Accidents to Children Involving Relatives or Close Associates-- Low-speed Accidents Caused by Relatives or Close Associates -ITARDA Information
2001 No.31
Institute for Traffic Accidents Research and Data Analysis (ITARDA)
Prepared by the expert from Japan

Introduction
With cooperation from police department nationwide last year, ITARDA collected dataon accidents and conducted investigative research on policies for the prevention of accidents at
low speed to the elderly, physically weak, or handicapped pedestrians. These data on fatal
accidents to children aged 9 years or younger (hereinafter “children”) occurring at 20 km/h or
below (hereinafter, “low-speed range”) clearly reveal that relatives or close associates are often
involved. This issue of ITARDA INFORMATION introduces accident cases and theircharacteristics based on data collected under the theme of “Accidents to Children Involving
Relatives or Close Associates.” ITARDA hopes that it will help family members or others who
frequently spend time with children to prevent such accidents.

1
Relatives or Close Associates
In ITARDA INFORMATION, relatives or close associates are defined as people with connections
to the child or to the child’s parents, brothers or sisters, relatives, parent’s friends, parent’s
employees, and persons taking children to and from school/preschool. Accidents to children
caused by such people are referred to as “accidents to children involving relatives or close
associates.”Figure 1 shows the scope of people included under relatives or close associates.

Friends

Employee

Parents

Relatives

Friend’sparents

Children
Friends
BrothersorFig. 1

Persons taking
children to andfrom school/preschool

2
Description of Data Collected
Of all fatal accidents occurring at speeds of about 20 km/h or below, data were collected on thosesatisfying the following conditions.
1) Accident occurred between a four-wheel vehicle and a child pedestrian aged 9 years or
younger or an elderly pedestrian aged 65 years or older.
2) Accident of which a major cause was a vehicle’s blind spot or failure by the driver to checkadequately for safety.
* In order to clarify the conditions under which accidents occurred, those not included in accident statistics, for example,
accidents in yards or within household compounds, were also investigated.

This analyzed investigation is based on accidents that had been taken place between 1998 and2000.
Total number of cases on which data
were collected
Accidents involving
relatives or close
associates
Accidents to children
55
18
Accidents to elderly
161
6
Table 1 Number of Accident Cases on Which Data Were Collected

3
Characteristics of Accidents Involving Relatives or Close Associates
The characteristics of accidents to children, in the low-speed range involving relatives or close
associates, are based on the accident data collected as follows.
(1)
Percentage of Accidents Involving Relatives or Close Associates
From the collected data indicated in Table 1, the percentages of accidents involving relatives
or close associates show that there is a higher percentage of accidents to children as opposedto the elderly (Figure 2).
Proportion (%)
0%

10%

20%

Accidents to elderly 3.7

Accidents to children

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

96.3

32.7

67.3

Accidents involving relatives or close associates
Accidents not involving relatives or close associates

Figure 2 Comparison of Percentages of Accidents Involving Relatives or Close Associates(2)

Accidents Breakdown by Category of Relatives or Close Associates

Looking at the types of people responsible for accidents involving relatives or close associates,
among males there are large numbers of fathers and persons taking children to and fromschool/preschool. Among females, mothers and parents’ friends topped the list (Table 2).
Table 2 Number of Accident Cases by Category of Relatives or Close Associates
Category of relatives or close Number of cases
associates
Male
Father6
Person taking children to3
and from school/preschool
Grandfather
1
Female Mother3
Parent’s friend
3
Person taking children to1
and from school/preschool
Employee
1
Total
18

(3) Number of Accidents Cases by Age of Children
Look at the breakdown of accidents by age of children, based on the collected data, among
accidents involving relatives or close associates, as opposed to the total number of accidents,
former accidents involve infants 1 or 2 years of age (Figure 3).
Proportion (%)
By ageTotal accident
cases

18.2

Relatives orclose
associates

40

38.9
0%

1years old

23.6

20%

2years old

33.3
40%

11.1 16.7

60%

3-6 years old

18.2

80%

Total
accident
cases

Accidents
involving relatives
or close associates

1 years old

107

2 years old

136

3-6 years old

222

7-9 years old

10

3

100%

7-9 years old

Figure 3 Accident Breakdown by Age of Children(4) Number of Accidents Cases by Activity of Children
The breakdown of accidents by activity of children reveals that many accidents were caused byrelatives or close associates while the child was standing still (Figure 4).
* “Standing still” means the child is standing for purposes other than playing.

Proportion (%)

Total accident cases

18.2

34.5

Accidents involving
relatives or close
associates

Standing still

23.6

44.4

Playing

27.8

Crossing at other locations

10.9

11.1

Crossing at the crosswalk

12.7

16.7

Other

Figure 4 Accident Breakdown by Accident Type
Accident type

Total accident cases

Standing still

10

Accidents involving relatives or close
associates
8

Playing

19

5

Crossing at other13

2locations
Crossing at the crosswalk

6

Other

7

3

(5) Accidents Breakdown by a Driver’s Sex
The breakdown of accidents in total by a driver’s sex shows that a large percentage ofaccidents involving relatives or close associates are caused by female drivers (Figure 5).
Proportion (%)
Total accident cases

Accidents involving relatives
or close associates
Male

78.2

55.6

21.8

SEX

Total
accident
cases

Male

43
12

Accidents
involving
relatives orclose
associates

44.4

FemaleFemale108Figure 5 Accident Breakdown by Driver’s Sex(6) Accident Breakdown by Action of Drivers
Looking at the accidents broken down by action of drivers, among accidents involving
relatives or close associates, a large percentage of accidents occurs while the driver isstarting to go forward, reversing or making a left turn, among which starting to go
forward accounts for a large proportion (Figure 6).

Proportion (%)

Total accident cases

40

21.8

Accidents involving
relatives or close
associates

21.8

10.9

66.7

Starting to go forward

Reversing

Turning left

27.8

Going straight forward

Turning right3.6 1.8

5.6

Other

Figure 6 Accident Breakdown by Action of Drivers
Type of action
Starting
forwardto

Total accident cases

Accidents involving relatives orclose associates

22

12

12
12

5
1

go

Reversing
Turning leftGoing
forwardstraight

6
2
1

Turning right
Other

(7)

Accident Breakdown by Vehicle Configuration

The accident breakdown by vehicle configuration shows that mini-van vehicles account for manyof the accidents involving relatives or close associates (Figure 7).
Among accidents involving relatives or close associates, broken down by driver age, many arecaused by female drivers 20 to 30 years of age. In 5 of 7 such cases, the vehicle was a mini-van
car. Elsewhere, accidents involving males taking children to and from school/preschool tended tobe caused by drivers in their 50s or 60s driving buses or other shuttle vehicles (Table 3).
Proportion (%)
Total accident cases

Accidents involving relatives
or close associates

Mini-vanSmall-size bus

29.1

27.3

55.6

Small or medium-size truck
Medium or large-size bus

23.6

16.7

Sedan or station wagon
Other

7.3

11.1

SUV

Figure 7 Accident Breakdown by Vehicle Configuration

5.5 3.6 3.6

11.1

5.6

Vehicle configuration

Total accident cases

Accidents involving relatives or close
associates

16
15
13
4
3
2
2

10

Mini-vanSmall or medium-size truck
Sedan or station wagon
SUV
Small-size bus
Medium or large-size bus
Other

3
2
2
1

Table 3 Number of Accident Cases by Vehicle Configuration and Age Group of Relatives or Close
Associates
Age
Breakdown of relatives or close
associates

20 S

30 S

40 S

Vehicle configuration
50 S

60 S

Mini-vanSedarnSUV

Small-size

Mediumbus

large-size
bus

Male

Father

4

1

1

2

1

1

2

school/preschool

1Grandfather
MotherFemale32

Person taking children to and from2

Parent’s friend
Person taking children to and from

1
3

1

1
2
2
1

1
1

school/preschool
Employee11Note: In the accident statistics, SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) are defined as sedan vehicles thatexceed 165 cm in vehicle height; small and medium-size trucks are cargo vehicles other thanmini-van or light-van vehicles, with a gross weight of 3t to 5t; and other vehicles are based on
statistic vehicular configuration of accidents.
4. Occurrence Pattern Among Accidents Involving Relatives or Close Associates
In order to clarify how the accidents occurred from the driver’s perspective, the following four
issues were investigated for 18 accidents involving relatives or close associates:1)
Was the driver aware beforehand that the child was there?
2)
Could the child have been discovered prior to the accident?
3)
How did the driver check for safety?
4)
Why did the accident occur?
The most common pattern of occurrence was found to be as follows: the child’s presence could
have been discovered, but the driver did not realize it because he/she did not check for safety, or
did not imagine the child was there (Table 4).

1orTable 4 Occurrence Pattern Among Accidents Involving Relatives or Close Associates
Was the driver aware
beforehand that thechild was there?

Could the child
have
been
discovered to be

Did the driver
check for safety?

Was possible.

No

Why
did
the
accident occur?

Did not Imagine the child was there.
Was not aware.
Yes
UnclearNo

Direct visual check.

Was not aware.

Did not Imagine the child was there.
Did not Imagine the child was there.

Was possible.
Could not have discovered thechild’s presence.
No

In a rush.

Saw someone else.
No.
Over-confident
about
driving conditions.
Direct visual checkand mirror

Did not Imagine the child was there.

Was not possible.

Unclear

No

83%

“Was
67%

possible.”

No

No

Distracted by cell phone.

No

Could not have discovered thechild’s presence.

78%“Did not imagine the child
was there.” 39%5
Introduction to Accident Cases(1) An accident caused by a father reversing (approximate speed: 10 km/h)
The father (27 years old) stopped his sedan at the left side of the road, took up his daughter (3years old) seated in the passenger seat and placed her outside the vehicle on the driver’s side.
Without checking for safety, the driver began to reverse while the driver’s side door was still open.
The door knocked the child down and the vehicle run over her
house
house

house

.
(2) An accident caused by a preschool bus driver (approximate speed: 5 km/h)
The driver (57-year-old male) of a preschool bus, upon starting to drive forward with children
on the bus, was distracted by mothers and others seeing their children off. He failed to notice thata brother (2 years old) of a child passenger was approaching the bus from the right side of theroad, and the behicle run over the child.
Victim’s house(3) An accident caused by a primary school bus driver reversing (approximate speed: 10 km/h)
The driver (60-year-old male) of a large primary school bus shifted into reverse before picking
up children on the school compound who were returning home. Without using a monitor or otherdevice to check for safety, the driver backed up and this vehicle run over a child (8-year-old boy)standing at the left rear of the bus.

School yard

gymnasium

(4) An accident caused by a father starting to go forward (approximate speed: 10 km/h)
When the father (28 years old) started to drive his mini-van vehicle forward in the garage, hefailed to notice that his daughter (1 year-old) was near the right rear of the vehicle and she was
run over by his vehicle.

School yard

gymnasium(5) An accident caused by a mother reversing (approximate speed: 5 km/h)
After removing her son (1 year old) from a sedan, the mother (29 years old) tried to reverse thevehicle into the garage. She failed to check for safety and did not notice that he was near the left
rear of the vehicle. Because of this, her child was run over by her vehicle.
Victim’st.

(6) An accident caused by mother’s friend starting to go forward (approximate speed: 5-10km/h)
The friend (32-year-old woman) of the mother visited her home in an SUV, and was talking
with her at the roadside. After another vehicle approached from the front, the friend went to move
her own vehicle and hurriedly started to go forward without checking for safety. Her vehicle runover the mother’s son (2 years old), who was standing at the left front of her vehicle.
house

(7)

An accident caused by a mother reversing (approximate speed: 5 km/h)

As she went to pick up her daughter (1 year old) from her grandmother’s house, the mother (29years old) started to reverse her mini-van vehicle to be parallel with the entrance to the
grandmother’s house. Hearing the noise of the engine, the daughter came out of the house, andwas hit by her mother’s vehicle. She was failing to notice that her daughter was at the left rear of
the vehicle.
house

house

house

Grandmother’s house(8) An accident caused by an employee starting to go forward (approximate speed: 5 km/h)
A female employee (41 years old) knew in advance that her manager’s son (1 year old) was at
the left rear of her vehicle. Her vehicle had stopped. After reading a document while in thedriver’s seat of her mini-van cargo vehicle, she failed to notice that the manager’s son had moved
to the front right of her vehicle. The son was run over by it when she had been starting to go
forward to drive into the garage.
Victim’s

Garage(9) An accident caused by a father starting to go forward (approximate speed: 10 km/h)
The father (28 years old) who had just finished shopping with his daughter (5 years old), stepped
into his SUV. He thought his daughter had been already in the vehicle, and he started to drive
forward. However, she was about to get into the vehicle at the left rear and run over by it.

Victim’s

Garage(10) An accident caused by a person who had taken her child to nursery starting to go forward(approximate speed: 5 km/h)
The child (1 year old girl) was taken to a nursery together with her sister in her mother’s car.
The child followed her mother and her sister after they had left the vehicle. Meanwhile, a woman(26 years old) who had just dropped off her own child at the same nursery, started to drive
forward in her mini-van vehicle in order to return home. Her attention was caught by anothervehicle backing up from the parking lot, and the car hit the girl, because of lacking of the driver’s
notice of her at the front right of her vehicle.
Parking lot

Nursersister mother

Mother’s vehicle

Field

Conclusion
Most of accidents involving relatives or close associates occur when vehicles start to move after
being stopped, whether going forward or in reverse. Keys to preventing such accidents, for thedriver, are to look around the vehicle before getting in to, make sure there are no children near,and then to check thoroughly for safety before starting to drive the vehicle.
Furthermore, guardians should make sure that the children in their care are always within view,
bearing in mind that children may approach people they know. Drivers taking children to andfrom school, friends and others who frequently spend time with children should also be madeaware of the common causes of accidents.
Accidents to children cause deep distress to close family members, who are naturally anxious
about their future. Accidents to children involving relatives or close associates can also destroy
their deep personal ties, including conjugal or between friends, that may never heal. To prevent
such accidents, it is important constantly to look out for the welfare of children and to check forsafety.