Item 1. Meeting Minutes of the Pillar 3 Project Group in New York, April

Transcription

1 UNRSC PROJECT GROUP Pillar 3 Safer Vehicles 7 October 2014, WHO Headquarters, Geneva DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Participants: Carmen Giron DGT Spain John Chatterton-Ross Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) Oliver Deiters DEKRA Jack Hanley NETS Shakireh Ispahani Global NCAP Dimitrios Kranias Health Ministry of Greece Andrew Lewin BHP Billiton Chris Mason FISITA Manuel Neumann IDB David Ward Global NCAP Joe Wismans FISITA Shigeo Yoshizawa IMMA Item 1. Meeting Minutes of the Pillar 3 Project Group in New York, April The Meeting Minutes of the Pillar 3 Project Group on 9th April 2014 were approved. There were no matters arising. David Ward (Working Group Chairman) suggested that, due to the variable membership of the Pillar Group which seems to fluctuate a lot according to dates/locations, it might be a good idea to eventually arrange a separate meeting of the Group with all the relevant stakeholders. There are some companies which are observers of this group like Bosch who are sometimes able to attend and sometimes not, so perhaps there is a case for planning this meeting in advance according to the availability of the stakeholders. This was agreed by the Group. Item 2. Review of Project Group 3 Activities : David Ward provided an update of Pillar 3 Activities: (a) Terms of Reference David Ward said that one thing we haven t done is to organise any seminars or workshops around this issue, although there was one attached to the Global NCAP Annual Meeting in Malaysia in

2 (b) Work Plan David Ward wondered how the Group could update its work plan, going forward. John Chatterton Ross mentioned that he was talking to some colleagues and they d mentioned how they would very much like to participate in some safety demonstrations if there were any taking place. David Ward said that Global NCAP is planning to launch a three year global initiative to promote awareness of leading crash avoidance technologies in the major emerging automobile markets. The Stop the Crash campaign would feature three key technologies and also highlight the importance of tyre safety (adequate pressure and tread depth). The three focus technologies would be: Electronic Stability Control Autonomous Emergency Braking Anti-Lock Brakes for Motorcycles John Chatterton Ross said that he thought these demonstrations really do work very well and that he has been present in some of them. After one demonstration in Germany, many consumers refused to buy bikes without ABS. It wasn t the same in other countries in Europe so the demonstrations clearly had an impact. It s clear also that demonstrations work better than most other ways of informing the public, as one could write about these subjects but that doesn t seem to have the same effect as journalists actually seeing the demonstration for themselves. David Ward agreed. (c) Proposed Modification to Global Plan Indicators David Ward then circulated the Global Plan to the Group. He said that having a Global Plan is extremely useful and guides the thinking of governments and policy makers. Andrew Lewin pointed out that vehicle roadworthiness doesn t seem to be mentioned in the plan. David Ward agreed and said that he felt there were two missing things in the plan. One is Vehicle Roadworthiness and the other is Child Restraints, which is a definite oversight. He then went over the different Activities in the Plan. He suggested that Activity 3 could be reinforced in some way, given that there are still new motor vehicles being produced without seatbelts. He also suggested that there was an argument for adding AEB to Activity 4. It was also pointed out by Jack Hanley and Jac Wismans that Activity 4 reads as if it is targeting only motorcycles. David Ward agreed and said that this Activity could be redrafted as this was not how this was intended. For Activity 5, David Ward suggested that in place of other incentives, it could be made clearer and more specific to the insurance industry perhaps. John Chatterton Ross suggested that Child Restraints could be added as a separate activity. Chris Mason asked how one can gauge the success of these activities and David Ward said that there were indicators which clarified this for example the number of countries participating in each Activity. There is also a revised set of indicators which were clarified in the previous meeting and are listed in the minutes of the previous meeting. Jack Hanley said that there could be an Activity which centred around vulnerable car users such as children and David Ward agreed. 2

3 Jac Wismans wondered whether, if child restraints should be included, then why not helmets, which are also included in the World Health Action Plan risk factors. Seatbelts are also mentioned in the plan but those are already included in the Activities. If we include child restraints, then helmets would be the only risk factor missing along with speed and post-crash response. David Ward said that those should be covered by the other pillars. The Pillar on Road User behaviour should cover helmets, though the tricky issue is where helmet standards should be covered. John Chatterton Ross said that he has always felt that he would prefer helmets and protective clothing to be in this group and not in the User Behaviour group. To a motorcyclist, the helmets and protective clothing are almost part of the vehicle. David Ward said that we could argue the case as these are all things covered by WP29. The tricky issue around helmets, which are mentioned in Regulation 22 of the 1958 Agreement, is that the American test and European tests are different so Regulation 22 is not very well-enforced. One of the main issues at the moment is also counterfeiting which is very prevalent. A very good helmet is the AIPF helmet which is compliant with the American Snell standard, but not with the Regulation 22 standard. If we look at the realities of the market however, it is an excellent helmet so we need to make sure that the new Activity does not undermine this helmet in any way. Jack Hanley wondered whether there would be a lot of cost involved in AIPF switching to the Regulation 22 standard. David Ward said that he had spoken to the Foundation and it did seem clear that this is the way forward for them. Previously it had been said that helmets which fit the Regulation 22 standard are not comfortable for tropical environments which doesn t seem to be the case. John Chatterton Ross agreed that it wasn t the case and said that he had come across many helmets that meet the Regulation that are very good. Some are being produced in China and are exported to Europe. David Ward suggested that we could use wording that talks about helmets that meet standards such as Regulation 22. Jac Wismans agreed and said that we could also talk about an equivalent standard. David Ward agreed and said that we could also make a reference to counterfeit helmets. David Ward also suggested that IMMA could produce a very high quality film which shows the difference between a motorcyclist who is wearing a helmet that is strapped and a helmet that isn t strapped properly as the visual image can be so compelling. David Ward also considered whether Road Worthiness testing should be added as an activity. There are some that say it doesn t make much of a safety contribution but he doesn t agree with this. He feels that it s one of those issues that research and evidence isn t very able to capture in analysis. The EU has figures about it, but he does feel that if we are considering safe systems surely in-use compliance must be part of that. John Chatterton Ross agreed and said that it was so common to have vehicles with serious braking defects or serious tyre defects involved in crashes, but that it isn t a very well researched subject. Oliver Deiters said that DEKRA had done some research on this issue and considered how often fatal crashes had been caused by technical issues. The evidence showed that up to 10% of all fatal accidents are caused by technical failure. This is also includes motorcycles. Dekra produces about 600,000 reports on crashes. Andrew Lewin wondered whether there was any data available on the tests and whether it was possible to single out which particular systems had failed in each case. John Chatterton Ross said that this information was available in the UK and it was common to find a small technical fault in many cases, such as one of the lights not working. David Ward said that one problem is that in middle income countries, there is very little or no evidence about this issue. It also seemed unrealistic to ask police to investigate issues in cars when perhaps after an accident their main priority would be to clear the road. Chris Mason argued that this is why a minimum threshold is important. Though not every problem will necessarily be able to 3

4 be tracked back to that threshold, there needs to be one in place. David Ward agreed. Carmen Giron said that DGT has some evidence that includes mopeds and found that in many cases where there were crashes, they had been modified. Since bringing in technical inspections, the crash rate appears to have fallen. The evidence is not so clear for other vehicles including heavy vehicles as crash rates haven t always been linked to technical inspections, but in the case of mopeds, the evidence does seem very clear. She also said that in Spain they have included in an amendment of the law of road safety that relates specifically to the third pillar that they will not support vehicles that do not meet the necessary technical requirements. This is also the case when exporting a vehicle to another country. This is the Spanish government s commitment to the third pillar. David Ward said that this was very good. He also suggested that one could make a specific reference to tyres and tyre quality in this field on Road worthiness. If one looks at the development of crash avoidance technologies like ABS and ESC etc. they all depend on the quality of tyres and their ability to grip properly. Worn or under-inflated tyres can be very problematic. David Ward said that another point about Activity 3 is changing the wording applicable crash test standards to UN or equivalent crash test standards to clarify this point. It was agreed that: Activity 3 could be reworded to emphasise UN or equivalent crash test standards. AEB could be added to Activity 4 and the Activity could be clarified further to emphasise that it relates to both passenger cars and motorcycles. Activity 5 could be clarified to specifically mention the insurance industry. Child Restraints, Vehicle Roadworthiness (with a specific reference made to tyres) and Helmets (including Protective Clothing) for Motorcycle Users could all have their own separate Activities. ACTION: David Ward to redraft Activities 4 and 5 and draft some separate Activities on Child Restraints, Vehicle Roadworthiness and Helmets and circulate them to the Group. Item 3. Preparations for 2 nd Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety (a) Review Content and Implementation of Vehicle Pillar 3 of the Global Plan David Ward said that if we could re-work the Vehicle Pillar plan, we could then look at an adoption process for the Plan. (b) Proposed process for modification of Vehicle Pillar 3 of the Global Plan David Ward said that if the process was similar to the process in Moscow, we could put the proposed modified plan to the Ministerial and this would be discussed. Item 4. Updates (a) Global NCAP David Ward introduced Global NCAP to the Group and said that it was relatively new organisation that serves as a platform for all the NCAPs worldwide, of which there are nine. It also aims to introduce NCAP activity in parts of the world where there it doesn t exist. He explained that some NCAPs are purely governmental and others are a mix of private and public partnership. Global NCAP 4

5 has attempted to systemise exchanges of information between NCAPs by having an Annual Meeting every year along with a Technical and Communications Working Group Meeting. Global NCAP has also been supporting new NCAP Projects in emerging markets. One such Project is Latin NCAP which has now tested fifty vehicles with support from Global NCAP, IDB and ICRT. There are now five different five star models which shows a very rapid pace of progress. There are also many more four star models. In the first set of tests all the cars were zero star so there has been an extraordinary accelerator effect. This has happened much ahead of any regulatory requirements which speaks to the success of NCAPs which create a strong market incentive to manufacturers to produce safer cars just by informing consumers about the safety standards of tested cars. Hopefully they also have an educative effect on the public. In parallel it s had an interesting knock on effect on governments and helping to move forward any regulatory initiatives. They ve been quite surprised at how bad theirs cars were effectively twenty years behind European and American standards. Aside from the luxury end of the market, all mass manufacturers were producing cars that would have been illegal in Europe. Similarly ASEAN NCAP is working on the same basis and has had very rapid progress. ASEAN NCAP also includes ESC for a car to qualify for five stars. Latin NCAP will do that soon, the delay is to do with the difference in rates of market penetration for ESC. Both of them are having very constructive dialogues with manufacturers, many of whom are sponsoring cars in the programmes, again at a more rapid rate than happened in Euro NCAP. Chris Mason wondered how manufacturers have the conscience to sell two different cars with varying levels of safety in two regions and whether this is a conversation Global NCAP has with them. Surely even from a branding point of view it must be uncomfortable for them. Is it just a trade-off between profits and safety? David Ward said the problem is that the automotive industry never really has just one opinion, it s a very mixed bag. Some brands are very concerned about this issue. They are extremely worried about the risk of new entrants in the automotive industry capturing market share with vehicles that are very bad. They worry that they would never be able to compete with these vehicles. The other trend in the industry is towards global platforms. The more successful companies are very advanced in the direction of global platforms and have a dozen or so different models which all use the same core platform and components. So in these cases, despeccing vehicles and creating sub-standard vehicles would actually be a nuisance. So some companies are extremely happy with the idea of a minimum set of global standards whereas others that don t see it that way at all. Jack Hanley said that it is very interesting that the growth in vehicles in the developed world is relatively stable, whereas if one looks at the growth in emerging markets, it looks like it will double. The numbers are also huge, around 750 million vehicles. If one considers the case of China and India and the emerging middle classes, it seems to be the case that owning a vehicle is an almost symbolic act which shows that they have now reached a certain pinnacle of attainment. It is probably likely that the governments of these countries will not want to do anything that upsets these middle classes or which significantly raises the prices of these vehicles in order to achieve the safety standards that we all take for granted. It s very probable that a lot of the political power in these nations will be geared towards keeping these middle classes fundamentally satisfied. It looks like in certain countries the middle classes are aware enough to support an NCAP, but it s doubtful that the middle classes in other countries are. John Chatterton Ross disagreed and argued that, in his opinion, the emerging middle class in the developing world want the same thing as the middle class 5

6 in the developed world. For example the Tata Nano has not been a huge success even though it claimed to be the cheapest car in the world. Nobody actually wants to have the worst motor car in the world. But he agreed that cars are a status symbol. In terms of the numbers, he said that David often makes the point that making safer motor vehicles would soon improve the entire vehicle fleet quite dramatically as the world produces approximately 62 million motor vehicles per year. So if we can make cars safer, it s a quick win. The world also produces 22 million commercial vehicles a year and and 50 million motor cycles a year. He would very much like to see the quality of motorbikes improving as well. In India there is a company that produce a small motorbike with an Anti-lock Braking system, even though smaller bikes are exempt from ABS. In 2006 in discussions with European manufacturers, he was told that ABS systems would not work on smaller bikes and that it would be too expensive which simply isn t true. The price for an ex-factory ABS systems is about Currently many internationally renowned manufacturers are not producing small bikes with ABS whereas a smaller Indian manufacturer is. ABS should be standard for all motorbikes. David Ward agreed and said that ABS would be in place across the board soon. John Chatterton Ross said that unfortunately it wouldn t be as the EU had mandated it only for motorbikes above 125cc, which meant that a great many people in Europe would be riding bikes without ABS and if they break hard the wheels will lock and they ll simply fall off. All because European manufacturers are saying that it s too expensive. David Ward, responding to Jack Hanley, said that he agreed and also disagreed. The basic geography of demand and supply is changing so rapidly and about 50% of cars are now produced in middle income countries and their market share has gone up hugely as they are meeting with the increase in middle class demand. You get very big reactions from middle classes in Brazil and India, for example, when they realise that there are cars being produced in the same plant which are going to other destinations with the safety features included and much higher safety standards which simply aren t available locally. This does cause a lot of anger. Also, on the one hand NCAPs are trying to drive standards up to five stars which is a bit pricier but, on the other hand, in the regulatory world, there isn t yet a safety net of minimum standards applied across the board at the moment. Though it exists in the books of the UN, maybe about countries actually apply the most important safety standards and those are overwhelmingly high income countries. Ten years ago, most vehicle production was coming from high income countries, so vehicles were within the safety net of UN and EU standards. But what s happened is that 50% of the production has gone elsewhere. Some of that production is for high income markets so it meets the standards but quite a bit isn t. So over the last 10 years a third of vehicle production has slipped out of the safety net and some tightening up is needed, which isn t very expensive, but is necessary to try and meet the minimum key crash test standards on a reasonable time scale so the production of substandard cars is stopped. The failure of the Tata Nano does also show that the concept of the world s cheapest vehicle or an ultra low cost car doesn t really work and most people prefer a more aspirational vehicle. Aside from this it is highly unsafe with a body shell that is so bad that it can t support a single driver airbag. It should be obvious that a car whose basic structure can t support a single driver airbag should not be allowed to be sold. John Chatterton Ross agreed and said that you see a similar situation with motorcycles where, in some cases, large manufacturers have gone into the market of selling low cost and unsafe bikes. It is not a good trend. David Ward agreed and said that this way of thinking also misunderstands the 6

7 psychology of the emerging middle classes. Incomes are also going up substantially and most don t need to buy bargain basement vehicles. It has been suggested by manufacturers associations that this is an attempt to get people off two wheelers, but there s really no evidence at the moment to suggest that this is the case. It s quite likely that many families will retain their motorcycle and that the car will just provide additional transportation. A proper study is needed about people s purchasing behaviours before this claim can be validated as, at the moment, it is treated as a fact. Andrew Lewin agreed and said that the other issue is that people are so well-informed nowadays; the middle classes all have access to the internet and they can see what other people have in their own countries and don t see why what they have access to should be any worse. This does drive the buying behaviour of many people. The other issue is that when BHP Billiton first decided to make their requirements five star cars, some manufacturers were happy to work with them and others said that they couldn t really change their production very easily and didn t engage so well in the process. However once they realised that BHP Billiton were no longer going to buy from them, they changed their behaviour very quickly, which does show that, where there s a will, there s a way. Many of the times when manufacturers say they can t do it. It s because they are looking at their production plans. But they can change these plans if they really want to. David Ward agreed and said that the other project Global NCAP is working on is the Safer Cars for India Project, which isn t an NCAP, but just a project. Global NCAP took 5 cars which were mainly chosen by popularity and market share. The Tata Nano was also chosen because it was such a famous car. Five cars were tested five at the regulatory speed and five at the NCAP speed. All failed the basic regulatory test except the Fiord Figo (which was just a lucky accident) and all failed the NCAP test. Volkwagen stopped selling the non-airbag version of their cars and so Global NCAP also tested the same car with airbags and it achieved four stars, so things can really change very quickly and if the basic body shell is okay, then really it s an additional hundred dollars or so to add airbags. David Ward informed the Group that this year, Global NCAP s Annual Meeting will be in China, hosted by China NCAP, which started in When it started it was testing at a lower speed of 56kph but they are now testing at 64kph and much closer to best international practice. Because demand in China has in the past been oriented to international cars, there has been a big drive to improve Chinese cars and improving the NCAP has been part of this. Recently the Chinese manufacturer Geely, which bought Volvo, achieved four stars in a Euro NCAP test. David Ward also explained that Global NCAP had recently been accepted by Bloomberg in its funding programme funding so was hoping to have more resources available soon for further activities in vehicle safety. (b) World Forum of Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations David Ward said that the main development in WP29 was the adoption of a Pole Side GTR which was very good news. They also recently upgraded their Child Seat Safety Regulation and, in July, brought into effect a new regulation (Reg. 129), which will eventually replace the current regulation (Reg. 44). The other very interesting development is that they are working on an international Whole Type Approval system which will be completed in At the moment, they work under two 7

8 agreements the 1998 agreements which creates GTRs and the 1958 agreement, which has more than 130 regulations including environmental ones, and is designed to support type approval systems (as opposed to the self-certification system used in the US). In Europe there is a Whole Type Approval System in place so that a manufacturer can get their car approved in one place and it is then accepted as approved in all the other countries that are part of the system. This new International Whole Type Approval System will provide the opportunity for a Global Type Approval for all the countries that sign up to this. So there will be a much bigger global regulatory structure, which will be a very positive thing for harmonisation. Jac Wismans wondered whether this new system would replace the 1958 agreement. David Ward said that he thinks the agreement will keep growing but that he wasn t really sure and it could depend on many things. The first would be the completion of the system. The second would be how many countries would sign up to it. The danger is that it will be finished but many too few countries/regions will sign up to it. Chris Mason agreed and said that the US is very committed to the idea of their self-certification system and may not appreciate having to have their cars type approved. David Ward agreed and said there is also some scepticism perhaps unjustified that the type approval in some countries might not be as good as that in others so maybe the products would end up being worse. That used to be a problem in Europe where some type approval centres could be very easily bribed to provide positive results. However he is very hopeful that it will work and feels that it provides a great opportunity for new entrants in emerging markets especially. For a region like Latin America, which is completely out of the regulatory system which is very problematic, especially as Brazil is a large producer of cars, this would be a great thing. Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay to some extent have been coming to WP29 as observers for the last three years, but if they could enter into this new system, that would be a very good development. Malaysia has already joined and applies the main safety regulations. India and China have joined the 1998 agreement. There is a possibility that the US may need to join the rest of the world one day. (c) Any other developments Chris Mason said that FISITA had recently held its summit in Paris which was an excellent meeting with very good presentations and discussions. The subject was Powering towards a Green Future. The FISITA Congress was also held earlier this year in Maastricht, which was very similar. Jac Wismans said that a big topic at the 2014 World Congress was automated driving and the roadmaps of where all the companies are now. Most of them are already able to move ahead technically, but it s just a question of the social and legal actions that need to be taken. He informed the Group that the next congress will take place in Korea in Chris Mason said that another conference which might be of interest to the Group is the Eurobrake Conference which will be a meeting of Europe s braking community. It s an annual event which will take place in May David Ward said that one thing that worries him about automated braking if we look at the state of the Global market and that 50% of production is now in middle income countries and one third is beneath regulatory standards, so if you look at the shape of the vehicle fleet over the next ten years, the reality is that automated driving is not that relevant to real safety improvements. It s one of those issues that policy makers and engineers get very excited about but the real safety gains are to be made in a big global catch up. He said that, in his opinion, to really improve safety in the next decade, we should 8

9 be pushing for further penetration of electronic stability control across all world markets. The policy perhaps should be accelerating what s already known rather than focussing on futuristic technologies. Jac Wismans said that the one advantage with automated driving is that it means the driver would be completely out of the picture. Carmen Giron agreed and said that automated driving might increase safety quite substantially and that this was a topic they had been discussing in WP1. But there were issues to consider, for example, over the next 20 years, it could lead to segregated roads for automated drivers because of the impact that it has on ordinary drivers. The second issue is the theory that it might lead to drivers taking more risks on the road. These factors can t really be ignored. David Ward explained further that he felt that in, high income countries, this is could be an interesting step in the evolution of the automobile industry. However in middle income countries, this issue could become a distraction. There is already a lot of discussion about it from manufacturers and policy makers. But there is a case that from the perspective of the UN Decade of Action on Global Road Safety, it may not have any relevance at all. In middle income countries, perhaps it is more important to understand the relevance of technologies that were mandated in the developed world ten years ago. Jac Wismans agreed and said however that some technologies such as Alco-locks and AEB for pedestrians might still have some relevance for emerging markets. Andrew Lewin said that BHP Billiton uses automated trucks occasionally and it does make sense to use it in a very localised way and in a very regulated environment. However there are still issues around it as everyone has mentioned. In the one mine that uses it, if there are any incidents with the automated trucks, the whole mine closes down for 24 hours and a thorough investigation is carried out. One big issue for them is preventing any collisions between light vehicles and heavy vehicles and this is perhaps easier to manage in a mine with boundaries than on the roads. David Ward also took the opportunity to congratulate IMMA on its excellent report and said it was a shame that the car manufacturers didn t produce anything like it on a global scale. John Chatterton Ross said that there should be another report on motorcycle safety coming out soon, produced by the International Transport Forum. It s addressed to governments. One disappointing aspect is that it does suggest for low and middle income countries that certain safety features can t be included for cost reasons, but broadly speaking it s a good publication. Item 5. Any Other Business David Ward said that it would be a good idea, in time for April, that we could try and make sure that there is as much engagement from relevant stakeholders as possible. The membership of the Group seems to change with every meeting and he can try and hold a more consultative process before the April meeting to ensure better attendance from other quarters, for example WP29, the Canadian Transport Board and others that have attended in the past. It was agreed by the Group that this would be a good idea. ACTION: David Ward to contact relevant stakeholders and inform them of the Project Group Meeting in April when he have this information. David Ward closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their attendance. 9