type:
24. Manoeuvre:
25. Loading:
26.Disposition
27. Mechanical Failure
28. Impact- Vehicle/Object
Vehicle 1: 29. Make/Model
30. Type:
31. Manoeuvre:
32. Loading:
33.Disposition
34. Mechanical Failure
35. Impact- Vehicle/Object
Vehicle 2: 36. Make/Model
37. Type:
38. Manoeuvre:
39. Loading:
40.Disposition
41. Mechanical Failure
42. Impact- Vehicle/Object
Vehicle 3: 43. Make/Model:
Victim 1: 44. Type:
45. Occupant veh.
46.Road user:
47. Age:
48. Sex:
49. Injury:
50. Pedestrian/vehicle impact
Injury details 51. Mode of treatment 52. Days in Hospital
53. Injury 1 54. Injury 1 severity
55. Injury 2 56. Injury 2 severity
57. Injury 3 58. Injury 3 severity
59. Injury 4 60. Injury 4 severity
61. Injury 5 62. Injury 5 severity
63. Injury 6 64. Injury 6 severity
65. Most Severe Injury 66. ISS
CODING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ROAD ACCIDENT STUDY
Accident on a straight road Accident at a
crossing 1. Form No: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Case Number in serial order
City / Village/ Location No.
Thana No.
For Items 19-21 use codes
as above. Road 3 is not necessary for accidents at crossings
Police report available: 0=No, 1=Yes
3. Day: Monday =1, Tuesday=2, Wednesday=3, Thursday=4,Friday=5, Saturday=6, Sunday=7, Unknown=9.
4. Holiday:0 = No, 1 = Yes, 9=Unknown
5. Hit & Run: 1 = Yes; 0 = No, 9=Unknown
6. Accident severity: 1=Damage Only(DO), 2= Injury, 3=Fatal, 9= Unknown
10. CollisionType: *1 = Hit pedestrian 2 = Vehicles head on 3 = Vehicle hit from back 4 = Vehicle hit from side 5 = Overtun
6 = Vehicle hit fixed object 7 = Run off the road 8= Others 9 = Unknown
11. Collision spot: 1 = On straight road 2 = Road junction 3 = Other 9 = Unknown
12. Type of Road: Type of Surface. 0= Unmetalled 1=Metalled (Black topped/Concrete), 2=Others, 9=Unknown
*In case of more than one type reported in a series of events, the first collision/event will be considered.
13. Divider: Whether divider was present on the road? 0=No, 1=Yes, 9= Unknown
14. Location: 1=Urban, 2=Rural, 3=Semi-Urban, 4=Other, 9=Unknown
ROAD NO 2
ROAD NO 1
ROAD NO 1
ROAD NO 3
ROAD NO 2
16. Road Category: ty/Rural road, 2= State Highway, 3= National Highway, 4= Other, 9= Unknown ( no other road categories
except NH and SH are given as they 1=Ci are the only ones who are appropriately marked on the milepost. For other roads their categories
may not be obvious during data collection at the field.
17. Distance: Km post. In the absence of Km post - from the nearest urban centre.
VEHICLE
23. Road User Type: 1 = Multi-Axle Heavy Goods vehicle 2 = 2-Axle Heavy Goods vehicle 3=Light Goods Vehicle
(V1, V2 etc.) 4 =Bus 5 = Car/van/jeep/taxi 6 = Three wheeler scooter rickshaw 7 = Motorcycle/scooter/moped
8 = Tractor 9 = Cycle rickshaw 10 = Thela 11 = Animal drawn vehicle 12=Bicycle
13= Pedestrian 14 = Other 99 = Unknown
24. Manoeuver 1 = Proceeding straight 2 = Turning 3 = Reversing 4 = Overtaking 5=Parked/Stopped 6 = Other
of vehicle crash time: 9 = Unknown
25. Loading: 1=Normal; 2= Overloaded; 3= Others; 9= Unknown
26. Disposition of vehicle: 0=Not Roadworthy (needs to be towed away); 1= Roadworthy ( can drive away ), 9 = Unknown
27. Mechanical Failure: 1=Yes; 0=No; 9= Unknown
28. Impact-Vehicle/Object: Vehicle number ( If another vehicle impacted this vehicle, enter the appropriate number of that vehicle
from section 23) 11=Pedestrian 12=Tree, 13=Kerb/Median; 14= Pole; 15= Other; 99=Unknown
VICTIM 44. Type: 1= Passenger, 2= Driver, 3= Pedestrian, 9= Unknown
45. Occupant Vehicle: Which of the above vehicles (vehicle1/2/3 etc.)? OR Pedestrian =0
46. Road User: Occupant code of Vehicle type/Pedestrian from code 23.
48. Sex : 1 = Male 2 = Female
49. Injury : 0 = No injury 1= Injured 2 = Fatal 9 = Unknown
50. Pedestrian/Vehicle Impact: Enter Vehicle number OR 11= Flying Object, 12= Fall, 13=Others, 99= Unknown
INJURY
51. Mode of Treatment: None 0 First Aid only 1 Discharged after casualty ward treatment 2 Admitted to the hospital 3
Other 8 Unknown 9
52. Number of Days in Hospital: Days, Unknown- 999
53. Injury: From AIS code
54. Injury Severity: -do-
65. Most Severe Injury: -do-
66. ISS: -do-
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Truck Bus Car TSR MTW HAPV Bicycle Pedest
Mumbai Delhi Highways
Proportion of road users killed at
different locations in India, percent
IIT Delhi 2002
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percent
Truck Bus Car TSR MTW
Mumbai Delhi Highways
Proportions of vehicles involved in
fatal crashes
IIT Delhi 2002
Only those cases included where details were known
IIT Delhi December 16
IIT Delhi December 16
Most crashes away
from junctions
Pattern remains
unchanged after
10years!
Fatalities in Agra
Source : TRIPP, 2012
Highway passing through the city 5
0
Highway passing through the city 5
0
CONCLUSION:
Creation of a quality data base requires much more than
introducing a standardized format and a computer
package.
It needs the resolution of the conflicts between recording
of information, which is easily available, and that
information which would be useful for designing
preventive measures.
It is important and difficult at the same time to design a
form, which is clearly understood by those filling the
forms.
Terminology used must be understood by all individuals
and agencies involved.
Only those variables should be included which
suit local conditions. This can be accomplished
by modifying the standardized form to meet the
local needs:
training must be introduced at the training
schools: there must be greater interaction
between police officials and researchers and
policy makers who use and analyse the
recorded data.
Conclusion
perceptions about highway accidents formed by highway users may not reflect the reality about the problem. All of us see damaged vehicles stranded on the highways and are convinced that these kinds of accidents constitute the main problem.
However, findings suggest that though these accidents do cause large economic, time, and efficiency losses, they do not result in a majority of the deaths
Levels of data collection
Depth of detail
Base
Intermediate
Police Data,
Traffic police
Traffic Data
Injury coding, specialists
In-depth multidisciplinary causativeCrash reconstruction
specialists
Epidemiology of fatal crashes, fixing priorities
traffic management
strategies, road designs
Vehicle design,
standards, rd.furniture
design
Accuracy of Police data?
Fatalities ~ 5% under reported
compared to hospital data
Injury RTCs 15-20 times under
reported
Large variation between health
ministry death registrations and police
data
Shortcomings of police data
National level tables(NCRB) for victims
are based on “road user causing the
accident, therefore pedestrians and
bicyclists numbers are incorrect (lower
than actual numbers)
Location is available in the case file, not
marked on the map for analysis and
remedial measures
IIT Delhi December 16
Data ProblemDifference between Police FIR and NCRB table
GIS
What can be done using GIS Map the location
Map the quantities
Map the densities
How was the GIS used for the project Digital Road Map
Projected Co-ordinate System
Importing Excel sheet
SQL in the attribute table of four years accident points
12/16/2016Analysis of Pedestrian fatal accidents in four
years (2006-09) in Delhi using GIS35
Fatal Accidents in Delhi,
2006-09
12/16/2016Analysis of Pedestrian fatal accidents in four
years (2006-09) in Delhi using GIS36
ANALYSIS AND
OBSERVATIONS
12/16/2016Analysis of Pedestrian fatal accidents in four
years (2006-09) in Delhi using GIS37
S.
No. ROADNAME
PEDESTRIAN
FATAL ACCIDENTS
PEDESTRIAN
FATAL ACCIDENTS’
Rate per year
1 RING ROAD 363 2.22
2 MEHRAULI BADARPUR RD 89 1.58
3 GRANT TRUNK ROAD 141 1.50
4 SHIVAJI MARG (najafgarh road) 77 1.28
5 OUTER RING ROAD 193 1.03
6 NH-8 76 0.90
7 ROHTAK ROAD 76 0.83
8 AURBINDO MARG 22 0.65
• Analyzed Pedestrian Fatal Accidents, 2006-09
Top eight roads of Delhi in decreasing order of pedestrian fatal accidents, 2006
• Analyzed Rate of pedestrian fatal accidents per year over the
arterial roads
Contd.
Pedestrian fatalities by buses in four years = 353
Minor Roads = 35%
Arterial Roads = 22%
Sub-Arterial Roads = 15%
Collector Roads = 11%Rest 17% were not captured in 20m buffer on both sides of centerline of roads
Analysis of fatalities at arterial roads done by GIS shows that –
14% of Arterial roads’ accidents were at arterial to arterial road intersections
10% of Arterial roads’ accidents were at arterial to sub-arterial road intersections
Rest 76% at mid-blocks of arterial roadsBuffer radii chosen at arterial intersections was 150m and at arterial-sub arterial intersections was 15m
12/16/2016Analysis of Pedestrian fatal accidents in four
years (2006-09) in Delhi using GIS38
Contd.
12/16/2016Analysis of Pedestrian fatal accidents in four
years (2006-09) in Delhi using GIS39
Critical Road sections for pedestrian accidents over Ring Road,
Delhi,2006-09
LEGEND
Contd.
12/16/2016Analysis of Pedestrian fatal accidents in four
years (2006-09) in Delhi using GIS40
Density map for pedestrian accidents in Delhi,
2006-09
LOWHIGH
RADMS -Tamilnadu
16-Dec-16Tamil Nadu Government
ROAD ACCIDENT DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TN
Gov.)
Options available through
Tabs
HomeAccident Reporting
Accident Analysis
Query Builder
Reports Help
16-Dec-16Tamil Nadu Government
General Query Builder
Facilitates querying of
accidents based upon
accident parameters.
Easy formation of queries –
combining different
conditions.
Functionality to save
queries and run saved
queries.
ROAD ACCIDENT DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
16-Dec-16Tamil Nadu Government
ROAD ACCIDENT DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Grid Analysis
• Analysis carried out on a selected rectangular region
• Selected region divided into smaller grids of specified size
• Grid colour indicates the weightage of the grid according to the number of accidents of each severity
Future Directions
FIRs should be freely available (Haryana
and Punjab FIRs on web)
Specialist groups in research and
academic institutes for secondary level
analysis( evaluation of design standards,
construction guidelines,etc)
Specialists groups in Academic institutes
in collaboration with automotive industry
for vehicle standards
Data received at state level, cleaned by state
analysts
Possible data sources
Data Sources Possible biases
1 Police
FIR/casefiles
Injury crashes are under reported
2 Hospital data Crash details are not recorded, depends on
the specialty of the hospital
3 Special
Agencies(conc
essionaires)
BOT operators or toll operators maintain
record of crashes causing damage to the
road furniture along with other crashes
4 Insurance Depends on what injuries and damage to
the vehicles are compensated
5 Research teams Misses out fatal pedestrian and bicycle
crashes where victims are removed quickly
Table 5: Data sources and possible biases
Accident Recording Form, TRIPP, IITD
Road Accident Recording Form
Accident Information
Form No.
Filled By Date filled (dd/mm/yyyy) / /
Police Report Available 0=No 1=Yes If yes, FIR No.
City/Town/Village Name
Time of Accident
Date (DD) (MM) (YYYY)
Day 01=Monday 02=Tuesday 03=Wednesday 04=Thursday 05=Friday
06=Saturday 07=Sunday 08=Unknown
Holiday 0 = No 1 = Yes9=Unknown
Hit and Run 0 = No 1 = Yes9=Unknown
Accident Severity 1=Damage Only 2= Injury 3=Fatal9=
Unknown
No. of Fatalities
No. of Injured
No. of Vehicles Involved
Collision Type
01 = Hit pedestrian 02 = Vehicles head on 03 =
Vehicle hit from back
04 = Vehicle hit from side at right angle 05 = Sideswipe (same direction) 06=
Vehicle Sideswipe (opposite direction)
07 = Overturn 08 = Vehiclehit fixed object 09 =
Run off the road
10= Others 99 = Unknown
Collision Spot 01 = On straight road 02 = Road junction 03 = Other 09 =
Unknown
Type of Road 0= Un-metalled 01=Metalled (Black topped/Concrete) 02=Others
09=Unknown
Divider 1=Two-Way without median2= Two-way with median 3= One-way 9=
Unknown
Location 1=Urban 2=Rural 3=Semi-Urban 4=Other 9=Unknown
Light Condition 1=Day light 2=Dark 3= Dark but lighted 4= Dawn 5= Dusk 9=
Unknown
Road Category RURAL: 1= State Highway 2= National Highway 3= PMGSY
URBAN: 4=Arterial 5= Sub-Arterial 6= Local Street 7= Local 8= Other 9= Unknown
Distance Km post. In the absence of Km post - from the nearest urban
centre(km)(m)
From
Global Position (latitude) (longitude)
Road 1 Road 2
Road 3 Landmark
Brief Description of Accident
Form No. Vehicle No.
Type
01 = Multi-Axle Heavy Goods vehicle 02 = 2-Axle Heavy Goods vehicle 03=Light
Goods Vehicle04 =Mini Bus
05= Bus 06 = Car/van/jeep/taxi 07= Ambulance 08= Fire Fighting Vehicle
09= Three WheelerPassenger 10=Three Wheeler Goods11 =Thela12=Electric Cycle
13 = Tractor without Trailor14= Tractor with Trailor15 = Cycle Rickshaw 16 =
Motorcycle/Scooter/Moped 17 = Animal drawn vehicle
18=Bicycle 19=Pedestrian 20=Others
99=Unknown
Maneuver of Vehicle at Crash Time
01 = Proceeding straight 02 = Turning 03 = Reversing
04 = Overtaking 05=Parked/Stopped
06 = Other 07= Going wrong way 08= Making U turn 09
= Unknown
Loading 1=Normal 2= Overloaded 3= Others9= Unknown
Disposition 0=Not Roadworthy (needs to be towed away) 1= Roadworthy ( can
drive away ) 9 = Unknown
Mechanical Failure 0=No 1=Yes9=Unknown
Hazardous Cargo 0=No 1=Yes9=Unknown
Fire 0=No 1=Yes 9=Unknown
Impact-Vehicle/Object
Vehicle type (If another vehicle impacted this vehicle) 11=Pedestrian 12=Tree
13=Kerb/Median 14= Pole 15=
Other99=Unknown
Make-Model
Model-Year
Form No. Vehicle No
Type
01 = Multi-Axle Heavy Goods vehicle 02 = 2-Axle Heavy Goods vehicle 03=Light Goods
Vehicle04 =Mini Bus
05= Bus 06 = Car/van/jeep/taxi 07= Ambulance 08= Fire Fighting Vehicle
09= Three WheelerPassenger 10=Three Wheeler Goods11 =Thela12=Electric Cycle
13 = Tractor without Trailor14= Tractor with Trailor15 = Cycle Rickshaw 16 =
Motorcycle/Scooter/Moped 17 = Animal drawn vehicle
18=Bicycle 19=Pedestrian 20=Others
21=Unknown
Manoeuvre of Vehicle at Crash Time
01 = Proceeding straight 02 = Turning 03 = Reversing 04
= Overtaking 05=Parked/Stopped
06 = Other 07= Going wrong way 08= Making U turn 09 =
Unknown
Loading 1=Normal 2= Overloaded 3= Others9= Unknown
Disposition 0=Not Roadworthy (needs to be towed away) 1= Roadworthy ( can
drive away ) 9 = Unknown
Mechanical Failure 0=No 1=Yes9=Unknown
Hazardous Cargo 0=No 1=Yes9=Unknown
Hazardous Cargo 0=No 1=Yes9=Unknown
Fire 0=No 1=Yes 9=Unknown
Impact-Vehicle/Object
Vehicle type (If another vehicle impacted this vehicle) 11=Pedestrian
12=Tree
13=Kerb/Median 14= Pole
15= Other99=Unknown
Make-Model
Model-Year
Victim Information
Road User 1= Passenger, 2= Driver, 3= Pedestrian, 4=Cyclist, 9=
Unknown
Occupant Vehicle No
Seating Position 01= Front 02= Back 03= Other 09= Not Applicable for
Cyclist/Pedestrian
Location of Non-occupant
AgeIn years, 99 if unknown
Sex 1 = Male 2= Female
Injury 0 = No injury 1= Injured 2 = Fatal 9 = Unknown
Pedestrian/Vehicle Impact by Vehcile No
Mode of Treatment
0=None 01=First aid only 02=Discharge after casualty ward treatment
03=Admitted to hospital 08=Others 09=Unknown
No. of Days in Hospital Days, Unknown- 999
Injury 1 Injury Severity 1
Injury 2 Injury Severity 2
Injury 3 Injury Severity 3
Injury 4 Injury Severity 4
Injury 5 Injury Severity 5
Injury 6 Injury Severity 6
Most Severe Injury ISS