Quad Bike and OPD Workplace Safety Survey Report.

QUAD BIKE WORKPLACE SAFETY SURVEY PROJECT
Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre
REPORT
QUAD BIKE AND OPD WORKPLACE

SAFETY SURVEY REPORT:
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY (TARS)
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
for
SafeWork NSW
92-100 Donnison Street, Gosford, New South Wales 2250.
31 May 2017
Contract Agreement: Re NSW Quad Bike Safety Improvement Program,

SWNSW/480203/2015
Quad Bike Workplace Safety Survey Report 2
Contents
Acknowledgements: .............................................................................................................. 3
Disclaimer............................................................................................................................... 4
Further Information ............................................................................................................... 4
Project Summary at a Glance................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 9
1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 15
1.1 Literature Review................................................................................................... 16
2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 23
3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 24
3.1 Survey Methods ..................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Human Ethics Approval ......................................................................................... 28
4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Sub-Study (i): Quad Bike Tour Company Case Study ............................................. 28
4.2 Sub-Study (ii): Fleet Managers Survey ................................................................... 31
4.3 Sub-Study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders (Main) Survey .................................. 35
4.3.1 Data Analysis (Crashes, All Injuries and Serious Injuries).................................. 35
4.3.2 Data Analysis (OPDs and Injuries) ..................................................................... 37
4.3.3 Data Analysis (Activity and injuries).................................................................. 43
4.3.4 Data Analysis (Helmets and injuries) ................................................................ 45
4.3.5 Data Analysis (Riding experience, training and injuries) .................................. 47
5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS................................................................................................. 51
6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 60
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................... 61
References: .......................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX A: Web Page Administering Main Survey On-Line ............................................. 68
APPENDIX B: Fleet Managers Survey ................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX C: Individual Workplace Riders (Main) Survey ................................................... 81
APPENDIX D: Participant Recruitment Methods Main Survey ....................................... 120
APPENDIX E: Quad Bike Tour Company Event Data Survey Results .................................. 124
APPENDIX F: Sub-Study (ii): Fleet Managers Survey Results ............................................. 130
APPENDIX G: Sub-Study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders Survey Results ....................... 136
Acknowledgements:
The independent Quad Bike Workplace Safety Project (QBWSP) was undertaken by the
Transport and Road Safety Research Centre at UNSW, under contract to SafeWork NSW.
This project commenced in May 2016 , and would not have happened had it not been for
the substantial efforts and contributions from SafeWork NSW, following the
recommendations for such work to be undertaken by 2014 Queensland and the 2015 NSW
Coronial Inquests on Quadbike fatalities.
The Authors are particularly grateful to Mr. Tony Williams and Ms. Diane Vaughan from
SafeWork NSW and to the NSW State Government for initiating and funding this vitally
important safety survey study project. Assistance by SafeWork NSW with promotion of the
survey study and during visits to the various agricultural shows around NSW is also
gratefully acknowledged. The Authors are also grateful to Ms Kathleen Martin from
SafeWork NSW for assistance related to meetings and discussions with SafeWork NSW and
recruitment promotion of the survey study.
Advertising of the Individual Workplace Riders (main) Survey by WorkSafe Victoria,
particularly Mr. Bruce Gibson, Work safe New Zealand, in particular Mr. Al McCone, and
Safe Work Australia, is also gratefully acknowledged. The assistance from Mr. Charles
Armstrong from the National Farmers Federation is similarly gratefully acknowledged, as is
the assistance of all the associations listed in Appendix D. Assistance was also gratefully
received from Mr David Robertson from Quadbar Industries and Mr. Mathew Tiplady from
ATV Lifeguard for assisting the TARS Team when the fleet managers survey forms were
administered by TARS to those of their clients who agreed to do the survey.
This report was prepared by a team comprised of: Prof. Raphael Grzebieta (Project Team
Leader, Senior Engineering Specialist), Dr. Soufiane Boufous (Epidemiologist and Statistics
Specialist), Mr. Keith Simmons (Safer Vehicles and Work Place Fleet Management Specialist
and Consultant), Mr David Hicks (Mechanical Engineer, Quad Bike Safety Specialist and Farm
Worker), Prof. Ann Williamson (TARS Director, Epidemiologist and Workplace Injury
Prevention Specialist), Adj. A/Prof. George Rechnitzer (Accident Investigation, Forensic
Engineering Specialist and Workplace Injury Prevention Specialist).
This team made up of staff and their associates from the Transport and Road Safety (TARS)
Research Centre at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), have very strong nationally
and internationally recognised expertise in safety and injury prevention and epidemiology.
Moreover, the TARS team has extensive international and Australian experience and world
leading research track records in Quad bike safety, particularly rollover and associated
injuries, and head injuries and helmets.
Finally, the Authors would also like to thank the following people who were asked to review
the report: Professor Gordon Smith, MD (MB, ChB Otago) MPH, the Stuart M. and Joyce N.
Robbins Distinguished Professor from the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public
Health, West Virginia University, USA; Mr. Stephen Oesch from Stephen L. Oesch, LLC,
former researcher for 29 years with the US Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS)
retiring as the senior vice president for insurer and government relations; Hon. Associate
Professor Tony Lower from the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health & Safety, School of
Rural Health - Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney; Dr. Rebecca Lilley, Senior
Research Fellow from the Injury Prevention Research Unit, University of Otago, New
Zealand; and Associate Professor Kirsten Vallmuur from the Centre for Accident Research &
Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q), School of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of
Health, Queensland University of Technology. The Authors are most appreciative of these
reviewers giving up their valuable time to provide their insightful comments.
Disclaimer
This project has been developed and carried out based on the extensive epidemiological,
statistical, safety engineering, and Quad Bike research experience of the Authors. The
research methods, development of the survey questions, collection of data, statistical
analysis, conclusions and recommendations are the responsibility of the Authors. Any views
expressed are not necessarily those of SafeWork NSW.
This report and the results presented are made in good faith and are for information only. It
is the responsibility of the user to ensure the appropriate application of these results if any,
is interpreted at their own risk and for their own requirements. While the Authors have
made every effort to ensure that the analysis and information in this report was correct at
the time of publication it is based on the analysis of self-reported survey data. Therefore,
the Authors do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss,
damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions
result from accident, inaccuracies in the information provided by the survey participants or
any other cause.
Further Information
Correspondence regarding the Project and Report should, in the first instance, be by email
to Professor Raphael Grzebieta, at [email protected] or to SafeWork NSW, attention
Mr. Tony Williams, at [email protected].
Project Summary at a Glance

This project is the largest survey study carried out to date of the in-field workplace experiences of Quad bike
riders in regard to their use of Operator Protective Devices (OPDs: a rollbar type device attached to the rear of a
Quad bike) and Quad bike specific helmets for Australia, and includes New Zealand. This project provides
considerable information regarding the use of OPDs and Quad bike specific helmets, and rollover and other
crash events that has not previously been available.
The objectives of this survey-based study project were primarily to identify if the fitment of OPDs caused harm
to riders in a rollover crash in the workplace environment (farming, forestry, etc.), and to what extent are OPDs
protective in rollover incidents involving Quad bikes. This is in response to the NSW Deputy State Coroner
Freunds recommendation that a survey study be undertaken as follows:
That SafeWork NSW, SafeWork Australia, and the manufacturers of the Quadbar and Lifeguard
Crush Protection Devices, collaborate and attempt to reach agreement to conduct an independent
survey study to assess the benefits, risks and general efficacy of Crush Protection Devices.
While there is considerable interest in the farming community and workplace for the fitment of OPDs (also
referred to as Crush Protection Devices or CPDs) to reduce harm (i.e. severe or fatal injury risk) in rollover
incidents with Quad bikes, there is also controversy in regard to the claimed harm of OPDs and their
effectiveness. However, until this study there has been no systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of OPDs in
the field and importantly, detecting whether in-field use of OPDs has resulted in serious injury to riders.
Previous studies have identified that 70% of Quad bike related serious injuries and fatalities result from
rollovers. Significantly, there have not been any fatalities identified in this study or elsewhere where the OPD
fitted to the Quad bike was causal to a fatal injury. This multi-faceted survey study is in response to this lack of
information on actual in-field performance of OPDs in rollovers as opposed to published findings from computer
modelling and other tests.
The survey study is comprised of responses from three workplace categories (Sub-study (i), (ii) and (iii)). The
intention was to obtain the widest in-field exposure of Quad bikes fitted with OPDs in the workplace and that
were involved in rollover incidents in order to detect if OPDs were being harmful in rollover incidents. The
research team considered that if there were any incidents of OPDs causing serious injury to riders, this multi-
faceted method would reveal any such harmful trends. While various OPD devices were identified in the survey
study, the focus of this study was on the most common and well-promoted OPD devices, the Quadbar and
Lifeguard shown in Figure 1, and discussed in Grzebieta et al (2015a, 2015c).
The results were as follows:
Sub-study (i): Case study of 20 years of crash history obtained from a major Quad bike tour company
operating rides for up to 25,000 yearly patrons. This company has very high exposure of Quad bikes with OPDs
fitted in a workplace environment, which is why this company was included into the survey study. In 2005 all
Quad bikes were fitted with a Quadbar OPD to redress their major injury incidents (70% were rollover) in the
prior ten years. The company reported no cases of serious injury resulting from OPDs and their experience is
that OPDs are effective in reducing harm to patron riders.
Sub-study (ii): Survey of Quad bike fleet managers from 12 Australian and 4 NZ companies covering a total of
436 Quad bikes where a majority of Quad bikes were fitted with either a Quadbar (167) or a Lifeguard OPD
(150). The intent of the survey of these companies was to identify from these large users of Quad bikes with
OPDs fitted (hence high exposure) whether riders use of OPDs in the field was resulting in serious injuries.
There were 57 rollover crashes involving a Quad bike with no OPD and 12 crashes with an OPD. When managers
were asked whether the OPD prevented injury or caused injury, the company managers responses were that
the OPD prevented injury or more serious injury in 10 of the 12 rollover cases. This survey identified that overall
the fleet managers considered the Quadbar generally protective.
Sub-study (iii): Main on line internet survey of 1,546 individual workplace quadbike riders, of which around
half reported no crashes and the other half reported a total of 1,430 crashes (some with more than one crash).
Of those riders involved in a crash around 10% (150) had a Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD fitted. There were 963
rollover events of which 37 (4%) had a Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD fitted. There were a total of ten injury cases
involving a Quad bike fitted with a Quadbar or Lifeguard: 2 serious injuries resulting in hospitalisation and 8
minor injuries. However, there were no incidents identified in which there were serious injury (chest or head)
attributed to or associated with the Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD. Of the 868 rollover crashes where the Quad bike
had no OPD fitted, 178 (21%) were injured. Of these injured cases 123 (69%) were minor injury and 55 (31%)
were hospitalised. Of those hospitalised cases 24 (44%) received serious chest injuries. From a statistical
analysis, when the Quad bike rolls over the rider the risk of a serious injury (hospitalisation) (includes being
pinned by the vehicle) is more than six times higher compared to a crash where the Quad bike does not roll over
the rider, which is a major statistically significant safety risk of operating a Quad bike.
KEY FINDINGS FROM ALL THREE SUB-STUDIES: While the sub-studies have identified that some riders have
received injury they attribute to the OPD, from all the infield data, there were no cases of serious chest or head
injury involving either a Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD in a rollover crash. Further, the infield data is suggestive
that these OPD types reduce to some extent serious chest injuries in rollovers. However, statistical significance
was not able to be obtained because of the small sample size of riders receiving injuries when using these OPDs.
In regard to the performance of Quad bike specific helmets, it would appear they reduced the incidents of head
injuries. However, again statistical significance was not able to be obtained because of the small sample size of
helmeted riders receiving head injuries. Therefore, it is recommended that a larger sample size be obtained in
the future to determine more precise estimates of the benefit of fitting Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs to
Quadbikes and the benefits of using Quad bike specific helmets to reduce head injuries.
The following pages are a pictorial summary at a glance of the results of this study.
Sub-study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders Survey

Sub-study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders Survey
Adjusted odds ratio representing the odds that an outcome [e.g. crash, injury, hospitalisation] will occur given a particular exposure [e.g. male rider
(or Quad bike rolls over the rider)], compared to the odds of the outcome occurring in the absence of that exposure [e.g. female rider (or Quad bike
crashing but not rolling over rider)] after all significant confounding factors have been controlled for using multiple regression analysis (<0.05). Note
lines represent confidence limits.
Executive Summary
This project is the largest survey study carried out to date of the in-field workplace experiences
of Quad bike riders in regard to their use of Operator Protective Devices (OPDs: a rollbar type
device attached to the rear of a Quad bike) and Quad bike specific helmets for Australia, and
includes New Zealand. This survey study provides considerable information regarding the use of
OPDs and Quad bike specific helmets, and rollover and other crash events that has not
previously been available.
The objectives of this project were primarily to identify if the fitment of (OPDs) were harmful
(i.e. caused serious injury in a rollover incident) to the rider in the workplace environment, e.g.
farming, forestry, etc., and to what extent the OPDs were protective in rollover incidents
involving Quad bikes. This is in response to the NSW Deputy State Coroner Freunds
recommendation that a survey study be undertaken as follows:
That SafeWork NSW, SafeWork Australia, and the manufacturers of the Quadbar and
Lifeguard Crush Protection Devices, collaborate and attempt to reach agreement to
conduct an independent survey study to assess the benefits, risks and general efficacy of
Crush Protection Devices.
While there is considerable interest in the farming community and workplace for the fitment of
OPDs (also referred to as Crush Protection Devices or CPDs) to reduce harm (i.e. severe or
fatal injury risk) in rollover incidents with Quad bikes, there is also controversy in regard to the
claimed harm of OPDs and their effectiveness. However, until this study there has been no
systematic evaluation about the effectiveness of OPDs in the field and importantly, detecting
whether in-field use of OPDs have resulted in serious injury to riders. Previous studies have
identified that 70% of Quad bike related serious injuries and fatalities result from rollovers.
Significantly, there have not been any fatalities identified in this study or elsewhere where the
OPD fitted to the Quad bike was causal to a fatal injury.
This multi-faceted survey study is in response to this lack of information on actual in-field
performance of OPDs in rollovers as opposed to published findings from computer modelling
and other tests. Hence, this report presents the results of this multi-faceted survey study of the
safety experience of Australian and New Zealand (NZ) workplace Quad bike riders with and
without an OPD and helmets.
The survey study is comprised of responses from three workplace categories (Sub-studies):
i) a case study and collection of event data from a major Quad bike tour company in
Australia1 (Quad bike Tour Company case study) with a large fleet (n=100 Quad bikes with
and without OPDs, and 25,000 annual patrons);
ii) a survey of companies (Fleet Managers Survey) with large Quad bike fleets fitted with
OPDs, with responses from Quad bike fleet managers (12 Australian and 4 NZ companies,
with a total of 436 Quad bikes);
iii) a major survey of individual workplace Quad bike riders (Individual Workplace Rider
Survey), with responses from 1,546 riders (712 Aust and 827 NZ).
Operational characteristics, the risk factors and benefits associated with the use of Quad bikes,
OPDs and helmets used in a typical work-place environment were assessed. Quad bikes both
fitted and not fitted with an OPD were analysed, and in particular the in-field performance of
the QuadbarTM or ATV LifequardTM OPDs and Quad bike specific helmets.
1
Identity has been withheld for privacy reasons. Application can be made via TARS UNSW for further information.
While various OPD devices were identified in the survey study, the focus of this survey study
was on the most common and well-promoted OPD devices, the Quadbar and Lifeguard shown
in Figure 1, and discussed in Grzebieta et al (2015a, 2015c).
Information was gathered on rider demographics, Quad bike type, work usage (commodity
group, work tasks performed, etc.), whether an OPD was installed, whether a helmet was worn
or not and its type, recreational use, the terrain over which the Quad bikes are ridden, load
carrying, etc. The Individual Workplace Rider Survey also asked respondents to provide detailed
information relating to any incidents involving the Quad bike they rode, for up to three of their
most recent incidents. This was requested from participants who rode a Quad bike either with
or without an OPD fitted, whether wearing a helmet or not, etc. Information was sought from
respondents concerning any injuries and their type and severity, in particular, those injuries
that resulted from the crash, including if caused by the OPD if it was attached, head injuries
with and without a helmet, and any other safety relevant information.
SUB-STUDY (i) FINDINGS: Quad bike Tour Company Case Study
A case study of major tour company was carried out as this company had very high exposure to
OPD usage in the field. This was as a result of their fitting Quadbar OPDs to their fleet of 100
Quad bikes that were used by a total of 25,000 patrons per year. The tour company operate
Quad bikes within a workplace environment, albeit the vehicles were used for recreational
purposes. Due to such high exposure of riders using Quad bikes with OPDs fitted, if there were
instances of riders being seriously injured by OPDs these would have been identified.
The company reported no cases of serious injury resulting from OPDs and their experience was
that OPDs are highly effective in reducing harm to their patron riders.
Results collected from the twenty years of crash history from this Quad bike tour company
indicates that Quadbar OPDs have been effective in reducing harm to the tour companys
25,000 annual patrons. The company has operated Quad bike tours along a beach, sand dunes
and hinterland, near a popular holiday location on Australias coast since the mid-1990s.
From 1995 to 2005, safety related incidents occurred in which guests were injured, some
seriously requiring helicopter evacuation. The Quad bike tour company was experiencing
approximately 120 - 130 incidents per year with around 30 riders requiring first aid, a further 20
to 30 guests requiring the assistance of an ambulance and in 2 to 3 very serious cases each
year, medical evacuation by helicopter to the nearest trauma hospital was required (around 52
to 63 injuries in total). Around 70% of the incidents involved a rollover crash and 65% of these
rollovers resulted in the Quad bike rolling on top of the rider (n=60).
In around 2005, all Quad bikes were fitted with a Quadbar OPD in an attempt to redress these
major injury incidents. Patrons must also wear helmets but it was unclear in which year they
began this requirement. Since 2005, the fleet size and annual guest throughput has more than
tripled. Despite this significant increase in operation size, the number of reported incidents per
year remained the same, however with a major reduction in both injuries and injury severity.
While incidents still remain at around 120 annually, of these incidents, no guests have required
helicopter evacuation (compared to 2-3 annually previously), 2 guests each year (on average)
have required first aid treatment (compared to 30 annually previously) and 3 required the
assistance of an Ambulance (compared to 20-30 annually previously). Quad bike rollover
occurred in 70% of the incidents (average 85 per year) whilst none of the injuries resulted from
the Quad bike rolling onto, or the OPD impacting, the rider. Importantly, the company reported
no cases of serious injury resulting from OPDs and their experience is that OPDs are highly
effective in reducing harm to patron riders.
SUB-STUDY (ii) FINDINGS: Fleet Managers Survey
For the fleet manager survey a total of 16 companies, 12 from Australia and 4 from New
Zealand, reported a total of 436 Quad bikes where 321 of these Quad bikes were fitted with
either a Quadbar (167) or a Lifeguard OPD (150) and 4 had some other kind of OPD. The survey
questionnaire is provided in Appendix B and the statistical table of responses is summarised in
Appendix F.
The intent of the survey of these companies was to identify from these large users of Quad
bikes with OPDs fitted (hence high exposure) whether riders use of OPDs in the field were
resulting in serious injuries. This survey was intended to also provide a first glimpse overview
of the in-field data prior to the much broader Sub-study (iii) survey. There were 57 rollover
crashes where the Quad bike did not have an OPD and 12 crashes where the Quad bike had an
OPD, i.e. a total of 69 crashes. Of the 12 rollover crash events with an OPD: 9 were with a
Quadbar, 2 were with a Lifeguard and 1 was unknown as to type of OPD.
Of these 12 rollover crashes with an OPD (9 with a Quadbar, 2 with a Lifeguard and 1 unknown
type), 6 resulted in an injury (2 hospitalisations and 4 minor injuries). When managers were
asked whether the OPD prevented injury or caused injury, the company managers responses
were that the OPD prevented injury or more serious injury in 10 of the 12 rollover cases: in 8
cases the OPD stopped the Quad bike from rolling onto the rider; and in 2 cases held the Quad
bike off the rider as it rolled over the rider. In one of the other two remaining cases the OPD
made no difference to the crash outcomes.
However, out of this large exposure of Quad bikes with OPDs fitted in the field, one of the
rollover cases (hospitalisation) was identified where Nylon bushes on a Quadbar OPD froze
resulting in the suspension locking up causing the Quad bike to rollover. Nevertheless, the rider
stated that the OPD prevented his receiving more serious injury. This issue with the Quadbar
has since been addressed by the manufacturer.
Regarding the other serious injury (hospitalisation) case the Quad bike hit an undulation at high
speed, pitched over and the rider broke his collarbone on impact with the ground. The rider
claimed the OPD protected him from being crushed and likely killed. Two of the Authors
(Grzebieta and Rechnitzer) had inspected the Quadbar and talked to the rider, and observed
the bent Quadbar (see Figure 4, and photographs in Appendix F). It was concluded that in the
circumstances the Quadbar provided a survival space as it slid upside rearwards along the
ground with the rider inside the triangle formed between the bent Quadbar and the Quad
bike seat (Figure 4). It was clear that in this case had the Quadbar not been installed and
performed as well as it did the rider would have received much more serious or fatal injuries.
This survey identified that overall the fleet managers considered the Quadbar generally
protective, with only one harmful event identified because of an installation error, which has
been subsequently addressed by Quadbar Industries.
SUB-STUDY (iii) FINDINGS: Individual Workplace Riders Survey
The major survey of individual workplace Quad bike riders in Australia and New Zealand was
advertised through multiple media sources, aimed at gathering responses from riders 18 years
of age or over, who used a Quad bike in their workplace environment irrespective of whether
the Quad bike had an OPD fitted to it or not, and irrespective of OPD type if one was fitted.
Survey data was predominantly collected via an internet on line survey and hard copy forms
were provided to those few who had no internet access or had slow internet response.
A total of 1546 responses were received over the 7 month period from the survey start in May
2016 to the close off in November 2016. The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix C
and the statistical table of responses is summarised in Appendix G, which formed a very large
data set for analysis.
From the detailed statistical analysis of the 1,546 participants (46% Australians and 54% New
Zealanders) around half of these riders reported not experiencing a crash, whereas the other
half reported a total of 1,430 crashes (i.e. some had more than one crash). The following main
characteristics were identified regarding the sample participants surveyed:
Do OPDs cause harm?
There were no incidents identified in which there were serious injury (chest or head) attributed
to or associated with the Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD (see Table 7 and Table 8).
The infield data is suggestive that Quadbar or Lifeguard OPDs reduce to some extent serious
chest injuries in rollovers. However, it is recommended that a larger sample size be obtained in
the future to determine more precise estimates of the benefit of fitting Quadbar and Lifeguard
OPDs to Quad bikes. In regard to the performance of Quad bike specific helmets, it would
appear they reduced the incidents of head injuries (see Table 11, Figure 13, Figure 14).
However, statistical significance was not able to be obtained because of the small sample size
of helmeted riders receiving head injuries (which is in itself suggestive of effectiveness) and it is
also recommended surveillance of their in-field performance also be continued.
OPDs and Crashes
Of the 1,546 surveyed, 12% (182) had installed an OPD and of those who installed an
OPD, 59% (108) had installed a Quadbar, 23% (42) had a Lifeguard, 4% (7) had a T-bar,
and 14% (25) had some other OPD (homemade, full ROPS and partial, etc.);
Of the 1,430 crashes: 67% (963) involved a rollover event, and of these rollovers, 90%
(868) were crashes where the Quad bike did not have an OPD fitted, and 10% (95)
involved Quad bikes that had an OPD of some kind (33 involved a Quadbar; 4 a Lifeguard;
24 a T-bar, and 34 other OPD). Of the 963 rollover crashes 78% (749) were lateral
rollovers, 12% (107) were forward pitch and 10% (94) were rearward pitch;
Of the 1,430 crashes, the activity the rider was participating in at the time of the crash
(could select more than one activity) was 51% (727) were mustering (gathering livestock),
22% (315) were riding between work tasks, 14% (196) were making observations
(checking fences, stock, etc.) while riding, 8% (110) were spraying, 5% (64) were towing,
6% were involved in some other activity and 2% were carrying out other stock work.
Helmets
Of the 1,546 surveyed, 57% (882) said they had their own helmet, 29% (452) said they
had access to one they could use, and 14% (210) said they do not have access to a
helmet. This means 86% (1,334) of riders have access to a helmet (36% Aus, 50% NZ);
Of those 1,334 riders with helmet access (547 Aus, 780 NZ, 7 unknown), 28% (374)
responded they always use a helmet, 17% (230) usually wear a helmet; 15% (196)
sometimes wear a helmet, i.e. around 60% of riders with helmet access use them (49%
Aus, 68% NZ). On the other hand, 24% (317) never wear a helmet and 16% (217) rarely
wear a helmet, i.e. 40% dont wear helmets even though they have access to a helmet
(51% Aus, 32% NZ).
Of those 1,334 riders, regarding helmet type they can access, 48% (645) are a Quad bike
specific helmet that is most likely compliant with NZS:8600:2002 (8% Aus, 92% NZ) (note:
The Quad bike specific helmet has been used as a proxy for off-road helmets compliant
with NZS:8600:2002 as it was unrealistic to request from respondents details concerning
which standard the helmet they had access to or owned was compliant). On the other
hand, 25% (331) can access an open face motorcycle helmet (67% Aus, 33% NZ), 18%
(234) a full face motorcycle helmet (88% Aus, 12% NZ), 4% some other type of helmet, 2%
an equestrian helmet, 2% a bicycle helmet, and 1% didnt know the helmet type.
Injury with and without an OPD in a rollover crash
Concerning the injury data related to rollover crashes for the individual workplace Quad bike
rider survey, the following was identified:
No OPD fitted rollover crashes
Of the 868 rollover crashes where the Quad bike had no OPD fitted, 21% (178) were
injured. Of these injured cases 69% (123) were minor injury and 31% (55) were
hospitalised. Of those hospitalised cases 44% (24) received serious chest injuries;
OPD fitted rollover crashes
Of the 95 rollover crashes where an OPD was fitted, 19% (18) were injured. Of these
injured cases 67% (12) received minor injury and 33% (6) were hospitalised;
In regard to the effectiveness of Lifeguard or Quadbar OPDs, of the 95 rollover crashes
where an OPD was fitted there were 39% (37) rollover crashes with a Lifeguard or
Quadbar OPD of which 27% (10) of riders were injured and 5% (2) were hospitalised. In
the riders opinion as stated in the survey, in these (37) crashes the OPD prevented injury
or more serious injury in 25 cases (68%); made no difference to the crash outcome in
19% (7) cases, and caused the injuries to the rider in 13% (5) cases. Neither of the two
hospitalised injuries were chest injuries.
Risk of a Crash, Any Injury or Serious Injury (hospitalisation)
The logistic regression analysis carried out for the individual workplace Quad bike rider survey
examined the association of different relevant variables (screened at <0.2) with a crash, any
injury or serious injury (hospitalisation). After all significant factors (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5)
had been controlled for using multiple regression analysis the analysis identified that for:
Crash Risk: An increased crash risk occurs when the rider is a male (aOR2, 95% CI: 2.5-1.5)*,
actively rides (aOR1.4, 95% CI: 0.99-1.89 ), carries a load (aOR1.8, , 95% CI: 1.3-2.5), carries a
passenger (aOR1.3, 95% CI: 1.01-1.69), rides 6 hours or more in a day (aOR1.7, ref=2hrs, 95%
CI: 1.1-2.5), rides at a speed of 36 km/h or higher (aOR2.7, ref=0-15 km/h, 95% CI: 1.3-5.6), is
mustering (gathering livestock)( aOR1.6, 95% CI: 1.2-2.1) or working in the animal industry
(aOR1.8). The risk of having had a crash for a rider with 10 or more years experience is slightly
more than double that of a rider with only three or less years of experience (aOR2.1, ref < 3
years, 95% CI: 1.1-3.9).
Injury: An increased risk in any injury occurs when the Quad bike rolls over the rider (aOR4.9,
95% CI: 3.6-6.8)*, rider jumps or is thrown from the vehicle (aOR1.5, ref=stay with vehicle,
95% CI: 1.1-2.0), does not wear a helmet (aOR1.7, 95% CI: 2.6-1.2), rides the vehicle at dusk or
dawn (aOR1.9, 95% CI: 1.04-3.4), rides the vehicle on a sealed road (aOR3.4, 95% CI: 1.5-7.7)
or hard unsealed surface (aOR1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.4) compared to a paddock (grasslands), rides
at a speed of 36 km/h or more (aOR3.8, ref=0-15 km/h, 95% CI: 2.2-6.6), or the rider is 70
years old or older (aOR2.3, 95% CI: 1.3-4.0) or in the 50-69 year old range (aOR1.5, 95% CI:
1.1-2.1) compared to the younger 25-49 year old riders.
Serious Injury: When compared to a crash where the Quad bike does not roll over the rider, the
risk of hospitalisation is just over six and a half times higher when a Quad bike rolls over the
rider (includes being pinned by the vehicle) (aOR6.6, 95% CI: 4.0-10.9). This is a major safety
risk of operating a Quad bike. Moreover, for cases where the Quad bike rolled over the rider
and a chest injury occurs and/or the rider is pinned, a trend analysis identified that with
increasing severity of chest injury, the proportion of OPD fitted vehicles decreases (p=0.02).
Thus, the infield data is suggestive that Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs reduce to some extent
serious chest injuries in rollovers. Also riding on a sealed road (aOR4.3, 95% CI: 1.5-12.5) or at
a speed of 36 km/h or higher (aOR2.5, ref=0-5 km/h, 95% CI: 1.01-6.24) increases risk of
hospitalisation.
(*Note: Adjusted odds ratio represents the odds that an outcome [e.g. crash, injury, hospitalisation] will occur
given a particular exposure [e.g. male rider (or Quad bike rolls over the rider)], compared to the odds of the
outcome occurring in the absence of that exposure [e.g. female rider (or Quad bike crashing but not rolling over
rider)] after all significant confounding factors have been controlled for using multiple regression analysis (<0.05).)
SUMMARY FINDINGS:
The question that arises is whether in particular a Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD causes harm, and
whether they are effective in reducing serious injuries (hospitalisation) in rollovers. From all the
survey study results, there were no cases of serious chest or head injuries involving such OPDs,
thus these OPDs appear to not cause serious chest and head injuries. However, it is
recommended that ongoing surveillance of the performance of OPDs be maintained.
There have been rollover events in which OPDs have had a protective benefit, but there have
also been rollover cases where the presence of the OPD has contributed to injury, and in fact
caused a crash (Quadbar striking low hanging branches). OPDs are not designed to, and simply
cannot, protect against all potential injuries in a Quad bike crash. The purpose of an OPD,
(according to the manufacturers of the Quadbar and Lifeguard devices) is to act as a crush
prevention device. An OPD aims to reduce the likelihood a Quad bike will roll over or onto the
chest of the rider. It is acknowledged by OPD manufacturers and the research team that an
OPD could be injurious to the rider in some crash circumstances. Nevertheless, from all the
survey study data, there were no cases of serious chest or head injury involving either a
Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD in a rollover crash. Further, the infield data is suggestive that
Quadbar or Lifeguard OPDs reduce to some extent serious chest injuries in rollovers.
However, it is recommended that on-going monitoring is maintained, and a larger sample size
be obtained in the future to determine more precise estimates of the benefit of fitting Quadbar
and Lifeguard OPDs to Quadbikes.
In regard to the performance of Quad bike specific helmets, it would appear they reduced the
incidents of head injuries. However, statistical significance was not able to be obtained because
of the small sample size of helmeted riders receiving head injuries (which is an indicator of
helmets benefit in itself) and it is also recommended surveillance of helmets in-field
performance be continued.
1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

This report presents the results of an independent epidemiological-based survey study of
Quad bikes riders and the in-field operational workplace use of Quad bikes, Operator
Protective Devices (OPDs) to protect the rider in the event of a rollover, and the use of
helmets to prevent traumatic brain injury to the rider in the event of a crash. It is the largest
survey study carried out to date of the in-field workplace experiences of Quad bike riders in
regard to their use of OPDs and Quad bike specific helmets for Australia, and includes New
Zealand. The results provide considerable information regarding the use of OPDs and Quad
bike specific helmets, and rollover and other crash events that has not previously been
available.
Quad bikes are four-wheeled vehicles with low-pressure pneumatic tires where a rider
straddles and uses a handle bar with throttle to operate similar to a motorcycle as shown in
Figure 1. These vehicles are officially denoted as All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) in the United
States of America (US) (SVIA, 2010). However, the term Quad bike will be used throughout
this report as is now commonly used by regulatory authorities and safety stakeholders in
Australia and New Zealand.2
Quadbar (QB Industries) ATV Lifeguard (Ag TECH industries)
Figure 1: Quadbar (top left) and Lifeguard (top right) Operator Protective Devices (OPDs).2
Bottom Images: Quad bike controls are similar to a motorcycle3,4
2
http://www.tars.unsw.edu.au/research/Current/Quad-Bike_Safety/Reports/Final_Summary_Report4-
QBPP_Test_Results_Concl_Recom_Jan-2015.pdf
3
http://www.quadbar.co.nz/
4
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8171829/Roll-bar-rated-to-rescue-quad-bike-crashes
For completeness of this report, the following sub-section provides an overview of the
operational characteristics and risk factors and benefits associated with the use of Quad
bikes, OPDs and helmets and a literature review of the epidemiological studies focussing on
Quad bike safety carried out to date. However, readers can skip to Section 2 Project
Objectives on page 21 if they are familiar with these issues and for brevity of reading this
report. Nevertheless, it was necessary that a comprehensive overview of previous safety
research and epidemiological studies focussing on Quad bike, OPDs and helmets carried out
to date be reviewed and presented. Many of the observations and conclusions reached by
other researchers, safety stakeholders and industry are confirmed and supplemented by the
epidemiological analysis of the survey study data presented in this report.
1.1 Literature Review

Quad bikes are considered an essential farming tool across several farming industries
including dairy, meat cattle, sheep, cereal/grains and cotton, for a variety of purposes
including mustering (gathering livestock), spraying, inspections and transporting and towing
equipment (Schalk and Fragar, 1999; Day, Stathakis and OHare, 2006). They are also used in
a variety of other workplaces including Forestry, Mining, Fire Fighting and Surf Life Saving
although they have since been banned by Surf Lifesaving Australia. Quad Bikes - Removal
from ALL SLS Operations. In: http://sls.com.au/members/lifesaving/gear-equipment, editor,
2011.
Quad bikes are supposedly designed to be ridden using active riding techniques which
involve the rider shifting their weight around the Quad bike through leaning and/or standing
(HART, 2012) according to industry recommendations. Regulators and Quad bike
manufacturers also recommend the use of helmets and rider training to improve rider
safety. The population of Quad bike workplace users is predominately males, across all age
groups. Many Quad bikes are capable of speeds in excess of 80 km/h, although several
studies have shown that in the farm work environment, Quad bike operators spend much of
their time at relatively low speed i.e. less than 30 km/h (Milosavljevic et al., 2011; Lower and
Trotter, 2012; Wundersitz et al., 2016).
It is estimated about 300,000 Quad bikes are in use in Australia (FCAI, 2012), with annual
sales over the past few years exceeding 20,000 Quad bikes and Side by Side (s). This
compares to around 80,000 Quad bikes in use in New Zealand (Moore, 2008). Quad bikes
are typically used for farm work in Australia and New Zealand, whilst in the US, in excess of
220,000 Quad bikes are sold each year and are mainly used for recreational purposes.
Associated with their popularity have been a high number of Loss-of-Control (LOC) / crash
events, which are a major source of serious injuries and deaths around the world. Concern
about the safety of Quad bikes over the past two decades has prompted dozens of studies
into Quad bike serious injuries and deaths and Coronial inquests in Australia and New
Zealand.5,6 Earlier studies have typically focused on US Quad bike injury mechanisms
through observing hospitalisations and fatalities without a specific focus on the workplace
or recreational use of Quad bikes. In recent years though, research has begun to address the
5
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Quad%20bike%20findings%20v2.pdf
6
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/432306/cif-quadbikeaccidents-20150803.pdf
issue of workplace LOC events in Australia, New Zealand and in the US (Milosavljevic et al,
2011; Wood et al., 2012; Grzebieta et al, 2015a).
There have been a number of studies carried out in Australia and New Zealand focussing on
the safety of Quad Bikes on farms. Lower, Herde and Fragar (2012) analysed 127 Quad bike
deaths in Australia between 2001 and 2010. In a more recent study Lower (2013) identified
in the 12 year period 2001 to 2012 that there were over 170 fatal cases, representing
approximately 14 fatalities per year; approximately 60% of all Quad bike related deaths
involved rollover; and over 89% of rollover deaths occurred on farms.
Further detailed analysis of fatalities and injuries was carried out by the Authors of this
report in 2014 as a component of the Quad Bike Performance Project (QBPP)7 and reported
elsewhere (Grzebieta et al., 2014, 2016). The findings of that project supported and
extended the analysis by Lower et al. (2014). Detailed analysis of the coronial case files from
2000 to 2012 identified that of the 109 included fatal cases studied in detail approximately
75% occurred on farms. Rollover occurred in 71% of all cases and of these 85% of the work
related fatal cases involved a rollover compared to 56% of recreational cases. Around 50%
were pinned by the Quad bike in all deaths and for the 53 farm work cases 68% were
pinned where 42% of these work related deaths involved mechanical asphyxia. Chest Injury
was the main cause of death in farm workers (59%). The age distribution for work related
fatalities was skewed to the older age groups. In work related cases, 76% of the people
killed were in the age group 15 to 74 years and 42% were older than 65 years.
This trend is also seen in the New Zealand farming workplace where the likelihood of death
increased by 6.5 times if the Quad bike rolled over the rider and by 10.3 times when the
rider was pinned underneath the vehicle (Moore, 2008; Shulruf and Balemi, 2010). Rollover
was also common amongst workplace fatalities in the USA, accounting for about 65% of
these fatalities (Helmkamp, Marsh and Aitken, 2011; McIntosh and Patton, Attachments 3
and 4 in Grzebieta et al, 2014).
An even higher number of injuries are associated with the use of Quad bikes in Australia and
New Zealand, with 3,300 Quad bike emergency department presentations identified in NSW
between 2006 and 2013 and around 850 people injured each year on New Zealand farms
(Mitchell in Attachment 2 in Grzebieta et al. 2014; Worksafe New Zealand, 2017). Based on
this hospital and other injury databases in NSW, Grzebieta et al (2015a) estimated that
there are approximately 1,400 presentations per annum at hospitals in Australia, ranging
from minor to severe injuries.
However, looking back over the past two decades, there have been a number of
epidemiological studies that examined Quad bike workplace injuries in Australia (Schalk and
Fragar, 1999; O'Connor, Hanks and Steinhardt, 2009; Clapperton, Herde and Lower, 2013;
Grzebieta et al, 2014; Wundedersitz et al., 2016) and New Zealand (Moore, 2002; Basham,
Nicholls, and Campbell, 2006; Shulruf and Balemi, 2010; Milosavljevic et al., 2011; Johri,
2012). Similar to workplace Quad bike fatalities, workplace injuries were often associated
with Quad bike rollover, albeit the evidence seems to indicate it is to a lesser extent (Moore
D.J., 2002 & 2008; O'Connor, Hanks and Steinhardt, 2009; Shulruf and Balemi, 2010;
Clapperton, Herde and Lower, 2013; Wundedersitz et al., 2016). Interestingly, Moore (2002
& 2008) revealed that the most serious workplace injuries in New Zealand were attributed
7
http://www.tars.unsw.edu.au/research/Current/Quad-Bike_Safety/Performance_Project.html
to rollover, with crushing of the trunk and shoulders identified as the most common type of
injury. Goldcamp et al. (2006) also investigated 1,667 nonfatal Quad bike related injuries to
youths living on farms in the United States. Over half of the injuries (58%) were the result of
recreational activities, while the rest of the injuries resulted from farm work or general
transportation use. The most common event associated with these injuries was rollovers.
Multiple real world studies have examined Quad bike crash and injury mechanisms. Many of
these studies only identified characteristics of Quad bike use (Rodgers, 1999; Schalk and
Fragar, 1999; Day et al., 2006; Moore, 2008; Wundersitz et al., 2016). However, several
studies also proceeded to determine the relative risk of dichotomous (Yes/No) outcomes
including having a crash, being injured or seriously injured and fatality.
During the late 1980s and late 1990s the US Consumer Product safety Commission (CPSC)
conducted a series of nationwide cross-sectional surveys, targeting both the workplace and
recreational use of ATVs (both three and four wheelers) (Levenson M., 2003). The surveys
coincided with 1988 consent decrees which were established by the CPSC to prevent
manufacturers from selling new three-wheeled vehicles, put into effect more stringent
driver age requirements, implement a nationwide training program and develop a voluntary
standard to make such terrain vehicles safer. The survey series consisted of a user and injury
surveys that were performed both before and after the consent decree began in 1988 and
finished in 1998. A multivariate logistic analysis performed using the results of the 1985 and
1989 surveys indicated that a riders risk of injury was higher for males (OR = 2.48 & 2.74,
ref = female), three wheeled vehicles (OR = 2.32 & 1.5, ref = four wheeled), younger riders
(11-15 years) (OR = 10.08 & 5.03, ref = >40), inexperienced riders (OR = 2.87 & 2.31, ref = 1
year), larger engines (250cc+) (OR = 4.6 & 2.87, ref = 50-80cc) and recreational riding (Non-
recreational Riding 76-100%) (OR = 0.24 & 0.39, ref = 0%) (Rodgers G., 1993). Similarly, the
results of the 1997 surveys (conducted prior to the end of the consent decree) indicated
that relative risk of injury was higher for children under the age of 16 (OR = 12.0, ref = 16)
and males (OR = 3.0, ref = female) (Rodgers and Adler, 2001). The injury risk also declined
with driving experience (OR = 0.96) as well as proportion of time used in non-recreational
purposes (OR = 0.79) and increased with engine size (OR = 1.39) as well as use of three
wheeled vehicles (OR = 3.1, ref = four wheeled).
In addition, the results of the 1985 CPSC injury survey in combination with investigations of
fatalities performed during 1984-1985 and 1985-1987, were used to determine the change
in risk of fatality and change in risk of head injury leading to death (Rodgers, 1990). The
multivariate regression analysis of all fatalities identified a reduced risk of a fatal incident
with helmet usage (-42%, ref = no), older riders (40 years old) (-28%, ref = 20 year old),
female riders (-52%, ref = male) and riders who were not under the influence of alcohol
(-62%, ref = yes). A reduction in fatal incidents was also associated with smaller engine sizes
(125cc) (-50%, ref = 250cc) and riding on non-paved road surfaces (-57%, ref = paved road).
The head injuries study identified that helmets reduce the risk of non-fatal head injuries (-
64%, ref = no) and the risk of fatal head injuries (-29%, ref = no). Older riders were also
found to be less likely to have non-fatal head injuries (40 years old) (-73%, ref = 20 years
old). These findings are supported by a more recent investigation of US fatalities by Rogers
(2008) between 1990 and 1999, which identified through using a multivariate regression
analysis that a riders risk of injury increased with usage rate (OR = 1.2), rural location (OR =
1.019), being non-Hispanic white (OR = 1.013) or being a male (OR = 1.05). However, the
injury risk decreased for college graduates (OR = 0.97).
Similarly, a multivariate logistic analysis of injuries and fatalities was performed to

determine associations with serious injuries and fatalities in New Zealand (Shulruf and
Balemi, 2010). The analysis identified that injurious crashes are more likely to involve 2WD
(OR: 5.51, ref = 2x3) or 4WD four wheeled Quad bikes (OR: 4.04, ref = 2x3), driving backward
(OR: 2.2, ref = missing) or a lateral rollover (OR: 5.98, ref = backward) or less likely to involve
driving upward (OR = 0.26, ref = downward) and off- road surfaces (OR = 0.07, ref = sealed
road) or older (66-80) riders (OR: 0.31 , ref=0-10). The risk of a fatal crash is increased if the
victim is the employer (OR = 19.5, ref = no ), an unpaid family member (OR = 10.95, ref =
no), self-employed (OR = 2.97, ref = no) or the owner of the Quad bike (OR = 3.49, ref = no).
Fatal incidents were also more likely to occur on a public (OR = 5.33, ref = no) or sealed road
(OR = 3.65, ref = no) or if the vehicle was travelling backwards (OR = 2.55, ref = no), if the
Quad bike was carrying a fluid load (OR = 3.89, ref = no) or the rider was spraying at the time
of the accident (OR = 3.49, ref = no). In regard to incident type, fatal incidents were
associated with the vehicle rolling over (OR = 6.53, ref = no), in particular sideward (lateral)
rollover (OR = 4.71, ref = no). The risk of a fatal outcome was increased when the Quad bike
hit the victim (OR = 4.63, ref = no), came to result upside down (OR = 4.56, ref = no), on its
side (OR = 2.4, ref = no) or pinned the victim underneath the vehicle (OR = 10.39, ref = no).
Body regions most likely to be associated with a fatal outcome included the head (OR = 4.87,
ref = no), chest (OR = 4.31, ref = no) and neck (OR = 2.94, ref = no).
The analysis found protective factors associated with fatal outcomes included: the victim
being an employee (OR = 0.25, ref = no); if the accident was witnessed (OR = 0.24, ref = no);
formal training (OR = 0.28, ref = no); and if the correct tyre pressure was used (OR = 0.15,
ref = no). There was also a reduction in the relative risk of a fatal outcome if the Quad bike
came to rest the right way up (OR = 0.16, ref = no) as well as whether the incident occurred
during the day compared to at night (OR = 0.33, ref = no). Moore (2008) also investigated
the same database over a smaller time period, however did not perform a multivariate
analysis.
A cross-sectional survey conducted by Milosavljevic S. et al. (2011) identified risk factors
associated with causing Quad bike crashes in New Zealand. A multivariate regression
analysis identified a higher likelihood of a crash if the rider was taller (OR = 1.08), travelled a
greater distance (OR = 1.05) or was exposed to a higher vibration dose (OR = 1.13)
(Milosavljevic et al., 2011a). In a companion paper, the Authors performed an additional
multivariate regression analysis investigating how personal, physical and workplace
characteristics influenced exposure to whole-body vibration. The model identified duration
of use and dairy farming increases exposure to daily whole-body vibration, whilst rider age
and twin shock absorbers reduce exposure (Milosavljevic et al., 2011b). Additionally, a
smaller cross-sectional study of thirty New Zealand farmers compared the riders history of
crashes with work experience, anthropomorphic data and vehicle pitch, roll and velocity
data (Carman et al., 2010). The study identified that riders who have experienced a rollover
crash are younger and traverse left facing slopes with an uphill incline.
In regard to injury outcomes, Mitchell (Attachment 2 in Grzebieta et al. 2014) indicated that
the most common body location for injuries that resulted in a workers compensation claim
were the trunk and upper or lower limbs, while injuries to the head, thorax, knee and lower
leg were common for those who were admitted to hospital following a crash. It should be
noted that the hospital admissions analysed by Mitchell were for all injuries, not just
workplace injuries. The workers compensation injuries were mainly sprains and strains or
fractures whilst the hospital admission involved fractures, lacerations and open wounds.
Injuries to lower limbs, trunk, upper limbs and the head were also prominent in Moores
2008 study of New Zealand LOC events and workers compensations claims, with sprains and
strains, followed by cuts and grazing being the most common type of injury. Moore (2008)
further indicated that the injuries in the New Zealand LOC events he assessed were often as
a result of impacting the ground in 48% of cases and being crushed between the bike and
the ground in 32% of cases.
In almost half of the Australian workplace fatalities, the LOC event was initiated on a slope
(28%) or by riding over an object (19%) (Grzebieta et al., 2014; McIntosh et al., 2016). In
New Zealand, slopes (39%) were also most common factor associated with LOC events
followed by impacting an object (28%) such as a tree, fence or animal (Milosavljevic et al.,
2011). Although they occur less frequently, LOC events on flat ground are also common in
Australia and New Zealand (Schalk and Fragar, 1999; Shulruf and Balemi, 2010). Moore
(2008) reported that the most serious LOC events occur on flat ground due to a high risk of
being pinned by the vehicle when it rolls. The study also indentified that there are often
multiple contributing factors associated with LOC events; the most common single
contributing factor was an Unpredicted Surface Change, such as a hidden object or
depression, and the most common combination of factors was the use of marginal routes in
combination with carrying a load.
In Australia, the location of approximately half of the fatalities and injuries is farm paddocks
(grasslands) (Schalk and Fragar, 1999; McIntosh et al., 2016). Where the roughness of the
terrain was noted, 54% of fatalities occurred on uneven terrain. The most common activity
being undertaken at the time of the LOC event was mustering or gathering livestock
(including travel to the mustering location) in both Australia and New Zealand, often
followed by conducting observations, transport and spraying (Wundedersitz et al., 2016;
Moore, 2008). In regard to mustering (gathering livestock), Moore (2008) noted that
interaction with rough ground (or uneven terrain), speed and the failure of the rider, who is
concentrating on the stock work, to predict hazards in the path of the Quad bike, is a
common cause of LOC events. In 39% of these cases, the LOC event took place on flat
ground, rather than slopes.
A cross-sectional study of New Zealand farmers reported that riders who are on average
heavier, taller, travel a greater distance at higher speeds or generate a greater vibration
exposure per unit of time are significantly associated with LOC events (Milosavljevic et al.,
2011). The Authors also found that there was no statistically significant difference between
Quad bike experience, farming experience or riding duration and LOC events. These results
are supported by Moore (2008), who noted that rider fatigue increased the likelihood of a
LOC event and also found no association with rider experience with LOC. Interestingly,
Carmen et al. (2010) observed that farmers who have had multiple LOC events were more
conservative riders.
Roll-bars mounted to the rear of the Quad bike have been growing in popularity. In this
report, such devices are referred to as Operator Protection Devices (OPDs). OPDs are
designed to reduce the likelihood of crush related injuries in a rollover event by either
arresting the overturn at 90 degrees (in low energy scenarios) or providing a crawl-out-
space under the overturned vehicle, whilst still allowing the rider to use active riding
techniques during normal use (Myers, 2016a).
Workplace Work Health and Safety regulators (including SafeWork NSW) and farmers are
also particularly concerned about crush and asphyxiation being one of the injury
mechanisms occurring in fatal Quad bike rollover crashes. In response to the high incidence
of fatal and serious injury rollovers involving Quad bikes, it has been proposed by some
authorities and other safety advocates that as a minimum Operator Protection Devices
(OPDs) such as the devices shown in Figure 1, be installed on all workplace Quad bikes. This
is based mainly on the observation that a Rollover Protection System (ROPS) fitted to old
and new tractors has resulted in a marked reduction of tractor fatalities (Franklin et al.,
2005). Hence, by analogy, fitting an OPD might be effective in reducing Quad bike rollover
harm. The Quad bike industry response is that provision of rollover protection systems on
these vehicles can cause injury.8
Users of Quad bikes, farm Quad bike industry groups, safety regulators, and safety
researchers, see from the history of safety advances in road vehicle transport that design
countermeasures are possible, and that fitment of OPDs to Quad bikes is seen (in their view)
as a means of harm minimisation. However, the Quad bike Industry through the Federal
Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) 9,10,11,12 has criticised and strongly oppose the
fitment of OPDs claiming that there is no scientifically valid research indicating that fitment
of OPDs would be effective, not harmful and not compromising the capabilities of the
vehicle. Based on their commissioned research, FCAI has taken the position that OPDs pose
an unacceptably high risk of creating injuries as a result of preventing separation from the
Quad bike during the crash event (Van Ee et al., 2012) and has instead suggested the use of
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as helmets and training to reduce Quad bike
injuries (FCAI, 2012). They also promote active riding and separation (jumping clear) just
prior to the crash event occurring. Moreover, a litigation defence expert for US
manufacturers has also presented anecdotal evidence of a Quad bike rolling over a rider
who did not suffer any injury at a US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) public
inquiry, inferring that such an event is survivable with no injury (Van Ee et al., 2012) as
discussed later in this report.
Despite FCAIs concerns and criticisms, a recent estimate suggests that there are now over
10,000 OPDs in use on Quad bikes in Australia and New Zealand (Lower and Temperly,
2016). A 2008 study of Quad bike LOC events in New Zealand showed that approximately
20% were fitted with an OPD (Moore, 2008). The main OPD manufacturer (Quadbar
Industries) has sold over 3,700 OPDs, mainly within Australia, representing approximately
1% of the Australian Quad bike fleet (Myers, 2016b). However, notwithstanding their
increasing popularity, there is very little known about the effectiveness of OPDs. Research
performed for the Quad bike manufacturers is predominantly focused on experimental and
simulation techniques to determine the effectiveness of, in particular, the Quadbar OPD.2,13
Details of the outcomes of these studies and injuries are reported by the Authors of this
8
https://www.fcai.com.au/library/fitment_of_operator_protective_devices_to_all_terrain_vehicles.doc
9
http://safetyatworkblog.com/2011/05/19/quad-bike-manufacturers-walk-out-of-safety-working-group/
10
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/quad-bike-safety-debate-rolls-on-as-
victoria-moves-mandate-bars/7268008
11
https://www.fcai.com.au/motorcycles/index/index/article/459
12
FCAI, (2012). ATV Industry opposes rollover devices on safety grounds.
https://www.fcai.com.au/news/index/index/year/all/month/all/article/311
13
http://www.dri-atv-rops-research.com/
report elsewhere (Grzebieta et al., 2015c). Suffice to say that the claim by FCAI is that OPDs
cause as many injuries to helmeted riders as they prevent injuries at a population level.
While it is suggested that such systems may have a protective benefit in some rollovers, it is
clear that fitment of OPDs will not prevent rollover from occurring in the first instance.
Other than the reports presented by the Authors2 that focus on experimental tests
described elsewhere (Grzebieta et al, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d), Australian research on
the effectiveness of OPDs based on in-field real world fatality and hospital data has yet to be
done. Some USA research, which has been carried out by Dynamic Research Institute under
contract to both the FCAI and the Specialty Vehicles Institute of America (SVIA) and
published, is based predominantly on computer simulations and controlled tests that
demonstrate the potential hazardous aspects of OPDs.13 However, no US cohort studies
have been carried out to assess the effectiveness of OPDs in the field.
Regarding helmets, injuries to the head are common for serious injuries and fatalities
associated with workplace use of Quad bikes (Shulruf and Balemi, 2010; McIntosh et al.,
2016). Helmet use whilst using a Quad bike is not commonplace. Wundersitz et al. (2016)
has noted in South Australia that 11% of Quad bike riders always wear a helmet and 52%
of riders never wear a helmet. Market research in New Zealand has shown a major
increase in helmet usage over the period 2010-2015, with approximately 60% of those
surveyed in 2015 stating that they wear a helmet.14 However, it is unknown whether this
helmet wearing is all the time or only for specific activities and the influence of any
biases. Quad bike incident databases also show low helmet usage. In 2016, McIntosh et al.
identified that 2% of those involved in a fatal incident in Australia were wearing a helmet
whilst slightly higher rates of helmet usage were identified in Australian and New Zealand
injury data, 22% and 20% respectively (Johri, 2012; McIntosh et al., 2016; Wundersitz et al.,
2016). This is an alarming trend because it is well established that helmets reduce the risk of
traumatic brain injury and death in the context of Quad bike use (Bowman et al.,2009).
A possible explanation of low helmet wearing rates is that readily available motorcycle
helmets (full face and open face type) are not suitable for the farming environment because
they are heavy and dont provide adequate ventilation at low speeds (Schalk and Fragar,
1999). In Australia and New Zealand, it is a workplace safety recommendation to wear
helmets on farms when operating a Quad bike.15,16,17 Quad bike specific helmets made to
comply with the NZS8600 safety standard are available in Australia and New Zealand. These
helmets are lighter than conventional motorcycle helmets and able to be fitted with
protection against sunburn, provide ventilation at low speed, provide for wearers to hear
what is going on around them and are rated for speeds less than 30 km/h. Currently in
Australia, no standard exists for a Quad bike specific helmet.18,19
Quad bike specific helmets, which meet NZ standard NZS8600, have been available in New
Zealand for several years now and have recently been introduced to the Australian market.
14
Analysis of CINTA data, Worksafe NZ2015
15
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/whs-information/agriculture/quad-
watch/pages/quadwatch-faqs#FAQ7
16
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/vehicle-types/quad-bikes-and-atvs/
17
https://www.standards.govt.nz/touchstone/consumer-safety/2015/jan/quad-bike-safety-wear-a-helmet/
18
http://www.quadbar.com.au/hq-helmets.html
19
https://milkmaidmarian.com/2016/04/09/a-quad-bike-helmet-that-really-truly-works-for-dairy-farmers/
There are also European Union and US helmet standards that are applicable to Quad
bikes.20,21,22 However, to the Authors knowledge, no in-field studies have been conducted
to investigate Quad bike specific helmet effectiveness.
Coronial Inquests have been held in Victoria in 2007, New Zealand in 2013 and more recently
in New South Wales and Queensland in 2015 to examine a number of fatal incidents involving
Quad bikes.6,23 There is another inquest currently being held in Tasmania where findings are
yet to be released.24 The NSW and Queensland Inquests considered a range of issues around
the safe use of Quad bikes in rural workplaces including the current design of operator
protective devices (OPDs) on the market and the safety benefits they provide for users, as well
as the current usage rates and availability of helmets for off-road use by Quad bike operators.
In handing down his findings, the Queensland Deputy Coroner Lock recommended that a
study be done on the efficacy of currently available OPDs. It was recommended that this study
focus on riders who currently use OPDs and be conducted by an independent body to obtain
real world feedback regarding their effectiveness. This recommendation was supported by
the NSW Deputy Coroner who noted that there is also an obligation for designers,
manufacturers, importers and suppliers of plant for use in workplaces to ensure that they are
safe and that the risks associated with their use are mitigated as much as is reasonably
practicable. Specifically the NSW Deputy Coroner Freunds recommended that a survey study
be undertaken as follows:
That SafeWork NSW, SafeWork Australia, and the manufacturers of the Quadbar and Lifeguard
Crush Protection Devices, collaborate and attempt to reach agreement to conduct an independent
survey study to assess the benefits, risks and general efficacy of Crush Protection Devices.
Some of the Authors of this report also noted in their TARS UNSW QBPP report (Grzebieta et
al, 2015a) that data collection and recording of Quad bike and incidents to date, including
those fitted with OPDs has been inadequate. This in turn has caused the lack of such data
collection to become a key obstacle in advancing the safety of such vehicles in workplace
and agricultural settings. Hence, this report is an attempt to redress this issue and the
recommendations of the Queensland and NSW Coroners concerning real world data
capture.
2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this survey study were primarily to identify if the fitment of OPDs were harmful to
the rider in the workplace environment, i.e. farming, etc., and to what extent the OPDs were
protective in rollover incidents involving Quad bikes.
20
British Standard for Safety Helmets (January 2006) is BS 6658:1985
21
ASTM F3103-14, Standard Specification for Testing Off-Road Motorcycle and ATV Helmets, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org
22
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r022r4e.pdf
23
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Quad%20bike%20findings%20v2.pdf
24
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/coronial-inquest-opens-into-seven-quad-bike-
deaths-in-tasmania/news-story/ed20de21fb8fae68c75b3639391e41c2
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-04/helmet-absent-in-some-tas-quad-bike-deaths/7900702
Further objectives of this epidemiological-based survey study is to identify operational

characteristics and assess the risk factors and benefits associated with the use of Quad
bikes, OPDs and helmets when used in a typical work-place environment. Quad bikes both
fitted and not fitted with an OPD were studied, and in particular the in-field performance of
the QuadbarTM or ATV LifequardTM OPDs and Quad bike helmets that have been assumed to
be compliant with NZS:8600:2002, were assessed. Quad bike specific helmets have been
used in the report as a proxy for off-road helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002.
The following deliverables were outlined in the SafeWork SWNSW/480203/2015 Part A:
Request for Quotation, Engage epidemiologist to assist with NSW Quad Bike Industry
Support Package:
a) Design and undertake an independent epidemiological study of the in-field operation
of Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs and off-road helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002.
b) Assess the safety benefits, safety detriments and generational operational effects of
Quad bikes not fitted with OPDs as well as those that are retrofitted with Quadbar
and Lifeguard OPDs.
c) Assessing the safety benefits, safety detriments and user experiences of Quad bike
and operators wearing off-road helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002.
d) Engage with members of the farming community and manufacturers of the Quadbar
and Lifeguard OPDs and helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002 to conduct the study
and collect data.
e) Correctly identify the risk factors associated with the use of Quad bikes that have
been fitted with an OPD as well as those that have not and recommend appropriate
mitigation strategies.
f) Correctly identify the risk factors associated with the use of off-road helmets
compliant with NZS:8600:2002 by Quad bike and operators in rural settings.
g) Work collaboratively with SafeWork NSW staff to develop appropriate methods of
identifying, collecting, analysing and reporting results from data collection activities.
h) Deliver a report to SafeWork NSW outlining the results of the study with analysis of
key findings.
The project research team from TARS comprised highly experienced safety engineers,
epidemiologists and statistical analysts. The sections of this report closely follows the
objective and required services.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Survey Methods
The survey study is comprised of responses from three workplace categories (Sub-studies):
i) a case study and collection of event data from a major Quad bike tour operator in
Australia25 (Quad bike Tour Company case study) with a large Quad bike fleet (n=100
Quad bikes with and without OPDs and 25,000 patrons annually);
25
Identity has been withheld or privacy reasons.
ii) a survey of fleet managers (Fleet Managers Survey) employed at companies with large
Quad bike fleets fitted with OPDs, with responses from Quad bike fleet managers (12
Australian and 4 NZ companies, with a total of 436 Quad bikes);
iii) a major survey of individual workplace Quad bike riders (Individual Workplace Riders
Survey), with responses from 1546 riders (712 Aust and 827 NZ)).
A web page informing participants of the objectives of the survey study is shown in
Appendix A. This web page was also used to administer the main survey (Sub-study (iii):
Individual Workplace Riders Survey). The questions and surveys were developed by the
TARS Team which consisted of two epidemiologists and survey experts (Boufous and
Williamson) working together with three engineers (Grzebieta, Rechnitzer and Hicks) and a
professionally qualified ex-fleet manager and regulator (Simmons) who have considerable
experience in Quad bike safety.
Sub-study (i) (Quad bike Tour Company case study) obtained 20 years event history from
the tour company, comprised of estimates provided by senior management for the period
1990 2013 and analysis of detailed event data for the period 2014 2016. The tour
company operate Quad bikes within a workplace environment, albeit the vehicles were used
for recreational purposes. Two members of the TARS UNSW team interviewed company
staff using questions based in part on questions used for the Fleet Managers Survey (Sub-
study (ii)). The TARS team members also made a number of observations during Quad bike
training induction sessions for patrons and during the recreational tours. Information from
this Sub-study (i) detailed in this report provides a before and after overview of the
performance of the OPDs in the field. The overview is the companys description of Quad
bike incidents that occurred before and after the fitment of OPDs to their fleet. The results
from this sub-study should also be considered more as a case study of a company that
manages and supervises a large number of riders annually, mostly novice riders, using a
limited number of adult and youth Quad bikes.
Sub-study (ii) (Fleet Managers Survey) was conducted between April and May 2016. The
intention of the fleet survey was to obtain a quick overview of the performance of the
QuadbarTM or ATV LifequardTM OPDs (Figure 1) in the workplace field from fleet managers. It
was limited in scope, and focused on the subset of data concerning reported rollover events
with and without OPDs, and any resulting injuries that may have occurred where fleets of
Quad bikes are used in a work or commercial environment. The preliminary nature of this
survey meant that fleet managers were not required to provide exposure estimates.
The two major Quad bike OPD manufacturers that currently sell OPDs in Australia and New
Zealand, namely Quadbar IndustriesTM and ATV LifequardTM, were asked by the TARS
researchers to contact their clients who had made multiple purchases of OPDs, to
participate in the fleet survey. The manufacturers were sent an email, and in some cases a
postal letter, inviting their clients to contact the TARS team so that an email and/or a fleet
survey form could be sent to them to fill out and return to the TARS team.
The fleet survey contained a series of multiple choice and short answer questions, designed
to collect self-reported information regarding the following general issues of interest:
The numbers and locations of Quad bikes used in their workplace;
Commodity or type of work undertaken;
Terrain types operated on;
Type, brand and age of Quad bikes in use;

Specific tasks Quad bikes are used for in their workplace;
Typical usage patterns by season, month, day and hours ridden (i.e. exposure data);
Speed limits imposed in the workplace and how they are enforced;
Quad bike rider training provided to employees;
Loads carried on Quad bikes;
Type of OPD fitted;
Effect of the OPD on performance of work tasks;
Number of crashes (and specifically rollovers) in workplace with and without OPD
fitted;
Injury severity associated with crashes with and without OPD fitted;
Efficacy of OPD in protecting rider in (rollover) crashes (including injuries caused by
the OPD); and
Helmet wearing requirements for employees.
A total of 16 responses were received from fleets, covering 436 Quad bikes both with and
without OPDs. Descriptive statistical analyses were undertaken to examine the rollover
events with and without OPDs fitted. All analysis was carried out in Excel. A copy of the
survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix B.
Sub-study (iii) (Individual Workplace Riders Survey) is the main survey of individual Quad
bike riders that use these vehicles in the workplace. It was a much broader survey
conducted from May to November 2016. Volunteer riders 18 years of age or over who used
a Quad bike in their workplace in either Australia or New Zealand, either with or without an
OPD fitted, were surveyed. The survey also gathered self-reported data related to helmet
wearing among Quad bike users, in particular responses to questions regarding Quad bike
specific helmets that comply with the New Zealand Safety Standard (NZS 8600:2002 All-
terrain Vehicle Helmets).
The Individual Workplace Riders Survey was administered on-line as shown in Appendix A.
However, there were some participants, mainly farmers, who could not access the internet
or had slow internet response. They were provided hard copies or emailed a PDF file that
they could print out, fill in and return post the completed survey forms to TARS. These were
then coded into the database of responses. In addition, to increase the response rate, a
hard copy version of the survey form was printed and distributed at the four NSW regional
agricultural field days that the TARS Team attended at Griffith, Gunnedah, Henty, and
Orange and at the NSW Farmers Sydney conference. Respondents could complete the form
at the field tent or complete the form at a later time and return post the form to TARS
UNSW using a Reply Paid envelope provided to them.
Any individual who owned a Quad bike could participate in the on line survey or fill out a
form emailed to them or given to them at a field day. The Individual Workplace Riders
Survey was designed to capture a snapshot of Quad bike use in the workplace in Australia
and New Zealand, as well as riding behaviours including speeds, use of active riding, helmet
wearing, etc. Quad bike users who have an OPD fitted to their vehicle were specifically
targeted to assist with determining the effectiveness of OPDs. The manufactures of the
Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs were again contacted by the TARS research team asking them
to inform their customers about the survey.
Similar to the Fleet Managers Survey, information was gathered on rider demographics,
Quad bike type, usage for work (commodity group, work tasks performed, etc.), whether an
OPD was installed, whether a helmet was worn or not and its type, and other purposes (e.g.
recreational use), the terrain over which the Quad bikes are ridden and load carrying, etc.
The survey also asked respondents to provide detailed information relating to any incidents
involving the Quad bike they rode, for up to three of their most recent incidents. This was
requested from participants who rode a Quad bike either with or without an OPD fitted,
whether wearing a helmet or not, etc. Information was sought from respondents concerning
any injuries and their type and severity, in particular, those injuries that resulted from the
crash, including if caused by an OPD if it was attached, head injuries with and without a
helmet, and any other safety relevant information. Other safety relevant information was
also sought from survey respondents. A copy of the Individual Workplace Riders (main)
Survey is provided in Appendix C.
The survey was developed by the same team that developed the questions for the tour
company operators and the Fleet Managers Survey. Drafts of the survey were provided to
the project sponsor SafeWork NSW and to WorkSafe New Zealand to ensure the maximum
potential study benefits could be achieved prior to going live. The survey was piloted at the
Tocal field days. Participants were recruited through radio interviews, on-line and print
media advertising, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, through contact by OPD
manufacturers and by TARS UNSW project team members, by SafeWork NSW and WorkSafe
Victoria personnel, by WorkSafe New Zealand personnel, through links on various regulators
websites, through associations such as the National Farmers Federation, at various
agricultural field days and a variety of other events. A list of the recruitment channels used
is provided in Appendix D.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistical analyses were undertaken to examine demographic information of
respondents, characteristics of quadbikes used, type of OPDs fitted as well as riding
behaviours.
Associations between demographic factors, characteristics of quadbikes used as well as
riding behaviours on the risk of being at least in one crash, injury and severe injury were
examined using Chi square or Fisher exact test as appropriate. Odd ratios and corresponding
95% Confidence intervals were also used.
These associations were further examined using three separate backward stepwise logistic
regressions to examine the independent impact of various factors on the risk of crash, injury
and severe injury. Independent variables (demographic factors, characteristics of quadbikes
and riding behaviours) were initially selected if associated with the outcome variable (crash,
injury and severe injury) in bivariate analyses (p<0.2) or identified in previous literature
reports. Independent factors were then eliminated from the model in an iterative process.
Final models, which contained only independent variables that significantly (p<0.05)
contributed to the outcomes, were reached when no more variables could be eliminated.
Also a trend analysis was carried out to estimate whether Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs are
effective for cases where the Quad bike rolled over the rider and the rider received serious
chest/torso injuries including being pinned by the Quad bike. The trend analysis determined
if the proportion of OPD fitted vehicles decreases with increasing severity of chest injury.
Finally, all analyses in the report were carried out using SAS 9.4.
3.2 Human Ethics Approval

Ethics approval was submitted to the UNSW Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel for each
of the surveys. Each survey was deemed as a low risk project in regard to human ethics.
Approval for the Quad Bike Tour Company case study (i) and Fleet Managers Survey (ii) was
granted on the 10th February 2016 (Approval No.: HC15890). The approval was modified to
include the Individual Workplace Riders Survey (iii) and subsequently was approved on 13
May 2016. A second modification to the approval was required to approve the Individual
Workplace Riders Survey webpage and minor amendments to the participant information
form. Approval for this change was obtained on 1 June 2016. Since both surveys were to be
subsequently conducted in New Zealand, amendment to the Human Ethics approval was
further sought from the UNSW Human Ethics Advisory Panel and was approved on 12 July
2016, under the same approval number. The new website for the Individual Workplace
Riders Survey was also approved at this time.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Sub-Study (i): Quad Bike Tour Company Case Study

This section provides results of event data and interview of operations managers of a
commercial Quad bike tour company1 operating a fleet of almost 100 Quad bikes that are all
fitted with Quadbar OPDs. This company provides Quad bike tours along a beach and
associated sand dunes and hinterland, near a popular holiday location on Australias coast,
with a throughput of up to 25,000 individual guest riders each year for recreational
activities. The data was not included into the fleet survey data because it is a report of
recreational riders as opposed to workplace riders. Nevertheless, it is a good example that
demonstrates how attaching an OPD has been highly effective in reducing harm to this
companys patrons in a workplace environment.
Two members of the TARS Team (Simmons and Hicks) visited the tour company to collect
the information presented in this section of the report. The company has been de-identified
for commercial reasons, although they were willing to be contacted for any follow up
requests.
This company has operated Quad bike tours in their current location since the mid-1990s.
By the early 2000s, the Quad bike fleet had grown to more than 20 adult and 10 youth Quad
bikes. Safety related incidents occasionally occurred in which guests were injured, some
very seriously. In the absence of detailed records, experienced staff have estimated 70% of
these incidents involved a rollover crash and 65% of these rollovers resulted in the Quad
bike rolling on top of the rider.
This Company progressively reviewed their operations and implemented a range of
treatments to improve the safety of their tours, including:
Quad bike tracks and trails were formalised, some with strict one-way circuits and
more dangerous areas placed off-limits to all but experienced riders;
guest riders participate in comprehensive pre-ride instruction, including practical tests

of starting, stopping and steering, before being allowed on the tour (regardless if they
have ridden a Quad bike previously);
appropriate speed limits were imposed and enforced along the Quad bike trails; and
all riders were required to wear AS 1698 compliant helmets, properly secured;
Despite these improvements, serious injury crashes continued to occur until 2005.
From the mid 1990s to the mid-2000s, safety related incidents occurred in which guests
were injured, some very seriously requiring helicopter evacuation. The tour company
estimated that they were experiencing approximately 120 - 130 incidents per year with
around 30 riders requiring first aid, a further 20 to 30 guests requiring the assistance of an
ambulance and in 2 to 3 very serious cases each year, medical evacuation by helicopter to
the nearest trauma hospital was required (around 52 to 63 injuries in total). Table 1 lists the
injury data. Appendix E lists event data for the last three years.
In around 2005, all Quad bikes were fitted with a Quadbar OPD in an attempt to redress
these major injury incidents. Since 2005, the fleet size and annual guest throughput has
more than tripled. Despite this significant increase in operation size, the number of reported
incidents per year remained the same, with a major reduction in both injuries and injury
severity. The tour company managing operator stated that the incidents still remain at
around 120 annually. Of these incidents, no guests have required helicopter evacuation
(compared to 2-3 annually previously), 2 guests each year (on average) have required first
aid treatment (compared to 30 annually previously) and 3 required the assistance of an
Ambulance (compared to 20-30 annually previously). The company operators also stated
that Quad bike rollovers still occur in around 70% of the incidents (average 85 per year)
whilst none of the injuries result from the Quad bike rolling onto, or the OPD impacting, the
rider. The comparison of pre and post OPD installation injury statistics are listed in Table 1.
In summary, the data collected shows that for the same number of incidents (around 120
per year), the OPDs appear to be effective in reducing the harm to riders over all by at least
a factor of 6-10 times for this tour company.
Quad bike tour leaders are now required to complete incident reports for any incident on
their tour, which include an assessment of whether the OPD caused the injury or protected
the rider from more serious injury. Analysis of the 188 incident reports completed between
January 2014 and June 2016 (with Quadbar OPDs fitted to the fleet) provided to the
research team revealed for this company (20 months of data) that around 73% (n=137)
identified the OPD did prevent more serious injury and 27% (n=51) were not applicable
events. In no reported circumstance did the OPD contribute to crash or injury causation. A
senior staff member stated, The injuries that are sustained on Quad bike tours now are
mostly minor when a roll over is encountered. An example of this would be scratches or a
slight graze when a roll-over has occurred, compared to serious crush injuries and burns in
the pre-Quadbar years.
A summary of the event data for the years 2014 to 2016 is provided in Appendix E.
Photographs of some of the training activities and locations where the Companys patrons
ride in the resort area are also shown in Appendix E.
Table 1 shows that the number of incidents has not risen but the number of patrons and
Quad bikes have risen by around three times the number pre 2000s. This is shown in
pictorial form in Figure 2. The Company has developed and increased their training,
Table 1: Commercial Quad bike tour operator protection device (OPD) efficacy case study.
Quad Bike (QB) Tour Company located on Australias coast

near a popular beachside holiday destination
Pre QuadBar (No OPD) Post QuadBar (with OPD) Pre OPDs
Variable (mid 1990s to mid 2000s) (mid 2000s to present) VS
~ 10 years ~ 10 years Post OPD install
~ 30 ~ 100 ~3.3
Number of Quad Bikes
(20 Adult and 10 Youth) (70 Adult and 30 Youth) (times more Quads)
Number / year
~3.1
Tour Guests ~ 8,000 ~ 25,000 (times more patrons)
~1
Incidents ~ 120 - 130 ~120 (no change)
Very Serious Injuries
~2-3 NIL eliminated
(Helicopter required)
Serious Injuries ~6.1 to 10
~ 20 - 30 ~3
(Ambulance required) (times less)
~15
First Aid Treatment Only ~ 30 ~2
(times less)
Injuries caused by Quad
~ 60 NIL eliminated
bike rolling onto rider
Figure 2: Commercial Quad bike tour company operator protection device (OPD) efficacy.
which may account for why the number of incidents have not increased despite the increase
in exposure of riders. Regardless, it is clear from Table 1 that for the same number of
incidents (around 120 per year), OPDs appear to be effective in reducing the harm to riders,
i.e. a reduction of serious injury of between 85-100% has occurred after their fitment to the
vehicles.
It should be noted that fitting a Quad bar would not change to any significance the rollover
propensity (static and/or dynamic rollover stability) of a Quad bike (see Grzebieta et al,
2015b) and thus influence the incident rate. Moreover, the harm reduction effect is unlikely
to be the result of administrative controls alone as discussed above but more likely the result
of fitting an OPD to their Quad bikes. However, as mentioned earlier the only real way to test
OPD effectiveness in such situations is to carry out a randomised control study, which may
not be acceptable for ethical reasons given the results presented in Table 1 and Figure 2.
4.2 Sub-Study (ii): Fleet Managers Survey

A total of 15 fleet users (i.e. individual companies and organisations) of Quad bikes, some of
who had purchased either the Quadbar OPD or the ATV Lifeguard OPD in Australia,
originally expressed interest in completing the fleet survey. One of the companies withdrew
from completing the questionnaire due to switching their fleet to Side by Side Vehicles (s).
However, two more companies subsequently agreed to participate.
This brought the total to 16 companies, 12 from Australia and 4 from New Zealand, covering
a total of 436 Quad bikes where 321 of these Quad bikes were fitted with either a Quadbar
(167) or a Lifeguard (150) and 4 had some other kind of OPD. Appendix F presents the
survey results in two tables. Table F1 and Table F2 provide details of the location of the
company, number of Quad bikes each company operates, the number of OPDs and the type
of OPD fitted to the vehicle, number of rollover crashes, number of rollover related minor
injuries and more serious injuries represented by hospital attendance and hospitalisation.
There were 57 rollover crashes where the Quad bike did not have an OPD and 12 crashes
where the Quad bike had an OPD, i.e. a total of 69 crashes. Of the 12 rollover events with an
OPD: 9 were with a Quadbar, 2 were with a Lifeguard and 1 was unknown as to type of OPD.
In regard to injury severity, Table 2 disaggregates the injury data and injury severity by OPD
type (Quadbar and Lifeguard) and also according to country, i.e. Australia and New Zealand.
It should also be note that it was almost a 3:1 ratio of vehicles fitted with an OPD compared
to vehicles with No OPD. Comparisons are made between vehicles in each country and also
between with an OPD and without an OPD. When the numbers of attendance at hospital
and hospitalisation are aggregated, Table 2 indicates that the OPD fitted vehicles have less
such incidents per vehicle number in rollover crashes.
Regarding whether the OPD prevented injury or caused injury, the company responses for
the 12 rollover events with OPDs fitted (see Figure 3), indicated that:
The OPD prevented injury or more serious injury in 10 of the 12 rollover cases;
- In 8 cases the OPD stopped the Quad bike from rolling onto the rider;
- In 2 cases held the Quad bike off the rider as it rolled over the rider;
Caused injury to the rider in 1 case (out of 6 cases where an injury occurred) though
the rider stated the OPD prevented him from receiving more serious injuries;
Made no difference to the crash outcomes in 1 case.
Table 2: Injury severity by OPD type for Fleet Managers Survey. Top table: All injuries; Bottom
table: disaggregated into Australia and New Zealand (see also Table F1 and Table F2).
With OPD fitted

No OPD fitted
Injury (321 Quads)
(115 Quads)
Quadbar Lifeguard Unknown
- No injury; 40 3 2 1
- Minor Injury 5 0 0 0
- Attended hospital; 11 4 0 0
- Admitted to hospital. 1 2 0 0
Total rollover events 57 9 2 1
No OPD fitted With OPD fitted

(115 Quads) (321 Quads)
Quadbar Lifeguard Unknown
Injury Aus NZ Aus NZ Aus NZ Aus NZ
- No injury 7 33 0 3 1 1 1 0
- Minor Injury 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Attended hospital 2 9 4 0 0 0 0 0
- Admitted to hospital 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Totals for Countries (11) (46) (6) (3) (1) (1) (1) -
Total rollover events 57 9 2 1
Figure 3: Fleet Managers response regarding effectiveness of OPD in preventing or causing

an injury.
The results indicate that there had been rollover events in which OPDs have had a
protective benefit, but there was also an instance of a serious injury in a rollover where the
rider has perceived that the presence of the OPD may have contributed to their injury. In
this case it was identified that a rollover event was precipitated by the rear suspension
becoming locked up due to the Quadbar jamming up on the nylon support bush. The
Quadbar is required to be able to slide freely up and down inside this nylon bush that is
attached to a fixed upper support bracket for the Quadbar. However, the rider has stated
that the OPD prevented him from receiving more serious injuries. The Authors have made
direct inquiries with the manufacturer, who advised that they were aware of this issue, and
it is due to incorrect installation and apparently is not a common issue. Quadbar Industries
have produced an on-line video showing correct installation instructions claiming it
addresses the problem.
In regard to the other serious injury (hospitalisation) case the Quad bike hit an undulation at
high speed, pitched over and the rider broke his collarbone on impact with the ground. The
undulation and tyre marks are highlighted in the bottom image in Figure 4. The rider claimed
that the OPD protected him from being crushed and likely killed. The Authors had inspected the
bent Quadbar (top image in Figure 4) and talked to the rider. It was concluded that in the
circumstances the Quadbar provided a survival space as it slid upside rearwards along the
ground with the rider inside the triangle formed between the bent Quadbar and the Quad
bike seat. It was clear that in this case had the Quadbar not been installed and performed as
well as it did the rider would have received fatal or much more serious injuries. Figure F1 to
Figure F4 in Appendix F shows some more photographs of the Quad bike and bent Quadbar and
the terrain over which it rode. It is worth noting that the undulation is not noticeable until the
rider was close to it.
Hence, the Fleet Managers Survey results have identified that while an injury may still have
occurred in rollover events, the fleet managers perceived that the OPDs prevented more
serious injury from occurring and in one case it was claimed, possibly a fatal injury.
When the number of minor injuries and hospitalisations are presented as a percentage of
crashes it appears that more injuries per crash occur for Quad bikes with an OPD than for
Quad bikes without an OPD. However, no life threatening chest or head injuries occurred
with an OPD in rollovers.
These results need to be viewed with caution as this survey was relying on the recall of fleet
managers and was limited in scope. The number of events recorded are very small.
Moreover, the data collected did not account for exposure rates of the vehicles fitted with
and without an OPD. The survey was only meant to be a preliminary survey with respect to
the much broader Individual Workplace Riders (main) Survey in order to get a brief first
glimpse overview of the in-field data.
The data was also disaggregated for the Fleet Managers Survey administered in Australia
and New Zealand (NZ) as shown in Table F1, Table F2 and Table 2. An interesting
observation is that there are a lot more rollover events in New Zealand (50) reported by the
fleet managers compared to Australia (19) for a total number of Quad bikes in New Zealand
of 181 compared to Australias Quad bike total of 255. The number of Quad bikes reported
by the New Zealand fleet managers is around 71% of that reported by the Australian fleet
managers.
Survival space triangle
Figure 4: Top: Bent Quadbar that protected the rider from receiving serious or fatal injury
during a pitch rollover crash event. Bottom: Terrain where event occurred where
tyre marks are evident.
4.3 Sub-Study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders (Main) Survey

The Individual Workplace Riders Survey was the main survey presented in this report. A
total of 1,553 Quad bike users who are over the age of 18 from across Australia and New
Zealand completed the survey. There were 2,790 visitors to the online survey. Of these,
2,037 began completing the survey online, however only 1,545 completed the online survey.
This represents a response rate and completion rate for the online survey of 55% and 76%,
respectively.
Almost all, 1,545 (99%), of participants completed the survey online whilst 8 (1%) completed
a hard copy of the survey. Selected inquiries made by the TARS research team indicated that
the slowness of the internet in rural areas was problematic in completing the form. Also
comments from some respondents that the questionnaire was a bit long, may have also
resulted in people not completing the form. In regard to hard copy forms sent to
prospective participants that requested the form be sent, only 8 (35%) of 23 that were sent
to participants were returned.
Of the initial 1,553 participants, seven were removed due to: using a vehicle other than a
Quad bike (n=3), using the Quad bike for only recreational use (n=3) and referring to Quad
bike use outside of Australia or New Zealand (n=1). In regard to Quad bike crashes, the
remaining 1,546 participants experienced a total of 1,578 crashes. One hundred and forty
eight of these crashes were removed due to recreational leisure riding (n=118) and
competitive recreational riding (n=30). Thus, after data cleansing, a total of 1,546
participants (712 Aus; 827 NZ; 7 unknown), which around half reported no crashes and the
other half of reported a total of 1,430 crashes, i.e. some riders experienced one or more
crash. These responses were analysed as follows.
4.3.1 Data Analysis (Crashes, All Injuries and Serious Injuries)

Demographic information, characteristics of Quad bikes used, type of OPDs fitted, helmet
use, riding behaviours of respondents, etc., collected from the respondents are presented in
Table G1 in Appendix G.
The characteristics of all crashes, all injurious crashes (minor plus serious injury) and serious
injury crashes (hospitalised) are provided in Table G2 in Appendix G.
Figure 5 shows that around half the riders in the survey have experienced a crash. Given
that around 67% of these crashes are rollovers as presented in Figure 6 and reported by
Respondents, the likelihood that a rider who crashes will experience a rollover crash is very
high. Moreover, given the risk of any injury when a Quad bike rolls over the rider is around 5
times compared to the Quad bike not rolling over the rider and around six and half times
higher risk of being hospitalised. It is clear that riders are at considerably high risk of being
firstly involved in a rollover crash and secondly of being injured in the crash. Twenty percent
(20%) of all rollover crashes result in an injury and 6% in a serious injury hospitalisation as
indicated in Figure 6. The vehicle rolling over the rider is the biggest injury risk factor in the
workplace. It thus makes sense to change the design of the vehicle to reduce its rollover
propensity as well as provide a device such as an OPD that reduces rider harm in a rollover
event.
Figure 5: Crash history of the 1,546 respondents (riders), of which 49% experienced no crashes
and 51% experienced a total 1,430 crashes.
Figure 6: Proportion of crash types reported and the injuries, injury severity and OPD
status for rollover crashes.
The independent variables in Table G1 (demographic factors, characteristics of quadbikes

and riding behaviours) were selected to determine if they were associated with the
outcome variable (crash, injury and severe injury) using statistical bivariate analyses at the
< 0.2 level. This is the conventional level to screen initially independent variables
associated with an outcome for multivariate modelling to determine if the association is
significant. Table G3, Table G4 and Table G5 respectively show which variables had some
association with a crash, an injury and serious injury.
A multivariate logistic regression analysis was then carried out using three separate
backward stepwise logistic regressions to examine the independent impact of various
factors on the risk of crash, injury or serious injury identified associations between these
factors and the variables in at the < 0.05 significance level.
Independent factors were then eliminated from the model in an iterative process. Final
models, which contained only independent variables that significantly (p<0.05) contributed
to the outcomes, were reached when no more variables could be eliminated. All analyses of
the results presented in the report were carried out using SAS version 9.4. Table 3 shows the
results from the logistic regression analysis of significant factors (<0.05) associated with
crashes, Table 4 those factors associated with all injuries and Table 5 those associated with
serious injury. Crude and adjusted odds ratios are presented. Figure 7 shows the adjusted
odds ratio in a visual forest plot form.
The adjusted odds ratio is the statistically significant adjusted odds ratio representing the
odds that an outcome [e.g. crash, injury, hospitalisation] will occur given a particular
exposure [e.g. male rider or a Quad bike rolls over the rider)], compared to the odds of the
outcome occurring in the absence of that exposure [e.g. female rider (or Quad bike crashing
but not rolling over rider)] after all significant confounding factors have been controlled for
using multiple regression analysis ( < 0.05).
4.3.2 Data Analysis (OPDs and Injuries)

Association between OPD use at the time of the crash and risk of any injury (minor+ serious
injury) and serious injury (hospitalisation) were also examined using Chi square or Fisher
exact tests as appropriate. Odds ratios and corresponding 95% Confidence intervals were
also used.
Table 6 shows that for all crashes the relationship between Quadbar and Lifeguard type
OPDs and all injuries (minor + hospitalisations) indicates that these OPD types are injurious
for all injuries (Ratio of no OPD/OPD = 0.85). It appears though, in the case of Serious
Injuries (hospitalisations) the ratio is 1.02. Interestingly, when all OPDs are considered for all
crashes and all injuries there appears to be a benefit (Ratio of no OPD/OPD = 1.12) but a
disbenefit for Serious Injuries (0.91). When a statistical multivariate regression analysis is
carried out on this data, these results are statistically non-significant. The main reason is the
cell sizes are too small for the OPD crashes to make any statistical judgement regarding the
benefit of these OPDs. A larger sample size will need to be obtained in the future to
determine more precise estimates of the benefit or otherwise of fitting Quadbar and
Lifeguard OPDs to Quadbikes.
Table 3: Significant variables associated with crashes ( < 0.05). Odds ratios greater than 2
are highlighted in yellow.
CRASHES
95% Confidence 95% Confidence
Variable Crude OR limits
Adjusted OR limits
Load
No 1 1
Yes 2.09 1.55 2.81 1.79 1.30 2.47
Carrying Passengers
No 1 1
Two Seats Passengers 0.74 0.50 1.10 0.81 0.54 1.23
Single Seat Passengers 1.65 1.31 2.08 1.31 1.01 1.69
Hours per day

Less than 2 hours 1 1
2 5 hours 1.49 1.16 1.92 1.33 1.01 1.75
6 plus hours 1.75 1.20 2.55 1.69 1.12 2.54
Experience
Less than 3 years 1 1
3 10 years 1.96 1.04 3.70 1.27 0.64 2.49
10 plus years 3.75 2.08 6.78 2.06 1.10 3.89
Max Avg. Speed

0 15 km/h 1 1
16 35 km/h 2.37 1.18 4.76 1.74 0.83 3.61
36 plus km/h 4.45 2.23 8.88 2.71 1.30 5.64
Mustering (gathering livestock)

No 1 1
Yes 2.52 1.96 3.23 1.63 1.24 2.16
Animal Industry
No 1 1
Yes 1.96 1.57 2.45 1.75 1.37 2.24
Gender
Male 1 1
Female 0.48 0.38 0.61 0.50 0.39 0.65
Active Riding
No 1 1
Yes 1.69 1.25 2.29 1.37 0.99 1.89
Table 4: Significant variables associated with All Injuries (minor + hospitalisations)

( < 0.05). Odds ratios greater than 2 are highlighted in yellow and odds ratios
greater than 4 are highlighted in red.
All INJURIES
Crude 95% Confidence Adjusted 95% Confidence
Variable limits limits
OR OR
Separation
Stay 1 1
Jump / Thrown 1.31 1.00 1.72 1.45 1.08 1.96
Helmet
No 1 1
Yes 0.52 0.36 0.75 0.58 0.39 0.87
Time of Day
Daytime 1 1
Dusk or Dawn 1.79 1.04 3.07 1.88 1.04 3.40
Night 0.65 0.22 1.87 0.42 0.13 1.34
Surface
Paddock (grasslands) 1 1
Loose Material 1.09 0.61 1.92 0.81 0.43 1.52
Muddy Surface 0.72 0.44 1.19 0.88 0.51 1.50
Sandy Surface 1.14 0.37 3.47 1.41 0.40 4.93
Hard Surface (Unsealed Road) 1.69 1.13 2.54 1.53 0.97 2.40
Hard Surface (Sealed Road) 2.70 1.29 5.65 3.40 1.50 7.72
Speed
0 15 km/h 1 1
16 35 km/h 2.37 1.79 3.14 3.01 2.18 4.14
More than 36 km/h 2.57 1.59 4.15 3.81 2.21 6.58
Age
18 to 24 years 0.85 0.49 1.49 0.86 0.47 1.57
25 49 years 1 1
50 69 years 1.13 0.86 1.50 1.49 1.08 2.06
70 years or older 1.71 1.04 2.83 2.29 1.31 3.99
Vehicle rolled over the Rider

No 1 1
Yes 4.14 3.09 5.56 4.93 3.58 6.80
Table 5: Significant variables associated with serious injuries (hospitalisations) ( < 0.05)
Odds ratios greater than 2 are highlighted in yellow and odds ratios greater than
4 are highlighted in red.
SERIOUS INJURIES
Crude 95% Confidence Adjusted 95% Confidence
Variable limits limits
OR OR
Surface
Paddock (grasslands) 1 1
Loose Material 0.80 0.24 2.63 0.56 0.17 1.93
Muddy Surface 0.76 0.30 1.95 0.87 0.33 2.29
Sandy Surface 1.13 0.15 8.63 1.22 0.15 10.05
Hard Surface (Unsealed Road) 2.00 1.03 3.87 1.58 0.78 3.22
Hard Surface (Sealed Road) 3.91 1.44 10.62 4.25 1.45 12.49
Speed
0 15 km/h 1 1
16 35 km/h 2.17 1.30 3.60 2.30 1.35 3.93
More than 36 km/h 2.20 0.94 5.13 2.51 1.01 6.24
Vehicle rolled over the Rider

No 1 1
Yes 5.76 3.57 9.29 6.63 4.03 10.93
Table 6: Effectiveness of OPD in preventing any Injury and Serious Injury (hospitalisations)
for any crash type.
Crashes Any Injury Serious Injury Any Injury Serious Injury

(hospitalisations) as as
% of crashes % of crashes
All Crashes
OPD (QB & LG)
No 1,307 264 68 19.85% 5.26%
Yes 59 14 3 23.73% 5.08%
Ratio (No OPD) / OPD 0.85 1.02
OPD (All)
No 1,307 264 68 20.20% 5.20%
Yes 122 22 7 18.03% 5.74%
Figure 7: Significant variables ( < 0.05) associated with crashes (top graph, any injury
(middle graph) and serious injury (hospitalisation) (bottom graph). Width of bar
from adjusted odds ratio value indicates 95% confidence limits.
On the other hand, Table 7 shows that when crashes where the Quad bike has rolled over
the rider where a torso injury occurs or the ride is pinned, are analysed Quadbar and
Lifeguard OPDs appear to reduce chest injury severity. That is, the ratios of injuries and
serious injuries resulting in crashes for Quad bikes without an OPD to those with an OPD are
greater than one. Frustratingly, the results are again statistically non-significance because of
small values (lack of statistical power) and a zero term for Serious Injuries for the Quadbar
and Lifeguard OPDs. However, Table 8 indicates that for cases where the Quad bike rolled
over the rider and a chest injury occurs and/or the rider is pinned, a trend analysis
identified that with increasing severity of chest injury, the proportion of OPD fitted vehicles
decreases (p=0.02). That is, the analysis is suggestive that Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs
reduce to some extent serious chest injuries.
Table 7: Effectiveness of OPD in preventing any Injury and Serious Injury (hospitalisations)
in crashes where the Quad bike has rolled over a rider.
Crashes Injury Serious Injury

Injury Serious Injury
(hospitalisations)
as as
% of crashes % of crashes
Torso Injury Quad Bike Rolled Over Rider Crashes Only
OPD (QB & LG)
No 225 43 20 19.11% 8.89%
Yes 19 1 0 5.26% 0%
Ratio (No OPD) / OPD 3.63 Indeterminate
(no SI with OPD)
OPD (All)
No 225 43 20 19.11% 8.89%
Yes 33 3 2 9.09% 6.06%
Table 8: Data used for the trend analysis indicating that with increasing severity of chest
injury related rolled over the rider crashes the proportion of OPD fitted vehicles
decreases (p=0.02). Yes OPD is reducing at a higher rate than No OPD rate.
Trend Analysis: Quad Bike Rolled Over Rider Crashes Chest Injury
Chest Injury
Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD Non-
No Hospital Total
Hospital
182 23 20 225
No
81% 10% 9% 100%
18 1 0 19
Yes
95% 5% 0% 100%
Total 200 24 20 244
gamma=-0.6270, p=0.0191
Nevertheless, it is recommended that a larger sample size be obtained in the future to

determine more precise estimates of the benefit of fitting Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs to
Quadbikes. Given the current rebate program and take up of fitting of Quadbar and
Lifeguard OPDs to Quad bikes it may be possible in a year or two to determine this.
The other aspect of one of the sub-task (b) in the project objectives presented in Section 2
was to determine the general operational effects of an OPD fitted to a Quad bike compared
to one without. Data from the survey about the effect of the OPD on performance of tasks is
shown in Table 9.
Of 182 survey respondents who have an OPD fitted, only 6% (n=11) found the fitted OPD
made their task more difficult and none found the fitting of an OPD made their tasks very
difficult, whereas 16.4% (n = 30) found it made performance of tasks easy or very easy. In
other words, 94% of Quad bike riders found the OPD had no effect on performance of their
tasks, or the OPD made their tasks easier. This suggests that any potential safety benefit of
OPDs determined by this study outweighs a negligible negative effect on operational
performance by having the OPD fitted.
Table 9: Operational effect of OPD on Quad bike use

For me, the OPD has made performing my work tasks:
Very Difficult 0 0.0%
Difficult 11 6.0%
No Difference 141 77.5%
Easy 15 8.2%
Very Easy 15 8.2%
4.3.3 Data Analysis (Activity and injuries)

Figure 8 shows the activities being carried out by riders in the workplace which indicates an
even distribution of activities. Figure 9 shows the activities, injuries and serious injuries
aggregated according to the activity being carried out at the time of the crash. The highest
number of crashes and subsequent injuries and serious injuries occurred when mustering
(gathering livestock) and carrying out other stockwork. Riding between tasks and making
observations (checking fences, stock, etc.) while riding were also prevalent though to a
much lesser extent than mustering (gathering livestock) and stockwork.
Table 3 and Figure 7 shows that there is a significant increase in crash risk when mustering
or gathering livestock (aOR=1.63, 95% CI: 1.24-2.16) and working in the animal industry
Table 10: Crash rate per injury and per serious injury (hospitalisation)
Number of crashes Number of crashes

per injury per serious injury
Mustering and other stockwork 5 17
Riding between tasks 5 19
Observations while riding 5 20
Spraying 6 37
Towing 8 32
Other 5 22
Figure 8: Workplace activities. Note even distribution among activities.

Respondents could choose multiple activities.
Figure 9: Crashes, injuries and serious injuries aggregated according to activity
(aOR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.37-2.24). The crash rate per injury and per serious injury
(hospitalisation) shown in Table 10 are highest for these three activities as well as.
Mustering (gathering livestock) and other stock work appear to be the most dangerous
activities with approximately one in every five crashes resulting in an injury and one in every
17 crashes in a hospitalisation.
4.3.4 Data Analysis (Helmets and injuries)

Data was also analysed in regard to helmet usage and safety. Table G1 and Table G2 provide
details of riders replies concerning whether they can access a helmet, what helmet type they
can access, during what tasks they use a helmet, and if they were wearing a helmet at the
time of their reported crash and what type of helmet. The Quad bike specific helmet has been
used as a proxy for off-road helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002 in this report.
Figure 10 shows those riders who have access to a helmet of some kind for riding in the
workplace. Interestingly, most riders do have access to some form of helmet. Of the 1,546
riders only 210 (14%) do not have access to a helmet and in 2 responses it was unknown if
the rider had access to a helmet. Hence, there were 1334 riders (1546 -212) who had access
to a helmet and provided details of their helmet use. Figure 10 indicates that there is about a
30% higher proportion of New Zealanders that have access to helmets compared to Australian
riders. It also appears that around 70% (936) of the riders who have access to a helmet use
the helmet for work tasks.
Figure 10: Helmet access and work task when wearing a helmet
Of those 1,334 riders that do have access to a helmet around 48% (645) have access to a Quad
bike specific helmet (42% of all 1,546 riders). However, Figure 11 indicates that most of those
riders that can access or use access such a helmet are predominantly from New Zealand at a
ratio of approximately 12 NZ riders to 1 Australian rider, i.e. only about 8% of those who can
access a Quad bike helmet are Australian.
Figure 11 also indicates that around half the number of Australian riders always or usually
wear a helmet compared to New Zealand riders. However, of those riders that rarely or
never wear a helmet, the proportion is more or less evenly distributed between Australia
and New Zealand. If the number of riders who Sometimes wear a helmet is added to those
who Rarely and Never wear a helmet, a total of 730 from 1,546 riders were found not to be
regularly using a helmet, i.e. around 47% which is almost half of the riders surveyed appear
to not be wearing a helmet on a regular basis.
Figure 11: Helmet type used or that can be accessed and frequency of riders use of a helmet.
Figure 12: Helmet use in a crash and type used.
In regard to the 1,430 crashes, only 321 riders were wearing a helmet at the time of the
crash as indicated in Figure 12, i.e. only 22% of riders wore a helmet when they crashed. Of
those 321 who crashed wearing a helmet, 118 were from Australia and 200 from New
Zealand (3 unknown nationality), i.e. twice as many New Zealanders wore a helmet in a
crash compared to Australian riders. It should be noted at this point that there were 712
Australians (46%) and 827 New Zealanders (54%) with 7 unknown nationality.
Of those 321 riders who wore a helmet in a crash there were 155 (48%) who were wearing a Quad bike
helmet and of those only 6 were Australians (2%) with the other 149 (46%) from New Zealand.
Australian riders mostly wore either open or closed face motorcycle helmets (104 helmets) in crashes.
New Zealander riders involved in a crash also wore motorcycle helmets but to a much lesser extent
(46) and mostly open face type motorcycle helmets (37).
Regarding helmet efficacy in reducing injuries, Figure 7 and Table 3 indicate that wearing a
helmet is not associated with a crash but Figure 7 and Table 4 indicate it is associated with
reducing the risk of injury by almost half (crude OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.75 and adjusted
aOR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.87). Figure 13 and Table 11 (top table) indicate there is almost a
50% reduction in head injury of any kind when wearing a helmet, i.e. a twofold benefit from
wearing a helmet in terms of reducing rider risk of a head injury in a crash. The majority
reduction in head injury for any helmet were minor injuries such as bruising, concussion and
loss of consciousness whereas there were less instances of serious injury reductions
reported involving skull fracture and brain injury noted by riders.
To assess whether Quad bike specific helmets have the same benefit or higher of reducing
head injuries, a summary of the head injury data collected from the survey relevant to Quad
bike specific helmets (which is assumed to be a proxy for helmets compliant with
NZS:8600:2002 in this report) is presented in Table 11 (bottom table) and Figure 14. It
appears that Quad bike specific helmets compared to not wearing a helmet provides a
greater serious head injury reduction to riders, most of whom would be from New Zealand.
Table 11: Reduction of head injury (Top: any helmet; Bottom: Quad bike specific helmet)
Head Injury
Crashes Any Minor Serious Any Minor Serious
All head injury head injury head injury Head Injury Head Injury Head Injury
Helmets (hospital) % crashes % crashes % crashes
**
Yes 300 6 2 4 2% 0.7% 1.3%
*
No 1,129 44 27 17 3.9% 2.4% 1.5%
Injury Reduction Factor: (% helmet / % NO helmet) 0.5 0.3 0.9
Benefit (NO helmet / helmet) 1.9 3.6 1.1
*1 unknown **32 crashes involved other injuries as well as head injuries
Head Injury Only

Crashes Any Minor Serious Any Minor Serious
Quad head injury head injury head injury Head Injury Head Injury Head Injury
Helmet (hospital) % crashes % crashes % crashes
Yes 155 2 1 1 1.3% 0.65% 0.65%
*
No 1,129 44 27 17 3.9% 2.4% 1.5%
Injury Reduction Factor: (% helmet / % NO helmet) 0.3 0.3 0.4
Benefit (NO helmet / helmet) 3.0 3.7 2.3
4.3.5 Data Analysis (Riding experience, training and injuries)

Crash rates associated with the Individual Workplace Riders Survey responses to the
question How many years experience do you have riding a Quad bike? were analysed in
detail. Years of riding were grouped into bandwidths (e.g. 3 years to less than 5 years, 5
years to less than 10 years, etc.), the midpoint number of years for each band was used to
determine a crash rate. The number of responses for each band was multiplied by the
midpoint number of years, to produce a total estimated number of years Quad bike riding
for all respondents in that band. For responses of more than 20 years, it was assumed Quad
bike numbers used on farms have been growing progressively since the late 1980s to
present (30 years), so a value of 25 years Quad bike riding was applied.
Figure 13: Injury benefit from wearing any type of helmet.
Figure 14: Injury reduction benefit from wearing a Quad bike specific helmet.
The number of crashes that occurred within each band was divided by the number of 10
riding years Quad bike use, to produce a crash rate of the number of crashes per 10 years
of Quad bike riding. The results are shown in Table 12.
The results show that the least experienced riders (those with less than one year
experience) have the highest crash rate (almost four and a half crashes every ten years of
Quad bike riding or nearly one crash every two years riding). The more experience the riders
have, the less frequently crashes occur, with riders that have more than 20 years
experience only crashing 0.22 times for every 10 years of Quad bike riding or once every five
years. The importance of this finding is that it clearly shows that a large number of riders
will eventually have a crash (and within 2 years as a novice). Less experienced riders should
be closely supervised in their first few years of Quad bike riding, as they are far more likely
to experience a crash event. In a workplace, supervisors and managers should not allow
inexperienced riders to operate a Quad bike unsupervised or alone, (away from available
assistance from fellow workers to pull the Quad bike off the rider) as their crash risk is high.
Table 12: Crash rate versus years of rider experience. Crash rate results show number of
crashes per 10 years of riding.
Cumulative
Frequency Riding Number Crash % of 1541*
Experience Band Midpoint (riders) Years Crashes Rate crashes
Less than one year 0.5 18 9 4 4.44 0.3

1 to less than 3 years 1.5 44 66 11 1.67 1
3 to less than 5 years 4 70 280 20 0.71 2
More than 20 years 25 756 18900 425 0.22 51
Missing Responses = 5
* See Figure 5. Five crashes had unknown rider experience.
Crash rates in relation to survey responses to the question What type of training to ride
quad bikes have you had? were also analysed. Survey respondents were asked to select all
that applied. For each type of training, analysis of the percentage of riders who have
experienced a crash compared to those who have not crashed was undertaken. Table 13
shows that the riders who only have theoretical training, i.e. who have only read the
operators manual and / or watched a manufacturers training DVD, have experienced the
most crashes. This is most likely to be due to these riders never having been properly
trained in Quad bike riding techniques or hazard /risk perception. They have also not had
the benefit of local hazards being pointed out to them by more experienced riders, meaning
these hazards are most likely to be discovered by way of a bad experience. However, this is
largely an assumption because the riders underlying risk acceptance is unknown.
On the other hand, riders who were provided introductory training by their employer or
fellow workers have the lowest crash risk. This is likely explained due to the rider being
introduced to the specific Quad bike they would ride and would be shown, first hand, the
major hazards in their work place, as well as how to avoid them.
Table 13: Comparison of training method to the number of riders who have experienced a
crash. Results show the ratio of riders who have had a crash versus those who
have not crashed.
Crash
Ratio
Individual Training Type No Yes Yes/No
Employer/Fellow Worker 66 50 0.76
Formal Training 136 114 0.84
Other combination 122 127 1.04
Hands On from Dealer 36 39 1.08
Self-Taught (No Training) 360 403 1.12
Theoretical 41 52 1.27
Figure 15: crash risk associated with individual training type.
Riders who received training from their Quad bike dealer/supplier, are also at a higher risk
than provided introductory training by their employer or fellow workers of those trained
through formal training. The dealer would be able to train riders on the specific vehicle they
were to ride, but would not be able to identify all of the most common hazards in their
workplace, if the training occurred at the dealership.
Importantly, the survey responses do not stipulate if the crash was experienced before or
after the training was provided. It may be that riders who experienced a crash then went off
to obtain better training, in order to reduce their crash risk in the future. Moreover, none of
these training individual types were found to be associated with reducing crash risk at the
multivariate level.
5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The main objective of this epidemiological survey study is to identify operational
characteristics and assess the risk factors and benefits associated with the use of Quad
bikes, OPDs and helmets when used in a typical work-place environment. There were a
number of deliverables outlined in Section 2 detailed in the SafeWork contract. The
following provides responses to those deliverables a) to f). Deliverables g) and f) are self
evident.
a) Design and undertake an independent epidemiological study of the in-field

operation of Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs and off-road helmets compliant with
NZS:8600:2002.
The Quad bike Tour Company Case Study, Fleet Managers Survey and Individual Workplace
Riders Survey questionnaires were developed, designed and administered by a team of
research and injury prevention specialists comprised of: two epidemiologists with statistical
and survey study experience in workplace and other injury prevention fields; two senior
engineers and researchers with injury data collection, incident investigation, forensic
engineering and workplace injury prevention expertise; a safer vehicles and work place fleet
management specialist also with injury data collection expertise; and a post graduate
mechanical engineer with Quad bike safety expertise and farm work experience.
The Quad bike Tour Company case study (Sub-study (i)) collected 20 years of event data and
responses to interviews with operations managers for a case study of a fleet of one hundred
Quad bikes involving recreational vehicles servicing around 20,000 patrons annually in a
workplace environment. The data is presented in Appendix E. Table 1 and Figure 2 also
present a summary of that data. Photographs from the site visit by the report Authors
Simmons and Hicks are also provided in Appendix E.
The Fleet Managers Survey (Sub-study (ii)) was administered to 12 Australian and 4 New
Zealand companies operating Quad bike fleets, with a total of 436 Quad bikes that were
fitted either with a Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD. The survey is presented in Appendix B. The
information collected is presented in Appendix F. Table 2 and Figure 3 also present an
overview of the data collected regarding Quad bikes, OPDs, rollover crashes and injuries.
The Individual Workplace Riders Survey (Sub-study (iii)) which was the main survey is
presented in Appendix C. The general data collected is detailed in Appendix G. An overview
of the data collected regarding Quad bikes and OPDs is also presented in Figure 5, Figure 6,
Figure 8 and Figure 9 and in regard to helmets in Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12.
The Quad bike specific helmet has been used as a proxy for off-road helmets compliant with
NZS:8600:2002. It was unrealistic to request from respondents details concerning which
standard the helmet they had access to or owned was compliant. It is not clear whether
respondents would be able to answer this question with any certainty or have retained their
receipts or brochures concerning the helmet. Hence, it was also assumed that any Quad
bike specific helmet would be compliant with NZS:8600:2002.
b) Assess the safety benefits, safety detriments and general operational effects of Quad
bikes not fitted with OPDs as well as those that are retrofitted with Quadbar and
Lifeguard OPDs.
Data from the Quad bike Tour Company Case study, Fleet Managers Survey and Individual
Workplace Riders Survey were analysed by the research team.
The Quad bike Tour Company case study (Sub-study (i)) data shown in Figure 2 was self-
evident and did not require any further statistical analysis. Results collected from the twenty
years of event data from a Quad bike tour company and a survey of their operations
managers indicates that Quadbar OPDs have been highly effective in reducing harm to the
tour companys 25,000 annual patrons in a low speed controlled environment. Importantly,
the company reported no cases of serious injury resulting from OPDs. While incidents still
remain at around 120 annually, of these incidents, no guests have required helicopter
evacuation (compared to 2-3 annually previously), 2 guests each year (on average) have
required first aid treatment (compared to 30 annually previously) and 3 required the
assistance of an Ambulance (compared to 20-30 annually previously). Quad bike rollover
occurred in 70% of the incidents (average 85 per year) whilst none of the injuries resulted
from the Quad bike rolling onto, or the OPD impacting, the rider. This suggests that the use
of Quad bikes fitted with Quadbars in a controlled supervisory environment at low speeds
could be extrapolated to other workplace environments. While this is a valuable example of
one companys experience regarding the fitment of OPDs to their Quadbikes that has
undergone a high exposure rate, it would be useful in future to obtain the experience of a
wider cohort of such companies.
The Fleet Managers Survey (Sub-study (ii)) data was analysed and results are shown in Table
2 and Figure 3. The results show that more injuries per crash occurred for Quad bikes with
an OPD than that for Quad bikes without an OPD. However, on a per vehicle basis, the
reverse is shown where the results indicate that more injuries per crash were occurring for
Quad bikes without an OPD than for Quad bikes with an OPD. These results need to be
viewed with caution as this survey was relying on the recall of fleet managers, was limited in
scope, the number of incidents were very small and data did not account for exposure. This
survey was only meant to be a quick survey to get a brief overview of the in-field data
whether riders use of OPDs in the field were resulting in serious injuries, i.e. a first glimpse
overview of the in-field data where exposure was high in regard to usage of Quad bikes with
OPDs, particularly Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs. Hence, the Individual Workplace Rider
Survey which was the main survey was carried out to further explore a much broader usage
of quadbikes with and without OPDs in the workplace which included exposure.
The Individual Workplace Riders Survey (Sub-study (iii)) was statistically analysed in detail.
The independent variables in Table G1 (demographic factors, characteristics of quadbikes
and riding behaviours) were selected to determine if they were associated with the
outcome variable (crash, injury and severe injury) using statistical bivariate analyses at the
< 0.2 level. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was then carried out using three
separate backward stepwise logistic regressions to examine the independent impact of
various factors on the risk of crash, injury or serious injury identified associations between
these factors and the variables in at the < 0.05 significance level. Independent factors
were then eliminated from the model in an iterative process. Final models, which contained
only independent variables that significantly contributed to the outcomes, were reached
when no more variables could be eliminated.
Figure 7 shows the adjusted odds ratio in a forest plot form. This is simply a visual
representation of the statistical analysis presented in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5.
In regard to safety benefits of fitting Quad bikes with OPDs, and in particular Quad bikes
retrofitted with Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs, Table 8 indicates that for cases where the
Quad bike rolled over the rider and a chest injury occurs and/or the rider is pinned, a trend
analysis identified that with increasing severity of chest injury, the proportion of OPD fitted
vehicles decreases (p=0.02). That is, the infield data is suggestive that OPDs reduce to some
extent serious chest injuries in rollovers.
Table 4 and Table 5 show that in addition to factors such as gender, helmet use, speed,
surface and age, the highest risk to a rider of suffering either an injury or serious injuries is
when a Quad bike rolls over the rider. The crude and adjusted odds ratios of 5.76 and 6.63
respectively are the highest of all odds ratios determined and presented in this report. This
is a major safety detriment and general effect of operating a Quad bike.
As was already presented in previous Quad Bike Performance Project study reports by the
Authors, around 71% of fatal crashes investigated were rollovers (Grzebieta et al, 2014)
where crush injuries and asphyxia are a particularly high risk. The main cause of death for
farm workers investigated in the National Coroners Information System (NCIS) from 2000 to
2012 was chest injury (59%). Only 13% of farm workers died as a result of head injury.
Rollover accompanied by being pinned by the Quad bike and asphyxiation was identified as
the major injury causal mechanisms occurring in farming related crashes. Around 62% of
farm workers were pinned under the vehicle without extensive impact related injuries, e.g.
received a flail chest. Moreover, fifty-five (51%) of the sub-sample of 109 deceased riders
that included both work and recreational riders of which half were work related (54),
investigated by some of the co-Authors (Grzebieta et al, 2014), were pinned by the Quad
bike, i.e. the person was pinned under the vehicle until they were released by another
person. If only the 54 farm workers are considered then the percentage rises to 71% of
them that were pinned under the Quad bike and died. In other words, this was the
dominant fatal injury mechanism for farm workers and is of particular concern to Work
Health and Safety regulators and farmers.
Figure 5 shows that around half the riders report being involved in a crash of some kind. Of
those 51% of riders who experienced a crash, Figure 6 indicates that around two thirds
(67%) experience a rollover crash. Figure 7 and Table 5 indicate the risk of receiving a
serious injury is particularly high in such rollover crashes. This is consistent with the analysis
of the fatality data carried out and published by the Authors in 2014 (Grzebieta et al, 2014).
The results presented in Table 5 and Figure 7 indicate high likelihood of serious injury in a
rollover crash, i.e. more than six times that if the Quad bike had not rolled over the rider.
When this data is viewed in the light of the Authors NCIS analysis of farm related Quad bike
deaths where around 71% of farm worker were pinned and killed by the Quad bike, it is
clear that the rollover must be prevented or some form of rollover protection provided.
Thus an obvious solution promoted by safety stakeholders has been to retrofit an OPD.
The question that arises is whether an OPD is effective in reducing injuries, but also
importantly, whether OPDs are harmful to the rider in the workplace environment, i.e.
cause serious injuries or death. There have been rollover events in which OPDs have had a
protective benefit, but there have also been rollover cases where the presence of the OPD
has been reported by riders that it has contributed to their injury.
In regard to deaths, there have not been any fatalities identified in this study or elsewhere
where the OPD fitted to the Quad bike was causal to a fatal injury.
In regard to serious injury, from Sub-study (iii) of the Individual Workplace Riders Survey,
one respondent stated that when his Quad bike rolled and he tried to jump clear, the
Quadbar struck him in the back knocking him to the ground, with the Quad bike then
landing on his leg, and resulting in a broken leg. The Quad bike was a heavy model, and he
was caught under it for 3hrs before help arrived. In previous rollover crashes where the
Quad bike did not have an OPD installed, he had successfully jumped clear of the vehicle
without any injury. The rider was a farmer, very experienced, in the early 30-40 age group,
and typically relied on being able to separate himself clear of the Quad bike in such a
rollover event.
While this case is consistent with issues identified by the Authors (Grzebieta et al., 2015c)
and the Quad bike manufacturers litigation defence experts (Van Ee et al., 2012, Van Ee et
al., 2014), that in some cases the OPD could prevent separation by the riders resulting in
injury, it is not known whether the OPD prevented his being killed by the Quad bike and
suffering a leg injury is a smaller price to pay than losing his life. This is particularly so if on
this occasion had the OPD not been fitted on the Quad bike and the rider not jumped clear,
he could have been pinned and asphyxiated instead of just simply pinned and survived.
Table 4 and Figure 7 indicate that separating from the Quad bike during the crash has a
statistically significant increase in any injury where the adjusted odds ratio of receiving an
injury is 1.45 (95% CI 1.08-1.96). In other words, using separation as an injury prevention or
injury mitigation strategy is proving to be harmful to riders in the field.
Further to the issue of separation, the question then arises whether it is acceptable to allow
the Quad bike to rollover the rider. Van Ee et al. (2012) presented analyses of Quad bike
rollovers at the US Consumer Product Safety Commissions ATV Safety Summit (Vehicle
Technology Roll-Over Protection) in Bethesda, Maryland in the USA. The analyses was
sponsored by the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) which is a US organisation
funded by US Quad bike manufacturers and distributors.26 Van Ee stated that many people
have survived such a rollover crash and inferred that it is acceptable to allow the Quad bike
to rollover the rider as shown in Figure 16. Whilst it is agreed that a number of riders have
survived such a rollover event with no significant injury, however, Table 5 and Figure 7
indicate a statistically significant increase in serious injury resulting in hospitalisation where
the adjusted odds ratio of receiving an injury is 6.63 (95% CI 4.03-10.93). In other words, it is
clear that to recommend allowing the vehicle to roll over the rider presents an unacceptable
risk to workers.
Figure 6 shows that there were twelve rollover crashes where the Quad bike had an OPD
fitted and the rider was injured, i.e. 2 serious injuries and 8 minor injuries. In regard to the
first serious injury where the rider was hospitalised, one has been described three
paragraphs earlier. In the second serious injury OPD related crash, the rider fell or slid from
an embankment, the Quad bike rolled laterally and the OPD drove the riders wrist into
26
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), http://www.svia.org/#/about
Figure 16: Demonstration by Van Ee at al. (2012) of how Quad bike rolling over rider did not
injure the rider
ground and injuring the riders arm. From the description provided by the rider it appears
the Quad bike would have landed on top of rider. Hence, yet again the wrist/arm injury was
a smaller price to pay than the rider losing their life.
For two (2) of the eight (8) self-treated (minor) injury cases the Quadbar OPD caught on a
tree limb causing the Quad bike to pitch into a rearward rollover crash. In both of these
rearward pitch, self-treated cases (not hospitalised), one of the riders suffered minor
injuries to the Head/skull, Face/jaw, neck, whereas the other rider had thorax and arms
injuries. For the remaining six (6) cases: one rider had leg only minor injuries, one had arms
only minor injuries, one had arm injuries and received a broken clavicle, one had neck and
leg minor injuries, one had face, arms and leg injuries and one had a thorax injury.
In regard to non-rollover related crashes (Figure 6), there were an additional 22 crashes that
had either a Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD attached. Of these 22 crashes, 4 riders were injured
of which one was seriously injured (hospitalised). The seriously injured rider was riding the
Quad bike and collided with another vehicle where it was claimed the Quadbar
subsequently interacted and was caught by the other vehicle. However, it is not clear how
the vehicles interacted in the crash such that it resulted in the Quadbar being caught. The
rider was thrown from the Quad bike and injured his legs, resulting in the rider being
hospitalised for one day. For the three minor injuries, one rider received an injury to their
back whilst the other two riders received an injury to their face.
Importantly, from all of these reported injuries, there were no incidents detected in which
there were serious injury (chest or head) attributed to or associated with the Quadbar or
Lifeguard OPD (see Table 11). On the other hand, of the 868 rollover crashes where the
Quad bike had no OPD fitted, 178 (21%) were injured. Of these injured cases 123 (69%)
were minor injury and 55 (31%) were hospitalised. Of those hospitalised cases 24 (44%)
received serious chest injuries.
OPDs are not designed to, and simply cannot, protect against all potential injuries in a Quad
bike crash. The purpose of an OPD, (according to the manufacturers of the Quadbar and
Lifeguard devices27,28), is to act as a crush prevention device. An OPD aims to reduce the
likelihood a Quad bike will roll over or onto the chest of the rider. It is acknowledged by OPD
manufacturers and the study team that an OPD could be injurious to the rider in some crash
circumstances. Nevertheless, the results in Table 7 and Table 8 are suggestive that the
Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs appear to reduce serious tor (includes chest) injury to the
rider in a rollover event. Moreover, suffering a minor injury may be a small price to pay if
the OPD saves the rider from a more serious chest injury or fatality.
In summary, while it is possible that a rider may receive an injury from an OPD, from the in-
field data collected and presented in this report. However, on balance from Sub-studies (i),
(ii) and (iii) the data is suggestive that OPDs reduce to some extent serious chest injuries in
rollovers. More importantly though, the data is indicating that neither the Quadbar or
Lifeguard OPDs were causing serious chest or head injuries in rollover crashes.
c) Assessing the safety benefits, safety detriments and user experiences of Quad bike
and operators wearing off-road helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002.
As mentioned earlier in the report, Quad bike specific helmets have been used in the report
as a proxy for off-road helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002. Fatality data from NCIS for
the years 2000 2012 indicates that 13% of farm workers died as a result of head injury
(Grzebieta et al., 2014). Table G2 indicates that around 17.5% (50) of all injuries (minor +
hospitalisation) and 28% (21) of serious injuries (hospitalisation) crashes are head injury
related.
Figure 10 indicates that around 14% of the 1,546 riders surveyed do not have access to a
helmet of any kind. In regard to compliant NZS:8600:2002 it appears that it is mostly New
Zealanders who have access to those helmet types. This is likely because of the difference
between Australia and New Zealand regarding the Australian helmet standard which is more
restrictive than the New Zealand helmet standard NZS:8600:2002 in some aspects of
laboratory testing. However, it is expected that that ratio will change over the coming years
with current changes in Australian workplace regulations.
Figure 7 and Table 3 shows that wearing a helmet is not associated with crashes. This
indicates that safer rider bias appears not to be influencing the results nor is effects of risk
compensation, i.e. riders who wear a helmet rider harder and thus are more involved in
crashes. However, helmets are associated with all injuries as indicated in Figure 7, Figure 13,
27
http://www.quadbar.com.au/the-quadbar.html
28
http://atvlifeguards.com/product/atv-lifeguard/
Figure 14 and Table 5. The crude odds ratio in terms of injury reduction for all crashes is 0.52
(95% CI: 0.36-0.75) and when adjusted for all other factors it is 0.58 (95% CI: 0.39-0.87), i.e.
injury risk is almost halved if a helmet is worn. However, multi-variate logistic analyses of
reduction in head injuries when wearing a helmet was statistically non-significant because
of the small number of helmet incidents involving both minor and serious injury cases
where a helmet was worn, i.e. statistical power of the data obtained was low. Regardless, it
is important to note from a public health viewpoint wearing any helmet is better than not
wearing a helmet. Hence, the alternate US and EU standards20,21,22 that allows for much
broader use of helmets that may address some of the heat, vision, hearing issues related to
workplace farming need to be considered in safety policies in Australian workplace
regulations.
Unfortunately, Figure 12 shows that only in 321 crashes (22% or one fifth) out of a total of
1,430 crashes a rider had worn a helmet. More alarmingly, despite the majority of riders
having access to a helmet (86%) it appears that only 39% (604 of 1,546 riders) always or
usually wear a helmet. Interestingly, Figure 14 indicates that Quad bike specific helmets
mostly worn by New Zealanders, provide as good if not better head injury reduction benefit
compared to other helmets.
It should be noted here that while it is important to continue to support wearing helmets
and to increase helmet use awareness, this will not necessarily address the majority of
injuries and fatalities occurring in the workplace. While the use of helmets when riding a
Quad bike is strongly supported, the NCIS data indicates that only 13% of farm workers died
as a result of head injury (Grzebieta et al., 2014) and now this study indicates around 28% of
serious injuries (hospitalisation) crashes were head injuries. Any policy strategy that
considers wearing a helmet will reduce the number of Quad bike serious injuries or deaths
needs to consider this context, i.e. the main cause of Quad bike fatalities and serious injuries
occurring relate predominantly to Quad bikes poor stability and in particular the hazard of
the Quad bike rolling over the rider. Placing emphasis on personal protection such as
helmets as opposed to addressing the more urgent issue of improving Quad bike stability
and dynamic handling, will provide a much smaller safety benefit. The hierarchy of controls
for managing risks within that legislation specifies that engineering controls which design
out the hazard are considered more effective control29 measures than administrative
controls such as training courses which seek to change human behaviour and personal
protection measures (e.g. helmets). Administrative controls are just one component of a
larger holistic Safe System approach, and engineering based controls should also be
included that increase the rollover resistance of Quad bikes and enhancing rollover
crashworthiness design, while still maintaining the operational capabilities of the vehicles.
29
Administrative controls are generally accepted as the lesser effective form of control in a Vision Zero Safe
System approach (death or serious injury that results in a permanent disability in the workplace are not
acceptable), in the hierarchy of safety controls. The Authors note from regulations covering mobile plant and
structures, that persons with management or control of plant at a workplace are required to prevent mobile
plant from overturning or the operator from being ejected from the plant. This person must ensure, so far as
is reasonably practicable, that a suitable combination of operator protective devices (OPD) for the plant is
provided, maintained and used.
d) Engage with members of the farming community and manufacturers of the Quadbar
and Lifeguard OPDs and helmets compliant with NZS:8600:2002 to conduct the study
and collect data.
In regard to the Quad bike Tour Company case study (Sub-study (i)), the research team was
notified of this company by Quadbar IndustriesTM who then facilitated contact between the
team and the company operations manager.
Regarding the Fleet Managers survey (Sub-study (ii)), the two major Quad bike OPD
manufacturers that currently sell OPDs in Australia and New Zealand, namely Quadbar
IndustriesTM and ATV LifequardTM, were asked by TARS to contact their clients who had
made multiple purchases of OPDs to participate in the Fleet Managers Survey. The
manufactures sent an email, and in some cases a postal letter, inviting them to contact the
TARS team so that an email and/or a Fleet Managers Survey form could be sent to them to
fill out and return to the TARS team.
Participants for the Individual Workplace Riders Survey (Sub-study (iii)) were recruited
through: radio interviews; on-line and print media advertising; social media such as
Facebook and Twitter; through contact by OPD manufacturers and by TARS UNSW project
team members; by Safework NSW and Victorian WorkCover personnel; by WorkSafe New
Zealand personnel; through links on various regulators websites; through associations such
as the National Farmers Federation and at various agricultural field days and a variety of
other events. A list of the recruitment channels used is provided in Appendix D.
e) Correctly identify the risk factors associated with the use of Quad bikes that have
been fitted with an OPD as well as those that have not and recommend appropriate
mitigation strategies.
The risks factors associated with the use of Quad bikes that have been fitted with an OPD
and those that have not, in regard to the vehicle and OPD have been discussed in
Section 5.1 (b) above. It is particularly important to realise that allowing a Quad bike to roll
over the rider has a high risk of serious chest injury or being pinned by the Quad bike.
In terms of the use of these vehicles, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show that the main risk factor is
the low error margin a Quad bike possesses in terms of rollover risk. Quad bikes, similar to
motorcycles, have a very low margin of human error tolerance when operating them; it is
particularly tight. One in every two riders has experienced a crash and of those riders two
thirds have experienced a rollover crash which is particularly hazardous for riders. These
vehicles have a high propensity to rollover and once the vehicle is rolling over, it becomes
particularly dangerous to the rider because of its mass unless the rider can get clear of the
vehicle in time. In regard to older riders, they may be travelling at a slower speed compared
to younger riders such that if the Quad bike does rollover the inertial effects may not be
large enough to throw the rider clear of the Quad bike and they get trapped. Also older
riders typically may not react in time and are more frail than a younger rider, which is why
older riders are at a much higher risk of injury shown in Figure 7 and Table 4, i.e. the
adjusted odds ratio for riders 70 years or older of being injured is 2.29 (95% CI: 1.31-3.99).
Given the Quad bikes rollover propensity and that older riders are more frail and less agile,
it may be more appropriate for older riders to use a more stable Side by Side Vehicle which
also offer better protection for workplace activities.
Risk factors that are particularly relevant where riders could find themselves in a crash are
indicated Figure 7 and Table 3. For example, Table 3 indicates that mustering (gathering
livestock) and other stockwork is particularly risky. In regard to mustering and animal
farming, distraction is a key issue in so far that the rider may be focussed on the animal as
opposed to looking where they are riding in terms of striking a rock, log or one wheel falling
into a rut or hole. Quad bikes are particularly susceptible to any asymmetric wheel
perturbation as explained by Grzebieta et al (2015d).
Table 3 also indicates that carrying passengers on a single seat or carrying a load results in
an elevated risk of a crash mainly because it reduces the static stability of the vehicle and
hence the error tolerance is even lower when inadvertently traversing an undulation.
As explained in Grzebieta et al (2015d), dynamic handling on sealed and hard surface roads
carry a higher risk than on softer muddy surfaces. Table 4 and Table 5 clearly confirms that
there is both a minor and serious elevated injury risk when riding on hard and bitumen
surfaces. Similarly, riding at higher speeds (in excess of 16 km/h) carries a higher risk in
terms of receiving a minor or serious injury, most likely when cornering. This is because of
the Quad bikes low tyre inflation and the vehicles oversteer characteristics.
Interestingly, Table 3 and Figure 7 indicate that Active Riding is associated with crashes
where the crude odds ratio is 1.69 (95% CI: 1.25-2.29) and adjusted odds ratio when all
factors are considered is 1.37 (95% CI:0.99-1.89). This is counter to the industry promotion
of Active Riding as a mechanism to reduce the risk of a rollover. This study has also found
that training riders to use Active Riding may be imparting a false sense of safety, in that such
riders may believe that they can deal with all Quad bike circumstances. As a result, they will
challenge themselves to try out the skills they have been taught, only to wind up being
involved in a crash. It is possible that the riders may also be more confident in their skills
and hence be prepared to take more risks than other riders do. This is yet another form of
risk compensation. This situation is not dissimilar to what is observed in advanced driver
training courses for young car drivers on public roads (Washington et al, 2010, IIHS, 2015,
Ivers et al, 2016). Hence, further research is required regarding how to better train riders
but more importantly, Active Riding appears to have a negative effect regarding crash risk.
f) Correctly identify the risk factors associated with the use of off-road helmets
compliant with NZS:8600:2002 by Quad bike and operators in rural settings.
The response to this question has been presented in Sections 5.1 a), c) and e) above.

6 CONCLUSIONS
The main key findings of this project are that while the survey study has identified that five riders
have received injury that they attribute to the OPD, from all the survey study data, there were no
cases of serious chest or head injury involving either a Quadbar or Lifeguard OPD in a rollover
crash. Further, the infield study data is suggestive that Quadbar or Lifeguard OPDs reduce to
some extent serious chest injuries in rollovers. However, it is recommended that a larger sample
size be obtained in the future to determine more precise estimates of the benefit of fitting
Quadbar and Lifeguard OPDs to Quadbikes.
In regard to the performance of Quad bike specific helmets, it would appear they reduced the
incidence of head injuries. However, statistical significance was not able to be obtained because
of the small sample size of helmeted riders receiving head injuries (which is in itself suggestive of
effectiveness) and it is also recommended surveillance of their in-field performance also be
continued.
More specifically the conclusions that can be drawn from each sub-study are:
1. For the Quad Bike Tour Company Sub-study (i), retrofitting a Quadbar OPD to Quad
bikes in a low speed controlled environment used for recreational purposes in a
workplace, appear to result in major reductions in both injuries and injury severity.
2. For the Fleet Manager Survey Sub-study (ii), it appears that on a per vehicle basis
vehicles OPD fleet managers reported that riders were more likely to be injured
without an OPD compared to riders with an OPD. When the number of minor injuries
and hospitalisations are presented as a percentage of crashes it appears that more
injuries per crash occur for Quad bikes with an OPD than for Quad bikes without an
OPD. However, no life threatening chest or head injuries occurred with an OPD in
rollovers. These results need to be viewed with caution as this survey was relying on
the recall of Fleet Managers and was limited in scope with very small numbers of
incidents reported. Moreover, the data collected did not account for exposure rates
of the vehicles fitted with an OPD. The survey was only meant to be a preliminary
survey with respect to the much broader Individual Workplace Riders (main) Survey in
order to get a brief first glimpse overview of the in-field data.
3. For the Individual Workplace Riders Survey Sub-study (iii), the main conclusions drawn
pertaining to the objectives of this project were:
Around half of the survey rider experienced no crashes, whereas the other half
of respondents experienced one or more crashes. Two thirds of the crashes
experienced were a rollover crash;
Rollover crashes are particularly hazardous events in the workplace
environment. When a Quad bike rolls over rider, the rider is more than six
times likely to suffer a serious injury compared to a crash where the Quad bike
does not roll over the rider. This statistically significant result is a major safety
risk of operating a Quad bike;
For cases where the Quad bike rolled over the rider and a chest injury occurs
and/or the rider is pinned, a trend analysis identified that with increasing
severity of chest injury, the proportion of OPD fitted vehicles decreases
(p=0.02). This is suggestive that Quadbar or Lifeguard OPDs reduce to some

extent serious chest injuries in rollover crashes;
Wearing a helmet will reduce the risk of injury for a rider by around half. In
regard to the performance of Quad bike specific helmets, it would appear they
reduced the incidents of head injuries. However, statistical significance was not
able to be obtained because of the small sample size of helmeted riders
receiving head injuries (which is in itself suggestive of effectiveness) and it is
recommended surveillance of their in-field performance be continued.
In regard to more general conclusions from the main Individual Workplace Riders
Survey Sub-study (iii):
An increased crash risk was identified when the rider is a male, actively rides,
carries a load, carries a passenger, rides 6 hours or more in a day, rides at a
speed of 36 km/h or higher, is mustering (gathering livestock) or working in
the animal industry. The risk of having had a crash by a rider with 10 or more
years experienced is slightly more than double that of a rider with only three
or less years of experience;
An increased risk in (any) injury also occurs when a rider jumps from the
vehicle, rides the vehicle at dusk or dawn, rides the vehicle on a sealed road
or hard unsealed surface, rides at a speed of 36 km/h or more, and the rider
is 70 years old or older or in the 50-69 year old range compared to the
younger 25-49 year old riders.
An increased risk in serious injury (hospitalisation) also occurs when riding on
a sealed road compared to riding in a paddock (grasslands) and riding at
36 km/h or higher compared to 0-15 km/h.
Limitations of the Study

This study is the largest survey study carried out to date of the in-field workplace
experiences of Quad bike riders in regard to their use of OPDs and Quad bike specific
helmets for Australia, and includes New Zealand. The survey study has provided
considerable information regarding the use of OPDs and Quad bike specific helmets, and
rollover and other crash events that has not previously been available.
There are also some limitations of this survey study, from a statistical perspective only. In
particular, the number of OPD users responding to the surveys were less than expected, and
consequently the number of OPD no-injury cases and related injury and serious injury cases
are relatively low resulting in a lack of statistical power to be able to fully assess the
effectiveness of such devices.
The benefits of wearing helmets is well known in multiple domains, e.g. construction,
motorcycle riding, bicycle riding, horse riding, etc. While this study also attempted to show
the head injury reduction benefit of wearing Quad bike specific helmets, the number of
reported head injury cases were low. Thus, any statistical analyses of these variables was
non-significant although this could have been due to their effectiveness. Hence, any future
efforts to determine more precise estimates of the benefit of fitting Quadbar and Lifeguard
OPDs to Quadbikes or estimating the effectiveness of Quad bike specific helmets reducing in
particular serious head injuries, need to focus on gathering more in-field data.
This reference to the limitations of the study are purely from a statistical analytical
perspective. The Authors are of course keen to see a reduction (preferably elimination) in
Quad bike related injuries.
In regard to the limitations of each of the sub-studies these have been discussed in the body
of the report.
Whilst there are some limitations to this study as in all studies, the study and findings are
significant, and is supported as follows in the words of the independent reviewers:
This work was done by a very experienced group of investigators with considerable
experience in the field of quad bikes. The report is a very competent piece of work and adds
considerably to our understanding of quad bike safety.
The study is an important contribution to the quad safety literature and demonstrates the
injury reduction benefits of OPDs and helmets. As with all studies, it is important to continue
collecting and analyzing additional data on the issue of quad-related injuries as the authors
recommend
The consistency of results across the three different sub-studies (and various samples), adds
to the validity of the overall findings and assists in minimising any potential bias from
respondents. Furthermore, the consistency of findings in addition to other data that is already
in the public domain regarding fatal incidents, reinforces the broader generalisability of the
results within Australia and internationally for typical work-place environments.
In conclusion, the studies main key findings that OPDs on balance appear to be effective in
reducing serious chest injuries as well as rollover related serious injuries, plus that helmets
are effective in reducing injuries, are supported by the study data.
I commend the authors of the report for approaching the task using a variety of methods and
acknowledge the difficulties in gathering data on this topic. The literature review provides a
comprehensive summary of the issues. Valuable information is provided within this report and
with further specification and clarification of aspects of each of the studies as outlined above
I believe the report will provide a more solid evidence base to support the conclusions.
The Authors have responded to the suggestions of the independent Reviewers.
While of course additional survey data would have been beneficial to the study, and has
been recommended. Nevertheless, the Authors are reminded here from their previous
Quad bike safety study (Grzebieta et al. 2015a) of the wise aphorism attributed to Voltaire
Do not let the best be the enemy of the good, with regard to progressing Quad bike
safety. That is, a pro-active approach as recommended by the NSW Deputy State Coroner
Freund (and subsequently taken up by SafeWork NSW) should be taken rather than waiting
years until the best data becomes available, with many additional casualties occurring as a
consequence of such delays.
References:
1. Department Of Infrastructure, Energy And Resources (DIER), SRT Calculator User Guide,
TERNZ Ltd, Manukau, New Zealand, 25 May 2006.
http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/__srt/user%20guide.pdf
2. Basham M., Nicholls M., and Campbell M., (2006). The ABCs of ATVs: Factors Implicated in
Child Deaths and Injuries Involving All Terrain Vehicles on New Zealand Farms, Department
of Societies and Cultures, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Waikato.
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/794
3. Bowman S.M., Aitken M.E., Helmkamp J.C., Maham S.A., and Graham C.J., (2009) Impact of
Helmets on Injuries to Riders of All-Terrain Vehicles, Injury Prevention, vol. 15, pp. 3-7, 2009.
4. Carman A.B., Gillespie S., Jones K., Mackay J., Wallis G., and Milosavljevic S., (2010). All
Terrain Vehicle Loss of Control Events in Agriculture: Contribution of Pitch, Roll and
Velocity, Ergonomics, vol. 53, pp. 18-29.
5. Clapperton A.J., Herde E., and Lower T., (2013). "Quad Bike Related Injury in Victoria,
Australia," Medical Journal of Australia; 199 (6): 418-422.
6. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements:
Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Part 574, Tire Identification
and Record Keeping: Code of Federal Regulations. 29 CFR 1928.53 OSHA (performance
requirements for a protective enclosure designed for wheel-type agricultural tractors)
7. Day L., Stathakis V., and O'Hare M., (2006). "Motorcycle deployment and rider characteristics
on Victorian farms," The Australian Journal of Rural Health, vol. 14, pp. 190-195.
8. McDonald G.L., (2011). Evaluation of Quad Bike Rollover Simulation, Geoff McDonald &
Associates Pty Ltd, www.farmsafe.com.au/Quad%20Bike%20report.pdf
9. Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), (2012) "Australian ATV Distributors'
Position Paper".
http://www.atvsafety.com.au/sites/default/files/Industry-Position-Paper-March-2012.pdf
10. Franklin R.C., Stark K.L. and Fragar L.J., (2005). Evaluation of the New South Wales Rollover
Protective Structure Rebate Scheme 2000 - 2004, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health
and Safety (ACAHS), University of Sydney, Moree.
11. Goldcamp EM, Myers J, Hendricks K, Layne L, Helmkamp J., (2006). Nonfatal all-terrain
vehicle related injuries to youths living on farms in the United States, 2001. Journal Rural
Health, 22(4):308-313.
12. Grzebieta R.H. and Achilles T., (2007). Report on Quad-bar in Relation to ATV Rollover
Crashworthiness, submitted to Victorian Coroner Inquest into ATV deaths, Dept. Civil
Engineering, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
13. Grzebieta R.H., Rechnitzer G., McIntosh A., Mitchell R., Patton D., and Simmons K.,
(2014). Investigation and Analysis of Quad Bike and Side By Side (SSV) Fatalities and
Injuries, Quad Bike Performance Project (QBPP) Report 3-2014: Supplemental Report,
Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Report, submitted to The WorkCover
Authority of New South Wales, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
http://www.tars.unsw.edu.au/research/Current/Quad-
Bike_Safety/Reports/Supplemental_Report_Exam&Analysis_Fatals&Injuries_Jan-2015.pdf
14. Grzebieta R., Rechnitzer G., Simmons K. and McIntosh A.S., (2015a). Final Summary
Project Report: Test Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations, Quad Bike
Performance Project TARS Research Report No 4, submitted to the WorkCover Authority
of New South Wales, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Bike_Safety/Reports/Final_Summary_Report4-QBPP_Test_Results_Concl_Recom_Jan-2015.pdf
15. Grzebieta R, Rechnitzer G, Simmons K., (2015b). Static Stability Test Results, Quad Bike
Performance Project TARS Research Report No 1, submitted to the WorkCover Authority
of New South Wales, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Bike_Safety/Reports/Quad_Project_Final_Report1_Static_Stabilty_Test_Results_Jan-2015.pdf
16. Grzebieta R, Rechnitzer G, McIntosh A. (2015c) Rollover Crashworthiness Test Results,
Quad Bike Performance Project TARS Research Report No 3, submitted to the WorkCover
Bike_Safety/Reports/Quad_Project_Final_Report3_Crashworthiness_Test_Results_Jan-2015.pdf
17. Grzebieta R, Rechnitzer G, Simmons K. (2015d) Dynamic Handling Test Results, Quad
Bike Performance Project TARS Research Report No 2, submitted to the WorkCover
Bike_Safety/Reports/Quad_Project_Final_Report2_Dynamic_Handling_Tests_Results_Jan-2015.pdf
18. Grzebieta R.G, Short A. and Howard A., (2007). "Investigation of Zellner et al 113 Case
Simulations, submission made to Victorian Coroners Inquest into eight Quad Bike deaths,
Monash University.
19. HART, (2012) "ATV Course Rider Handbook," vol. Version 4, ed: Honda Training Pty Ltd.
20. Helmkamp J.C., Marsh S.M., and Aitken M.E., (2011). "Occupational All-Terrain Vehicle
Deaths Among Workers 18 Years and Older in the United States, 1992-2007", Journal of
Agricultural Safety and Health, vol. 17, pp. 147-155.
21. Janosi Z.J., Liston R.A., Martin L.A. and Sloss D.A. (1970). Commercial Off-Road Vehicles,
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Automotive Engineering Congress Detroit,
Michigan, January 12-16, SAE Paper No 700012.
22. International Standard (ISO), ISO 3471:2008(E), Fourth edition 2008-08-15, Earth-moving
machinery - Roll Over protective structures - Laboratory tests and performance requirements.
23. IIHS, (2015). Offering skid avoidance course to teen drivers doesn't improve safety,
Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, Status Report Vol. 50, No. 8, October.
24. Ivers R., Sakashita C., Senserrick T., Elkington J., Lo S., Boufous S. and de Rome L., (2016).
Does an on-road motorcycle coaching program reduce crashes in novice riders? A
randomised control trial, Accident Analysis and Prevention, V. 86, pp. 4046.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.015
25. Johri R., (2012). "Quad Bikes: A Look at the Safety Behaviour of Accident Victims," Labour
and Immigration Research Centre, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment,
ISBN 978-0-478-40131-8
http://www.worksafe.govt.nz/worksafe/information-guidance/all-guidance-items/quad-bikes-a-
look-at-the-safety-behaviour-of-accident-victims/quad-bike-safety-behaviour-accident-victims.pdf
26. Levenson M., (2003). All-Terrain Vehicle 2001 Injury and Exposure Studies, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard
Analysis Bethesda, MD, USA. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/atvex2001.pdf.
27. Lower T. (2013), Quad Bikes Time for Everyone to Take Action; Media Release, July
2013, National Farm Safety Week Media Package 15-19 July 2013; FarmSafe Australia;
and Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety; University of Sydney.
http://www.farmsafe.org.au/document.php?id=209
28. Lower T., (2011). Summary - Review of Dynamic Research Inc Data, Australian Centre for
Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree.
29. Lower T., Herde E. and Fragar L., (2012). Quad bike deaths in Australia 2001 to 2010;
J Health Safety Environ 2012, 28(1): 7-24.
30. Lower T. and Temperley J., (2016). Preventing death and serious injury caused by quad
rollovers on Australian farms - Policy Paper, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and
safety.
https://sydney.edu.au/medicine/aghealth/uploaded/Quad%20Bike/Position_Statement_Quads_Feb
%202016.pdf
31. Lower T. and Trotter M., (2012). "Adoption of Quad Bike Crush Protection Devices,"
Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety,
https://sydney.edu.au/medicine/aghealth/uploaded/Quad%20Bike/adoption_of_quad_bike_cpds.pdf
32. McIntosh A., Patton D., Rechnitzer G., and Grzebieta R., (2016). "Injury Mechanisms in
fatal Australian quad bike incidents," Traffic Injury Prevention, May 18;17(4):386-90. doi:
10.1080/15389588.2015.1091073
33. Milosavljevic S., McBride D.I., Bagheri N., Vasiljev R.M., Carman A.B., Rehn B., and Moore
D., (2011). "Factors Associated with Quad Bike Loss of Control Events in Agriculture,"
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 21, pp. 317-321, 2011a.
34. Moore D.J., (2002). "Quad Bikes: Factors in Loss of Control Events on New Zealand
Farms," Centre for Human Factors and Ergonomics, New Zealand.
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=2824&dDocName=WTD
S400084&allowInterrupt=1
35. Moore D.J., (2008). "A Systems Analysis of Quadbike Loss of Control Events on New
Zealand Farms," Doctoral Thesis, Management Systems and Ergonomics, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
36. Myres M., (2016a). All Terrain Vehicle Safety - Potential Effectiveness of the Quadbar as
a Crush Protection Device, Safety, V.2, Issue 1; doi:10.3390/safety2010003.
http://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/1/3/pdf
37. Myres M., (2016b). Potential Benefit of the Quadbar on All-Terrain Vehicles, Safety
2016, Volume 2, Issue 1; doi:10.3390/safety2010005.
http://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/1/5/pdf
38. New Zealand Occupational Safety & Health Service (NZOSHS), (2002). Safe Use of ATVs
on New Zealand Farms - Agricultural Guideline.
https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/science/for/current-students/HR/health-safety-
wellness/documents/ATV%20Safety%20Guidelines.pdf
39. O'Connor T., Hanks H. and Steinhardt D., (2009). "All-Terrain Vehicle Crashes and
Associated Injuries in North Queensland: Findings from the Rural and Remote Road
Safety Study," Australian Journal of Rural Health, vol. 17, pp. 251-256, 2009.
40. Rechnitzer, G., Grzebieta R.H., McIntosh A.S., and Simmons K. (2013). Reducing All
Terrain Vehicle Injuries (ATVs) And Deaths - A Way Ahead, Proc. 23rd International
Safety Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Seoul, Korea, May, Paper No. 13-
0213.
41. Rechnitzer G., Day L., Grzebieta R., Zou R. and Richardson S., (2003). All Terrain Vehicle
Injuries and Deaths, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Report submitted to
Victorian WorkCover Authority and Victorian State Coroner.
42. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, (2011). American National Standard for
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, ANSI/ROHVA 1 - 2011, Recreational Off-Highway
Vehicle Association, California, USA.
43. Richardson S., Orton T., Sandvik A., Jones C., Josevski N., and Pok W.P., (2013).
Simulation of Quad bike (ATV) Rollovers Using PC-Crash to Evaluate Alternative Safety
Systems, 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
(ESV), Paper Number 13-0286.
https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/23/files/Session%2024%20Written.pdf
44. Rodgers G., (1990). The Effectiveness of Helmets in Reducing All-Terrain Vehicle Injuries
and Deaths, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 47-58.
45. Rodgers G., (1993). All-Terrain Vehicle Injury Risks and the Effects of Regulation,
Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 335-346.
46. Rodgers G., (1999). The Characteristics and Use Patterns of All-Terrain Vehicle Drivers in
the United States, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 409-419.
47. Rodgers G. and Adler P., (2001). Risk Factors for All-Terrain Vehicle Injuries: A National
Case-Control Study, American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 153, no. 11, pp. 1112-1118.
48. Schalk T. and Fragar L.J., (1999). "Reducing Risk of Injury Associated with Farm
Motorcycles on Farms in Australia," Australian Centre for Agricultural Health & Safety,
University of Sydney, Moree, Australia.
49. Shulruf B. and Balemi A., (2010). "Risk and Preventive Factors for Fatalities in All-Terrain
Vehicle Accidents in New Zealand," Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 42, pp. 612-618.
50. Snook C.,(2009). An Assessment of passive roll over protection for Quad Bikes,
University of Southern Queensland, Faculty of Engineering & Surveying Technical
Reports, Report TR-2009-CS04, ISSN 1446-1846.
http://www.quadbar.com.au/page/attachment/1/qb_industries_report
51. Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) 2010, American National Standard for Four
Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles, ANSI/SVIA 1-2010, Specialty Vehicle Institute of America,
California USA. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/02/29/2012-4385/standard-
for-all-terrain-vehicles
52. Van Ee C., Toomey D. and Moroski-Browne B., (2012). ATV Rollover, Operator Response,
and Determinants of Injury: Implications for SCPDs, Presentation from Design Research
and Engineering of work sponsored by the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA),
at US Consumer Product Safety Commissions The ATV Safety Summit, Bethesda, USA.
https://www.cpsc.gov/content/atv-safety-summit-vehicle-technology-roll-over-protection (At 50
minute mark into presentation)
53. Van Ee C., Toomey D. and Moroski-Browne B., Vander Roest M., and Wilson A., (2014).
ATV Rollover, Rider Response, and Determinants of Injury: In-depth Analysis of Video-
documented ATV Rollover Events, Traffic Injury Prevention, Volume 15, 2014 - Issue
sup1: Peer-Reviewed Journal for the 58th Annual Scientific Conference of the Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), October 2014
54. Washington S. Cole J.C. and Herbel S.B., (2010). European advanced driver training
programs: Reasons for optimism, IATSS Research, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2011,
Pages 7279. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111211000033
55. Wood A., Duijff J.W. and Christey G.R., (2013). Quad bike injuries in Waikato, New
Zealand: an institutional review from 20072011, ANZ J Surg, 83: 206210.
oi:10.1111/ans.12106. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ans.12106/full
56. WorkSafe New Zealand, (2017) Fact Sheet - Quad Bike Summary.
http://www.worksafe.govt.nz/worksafe/information-guidance/all-guidance-items/fact-sheet-
quad-bike-summary
57. Wundersitz L.N., Doecke S.D., Raftery S.J., and Harrison J.E., (2016). "Quad bikes in South
Australia: an investigation of their use, crash characteristics and associated injury",
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide.
58. Zellner JW, Kebschull SA & Van Auken RM, (2006). Updated Injury Risk/Benefit Analysis
Of Quadbar Crush Protection Device (CPD) For All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs); DRI-TR-12-06.
59. Zellner J.W. and Kebschull S.A., (2015). Full-scale dynamic overturn tests of an ATV with
and without a Quadbar CPD using an injury-monitoring dummy. DRI-TR-15-04; Dynamic
Research, Inc.: Torrance, CA, USA
http://dri-atv-rops-research.com/download/Full-
scale%20dynamic%20overturn%20tests%20of%20an%20ATV%20with%20and%20without%20a%
20Quadbar%20CPD%20using%20an%20injury-monitoring%20dummy,%20DRI-TR-15-
04,%202015-03-12.pdf
60. Zellner J.W., Kebschull S.A., and van Auken R.M., (2012). Updated Injury Risk/Benefit
Analysis of Quadbar Crush Protection Device (CPD) for All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs),
Dynamic Research, Inc., DRI-TR-12-06-2;Torrance, CA, USA.
61. Zellner J.W. and Van Auken R.M. (1998). ATV ROPS Tests and Simulations, Report #DRI-
TR-. 98-02. California: Dynamic Research Inc.

APPENDIX A: Web Page Administering Main Survey On-Line

See web link for this page: http://www.quadbike.unsw.edu.au/.
APPENDIX B: Fleet Managers Survey











Quad Bike Workplace Safety Survey 81
APPENDIX C: Individual Workplace Riders (Main) Survey

APPENDIX D: Participant Recruitment Methods Main Survey
Recruitment Method Channel Comment

Online Promotion UNSW Web Site Web site was established at
www.quadbike.unsw.edu.au
The page detailed survey aims and
objectives, eligibility and participant
information, Frequently Asked
Questions, as well as a hot link to the
survey tool (see Appendix A).
Social Media (Facebook) A Facebook page was created and

regularly promoted to ensure its
presence on social media remained
high profile.
Links were placed on:
NSW, VIC and TAS State Emergency
Service Facebook pages for SES
volunteer members.
Farmers Connect.com.au
NSW Rural Fire Service (MIA District
and Volunteers Page)
SafeGate (NZ)
ABC Rural,
The Bulletin,
Safework Australia,
Worksafe VIC,
Central Tablelands Local Lands
Service,
ABC Western Queensland,
Farmers Connect Community,
Queensland Country Hour,
Dairy NZ,
Myosh365(NZ),
NSW Farmers
OSPRI NZ,
Beef&Lamb New Zealand,
Safework SA,
Namoi Valley Independent
Other web sites / pages A range of promotional posts, news

items and infomercials were placed
on-line (via corporate web pages) in
addition to Facebook, by organisations
such as:
Safework NSW, Worksafe Victoria,
Safework Australia,
Sydney University Centre for
Agricultural Health and Safety,
National Farmers Federation,

NSW Farmers Association, NT
Cattlemens Association,
WA Farmers Association,
VIC Farmers Federation,
Specific Commodity and other Groups:
Wool Producers (NFF)
Cotton Australia,
Aust Veterinary Assoc,
Aust Forest Products Assoc,
NSW Irrigators Council,
Rice Growers Assoc of Aust,
Primary Industry Employers Group
(TAS),
The Corporate Agriculture Group,
Pastoralist Assoc of West Darling
(QLD),
Beechworth Honey Pty Ltd (President -
Aust Apiarist Assoc)
Gates Goats Pty Ltd (President NSW-
Goat Farmers Assoc)
Grain Growers Ltd,
GrainCorp,
Dried Fruits Assoc Aust,
Animal Medicines Aust,
Live Export Council of Aust,
Summerfruit Australia,
Cattle Council of Aust,
Cane Growers Assoc,
Australian Pork Assoc,
AgForce QLD,
Future Farmers Network,
Aust Livestock and Property Agents
Assoc,
SafetySolutions.net.au
Farm Online,
The Australian Dairy Farmer,
Stock and Land,
Safety Culture,
Farm Weekly
Print Media Newspapers and on-line Promotional articles were published in

news services The Land NSW (5),
Lismore Northern Star,
Daily News Tweed Heads,
Condobilin Argus,
WA Regional Newspapers,
SA Country Newspapers,
Vic Regional Newspapers,
Qld Regional Newspapers,
Tasmanian Examiner
Weekly Times VIC (2)
Namoi Valley Independent (NSW) (2)
Various ABC Radio websites (as per
radio items)
Magazines (and on-line) Promotion in magazines such as:

Australian Dairy Farmer, Northern
Dairy farmer magazines,
Bikepoint (Motorbike sales magazine)
4x4 Australia Magazine
Australian Farm On-line magazine
ATV Australia Magazine and on-line
Australian Trade Farm Machinery (on-
line)
Radio ABC and other Radio Interviews were carried out with TARS
Team members (mainly Prof. Grzebieta
& Mr. Keith Simmons). A number of
stations posted the survey link.
ABC National
ABC Drive (Sydney) Richard Glover
ABC South East (Simon Lauder) NSW
ABC Western Qld
2NM Muswellbrook NSW
ABC Ballarat VIC
ABC Illawarra, NSW
ABC Northern Tasmania
ABC Country Hour
ABC Rural (Sarina Locke)
ABC Western Plains NSW
ABC South West WA
ABC New England (Tamworth) NSW
Quad Bike Users Quad Bike Tour WORIMI Aboriginal Land Council
Operators were (Quad Bike Adventures, Nelsons Bay
approached to encourage Rd Williamtown NSW;
all staff to undertake the Outback Quad Adventures, Undoolya
survey Station NT;
Tassie Quad Adventures Pty Ltd;
Grampians Quad Bike Tours VIC;
Kalbarri Quad Bike Safari (WA)
Wagoe Tours, (WA)
Down and Dirty Quad Bike Tours,
Kuranda (QLD)
Noosa Quad Bike Tours (QLD)
Waitpinga Quad Bike Tours (SA)
Hills Quad bike tours (SA)
Agricultural Field Griffith Field Days Discuss Quad bike safety, promote
Days AGQUIP (Gunnedah) survey, distribute flyers, encourage
Henty Field Days attendees to complete hard copy survey
Aust. National Field on-site.
Days (Orange)
Direct Email Quadbar and ATV OPD Manufacturers were approached

Lifeguard and asked to email or write to their
manufacturers known customer base and request they
complete the survey. A standard form
letter was provided. Although some
10,000 OPD have been sold in
Australia, this approach did not result
in as many responses as hoped, largely
because many devices are sold to Quad
bike retailers or motorcycle / farm
machinery accessory shops and then
on-sold to the end user without a follow
up contact address provided to the
OEM.

APPENDIX E: Quad Bike Tour Company Event Data Survey Results
SUMMARY OF EVENT DATA COMMERCIAL QUAD BIKE TOUR OPERATOR

OPERATOR PROTECTION DEVICE (OPD) EFFICACY STUDY
For the period 2014 2016, there were 188 Quad bike related incident reports supplied by
the Tour Operator. Of these, one was for a cut finger (stated that it most likely occurred
before the tour) which was not entered in the crash/event data and one report involved two
rollovers by the same rider on the same tour. These two crashes were entered separately,
so there are 188 events of interest. The data recorded is as follows:
Year of Incident
Reported:
2014 = 17
2015 = 113
2016 = 58
Total = 188
Sex of Rider.
Sex was identified from within the text of the report. Where the report is not specific,
Unknown was assigned.
Male = 49
Female = 79
Unknown = 60
Riding Experience.
This item identifies the number of Quad bike Tours the rider has undertaken. It does not
include or infer any previous Quad bike riding experience the rider may have had.
First Tour = 175

Second Tour = 9
More than Two Tours = 4
Crash Location.
Crash location was coded to represent the general conditions where the event occurred.
The Beach is generally flat, hard sand, the Bush Track describes an area where the rider is
channelled on both sides by bush on a non-sand surface, the Sand Track includes trails that
have bush on one or both sides, open loose sand areas with clearly defined straight and
winding tracks and some sharp curves with steep super-elevation on the outside of the turn.
The Road or Pavement is self-evident.
BEACH 25
BUSH TRACK 1
SAND TRACK 156
ROAD OR PAVEMENT 6
Crash Initiation.
The crash initiator was coded to be rate of turning, slope of ground or other. Many
crashes occurred during a turn, but were caused by the vehicle slowing or stopping on
super-elevation, causing the Quad bike to tip over onto its side. These were deemed slope
related crashes.
OTHER = 59
SLOPE = 108
TURN = 21
Crash Type.
The crash type was coded to reflect what actually occurred. Other crash types mainly
consisted of dumb thumb events into the ocean, or a similar near miss event that did not
involve an impact, rollover or the rider falling/jumping off.
Fell/Thrown/Jumped 24
Impact Other (Fence) 4
Impact Other (Hedge) 1
Impact Other (Logs) 4
Impact Other (Person) 1
Impact Other (Post) 1
Impact Other (Quad) 6
Impact Other (Sand) 1
Impact Other (Stump) 9
Impact Other (Table) 1
Impact Other (Tree) 5
Roll Over Backward 3
Roll Over Left 1/4 74
Roll Over Right 1/4 43
Roll Over Right 4/4 1
Other Crash/Event 10
Total 188
Note: The number of left side rollovers exceeds right side rollovers due to the direction
tours take along a formed track. More curves with steep super-elevation are approached so
the turn is to the left than to the right. Hence, if the vehicle slows or stops, the Quad bike
falls to its left side more than on its right side.
Rollover:
Did the Quad bike roll over as an outcome of the incident?
Rolled Over in 136 events

Remained upright in 48 events
Unknown were 4
Injured Body Regions:
Injuries to body regions were identified from text descriptions of the incident.
LEGS = 5
ARMS = 5
SHOULDER = 1
UNKNOWN = 1
NIL = 176
Medical Aid Provided at the scene or afterward:
First Aid Only = 3

Treated by Ambulance or ParaMedic = 5
Unknown = 1
NIL = 177
OPD Protected Rider From Injury:
The tour leader identified in the incident report whether, in their opinion, the OPD had
protected the rider from more serious injury.
YES = 137
NOT APPLICABLE = 51
NO = 0
Note: There is one more event where the OPD protected the rider than there are rollover
events recorded. One crash, where the OPD prevented another Quad bike from riding up
over the rear of the leading vehicle and impacting the rider, is included here.


Figure E1: Every participant receives pre tour safety briefing regardless of experience.

Figure E2: Every rider is tested in emergency braking regardless of age or experience.
Figure E3: Every rider tested in steering and active riding prior to tour.
Figure E4: Riders given individual attention by tour leader as required.

Figure E5: Sharp left turn with super elevation - riders that stop here cause Quad bike to
fall to left side.
Figure E5: Sharp left turn with super elevation - riders that stop here cause Quad bike to
fall to left side
APPENDIX F: Sub-Study (ii): Fleet Managers Survey Results

Table F1: Results indicating company location, number of Quad bikes, OPDs and rollover crashes.
Location Num. of Quads with OPDs Number of Rollover Crashes
Company (state/Country) Quads Quadbar Lifeguard Other No OPD OPD OPD Type Total
1 New South Wales / ACT 8 8 0 0 0 0 0
2 New South Wales / ACT 100 100 0 0 2 2 Quadbar 4
3 New South Wales / ACT 10 9 1 0 0 1 Quadbar 1
5 Victoria 8 8 0 0 2 2 Quadbar 4
6 South Australia 5 0 3 0 0 1 Lifeguard 1
7 Tasmania 10 6 4 0 0 1 Quadbar 1
8 Qld, Tas, WA, NT 23 0 23 0 0 0 0
10 Queensland 12 0 12 0 0 0 0
11 Tasmania 9 0 5 0 3 0 3
12 Tasmania 55 12 35 0 1 1 Unknown 2
Aus Total (255) (157) (83) (0) (11) (8) (19)
13 New Zealand 3 0 3 0 1 0 1
14 New Zealand 160 0 60 0 43 1 Lifeguard 44
15 New Zealand 4 0 4 0 1 0 1
16 New Zealand 14 10 0 4 1 3 Quadbar 4
NZ Total (181) (10) (67) (4) (46) (4) (50)
Total All 436 167 150 4 57 12 69
321
Table F2: Results of Sub-study (ii) (Fleet Managers Survey) detailing number of rollover crash injuries and hospitalisations.
Rollover Crash Injury Details
No OPD (115 vehicles) OPD (321 vehicles)
Company No Minor Attended Admitted Permanent Death No Minor Attended Admitted Permanent Death
Injury Injury Hospital to Disability Injury Injury Hospital to Disability
Hospital Hospital
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Aus Total (7) (1) (2) (1) - - (2) - (4) (2) - -
13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 30 4 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
NZ Total (33) (4) (9) - - - (4) - - - - -
Total All 40 5 11 1 0 0 6 0 4 2 0 0

The following eight photographs (Figure F1 to Figure F4) relate to the serious injury
(hospitalisation) incident reported by one of the fleet managers from the Fleet Managers
Survey (Sub-study (ii)).

Figure F1: Side views of Quad bike with bent Quadbar resulting from pitch rollover crash
Figure F2: Front and rear view of Quad bike with bent Quadbar resulting from pitch rollover crash
Figure F3: Paddock (grassland) terrain where Quad bike shown in Figure F1 and Figure F2
crashed
Figure F4: Paddock (grassland) terrain where Quad bike shown in Figure F1 and Figure F2
crashed. Top: Close up of undulation showing tyre marks where Quad bike
launched and pitched such that it travelled upside down rearwards with the
rider trapped in the triangle survival space shown in Figure 4. Bottom: side view
of undulation.
APPENDIX G: Sub-Study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders Survey Results

Table G1: Responses from the Individual Workplace Riders Survey.
(*note: Total includes unknown nationality)
Total* Australia New Zealand
Variable
Number % Number % Number %
Gender
Female 378 24.5% 174 24.4% 202 24.4%
Male 1,168 75.5% 538 75.6% 625 75.6%
Nationality
Australian 712 46.1% - - - -
New Zealander 827 53.5% - - - -
Unknown 7 0.5% - - - -
Age (Years)
18 - 25 137 8.9% 78 11.0% 57 6.9%
25 - 39 384 24.8% 168 23.6% 214 25.9%
40 - 49 327 21.2% 147 20.6% 177 21.4%
50 - 59 328 21.2% 151 21.2% 177 21.4%
60 - 69 286 18.5% 127 17.8% 159 19.2%
70+ 84 5.4% 41 5.8% 43 5.2%
Height (cm)
0 -164 161 10.4% 70 9.8% 90 10.9%
165 - 179 638 41.3% 296 41.6% 341 41.2%
180 - 194 655 42.4% 308 43.3% 343 41.5%
195 + 68 4.4% 27 3.8% 40 4.8%
Unknown 24 1.6% 11 1.5% 13 1.6%
Weight (kg)
0-64 111 7.2% 54 7.6% 56 6.8%
65-84 567 36.7% 254 35.7% 309 37.4%
85-109 694 44.9% 315 44.2% 377 45.6%
110 + 157 10.2% 81 11.4% 76 9.2%
Unknown 17 1.1% 8 1.1% 9 1.1%
Hours Per Day

Less than 2 318 20.6% 163 22.9% 152 18.4%
2 to 3 625 40.4% 300 42.1% 325 39.3%
4 to 5 434 28.1% 186 26.1% 246 29.7%
6 or more 167 10.8% 62 8.7% 103 12.5%
Unknown 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%

Table G1: Responses from the Individual Workplace Riders Survey (continued).

Variable
Days per Week

1 or less 115 7.4% 75 10.5% 39 4.7%
2 or 3 200 12.9% 133 18.7% 67 8.1%
4 or 5 240 15.5% 140 19.7% 99 12.0%
6 177 11.4% 66 9.3% 110 13.3%
7 812 52.5% 297 41.7% 511 61.8%
Unknown 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%
Experience (Years)
Less than 1 18 1.2% 13 1.8% 5 0.6%
1 to less than 3 44 2.8% 23 3.2% 21 2.5%
3 to less than 5 70 4.5% 45 6.3% 23 2.8%
5 to less than 10 172 11.1% 101 14.2% 70 8.5%
10 to less than 15 203 13.1% 114 16.0% 87 10.5%
15 to less than 20 278 18.0% 130 18.3% 147 17.8%
20 + 756 48.9% 285 40.0% 470 56.8%
Unknown 5 0.3% 1 0.1% 4 0.5%
Activity (can select all)

Mustering (gathering livestock) 1,199 77.6% 586 82.3% 608 73.5%
Spraying 1,066 69.0% 513 72.1% 548 66.3%
Riding Between Tasks 1,377 89.1% 616 86.5% 754 91.2%
Observations 1,364 88.2% 638 89.6% 720 87.1%
Towing a Trailer 1,144 74.0% 423 59.4% 715 86.5%
Spreading Fertiliser 387 25.0% 65 9.1% 320 38.7%
Other 207 13.4% 84 11.8% 123 14.9%
Unknown 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%
Load
No 218 14.1% 136 19.1% 82 9.9%
Front and Rear 1,221 79.0% 529 74.3% 685 82.8%
Front Only 10 0.6% 6 0.8% 4 0.5%
Rear Only 95 6.1% 40 5.6% 55 6.7%
Knowledge of Load Limits

No 521 39.3% 190 33.0% 328 44.1%
Yes 799 60.3% 384 66.8% 411 55.2%
Unknown 6 0.5% 1 0.2% 5 0.7%
No 521 39.3% 190 33.0% 328 44.1%


Variable
Exceed Load Limits

No 465 35.1% 244 42.4% 218 29.3%
Yes 407 30.7% 167 29.0% 239 32.1%
Unknown 454 34.2% 164 28.5% 287 38.6%
Make
Polaris 100 6.5% 81 11.4% 18 2.2%
Honda 795 51.4% 328 46.1% 463 56.0%
Yamaha 185 12.0% 114 16.0% 69 8.3%
Suzuki 268 17.3% 86 12.1% 182 22.0%
Kawasaki 51 3.3% 32 4.5% 19 2.3%
Can-Am 113 7.3% 42 5.9% 71 8.6%
Other 28 1.8% 26 3.7% 2 0.2%
Unknown 6 0.4% 3 0.4% 3 0.4%
Engine Size (cc)

250 or less 88 5.7% 65 9.1% 23 2.8%
251 - 400 437 28.3% 227 31.9% 209 25.3%
401 - 550 837 54.1% 317 44.5% 514 62.2%
551 - 700 134 8.7% 78 11.0% 56 6.8%
700 + 42 2.7% 20 2.8% 22 2.7%
Use of Active Riding Techniques

No 203 13.1% 102 14.3% 100 12.1%
Yes 1,339 86.6% 607 85.3% 726 87.8%
Unknown 4 0.3% 3 0.4% 1 0.1%
Average Speed (km/h)

0 - 15 389 25.2% 192 27.0% 197 23.8%
16 - 25 674 43.6% 301 42.3% 370 44.7%
26 - 35 316 20.4% 132 18.5% 184 22.2%
36 - 55 127 8.2% 71 10.0% 55 6.7%
56 - 75 14 0.9% 6 0.8% 7 0.8%
76 or more 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%
Unknown 24 1.6% 9 1.3% 13 1.6%
0 - 15 389 25.2% 192 27.0% 197 23.8%


Variable
Average (Max) Speed (km/h)

0 - 15 46 3.0% 26 3.7% 20 2.4%
16 - 25 223 14.4% 93 13.1% 129 15.6%
26 - 35 409 26.5% 173 24.3% 235 28.4%
36 - 55 532 34.4% 240 33.7% 291 35.2%
56 - 75 253 16.4% 138 19.4% 113 13.7%
76 or more 69 4.5% 36 5.1% 32 3.9%
Unknown 14 0.9% 6 0.8% 7 0.8%
Training (can select all)

Self Taught (no training) 1,162 75.2% 556 78.1% 599 72.4%
Employer/fellow worker
238 15.4% 86 12.1% 151 18.3%
(on farm training)
Theoretical Training (DVD, Manual,
160 10.3% 99 13.9% 60 7.3%
online)
Hands on Training from dealer 160 10.3% 70 9.8% 88 10.6%
Formal training from Registered Training
357 23.1% 93 13.1% 264 31.9%
Organisation
Other 99 6.4% 43 6.0% 56 6.8%
Unknown 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%
Training (Individual Type)

Self Taught (No Training) 763 49.4% 397 55.8% 361 43.7%
Employer/fellow worker
116 7.5% 56 7.9% 60 7.3%
(on the farm training)
Theoretical Training
93 6.0% 63 8.8% 30 3.6%
(DVD, Manual, online)
Hands on Training from dealer 75 4.9% 35 4.9% 40 4.8%
Formal training from Registered Training
250 16.2% 72 10.1% 178 21.5%
Organisation
Other Training Combination/Unknown 249 16.1% 89 12.5% 158 19.1%
Passengers
Single Seat - Never carry Passenger 408 26.4% 256 36.0% 151 18.3%
Single Seat - Sometimes carry Pass. 990 64.0% 376 52.8% 610 73.8%
Two Seater - Sometimes carry Pass. 146 9.4% 79 11.1% 65 7.9%


Variable
OPD Type
Quadbar 108 59.3% 76 67.9% 32 45.7%
Lifeguard 42 23.1% 30 26.8% 12 17.1%
T-Bar 7 3.8% 1 0.9% 6 8.6%
Other 25 13.7% 5 4.5% 20 28.6%
Total 182 100% 112 100% 70 100%
How did the OPD make performing work tasks

Very Difficult - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Difficult 11 6.0% 10 8.9% 1 1.4%
No Difference 141 77.5% 87 77.7% 54 77.1%
Easy 15 8.2% 6 5.4% 9 12.9%
Very Easy 15 8.2% 9 8.0% 6 8.6%
Reason for OPD Fitment (can select all)

Company Policy 63 34.6% 38 33.9% 25 35.7%
Previous Rollover Experience 22 12.1% 12 10.7% 10 14.3%
Concerned about Safety 110 60.4% 75 67.0% 35 50.0%
Came with it Fitted 8 4.4% 3 2.7% 5 7.1%
Other 13 7.1% 5 4.5% 8 11.4%
Reason for No OPD Fitment (can select all)

Can't be fitted to type of quad bike 37 2.7% 24 4.0% 13 1.7%
Not considered it 577 42.4% 243 40.6% 328 43.4%
Concerned about the cost 135 9.9% 79 13.2% 55 7.3%
I think they are Unsafe 425 31.2% 164 27.4% 261 34.5%
Other 380 27.9% 191 31.9% 188 24.9%
Access to Helmet
No 210 13.6% 164 23.0% 46 5.6%
Yes, I have my own 882 57.1% 368 51.7% 511 61.8%
Yes, there is one that I can use 452 29.2% 179 25.1% 269 32.5%
Unknown 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%
Helmet Use
Never 317 20.5% 181 25.4% 133 16.1%
Rarely 217 14.0% 99 13.9% 117 14.1%
Sometimes 196 12.7% 80 11.2% 115 13.9%
Usually 230 14.9% 78 11.0% 151 18.3%
Always 374 24.2% 109 15.3% 264 31.9%
Unknown 212 13.7% - - - -

Variable
Helmet Type
Bicycle Helmet 22 1.6% 14 2.6% 8 1.0%
Equestrian Helmet 31 2.3% 22 4.0% 9 1.2%
Motorcycle Helmet - Full Face 234 17.5% 206 37.7% 26 3.3%
Motorcycle Helmet - Open Face 331 24.8% 222 40.6% 107 13.7%
Quad bike Specific Helmet 645 48.4% 48 8.8% 594 76.2%
Other 54 4.0% 24 4.4% 30 3.8%
Unknown 17 1.3% 11 2.0% 6 0.8%
Helmet Use for Task

I wear a helmet when riding
recreationally 238 17.8% - - - -
I wear a helmet when riding
competitively / spirited riding 103 7.7% - - - -
I wear a helmet when I am working 518 38.8% - - - -
I only wear a helmet for specific tasks
when I am working 418 31.3% - - - -
Other 209 15.7% - - - -
Total 1334 - - - - -
Helmet Used During Crash?

No, I was not wearing a helmet 1108 77.5% 534 81.8% 569 74.0%
Yes, I was wearing it correctly 300 21.0% 111 17.0% 187 24.3%
Yes, but had not secured chin strap 21 1.5% 7 1.1% 13 1.7%
Unknown 1 0.1% 1 0.2% 0 0.0%
Type of Helmet Used During Crash (Worn incorrectly and Correctly)

Bicycle helmet 4 1.2% 2 1.7% 2 1.0%
Equestrian helmet 4 1.2% 3 2.5% 1 0.5%
Motorcycle helmet (full face type) 51 15.9% 42 35.6% 9 4.5%
Motorcycle helmet (open face type) 99 30.8% 62 52.5% 37 18.5%
Quad bike specific helmet* 155 48.3% 6 5.1% 146 73.0%
Other 5 1.6% 3 2.5% 2 1.0%
Unknown 3 0.9% 0 0.0% 3 1.5%



Variable
Industry (can select all)

Sheep 630 40.8% 275 38.6% 351 42.4%
Beef Cattle 800 51.7% 418 58.7% 378 45.7%
Dairy Cattle 441 28.5% 77 10.8% 362 43.8%
Cropping 227 14.7% 150 21.1% 77 9.3%
Horticulture 101 6.5% 45 6.3% 55 6.7%
Other 194 12.5% 105 14.7% 88 10.6%
Industry Combined
Plant based industry 120 7.8% 66 9.3% 53 6.4%
Mixed 241 15.6% 148 20.8% 92 11.1%
Animal based industry 1,095 70.8% 451 63.3% 639 77.3%
Other 90 5.8% 47 6.6% 43 5.2%
Number of Crashes
0 761 49.2% 345 48.5% 413 49.9%
1 353 22.8% 171 24.0% 181 21.9%
2 219 14.2% 106 14.9% 111 13.4%
3+ 213 13.8% 90 12.6% 122 14.8%
Total 1,546 100% 712 100% 827 100%
Table G2: Crash Characteristics from the Individual Workplace Riders Survey.
(*note: Total includes unknown nationality)
Crashes Characteristics (all) Crashes Characteristics (Australia) Crashes Characteristics (NZ)
Total* all Serious Total all Serious Total all Serious
Variable Crashes All Injury Crashes All Injury Crashes All Injury
(no injury Injury Crashes (no injury Injury Crashes (no injury Injury Crashes
+ injury) % Crashes % (hospital) % + injury) % Crashes % (hospital) % + injury) % Crashes % (hospital) %
Nationality
Australia 653 42.2% 163 57.0% 47 62.7%
New Zealand 769 49.7% 120 42.0% 27 36.0%
Unknown 8 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 1.3%
Total 1,430 100.0% 286 100.0% 75 100%
Gender
Female 225 15.7% 53 18.5% 15 20.0% 121 18.5% 36 22.1% 10 21.3% 102 13.3% 16 13.3% 5 18.5%
Male 1,205 84.3% 233 81.5% 60 80.0% 532 81.5% 127 77.9% 37 78.7% 667 86.7% 104 86.7% 22 81.5%
Age (Years)
18 - 24 103 7.2% 17 5.9% 8 10.7% 67 10.3% 11 6.7% 5 10.6% 33 4.3% 5 4.2% 3 11.1%
25 - 39 360 25.2% 61 21.3% 17 22.7% 155 23.7% 29 17.8% 9 19.1% 205 26.7% 32 26.7% 8 29.6%
40-49 331 23.1% 69 24.1% 15 20.0% 143 21.9% 40 24.5% 9 19.1% 183 23.8% 27 22.5% 5 18.5%
50-59 313 21.9% 65 22.7% 13 17.3% 139 21.3% 38 23.3% 8 17.0% 174 22.6% 27 22.5% 5 18.5%
60 - 69 235 16.4% 49 17.1% 16 21.3% 111 17.0% 28 17.2% 11 23.4% 124 16.1% 21 17.5% 5 18.5%
70 + 88 6.2% 25 8.7% 6 8.0% 38 5.8% 17 10.4% 5 10.6% 50 6.5% 8 6.7% 1 3.7%
Height (cm)
0 -164 115 8.0% 26 9.1% 5 6.7% 56 8.6% 18 11.0% 3 6.4% 59 7.7% 8 6.7% 2 7.4%
165 - 179 546 38.2% 130 45.5% 34 45.3% 260 39.8% 80 49.1% 22 46.8% 284 36.9% 49 40.8% 12 44.4%
180 - 194 679 47.5% 110 38.5% 30 40.0% 298 45.6% 53 32.5% 16 34.0% 375 48.8% 55 45.8% 13 48.1%
195 + 72 5.0% 17 5.9% 4 5.3% 31 4.7% 9 5.5% 4 8.5% 41 5.3% 8 6.7% - 0.0%
Unknown 18 1.3% 3 1.0% 2 2.7% 8 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 4.3% 10 1.3% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Table G2: Crash Characteristics from the Individual Workplace Riders Survey (continued).

Total* all All Serious Total all All Serious Total all All Serious
Variable Crashes Injury Injury Crashes Injury Injury Crashes Injury Injury
(no injury Crashe Crashes (no injury Crashe Crashes (no injury Crashe Crashes
+ injury) % s % (hospital) % + injury) % s % (hospital) % + injury) % s % (hospital) %
Weight (kg)
0-64 73 5.1% 16 5.6% 4 5.3% 36 5.5% 10 6.1% 3 6.4% 37 4.8% 6 5.0% 1 3.7%
65-84 447 31.3% 82 28.7% 19 25.3% 210 32.2% 51 31.3% 15 31.9% 232 30.2% 29 24.2% 4 14.8%
85-109 732 51.2% 148 51.7% 44 58.7% 310 47.5% 76 46.6% 23 48.9% 419 54.5% 71 59.2% 20 74.1%
110 + 170 11.9% 38 13.3% 8 10.7% 89 13.6% 24 14.7% 6 12.8% 81 10.5% 14 11.7% 2 7.4%
Unknown 8 0.6% 2 0.7% - 0.0% 8 1.2% 2 1.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Experience (Years)
Less than 1 5 0.3% 3 1.0% 2 2.7% 3 0.5% 2 1.2% 2 4.3% 2 0.3% 1 0.8% - 0.0%
1 to less than 3 12 0.8% 4 1.4% 2 2.7% 8 1.2% 3 1.8% 1 2.1% 4 0.5% 1 0.8% 1 3.7%
3 to less than 5 29 2.0% 5 1.7% 2 2.7% 24 3.7% 2 1.2% 1 2.1% 3 0.4% 2 1.7% 1 3.7%
5 to less than 10 114 8.0% 25 8.7% 3 4.0% 77 11.8% 20 12.3% 2 4.3% 37 4.8% 5 4.2% 1 3.7%
10 to less than 15 182 12.7% 31 10.8% 13 17.3% 115 17.6% 21 12.9% 9 19.1% 64 8.3% 9 7.5% 4 14.8%
15 to less than 20 270 18.9% 44 15.4% 13 17.3% 121 18.5% 25 15.3% 4 8.5% 148 19.2% 18 15.0% 8 29.6%
20 + 813 56.9% 174 60.8% 40 53.3% 305 46.7% 90 55.2% 28 59.6% 506 65.8% 84 70.0% 12 44.4%
Unknown 5 0.3% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 5 0.7% - 0.0% - 0.0%


Activity (can select all)

Mustering 727 50.8% 156 54.5% 43 57.3% 373 57.1% 93 57.1% 26 55.3% 350 45.5% 61 50.8% 16 59.3%
Other Stock work 33 2.3% 7 2.4% 1 1.3% 7 1.1% 4 2.5% 1 2.1% 26 3.4% 3 2.5% - 0.0%
Spraying 110 7.7% 18 6.3% 3 4.0% 60 9.2% 10 6.1% 3 6.4% 50 6.5% 8 6.7% - 0.0%
Ride between tasks 315 22.0% 60 21.0% 17 22.7% 106 16.2% 28 17.2% 8 17.0% 207 26.9% 31 25.8% 9 33.3%
Observations while
Riding 196 13.7% 43 15.0% 10 13.3% 98 15.0% 28 17.2% 8 17.0% 96 12.5% 14 11.7% 2 7.4%
Towing 64 4.5% 8 2.8% 2 2.7% 15 2.3% 3 1.8% 1 2.1% 48 6.2% 5 4.2% 1 3.7%
Other 87 6.1% 18 6.3% 4 5.3% 41 6.3% 11 6.7% 3 6.4% 46 6.0% 7 5.8% 1 3.7%
Unknown 1 0.1% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Rollover
No 442 30.9% 83 29.0% 12 16.0% 240 36.8% 55 33.7% 8 17.0% 199 25.9% 27 22.5% 3 11.1%
Yes 963 67.3% 196 68.5% 61 81.3% 406 62.2% 104 63.8% 37 78.7% 552 71.8% 90 75.0% 24 88.9%
Unknown 25 1.7% 7 2.4% 2 2.7% 7 1.1% 4 2.5% 2 4.3% 18 2.3% 3 2.5% - 0.0%
Rolled over Rider

No 1,166 81.5% 175 61.2% 35 46.7% 534 81.8% 99 60.7% 21 44.7% 626 81.4% 74 61.7% 14 51.9%
Yes 258 18.0% 109 38.1% 39 52.0% 116 17.8% 63 38.7% 25 53.2% 140 18.2% 45 37.5% 13 48.1%
Unknown 6 0.4% 2 0.7% 1 1.3% 3 0.5% 1 0.6% 1 2.1% 3 0.4% 1 0.8% - 0.0%


Separation
Stay 567 39.7% 99 34.6% 26 34.7% 279 42.7% 61 37.4% 15 31.9% 287 37.3% 38 31.7% 11 40.7%
Jump / Thrown 848 59.3% 184 64.3% 48 64.0% 371 56.8% 101 62.0% 31 66.0% 470 61.1% 80 66.7% 16 59.3%
Unknown 15 1.0% 3 1.0% 1 1.3% 3 0.5% 1 0.6% 1 2.1% 12 1.6% 2 1.7% - 0.0%
Position
Sitting 1,005 70.3% 220 76.9% 55 73.3% 467 71.5% 123 75.5% 34 534 534 69.4% 96 80.0% 21 77.8%
Standing 326 22.8% 43 15.0% 13 17.3% 146 22.4% 29 17.8% 9 177 177 23.0% 13 10.8% 3 11.1%
Unknown 99 6.9% 23 8.0% 7 9.3% 40 6.1% 11 6.7% 4 58 58 7.5% 11 9.2% 3 11.1%
Active Riding
No 775 54.2% 186 65.0% 44 58.7% 374 57.3% 110 67.5% 30 397 397 51.6% 75 62.5% 14 51.9%
Yes 639 44.7% 94 32.9% 29 38.7% 273 41.8% 50 30.7% 15 363 363 47.2% 43 35.8% 13 48.1%
Unknown 16 1.1% 6 2.1% 2 2.7% 6 0.9% 3 1.8% 2 9 9 1.2% 2 1.7% - 0.0%
Prior Personal Injury

No 1,362 95.2% 265 92.7% 69 92.0% 610 93.4% 146 89.6% 42 745 745 96.9% 116 96.7% 26 96.3%
Yes 67 4.7% 21 7.3% 6 8.0% 42 6.4% 17 10.4% 5 24 24 3.1% 4 3.3% 1 3.7%
Unknown 1 0.1% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.2% - 0.0% - - - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%


Concentration
Riding 224 15.7% 33 11.5% 9 12.0% 64 9.8% 11 6.7% 3 160 160 20.8% 22 18.3% 6 22.2%
Split 563 39.4% 113 39.5% 30 40.0% 272 41.7% 69 42.3% 20 288 288 37.5% 43 35.8% 9 33.3%
Work 637 44.5% 137 47.9% 34 45.3% 312 47.8% 81 49.7% 22 320 320 41.6% 54 45.0% 12 44.4%
Unknown 6 0.4% 3 1.0% 2 2.7% 5 0.8% 2 1.2% 2 1 1 0.1% 1 0.8% - 0.0%
Engine Size (cc)

< 250 100 7.0% 27 9.4% 7 9.3% 64 9.8% 19 11.7% 6 12.8% 35 4.6% 8 6.7% 1 3.7%
251 - 400 533 37.3% 118 41.3% 28 37.3% 260 39.8% 68 41.7% 20 42.6% 273 35.5% 50 41.7% 8 29.6%
401 - 550 653 45.7% 108 37.8% 30 40.0% 262 40.1% 56 34.4% 16 34.0% 385 50.1% 50 41.7% 13 48.1%
551 - 700 91 6.4% 20 7.0% 6 8.0% 46 7.0% 14 8.6% 4 8.5% 44 5.7% 5 4.2% 2 7.4%
701 + 37 2.6% 12 4.2% 4 5.3% 18 2.8% 5 3.1% 1 2.1% 19 2.5% 7 5.8% 3 11.1%
Unknown 16 1.1% 1 0.3% - 0.0% 3 0.5% 1 0.6% - 0.0% 13 1.7% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Initiator
Ditch 140 9.8% 22 7.7% 6 8.0% 80 12.3% 15 9.2% 6 12.8% 60 7.8% 7 5.8% - 0.0%
Fell off Ledge or
197 13.8% 37 12.9% 12 16.0% 60 9.2% 19 11.7% 7 14.9% 137 17.8% 18 15.0% 5 18.5%
Embankment
Impacted a Fixed
Object
347 24.3% 83 29.0% 17 22.7% 220 33.7% 65 39.9% 14 29.8% 126 16.4% 18 15.0% 3 11.1%
Bump 255 17.8% 48 16.8% 14 18.7% 94 14.4% 18 11.0% 5 10.6% 156 20.3% 27 22.5% 8 29.6%
Turning 165 11.5% 22 7.7% 9 12.0% 80 12.3% 13 8.0% 6 12.8% 84 10.9% 9 7.5% 3 11.1%
Other 326 22.8% 74 25.9% 17 22.7% 119 18.2% 33 20.2% 9 19.1% 206 26.8% 41 34.2% 8 29.6%

Direction of Travel
Forwards 1,319 92.2% 270 93.4% 69 92.0% 609 93.3% 157 96.3% 44 93.6% 702 91.3% 110 91.7% 24 88.9%
Stationary 27 1.9% 3 1.0% - 0.0% 8 1.2% - - 19 2.5% 3 2.5% -
Backwards 83 5.8% 16 5.6% 6 8.0% 35 5.4% 6 3.7% 3 6.4% 48 6.2% 7 5.8% 3 11.1%
Unknown 1 0.1% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Speed (km/h)
0-15 897 62.7% 129 45.1% 32 42.7% 347 53.1% 64 39.3% 19 40.4% 546 71.0% 65 54.2% 13 48.1%
16-35 418 29.2% 119 41.6% 31 41.3% 247 37.8% 79 48.5% 19 40.4% 168 21.8% 38 31.7% 11 40.7%
36+ 93 6.5% 28 9.8% 7 9.3% 43 6.6% 14 8.6% 6 12.8% 49 6.4% 13 10.8% 1 3.7%
Unknown 22 1.5% 10 3.5% 5 6.7% 16 2.5% 6 3.7% 3 6.4% 6 0.8% 4 3.3% 2 7.4%
Time Riding Prior (hours)

<2 699 48.9% 146 51.0% 48 64.0% 336 51.5% 87 53.4% 33 70.2% 358 46.6% 57 47.5% 14 51.9%
2-3 472 33.0% 81 28.3% 14 18.7% 219 33.5% 50 30.7% 9 19.1% 251 32.6% 31 25.8% 5 18.5%
4+ 257 18.0% 58 20.3% 13 17.3% 97 14.9% 26 16.0% 5 10.6% 159 20.7% 31 25.8% 8 29.6%
Unknown 2 0.1% 1 0.3% - 0.0% 1 0.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.1% 1 0.8% - 0.0%


Total* all Serious Total all Serious Total all All Serious
Variable Crashes All Injury Crashes All Injury Crashes Injury Injury
(no injury Injury Crashes (no injury Injury Crashes (no injury Crashe Crashes
+ injury) % Crashes % (hospital) % + injury) % Crashes % (hospital) % + injury) % s % (hospital) %
Surface
Loose Material 79 5.5% 16 5.6% 3 4.0% 41 6.3% 7 4.3% 3 6.4% 37 4.8% 8 6.7% - 0.0%
Mud 138 9.7% 20 7.0% 5 6.7% 45 6.9% 9 5.5% 2 4.3% 93 12.1% 11 9.2% 3 11.1%
Paddock (grass) 1,023 71.5% 194 67.8% 48 64.0% 480 73.5% 118 72.4% 32 68.1% 538 70.0% 74 61.7% 15 55.6%
Sand 19 1.3% 4 1.4% 1 1.3% 16 2.5% 4 2.5% 1 2.1% 3 0.4% 8 6.7% - 0.0%
Sealed Road 31 2.2% 12 4.2% 5 6.7% 12 1.8% 4 2.5% 2 4.3% 19 2.5% 18 15.0% 3 11.1%
Unsealed Road 134 9.4% 38 13.3% 12 16.0% 55 8.4% 20 12.3% 7 14.9% 77 10.0% 1 0.8% 5 18.5%
Unknown 6 0.4% 2 0.7% 1 1.3% 4 0.6% 1 0.6% - 0.0% 2 0.3% - 0.0% 1 3.7%
Surface Smoothness
Relatively Smooth 433 30.3% 81 28.3% 18 24.0% 165 25.3% 44 27.0% 12 25.5% 266 34.6% 37 30.8% 6 22.2%
Isolated Bumps 430 30.1% 97 33.9% 26 34.7% 199 30.5% 53 32.5% 16 34.0% 229 29.8% 42 35.0% 9 33.3%
Uneven/Rough 491 34.3% 94 32.9% 26 34.7% 252 38.6% 61 37.4% 18 38.3% 236 30.7% 33 27.5% 8 29.6%
Corrugated/Rough 75 5.2% 14 4.9% 5 6.7% 36 5.5% 5 3.1% 1 2.1% 38 4.9% 8 6.7% 4 14.8%
Unknown 1 0.1% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Slope
Relatively Flat 530 37.1% 124 43.4% 32 42.7% 290 44.4% 79 48.5% 25 53.2% 237 30.8% 44 36.7% 6 22.2%
Rolling or gentle 376 26.3% 69 24.1% 18 24.0% 170 26.0% 38 23.3% 11 23.4% 203 26.4% 29 24.2% 7 25.9%
Hilly or steep 497 34.8% 83 29.0% 24 32.0% 168 25.7% 37 22.7% 10 21.3% 327 42.5% 46 38.3% 14 51.9%
Unknown 27 1.9% 10 3.5% 1 1.3% 25 3.8% 9 5.5% 1 2.1% 2 0.3% 1 0.8% - 0.0%


Total* all Serious Total all Serious Total all All Serious
Variable Crashes All Injury Crashes All Injury Crashes Injury Injury
(no injury Injury Crashes (no injury Injury Crashes (no injury Crashe Crashes
+ injury) % Crashes % (hospital) % + injury) % Crashes % (hospital) % + injury) % s % (hospital) %
Time of Day
Day light 1,304 91.2% 251 87.8% 66 88.0% 585 89.6% 145 89.0% 43 91.5% 715 93.0% 105 87.5% 22 81.5%
Dusk or Dawn 67 4.7% 20 7.0% 7 9.3% 36 5.5% 8 4.9% 3 6.4% 28 3.6% 10 8.3% 4 14.8%
Night time 30 2.1% 4 1.4% 1 1.3% 6 0.9% 1 0.6% - 0.0% 23 3.0% 3 2.5% 1 3.7%
Unknown 29 2.0% 11 3.8% 1 1.3% 26 4.0% 9 5.5% 1 2.1% 3 0.4% 2 1.7% - 0.0%
Ground Conditions
Dry 924 64.6% 206 72.0% 63 84.0% 491 75.2% 125 76.7% 42 89.4% 431 56.0% 80 66.7% 20 74.1%
Mostly Dry 201 14.1% 36 12.6% 6 8.0% 74 11.3% 18 11.0% 4 8.5% 124 16.1% 18 15.0% 2 7.4%
Ground still wet 219 15.3% 28 9.8% 4 5.3% 65 10.0% 15 9.2% 1 2.1% 152 19.8% 12 10.0% 3 11.1%
Raining 82 5.7% 15 5.2% 2 2.7% 22 3.4% 5 3.1% - 0.0% 59 7.7% 9 7.5% 2 7.4%
Unknown 4 0.3% 1 0.3% - 0.0% 1 0.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% 3 0.4% 1 0.8% - 0.0%
OPD Type
Quadbar 51 41.8% 14 63.6% 3 42.9% 22 59.5% 6 60.0% 1 33.3% 29 34.1% 8 66.7% 2 50.0%
Lifeguard 8 6.6% - 0.0% - 0.0% 6 16.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% 2 2.4% - 0.0% - 0.0%
T Bar 25 20.5% 4 18.2% 1 14.3% 2 5.4% 1 10.0% - 0.0% 23 27.1% 3 25.0% 1 25.0%
Other/Homemade 38 31.1% 4 18.2% 3 42.9% 7 18.9% 3 30.0% 2 66.7% 31 36.5% 1 8.3% 1 25.0%
Total 122 100% 22 100% 7 100% 37 100% 10 100% 3 100% 85 100% 12 100% 4 100%1


How did the OPD Protect You

OPD stopped Quad 42 34.4% 5 22.7% - 0.0% 8 21.6% 2 20.0% - 0.0% 34 40.0% 3 25.0% - 0.0%
rolling on me
OPD made it 7 5.7% 1 4.5% 1 14.3% 1 2.7% 1 10.0% 1 33.3% 6 7.1% - 0.0% - 0.0%
possible to get out
from under Quad
OPD held Quad off 9 7.4% 2 9.1% - 0.0% 4 10.8% 2 20.0% - 0.0% 5 5.9% - 0.0% - 0.0%
me during roll
Unsure how but, I 3 2.5% 2 9.1% 1 14.3% 1 2.7% 1 10.0% 1 33.3% 2 2.4% 1 8.3% - 0.0%
think it protected me
Unknown 54 44.3% 10 45.5% 5 71.4% 2 5.4% 1 10.0% - 0.0% 5 5.9% 1 8.3% - 0.0%
Other 7 5.7% 2 9.1% - 0.0% 21 56.8% 3 30.0% 1 33.3% 33 38.8% 7 58.3% 4 100.0%
OPD Effectiveness (Self Reported)

OPD Caused the 7 5.7% 6 27.3% 4 57.1% 1 2.7% 1 10.0% 1 33.3% 6 7.1% 5 41.7% 3 75.0%
Injury(s)
OPD made no
difference to crash 47 38.5% 4 18.2% 1 14.3% 20 54.1% 2 20.0% - 0.0% 27 31.8% 2 16.7% 1 25.0%
outcomes
OPD prevented me
from receiving more 18 14.8% 12 54.5% 2 28.6% 10 27.0% 7 70.0% 2 66.7% 8 9.4% 5 41.7% - 0.0%
serious injuries
OPD prevented me 50 41.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%
from being injured 6 16.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% 44 51.8% - 0.0% - 0.0%
at all


OPD Caused Injury - Type (can select all)

Face/Jaw - - 1 14.3% 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 1 16.7% 0.0%
Head/Skull - - 3 42.9% 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 3 50.0% 0.0%
Neck - - 2 28.6% 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 2 33.3% 0.0%
Spine - - 1 14.3% 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 1 16.7% 0.0%
Thorax - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 0.0% 0.0%
Abdomen - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 0.0% 0.0%
Pelvis - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 0.0% 0.0%
Arm(s) - - 2 28.6% 2 50.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 2 33.3% 2 66.7%
100.0
Leg(s) - - 2 28.6% 0.0% - - 1 % 1 100.0% - - 1 16.7% 1 33.3%
Other - - 3 42.9% 2 50.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - 3 50.0% 2 66.7%
OPD Caused Injury - Severity (can select all)

Self Treated,
no time off Work 3 42.9% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 3 50.0% - 0.0%
Self Treated,
time off Work - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Attended Hospital - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Admitted to Hospital 4 57.1% 4 100.0% 1 100% 1 100% 3 50.0% 3 100.0%
Permanent Injury - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


How Long Ago Did Crash Occur?

Less than 6 months 97 6.8% 22 7.7% 6 8.0% 61 9.3% 17 10.4% 4 8.5% 35 4.6% 5 4.2% 2 7.4%
6 - 12 months ago 97 6.8% 24 8.4% 3 4.0% 65 10.0% 17 10.4% 3 6.4% 30 3.9% 6 5.0% - 0.0%
1 - 2 years ago 231 16.2% 53 18.5% 19 25.3% 120 18.4% 33 20.2% 13 27.7% 109 14.2% 19 15.8% 6 22.2%
3 - 5 years ago 340 23.8% 65 22.7% 18 24.0% 155 23.7% 39 23.9% 11 23.4% 184 23.9% 25 20.8% 6 22.2%
more than 5 years 611 42.7% 118 41.3% 28 37.3% 235 36.0% 54 33.1% 15 31.9% 375 48.8% 64 53.3% 13 48.1%
Other 47 3.3% 4 1.4% 1 1.3% 14 2.1% 3 1.8% 1 2.1% 32 4.2% 1 0.8% - 0.0%
Unknown 7 0.5% - 0.0% - 0.0% 3 0.5% - 0.0% - 0.0% 4 0.5% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Helmet Worn
No 1,108 77.5% 243 0.0% 64 85.3% 534 81.8% 139 85.3% 40 85.1% 569 74.0% 102 85.0% 23 85.2%
Yes, not done up 21 1.5% 5 85.0% 1 1.3% 7 1.1% 2 1.2% 1 2.1% 13 1.7% 2 1.7% - 0.0%
Yes, Worn Correctly 300 21.0% 38 13.3% 10 13.3% 111 17.0% 22 13.5% 6 12.8% 187 24.3% 16 13.3% 4 14.8%
Unknown 1 0.1% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.2% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Helmet Type
Bicycle 4 1.3% 1 2.6% - 0.0% 2 1.8% 1 4.5% - 0.0% 2 1.1% - 0.0% 0.0%
Equestrian 4 1.3% - 0.0% - 0.0% 3 2.7% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.5% - 0.0% 0.0%
M/C: Full Face 46 15.3% 6 15.8% 2 20.0% 38 34.2% 5 22.7% 2 33.3% 8 4.3% 1 6.3% 0.0%
M/C: Open Face 93 31.0% 17 44.7% 4 40.0% 60 54.1% 14 63.6% 4 66.7% 33 17.6% 3 18.8% 0.0%
Quad Bike Helmet 147 49.0% 13 34.2% 4 40.0% 6 5.4% 2 9.1% - 0.0% 139 74.3% 11 68.8% 4 100.0%
Other 3 1.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 2 1.8% - 0.0% - 0.0% 1 0.5% 1 6.3% 0.0%
Unknown 3 1.0% 1 2.6% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 3 1.6% - 0.0% 0.0%


Injury Type (can select all)

Face - - 33 11.5% 10 13.3% - - 20 12.3% 8 17.0% - - 13 10.8% 2 7.4%
Neck - - 24 8.4% 9 12.0% - - 14 8.6% 6 12.8% - - 9 7.5% 2 7.4%
Upper Limb - - 119 41.6% 34 45.3% - - 62 38.0% 19 40.4% - - 56 46.7% 15 55.6%
Lower Limb - - 116 40.6% 33 44.0% - - 61 37.4% 20 42.6% - - 54 45.0% 13 48.1%
Torso - - 90 31.5% 33 44.0% - - 62 38.0% 23 48.9% - - 27 22.5% 9 33.3%
Head - - 50 17.5% 21 28.0% - - 32 19.6% 15 31.9% - - 18 15.0% 6 22.2%
Injury Severity
Self Treated, no time
off Work - - 107 37.4% - - - - 61 37.4% - - - - 45 37.5% - -
Self Treated, time
off Work - - 19 6.6% - - - - 16 9.8% - - - - 3 2.5% - -
Attended Hospital - - 85 29.7% - - - - 39 23.9% - - - - 45 37.5% - -
Admitted to Hospital - - 61 21.3% 61 81.3% - - 39 23.9% 39 52.0% - - 22 18.3% 22 81.5%
Permanent Injury - - 14 4.9% 14 18.7% - - 8 4.9% 8 10.7% - - 5 4.2% 5 18.5%
Head Injury Severity (Select All)

Bruising - - 37 74.0% 12 57.1% - - 24 75.0% 10 66.7% - - 13 72.2% 2 33.3%
Concussion - - 16 32.0% 11 52.4% - - 10 31.3% 7 46.7% - - 6 33.3% 4 66.7%
Loss of Consciousness - - 16 32.0% 12 57.1% - - 11 34.4% 8 53.3% - - 5 27.8% 4 66.7%
Skull Fracture - - 4 8.0% 4 19.0% - - 2 6.3% 2 13.3% - - 2 11.1% 2 33.3%
Brain Injury - - 5 10.0% 4 19.0% - - 4 12.5% 3 20.0% - - 1 5.6% 1 16.7%

Table G3: List of variables screened for the multivariate analysis that were (or were not)
found to have an association with crashes.
Crashes
Related to Crash?
Variable
(p < 0.2)
Gender Yes
Age Yes
Height Yes
Weight Yes
Duration (Hours per day) Yes
Duration (Days per Week) Yes
Animal Industry Yes
Experience Yes
Mustering (gathering livestock) Yes
Observations Yes
Riding between tasks Yes
Spraying Yes
Towing Yes
Spreading Fertiliser Yes
Load Yes
Load Limits No
Exceed Load Limits No
Make Yes
Size Yes
Active Riding Yes
Average Speed Yes
Max Average Speed Yes
Training: Self-Taught Yes
Training: (Individual types) Yes
Passengers Yes
OPD (Lifeguard and Quadbar) No
OPD (Rear Mounted) No
OPD (All) No
Helmet Use No
Table G4: List of variables screened for the multivariate analysis that were (or were not) found
to have an association with to all injuries (minor + hospitalisations).
All Injuries
Related to Injury?
Variable
(<0.2)
Gender Yes
Age Yes
Height Yes
Weight No
Experience Yes
Mustering (gathering livestock) Yes
Other Stockwork No
Spray No
Riding Between Tasks No
Observations while Riding No
Towing a trailer Yes
Spreading Fertiliser No
Fencing No
Transport No
Rollover No
Rolled over Rider Yes
Jumping/Staying on Bike Yes
Sitting Yes
Active Riding Yes
Prior Personal Injury Yes
Concentration Yes
Engine Size Yes
Initiator Yes
Direction No
Speed Yes
Time Riding Prior Yes
Surface Yes
Surface Smoothness No
Slope Yes
Time of Day Yes
Ground Conditions Yes
OPD (All) No
Helmet Yes
Table G5: List of variables screened for the multivariate analysis that were (or were not) found
to have an association with serious injuries (hospitalisations).
Serious Injuries (hospitalisations)

Related to
Variable Serious Injury?
(<0.2)
Gender No
Age No
Height No
Weight No
Experience Yes
Mustering (gathering livestock) No
Other Stockwork No
Spray No
Riding Between Tasks No
Observations while Riding No
Towing a trailer No
Spreading Fertiliser No
Fencing No
Transport No
Rollover Yes
Rolled over Rider Yes
Jumping/Staying on Bike No
Sitting No
Active Riding No
Prior Personal Injury Yes
Concentration No
Engine Size No
Initiator No
Direction No
Speed Yes
Time Riding Prior Yes
Surface Yes
Surface Smoothness No
Slope No
Time of Day Yes
Ground Conditions Yes
OPD (All) No
Helmet Yes

Quad Bike and OPD Workplace Safety Survey Report.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quad Bike and OPD Workplace Safety Survey Report.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quad Bike and OPD Workplace Safety Survey Report.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUAD BIKE WORKPLACE SAFETY SURVEY PROJECT

Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre

QUAD BIKE AND OPD WORKPLACE

Contract Agreement: Re NSW Quad Bike Safety Improvement Program,

Project Summary at a Glance

Sub-study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders Survey

Sub-study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders Survey

1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Quadbar (QB Industries) ATV Lifeguard (Ag TECH industries)

1.1 Literature Review

Similarly, a multivariate logistic analysis of injuries and fatalities was performed to

Further objectives of this epidemiological-based survey study is to identify operational

Type, brand and age of Quad bikes in use;

3.2 Human Ethics Approval

4.1 Sub-Study (i): Quad Bike Tour Company Case Study

guest riders participate in comprehensive pre-ride instruction, including practical tests

Quad Bike (QB) Tour Company located on Australias coast

4.2 Sub-Study (ii): Fleet Managers Survey

With OPD fitted

No OPD fitted With OPD fitted

Figure 3: Fleet Managers response regarding effectiveness of OPD in preventing or causing

Survival space triangle

4.3 Sub-Study (iii): Individual Workplace Riders (Main) Survey

4.3.1 Data Analysis (Crashes, All Injuries and Serious Injuries)

The independent variables in Table G1 (demographic factors, characteristics of quadbikes

4.3.2 Data Analysis (OPDs and Injuries)

Hours per day

Max Avg. Speed

Mustering (gathering livestock)

Table 4: Significant variables associated with All Injuries (minor + hospitalisations)

Vehicle rolled over the Rider

Vehicle rolled over the Rider

Crashes Any Injury Serious Injury Any Injury Serious Injury

Crashes Injury Serious Injury

Ratio (No OPD) / OPD 2.10 1.47

Nevertheless, it is recommended that a larger sample size be obtained in the future to

Table 9: Operational effect of OPD on Quad bike use

4.3.3 Data Analysis (Activity and injuries)

Number of crashes Number of crashes

Figure 8: Workplace activities. Note even distribution among activities.

Figure 9: Crashes, injuries and serious injuries aggregated according to activity

4.3.4 Data Analysis (Helmets and injuries)

Figure 12: Helmet use in a crash and type used.

Head Injury Only

4.3.5 Data Analysis (Riding experience, training and injuries)

Figure 13: Injury benefit from wearing any type of helmet.

Less than one year 0.5 18 9 4 4.44 0.3

Figure 15: crash risk associated with individual training type.

a) Design and undertake an independent epidemiological study of the in-field

(p=0.02). This is suggestive that Quadbar or Lifeguard OPDs reduce to some

Limitations of the Study

APPENDIX A: Web Page Administering Main Survey On-Line

APPENDIX B: Fleet Managers Survey

APPENDIX C: Individual Workplace Riders (Main) Survey

APPENDIX D: Participant Recruitment Methods Main Survey

Recruitment Method Channel Comment

Social Media (Facebook) A Facebook page was created and

Other web sites / pages A range of promotional posts, news

National Farmers Federation,