Driving cycle is used to assess fuel consumption, pollutant emissions and performance of the vehicle. The aim of this paper is to extract the driving cycle for Refuse collection truck and estimate its braking energy. For this purpose, after selecting the target truck and geographic area, the equipment needed to measure the required variables were prepared and mounted on the truck. Then, the actual data were collected from the performance of the target truck while performing its mission. Since the amount of braking energy depends on the speed, truck mass and road grade, the speed of the vehicle is measured simultaneously with the truck mass and road grade. The collected data are then processed and subdivided into micro-trips. The micro-trips are clustered according to the number of state spaces using the K-Means algorithm. Next, the representative micro trips are selected from within the clusters and the final driving cycle is generated. The representative driving cycle shows that the truck speed is zero at 47% of the working time. Finally, the amount of braking power and accumulative braking energy in the driving cycle is calculated.

Background: Anti-vaccination is spreading among parents. In 2017, 23000 families in Turkey Refused vaccinations for their children. Meanwhile an increase in infectious diseases was observed, which might be caused by vaccination rejection. The reasons why families do not vaccinate their children may be very different, such as side effects, or advocation for “healthy life” by gurus. However, the real reasons for vaccine refusal are unknown. Our aim is to determine the reasons for anti-vaccination in Turkey. Methods: In order to reveal the real reasons for not taking the vaccine, we planned to conduct interviews with the representatives of the vaccine rejection group using qualitative research methodology with the “grounded theory” method. We searched some anti-vaccination blogs to find candidates for interviews. Within the scope of our study, parental concerns about vaccinations were classified by analyzing the data obtained from semi-structured questions and interviews recorded with voice recorders in face-to-face interviews with 21 parents in 13 cities of Turkey. Results: The obtained findings were classified under the headings of ‘’mistrust’’, ‘’vaccine efficacy-importance’’, ‘’decision-making processes - bases’’, and ‘’law-ethics’’. Mistrust was the main theme, almost singularly, as the most important reason for vaccine rejection. The salient reasons for mistrusts were: Companies which produce vaccines especially international companies because of conspiratory beliefs; health authorities, because of the belief about non-transparency in epidemiologic data, immunization council etc. and healthcare professionals, because of their non-communicative and non-concerned attitude. Conclusion: Mistrust is hard to overcome. The beliefs of the patients cannot be easily changed. As a result of our study, we made some recommendations for health authorities, healthcare professionals, companies and other related stakeholders.

Background: While cyclists and pedestrians are known to be at significant risk for severe injuries when exposed to road traffic accidents (RTA) involving trucks, little is known about RTA injury risk for truck drivers. Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the injury severity in truck drivers following RTAs. Patients and Methods: Our local accident research unit prospectively documented 43000 RTAs involving 582 trucks between 2000 and 2011. Injury severity, including the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) and the maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) were analyzed. Technical parameters (e. g. delta-v, direction of impact), the location of accident, and its dependency on the road type were also taken into consideration. Results: Thirteen percent (77/582) of truck drivers were injured. Extremities were found to be at highest risk of injury with the lower extremities (36x) being injured most severely (10x: AIS 2 and 3). Death occurred only after collisions with other trucks, and severity of injuries increased with an increased speed limit. The maximum abbreviated injury scale was higher in the crash opponents (56x MAIS 3) compared to the truck drivers (8x MAIS 3). Overall, 82% of the crash opponents were injured. Conclusions: The safety of truck drivers is assured by their vehicles, the consequence being that the risk of becoming injured is likely to be low. However, the legs especially are at high risk for severe injuries during RTAs. This probability increases in the instance of a collision with another truck. Nevertheless, in RTAs involving trucks and regular passenger vehicles, the other party is in higher risk of injury.