When walking through parking lots, take heed of your surroundings in the same manner as you would
when walking along sidewalks and roadways. Don’t assume that because it is a parking lot it is safe,
and always be cautious of the movement of vehicles. Especially when four-wheeled vehicles arebacking up there are numerous blind spots behind the vehicle, which make it difficult for the driver toaccurately determine and confirm the conditions behind their vehicle. Therefore, while you may thinkthat the driver is aware of your presence, or is driving by anticipating the manner in which you are
moving, you should walk while being mindful of the movement of four-wheeled vehicles.

■For parents using parking lots accompanied by young children

28

Since people drive at relatively low speeds when driving in parking lots, this potentially makes themmore careless than when they are driving on general roads. Furthermore, people also potentially get
careless about confirming safety factors in front of them when searching for a parking space. Parking
lots have lots of blind spots and cars frequently back up in parking lots, resulting in numerous cases
where it is impossible to accurately determine the surrounding conditions.
Drivers must pay attention to children in particular when they are starting their vehicle up and moving
straight. Since children are small in stature they tend to be concealed in the shadows of parked
vehicles, making it difficult for drivers to notice and delaying detection. Therefore, drivers must makean effort to drive at a speed where they can stop at any time (10km/h or slower).
When backing up, it is difficult for drivers to accurately determine or confirm the conditions behindthem. They should back up at about the same speed at which pedestrians walk. When passengers
are present, drivers should get the passengers to guide them out.

3

渉外事業課

TEL 03-5577-3973

FAX 03-5577-3980

公益財団法人 交通事故総合分析センター●ウェブサイト http://www.itarda.or.jp/ ●Eメール koho@itarda.or.jp●フェイスブック https://www.facebook.com/itarda.or〒101-0064 東京都千代田区猿楽町2-7-8 住友水道橋ビル8階
TEL 03-5577-3977(代表) FAX 03-5577-3980

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

つくば 交通事故調査事務所

住 友 水 道 橋 ビル８ 階

イタルダインフォメーションに関するお問い合せ先

Pedestrian‒four-wheeled vehicle accidents
in parking lots and similar locationslSpeciafeature~Such locations where people tend to be careless,require additional conﬁrmation of safety factors~
Small reduction in the number of pedestrian casualties
in parking lots and similar locations (general traﬃc locations)
120■For people driving in parking lots

(Hiroshi Aoki)

交通事故分析レポート No.115

No.115

公益財団法人 交通事故総合分析センター〒101 0064 東 京 都 千 代 田 区 猿 楽 町 ２ ７ ８The behavior of young children is unpredictable. If there is something that catches their interest, they
have a tendency to suddenly rush out towards it without noticing anything else. Parents should firmly
take hold of young children’s hands in parking lots and not let them walk around freely as they please.
Moreover, as was referenced in the accident case example, parents must also be attentive
immediately after their young children get out of the car. Sometimes children can get away from theirparents in the blink of an eye. Parents should be careful to ensure that when young children exit thevehicle they do not get separated when the parent is putting things in order in the vehicle or closing
their door.

ITARDA INFORMATION

110

Parking lot P

100

Index

■For elderly people using parking lots

ITARDA INFORMATION

Below we have summarized precautions to pay attention to when walking and driving through parkinglots.

交通事故分析レポート

4 Conclusion

イタルダ インフォメーション

90

80

70

Parking lots and similar locations (general traﬃc locations)Intersections

60

50

Near intersections
Ordinary roads

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fig. 1. Trends in the number of pedestrian casualties
in pedestrian‒four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by type of road conﬁguration(The number of casualties is the total from the primary and secondary
parties when the number of casualties from 2010 is taken as 100)

1 Introduction ・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P2
Characteristics of pedestrian‒four-wheeled vehicle accidents
2
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P3
in parking lots and similar locations
3 Typical examples of accidents・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P7
4 Conclusion・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P8

駐車場等における歩行者対四輪車の事故 〜油断する場所だからこそ、より一層の安全確認を〜lSpeciafeaturePedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations~Such locations where people tend to be careless, require additional confirmation of safety factors~

1 Introduction
Have you ever had any of the following experiences when driving a vehicle in a parking lot of a shopping center ora convenience store?
● While you’re driving through a parking lot looking for a parking space, a child suddenly dashes out from between
two parked cars and you almost hit the child.
● When backing out of a parking lot you realize there’s a pedestrian walking right behind your vehicle and you
almost hit the pedestrian.
Anyone who has driven a four-wheeled vehicle through a parking lot could have experienced these sorts ofnear-misses before. Some drivers might have even ended up colliding with pedestrians.
To get a grasp of the actual status for the number of pedestrian casualties from pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle
accidents that occur in parking lots and similar locations Note 1) , the total results for the number of pedestriancasualties from pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents by type of road configuration are shown in Table 1 (thenumber of casualties at railroad crossings is extremely small compared with those at other road configurations, sothey were not included). In addition, based on Table 1, the trends when the number of casualties from 2010 taken
as 100, are shown in Fig. 1. Apparently, the number of pedestrian casualties in parking lots and other locations
from 2010 to 2014 has not declined all that much compared with those at intersections, near intersections, and on
ordinary roads.
Therefore, in this issue of ITARDA INFORMATION we would like to introduce the characteristics ofpedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations, primarily from a pedestrian
perspective (“pedestrians” as used in this paper refer to the “general pedestrians” as found in the Road Traffic
Accident Statistics).

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

Characteristics of pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle
2 accidents in parking lots and similar locations■The number of pedestrian casualties aged 65 and over are on the rise

Table 2 shows the number of casualties in parking lots and similar locations from 2010 to 2014. In addition, Fig. 2
shows the trends by age group with the number of casualties from 2010 taken as 100. While there have been
temporary increases in the number of casualties for people aged 6 or under, 7 – 18, and 19 – 64 between 2010 and2014, they have been trending downward up through 2014. As opposed to this, the trend has simply gone up for
people aged 65 or over between 2010 and 2014.

Table 2. Number of pedestrian casualties in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by the pedestrian age group

Table 1. Number of pedestrian casualties from pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by type of road configuration
Road conﬁguration

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Intersections

26,12324,70823,464

22,527

21,443

0.82

Near intersections

4,496

4,072

3,923

4,013

3,739

0.83

Ordinary roads

19,592

18,38017,577

16,242

14,7750.75

Parking lots
and similar locations(general traﬃc locations)

6,299

6,364

6,340

6,400

6,022

Index

2012

2013

2014

Vs.2010

6 or under

331

347

349

297

296

0.89

7 ‒ 18

255

281

274

265

214

0.84

19 ‒ 64

3,688

3,661

3,555

3,661

3,321

0.90

65 or over

2,025

2,075

2,162

2,177

2,191

1.08

Total

6,299

6,364

6,340

6,400

6,022

0.96

100

100

90
80

90
80

70

70

60

60

0.96

2010

2011

2012

2013

50

2014

19 ‒ 64

120

100

100

Index

110

90
80

60

60

2011

2012

2013

2014

50

2012

2013

2014

Trending upward

80
70

2011

65 or over

90

70

2010

2010

120

110

50

7 ‒ 18

120
110

50

Index

2011

110

* Railroad crossings were omitted* Pedestrians refers to the “general pedestrians” as found in the Road Traffic Accident Statistics

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

2010

6 or under120

Vs. 2010

Note 1) Accidents that occur in parking lots of shopping centers and convenience stores are classified as accidents that occur
at “general traffic locations” in the Road Traffic Accident Statistics. However, the parking lots discussed here do notinclude locations where people and cars cannot freely pass through, such as home parking lots or parking lots wheretransit is controlled by means of having a security guard or similar personnel stationed there. General traffic locations
refer to those locations among the “locations to be used for general traffic and other uses” stipulated in Paragraph 1,
Section 1, Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act in which the road width cannot be easily measured, such as plazas, vacantland, and so forth (excluding locations that have structures that are generally used as roads, like private roads).
General traffic locations include parking lots for stores and other buildings, as well as plazas, vacant land, highway
service areas, parking areas, and more. Considering that all of these are frequently used as parking lots, this report willsurvey and analyze accidents that occur at general traffic locations as “accidents that occur in parking lots and similar
locations.”

Number of casualties (number of people)

Pedestrian age group

Index

特集

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fig. 2. Trends in the number of pedestrian casualties in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by pedestrian age group (number of casualties from 2010 is taken as 100)
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

駐車場等における歩行者対四輪車の事故 〜油断する場所だからこそ、より一層の安全確認を〜lSpeciafeaturePedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations~Such locations where people tend to be careless, require additional confirmation of safety factors~

1 Introduction
Have you ever had any of the following experiences when driving a vehicle in a parking lot of a shopping center ora convenience store?
● While you’re driving through a parking lot looking for a parking space, a child suddenly dashes out from between
two parked cars and you almost hit the child.
● When backing out of a parking lot you realize there’s a pedestrian walking right behind your vehicle and you
almost hit the pedestrian.
Anyone who has driven a four-wheeled vehicle through a parking lot could have experienced these sorts ofnear-misses before. Some drivers might have even ended up colliding with pedestrians.
To get a grasp of the actual status for the number of pedestrian casualties from pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle
accidents that occur in parking lots and similar locations Note 1) , the total results for the number of pedestriancasualties from pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents by type of road configuration are shown in Table 1 (thenumber of casualties at railroad crossings is extremely small compared with those at other road configurations, sothey were not included). In addition, based on Table 1, the trends when the number of casualties from 2010 taken
as 100, are shown in Fig. 1. Apparently, the number of pedestrian casualties in parking lots and other locations
from 2010 to 2014 has not declined all that much compared with those at intersections, near intersections, and on
ordinary roads.
Therefore, in this issue of ITARDA INFORMATION we would like to introduce the characteristics ofpedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations, primarily from a pedestrian
perspective (“pedestrians” as used in this paper refer to the “general pedestrians” as found in the Road Traffic
Accident Statistics).

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

Characteristics of pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle
2 accidents in parking lots and similar locations■The number of pedestrian casualties aged 65 and over are on the rise

Table 2 shows the number of casualties in parking lots and similar locations from 2010 to 2014. In addition, Fig. 2
shows the trends by age group with the number of casualties from 2010 taken as 100. While there have been
temporary increases in the number of casualties for people aged 6 or under, 7 – 18, and 19 – 64 between 2010 and2014, they have been trending downward up through 2014. As opposed to this, the trend has simply gone up for
people aged 65 or over between 2010 and 2014.

Table 2. Number of pedestrian casualties in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by the pedestrian age group

Table 1. Number of pedestrian casualties from pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by type of road configuration
Road conﬁguration

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Intersections

26,12324,70823,464

22,527

21,443

0.82

Near intersections

4,496

4,072

3,923

4,013

3,739

0.83

Ordinary roads

19,592

18,38017,577

16,242

14,7750.75

Parking lots
and similar locations(general traﬃc locations)

6,299

6,364

6,340

6,400

6,022

Index

2012

2013

2014

Vs.2010

6 or under

331

347

349

297

296

0.89

7 ‒ 18

255

281

274

265

214

0.84

19 ‒ 64

3,688

3,661

3,555

3,661

3,321

0.90

65 or over

2,025

2,075

2,162

2,177

2,191

1.08

Total

6,299

6,364

6,340

6,400

6,022

0.96

100

100

90
80

90
80

70

70

60

60

0.96

2010

2011

2012

2013

50

2014

19 ‒ 64

120

100

100

Index

110

90
80

60

60

2011

2012

2013

2014

50

2012

2013

2014

Trending upward

80
70

2011

65 or over

90

70

2010

2010

120

110

50

7 ‒ 18

120
110

50

Index

2011

110

* Railroad crossings were omitted* Pedestrians refers to the “general pedestrians” as found in the Road Traffic Accident Statistics

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

2010

6 or under120

Vs. 2010

Note 1) Accidents that occur in parking lots of shopping centers and convenience stores are classified as accidents that occur
at “general traffic locations” in the Road Traffic Accident Statistics. However, the parking lots discussed here do notinclude locations where people and cars cannot freely pass through, such as home parking lots or parking lots wheretransit is controlled by means of having a security guard or similar personnel stationed there. General traffic locations
refer to those locations among the “locations to be used for general traffic and other uses” stipulated in Paragraph 1,
Section 1, Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act in which the road width cannot be easily measured, such as plazas, vacantland, and so forth (excluding locations that have structures that are generally used as roads, like private roads).
General traffic locations include parking lots for stores and other buildings, as well as plazas, vacant land, highway
service areas, parking areas, and more. Considering that all of these are frequently used as parking lots, this report willsurvey and analyze accidents that occur at general traffic locations as “accidents that occur in parking lots and similar
locations.”

Number of casualties (number of people)

Pedestrian age group

Index

特集

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fig. 2. Trends in the number of pedestrian casualties in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by pedestrian age group (number of casualties from 2010 is taken as 100)
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

lSpeciafeaturePedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations~Such locations where people tend to be careless, require additional confirmation of safety factors~■Children aged 6 or under are involved in fatal or serious injury accidents even in parking lots
and similar locations

Perhaps some people think that pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle in parking lots and similar locations do not leadto death or serious injury of the pedestrian. Therefore, we will examine whether or not there is any difference in thepercentage of fatalities or serious injuries in “Parking lots and similar locations” or in “All other locations.” To dothis, Fig. 3 shows a graph comparing the percentage of fatalities or serious injuries for each pedestrian age groupfor pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in “Parking lots and similar locations” and in “All other locations.”
Apparently, the percentage of fatalities or serious injuries among children aged 6 or under in “Parking lots andsimilar locations” is roughly the same as the percentage in “All other locations.” In other words, when children aged
6 or under encounter accidents in “Parking lots and similar locations” it is similar to when they encounter accidents
in “All other locations” in that these tend to be fatal or serious injury accidents. To investigate the causes for this,Fig. 4 shows graphs comparing the composition rate for the major parts of the body injured for each pedestrian
age group in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in “Parking lots and similar locations” and “All otherlocations.” It only targets pedestrians who have injuries running the range from fatal to serious injury. It reveals thatpeople aged 7 or over suffered death or serious injury from damage to their head, face, chest, and abdomen in “Allother locations” more so than in “Parking lots and similar locations.” On the other hand, with children aged 6 orunder similar trends were observed in “Parking lots and similar locations” and in “All other locations.” Presumably,
since the collision speeds of four-wheeled vehicles are relatively slow in “Parking lots and similar locations”
pedestrians are not sent flying by four-wheeled vehicles, but are oftentimes knocked over right beside thefour-wheeled vehicle. With children aged 6 or under, after being knocked over their head, chest, or abdomen are
frequently run over by four-wheeled vehicles because of their short height. This is presumably why the percentageof these body parts being injured is the same as it is in “All other locations.”

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115■Human factors of the pedestrians
The composition rate for human factors by the pedestrian age group for pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
that occurred in parking lots and similar locations is shown in Fig. 5. Nearly 80% of people aged 19 or over had “No
human factor,” while for people aged 18 or under the younger they are the higher the percentage of people in whichsome sort of human factor played a part. In other words, it shows that pedestrians aged 18 or under get into
accidents because they fail to obey the traffic rules more frequently than the people in other age groups do.
Furthermore, in order to investigate in detail whether or not there are any special characteristics with human factors
by age group, Fig. 6 shows the composition rate for human factors by pedestrian age group (excluding “No humanfactor”). For people aged 19 or over, the higher their age group the higher the percentage of “Delay in noticing due
to a failure to confirm safety factors.” While the percentage from “Delay in noticing due to a failure to confirm safety
factors” is large even among children aged 7 – 12, with this age group the failure to confirm safety factors is due toa tendency to completely fail to confirm safety factors. With children aged 6 or under, the percentage from theinattention of their parents or guardians account for roughly 70% of the total, revealing that said children tend to get
into accidents in parking lots and similar locations because their parents or guardians were not paying attention towhat they were doing. Therefore, we would like to take a detailed look at “Inattention of parent or guardian,” which
accounts for the human factors with children aged 6 or under more than 70% of the time.

34

6 or underNo human factor
Delay in noticing(failure to conﬁrm safety factors)

47

7 ‒ 12Slight diﬀerence in the percentage
of fatal or serious injury accidents
for young children
in “All other locations” andParking lots and similar locations
in “Parking lots and similar locations”

35

All other locations

Percentage (%)

30
25
20
15

Percentage of fatalities or serious injuries= No. of fatalities or serious injuries/ No. of casualties × 100

0

6 or under7 ‒ 1819 ‒ 6477

25 ‒ 3480

35 ‒ 4479

45 ‒ 54

78

Error in judgement (other)55 ‒ 64

79

Poor health condition,
uninvestigable

65 or over81

Inattention of parent or guardianPedestrian age group
Fig. 3. Percentage of fatalities or serious injuries by road configurationand pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)
Parking lots andsimilar locations

All other locations

All other locations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10%

20%

Pedestrian age group: 19 ‒ 64

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pedestrian age group: 65 or over

19 ‒ 2434

25 ‒ 3435

35 ‒ 4438

45 ‒ 5441

55 ‒ 6443

All other locations

All other locations

65 or over

45

40%

Head / face

60%

80%

100%

Chest / abdomen

0%

Back / waist

Arms

20%

Legs

40%

60%

80%

Other

Fig. 4. Major parts of the body injured by the pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

100%

Delay in noticing(failure to conﬁrm safety factors)
Delay in noticing(inattention to what is ahead)

41

Parking lots andsimilar locations

20%

50%

57

7 ‒ 12

Parking lots andsimilar locations

0%

40%

73

13 ‒ 18

0%30%

6 or underPedestrian age group: 7 ‒ 18

Parking lots andsimilar locations

0%

Error in judgment(thought the other party would
obey the rules)

Fig. 5. Composition rate for human factors by the pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)

65 or overPedestrian age group: 6 or under

Error in judgment(thought the other party would
yield to or stop for them)

19 ‒ 24

10
5

Delay in noticing(inattention to what is ahead)70

13 ‒ 18

0%

10%

20%

Error in judgment(thought the other party would
yield to or stop for them)
Error in judgment(thought the other party would
obey the rules)
Error in judgement (other)
Poor health condition,
uninvestigable
Inattention of parent or guardian

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fig. 6. Composition rate for human factors by pedestrian age group(excluding “No human factors”; 2010 – 2014)
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

lSpeciafeaturePedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations~Such locations where people tend to be careless, require additional confirmation of safety factors~■Children aged 6 or under are involved in fatal or serious injury accidents even in parking lots
and similar locations

Perhaps some people think that pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle in parking lots and similar locations do not leadto death or serious injury of the pedestrian. Therefore, we will examine whether or not there is any difference in thepercentage of fatalities or serious injuries in “Parking lots and similar locations” or in “All other locations.” To dothis, Fig. 3 shows a graph comparing the percentage of fatalities or serious injuries for each pedestrian age groupfor pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in “Parking lots and similar locations” and in “All other locations.”
Apparently, the percentage of fatalities or serious injuries among children aged 6 or under in “Parking lots andsimilar locations” is roughly the same as the percentage in “All other locations.” In other words, when children aged
6 or under encounter accidents in “Parking lots and similar locations” it is similar to when they encounter accidents
in “All other locations” in that these tend to be fatal or serious injury accidents. To investigate the causes for this,Fig. 4 shows graphs comparing the composition rate for the major parts of the body injured for each pedestrian
age group in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in “Parking lots and similar locations” and “All otherlocations.” It only targets pedestrians who have injuries running the range from fatal to serious injury. It reveals thatpeople aged 7 or over suffered death or serious injury from damage to their head, face, chest, and abdomen in “Allother locations” more so than in “Parking lots and similar locations.” On the other hand, with children aged 6 orunder similar trends were observed in “Parking lots and similar locations” and in “All other locations.” Presumably,
since the collision speeds of four-wheeled vehicles are relatively slow in “Parking lots and similar locations”
pedestrians are not sent flying by four-wheeled vehicles, but are oftentimes knocked over right beside thefour-wheeled vehicle. With children aged 6 or under, after being knocked over their head, chest, or abdomen are
frequently run over by four-wheeled vehicles because of their short height. This is presumably why the percentageof these body parts being injured is the same as it is in “All other locations.”

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115■Human factors of the pedestrians
The composition rate for human factors by the pedestrian age group for pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents
that occurred in parking lots and similar locations is shown in Fig. 5. Nearly 80% of people aged 19 or over had “No
human factor,” while for people aged 18 or under the younger they are the higher the percentage of people in whichsome sort of human factor played a part. In other words, it shows that pedestrians aged 18 or under get into
accidents because they fail to obey the traffic rules more frequently than the people in other age groups do.
Furthermore, in order to investigate in detail whether or not there are any special characteristics with human factors
by age group, Fig. 6 shows the composition rate for human factors by pedestrian age group (excluding “No humanfactor”). For people aged 19 or over, the higher their age group the higher the percentage of “Delay in noticing due
to a failure to confirm safety factors.” While the percentage from “Delay in noticing due to a failure to confirm safety
factors” is large even among children aged 7 – 12, with this age group the failure to confirm safety factors is due toa tendency to completely fail to confirm safety factors. With children aged 6 or under, the percentage from theinattention of their parents or guardians account for roughly 70% of the total, revealing that said children tend to get
into accidents in parking lots and similar locations because their parents or guardians were not paying attention towhat they were doing. Therefore, we would like to take a detailed look at “Inattention of parent or guardian,” which
accounts for the human factors with children aged 6 or under more than 70% of the time.

34

6 or underNo human factor
Delay in noticing(failure to conﬁrm safety factors)

47

7 ‒ 12Slight diﬀerence in the percentage
of fatal or serious injury accidents
for young children
in “All other locations” andParking lots and similar locations
in “Parking lots and similar locations”

35

All other locations

Percentage (%)

30
25
20
15

Percentage of fatalities or serious injuries= No. of fatalities or serious injuries/ No. of casualties × 100

0

6 or under7 ‒ 1819 ‒ 6477

25 ‒ 3480

35 ‒ 4479

45 ‒ 54

78

Error in judgement (other)55 ‒ 64

79

Poor health condition,
uninvestigable

65 or over81

Inattention of parent or guardianPedestrian age group
Fig. 3. Percentage of fatalities or serious injuries by road configurationand pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)
Parking lots andsimilar locations

All other locations

All other locations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10%

20%

Pedestrian age group: 19 ‒ 64

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pedestrian age group: 65 or over

19 ‒ 2434

25 ‒ 3435

35 ‒ 4438

45 ‒ 5441

55 ‒ 6443

All other locations

All other locations

65 or over

45

40%

Head / face

60%

80%

100%

Chest / abdomen

0%

Back / waist

Arms

20%

Legs

40%

60%

80%

Other

Fig. 4. Major parts of the body injured by the pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

100%

Delay in noticing(failure to conﬁrm safety factors)
Delay in noticing(inattention to what is ahead)

41

Parking lots andsimilar locations

20%

50%

57

7 ‒ 12

Parking lots andsimilar locations

0%

40%

73

13 ‒ 18

0%30%

6 or underPedestrian age group: 7 ‒ 18

Parking lots andsimilar locations

0%

Error in judgment(thought the other party would
obey the rules)

Fig. 5. Composition rate for human factors by the pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)

65 or overPedestrian age group: 6 or under

Error in judgment(thought the other party would
yield to or stop for them)

19 ‒ 24

10
5

Delay in noticing(inattention to what is ahead)70

13 ‒ 18

0%

10%

20%

Error in judgment(thought the other party would
yield to or stop for them)
Error in judgment(thought the other party would
obey the rules)
Error in judgement (other)
Poor health condition,
uninvestigable
Inattention of parent or guardian

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fig. 6. Composition rate for human factors by pedestrian age group(excluding “No human factors”; 2010 – 2014)
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

lSpeciafeaturePedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations~Such locations where people tend to be careless, require additional confirmation of safety factors~

Fig. 7 shows a detailed composition rate for the human factor “Inattention of parent or guardian.” “Not holding
hands” accounted for 70% of the cases of “Inattention of parent or guardian.” Examining the reasons for not holding
hands with children reveals that “I thought it was safe” shows up with conspicuous frequency (Fig. 8).
154

I thought it was safe
I was preoccupied
with shopping
I was engaged withsomething else
They suddenly let goof my hand
Unconsciously

Other

30％

(234 people)
Not holding hands

70％(552 people)

49
39
37
23

They donʼt like it when I
hold their hand
Other

18
180
0

Fig. 7. Composition rate for inattentionof parent or guardian (2010 – 2014)

20

40

60

3 Typical examples of accidents
This section will introduce one example of an accident each for cases where the pedestrian is 65 or over and 6 orunder, as symbolized by the survey results for the macro-data.

■Example of an accident involving elderly people

52

I was standing around talking

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

As Driver A was backing up in a parking lot under the impression that there were no pedestrians behind him, hefailed to confirm safety behind his vehicle to the left and right and reversed out of a parking spot at a speed ofroughly 10km/h. He collided with Pedestrian B, who he was unaware was approaching his vehicle from behind himon the left side. Since Pedestrian B was walking with her head down, she failed to recognize the fact that the
four-wheeled vehicle driven by A was backing up, and collided with the said four-wheeled vehicle.
The fact that Driver A failed to adequately confirm the safety factors behind him is believed to be the primary causeof the accident, but Pedestrian B’s behavior is also a factor. Walking through parking lots without considering thatparked vehicles may be backing up towards you, not paying attention to the conditions around you, and walking
while looking down are also factors that cause accidents.

No. of people

Fig. 8. Breakdown of reasons for not holding handswith the child (2010 – 2014)

Four-wheeled vehicle

6 or underStarting up
Moving straight7 ‒ 12Turning left

13 ‒ 18

Turning rightReversing19 ‒ 64

Other

65 or over
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fig. 9 Type of motion of the opposing vehicle by pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)■Summary of the characteristics of pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots
and similar locations
The following characteristics were observed with the pedestrians who were killed or injured.
◆ Age 65 or over
● The casualties are increasing year by year.
● They tend to get into accidents when the four-wheeled vehicle is reversing.
● They frequently get into accidents because they fail to properly confirm safety factors.
◆ Age 6 or under● They tend to get into accidents when the four-wheeled vehicle is starting up or moving straight.
● Oftentimes their parent or guardian is not holding their hand.
● Their percentage of fatalities or serious injuries in parking lots and similar locations is roughly thesame as in all other locations.
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

Time / timeframe of accident:
9:00 ‒ 10:00 in March on a clear day
Four-wheeled vehicle A:
Man in his early 80s
Pedestrian B:
Woman in her early 60s, sustainedslight injuries

Collision speed: 10km/h■In what ways are four-wheeled vehicles moving when they get into accidents with pedestrians?
Fig. 9 shows the type of motion of the opposing vehicle by age group of the pedestrians that were killed or injured
in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations. Children aged 6 or under and 7 –12 tend to suffer collisions when the vehicle is starting up or moving straight, while people aged 65 or over tend tosuffer collisions when the four-wheeled vehicle is reversing.
Generally speaking, many of the accidents that occur while young and school-age children are walking are causedby the children darting out, and so is the case with parking lots and similar locations, where the children dart out
from the shadows of the parked vehicles. This is also believed to be due to the fact that children that are short instature tend to be concealed by parked vehicles, making it difficult for the drivers of four-wheeled vehicles to notice
their presence. Another reason for this is because parked vehicles and other objects restrict the children's visual
field, making it difficult for them to notice four-wheeled vehicles.

A

Pedestrian

B

Fig. 10. Diagram of the scene of the accident■Example of an accident involving a young child
Having finished her shopping, Driver A pulled out of her parking spot and drove towards the shop’s rear exit. She
collided with Pedestrian B, who suddenly darted out from the shadow of a car parked on the right side in the
direction she was moving, running him over with her right, rear wheel. Driver A did not notice when Pedestrian B
came out of the shadow of the parked car. When she heard a thump sound on the right side of her vehicle thedriver stopped immediately. It was only after she got out of the driver’s seat on the left side and came around to theright side of the vehicle that she saw Pedestrian B’s mother cradling Pedestrian B in her arms and realized that she
had run over Pedestrian B.
Since it was a parking lot for a store that handles goods for young children, one would expect young children to bewalking freely through the parking lot and emerging from the shadows of vehicles. Driver A needed to be drivingwith an awareness of this fact. In addition, Pedestrian B’s mother parked her car in a parking space and took
Pedestrian B down from his child seat in the back seat on the vehicle’s left-hand side. When she went to take his
hand, Pedestrian B immediately withdrew his hand from hers and began walking on his own. The fact that
Pedestrian B’s mother did not firmly take hold of his hand is another factor behind the accident.

Four-wheeled vehicle

A

Collision speed: 10km/h
Store entrance

Bʼ

Pedestriansparentʼs car
Pedestrian

B

Rear exit

Time / timeframe of accident:
10:00 ‒ 11:00 in October on a clear day
Four-wheeled vehicle A:
Woman in her early 20s
Pedestrian B:
2-year old boy, sustained serious
injuries

Fig. 11. Diagram of the scene of the accident
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

lSpeciafeaturePedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations~Such locations where people tend to be careless, require additional confirmation of safety factors~

Fig. 7 shows a detailed composition rate for the human factor “Inattention of parent or guardian.” “Not holding
hands” accounted for 70% of the cases of “Inattention of parent or guardian.” Examining the reasons for not holding
hands with children reveals that “I thought it was safe” shows up with conspicuous frequency (Fig. 8).
154

I thought it was safe
I was preoccupied
with shopping
I was engaged withsomething else
They suddenly let goof my hand
Unconsciously

Other

30％

(234 people)
Not holding hands

70％(552 people)

49
39
37
23

They donʼt like it when I
hold their hand
Other

18
180
0

Fig. 7. Composition rate for inattentionof parent or guardian (2010 – 2014)

20

40

60

3 Typical examples of accidents
This section will introduce one example of an accident each for cases where the pedestrian is 65 or over and 6 orunder, as symbolized by the survey results for the macro-data.

■Example of an accident involving elderly people

52

I was standing around talking

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

As Driver A was backing up in a parking lot under the impression that there were no pedestrians behind him, hefailed to confirm safety behind his vehicle to the left and right and reversed out of a parking spot at a speed ofroughly 10km/h. He collided with Pedestrian B, who he was unaware was approaching his vehicle from behind himon the left side. Since Pedestrian B was walking with her head down, she failed to recognize the fact that the
four-wheeled vehicle driven by A was backing up, and collided with the said four-wheeled vehicle.
The fact that Driver A failed to adequately confirm the safety factors behind him is believed to be the primary causeof the accident, but Pedestrian B’s behavior is also a factor. Walking through parking lots without considering thatparked vehicles may be backing up towards you, not paying attention to the conditions around you, and walking
while looking down are also factors that cause accidents.

No. of people

Fig. 8. Breakdown of reasons for not holding handswith the child (2010 – 2014)

Four-wheeled vehicle

6 or underStarting up
Moving straight7 ‒ 12Turning left

13 ‒ 18

Turning rightReversing19 ‒ 64

Other

65 or over
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fig. 9 Type of motion of the opposing vehicle by pedestrian age group (2010 – 2014)■Summary of the characteristics of pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots
and similar locations
The following characteristics were observed with the pedestrians who were killed or injured.
◆ Age 65 or over
● The casualties are increasing year by year.
● They tend to get into accidents when the four-wheeled vehicle is reversing.
● They frequently get into accidents because they fail to properly confirm safety factors.
◆ Age 6 or under● They tend to get into accidents when the four-wheeled vehicle is starting up or moving straight.
● Oftentimes their parent or guardian is not holding their hand.
● Their percentage of fatalities or serious injuries in parking lots and similar locations is roughly thesame as in all other locations.
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

Time / timeframe of accident:
9:00 ‒ 10:00 in March on a clear day
Four-wheeled vehicle A:
Man in his early 80s
Pedestrian B:
Woman in her early 60s, sustainedslight injuries

Collision speed: 10km/h■In what ways are four-wheeled vehicles moving when they get into accidents with pedestrians?
Fig. 9 shows the type of motion of the opposing vehicle by age group of the pedestrians that were killed or injured
in pedestrian–four-wheeled vehicle accidents in parking lots and similar locations. Children aged 6 or under and 7 –12 tend to suffer collisions when the vehicle is starting up or moving straight, while people aged 65 or over tend tosuffer collisions when the four-wheeled vehicle is reversing.
Generally speaking, many of the accidents that occur while young and school-age children are walking are causedby the children darting out, and so is the case with parking lots and similar locations, where the children dart out
from the shadows of the parked vehicles. This is also believed to be due to the fact that children that are short instature tend to be concealed by parked vehicles, making it difficult for the drivers of four-wheeled vehicles to notice
their presence. Another reason for this is because parked vehicles and other objects restrict the children's visual
field, making it difficult for them to notice four-wheeled vehicles.

A

Pedestrian

B

Fig. 10. Diagram of the scene of the accident■Example of an accident involving a young child
Having finished her shopping, Driver A pulled out of her parking spot and drove towards the shop’s rear exit. She
collided with Pedestrian B, who suddenly darted out from the shadow of a car parked on the right side in the
direction she was moving, running him over with her right, rear wheel. Driver A did not notice when Pedestrian B
came out of the shadow of the parked car. When she heard a thump sound on the right side of her vehicle thedriver stopped immediately. It was only after she got out of the driver’s seat on the left side and came around to theright side of the vehicle that she saw Pedestrian B’s mother cradling Pedestrian B in her arms and realized that she
had run over Pedestrian B.
Since it was a parking lot for a store that handles goods for young children, one would expect young children to bewalking freely through the parking lot and emerging from the shadows of vehicles. Driver A needed to be drivingwith an awareness of this fact. In addition, Pedestrian B’s mother parked her car in a parking space and took
Pedestrian B down from his child seat in the back seat on the vehicle’s left-hand side. When she went to take his
hand, Pedestrian B immediately withdrew his hand from hers and began walking on his own. The fact that
Pedestrian B’s mother did not firmly take hold of his hand is another factor behind the accident.

Four-wheeled vehicle

A

Collision speed: 10km/h
Store entrance

Bʼ

Pedestriansparentʼs car
Pedestrian

B

Rear exit

Time / timeframe of accident:
10:00 ‒ 11:00 in October on a clear day
Four-wheeled vehicle A:
Woman in her early 20s
Pedestrian B:
2-year old boy, sustained serious
injuries

Fig. 11. Diagram of the scene of the accident
ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

When walking through parking lots, take heed of your surroundings in the same manner as you would
when walking along sidewalks and roadways. Don’t assume that because it is a parking lot it is safe,
and always be cautious of the movement of vehicles. Especially when four-wheeled vehicles arebacking up there are numerous blind spots behind the vehicle, which make it difficult for the driver toaccurately determine and confirm the conditions behind their vehicle. Therefore, while you may thinkthat the driver is aware of your presence, or is driving by anticipating the manner in which you are
moving, you should walk while being mindful of the movement of four-wheeled vehicles.

■For parents using parking lots accompanied by young children

28

Since people drive at relatively low speeds when driving in parking lots, this potentially makes themmore careless than when they are driving on general roads. Furthermore, people also potentially get
careless about confirming safety factors in front of them when searching for a parking space. Parking
lots have lots of blind spots and cars frequently back up in parking lots, resulting in numerous cases
where it is impossible to accurately determine the surrounding conditions.
Drivers must pay attention to children in particular when they are starting their vehicle up and moving
straight. Since children are small in stature they tend to be concealed in the shadows of parked
vehicles, making it difficult for drivers to notice and delaying detection. Therefore, drivers must makean effort to drive at a speed where they can stop at any time (10km/h or slower).
When backing up, it is difficult for drivers to accurately determine or confirm the conditions behindthem. They should back up at about the same speed at which pedestrians walk. When passengers
are present, drivers should get the passengers to guide them out.

3

渉外事業課

TEL 03-5577-3973

FAX 03-5577-3980

公益財団法人 交通事故総合分析センター●ウェブサイト http://www.itarda.or.jp/ ●Eメール koho@itarda.or.jp●フェイスブック https://www.facebook.com/itarda.or〒101-0064 東京都千代田区猿楽町2-7-8 住友水道橋ビル8階
TEL 03-5577-3977(代表) FAX 03-5577-3980

ITARDA INFORMATION no.115

つくば 交通事故調査事務所

住 友 水 道 橋 ビル８ 階

イタルダインフォメーションに関するお問い合せ先

Pedestrian‒four-wheeled vehicle accidents
in parking lots and similar locationslSpeciafeature~Such locations where people tend to be careless,require additional conﬁrmation of safety factors~
Small reduction in the number of pedestrian casualties
in parking lots and similar locations (general traﬃc locations)
120■For people driving in parking lots

(Hiroshi Aoki)

交通事故分析レポート No.115

No.115

公益財団法人 交通事故総合分析センター〒101 0064 東 京 都 千 代 田 区 猿 楽 町 ２ ７ ８The behavior of young children is unpredictable. If there is something that catches their interest, they
have a tendency to suddenly rush out towards it without noticing anything else. Parents should firmly
take hold of young children’s hands in parking lots and not let them walk around freely as they please.
Moreover, as was referenced in the accident case example, parents must also be attentive
immediately after their young children get out of the car. Sometimes children can get away from theirparents in the blink of an eye. Parents should be careful to ensure that when young children exit thevehicle they do not get separated when the parent is putting things in order in the vehicle or closing
their door.

ITARDA INFORMATION

110

Parking lot P

100

Index

■For elderly people using parking lots

ITARDA INFORMATION

Below we have summarized precautions to pay attention to when walking and driving through parkinglots.

交通事故分析レポート

4 Conclusion

イタルダ インフォメーション

90

80

70

Parking lots and similar locations (general traﬃc locations)Intersections

60

50

Near intersections
Ordinary roads

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fig. 1. Trends in the number of pedestrian casualties
in pedestrian‒four-wheeled vehicle accidents
by type of road conﬁguration(The number of casualties is the total from the primary and secondary
parties when the number of casualties from 2010 is taken as 100)

1 Introduction ・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P2
Characteristics of pedestrian‒four-wheeled vehicle accidents
2
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P3
in parking lots and similar locations
3 Typical examples of accidents・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P7
4 Conclusion・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P8