International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 857–869 | Cite as

Indexing Crash Worthiness, Crash Aggressivity, and Total Secondary Safety for Major Car Brands: A Case Study of Iran

  • Ali Tavakoli KashaniEmail author
  • Hessam Arefkhani
Research paper


A growing body of research is being conducted all over the world to evaluate and compare the safety impacts of different car brands. This issue has also received a considerable attention among the safety experts in Iran, where the number of road fatalities is around 16,500 lives per year. This study aims at indexing crash worthiness, crash aggressivity, and total secondary safety of the 20 most prevalently used passenger car brands of Iranian fleet. For this purpose, the data pertaining to 167,759 crashes and 335,518 drivers involved in those crashes that occurred in Iran from 2009 to 2012 were used. Binomial logistic regression model was applied to define the above-mentioned indices based on driver’s injury severity level. The results showed that most of the domestic brands have a poorer performance than the foreign ones in all three indices. Furthermore, it was revealed that Kia and Suzuki have a better performance and Sepand and Pride have a poorer performance compared to the other brands. Our findings might also be integrated with the findings of other similar studies around the world. This could be helpful for car manufacturers both in Iran and across the world to benchmark the best performing car brand in vehicle safety domain and improve the designing of their own car brands.


Crash worthiness Crash aggressivity Total secondary safety Car brand Iran Driver’s injury severity 



The authors gratefully thank Mohammad Mehdi Besharati and Hasan Mohamdzadeh for their valuable comments and useful assistances on this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards




  1. 1.
    Broughton J (1996) The theoretical basis for comparing the accident record of car models. Accid Anal Prev 28(1):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wenzel TP, Ross M (2005) The effects of vehicle model and driver behavior on risk. Accid Anal Prev 37(3):479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stigson H, Ydenius A, Kullgren A (2006) Variation of crash severity and injury risk depending on collisions with different vehicle types and objects. In: 2006 international IRCOBI conference on the biomechanics of impact, Madrid, Spain, 20–22 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newstead S, Watson L, Cameron M (2007) An index for rating the total secondary safety of vehicles from real world crash data. 51st annual proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Automotive MedicineGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newstead SV, Keall MD, Watson LM (2011) Rating the overall secondary safety of vehicles from real world crash data: the Australian and New Zealand Total Secondary Safety Index. Accid Anal Prev 43(3):637–645. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang H, Siddiqui C, Abdel-Aty M (2011) Indexing crash worthiness and crash aggressivity by vehicle type. Accid Anal Prev 43(4):1364–1370. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang H, Hu S, Abdel-Aty M (2014) Indexing crash worthiness and crash aggressivity by major car brands. Saf Sci 62:339–347. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie Y, Zhao K, Huynh N (2012) Analysis of driver injury severity in rural single-vehicle crashes. Accid Anal Prev 47:36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang H, Hu S, Zheng L (2014) Crash-level analysis on passenger cars’ total secondary safety. Int J Crashworth 19(6):613–623. doi: 10.1080/13588265.2014.931540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang H, Li C, Zeng Q (2016) Crash protectiveness to occupant injury and vehicle damage: an investigation on major car brands. Accid Anal Prev 86:129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luque R, Castro M (2016) Highway Geometric design consistency: speed models and local or global assessment. Int J Civ Eng 14(6):347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ulfarsson GF, Mannering FL (2004) Differences in male and female injury severities in sport-utility vehicle, minivan, pickup and passenger car accidents. Accid Anal Prev 36(2):135–147. doi: 10.1016/s0001-4575(02)00135-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gujarati D (2014) Econometrics by example. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gail M, Krickeberg K, Samet J, Tsiatis A, Wong W (2007) Statistics for biology and health. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lund ALM (2016) Binomial logistic regression using spss. Accessed 26 Oct 2106
  16. 16.
    Fredette M, Mambu LS, Chouinard A, Bellavance F (2008) Safety impacts due to the incompatibility of SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks in two-vehicle collisions. Accid Anal Prev 40(6):1987–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mb Anvari, Kashani AT, Rabieyan R (2017) Identifying the most important factors in the at-fault probability of motorcyclists by data mining, based on classification tree models. Int J Civ Eng. doi: 10.1007/s40999-017-0180-0 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kashani AT, Rabieyan R, Besharati MM (2014) A data mining approach to investigate the factors influencing the crash severity of motorcycle pillion passengers. J Saf Res 51:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kashani AT, Rabieyan R, Besharati MM (2016) Modeling the effect of operator and passenger characteristics on the fatality risk of motorcycle crashes. J Inj Violence Res 8(1):35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations