POLICY POSITION ON THE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION REGULATION

Similar documents
Road safety time for Europe to shift gears

Status of the review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations

Pedestrian Protection in Europe

Insert the title of your presentation here. Presented by Name Here Job Title - Date

Executive Summary. For a full list of the advanced safety technologies and FIA Region I s stance, please see the annex.

Qoros 3 Sedan Awarded Five Stars And Is Amongst The Very Best Ever Tested by Euro NCAP

A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users

Technical Bulletin Headform to Bonnet Leading Edge Tests Version 1.0 June 2014 TB 019

Crash Simulation in Pedestrian Protection

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION

Hyundai Santa Fe 88% 94% 67% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION

Safer Vehicle Design. TRIPP IIT Delhi

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL. Saving Lives: Boosting Car Safety in the EU

Road Map For Safer Vehicles & Fleet Safety

Euro NCAP: Saving Lives with Safer Cars

Audi TT 68% 81% 64% 82% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Pedestrian.

Renault Trafic SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Business and Family Van. Year Of Publication Driver Passenger Rear

ITS and connected cars

The Evolution of Side Crash Compatibility Between Cars, Light Trucks and Vans

Audi TT SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Year Of Publication Driver Passenger Rear FRONTAL CRASH PROTECTION

Respecting the Rules Better Road Safety Enforcement in the European Union. ACEA s Response

HEAVY VEHICLES TEST AND ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

Audi Q3 86% 95% 76% 85% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

FIMCAR Accident Analysis Report to GRSP frontal impact IWG Summary of findings

Volvo XC40 87% 97% 71% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Mercedes-Benz A-Class

SAFETY EQUIPMENT (NEXT)

Jaguar I-Pace 81% 91% 73% 81% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

BMW X1 90% 87% 77% 74% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Pedestrian.

ALFA ROMEO STELVIO MARCH ONWARDS 2.0L PETROL & 2.2L DIESEL VARIANTS

Informal document No. GRSP (45th GRSP, May 2009 agenda item 4(b))

Deflection of Deployable Bonnets in DB Systems

Safety and Green Vehicle Performance Rating

VOLKSWAGEN T-ROC OCTOBER ONWARDS NEW ZEALAND VARIANTS

Skoda Superb 86% 86% 76% 71% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Pedestrian.

Renault Trafic 91% 52% 53% 57% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Business and Family Van. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

D1.3 FINAL REPORT (WORKPACKAGE SUMMARY REPORT)

Jaguar XE 82% 92% 81% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

ACEA Position Paper. General Safety Regulation Revision

Ford Focus 85% 87% 75% 72% SPECIFICATION TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Safety Assist. Vulnerable Road Users

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

STUDY ON CAR-TO-CAR FRONTAL OFFSET IMPACT WITH VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL VULNERABLE ROAD USER PROTECTION

Road fatalities in 2012

CONSIDER OF OCCUPANT INJURY MITIGATION THROUGH COMPARISION BETWEEN CRASH TEST RESULTS IN KNCAP AND REAL-WORLD CRSAH

Jaguar XE 82% 92% 81% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Lexus RX 82% 91% 77% 79% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Automated Driving: The Technology and Implications for Insurance Brake Webinar 6 th December 2016

FORD ENDURA DECEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

SAFETY ENHANCED INNOVATIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS. EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 GA No

Nissan LEAF 86% 93% 71% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

NISSAN MICRA DECEMBER ONWARDS NEW ZEALAND VARIANTS WITH 0.9 LITRE ENGINE

Opel/Vauxhall Vivaro SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Business and Family Van. Year Of Publication Driver Passenger Rear

FORD FOCUS DECEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

Development and Component Validation of a Generic Vehicle Front Buck for Pedestrian Impact Evaluation

VOLVO XC40 APRIL ONWARDS ALL-WHEEL-DRIVE (AWD) VARIANTS

Lancia Ypsilon 79% 44% 64% 38% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

HYUNDAI SANTA FE JULY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

Seat Ateca 84% 93% 71% 60% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Benefits for Australia of the introduction of an ADR on pedestrian protection. RWG Anderson, G Ponte, D Searson

Jaguar XF 84% 92% 80% 83% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Executive. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Renault Scenic 82% 90% 67% 59% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

After years of inaction it s time for progress on vehicle safety

VOLKSWAGEN POLO FEBRUARY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

Peugeot Rifter 81% 91% 58% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Opel/Vauxhall Crossland X

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FIAT Panda 45% 16% 47% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant.

Vehicle Safety Risk Assessment Project Overview and Initial Results James Hurnall, Angus Draheim, Wayne Dale Queensland Transport

Committee on Transport and Tourism. of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Skoda Kodiaq 77% 92% 71% 54% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Volvo XC90 97% 87% 100% 72% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road 4x4. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

VW Tiguan 96% 80% 68% 68% SPECIFICATION TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Pedestrian Impact Protection

Audi A6 85% 93% 81% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Lateral Protection Device

Opel/Vauxhall Astra 84% 86% 83% 75% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Methodology of Technical Feasibility Evaluation

LAND ROVER DISCOVERY. ANCAP Safety Rating. ancap.com.au. Test Results Summary. This ANCAP safety rating applies to: Adult Occupant Protection.

FORD MUSTANG (FN) DECEMBER ONWARDS V8 & ECOBOOST FASTBACK (COUPE) VARIANTS

Citroën Berlingo 91% 81% 68% 58% SPECIFICATION TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Vulnerable Road Users

Position Paper. Anti-lock Braking for Agricultural Tractors

AEB IWG 04. Industry Position Summary. Vehicle detection. Static target

Jeep Wrangler 69% 50% 49% 32% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Fiat 500X 85% 86% 74% 64% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small MPV. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (dual), Passenger (dual)

Kia Niro 80% 83% 57% 59% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

NEW MONDEO IS LATEST FORD MODEL WITH TOP SAFETY RATING

Toyota Aygo 63% 74% 64% 25% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Pedestrian protection in vehicle impacts: Further results from the Australian New Car Assessment Program

Suzuki Jimny 84% 73% 52% 50% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Subaru Levorg 83% 92% 75% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

VW T-Roc 87% 96% 79% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Kia Niro 80% 91% 70% 81% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. With Safety Pack. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Pedestrian Safety. Bumper Test Area

MINI Clubman 68% 90% 68% 67% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Recommendations of the Expert Group on Preventing Motorcycle Injuries in Children

Australian Technology Pty Ltd A.C.N

Škoda Karoq 79% 93% 73% 58% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Transcription:

POLICY POSITION ON THE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION REGULATION SAFETY Executive Summary FIA Region I welcomes the European Commission s plan to revise Regulation 78/2009 on the typeapproval of motor vehicles, in order to improve the protection of pedestrians and other Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) 1. While the Regulation has significantly improved the safety of VRUs in past years, casualties still remain excessively high: in 2013, 5,542 pedestrians and 2002 cyclists were killed on European roads. Improvements can be achieved by adding safety test requirements to unregulated areas of passenger cars (M1) and vans (N1) vehicle fronts, such as the bonnet leading edge and windscreens areas. FIA Region I recommends to: Mandate a revised upper leg to bonnet leading edge test for M1 and N1 vehicles, with reference to the Euro NCAP 2015 pedestrian testing protocol Mandate that M1 and N1 vehicles must pass the adult-head-to-windscreen test performance threshold in order to receive type approval, but with an increase of the test impact speed from 35 to 40 km/h Make it a priority to conduct cost-benefit analysis of solutions to improve the crashworthiness of A-pillars (vertical elements supporting the windscreen) as well as windscreen edges and frame protection areas Accelerate the market deployment of active safety systems that can detect VRUs 1 European Union, Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, Brussels, 14 January 2009

Introduction The current Regulation foresees the obligatory installation of brake assist systems and includes passive safety requirements via three mandatory tests of the vehicle s front end for M1 and N1 categories. The three tests are the bumper-to-leg, bonnet-to-adult s head, and bonnet-to-child s head impact tests. Vehicles must meet certain test performance thresholds in order to be granted typeapproval. Tests to the bonnet leading edge and windscreen areas are performed, but manufacturers do not need to pass the tests to receive type-approval The bonnet leading edge-to-upper leg form 2 and the windscreen-to-adult head tests were also mandated for monitoring purposes only. They therefore must be conducted at typeapproval, but the granting of the type approval is not linked to reaching any specific test performance threshold. Results achieved in both tests have been documented to assess the possible need to mandate thresholds to improve VRU safety in the future. Data from the UK and Germany, shows that pedestrians can receive injuries from all regions of the vehicle front in road accidents. This shows that the area for potential injury to VRUs is widely 2 The area where the upper leg or pelvis area is likely to hit the vehicles

distributed on the vehicle s front end. 3 Also, cyclists are particularly prone to collide with the windscreen and A-pillar areas. FIA Region I stresses that the increased deployment of active safety technologies should not prevent authorities and manufacturers from continuing to improve the crash compatibility of vehicles with VRUs. Active safety solutions, while most welcome, should complement and not replace stringent passive safety requirements. Bonnet Leading Edge The upper leg to bonnet leading edge test records bending moments. Forces caused by the contact are between the upper leg and pelvis area to the bonnet leading edge. Only very few vehicles passed the test since 2009. At this stage, test parameters could be improved prior to being made mandatory. Current Upper Legform to bonnet leading edge test As passenger cars come in an ever increasing variety of market segments/classes (e.g. minis, family cars, SUVs) and tend to have a rounder front shape, Euro NCAP pedestrian testing protocol now focuses on the injured body region and an alternative definition of the area to be tested 4. In particular, the protocol standardises the height at which the impact needs to be tested, so that the tested area reflects the location where a VRU s upper leg area would hit the vehicle. Design improvements to crush depth (space before immovable objects such as the engine are hit) or deformation stiffness, in particular if more curved fronts are adopted, can improve vehicles performance in a testing of their front areas. The FIA Region I recommends to use the Euro NCAP pedestrian protection testing approach as reference for testing of cars front end, that can lead to upper leg and pelvis injuries. 3 J A Carroll, et al., 2014, Pedestrian leg form test area assessment Final report 4 Euro NCAP, 2015: http://www.euroncap.com/fr/pour-ing%c3%a9nieurs/protocols/pedestrian-protection/

Windscreens The adult-head-to-windscreen test records values when an adult s head is projected into the centre windscreen area. The windscreen is the most frequent source of head injury 5, and head injuries represent 80% of all serious and fatal pedestrian injuries. Data available suggests that, since 46% of cars meet the current test performance threshold, more should be Current Head to windscreen test The windscreen area is the most frequent source of head injury. Head injuries represent 80% of all serious and fatal pedestrian injuries done to improve the safety of the windscreen area 6. Unlike the other tests mandated by the regulation conducted at 40km/h, this test is currently performed at 35 km/h. However, trends in accident data clearly indicate that the fatality risk for pedestrians increases when the collision speed is 40 km/h or higher 7. GIDAS research on injuries and collision parameters found that 53.2% of pedestrians suffer head injuries at impact speeds below 40 km/h, and the frequency increases to 85.3% at speeds above 40 km/h 8. Consequently, FIA Region I recommends for the test to be performed at 40 km/h instead of 35km/h. 5 Otte D, Severity and mechanism of head impacts in car to pedestrian accidents, IRCOBI, 1999 (figures from GIDAS database) 6 TRL, Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the fields of Vehicle Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users_ Car Occupant and Pedestrian Safety, 2015. 7 Watanabe, R. et al (2012) Research of collision speed dependency of pedestrian head and chest injuries using human FE model 8 Dietmar, O., Birgitt, W. (2012) Comparison of Injury Situation of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in Car Frontal Impacts and Assessment of Influence Parameter on Throw Distance and Injury Severity

A-pillars and areas surrounding windscreens Pillars are the vertical or near vertical supports of a car's window. The "A" pillars hold each side of the windshield in place A recent study also commissioned by the European Parliament s Transport Committee concludes that the windscreen and its surrounding parts are the most frequent vehicle injury sources for cyclists 9. These are in particular the upper half of the windscreen, the upper-a-pillars and the roof edge. This is due to the higher centre of gravity when sitting on a bicycle. Whilst the centre of the windscreen may be relatively safe, the glass towards the edge of the screen may not break at the same load. Also, at the base of the windscreen, it is likely that the head of a VRU would penetrate the glass sufficiently to hit the dashboard underneath. The windscreen frame itself is very stiff because it is an important load-bearing part. Impacts to the windscreen frame and edges can be considered a gap area that is not addressed by legislation. While it is not easy to address, some manufacturers are investigating the use of deployable protection systems such as windscreen airbags. In a context of increased promotion of cycling, cost benefit analysis of solutions to improve A-pillars as well as windscreen edges and frame protection areas, should be made a priority research area. 9 Cuerden, R. et al (2015) The Impact of Higher or Lower Weight and Volume of Cars on Road Safety, Particularly for Vulnerable Users, Transport Research Laboratory.

Active safety systems for the detection of VRUs The deployment of active safety systems will play a major role in preventing accidents and mitigating their outcome. This is particularly critical in the context of an ageing population, prone to more severe injury outcomes. Vehicles with pedestrian detection capabilities are gradually being introduced on the market, with about 30% of new cars tested by Euro NCAP in 2016 equipped with pedestrian detection equipment. The European research project ASPECCS 10 indicates the following: 50 to 75% of pedestrian accidents are foreseeable (i.e. the pedestrian can be detected for a car to brake before the impact) Forward looking integrated pedestrian safety systems can reduce impact speed by 15 to 20 km/h for pedestrians hit by the front of cars Integrated pedestrian safety systems could yield a reduction of 15% to 30% in the number of pedestrian road fatalities in Europe upon full penetration into the fleet FIA Region I encourages regulators, consumer testing programmes and the automotive industry to accelerate efforts to deploy active safety systems that can detect VRUs. 10 http://www.aspecss-project.eu/articles/background.html

Conclusion FIA Region I encourages the adoption of more stringent test procedures to improve the crash compatibility of vehicles with vulnerable road users. An overruling principle should be that efforts are made to ensure all vehicle areas are made safer. This should be done in view to improve the safety of all VRUs, given current trends such as the increased promotion of cycling and our ageing population.

June 2016 FIA 2016 All rights reserved Fédération Internationale de l Automobile (FIA) Region I office FIA Region I is a consumer body representing 112 Motoring and Touring Clubs and their 37 million members from across Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The FIA represents the interests of our members as motorists, riders, pedestrians and passengers. FIA Region I is working to ensure safe, affordable, clean and efficient mobility for all. Learn more: www.fiaregion1.com