78

Heavy truck safety: crash analysis and trends

At a glance
• This paper examines road crashes which involve heavy trucks and makes comparisons with crashes
involving light vehicles.
• Heavy trucks are disproportionately involved in casualty crashes: approximately 16 per cent of
road crash fatalities and 4 per cent of injuries involve these vehicles. In general, involvement of a
heavy truck is associated with more severe injury outcomes.
• Heavy trucks account for only 2.4 per cent of registrations and approximately 7 per cent of
vehicle-kilometres travelled.
• Articulated trucks do a large proportion (80 per cent) of their travel outside a capital city area.
Heavy rigid truck travel is evenly split between capital city and rest of state.
• Fatalities in crashes involving articulated trucks are trending down at approximately 5 per cent per
year. There is no declining trend for fatalities in heavy rigid truck-involved crashes.
• Fatalities of heavy truck occupants are also trending down at approximately 7 per cent per year.
Recent hospitalised injury counts however have marginally increased.
• Rates of annual fatal crashes per kilometre travelled or per registered vehicle are higher for heavy
truck-involved crashes than for passenger car-involved crashes.
• Approximately 60 per cent of persons killed in heavy truck crashes are light vehicle occupants.
Another 20 per cent are vulnerable road users (motorcyclists, pedal cyclists or pedestrians)
• Approximately 80 per cent of fatal crashes involving heavy trucks are multi-vehicle crashes.
• Available Australian evidence suggests that in approximately 80 per cent of fatal multiple-vehicle
crashes involving heavy trucks, fault is not assigned to the heavy truck. Note however that
assignment of fault (or key-vehicle-status) is not necessarily feasible for all crashes.

1
78

1. Introduction
This paper analyses road traffic crashes involving heavy trucks, highlighting characteristics such as
severity, location, temporality and type of crash. A brief introduction to the regulatory environment
and statistical summaries of Australia’s heavy vehicle fleet are also provided.

In this paper a ‘heavy truck’ is a motor vehicle designed for the carriage of freight, with a gross vehicle
mass (GVM) of 4.5 tonnes or over. Included are rigid trucks with/without trailers, and prime movers
with/without trailers (‘articulated’ trucks). Bus involvement is excluded. It has not been possible to
disaggregate national crash data into configuration types beyond ‘articulated’ and ‘rigid’.

The scope of the crash analysis is fatal and injury road traffic crashes. National counts of injury crashes
are summations across all injury severities as provided by the states and territories. Hospitalisation data
(counts of admissions) is also included where possible.

The content of the paper is structured as follows: firstly a brief description of the regulatory
environment is provided outlining the roles of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and the State and
Territory authorities. This is followed by a discussion of issues identified in recent literature on heavy
truck safety. Next is the analysis of crash data including: an overview; crash characteristics;
demographics and fault focussing on the last ten years or the latest data available. Lastly Australia’s
heavy vehicle fleet is summarised and crash rates presented.

2. Regulatory Environment
Most aspects of the transport of freight by heavy trucks are subject to the Heavy Vehicle National Law
(HVNL), administered by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR). The HVNL is valid in all
jurisdictions except the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Specific regulatory components of
the law include fatigue management, load and mass/dimensions, road access, Chain of Responsibility,
Performance Based Standards and the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme. The NHVR also
promotes industry discussion and engagement through safety alerts, fact sheets, guidelines and industry
operator groups.

Other laws applicable to road freight transport include those relating to workplace health and safety,
dangerous goods 1, animal welfare 2 and food handling 3—with the Australian government as well as States
and Territories having jurisdiction. Registration, licensing and broader traffic laws are administered,
regulated and enforced by the States and Territories.

3. Recent literature
A detailed scan of research by Raftery et al (2011) discussed many issues around heavy vehicle safety
and made some key recommendations for future research. These included research that:
• improves the management of fatigue within the road transport industry;
• improves the use of seat belts among heavy vehicle occupants;
• evaluates the effectiveness of heavy vehicle management schemes under Australian
conditions (mainly in relation to lane use and speed management); and
• evaluates the effectiveness of emerging heavy vehicle safety technologies.

1
See <https://infrastructure.gov.au/transport/australia/dangerous/str_compauth.aspx>
2
<http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/land-transport/>
3
<http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/>

2
2
78

In regards to road and vehicle design, the report pointed out:

The design of heavy vehicles is such that they have high aggressivity, presenting a
significant risk to other road users, and poor crashworthiness, presenting a risk to
HV occupants. Improvement in either or both of these areas would produce safety
benefits.

Issues around Australian crash data were explored in the Austroads 2013 report Heavy Vehicle Safety
Data (Austroads 2013). A number of Safety Performance Indicators were proposed and
recommendations made, with the report concluding that:
Although basic reporting can currently be achieved in relation to raw crash numbers,
a more intricate picture of heavy vehicle safety cannot be achieved with current road
crash databases. There is an apparent lack of ability to monitor heavy vehicle safety in
terms of industry sector, load type and vehicle combination type at present.

Practical issues in collecting data limit many studies to using crash data from one or a small number of
Australian jurisdictions. An assumption may then be made that the study findings and recommendations
are applicable to the whole of Australia. While this strong assumption may often appear reasonable, the
better approach is to replicate the study in other jurisdictions to confirm the original results and
increase the degree of confidence in the findings. This however is often problematic due to systematic
differences in coding and definitions across Australia. Practical issues with regard to Australian crash
data and vehicle classifications, and how they are resolved, are also discussed in Budd and Newstead
(2014).

Many studies focus on specific components of risk and how to mitigate them. These may be grouped as
vehicle-related, vehicle-road interaction, person-related etc. Kipling (2011) provides a good summary of
the multitude of interacting factors that relate to crash risk—grouped as follows:
• enduring driver factors (eg. knowledge / skill / medical);
• temporary driver factors (eg. time–on–task / sleep / moods / drugs / local familiarity);
• vehicle (safety technologies / mechanics);
• roadway and environmental (design / intersection / traffic / weather);
• management (safety-focused practices / pay rates / training opportunities); and
• government (licensing / regulation / enforcement).
Kipling (2011) then analyses research findings on factors related to the driver, roadway and management.

Tziotis (2011) summarises ARRB work on heavy vehicle crashes, separately analysing urban and rural
areas. Some of their findings on crash risk are related to road delineation/marking, road pavement and
intersection design, including sight distance.

A concise summary of key risk factors is provided as background in a case-control study by Elkington
et al (2013). This paper explored risk that may be related to payment and scheduling, fatigue
management, health and vehicle/load issues, and interactions between these.
Finally, analysis and recommendations related to emerging heavy vehicle crash avoidance technology is
provided in Budd and Newstead (2014). These technologies are:
• Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDW);
• Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS);
• Electronic stability (ESC) and Roll Stability (RSC) Control;
• Fatigue Warning Systems (FWS).

Budd and Newstead (2014) reports savings in annual lives lost and annual crash costs under fitment of
these technologies, with all proving effective. In terms of lives saved, AEBS was estimated to save 67
lives per year, LDW 16 lives, ESC 11 lives and FWS 10 lives per year.

3
3
78

4. Crash / Casualty Tables

4.1 Crash data

The main source of crash data in this report is the National Crash Database (NCD). This database was
developed by BITRE for the purposes of monitoring statistical targets in the the National Road Safety
Strategy. It is a collation of all state and territory police-sourced road crash data, and contains
information on all road traffic crashes resulting in an injury or fatality. In the NCD, injury severity is not
uniformly coded across jurisdictions, and all injuries are aggregated here under the term
‘Reported Injury’. In this report tables showing ‘reported injuries’ exclude Queensland, as the NCD
does not contain a fully updated dataset for this jurisdiction.

Other injury data used here, termed ‘Hospitalisation’, is sourced from the National Hospital Morbidity
Database, managed by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). There are advantages
and disadvantages with each of the NCD and AIHW data:
• the AIHW data uses a fairly consistent definition of injury 4 and can separately identify
High-Threat-to-Life (HTTL) 5 injuries. However it:
• has limited information about the crash;
• cannot separately identify different configurations of truck, such as articulated and rigid;
and
• lags in currency by up to three years;
• the NCD contains much more detailed crash information including some
causative/contributory factors such as alcohol or drugs. However it:
• lacks uniformity on injury severity; and
• lacks detail on vehicle configuration.

Some tables in this report are also augmented by data from the Australian Road Deaths
Database (ARDD) 6. There are minor differences between the fatality counts in the NCD and the ARDD
due to timing differences in receipt of data.

All fatal tables are at the national level and relate to the years 2008–2014 unless otherwise specified.
Many tables compare involvement of heavy trucks in crashes/casualties with involvement of
light 4-wheeled motor vehicles.

Heavy trucks are defined here as a freight vehicle with Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) weight of 4.5 tonnes
and over. This threshold accounts for approximately 70 per cent of registered rigid trucks and 99 per
cent of registered articulated trucks. See Budd and Newstead (2014) for, amongst other topics,
examples of rigid and articulated truck configurations and the NTI’s Guide to the Trucking Industry
(NTI 2011).

In interpreting the crash data it is useful to note that trucks on average travel longer distances than
passenger vehicles, and account for a proportionally larger share of traffic on roads outside urban areas.
Relevant exposure information is provided in Section 5.

4
However in 2012 a change in counting hospital admissions in one jurisdiction did occur.
5 HTTL—High Threat to Life inuries are a subset of all hospitalisations. See Henley et al (2015).
6
See <http://bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx >

4
4
78

4.2 Overview
This section presents an overview of road casualties—from crashes involving heavy trucks, and more
generally. There are four analyses:
• casualties of truck occupants—with a comparison for light vehicle occupants;
• casualties in crashes involving trucks;
• an overview of the types of traffic units involved in casualty crashes; and
• single-vehicle/multiple-vehicle casualty crashes for trucks and light 4-wheeled vehicles. 7

Table 1 summarises hospitalised injuries (including the the HTTL subset), reported injuries (excluding
Queensland) and fatalities for occupants of a heavy truck.

Table 1 Heavy truck occupants — counts of casualties by type/severity

HTTL Reported
Hospitalisations Hospitalisations Injuries Fatalities

2006 453 147 - 43

2007 469 150 - 60
2008 567 149 840 47
2009 432 156 721 51
2010 473 145 767 34
2011 562 180 882 33
2012 511a 171a 775 40
2013 485 a 166a 661 25
2014 - - 639 35

- Data unavailable.
a Due to a change in admission criteria in one jurisdiction, a break in the Hospitalisations series occurred in 2012.
This change resulted in a lower hospitalisation count and means hospitalisation data for 2012 and 2013 cannot be
compared to previous years.

Figure 1 Occupants of a heavy truck

100 750

80 600
Hospitalisations
Hospitalisations

60 450
Fatalities

Fatalities
40 300

20 150

0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

7
‘Light 4-wheeled vehicles’ include light passenger vehicles and light commercial vehicles.

5
5
78

Trends 8 :
• the fatality series in Table 1 has a statistically significant annual reduction of approximately
7 per cent per year;
• noting the break in the hospitalisation series, (which was expected to lower annual
counts), between 2006 and 2013 these still increased by 7%.

In Table 1, 88 per cent of the heavy truck occupant casualties are of the truck driver. Over 96 per cent
are male, and the median age is approximately 45 years. More details on age are provided in Section
4.4.

By way of context, fatalities of light 4-wheeled vehicle occupants are trending down at approximately
6 per cent per year, while hospitalisations are trending up marginally. These trends are similar for
casualties of heavy truck occupants: fatalities declining and hospitalisations marginally increasing. If we
consider however the ratio of fatalities to hospitalisations, this is significantly higher for truck occupants
than for light vehicle occupants. Also, the ratio of HTTL hospitalisations to all hospitalisations is higher
in the former than the latter: given that a person is hospitalised, occupancy of a truck (driver/passenger)
is associated with more severe injuries than occupancy of a light vehicle. Budd and Newstead (2014)
found that heavy vehicles were disproportionately involved in more severe crashes, with 13 per cent of
fatal crashes involving heavy vehicles compared with 3-4 per cent of lesser severity crashes.

Table 2 shows all casualties (fatalities plus reported injuries) in crashes involving a heavy truck. Included
are not only the vehicles’ occupants, but all other road users. Hospitalisations are not available for this
table. The data is graphed in Figure 2. For comparison, casualties in crashes that do not involve a heavy
truck are also included.

Table 2 Crashes with and without a heavy truck involved—counts of

casualties of all road users by type/severity

Heavy rigid Articulated No heavy truck

involved involved involved

Reported Reported Reported

Fatalities Fatalities Fatalities
Injuries a Injuries a Injuries a

2006 - 80 - 168 - 1,354

2007 - 85 - 181 - 1,342
2008 1,798 88 1,395 147 61,655 1,204
2009 1,526 73 1,174 138 60,773 1,286
2010 1,607 77 1,259 139 61,973 1,144
2011 1,752 66 1,408 143 63,312 1,071
2012 1,547 89 1,388 154 58,481 1,061
2013 1,421 64 1,211 115 56,716 1,010
2014 1,320 87 1,128 116 54,396 953
2015 - 81 - 113 - 1,013
a ‘Reported Injuries’ exclude Queensland.

8
For all trend estimation of annual counts, a linear model was fitted. If significant, the linear trend is converted to an approximate
per cent change each year.

6
6
78

Figure 2 Counts of fatalities in crashes with and without a heavy truck involved

300 1,500

No heavy truck involved

HR and articulated

No heavy truck
200 1,000

Articulated truck involved

100 500

Heavy rigid truck involved

0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Trends:
• the fatalities series for articulated truck involvement has a significant annual reduction of
approximately 5 per cent per year (Table 2);
• there is a flat trend in the fatality series for heavy rigid truck involvement;
• the fatalities series for crashes without heavy truck involvement has a significant annual
reduction of approximately 4 per cent per year.

Beside the above trends, of note is the large reduction in articulated-involved fatalities between calendar
years 2012 and 2013.

Tables 3A and 3B broaden the focus to all traffic units (vehicles or pedestrians) in crashes. Counts and
percentages of casualties are provided, and categorised by the types of traffic units involved 9 in the
crash. The ten categories are mutually exclusive and account for 90-95 per cent of all casualties. An
indication of the trend over time is provided by an arrow, with a number of stars indicating the strength
of the statistical significance (or confidence) in the trend estimate.

9
‘Involved’ means that in the crash reports, that vehicle/unit was recorded as being implicated in the crash sequence. It does
not necessarily mean that the vehicle occupants were injured or that the vehicle operator was at fault.

7
7
78

Table 3A Fatalities by traffic units involved in the crash

% of all
Traffic units involved 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend
fatalities c
4-wheeled motor vehicle
Only light vehiclesa 772 831 723 676 645 606 584 *** 52 %
Light + Hvy truck 124 113 134 123 145 106 120 — 10 %
Only Hvy truck 45 45 28 29 34 20 30 — 2%
2- (or 3) wheeled motor vehicles
MCycle + Light vehicles 88 104 104 74 96 82 88 — 7%
MCycle + Hvy truck 21 10 13 13 19 10 15 — 1%
Only MCycle 124 105 94 110 96 118 78 — 8%
Pedestrians
Ped + Light vehicles 139 148 141 117 121 128 123 — 10 %
Ped + Hvy truck 29 27 13 33 37 26 21 — 2%
Bicycles
Bicycle+ Light vehicles 13 20 14 15 20 24 24 * 2%
Bicycle + Hvy truck 6 3 9 6 3 8 7 — 1%
b 76 82 79 82 84 57 65 — 6%
Other
Total 1,437 1,488 1,352 1,278 1,300 1,185 1,155 *** 100 %

a ‘Light vehicles’ comprises passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.

b ‘Other’ comprises crashes where there are multiple different types of vehicles involved, buses involved and/or unknown vehicles
involved.
c Percentages are rounded.

Light 4-wheeled vehicles (predominantly passenger cars) are involved in 80-90 per cent of fatalities and
injuries. Heavy trucks are involved in 16 per cent of fatalities and 4 per cent of reported injuries. Despite
suggested reductions across the seven years in several rows of Table 3A, there is no statistically
significant trend.

Table 3B Reported injuries by traffic units involved in the crash (excludes Queensland)

% of all
Traffic units involved 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend
injuries c
4-wheeled motor vehicles
Only light vehicles 43,896 43,067 44,486 45,986 41,697 38,735 38,321 — 68 %
Light + Hvy truck 2,135 1,846 1,938 2,138 1,927 1,757 1,642 — 3%
Only Hvy truck 608 500 543 621 552 496 469 — 1%
2-(or 3) wheeled motor vehicles
MC + Light vehicles 3,048 3,009 2,970 2,951 2,938 2,939 2,989 — 5%
MC + Hvy truck 89 61 60 67 64 67 63 — 0.1 %
Only MC 3,317 3,337 3,017 3,137 3,213 3,311 3,385 — 5%
Pedestrian
Ped + Light vehicles 4,065 3,877 3,899 3,664 3,379 3,356 3,075 *** 6%
Ped + Hvy truck 62 62 64 58 58 63 62 — 0.1 %
Bicycle
Bicycle+ Light vehicles 2,729 2,826 2,865 2,882 2,625 2,814 2,688 — 5%
Bicycle + Hvy truck 56 62 61 49 68 48 40 — 0.1 %
Other 4,768 4,771 4,872 4,846 4,832 5,712 4,065 — 8%
Total 64,773 63,418 64,775 66,399 61,353 59,298 56,799 * 100 %

The final tables in this section categorise crashes into three mutually exclusive categories: single-vehicle
crash (SVC), multi-vehicle crash (MVC) and pedestrian crash (Ped). The first two categories include
crashes where the person who was killed or injured may have been a vehicle occupant, a cyclist or a

8
8
78

motorcyclist, and the latter category includes all crashes where a pedestrian has died or has been
injured. 10 Tables 4A and 4B presents counts of crashes.

Table 4A Counts of fatal crashes by vehicle(s) involved

b
Heavy rigid involved Articulated involved Any fatal crash
crash crash
a a a a
SVC MVC Ped SVC MVC Ped SVC MVC Ped
2008 7 60 15 21 89 16 626 499 190
2009 7 53 10 25 73 16 646 510 188
2010 6 52 6 15 91 14 544 517 171
2011 4 39 11 19 90 18 504 464 183
2012 3 66 12 21 91 15 515 505 171
2013 3 44 12 8 75 12 512 427 160
2014 6 58 11 17 75 9 474 433 148
Trend — — — — — * *** *** ***
Column % 7% 78% 16% 14% 74% 12% 41% 45% 15%

a These crashes may also involve light vehicles.

b These crashes involve any types of vehicles.

Approximately 12 per cent of fatal heavy truck crashes involve a single vehicle only (14 per cent for articulated
trucks and 7 per cent for heavy rigid trucks). In most columns of Table 4A the counts are declining, but
statistical tests show no significant linear trend. To compare articulated truck-involved crashes with heavy
2
rigid-involved crashes a χ test is used: 11 there is a significantly larger proportion of single vehicle crashes in
2
the former ( χ 1 = 9.7).

Table 4B Counts of reported injury crashes (excludes Queensland)

b
Heavy rigid involved Articulated involved Any fatal crash
crash crash
a a a a
SVC MVC Ped SVC MVC Ped SVC MVC Ped

2008 203 1,171 55 277 757 14 13,635 31,797 4,486

2009 155 1,002 46 221 642 13 13,711 31,140 4,225
2010 145 1,040 50 253 710 19 12,815 32,293 4,220
2011 154 1,119 34 319 752 21 13,190 33,186 4,187
2012 151 1,003 43 243 767 16 12,715 31,578 3,942
2013 142 920 49 225 717 14 12,753 30,470 3,742
2014 154 817 50 219 623 12 12,200 29,834 3,417
Trend — ** — — — — *** — ***
Column % 13% 83% 4% 26% 73% 2% 26% 65% 8%

10
In approximately 2 per cent of crashes where a pedestrian was injured, there was also an injury to another road
user. Under 0.5 per cent of crashes where a pedestrian has died also involve the death of another road user.
11
A χ2 test is commonly used to compare whether a 2Χ2 or m Χ n table has the same distribution (percentage
pattern) in its rows—for each of its columns, or vice versa. For a non-significant result, a χ2 value should be near
its (subscripted) degrees of freedom.

9
9
78

Crash data in Tables 4A, 4B for casualty crashes shows that most casualty crashes involving heavy trucks
also involve another vehicle.

4.3 Crash characteristics

This section analyses location and temporal characteristics of heavy truck crashes. These tables combine
data for the five years to 2014 and include comparisons with light vehicle crashes.
Tables 5A and 5B analysis examines Urban and Rural characteristics of crashes. The two geographical
structures used are Remoteness Area and Significant Urban Area (SUA) 12. Remoteness Area statistics are
presented for three regional groups: ‘Major City’, ‘Regional’ and ‘Remote’; and SUA-based statistics are
presented with two groups: (within SUAs and outside SUAs). Approximately 71 per cent of Australia’s
population live in a Major City, 27 per cent in a Regional area and 2 per cent in a Remote area. By SUA,
86 per cent of the population live in a Significant Urban Area, and 14 per cent outside.

Table 5A Fatal crashes — Distribution by Remoteness Area and Urban Area,

2010–2014

Remoteness Area Urban/Non-urban Area

Major
Regional Remote SUA Non-SUA
cities
Involving a heavy
43% 52% 5% 100% 54% 46% 100%
rigid truck
Involving an
20% 69% 11% 100% 30% 70% 100%
articulated truck
Involving a light
36% 53% 11% 100% 49% 51% 100%
motor vehicle

All fatal crashes 35% 55% 10% 100% 48% 52% 100%

Table 5B Reported injury crashes — Distribution by Remoteness Area and

Urban Area, 2010–2014
Remoteness Area Urban/Non-urban Area
Major Non-
Regional Remote SUA
cities SUA
Involving a heavy
72% 26% 3% 100% 81% 19% 100%
rigid truck
Involving an
47% 48% 6% 100% 57% 43% 100%
articulated truck
Involving a light
73% 25% 2% 100% 84% 16% 100%
motor vehicle

All fatal crashes 69% 28% 3% 100% 81% 19% 100%

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table 5A shows that involvement of an articulated truck in fatal crashes is associated more strongly
with non-urban locations than when a heavy rigid truck or a light vehicle is involved. These differences

12
Remoteness Area: a weighted sum of road distances to Service Centres is used to classify each populated locality in Australia
into one of five Remoteness areas. (Based on ARIA+). See (ABS 2013a). Significant Urban Area: an SA2 (or cluster of
contiguous SA2s) with same labour market and combined population of over 10,000 (ABS 2013b).

10
10
78

are statistically significant. While only 30 per cent of Australia’s population live in Regional or Remote
areas, these areas account for 65 per cent of fatal crashes (and 80 per cent of those involving
articulated trucks). A similar pattern is seen in the reported injury crashes. Section 5 presents crash
rates standardised by distance travelled by location.
Tables 6A and 6B categorise crashes by road type 13 and SUA.

Table 6A Fatal crashes — Distribution by Road type and Urban Area, 2010–2014

National or Arterial / Sub-

Collector Local
State Hwy arterial
Non- Non- Non-
SUA SUA SUA Non-SUA SUA
SUA SUA SUA
Involving a heavy
rigid truck 15% 25% 23% 15% 5% 1% 10% 6% 100%

Involving an
articulated truck 17% 50% 9% 15% 2% 1% 3% 4% 100%

Involving a light
motor vehicle 10% 18% 21% 22% 6% 2% 11% 9% 100%

All fatal crashes 11% 20% 20% 21% 6% 2% 11% 9% 100%

Table 6B Reported injury crashes, 2010–2014

National or Arterial / Sub-

Collector Local
State Hwy arterial
Non- Non- Non-
SUA SUA SUA Non-SUA SUA
SUA SUA SUA
Involving a heavy
rigid truck 26% 8% 33% 8% 6% 0% 15% 3% 100%

Involving an
articulated truck 27% 25% 19% 14% 3% 1% 7% 3% 100%

Involving a light
motor vehicle 14% 5% 36% 7% 11% 1% 22% 4% 100%

All fatal crashes 14% 6% 33% 8% 12% 1% 22% 4% 100%

Fatal crashes involving an articulated truck are again distinct: 67 per cent are on a highway versus
40 per cent for heavy rigid-involved and 28 per cent for light motor vehicle-involved fatal crashes.

Table 7 presents casualty crashes by posted speed limit. Approximately 50 per cent of all fatal crashes
occur in posted speed zones of 90 km/h or higher. In comparison, the distribution for injury crashes is
skewed towards lower speed limits. Fatal rigid truck crashes are largely similar to fatal light vehicle
crashes. Crashes with articulated truck involvement however are skewed towards higher speed limit
locations.

13
Based on PSMA road classification (PSMA 2015).

11
11
78

Table 7 Casualty crashes — Distribution by posted speed limit (km/h)

Table 7A Fatal crashes

≤ 50 60 70-80 ≥ 90 Total

Involving a heavy
rigid truck 10% 23% 18% 48% 100%

Involving an
articulated truck 4% 11% 15% 70% 100%

Involving a light
motor vehicle 11% 18% 20% 51% 100%

All fatal crashes 13% 19% 19% 49% 100%

Table 7B Reported Injury crashes

≤ 50 60 70-80 ≥ 90 Total

Involving a heavy
rigid truck 17% 32% 26% 24% 100%

Involving an
articulated truck 8% 20% 24% 48% 100%

Involving a light
motor vehicle 29% 36% 19% 16% 100%

All fatal crashes 30% 35% 19% 16% 100%

The final analysis in this section, Figure 3, categorises casualty crashes by day-of-week and time-of-day.
The 24-hour day is divided into four periods: Early (Midnight to 5:59am), Morning (6am to 11:59am),
Afternoon (noon to 5:59 pm) and Evening (6pm to 11:59pm) and the week is thus divided into 7Χ4 periods.
In Figure 3 below, the Morning period is highlighted. This analysis does not account for light levels,
glare or dusk.
Heavy truck crashes (blue and red) are distinct from all crashes (black): the former mainly peak during
the morning period, and the latter peak in the afternoon period.

Figure 3 Distribution of casualty crashes by Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week

heavy rigid-involved / articulated-involved / All crashes

15%

Heavy rigid
Articulated
All crashes
10%

5%

0%
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

12
12
78

Also, compared to heavy rigid truck crashes, the times of articulated-involved crashes are more spread
out during the 12-hour ‘day’ period. Weekdays account for approximately 92 per cent of heavy truck
crashes (and 74 per cent of non-heavy truck crashes). It was not possible to include information on the
relationship between a trip starting time or whether it is in-bound or out-bound. See Driscoll (2015)
for brief information on the latter.

4.4 Demographics
This section provides detail on the persons killed in crashes involving heavy trucks. Tables 8A, 8B and
8C provide counts of persons killed by road user type. Tables 9A, 9B and 9C provide counts of persons
killed or injured by age. Tests for statistically significant trends over time are performed and summarised.

Table 8A Fatalities in crashes involving a heavy rigid truck

Single vehicle Total
Other crashes
crashes fatalities
Occupant of Occupant of Occupant of Pedal
Motorcyclist Pedestrian
Heavy rigid Heavy rigid Light vehicle cyclist
2008 8 3 46 13 2 15 88
2009 7 7 35 9 3 10 73
2010 6 6 47 7 5 6 77
2011 5 3 36 6 4 11 66
2012 3 3 53 11 3 13 89
2013 3 3 33 6 6 12 64
2014 6 5 49 12 4 11 87
Trend — — — — — — —
Col. % 7% 6% 56% 12% 5% 15% 100%

Table 8B Fatalities in crashes involving an articulated truck

Single vehicle Total
Other crashes
crashes fatalities
Occupant of Occupant of Occupant of Pedal
Motorcyclist Pedestrian
Articulated Articulated Light vehicle cyclist
2008 23 15 76 11 4 16 147
2009 27 10 78 3 0 18 138
2010 15 7 87 7 6 14 139
2011 21 7 87 6 2 19 143
2012 23 12 92 8 0 15 154
2013 8 11 70 6 2 13 115
2014 18 7 69 7 3 9 116
Trend — — — — — — —a
Col. % 14% 7% 60% 5% 2% 11% 100%

a
Compare with Table 2 which has a longer series of data.

Despite indications of declining counts in Tables 8A and 8B, the fitting of a linear model to each series
failed to find statistically significant reductions. Vulnerable road users (motorcyclists, pedal cyclists or
pedestrians) account for a greater percentage of fatalities in heavy rigid-involved crashes than for
2
articulated truck-involved crashes ( χ 1 = 34).

13
13
78

Table 8C Fatalities in crashes involving a light 4-wheeled vehicle

Single vehicle Total

Other crashes
crashes fatalities
Occupant of Occupant of Pedal
Motorcyclist Pedestrian
Light vehicle Light vehicle cyclist
2008 526 267 87 14 138 1,032
2009 554 303 103 20 150 1,130
2010 470 272 104 13 141 1,000
2011 427 269 74 15 119 904
2012 427 240 97 19 122 905
2013 411 212 79 24 127 853
2014 387 215 89 23 117 831
Trend ** ** — * ** ***

Col. % 48% 27% 10% 2% 14% 100%

The next figure presents similar data to Tables 8A, 8B and 8C, but in reverse: it shows for each road
user type, the percentage of fatalities which have a heavy truck involved. Figure 4D summarises the
information about vehicles involved when a vulnerable road user is killed.

Figure 4 Proportion of fatalities involving heavy rigids /articulated /light vehicles

Figure 4A Involving a heavy rigid truck

20%

15%

10%

5%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

0%
Light Veh. Motorcyclist Pedal cyclist Pedestrian
Occ.

There is a significant increasing trend 14 in the proportion of light vehicle occupant fatalities which occur
in crashes involving heavy rigid trucks.

14
Trends in proportions over time are that of a linear trend in the log-odds of the proportion (prop.trend.test in R).

14
14
78

Figure 4B Involving an articulated truck

20%

15%

10%

5%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

0%
Light Veh. Motorcyclist Pedal cyclist Pedestrian
Occ.

There are no significant trends over time. Approximately 10 per cent of light vehicle occupant fatalities
occur in crashes in which an articulated truck is involved. Around five per cent are killed in crashes
where there is a heavy rigid truck involved.

Figure 4C Involving a light vehicle

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

0%
Hvy. Veh Motorcyclist Pedal cyclist Pedestrian
Occ.

There are no significant trends over time.

15
15
78

Figure 4D Fatalities of vulnerable road users

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

2014
0%
HR Inv Artic Inv LV Inv None

Note: ‘None’ refers to a crash where either no other vehicle was involved or a vehicle type other than those listed.

There are no significant trends over time.

Tables 9A, 9B 9C and 9D analyse the ages of persons killed and injured. The median and two percentiles
(25 percentile means the age where 25 per cent of all the persons killed or injured are younger than
the reported age) of the ages are shown for each group of road user casualties. Vulnerable road users
are separately shown in Table 9D.

Table 9 Age distribution of casualties 2010-2014

Table 9A Casualties in a crash involving a heavy rigid truck

Driver of Occupant of Pedal All road

Age percentile Motorcyclist Pedestrian
HR truck light veh. cyclist users

25% 32 26 29 29 33 28
Median 42 39 37 49 43 40
75% 53 56 50 65 56 55

Table 9B Casualties in a crash involving an articulated truck

Driver of Occupant of Pedal All road

Motorcyclist Pedestrian
Age percentile artic. truck light veh. cyclist users

25% 37 25 28 31 30 29
Median 45 40 41 46 47 43
75% 54 56 55 60 54 55

16
16
78

Table 9C Casualties in any crash

Occupant All
Driver of a Pedal
of light Motorcyclist Pedestrian road
Age percentile heavy truck cyclist
veh. users
25% 35 23 25 20 26 23
Median 44 35 35 35 37 36
75% 53 52 48 58 49 52

Table 9D Casualties of vulnerable road users in a collision with motor vehicles

Heavy truck Light vehicle

involved a involved b

Pedal Pedal
Age percentile Motorcyclist Pedestrian Motorcyclist Pedestrian
cyclist cyclist

25% 26 27 27 24 18 25
Median 38 46 40 33 33 35
75% 50 61 53 46 57 47
a No light vehicles involved
b No heavy trucks/buses involved

When a heavy truck is involved, the killed/injured person is generally older than the average for that
user group. The median age for any person killed/injured in a road crash is 36 years. When a heavy
truck is involved it is 42 years. It is unclear why this is the case, and whether there are any confounding
factors between age of the killed/injured person and heavy truck involvement.

4.5 Crashtype

This section is based on analysing crashes using Definitions for Classifying Accidents (DCA) and Road
User movement (RUM) codes—termed crash type here. The codes describe in broad terms the
movements of traffic units at the time of—or immediately prior to—the crash. The codes are divided
into ten main categories and further divided into approximately 80 sub-categories. Figure 5 shows
diagrams of typical single vehicle crash types, and Figure 6 shows typical multiple vehicle crash types.
The analyses in Tables 10, 11,12 and 13 are based on total casualty crashes over the five years
2010-2014, unless otherwise stated, and exclude South Australia, (whose 2010-2012 codes were not
able to be standardised), and Queensland (whose non-fatal crash data was less current).

Table 10 classifies single-vehicle 15 crashes by main category of crash type. When there is only one vehicle
involved, most crashes involve loss of control followed by run off the road and the two main crash
types are Off Path on Straight and Off Path on Curve. This analysis combines both fatal and injury crashes
(as preliminary exploration revealed no differences between the two). Table 11 further classifies these
crashes by whether they occurred in Urban or Non-urban areas.

15
Single vehicle crashes here exclude pedestrian involvement.

17
17
78

Figure 5 Predominant single-vehicle crash types

Main category Examples

Off Path
(Straight)

Off Path
(Curve)

Other
On Path–animal

Table 10 Single-vehicle casualty crashes—by crash type, 2010-2014

Off Path – Off Path – Number of

Other
Straight Curve casualty crashes
Involving a heavy
50% 39% 11% 693
rigid truck
Involving an
43% 51% 5% 1,201
articulated truck
Involving a light 4-
wheeled motor 54% 37% 9% 41,409
i
All SVC 53% 37% 10% 28,130

A χ test rejects the hypothesis that the column percentages are the same: compared to heavy rigid
2

trucks or light vehicles, articulated truck single vehicle crashes have a higher incidence of loss of control
from a curved segment, rather than from a straight segment. Table 11categorises these distributions by
SUA and non-SUA.

Table 11 Single-vehicle casualty crashes—by crash type and SUA, 2010-2014

SUA Non-SUA

Off Path – Off Path – Off Path – Off Path

χ22
Other Other
Straight Curve Straight – Curve
Involving a heavy 21 ***
50% 28% 22% 100% 46% 42% 12% 100%
rigid truck
Involving an 0.2
41% 48% 12% 100% 41% 48% 11% 100%
articulated truck
Involving a light 960 ***
56% 28% 16% 100% 44% 41% 15% 100%
motor vehicle

All SVC 56% 27% 17% 100% 41% 43% 16% 100% 1,925 ***

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

The χ tests compare the non-SUA and the SUA crashes. There is no difference for SVC crashes
2

involving articulated trucks. For other crashes, an urban location is associated with an increase in loss
of control from a straight segment. For further information see also (NSW 2014).

18
18
78

We now turn to two-vehicle crashes 16, categorised as follows:

• Heavy rigid —with Light
• Articulated— with Light
• Light —with Light
• Heavy truck — with Heavy truck

The predominant crash types are shown in Figure 6. 17

Figure 6 Predominant two-vehicle crash types

Main category Examples

Same directions
Rear-end Sideswipe
Adjacent
directions
(Intersection)
Cross traffic Right-near Right-far

Opposing
directions
Head-on Right-thru

Manoeuvring
Emerge from
Driveway U-turn

Table 12 Two-vehicle casualty crashes by crash type, 2010-2014

Number of
Vehicles Same Adjacent Opposing
Severity Manoeuvring Other casualty
involved Directions Directions Directions
crashes

Heavy Fatal 8% 24% 53% 5% 9% 98

rigid—Light 51% 19% 16% 7% 8% 2,522
Injury

Articulated Fatal 10% 19% 56% 6% 10% 161

—Light 54% 15% 16% 5% 10% 2,002
Injury

Fatal 9% 20% 53% 4% 12% 666

Light—Light
Injury 36% 26% 21% 9% 8% 86,646

Heavy— Fatal 33% 12% 28% 5% 23% 43

Heavy 49% 12% 12% 8% 20% 653
Injury

For fatal crashes, a test was performed for differences in crash type: excluding the Heavy–Heavy
category, there are no differences in crash type amongst the other three groups (χ 8 = 3). The
2

16
This analysis excludes involvement of motorcycles, pedestrians and buses.
17
From DCA/RUM data it is not possible to identify which of two moving vehicles was the truck and which was the other
vehicle.

19
19
78

Heavy-Heavy fatal crashes have a statistically greater proportion of Same Direction crashes, and a lower
proportion of Opposing Directions crashes.
Within reported injury crashes, Light—Light crashes have a different distribution than heavy truck
involved crashes: there are increased proportions of Manoeuvring and Adjacent Direction crashes and a
lower proportion of Same Direction crashes. Further discussion (on articulated truck-involved crashes)
is provided in Zhang et al (2014).

Table 13 analyses crash type of multiple-vehicle (injury) crashes within Urban/non-Urban.

Table 13 Two-vehicle Injury crashes by crash type and urban/non urban, 2010-2014

Vehicles Same Adjacent Opposing Number of

Location Manoeuvring Other
involved Directions Directions Directions crashes

Heavy rigid Urban 56% 18% 14% 7% 6% 2,146

— Light 28% 24% 26% 9% 14% 376
non Urban

Articulated Urban 66% 13% 10% 4% 6% 1,340

— Light 30% 19% 27% 6% 17% 662
non Urban

Urban 39% 26% 21% 7% 7% 65,034

Light —
Light non Urban 24% 29% 29% 7% 11% 6,644

In Urban locations, Same Direction crashes dominate, although for Light-Light crashes, the proportion is
smaller than for Truck-Light crashes. In non-Urban locations, Opposing Direction crashes increase in
frequency. See Austroads (2013b) for analysis of heavy vehicle crashes in urban locations.

4.6 Crash fault

‘Fault’ of a vehicle operator or other road user is not recorded in all state and territory road crash
databases, and is not available in the NCD. Some databases record ‘critical events’ or ‘key vehicle status’
rather than assign fault. As background, the following table categorises crashes involving heavy trucks
by involvement of other traffic units. Table 3 and Table 4 also provide relevant information.

20
20
78

Table 14 Fatal crashes involving heavy trucks—involvement of other

vehicles / traffic units, 2010-2014

Crashes involving Crashes involving

a heavy an articulated
rigid truck truck

Single vehicle 7% 14%

Also involving other
heavy truck 3% 6%
Also involving light
vehicle 58% 61%
Also involving a
motorcycle 11% 6%
Also involving a
pedal cycle 6% 2%

Pedestrian killed 15% 11%

100% 100%

The hypothesis of identical distributions in the two columns is rejected with χ 5 = 32 (in agreement with
2

Table 4): compared to crashes involving an articulated truck, crashes involving a rigid truck are more
likely to involve a vulnerable road user, and less likely to be a single vehicle.

Approximately 60 per cent of fatal crashes involving a heavy truck also involve a light vehicle.
Approximately 26 per cent involve a vulnerable road user (33 per cent for fatal heavy rigid crashes, and
21 per cent for fatal articulated crashes). This remainder of this section presents brief results of a scan
of published research relevant to crash fault and pre-crash events for heavy truck-involved crashes. A
representative selection of published findings on critical pre-crash events follows:

• The large truck Crash Causation study (LTCCS 2005) states that in around 55 per cent of
fatal crashes involving a heavy truck and a passenger vehicle, the critical factor was
associated with the light vehicle. In two-vehicle crashes involving a large truck and a
passenger vehicle (not necessarily fatal), the passenger vehicle was assigned the critical
reason in 56 percent of the crashes and the large truck in 44 per cent.
• In the US DoT Large truck and bus Crash Facts (LTBCF 2013), the heavy truck’s
movements are coded as critical pre-crash events in approximately 23 per cent of fatal
crashes.
• In a 2014 summary presentation on heavy truck safety produced by the NSW Centre for
Road Safety (NSW 2014), key-vehicle status in fatal multi-vehicle heavy truck crashes was
assigned to the truck in 18 per cent of cases.
• NTI (2015): In fatal crashes involving a truck and other vehicle, no fault was found for
the truck driver in 84% of cases.
• The Australian Road Transport Suppliers Association (ARTSA 2015) presents a number of
analyses of crashes involving heavy trucks ≥12t including fault and crash type.

21
21
78

5. Exposure Measures and Rates

Heavy trucks account for around 2.4 per cent of all vehicle registrations, down from 2.7 per cent in
2001. In terms of kilometres travelled, they account for 7.0 per cent of the total 18, up from 6.3 per cent
in 2001. They are involved in approximately 16 per cent of fatal crashes and 4 per cent of injury crashes.
Table 15 shows numbers of registered vehicles: trucks (categorised by weight) and passenger cars
(total)— sourced from ABS (2015). Note that this data is not numbers of new registrations each year,
but the number of total registered vehicles at a fixed point in time each year. Relevant statistics are also
provided in (ARTSA 2016).

Table 15 Vehicles on Register — Trucks (by weight 19) / Passenger cars

Passenger
Rigid trucks Articulated trucks cars
≤ 4.5t 4.5t – 20t ≥ 20t Total 3t – 20t 20t – 60t ≥ 60t Total

2006 95,452 219,183 68,911 383,546 638 40,681 30,361 71,680 11,188,880

2007 99,817 221,945 72,728 394,490 611 40,294 33,518 74,423 11,466,560
2008 105,726 227,303 77,881 410,910 598 41,008 37,526 79,132 11,803,536

2009 110,763 229,545 81,394 421,702 771 40,908 39,538 81,217 12,023,098

2010 115,845 231,834 83,599 431,278 729 40,314 41,393 82,436 12,269,305
2011 119,539 231,962 86,261 437,762 867 41,533 43,565 85,965 12,474,044

2012 124,291 233,156 88,959 446,406 904 42,531 44,560 87,995 12,714,235

2013 131,147 233,837 92,161 457,145 885 42,796 47,223 90,904 13,000,021
2014 135,658 234,597 94,867 465,122 907 42,901 50,045 93,853 13,297,260

2015 140,625 234,967 96,732 472,324 946 42,455 51,574 94,975 13,549,449
last 5
years 4.2 0.3 3.0 1.9 1.8 0.5 4.6 2.7 2.1
% change
per year last 10
years 4.4 0.7 3.7 2.3 5.6 0.7 5.7 3.2 2.1

As seen in Table 15, most of the growth (around 3-4% per year) in numbers of registered rigid trucks
has occurred in the largest weight category (≥ 20 t) and in the smallest category (≤ 4.5 t). A similar
pattern is seen in registrations of articulated trucks.

The changes over time in numbers of registered vehicles are illustrated in Figure 7.

18
Includes rigid trucks with a Gross Vehicle Mass of 3.5 t and over.
19 GVM used for rigid truck weights and GCM (Gross Combination Mass) is used for articulated truck weights.

22
22
78

Figure 7 Growth rate (per year) in numbers of registered vehicles

5%
Rigid trucks Articulated trucks Passenger cars
4%

3%

2%
Last 10 years
last 5 years

Per year
Per year

1%

0%

There has been a marginal reduction in the growth rate of heavy truck registrations during the last five
years when compared to the preceding five years.

Crash data available nationally does not contain sufficient detail on the weights of vehicles involved to
calculate crash rates based on the data in Table 13. The following table therefore combines all weight
categories to show fatal crash rates per registered vehicle.

Table 16 Rates of annual fatal crashes per 10,000 registered vehicles

Passenger Car
Heavy rigid Involved Articulated Involved
Involved
Single Single Single
vehicle All vehicle All vehicle All

2006 0.24 2.50 2.93 19.95 - -

2007 0.20 2.71 4.17 19.62 - -
2008 0.36 2.79 2.91 16.30 0.33 0.74
2009 0.23 2.35 3.57 14.90 0.32 0.76
2010 0.22 2.16 1.82 14.92 0.28 0.69
2011 0.19 1.89 2.09 14.42 0.25 0.61
2012 0.16 2.64 2.05 14.09 0.24 0.62
2013 0.12 1.96 0.88 9.79 0.22 0.54
2014 0.21 2.31 1.70 10.76 0.20 0.52
2015 0.18 2.23 1.90 10.53 - -
% change last 5
per year years -2.5% +1.4% -3.5% -8.2% -8.6% -7.2%

Trend — — *** *** *** ***

For fatal crashes involving articulated trucks, the rate per registered vehicle is 20 times the rate for
passenger cars. The rates however for both these vehicle types are decreasing strongly.
The following figure plots the ‘All’ columns in the above table. The rate for articulated- involved is on a
separate axis from the other two rates.

23
23
78

Figure 8 Rate of annual fatal crashes per 10,000 registered vehicles

4 24
per 10,000 registrations: HR and Passenger

Crash rate: articulated

Per 10,000 registrations: Articulated

3 18

Crash rate: heavy rigid

2 12

1 6

Crash rate: passengers cars

0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Articulated trucks travel on average much further than other vehicles, and have a larger proportion of
travel on rural roads. Tables 17A, 17B and 17C show total kilometres-travelled (VKT) by vehicle type
and by Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA) / Rest of State 20, crash numbers and crash rates
per VKT. The source of the VKT estimates is BITRE (2015).

Table 17A Fatal crashes, VKT and rates of fatal crashes per 100 million VKT
—Heavy rigid truck-involved
Greater Capital City Rest of State All
108 Fatal Rate per 108 Fatal Rate per 108 Fatal Rate per
VKT crashes 108 VKT VKT crashes 108 VKT VKT crashes 108 VKT
2008 4.5 46 1.0 4.4 35 0.8 8.9 81 0.9
2009 4.4 36 0.8 4.3 34 0.8 8.8 70 0.8
2010 4.5 35 0.8 4.5 29 0.6 9.0 64 0.7
2011 4.7 24 0.5 4.6 30 0.7 9.2 54 0.6
2012 4.8 32 0.7 4.7 47 1.0 9.4 79 0.8
2013 4.9 30 0.6 4.8 29 0.6 9.6 59 0.6
2014 5.0 40 0.8 4.9 35 0.7 9.8 75 0.8
Trend *** — — *** — — *** — —

20
For an explanation of Greater Capital City Statistical Area See (ABS 2013c).

24
24
78

Table 17B Fatal crashes, VKT and rates of fatal crashes per 100 million VKT
—Articulated truck-involved
Greater Capital City Rest of State All
8 8 8
10 Fatal Rate per 10 Fatal Rate per 10 Fatal Rate per
VKT crashes 108 VKT VKT crashes 108 VKT VKT crashes 108 VKT
2008 1.3 32 2.5 5.6 93 1.7 6.9 125 1.8
2009 1.3 28 2.2 5.6 86 1.6 6.8 114 1.7
2010 1.3 31 2.4 5.7 89 1.6 6.9 120 1.7
2011 1.3 31 2.3 5.9 96 1.6 7.2 127 1.8
2012 1.4 25 1.8 6.0 102 1.7 7.5 127 1.7
2013 1.4 22 1.5 6.2 73 1.2 7.7 95 1.2
2014 1.5 23 1.6 6.4 78 1.2 7.8 101 1.3
Trend *** *** *** *** — — *** — **

Table 17C Fatal crashes, VKT and rates of fatal crashes per 100 million VKT
—Passenger car-involved
Greater Capital City Rest of State All
8 8 8
10 Fatal Rate per 10 Fatal Rate per 10 Fatal Rate per
VKT crashes 108 VKT VKT crashes 108 VKT VKT crashes 108 VKT
2008 99.7 379 0.4 66.0 490 0.7 165.7 869 0.5
2009 99.4 376 0.4 65.7 524 0.8 165.1 900 0.6
2010 100.1 326 0.3 66.0 515 0.8 166.1 841 0.5
2011 101.5 294 0.3 66.5 465 0.7 168.0 759 0.5
2012 102.5 323 0.3 67.1 455 0.7 169.6 778 0.5
2013 103.7 296 0.3 67.5 408 0.6 171.2 704 0.4
2014 104.6 274 0.3 67.9 408 0.6 172.5 682 0.4
Trend *** *** ** *** ** ** *** *** **

Heavy rigid truck travel is evenly split between GCCSA and Rest of State. In comparison, over
80 per cent of articulated truck travel is outside the GCCSA areas. Comparing the crash rates per VKT
for GCCSA with Rest of State shows that they are higher in the Rest of State areas for Passenger
car-involved crashes, are similar for heavy rigid truck-involved crashes, and lower for articulated truck
crashes. Over the last five years, the rates for articulated truck-involved crashes are trending down, as
are passenger car rates.

25
25
78

References

ABS 2013a, Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5 – Remoteness Structure, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2013.
ABS 2013b, Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 4 – Significant Urban Areas, Urban Centres
and Localities, Section of State, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013.
ABS 2013c, Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 1 – Main Structure and Greater Capital City
Statistical Areas, July 2011 , Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013.
ABS 2015, Motor Vehicle Census, Australia, 2015, 9309.0.
ARTSA 2015
http://www.artsa.com.au/assets/articles/2015_06.pdfttp://www.artsa.com.au/assets/articles/2015_06.pdf .
ARTSA 2016 ARTSA Heavy and Medium Commercial Vehicle Registration Statistics - March quarter 2016
Statistics - March quarter 2016.
Austroads, 2013a, Heavy Vehicle Safety Data, Austroads publication No. AP-R441-13, 2013.
Austroads 2013b, Improving the Safety of Heavy Vehicles in Urban Areas – A Crash Analysis and Review of
Potential Infrastructure and ITS Countermeasures, Austroads publication No. AP-R425-13, 2013.
BITRE 2015 On Road VKT Estimates, Bureau of Infrastructure and Regional Economics, unpublished.
Budd L. and Newstead S. 2014, Potential Safety Benefits of Emerging Crash Avoidance Technologies in Australasian
Heavy Vehicles, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Report No. 324.
Driscoll O. 2015, 2015 Major Accident Investigation Report, National Truck Accident Research Centre, NTI.
Elkington J. Stevenson M., 2013, The Heavy Vehicle Study - Final Report, C-MARC: Curtin Monash Accident
Research Centre.
Henley G. and Harrison J.E. 2015, Trends in serious injury due to road vehicle traffic crashes, Australia 2001 to
2010. Injury research and statistics series no. 89. Cat. no. INJCAT 165. Canberra: AIHW.
Kipling R.R., 2011. Large truck crash avoidance, Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety 22 (3).
LTCCS 2005, Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
LTBCF 2013, Large Truck And Bus Crash Facts 2013, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
NSW 2014, Heavy Truck Fatal Crash Trends and Single Vehicle Heavy Truck Crash Characteristics, NSW Centre
for Road Safety, Transport for NSW.
NTI 2011, NTI’s Guide to the Trucking Industry, National Transport Insurance.
PSMA 2015, Transport and Topography Product Description, PSMA Australia Ltd.
Raftery S.J., Grigo J.A.L. and Woolley J.E., 2011, Heavy vehicle road safety: Research scan, Centre for
Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide Report No. CASR100.
Tziotis M. 2011, Recent ARRB research on heavy vehicle safety, Journal of the Australasian College of Road
Safety 22 (3).
Zhang M., Meuleners L., Chow C.N., Govorko M. 2014, The Epidemiology Of Heavy Vehicle Crashes
In Western Australia: 2001-2013, C-MARC: Curtin Monash Accident Research Centre.

26
26
78

© Commonwealth of Australia 2016

ISSN 1440-9593
ISBN 978-1-925401-45-5
July 2016 / INFRA-2911
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, communicate
and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work to the Commonwealth and abide by the other licence terms. A
summary of the licence terms is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en.
The full licence terms are available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.
This publication should be attributed in the following way; Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE),
Heavy truck safety: crash analysis and trends, BITRE, Canberra.

Acknowledgement
Prepared by Peter Johnston. For further information on this publication please contact roadsafety@infrastructure.gov.au.

Use of the Coat of Arms

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sets the terms under which the Coat of Arms is used. Please refer to the
Department’s Commonwealth Coat of Arms and Government Branding web page
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/index.cfm#brand and in particular, the Guidelines on the use of the Commonwealth Coat of
Arms publication.

Contact us
This publication is available in PDF format. All other rights are reserved, including in relation to any Departmental logos or trade
marks which may exist. For enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this publication, please contact:
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE)
GPO Box 501, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Phone: (international) +61 2 6274 7210
Fax: (international) +61 2 6274 6855
Email: bitre@infrastructure.gov.au
Website: www.bitre.gov.au

27
27