Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~On this occasion, we carried out statistical analysis regarding brake and accelerator misapplication (pedal
misapplication) using the latest accident data, and we thus shed light on the status of multiple collisions
and some of the characteristics in this regard, such as the persons sustaining injuries. The insights that we
gained are as follows.

■Insights gained

1. Nearly 10,000 casualty accidents caused by the operation error of “pedal misapplication” occurred
during the three-year period of 2018 to 2020 (Table 1). While fatal and serious injury accidents were
frequently caused by elderly drivers, among casualty accidents, vehicle-vehicle accidents were
frequently caused by young drivers (Figures 1 and 2).
2. Multiple collisions: Among fatal and serious injury accidents caused by pedal misapplication, multiple
collisions occurred in 37% of the accidents. This ratio is much higher than the ratio of 8% among all
types of accidents (Figure 7). Furthermore, multiple collisions were frequent among elderly drivers(Figures 8 and 9).
3. Tertiary-or-lower parties: Since the ratio of multiple collisions is high among pedal-misapplication
accidents, in all types of accidents, there are certain numbers of persons sustaining injuries who areof a tertiary-or-lower party, which is the receiver of a second-or-subsequent collision during an
accident (Figures 10, 11, and 12).

参考文献
１）柴崎 宏武, 小菅英恵, 平川晃洋:「交通事故データからみた高齢運転者事故の特徴」自動車技術会
2017年秋季学術講演会予稿集No.20176183,（2017）２）谷口正典:「四輪車のペダルの踏み間違い事故 〜アクセルとブレーキの踏み間違いを事故事例から学ぶ〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.137, ITARDA（2021）
３）平川晃洋:「アクセルとブレーキの踏み間違い事故 〜高齢ドライバーに特徴的な事故の防止に向けて〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.124, ITARDA(2018）４）本田正英:「運転操作の誤りを防ぐ 〜若者、高齢者に多い操作不適事故〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.107, ITARDA(2014）５）「運転操作の誤りを防ぐ〜駐車場、高齢者に多いペダル踏み間違い事故〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.86, ITARDA(2010）

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 https://www.itarda.or.jp/
本部・東京交通事故調査事務所〒101-0064 東京都千代田区神田猿楽町2-7-8 住友水道橋ビル8階
TEL 03-5577-3977(代表) FAX 03-5577-3980●Eメール koho@itarda.or.jp

つくば 交通事故調査事務所

ーション
メ
ォ
フ
イン
イタルダ

l
SpeciafeatureNo.

Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions
through statistical accident analysis ~

No.

139

2

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 渉外事業課

139
ITARDA
INFORMATIONINFORMAT
ORMA ION
ORMAT
2022

公益財団法人 交通事故総合分析センター
令和4年 月 〒101 0064 東 京 都 千 代 田 区 神 田 猿 楽 町 ２ ７ ８The care that drivers should take to prevent pedal misapplication is covered in ITARDA Information No.
137 and so on, so please refer to these issues if you have an interest in this regard. As for the multiple
collisions that we newly analyzed on this occasion, it seems that measures could be taken regarding thefunctions of vehicles for the avoidance of such accidents. These functions could include responding toinitial collisions with braking operations and engine-output reductions in order to lessen damage during thesecondary and subsequent collisions with pedestrians and so on. We have high hopes regarding thefurther evolution of vehicles in this regard.
(Kenji Kawaguchi)

イタルダ インフォメーション

4 Conclusions

ITARDA INFORMATIONl
Speciafeature1 Introduction・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P2
2 Accidents caused by operation error ・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P3
3 Characteristics of accidents caused by pedal misapplication
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P5
Driving-movement, multiple collisions, and driver age &injury-sustaining parties divided by type of accident
4 Conclusions ・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P11

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

11

表紙

l
SpeciafeaturePedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

1 Introduction
250

Number of fatal andserious injury accidents causedby pedal misapplication

Vehicle-vehicle

Single-vehicle

Pedestrian-vehicle
194

200
150
111

100
73

50
0

25

10 6

Age 24or below

11 8

15

3

Age 25
to 34

3

3

Age 35
to 44

42

31
26 28

13 13 12
Age 45
to 54

86

82

Age 55
to 64

Age 65
to 74

Age 75or above

Driver age
Figure 1. Distribution of pedal-misapplication accidents by driver age(Fatal and serious injury accidents with primary party

Number of accidents causedby pedal misapplication

1,600

1,538

Vehicle-vehicle

Single-vehicle(Accidents with primary party of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)

Type of accident

1,315

1,273

1,200

893

600

542
412

400

0

Singlevehicle

Pedestrianvehicle

Total (*2)

Casualty accidents

7,883

1,247

606

9,738

Fatal and serious
injury accidents
among above

214

370

211

797

Fatal accidents
among above

14

86

22

123

902

859

800

200

Vehiclevehicle

Accident
content

1,103

1,000

Next, Table 1 shows the total numbers of accidents, not divided by age. In the totals for each type of accident, it isapparent that a large amount of casualty accidents have been caused by pedal misapplication, with the number
over a period of three years at close to 10,000. Considering what the number is for casualty accidents alone, it canbe presumed that the total including property damaging accidents would be even more substantial.

Table 1. Number of accidents caused by misapplication of accelerator and brake

Pedestrian-vehicle

1,400First of all, Figure 1 and Figure 2 on the previous page show the numbers of accidents caused by pedal
misapplication divided by type of accident, and divided by driver age. Here, the types of accident are broadly
divided into the three categories of “vehicle-vehicle,” “single-vehicle,” and “pedestrian-vehicle.” Among the fatal andserious injury accidents in Figure 1, accidents caused by elderly drivers account for a large portion of the total, andsingle-vehicle accidents are particularly frequent among drivers age 65 or above. Meanwhile, looking at the total
casualty accidents (fatal and serious injury accidents, plus accidents with slight injuries) in Figure 2, vehicle-vehicle
accidents, which include rear-end collisions and so on, are the most frequent, and it appears that a large amount ofpedal misapplication is occurring among young drivers in addition to elderly drivers. The reason for this is likely thatyoung drivers have a low level of driving proficiency, and are not accustomed to the vehicle that they are driving.

In this issue of ITARDA Information, we would like to take a detailed look at the positioning of pedal misapplication
among the types of human error, and the actual circumstances regarding multiple collisions caused by pedal
misapplication.

of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)

1,800

You have likely heard about accidents caused by the misapplication of the accelerator and brake pedals(hereinafter “pedal misapplication”) as they are sometimes presented in the news. While pedal misapplication is anerror related to the most basic of driving operations, it is a major error that can have serious consequences. This isbecause the driver ends up accelerating the vehicle when trying to stop it, so a situation in which the opposite ofthe driver’s intention occurs. In fact, pedal misapplication sometimes causes tragic accidents involving vulnerable
road users such as pedestrians, or causes significant damage to convenience stores or other buildings due tovehicles driving into them. We have already introduced specific examples of such accidents in ITARDA Information
N o. 137, so o n t his o c c asi o n, we would like to t ake a l o ok at t he numb er s and c har ac ter ist ic s ofpedal-misapplication accidents, based on statistical accident analysis. The analysis below will target human error
during accidents in which a small-sized passenger vehicle (or K-cars) or a medium-sized passenger vehicle is theprimary party*1.

40 35

29 29

22 16

59 44

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34

Age 35
to 44

Age 45
to 54

143

74

Age 55
to 64

185
Age 65
to 74

223

Age 75or above

Driver age
Figure 2. Distribution of pedal-misapplication accidents by driver age(*1) The “primary party” is the party that was the most at fault. When the fault is about the same, it is the party that sustained the least
damage, and in single-vehicle accidents, it is the party of the vehicle in question.
(*2) The total includes vehicle-train accidents.

(Casualty accidents with primary party of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)
ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

1

2

l
SpeciafeaturePedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

1 Introduction
250

Number of fatal andserious injury accidents causedby pedal misapplication

Vehicle-vehicle

Single-vehicle

Pedestrian-vehicle
194

200
150
111

100
73

50
0

25

10 6

Age 24or below

11 8

15

3

Age 25
to 34

3

3

Age 35
to 44

42

31
26 28

13 13 12
Age 45
to 54

86

82

Age 55
to 64

Age 65
to 74

Age 75or above

Driver age
Figure 1. Distribution of pedal-misapplication accidents by driver age(Fatal and serious injury accidents with primary party

Number of accidents causedby pedal misapplication

1,600

1,538

Vehicle-vehicle

Single-vehicle(Accidents with primary party of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)

Type of accident

1,315

1,273

1,200

893

600

542
412

400

0

Singlevehicle

Pedestrianvehicle

Total (*2)

Casualty accidents

7,883

1,247

606

9,738

Fatal and serious
injury accidents
among above

214

370

211

797

Fatal accidents
among above

14

86

22

123

902

859

800

200

Vehiclevehicle

Accident
content

1,103

1,000

Next, Table 1 shows the total numbers of accidents, not divided by age. In the totals for each type of accident, it isapparent that a large amount of casualty accidents have been caused by pedal misapplication, with the number
over a period of three years at close to 10,000. Considering what the number is for casualty accidents alone, it canbe presumed that the total including property damaging accidents would be even more substantial.

Table 1. Number of accidents caused by misapplication of accelerator and brake

Pedestrian-vehicle

1,400First of all, Figure 1 and Figure 2 on the previous page show the numbers of accidents caused by pedal
misapplication divided by type of accident, and divided by driver age. Here, the types of accident are broadly
divided into the three categories of “vehicle-vehicle,” “single-vehicle,” and “pedestrian-vehicle.” Among the fatal andserious injury accidents in Figure 1, accidents caused by elderly drivers account for a large portion of the total, andsingle-vehicle accidents are particularly frequent among drivers age 65 or above. Meanwhile, looking at the total
casualty accidents (fatal and serious injury accidents, plus accidents with slight injuries) in Figure 2, vehicle-vehicle
accidents, which include rear-end collisions and so on, are the most frequent, and it appears that a large amount ofpedal misapplication is occurring among young drivers in addition to elderly drivers. The reason for this is likely thatyoung drivers have a low level of driving proficiency, and are not accustomed to the vehicle that they are driving.

In this issue of ITARDA Information, we would like to take a detailed look at the positioning of pedal misapplication
among the types of human error, and the actual circumstances regarding multiple collisions caused by pedal
misapplication.

of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)

1,800

You have likely heard about accidents caused by the misapplication of the accelerator and brake pedals(hereinafter “pedal misapplication”) as they are sometimes presented in the news. While pedal misapplication is anerror related to the most basic of driving operations, it is a major error that can have serious consequences. This isbecause the driver ends up accelerating the vehicle when trying to stop it, so a situation in which the opposite ofthe driver’s intention occurs. In fact, pedal misapplication sometimes causes tragic accidents involving vulnerable
road users such as pedestrians, or causes significant damage to convenience stores or other buildings due tovehicles driving into them. We have already introduced specific examples of such accidents in ITARDA Information
N o. 137, so o n t his o c c asi o n, we would like to t ake a l o ok at t he numb er s and c har ac ter ist ic s ofpedal-misapplication accidents, based on statistical accident analysis. The analysis below will target human error
during accidents in which a small-sized passenger vehicle (or K-cars) or a medium-sized passenger vehicle is theprimary party*1.

40 35

29 29

22 16

59 44

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34

Age 35
to 44

Age 45
to 54

143

74

Age 55
to 64

185
Age 65
to 74

223

Age 75or above

Driver age
Figure 2. Distribution of pedal-misapplication accidents by driver age(*1) The “primary party” is the party that was the most at fault. When the fault is about the same, it is the party that sustained the least
damage, and in single-vehicle accidents, it is the party of the vehicle in question.
(*2) The total includes vehicle-train accidents.

(Casualty accidents with primary party of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)
ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

1

2

l
SpeciafeaturePedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

2 Accidents caused by operation error■Cognition, decision, and operation errors

We will now take an overall look at human error. The “primary party,” which is the target for our analysis on thisoccasion, is basically the party that was the most at fault. As such, the primary party is recorded as having carriedout some type of human error, with the exception of cases in which investigation is not possible. Such human error
is categorized into the three driving steps of “cognition,” “decision,” and “operation.”

Figure 4-2 is a graph that shows the same regarding casualty accidents overall. Among vehicle-vehicle accidents,
the most frequent error is “brake application that is too weak or late.” This error causes rear-end-collision accidents
and so on. While the composition ratio of pedal misapplication is 16%, the absolute number of cases appears to belarge at 7,883. Among single-vehicle and pedestrian-vehicle accidents, the composition ratio of pedal
misapplication is higher.

Cognition errors include “drowsy driving,” “distracted driving,” “absent-minded driving,” “failure to check safety,” and“insufficient checking of safety.”

Operation errors include “brake and accelerator misapplication,” “brake application that is too weak or late,”“steering error,” and “shifting to the wrong gear.”
Figure 3 shows the composition ratios of the three errors regarding accidents in which the primary party was asmall-sized passenger vehicle or medium-sized passenger vehicle, during the three-year period of 2018 to 2020. It
is clear that operation error is frequent among single-vehicle accidents. It seems that in the case of single-vehicle
accidents, since the other party of the collision does not move, there are few cognition errors, and there are
frequently operation errors, such as steering operation mistakes at curves, in addition to pedal misapplication.

3%

2%
7%

13%

2%
11%

7%
15%

45%

40%

Composition ratio of
operation error among fataland serious injury accidents

Decision errors include “neglecting to pay attention to whether there were specific dangers,” “neglecting to pay
attention due to thinking that the other party would yield,” and “incorrectly predicting the actions of the other party.”

Operation

84%

90%

88%

78%

1,586

387

14%
4%
1%

14%
3%
2%

19%
1%
5%
11%
3%
7%

46%

52%

Driving-operation error related to automatic
speed control device, etc.
Steering operation during braking
Shifting to the wrong gear
Steering error
Failure to use engine brake

5%

4%
2%
23%

14%
16%

(214
cases)(370
cases)

Vehicle-vehicleSingle-vehicle

Cognition

Other driving-operation error

55%

Slamming on brakes(211
cases)

Brake application that is too weak or late
Brake and accelerator misapplication

Pedestrian-vehicle

Figure 4-1. Composition ratio of operation error(Fatal and serious injury accidents in 2018 to 2020)

54%

48%

Vehiclevehicle

Decision

Single- Pedestrianvehicle
vehicleFatal and serious
injury accidents

Vehiclevehicle

Single- Pedestrianvehicle
vehicleAccidents

Figure 3. Human error composition ratio (excluding cases in which investigation not possible)(Accidents with primary party of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)■Details of operation errors

Next, we would like to look at operation errors in more detail.
Figure 4-1 is a graph that shows the composition ratios of operation error regarding each type of accident, among
fatal and serious injury accidents. Among vehicle-vehicle and single-vehicle accidents, “steering error” is the mostfrequent, and next is “brake and accelerator misapplication.” Among pedestrian-vehicle accidents, “brake andaccelerator misapplication” is the most frequent at 55%.

Composition ratio of
operation error during accidents

7%6%

n＝1,301n＝49,370

5,101

1,648

12%
2%
1%
9%
3%

11%
4%
2%

19%

42%

Other driving-operation error
Driving-operation error related to automatic
speed control device, etc.

2%5%Steering operation during braking

12%

Shifting to the wrong gear

3%

Steering error

20%

56%

12%
4%
24%

16%

(1,247cases)(7,883cases)

Vehicle-vehicleSingle-vehicle

Failure to use engine brake
Slamming on brakes

37%

Brake application that is too weak or late(606
cases)

Brake and accelerator misapplication

Pedestrian-vehicle

Figure 4-2. Composition ratio of operation error(Casualty accidents in 2018 to 2020)

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

3

4

l
SpeciafeaturePedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

2 Accidents caused by operation error■Cognition, decision, and operation errors

We will now take an overall look at human error. The “primary party,” which is the target for our analysis on thisoccasion, is basically the party that was the most at fault. As such, the primary party is recorded as having carriedout some type of human error, with the exception of cases in which investigation is not possible. Such human error
is categorized into the three driving steps of “cognition,” “decision,” and “operation.”

Figure 4-2 is a graph that shows the same regarding casualty accidents overall. Among vehicle-vehicle accidents,
the most frequent error is “brake application that is too weak or late.” This error causes rear-end-collision accidents
and so on. While the composition ratio of pedal misapplication is 16%, the absolute number of cases appears to belarge at 7,883. Among single-vehicle and pedestrian-vehicle accidents, the composition ratio of pedal
misapplication is higher.

Cognition errors include “drowsy driving,” “distracted driving,” “absent-minded driving,” “failure to check safety,” and“insufficient checking of safety.”

Operation errors include “brake and accelerator misapplication,” “brake application that is too weak or late,”“steering error,” and “shifting to the wrong gear.”
Figure 3 shows the composition ratios of the three errors regarding accidents in which the primary party was asmall-sized passenger vehicle or medium-sized passenger vehicle, during the three-year period of 2018 to 2020. It
is clear that operation error is frequent among single-vehicle accidents. It seems that in the case of single-vehicle
accidents, since the other party of the collision does not move, there are few cognition errors, and there are
frequently operation errors, such as steering operation mistakes at curves, in addition to pedal misapplication.

3%

2%
7%

13%

2%
11%

7%
15%

45%

40%

Composition ratio of
operation error among fataland serious injury accidents

Decision errors include “neglecting to pay attention to whether there were specific dangers,” “neglecting to pay
attention due to thinking that the other party would yield,” and “incorrectly predicting the actions of the other party.”

Operation

84%

90%

88%

78%

1,586

387

14%
4%
1%

14%
3%
2%

19%
1%
5%
11%
3%
7%

46%

52%

Driving-operation error related to automatic
speed control device, etc.
Steering operation during braking
Shifting to the wrong gear
Steering error
Failure to use engine brake

5%

4%
2%
23%

14%
16%

(214
cases)(370
cases)

Vehicle-vehicleSingle-vehicle

Cognition

Other driving-operation error

55%

Slamming on brakes(211
cases)

Brake application that is too weak or late
Brake and accelerator misapplication

Pedestrian-vehicle

Figure 4-1. Composition ratio of operation error(Fatal and serious injury accidents in 2018 to 2020)

54%

48%

Vehiclevehicle

Decision

Single- Pedestrianvehicle
vehicleFatal and serious
injury accidents

Vehiclevehicle

Single- Pedestrianvehicle
vehicleAccidents

Figure 3. Human error composition ratio (excluding cases in which investigation not possible)(Accidents with primary party of small or medium-sized passenger vehicle in 2018 to 2020)■Details of operation errors

Next, we would like to look at operation errors in more detail.
Figure 4-1 is a graph that shows the composition ratios of operation error regarding each type of accident, among
fatal and serious injury accidents. Among vehicle-vehicle and single-vehicle accidents, “steering error” is the mostfrequent, and next is “brake and accelerator misapplication.” Among pedestrian-vehicle accidents, “brake andaccelerator misapplication” is the most frequent at 55%.

Composition ratio of
operation error during accidents

7%6%

n＝1,301n＝49,370

5,101

1,648

12%
2%
1%
9%
3%

11%
4%
2%

19%

42%

Other driving-operation error
Driving-operation error related to automatic
speed control device, etc.

2%5%Steering operation during braking

12%

Shifting to the wrong gear

3%

Steering error

20%

56%

12%
4%
24%

16%

(1,247cases)(7,883cases)

Vehicle-vehicleSingle-vehicle

Failure to use engine brake
Slamming on brakes

37%

Brake application that is too weak or late(606
cases)

Brake and accelerator misapplication

Pedestrian-vehicle

Figure 4-2. Composition ratio of operation error(Casualty accidents in 2018 to 2020)

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

3

4

l
SpeciafeaturePedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~ITARDA INFORMATION no.139■Driving-movement
Figure 5 shows the driving-movement during pedal misapplication among fatal and serious injury accidents.
Among vehicle-vehicle and single-vehicle accidents, “going straight on” is the most frequent, and this is followed by“starting up.” In the case of pedestrian-vehicle accidents, in addition to going straight on and starting up,“reversing” is frequent at 26%. Relative to other types of accidents, “turning right” is also frequent at 11%. It seems
that at parking areas and so on, pedestrians need to avoid moving into the area in the front or back of vehicles thatare advancing or reversing.

5%
6%

7%
5%
3%

26%

12.0
10.0

Turning left

38%

Going straight on
Starting up

23%

Vehicle-vehicle24%

19%

Single-vehicle

Pedestrian-vehicle

Figure 5. Driving-movement during pedal misapplication among
fatal and serious injury accidents(2018 to 2020)■Type of accident and driver age

9.6
7.8

6.0
4.0

3.3

3.2
2.0

2.0
0.0
0

0.2 0.2
Age 24or below

0.1 0.1
Age 25
to 34

2.2

1.7
0.0 0.0

Age 35to 44

3.2

0.1 0.1
Age 45to 54

0.4 0.2
Age 55
to 64

1.1

1.3

0.5

Age 65
to 74

Age 75or above

Figure 6. Number of accidents caused by pedal misapplication
per 100,000 license holders divided by driver age

Reversing
Turning right66%

Pedestrian-vehicle

Driver age(Casualty accidents in 2018 to 2020)■Multiple collisions

In the news regarding pedal-misapplication accidents, there are cases of accidents involving collisions with various
objects. Here, we would like to take a look at the actual circumstances regarding multiple collisions. Figure 7 shows
the multiple-collision ratio among all types of accidents, during all types of human error and during pedal
misapplication. While overall the multiple-collision ratio is 8% regarding both fatal and serious injury accidents andcasualty accidents, in the case of pedal misapplication, the ratio of multiple-collision accidents appears to be high,at 37% regarding fatal and serious injury accidents and at 29% regarding casualty accidents.

Fatal and serious
injury accidents
Multiple-collision ratio

63%

Single-vehicle

8.0

11%
1%

Vehicle-vehicle

Multiple
collision
Didn’t
occur

37%
8%

OccurredMultiple-collision
ratio during accidents

2%

Number of accidents
per 100,000 holders of license
for a medium-sized vehicle or above

3 Characteristics of accidents caused by pedal misapplication

All types
Pedalof human error misapplication

Multiple
collision
Didn’toccur
Occurred8%29%

All types
Pedalof human error misapplication

Figure 7. Comparison of multiple-collision ratio overall versus during pedal misapplication

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the status of pedal-misapplication accidents divided by the type of accident anddivided by the driver age. Figure 6 additionally shows the number of casualty accidents per 100,000 holders of alicense for a medium-sized vehicle or above. Compared with Figure 2, it is even clearer that there is high risk ofpedal-misapplication accidents among drivers “age 24 or below” and “age 75 or above.” While attention is often
placed on elderly drivers in this regard, it seems to be necessary to sufficiently focus on the prevention of pedal
misapplication among young drivers as well.

(Fatal and serious injury accidents & casualty accidents in 2018 to 2020)
Figure 8 shows the fatal and serious injury accidents caused by pedal misapplication, divided by the age of the
primary-party driver. The left shows the absolute values, and the right shows the multiple-collision ratios. While“age 24 or below” is high at 34%, the multiple-collision ratio decreases as the age increases. At “age 55 or above,”the ratio increases again, and at “age 65 or above,” it is at around 40%. Figure 9 shows the same regarding
casualty accidents. It is clear that the multiple-collision ratio rises at “age 55 or above.”

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

5

6

l
SpeciafeaturePedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~ITARDA INFORMATION no.139■Driving-movement
Figure 5 shows the driving-movement during pedal misapplication among fatal and serious injury accidents.
Among vehicle-vehicle and single-vehicle accidents, “going straight on” is the most frequent, and this is followed by“starting up.” In the case of pedestrian-vehicle accidents, in addition to going straight on and starting up,“reversing” is frequent at 26%. Relative to other types of accidents, “turning right” is also frequent at 11%. It seems
that at parking areas and so on, pedestrians need to avoid moving into the area in the front or back of vehicles thatare advancing or reversing.

5%
6%

7%
5%
3%

26%

12.0
10.0

Turning left

38%

Going straight on
Starting up

23%

Vehicle-vehicle24%

19%

Single-vehicle

Pedestrian-vehicle

Figure 5. Driving-movement during pedal misapplication among
fatal and serious injury accidents(2018 to 2020)■Type of accident and driver age

9.6
7.8

6.0
4.0

3.3

3.2
2.0

2.0
0.0
0

0.2 0.2
Age 24or below

0.1 0.1
Age 25
to 34

2.2

1.7
0.0 0.0

Age 35to 44

3.2

0.1 0.1
Age 45to 54

0.4 0.2
Age 55
to 64

1.1

1.3

0.5

Age 65
to 74

Age 75or above

Figure 6. Number of accidents caused by pedal misapplication
per 100,000 license holders divided by driver age

Reversing
Turning right66%

Pedestrian-vehicle

Driver age(Casualty accidents in 2018 to 2020)■Multiple collisions

In the news regarding pedal-misapplication accidents, there are cases of accidents involving collisions with various
objects. Here, we would like to take a look at the actual circumstances regarding multiple collisions. Figure 7 shows
the multiple-collision ratio among all types of accidents, during all types of human error and during pedal
misapplication. While overall the multiple-collision ratio is 8% regarding both fatal and serious injury accidents andcasualty accidents, in the case of pedal misapplication, the ratio of multiple-collision accidents appears to be high,at 37% regarding fatal and serious injury accidents and at 29% regarding casualty accidents.

Fatal and serious
injury accidents
Multiple-collision ratio

63%

Single-vehicle

8.0

11%
1%

Vehicle-vehicle

Multiple
collision
Didn’t
occur

37%
8%

OccurredMultiple-collision
ratio during accidents

2%

Number of accidents
per 100,000 holders of license
for a medium-sized vehicle or above

3 Characteristics of accidents caused by pedal misapplication

All types
Pedalof human error misapplication

Multiple
collision
Didn’toccur
Occurred8%29%

All types
Pedalof human error misapplication

Figure 7. Comparison of multiple-collision ratio overall versus during pedal misapplication

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the status of pedal-misapplication accidents divided by the type of accident anddivided by the driver age. Figure 6 additionally shows the number of casualty accidents per 100,000 holders of alicense for a medium-sized vehicle or above. Compared with Figure 2, it is even clearer that there is high risk ofpedal-misapplication accidents among drivers “age 24 or below” and “age 75 or above.” While attention is often
placed on elderly drivers in this regard, it seems to be necessary to sufficiently focus on the prevention of pedal
misapplication among young drivers as well.

(Fatal and serious injury accidents & casualty accidents in 2018 to 2020)
Figure 8 shows the fatal and serious injury accidents caused by pedal misapplication, divided by the age of the
primary-party driver. The left shows the absolute values, and the right shows the multiple-collision ratios. While“age 24 or below” is high at 34%, the multiple-collision ratio decreases as the age increases. At “age 55 or above,”the ratio increases again, and at “age 65 or above,” it is at around 40%. Figure 9 shows the same regarding
casualty accidents. It is clear that the multiple-collision ratio rises at “age 55 or above.”

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

56

Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~Age of primary-party driver

1046

834

0

Secondary-party fellow
passenger
1160

1175

25

22
32

51
57

840

(2018 to 2020)■Driver age and injury-sustaining parties (vehicle-vehicle accidents)

We have shown that multiple collisions are frequent among accidents caused by pedal misapplication, and wewould now like to take a look at which par ties sustain injuries in such accidents. Figure 10 shows theinjury-sustaining parties in vehicle-vehicle accidents. The numbers of people who sustained injuries are shown, so
the values are larger than those for the numbers of accidents that we have been looking at thus far. Figure 10-1 isregarding casualties. Since the accidents are “vehicle-vehicle,” there are many casualties among secondary-party
drivers and fellow passengers that are on the other side of the collisions. Nevertheless, it can be seen that there
are also certain numbers of casualties among the drivers and fellow passengers of the tertiary-or-lower party.
Looking at the graph of number of fatalities and serious injuries in Figure 10-2, it appears that at age 55 or above,the drivers and fellow passengers of the primary party that the carried out the pedal misapplication are also
becoming fatalities and sustaining serious injuries. Furthermore, it seems that at age 65 or above, tertiary-party
vehicle passengers and pedestrians are additionally becoming fatalities and sustaining serious injuries. This
coincides with the trend that we looked at earlier that the multiple-collision ratio is high among elderly drivers.

9

18

12
16

Age 75or above

0

18

26

12

6

5

6
6

Age 65
to 74

Figure 9. Rate of occurrence of multiple collisions among casualty accidents causedby pedal misapplication, divided by driver age

20

43

Age 55to 64

Age of primary-party driver40

9

Age 45to 54

Age of primary-party driver

21% 20% 21% 20%

60

Age 35to 44

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above337 237 196 197 365

692 813

Occurred
33% 37% 39%

80

Age 25
to 34

Occurred

500

11
6
10
11

100

Age 24or below

1,000

Didn’toccur

Number of fatalities
and serious injuries

Didn’toccur

Multiple
collisionAge 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above

1,500

Multiple-collision ratio
during accidents

120

2,000

Tertiary-or-lower-party
driverSecondary-party driver
Primary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver(Casualties in 2018 to 2020)

2,500

Multiple
collision

Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger

Figure 10-1. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal-misapplication vehicle-vehicle accidents(2018 to 2020)

Number of accidents

425

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

Age of primary-party driver

Age of primary-party driver

Figure 8. Rate of occurrence of multiple collisions among fatal and serious injury accidents causedby pedal misapplication, divided by driver age

0

802

345

Age 75or above31

36% 41% 39%

1452

24
96
285

53
180
269

35
115
263

Age 65to 74

824% 21%

43
124
289

373

1,000
500

36
126

25
86
254

Age 55to 64

534% 27%484

Age 45
to 54

6

141

1,500

205

Age 35
to 44

14

92

Occurred

2,000

Age 25
to 34

Occurred

Didn’toccur

68

Age 24or below

Didn’toccur

Multiple
collision

2,500

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above

Multiple
collision

Fatal and serious injury accidents
Multiple-collision ratio

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above

Number of fatal andserious injury accidents

Namely, this seems to show that at age 55 and beyond, there is an increase in the probability of cases in which thevehicle does not stop after initially colliding and ends up colliding with other objects as well. This is likely one resultof the fact that when elderly drivers make a driving-operation error, it is difficult for them to correct their driving
movements. 1)

ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

Number of casualtieslSpeciafeatureTertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.
Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger
Tertiary-or-lower-party
driverSecondary-party fellow
passenger
Secondary-party driver
Primary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 10-2. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal-misapplication vehicle-vehicle accidents(Fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 to 2020)■Driver age and injury-sustaining parties (single-vehicle accidents)

Next, we will take a look at single-vehicle accidents. While “single-vehicle accidents” refers to accidents in which
the party initially collided with is a utility pole, house, guardrail, or the like, such accidents included cases in whichanother vehicle or a pedestrian is collided with following the initial collision, and such parties collided with arereferred to as “tertiary-or-lower parties.” Figure 11-1 shows the numbers of casualties. Among single-vehicle
accidents there are course many cases in which there is no secondary party and the casualties are theprimary-party driver and fellow passengers. Nevertheless, there are also significant numbers of casualties among
tertiary-or-lower-party drivers, fellow passengers, and pedestrians, etc. Thus, it is clear that even though theaccidents are categorized as “single-vehicle,” passengers of other vehicles and pedestrians are also sustaining
injuries during such accidents due to multiple collisions.

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.13978Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~Age of primary-party driver

1046

834

0

Secondary-party fellow
passenger
1160

1175

25

22
32

51
57

840

(2018 to 2020)■Driver age and injury-sustaining parties (vehicle-vehicle accidents)

We have shown that multiple collisions are frequent among accidents caused by pedal misapplication, and wewould now like to take a look at which par ties sustain injuries in such accidents. Figure 10 shows theinjury-sustaining parties in vehicle-vehicle accidents. The numbers of people who sustained injuries are shown, so
the values are larger than those for the numbers of accidents that we have been looking at thus far. Figure 10-1 isregarding casualties. Since the accidents are “vehicle-vehicle,” there are many casualties among secondary-party
drivers and fellow passengers that are on the other side of the collisions. Nevertheless, it can be seen that there
are also certain numbers of casualties among the drivers and fellow passengers of the tertiary-or-lower party.
Looking at the graph of number of fatalities and serious injuries in Figure 10-2, it appears that at age 55 or above,the drivers and fellow passengers of the primary party that the carried out the pedal misapplication are also
becoming fatalities and sustaining serious injuries. Furthermore, it seems that at age 65 or above, tertiary-party
vehicle passengers and pedestrians are additionally becoming fatalities and sustaining serious injuries. This
coincides with the trend that we looked at earlier that the multiple-collision ratio is high among elderly drivers.

9

18

12
16

Age 75or above

0

18

26

12

6

5

6
6

Age 65
to 74

Figure 9. Rate of occurrence of multiple collisions among casualty accidents causedby pedal misapplication, divided by driver age

20

43

Age 55to 64

Age of primary-party driver40

9

Age 45to 54

Age of primary-party driver

21% 20% 21% 20%

60

Age 35to 44

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above337 237 196 197 365

692 813

Occurred
33% 37% 39%

80

Age 25
to 34

Occurred

500

11
6
10
11

100

Age 24or below

1,000

Didn’toccur

Number of fatalities
and serious injuries

Didn’toccur

Multiple
collisionAge 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above

1,500

Multiple-collision ratio
during accidents

120

2,000

Tertiary-or-lower-party
driverSecondary-party driver
Primary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver(Casualties in 2018 to 2020)

2,500

Multiple
collision

Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger

Figure 10-1. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal-misapplication vehicle-vehicle accidents(2018 to 2020)

Number of accidents

425

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

Age of primary-party driver

Age of primary-party driver

Figure 8. Rate of occurrence of multiple collisions among fatal and serious injury accidents causedby pedal misapplication, divided by driver age

0

802

345

Age 75or above31

36% 41% 39%

1452

24
96
285

53
180
269

35
115
263

Age 65to 74

824% 21%

43
124
289

373

1,000
500

36
126

25
86
254

Age 55to 64

534% 27%484

Age 45
to 54

6

141

1,500

205

Age 35
to 44

14

92

Occurred

2,000

Age 25
to 34

Occurred

Didn’toccur

68

Age 24or below

Didn’toccur

Multiple
collision

2,500

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above

Multiple
collision

Fatal and serious injury accidents
Multiple-collision ratio

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Age 24or belowAge 25
to 34
Age 35
to 44
Age 45to 54
Age 55
to 64
Age 65
to 74
Age 75or above

Number of fatal andserious injury accidents

Namely, this seems to show that at age 55 and beyond, there is an increase in the probability of cases in which thevehicle does not stop after initially colliding and ends up colliding with other objects as well. This is likely one resultof the fact that when elderly drivers make a driving-operation error, it is difficult for them to correct their driving
movements. 1)

ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

Number of casualtieslSpeciafeatureTertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.
Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger
Tertiary-or-lower-party
driverSecondary-party fellow
passenger
Secondary-party driver
Primary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 10-2. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal-misapplication vehicle-vehicle accidents(Fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 to 2020)■Driver age and injury-sustaining parties (single-vehicle accidents)

Next, we will take a look at single-vehicle accidents. While “single-vehicle accidents” refers to accidents in which
the party initially collided with is a utility pole, house, guardrail, or the like, such accidents included cases in whichanother vehicle or a pedestrian is collided with following the initial collision, and such parties collided with arereferred to as “tertiary-or-lower parties.” Figure 11-1 shows the numbers of casualties. Among single-vehicle
accidents there are course many cases in which there is no secondary party and the casualties are theprimary-party driver and fellow passengers. Nevertheless, there are also significant numbers of casualties among
tertiary-or-lower-party drivers, fellow passengers, and pedestrians, etc. Thus, it is clear that even though theaccidents are categorized as “single-vehicle,” passengers of other vehicles and pedestrians are also sustaining
injuries during such accidents due to multiple collisions.

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.13978Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~Cases in which a vehicle drives into a store and injures people inside also fall under this category. In Figure 11-2, itis clear that among drivers “age 65 to 74” and “age 75 or above,” tertiary-or-lower-party pedestrians are also
becoming fatalities and sustaining serious injuries.

Number of casualties

700
151

600
500

139

400

25
56

300

164

138

200

63
23
48
53

100
0

19
88

19

27

281
172

ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

In Figure 12-2, which is a graph regarding fatalities and serious injuries, in the case of accidents caused by elderly
drivers, around 10% of the injury-sustaining parties are tertiary-or-lower-party pedestrians, etc. As such, it is clearthat when the drivers are elderly, among pedestrian-vehicle accidents caused by pedal misapplication, theaccidents are involving multiple people.

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.
Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger
Tertiary-or-lower-party
driverPrimary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above

300

Number of casualtieslSpeciafeatureTertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger

33

200

Tertiary-or-lower-party
driver

150
219

100

9

Secondary-party
pedestrian

183

5

50
0

Age of primary-party driver

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

46

250

35

28

16

44

Primary-party fellow
passenger

74
11

Figure 11-1. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication single-vehicle accidents

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above(Casualties in 2018 to 2020)

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 12-1. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication pedestrian-vehicle accidents

250
29
3

200

86

150

118

50
15
18

8

0

Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger
Tertiary-or-lower-party
driver

16
3
40

100

(Casualties in 2018 to 2020)
Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

66

Primary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 11-2. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication single-vehicle accidents(Fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 to 2020)■Driver age and injury-sustaining parties (pedestrian-vehicle accidents)

Lastly, Figure 12-1 shows the driver age and injury-sustaining parties regarding pedestrian-vehicle accidents
caused by pedal misapplication. Since the accidents are recorded as “pedestrian-vehicle accidents,” theinjury-sustaining parties are of course frequently secondary-party pedestrians. Nevertheless, it appears that when
the driver age reaches “age 65 or above,” the injury-sustaining parties are very frequently tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrians, etc.

100
9

90

Number of fatalities
and serious injuries

Number of fatalities
and serious injuries

Primary-party driver

80

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

770Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger

60
50
40

70

Tertiary-or-lower-party
driver81

Secondary-party
pedestrian

30
20
10
0

6

3

3

11

28

2
2

Primary-party fellow
passenger6

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above

Primary-party driver

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 12-2. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication pedestrian-vehicle accidents(Fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 to 2020)

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

910Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~Cases in which a vehicle drives into a store and injures people inside also fall under this category. In Figure 11-2, itis clear that among drivers “age 65 to 74” and “age 75 or above,” tertiary-or-lower-party pedestrians are also
becoming fatalities and sustaining serious injuries.

Number of casualties

700
151

600
500

139

400

25
56

300

164

138

200

63
23
48
53

100
0

19
88

19

27

281
172

ITARDA INFORMATION no.139

In Figure 12-2, which is a graph regarding fatalities and serious injuries, in the case of accidents caused by elderly
drivers, around 10% of the injury-sustaining parties are tertiary-or-lower-party pedestrians, etc. As such, it is clearthat when the drivers are elderly, among pedestrian-vehicle accidents caused by pedal misapplication, theaccidents are involving multiple people.

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.
Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger
Tertiary-or-lower-party
driverPrimary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above

300

Number of casualtieslSpeciafeatureTertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger

33

200

Tertiary-or-lower-party
driver

150
219

100

9

Secondary-party
pedestrian

183

5

50
0

Age of primary-party driver

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

46

250

35

28

16

44

Primary-party fellow
passenger

74
11

Figure 11-1. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication single-vehicle accidents

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above(Casualties in 2018 to 2020)

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 12-1. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication pedestrian-vehicle accidents

250
29
3

200

86

150

118

50
15
18

8

0

Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger
Tertiary-or-lower-party
driver

16
3
40

100

(Casualties in 2018 to 2020)
Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

66

Primary-party fellow
passenger
Primary-party driver

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 11-2. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication single-vehicle accidents(Fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 to 2020)■Driver age and injury-sustaining parties (pedestrian-vehicle accidents)

Lastly, Figure 12-1 shows the driver age and injury-sustaining parties regarding pedestrian-vehicle accidents
caused by pedal misapplication. Since the accidents are recorded as “pedestrian-vehicle accidents,” theinjury-sustaining parties are of course frequently secondary-party pedestrians. Nevertheless, it appears that when
the driver age reaches “age 65 or above,” the injury-sustaining parties are very frequently tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrians, etc.

100
9

90

Number of fatalities
and serious injuries

Number of fatalities
and serious injuries

Primary-party driver

80

Tertiary-or-lower-party
pedestrian, etc.

770Tertiary-or-lower-party
fellow passenger

60
50
40

70

Tertiary-or-lower-party
driver81

Secondary-party
pedestrian

30
20
10
0

6

3

3

11

28

2
2

Primary-party fellow
passenger6

Age 24 Age 25 Age 35 Age 45 Age 55 Age 65 Age 75
or below to 34
to 44
to 54
to 64
to 74 or above

Primary-party driver

Age of primary-party driver
Figure 12-2. Injury-sustaining parties in pedal misapplication pedestrian-vehicle accidents(Fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 to 2020)

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

910Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions through statistical accident analysis ~On this occasion, we carried out statistical analysis regarding brake and accelerator misapplication (pedal
misapplication) using the latest accident data, and we thus shed light on the status of multiple collisions
and some of the characteristics in this regard, such as the persons sustaining injuries. The insights that we
gained are as follows.

■Insights gained

1. Nearly 10,000 casualty accidents caused by the operation error of “pedal misapplication” occurred
during the three-year period of 2018 to 2020 (Table 1). While fatal and serious injury accidents were
frequently caused by elderly drivers, among casualty accidents, vehicle-vehicle accidents were
frequently caused by young drivers (Figures 1 and 2).
2. Multiple collisions: Among fatal and serious injury accidents caused by pedal misapplication, multiple
collisions occurred in 37% of the accidents. This ratio is much higher than the ratio of 8% among all
types of accidents (Figure 7). Furthermore, multiple collisions were frequent among elderly drivers(Figures 8 and 9).
3. Tertiary-or-lower parties: Since the ratio of multiple collisions is high among pedal-misapplication
accidents, in all types of accidents, there are certain numbers of persons sustaining injuries who areof a tertiary-or-lower party, which is the receiver of a second-or-subsequent collision during an
accident (Figures 10, 11, and 12).

参考文献
１）柴崎 宏武, 小菅英恵, 平川晃洋:「交通事故データからみた高齢運転者事故の特徴」自動車技術会
2017年秋季学術講演会予稿集No.20176183,（2017）２）谷口正典:「四輪車のペダルの踏み間違い事故 〜アクセルとブレーキの踏み間違いを事故事例から学ぶ〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.137, ITARDA（2021）
３）平川晃洋:「アクセルとブレーキの踏み間違い事故 〜高齢ドライバーに特徴的な事故の防止に向けて〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.124, ITARDA(2018）４）本田正英:「運転操作の誤りを防ぐ 〜若者、高齢者に多い操作不適事故〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.107, ITARDA(2014）５）「運転操作の誤りを防ぐ〜駐車場、高齢者に多いペダル踏み間違い事故〜」
イタルダインフォメーションNo.86, ITARDA(2010）

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 https://www.itarda.or.jp/
本部・東京交通事故調査事務所〒101-0064 東京都千代田区神田猿楽町2-7-8 住友水道橋ビル8階
TEL 03-5577-3977(代表) FAX 03-5577-3980●Eメール koho@itarda.or.jp

つくば 交通事故調査事務所

ーション
メ
ォ
フ
イン
イタルダ

l
SpeciafeatureNo.

Pedal Misapplication Accidents~ Uncovering the reality of multiple collisions
through statistical accident analysis ~

No.

139

2

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 渉外事業課

139
ITARDA
INFORMATIONINFORMAT
ORMA ION
ORMAT
2022

公益財団法人 交通事故総合分析センター
令和4年 月 〒101 0064 東 京 都 千 代 田 区 神 田 猿 楽 町 ２ ７ ８The care that drivers should take to prevent pedal misapplication is covered in ITARDA Information No.
137 and so on, so please refer to these issues if you have an interest in this regard. As for the multiple
collisions that we newly analyzed on this occasion, it seems that measures could be taken regarding thefunctions of vehicles for the avoidance of such accidents. These functions could include responding toinitial collisions with braking operations and engine-output reductions in order to lessen damage during thesecondary and subsequent collisions with pedestrians and so on. We have high hopes regarding thefurther evolution of vehicles in this regard.
(Kenji Kawaguchi)

イタルダ インフォメーション

4 Conclusions

ITARDA INFORMATIONl
Speciafeature1 Introduction・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P2
2 Accidents caused by operation error ・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P3
Characteristics of accidents caused by pedal misapplication
3 Driving-movement, multiple collisions, and driver age &
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P5
injury-sustaining parties divided by type of accident
4 Conclusions ・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・P11

ITARDA INFORMATION No.139

11

表紙