Rollover Accidents

Traffic crashes are a major cause of death in the United States, claiming over 41,000 lives each year. Rollover
accidents are a significant and growing contributor to this statistic. A rollover crash is a vehicular accident that is by
nature, very violent as this type of crash is far more likely to result in the loss of life. While rollovers occur only in
about three percent of all serious crashes, they account for about 30 percent of people killed while traveling in
passenger vehicles. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tells us that next to head-on collisions, vehicle
rollover accidents are the most deadly type of accidents that happen on US streets, roads and highways.
Causes of Rollover Accidents
Any type of vehicle can roll over when involved in some type of traffic accident. However, there are some vehicles
which are more prone to rolling over including SUVs, vans and pickups due to these vehicles being taller and having
a higher center of gravity than standard vehicles. Among the most common causes of rollover accidents include:

Drivers who over-correct their vehicles – When a driver finds him or herself veering off out of his/her lane, he or
she may jerk the wheel back in the other direction with force, wherein a loss of control happens which can result in a
rollover. Sometimes drivers fall asleep behind the wheel or they are distracted wherein they veer off the road and try
to over-correct their vehicle, resulting in rollovers.
Drivers who run over “trips” in the road – A “trip” in a roadway is anything a vehicle can hit which makes the
vehicle roll over such as a curb, median, guardrail, ditch or uneven pavement. Often times, a vehicle will run off the
roadway and hit a “trip” of some type such as a tree or pole wherein the car rolls over.
Drivers operating top-heavy vehicles – Most rollover accidents taking place in the US involve SUVs or sport
utility vehicles. This is due to the fact that these vehicles are top heavy which means their inherent high center of
gravity often causes them to roll over when veering out of control.
Vehicles carrying too much weight – When an excessive amount of weight is carried on the top of a car or in a
truck, that vehicle is at higher risk for rolling over. This is because these vehicles are weighed down wherein the
center of gravity is further from the ground level.
Aggressive driving – When a driver operates his or her vehicle in an aggressive manner, there is a greater
likelihood that a rollover accident will occur. Doing something like recklessly changing lanes at a high rate of speed
can cause a driver to lose control, resulting in a rollover accident that injures or kills.
Hazardous roadways – Roadways which are dangerous such as those with uneven pavement, potholes, missing
warning signs and poorly maintained surfaces can cause rollover accidents.
Tire failure – Defective tires can fail without warning, causing a driver to lose control of his or her vehicle. In some
cases, defective tires can be the reason a car “trips” wherein the driver strikes an obstacle to result in a rollover
accident. A driver can find it impossible to maintain control of his/her car when a tire suddenly blows out where
traveling. Vehicles are difficult to steer off roadways when they experience sudden tire blowouts which often times
leads them into careening uncontrollable wherein they strike other vehicles, pedestrians or roll over after leaving the
roadway.
Defective auto parts – While car safety has come a long way, there are still auto accidents including rollovers
which are caused by defective auto parts. When someone is driving on a roadway and something happens such as an
airbag deployment which comes out of nowhere, a horrible rollover accident could occur wherein several people are
injured or killed. Other types of defective auto parts which could play a key role in a rollover accident includes
brakes, power steering mechanisms, accelerator pedals, transmissions and more.
If it is found that a manufacturer or auto parts supplier is at fault for causing the rollover accident due to a defective
vehicle part it made or sold, the injured party may be able to file a product liability claim. In the case that a life was
lost in an accident blamed on a defective auto part, the family members of the deceased may be able to file a
wrongful death claim against the maker or supplier of the faulty part.

Weather conditions – The weather can cause a vehicle to roll over if a driver is not exercising due caution while
traveling in a rainstorm, when its foggy or when road visibility is poor due to the weather.
Other driver behavior – Drivers who drive erratically, too fast or who do things like change lanes carelessly or
pass in no-passing zones can cause rollover accidents as other drivers try to avoid becoming involved in an accident.
An intoxicated driver can cause a rollover accident if he or she is swerving or weaving in and out of traffic. A
negligent driver who was doing something like texting or talking on a cell phone, can drift out of their lane to cause
a rollover accident. A sleepy driver also can cause this type of accident when he/she drifts out of their lane or
crosses the center line to cause another driver on the road to quickly turn the wheel wherein a rollover accident
occurs.
Rollover Accident Liability
If you’ve sustained injuries in a rollover accident, it is possible that you are not sure who or what caused the
accident you were involved in. Even if you believe that something such as defective tires or a hazardous roadway
played a role in what happened, you may find it difficult to prove your suspicions. This is why you should hire a
California personal injury attorney who has experience with handling rollover accident cases. Your attorney will tap
into every available resource to determine who or what was the cause of the injuries you sustained.

When you have a California rollover accident attorney working for you, he or she will work tirelessly to get to the
bottom of what happened. Evidence will be gathered, witnesses found and interviewed and police reports will be
reviewed to determine who or what was the cause of your injuries. One of the most important facts in any rollover
case is whether or not a vehicle product defect or unsafe design played a role in the accident. An experienced
attorney will dig deep into the facts to find out if a defective vehicle part such as faulty tires had anything to do with
the rollover accident you were involved in. He or she will also conduct research into the type of vehicle that rolled
over to see if that vehicle is known to have design flaws that can result in rollovers.

Types of Injuries Suffered by Rollover Accident Victims

Spinal cord injuries – Unfortunately, many victims of rollover accidents suffer spinal cord injuries. A patient who
suffers an injury to the spinal cord could be left with life-long medical problems including mobility issues, pain and
numbness. In the worst spinal cord injuries, victims are partially or completely paralyzed due to their spinal cords
being severed.
Loss of limbs – Among the most gruesome injuries sustained by victims of rollover accidents are the loss of limbs.
Often times the arms and legs of people trapped inside vehicles which have flipped over become pinned when the
vehicle comes to a stop.
Fractures – Broken and crushed bones are common injuries often sustained by victims of rollover accidents. The
incredible force exerted when a vehicle rolls over can cause a victim to experience a horrific bone fracture that
requires surgery to repair. An individual with a very serious bone fracture may be out of work for an extended
period of time and may even face numerous surgeries to repair the damage.
Traumatic head injuries – Among the most common injuries sustained in rollover accidents are traumatic head
injuries. This is because often times in a rollover accident, the victim’s head strikes hard surfaces inside the vehicle
as the car rolls or it sustains a powerful, direct hit by the collapsed roof. A head injury can be particularly severe if
the victim was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident or if the victim’s airbags were malfunctioning. A
sufferer of a traumatic brain injury or TBI may require around the clock supervision for the rest of their life due to
not being able to adequately cope with life.
Internal organ damage – It is common for a rollover accident victim to suffer from life-threatening internal organ
damage. The human body is no match for a powerful vehicle that becomes crushed to trap a driver inside.
Sometimes internal injuries go unnoticed by treating paramedics on the scene which is unfortunate as internal organ
damage can easily lead to death.
If you or someone you love is a victim of a California rollover accident, it’s important to hire an experienced
personal injury attorney. You may be eligible to receive compensation for what has happened to you if it can be
proved that someone else is responsible for the accident that cause your injuries. Serious injuries can lead to
financial ruin as medical expenses can quickly spiral out of control. You also may be facing a loss of income due to
the serious nature of your injuries. The team at Hogan Injury will work hard to ensure you receive the compensation
you need and deserve so that you can fully recover from what has happened.
Abstract

Relationships between vehicle roof strength, roof deformation, and occupant injury during a rollover crash are
complex, and understanding these has been and remains a critical research issue. In the past two decades, a number
of in-depth accident investigations and analyses of occupant injury mechanisms in rollovers have been published.
One of the most valuable data sources for field data, relied upon by some of the studies cited, has been the National
Automotive Sampling System/Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS). This file, maintained by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has a wealth of information on crash/vehicle/occupant and injury
factors associated with rollover crashes to address injury patterns in rollovers.

Go to:

BACKGROUND

Understanding rollover crashes has become an important issue for auto-safety researchers and safety organizations.
To solicit information from the public, NHTSA has set up a docket (NHTSA-1999–5572) specifically to address the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216, “Roof Crush Resistance,” which was applied to passenger cars in 1973
and extended in 1994 to all light vehicles. This docket has submissions ranging from complex statistical arguments
to vehicle test data and engineering analyses evaluating the relationship between roof performance and rollover
injury. Because many of these studies are based on NASS/CDS field data, it is important to understand NASS
coding procedures and determine whether detailed NASS case data can be used to develop additional variables for
identifying rollover crash characteristics. In addition, NHTSA relies on NASS/CDS data to provide estimates of
rollover injuries, and thus a thorough understanding of NASS codes is warranted to assess the accuracy of these
estimates. Finally, NASS/CDS teams must be informed of the importance of enhancing/refining rollover-related
variables so that the safety community can use NASS data to its full potential.

LITERATURE OVERVIEW
Since the 1970s, a large body of technical literature has been published on association and/or causation of occupant
injury in rollover crashes, focusing on roof deformation.
From the earliest analyses [Huelke et al., 1972; Huelke and Compton, 1983; Mackay and Tampen, 1970; Plastiras et
al., 1985; Strother et al., 1984], tests [Orlowski et al., 1985; Bahling et al., 1990], and simulations [Sakurai and
Isenlo, 1991] to more recent studies [Padmanaban et al., 2005; Moffatt et al., 2003; James et al., 1997; Piziali et al.,
1998; Lund et al., 1999; Moffatt and Padmanaban, 1995], researchers have examined—through testing, engineering,
and statistical analysis—whether a relationship exists between roof crush and rollover injury. In addition, several
statistical studies in the past decade have used NASS/CDS data to examine rollover crash characteristics and their
influence on occupant injury [Digges and Eigen, 2003; NHTSA, 2003; Malliaris and Deblois, 1991; Najjar, 1981].
This paper adds to this body of research by reporting some of the results from a detailed two-phase study (Phase 1:
statistical study; Phase 2: engineering review) of rollover cases. Results for the Phase 1 study are publicly available
in the NHTSA Roof Crush Resistance docket [Padmanaban, 2004].

STUDY OVERVIEW
In 2004, the team of JP Research, Inc., Ivy Consultancy LLC, and KEVA Engineering LLC undertook a
comprehensive two-phase study, for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), of rollover injury
experience in the United States. This study does not address injury causation, which can be addressed only through
accident reconstruction and detailed biomechanical analyses studying occupant motion during roll. Rather, the
objective was to use the NASS/CDS statistical data and a detailed review of publicly available rollover case data to
examine occupant injury patterns and crash factors associated with rollover crashes.
In Phase 1, NASS/CDS data from 1988 through 2002 was analyzed to develop an accurate statistical estimate of the
number of belted occupants with serious (AIS1 3–6) head/face/neck or torso injury in rollovers through various
injury sources [Padmanaban, 2004]. A major finding was that NHTSA’s statistical estimate of the number of “roof
contact” injuries was inflated [NHTSA, 2001].
In Phase 2, a companion analysis has been undertaken utilizing additional, detailed information from scene
diagrams, injury sketches, and photographs for 1997 through 2001 NASS/CDS rollover cases available online. The
Phase 2 objectives include identifying various crash characteristics associated with occupant injury in rollovers and
examining the accuracy and completeness of some NASS-coded variables. In addition, the study has resulted in
development of a set of recommendations for NASS teams to implement in order to facilitate more comprehensive
rollover injury research using field data.

STUDY OBJECTIVES
The key objectives of Phase 2 study are to:

1. Understand the injury patterns for belted occupants in rollover crashes;

2. Examine different types of rollover crash characteristics using case review;
3. Using the detailed case files, examine the accuracy and completeness of selected NASS codes including
belt use, number of quarter turns, direction of roll, and magnitude of roof deformation at position;
4. Develop recommendations to improve/enhance NASS coding of rollover-related variables to permit more
comprehensive rollover safety research;
5. Examine NASS data for rollover crashes resulting in serious injuries where the injury source is coded by
the NASS team as “unknown”;
6. Identify methods to apply the insight gained from detailed case review to refine statistical calculations
using the entire NASS weighted data; and
7. If detailed case data permits, develop additional qualitative variables reflecting roll energy/roll
distance/roll direction to help understand rollover crash severity.

This paper presents the methodology used and key findings for analyses conducted in pursuit of some of these
objectives.

Go to:

METHODOLOGY

The Phase 2 study focused on review of all rollover cases with seriously injured occupants coded as “injury source–
unknown” (for the years 1997–2001) and a selection of rollover cases with injury sources identified. A total of 278
cases (309 occupants) were reviewed.
STUDY CRITERIA
The criteria for inclusion began with the requirements of a rollover crash, from NASS data files for 1997 to 2001, in
which the crash-involved vehicles were 1990 and later model cars and light trucks. In addition, cases were selected
on the basis of:

 Belt use (primarily belted occupants)

 Ejection status (non-ejected or partially ejected)
 Injury source (particularly “roof contact” or “unknown”)
 Injury severity (majority are AIS 3–6 head/face/neck or torso injury)
 Roof deformation at occupant position (full range).

All the combinations of injury severity/roof deformation categories were included in the study dataset (Table 1).

Table 1
The Four Basic Crash Types Reviewed
RESEARCH TOOL
To facilitate the in-depth review process for such a large number of cases (278) and variables of interest, an
extensive research tool was developed that allows NASS photos of crash vehicles, diagrams of the crash scene, and
information on occupant injury/contact and about 150 key NASS variables to be stored, sorted, and searched in one
convenient file.
The NASS case files that are available on NHTSA’s website for the years 1997–2001 have multiple layers of HTML
files embedded together for each case, making a concurrent review of case material—vehicle photos, injury
sketches, scene diagrams, and other NASS-coded information on over 150 variables—extremely difficult and time
consuming under the current NASS setup. The research tool developed by JP Research permits concurrent review of
all the information pertinent to a study of rollover crashes.
In addition to the available NASS data, photos, and coding sheets, the study team included the following
information after review of each case:

 Number of quarter turns, amount of roof deformation, partial ejection, direction of roll, and belt use;
 Variables identifying the characteristics of rollover (rollovers with fixed object contact, arrested rolls, etc.);
and
 Qualitative variables identifying various aspects of rollover crash characteristics.
ANALYSES
Three analyses performed by the study team are presented in this paper:

1. Examination of cases with injury source “unknown,”

2. Review of selected NASS variables, and
3. Identification of rollover crash characteristics.

Injury Source “Unknown”

One of the objectives in Phase 2 was to review the rollover cases included in the NASS data for which the injury
source was coded as “unknown” to understand the circumstances and to see whether any additional information can
be obtained from photographs, scene diagrams, or other information included in detailed NASS case files. For the
1997–2001 NASS data, there were 185 seriously injured occupants in rollover crashes coded as injury source
“unknown.” All of these cases were reviewed.

Review of Selected NASS Variables

The study team evaluated coding reliability and accuracy for selected NASS-coded variables typically used in
analyses of rollover crashes. Because these variables—including such frequently used driver and crash factors as
belt use, ejection status, magnitude of roof deformation, and number of rolls—are significant to understanding injury
patterns in rollover crashes, it is important to obtain insight into the validity and completeness of NASS coding
procedures.

Rollover Crash Characteristics

All available NASS cases for the years 1997–2001 meeting the study criteria were reviewed, and the study team
developed additional rollover variables to characterize rollover events. The selected dataset includes a higher
percentage of severely injured occupants (AIS 3–6) than annual estimates derived for the entire NASS dataset.

Go to:

RESULTS

This section presents the results for three analyses performed by the study team. At the end of this section, some
examples addressing rollover crash characteristics and injury patterns are presented.

INJURY SOURCE “UNKNOWN”

For this category, 160 cases involving 185 occupants were available, and all of these cases were reviewed. Of these
occupants, 14 were seriously injured, with injury sources identified by NASS for serious injuries but not for the
minor injuries sustained by the same occupant. For 149 occupants, no injury source was identified for any injury
(minor or severe). Of these, 95 were in vehicles for which no vehicle inspection had been performed by NASS
teams, and consequently no information about injury source was available; the other 54 were in vehicles for which
complete or partial vehicle inspection had been performed, but for which very limited data was available on
occupant contacts. For the last 22 occupants, it was not clear whether vehicle inspection had been performed, but no
data on occupant contacts was available.
Since for many of the “unknown” cases there is no information available in NASS to facilitate any conclusions on
injury sources, it is misleading to arbitrarily distribute these between known injury sources for analytical purposes.
This is especially true when national estimates are derived using data on injury sources for rollovers.
REVIEW OF SELECTED NASS VARIABLES
One of the objectives of the study was to evaluate selected NASS-coded variables used to understand rollover crash
characteristics. Overall there was good agreement between team’s assessment and NASS values for all the variables
examined, as seen below:

 Belt use – 98%

 Ejection status – 97%
 Direction of roll – 93%
 Quarter turns – 90%
 Magnitude of roof deformation – 88%

A few observations on some key rollover variables are presented in this section.

Belt Use
An important variable to assess the injury experience of occupants is belt use. Detailed review of the 124 occupants
in the study cases shows that there was 98% agreement between NASS-coded belt use and the study team’s
assessment of belt use in cases with sufficient data for analysis. There were a very few (3) cases where NASS had
coded an occupant as “belted” and the study team concluded, based on interior occupant contacts that were
inconsistent with restraint use, that the occupant was “not belted.” Overall, there was no significant error in belt use
reporting for the 124 occupants studied.

Number of Quarter Turns

One possible indicator of crash severity is number of quarter turns [Padmanaban, 2004]. The NASS coding of
quarter turns was compared to the study team’s assessment using the detailed individual case data, and a few
observations were made:

1. Of the cases with known NASS values, there was about 90% agreement between the NASS codes and the
study team’s assessment.
2. There were five cases where a vehicle went through a few quarter turns forward and then rolled back and
was coded to the rest position of the vehicle. For example, a vehicle that rolled three quarter turns, but
was on its roof at rest, was coded as two quarter turns (i.e., NASS underestimated the number of quarter
turns).
3. For ten cases NASS coded as “unknown”, the study team was able to estimate the number of rolls using
detailed case data, including photographs and scene diagrams.

In general, there was no significant disagreement between known NASS codes and the study team’s assessment on
number of rolls.

Magnitude of Roof Deformation

The study team examined the accuracy of “magnitude of roof deformation” identified by NASS investigators.
Overall, the results showed about 88% agreement between the NASS-coded range for vertical roof deformation at
the occupant’s seated position and the study team’s assessment of actual deformation. In addition, no inherent biases
were found in the direction of magnitude for the cases where there was disagreement. However, these findings
require some discussion.

1. Although roof deformation is available in precise units in the detailed NASS case data, the NASS teams use
wide ranges to identify roof deformation (1–3 inches, 3–6 inches, 6–12 inches, etc.) in the electronic file.
Two types of checking were performed for this variable. First, a comparison was made between precise
units available in detailed cases and the ranges provided in the electronic files. Second, to determine
 whether the cases were evenly distributed within the ranges, the study team used the detailed data to
compare the distribution of cases identified by NASS for each range (e.g., for the 6–12 inches category,
the number of cases with 6 inches of roof deformation, 7 inches, 8 inches, etc.). This comparison was
important to assess the validity of using an average magnitude of roof deformation for each category. The
cases for each range were found to be evenly distributed within each range.
2. In five cases coded by NASS as intrusion, the individual coded deformation value included in the detailed
case file is negative, but the magnitude of deformation was then coded in the range that corresponds to
the absolute value of the individual deformation (i.e., -12 inches of intrusion becomes a “12–18 inch”
magnitude of deformation).
3. In the ten cases that showed significant difference between NASS-coded values and the study team’s
assessment, most were overestimated by NASS.
4. It should also be noted that deformation variables for cases with no roof deformation and unknown roof
deformation are left blank in the original NASS files. This could lead to erroneous results when the data is
analyzed. Procedures to separate the “no roof deformation” cases from “unknown roof deformation”
cases were developed by the study team.

Based on the review of NASS-coded variables and the study team’s assessment, a set of recommendations to
enhance NASS rollover coding were developed. These are presented at the conclusion of this paper.

ROLLOVER CRASH CHARACTERISTICS

The study team developed additional rollover variables to characterize rollover events. These included rollover class
(arrested/non-arrested), a roll distance category, a roll dissipated energy category/indicator, and details on objects
contacted.

Rollover Class
Rollovers were classified as arrested and non-arrested rolls, as follows:

 Arrested rolls— in which the rollover is stopped abruptly by impact with a fixed object.
 Non-arrested rolls with object or terrain impact— in which the vehicle impacts one or more fixed objects
or terrain factors (ditch, change in grade, etc.) before, during, or after the roll, but is not abruptly stopped
by the impact (e.g., hit a tree, hit a pole, and rolled; or vertical drop, down embankment, and rolled).
 Non-arrested rolls with vehicle impact— in which roll occurs subsequent to impacting or being impacted
by vehicles.
 Non-arrested rolls with ground-only impact— in which no vehicles, nor objects other than the ground, are
impacted during the rollover sequence.

Figure 1 presents the distribution of rollovers, by rollover class, for the study set.
Figure 1

Rollover Characteristics (Phase 2 Study Dataset)

Arrested Rolls
In an arrested roll, the rollover sequence is interrupted or stopped by an impact by any part of the vehicle with a
fixed object (e.g., hit a curb, rolled, hit a tree). Approximately 80% of arrested rollovers in the study cases were
arrested by impact with a tree or pole. This event has a significant influence on the loads applied to the vehicle
structure and on the severity of occupant injuries. As can be seen from Figure 2, changes in geometry resulting in
deformation into the passenger area at the point of impact (in this case, through the side/bottom of the vehicle after
rollover was arrested by contact with a tree) can be severe and can make any resulting or incidental roof deformation
irrelevant as an injury source. This is problematic since a simple statistical review would pick this up as a fatal
rollover with roof crush, implying an association between roof deformation/fatality that may not exist.
Figure 2

Arrested Roll: Results of Impact with Tree

Once rolls were classified as arrested/non-arrested, relationships between the roll classification, roof deformation,
and occupant injury type and severity were examined.

Vertical Roof Deformation (Arrested/Non-Arrested Rolls)

The average vertical roof deformation was estimated for occupants in the arrested and non-arrested roll vehicles. In
order to measure deformation, the NASS team uses an identifiable reference as a basis of comparison to determine
magnitude of deformation. This is done in one of two ways: 1) comparison of vehicle dimensions between the
damaged portion of the vehicle and the undamaged, symmetrical, portion of the same vehicle, or 2) comparison
using a reference (exemplar) vehicle. Figure 3 shows the average vertical roof deformation at position for arrested
and non-arrested roll cases reviewed.
Figure 3

Average Vertical Roof Deformation (inches), By Rollover Classification (124 Case Occupants)

Serious Injury (Arrested/Non-Arrested Rolls)

Almost all the arrested rolls examined resulted in serious head/face/neck injuries (AIS 3+). Figure 4 shows a
comparison of injury experience for occupants in arrested versus non-arrested rolls.

Figure 4

Distribution of Arrested/Non-Arrested Rolls by Head/Face/Neck Injury Severity (124 Case Occupants)

The data shows that, for the 124 occupants studied, arrested rolls had higher rates of serious injury and greater
amounts of vertical roof deformation than non-arrested rolls. However, these findings do not address injury
causation or rollover crash severity.

EXAMPLES OF CASES REVIEWED

To exemplify the complexity of identifying specific rollover crash characteristics important to mitigating injury
severity in rollover crashes, examples of cases from two seemingly opposite groups of “roof crush” crashes —those
with significant injury with no vertical roof deformation and those with significant vertical roof deformation with
no/minimal injury—are presented below.
Serious Injury/No Vertical Roof Deformation
A review of the cases with these characteristics indicates that a significant portion of these cases involve impacts
with other vehicles and fixed objects. Figures 5 and and66present examples of cases with serious injury and no
vertical roof deformation.

Figure 5

Fatal Injury in Rollover with Side Impacts but No Vertical Roof Deformation
Figure 6

Serious Injury in Rollover with No Impacts and No Roof Deformation

Figure 5 (NASS case number 1998-9-105A) shows the results of a side impact and a subsequent rollover (non-
arrested), with the right front occupant fatally injured. This vehicle was making a left turn across a highway, and an
oncoming vehicle struck the right side, fatally injuring the belted right front occupant. The vehicle rolled five quarter
turns after the impact. There was no vertical roof intrusion, but the vehicle experienced 6–12 inches lateral intrusion
on the B pillar. The belted driver sustained no injuries.
Figure 6 (NASS case number 2001-48-140K) shows an example of a non-arrested rollover, without impacts, that
resulted in serious injury but no vertical roof deformation. The vehicle departed the roadway, and rolled into a ditch,
rolling three quarter turns, and then back one quarter turn, coming to rest on its roof with no intrusion to the
roof/header. The driver had an AIS 3 head/face/neck injury.

Severe Roof Deformation/No or Minor Injury

These cases similarly demonstrate that severe roof deformation (>12 inches) does not necessarily relate to injury
outcome. Figures 7 and and88 present examples of rollovers without fixed object impacts, in which the vehicles
experienced severe roof deformation but occupants sustained minor injury.
Figure 7

Minor Injury in a Rollover with Severe Roof Deformation

Figure 8

Another Example of Minor Injury in a Rollover with Severe Roof Deformation

The vehicle shown in Figure 7 (NASS case number 1997-48-144C) departed the roadway and rolled on a grassy
shoulder at least six, and possibly ten, quarter turns—coming to rest on its roof. Although the roof/header
deformation was coded 18 to 24 inches at the driver’s position, the driver had only an AIS 1 head/face/neck injury.
The right front occupant, whose side experienced less deformation, also had an AIS 1 head/face/neck injury.
Figure 8 (NASS case number 2000-78-85K) shows a vehicle that departed the roadway in a clockwise yaw and
rolled six quarter turns in the desert. The vehicle experienced 24+ inches of deformation to the roof/header, but the
driver had only an AIS 1 injury and the right front passenger had only an AIS 1 head/face/neck injury and an MAIS
2 overall injury.
From these examples it is obvious there are many complex characteristics and interactions involved in rollover-
related injuries, but crash severity is unquestionably a significant, if difficult to isolate, factor. It would certainly be
valuable if more indicators of crash severity could be developed through NASS case reviews. Some key crash
severity factors include variables addressing roll energy, roll distance, number of quarter turns, and type of terrain. A
comprehensive study to examine these factors concurrently is in progress.

Go to:

DISCUSSION

This study provides some additional insight into the type of rollovers and the complexity of rollover events resulting
in injuries to belted occupants. The study also provides an assessment of selected NASS-coded variables—and
possible new or combination variables—that could be used to better characterize rollovers. An attempt to use NASS-
coded variables (including photos and scene diagrams) to more fully understand rollover crash severity measures is
being made under portions of the Alliance study that are still in progress.

CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive review of the 278 NASS/CDS rollover cases rendered the following conclusions:

1. Seriously injured rollover occupants with unknown injury sources should not be included when deriving
“roof contact” injuries. No information is available in NASS data to facilitate any conclusions on injury
sources for these cases.
2. The average vertical roof deformation seems higher for arrested rolls compared to non-arrested rolls. The
dataset studied showed that arrested rolls also have higher rates of serious injury: 89% of occupants in
arrested roll vehicles sustained serious head/face/neck injuries, while 38% of occupants in non-arrested
rolls sustained serious head/face/neck injuries. However, these findings do not address injury causation
and rollover crash severity.
3. An initial review of crashes resulting in significant roof deformation and no injury, and crashes resulting in
significant injuries with minimal roof deformation, seems to validate that rollovers are complex events
and that a single parameter, such as roof performance, cannot explain the injury potential for occupants.
Additional factors, including objects contacted, roll energy, roll distance, and occupant proximity to roof-
to-ground impacts, have to be examined to determine the combinations of events/factors that influence
rollover injury severity.
4. Overall, there was good agreement (about 88%) between NASS-coded key variables and the study team’s
assessment.

RECOMMENDATIONS
While NASS is an extremely useful dataset, a few enhancements could be made to facilitate more comprehensive
rollover analyses. These recommendations are discussed below:

1. Include a “most harmful event” code. This would help identify events that influence injury severity during
roll sequence (e.g., side impact with a pole, resulting in a rollover).
2. Code total roll distance (estimated distance from initial trip point to final resting position).
3. Provide more complete information on trip speed prior to roll (related to roll distance).
4. Add a rollover class variable (arrested/non-arrested).
5. Regarding roof deformation (i.e., magnitude of deformation)—
 o – Add a category to identify no roof deformation (separated from “unknown” value).
o – Add a category to specify negative values of intrusion.
6. Include quarter turn codes for both forward and back.
7. Include reason for injury source “unknown” (e.g., “no vehicle inspection performed”).

Other measures, such as the energy associated with individual roof-to-ground impacts (of interest for assessing
potential for head/face/neck injury), cannot be obtained from detailed NASS case review unless extensive accident
reconstruction, including simulations to model occupant motion, is done. Consequently, with the present dataset,
inferences of causal relationships between roof deformation and injury outcome cannot be made.

Go to:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Joe Marsh, Ben Martz, and Mickael Delahaye for their valuable contributions.

Go to:

Footnotes

1AIS refers to the Abbreviated Injury Scale, a scale used in US federal crash reporting and copyrighted by
the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
Go to:

REFERENCES

1. Bahling, Bundorf, Kaspzyk, Moffatt, Orlowski, Stocke Rollover and Drop Tests – The Influence of Roof
Strength on Injury Mechanics Using Belted Dummies. 34th STAPP Conference; Orlando. 1990. 1990. SAE
902314. [PubMed]
2. Digges, Eigen . Crash Attributes that Influence the Severity of Rollover Crashes. Paper # 231, The National
Crash Analysis Center. The George Washington University; 2003.
3. Huelke, Compton Injury Frequency and Severity in Rollover Car Crashes as Related to Occupant Ejection,
Contacts, and Roof Damage. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 1983;1983;XIV(5)
4. Huelke, Marsh, Sherman Analysis of Rollover Accident Factors and Injury Causation. 16th Conference of
the American Association for Automotive Medicine; 1972. 1972.
5. James, Allsop, Nordhagen, and Decker (1997). “Injury Mechanisms and Field Accident Data Analysis in
Rollover Crashes,” SAE 970396, 1997.
6. Lund, Palmertz, Jakobsson, Andersson, Isaksson-Hellman In-Depth Study of Volvo Cars in Rollover Crashes.
IRCOBI Conference ; Sitges (Spain). September 1999.1999.
7. Mackay and Tampen (1970). “Field Studies of Rollover Performance,” SAE # 700417, 1970 International
Automobile Safety Compendium, SAE P-30, 1970.
8. Malliaris, Deblois Pivotal Characterization of Car Rollovers. 13th International Technical Conference on
Experimental Safety Vehicles, NHTSA; 1991. 1991.
9. Moffatt, Padmanaban The Relationship Between Vehicle Roof Strength and Occupant Injury in Rollover
Crash Data. AAAM, 39th Annual Proceedings; October 1995. 1995.
10. Moffatt, Cooper, Croteau, Orlowski, Marth, Carter Matched-Pair Impacts of Rollcaged and Production
Roof Cars Using the Controlled Rollover Impact System (CRIS). Society of Automotive Engineers, 2003-01-
0172; Detroit, Michigan. 2003.2003.
11. Najjar The Truth about Rollovers. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 1981 1981 Jan;
12. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Roof Crush Resistance Notice 2, Request for Comments,
Docket submission NHTSA-1999–5572-8. Federal Register. 2001 Oct;66(204) 2001.
13. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2003). Traffic Safety Facts, December, 2003.
14. Orlowski, Bundorf, and Moffatt (1985). “Rollover Crash Tests – The Influence of Roof Strength on Injury
Mechanics,” SAE 851734, Washington, D.C., 1985.
15. Padmanaban (2004). “The Alliance Rollover Study of NASS and FARS Data, Phase 1: NASS Injury Statistics,”
NHTSA Roof Crush Resistance Docket, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ Submission No. NHTSA-
1999-5572-119, December 23, 2004.
16. Padmanaban, Moffatt, Marth Factors Influencing the Likelihood of Fatality and Serious/Fatal Injury in
Single-Vehicle Rollover Crashes. Rollover Session paper, Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress
& Exhibition; Detroit, Michigan. April 11–15, 2005.2005.
17. Piziali, Hopper, Girvan, and Merala (1998). “Injury Causation in Rollover Crashes and the Biofidelity of
Hybrid III Data in Rollover Tests,” SAE 980362, 1998.
18. Plastiras, Lange, McCarthy, and Padmanaban (1985). “An Examination of the Correlation between Vehicle
Performance in FMVSS 216 versus Injury Rates in Rollover Accidents,” SAE 850335, 1985.
19. Sakurai, Isenlo Study on Passenger Car Rollover Simulation. 13th International Technical Conference on
Experimental Safety Vehicles; 1991. 1991.
20. Strother, Smith, James, and Warner (1984). “Injury and Intrusion in Side Impacts and Rollovers,” SAE
840403, 1984.
What Causes Rollover Accidents?
Although uncommon, rollover accidents are
some of the most severe vehicular accidents that
we see on the road. They are only second in
severity to head-on collisions, and they are
especially violent in nature.

There are more than 280,000 reported rollover

accidents each year, claiming more than 10,000
lives, according to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. Knowing what causes
these sorts of accidents could help drivers take
precautions to try and prevent them in the future.
Vehicle Type
Given the right circumstances, any car can roll
over. Rollovers are often a direct result of a
vehicle’s lack of stability in turns. However,
There are some cars that are known for resulting
in higher amounts of rollovers when an accident
occurs. Taller, more narrow vehicles such as
SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans are more
susceptible to these sort of accidents.
Speed
These types of car accidents are more speed
related than other accidents as well. About 40
percent of rollovers were directly caused by
excessive speeding. This can happen, for
example, when a vehicle makes a sharp turn and
the center of gravity is forced to one side,
causing the vehicle to tip over as it continues to
move.
Alcohol
Nearly half of all rollover crashes involved a
driver who was under the influence of alcohol.
Impairment from any amount of alcohol can
cause a driver’s motor skills to be negatively
affected as well as vision, reaction time, and
judgment. Because of this, it’s important to make
sure you’re not impaired when operating a motor
vehicle.
Location
There are some locations which show trends of
being more likely to be areas where rollover
accidents occur. Rural accidents are typically
undivided and have no barriers. The speed limit
is also usually 55 mph or higher.
When driving in rural areas with fewer cars
around, drivers tend to speed because they don’t
fear a collision with another car. However,
almost 75 percent of fatal rollovers happened in
rural areas, showing that drivers need to be
especially careful when in these parts.
Who Is at Fault
Many rollovers are single-vehicular accidents,
which means that they only involve one vehicle,
the one that rolled over. At this point, it’s usually
the fault of the driver, unless it can be proven
that the vehicle’s lack of stability and safety
made a direct impact on the instance of the
rollover accident.