report: d40 - secondary safety research action plan safety_action_pla… · the secondary safety...

Report: D40 - Secondary Safety

Research Action Plan February, 2007

D40 – Updated Roadmap- Secondary Safety Research Action

Plan

LEADING PARTNER(S): INRETS CONTRACT N° : TNE3-CT-2003-506257 ACRONYM : APSN TITLE : Advanced Passive Safety Network PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR : Mr Jac Wismans

TNO Science & Industry Steenovenweg 1 PO Box 756 5700 AT Helmond The Netherlands Tel: +31 40 269 6343 Fax: + 31 40 265 2601 e-mail: [email protected]

PARTNERS: AUTÓKUT Budapest, Bolton Institute, CELLBOND Composites, Centro Ricerche FIAT (CRF), Centro Sviluppo Materiali (CSM), Chalmers University of Technology AB, CIDAUT, Concept Technologie, Cranfield Impact Centre (CIC), Dalphimetal, DaimlerChrysler, DEKLA, ENGINSOFT, ESI Software, University and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), FAURECIA, Fraunhofer, FTSS, GDV - Institute for Vehicle Safety, GESAC, Grupo Antolin, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IDMEC, IDIADA Automotive Technology, Institut fur Kraftfahrwesen Aachen (IKA), Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, INRETS, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Johnson Controls, Laboratory of Accidentology and Biomechanics (LAB), LMS International, MECALOG, Munich University (LMU), National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), National University of Ireland – Dublin (NUID), Politecnico di Milano, Przemyslowy Instytut Motoryzacji (PIMOT), SKODA VYZKUM s.r.o., Technical University of Eindhoven (TUE), Technical University of Graz (TUG), Technical University of Prague (CTU), Technische Universitaet Berlin (TUB), TNO Automotive, TOFAS, TRL, Uniresearch, Universidad Politéctica de Madrid (INSIA-UPM), Universite Louis Pasteur – Strasbourg (ULP), University of Birmingham (BASC), University of Firenze (UNIFI), University of West Bohemia (UWB), University of Zilina, Volkswagen AG, Loughborough University (VSRC), Warsaw University of Technology (VISEB)

PROJECT START DATE : 1 April 2004 DURATION : 4 years

Date of issue of this report : February 2007

Project funded by the European Community under the 6th Framework Programme

SSRAP-February 2007 page 3

Secondary Safety Research Action Plan




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Advanced Passive Safety Network (APSN) comprises over 50 members belonging to industry, private and public research institutes and universities in more than 20 countries. The APSN Secondary Safety Research Action Plan is aimed at providing prioritised future vehicle safety research needs and actions, linking them to the preparation of the EU 7th Research Framework Programme, and other (inter)national research programmes in this field. The Secondary Safety Research Action Plan was developed by deriving nine priority topics which are considered by APSN experts to be the most important for future safety research and action; it is intended to propose strategies for these topics in order to develop knowledge and implement actions and hence improve vehicle safety. In addition to the nine priority topics, the Research Action Plan discusses five related issues which also impact upon vehicle safety. The nine priority topics can be broadly categorised as human physiology (biomechanics), vehicle technology (compatibility, restraint systems, structures, integrated safety), safety assessment (accidentology, test methods) and specific road user groups (motorcycles, pedestrians). The related subjects referred to above are belt use, road engineering, pre-crash, post-crash, and regulations. These research domains can also be considered as two ‘types’ of research - ongoing supporting research such as biomechanics and accidentology, and engineering research directed at specific subjects such as compatibility and pedestrian protection. For each of the nine priority topics, the APSN Research Action Plan provides a list of milestones and actions with timescales, and suggests the main actors for their implementation. The main findings for each topic are given below. Biomechanics The human body is very complex, but research on impact biomechanics has only taken place in recent times. The development of improved test methods and the design of human numerical models and biofidelic dummies need more detailed and validated biomechanical knowledge. Compatibility For the compatibility issue, the APSN Research Action Plan identifies three main milestones: 1) the adoption of common structural interaction areas for all road vehicles and highway furniture, 2) a definition of requirements for car compartment strength and deformation stiffness, and 3) the development of HGV underride protection systems on all sides of the vehicle. Performing research work proposed for these milestones would allow the implementation of a regulation within 10 years. Restraint Systems The Research Action Plan acknowledges that restraint systems have improved greatly over the last 20 years, but also that the improvement of restraint system effectiveness can be driven along two main lines: one aiming at increasing belt use rate up to almost 100 % of car occupants, and the other at improving the effectiveness of restraint systems by introducing performance adaptability in relation to crash conditions and occupant characteristics (i.e. intelligent restraint systems). Structures Crashworthiness characteristics have a direct effect on the compatibility performance and restraint system effectiveness. The research domain addressing intelligent materials and structures which can adapt to crash conditions in order to optimize car loading is very promising as a step forward



to better crashworthiness characteristics of vehicles, but there are several other topics also related to car structures which require further research, such as seat structures and alternatively fuelled vehicles. Ten years would allow the implementation of new and improved concepts in this area. Integrated Safety As passive safety improvements become more complex, the issue of integrated safety gains more importance. In this context, integrated safety mainly addresses the possibility of using environmental data in order to optimize restraint system performance and, more generally, to activate car components to prepare the car for an unavoidable accident. The research to be performed would deal with technological developments as well as with their acceptance and actual use by drivers. Accident Data Accident characteristics and consequences are changing over time with the introduction of technological innovations on vehicles, with improved road design and maintenance, and (on a different time scale) with the evolution of the population at risk; there still is a lot to understand and acquire from in-depth and representative accident studies. With the advent of active safety systems, accident reconstruction has become more and more difficult. In order to obtain a thorough understanding of an accident one has to differentiate between the actions of the driver and the actions of the active safety systems. Event data recorders (data loggers) can be used to collect such data in the same manner as the ‘black-box’ flight data recorders used in the aviation industry. Test Methods In order to optimize the safety provided by cars, relevant standardized test methods are needed. The main challenge for the future is the introduction of virtual testing in addition to physical crash testing in order to extend the crash conditions under which the protection is assessed. This needs an extensive research programme to validate the proposed methods. Worldwide harmonisation is an issue which requires international cooperation among researchers, especially in the area of dummy design. Among the different categories of users, the APSN Research Action Plan specifically addresses motorcyclists and pedestrians. Motorcyclists Motorcyclists are road users with the highest risk of being killed or injured per mile travelled, although relatively little research has been conducted to date with the specific aim of improving their safety. It is acknowledged that this is a difficult issue, and the first step is to develop a common strategy. Three strands of research are foreseen: 1 The development of knowledge aimed at designing improved helmets and clothing (which

itself requires research in the areas of biomechanics and advanced materials); 2 The development of integrated safety devices to aid the driver (some developments made for

cars could potentially be implemented for motorcycles); 3 Improved highway furniture. Pedestrians The regulations aimed at protecting pedestrians have only recently been introduced and, after this first step, there is a common understanding that more research is necessary to go further. This is especially true in terms of a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in pedestrian accidents, and also in the area of biomechanics to support the development of improved test methods. Research on advanced materials would contribute to the development of new solutions for improved protection of pedestrians and cyclists.



It is obvious that passive, or secondary, safety of vehicles cannot be isolated from what happens before and after the crash, and is influenced by the environment which may become involved in an accident. These interactions are discussed in the section ‘Other Issues’ with proposals for research and actions in order to optimise the complete system of road transport and mobility for improved safety. Significant road casualty savings can be made through the application of passive or secondary safety technologies and significant research is still required to develop the technologies that will deliver these savings.



INDEX Chapters page Executive summary 4 1 Introduction 8 2 General trends and developments 10 3 Work process 14 4 Priority issues 16

4.1 Accident Data 16 4.2 Impact Biomechanics 19 4.3 Compatibility 22 4.4 Restraint Systems 25 4.5 Vehicle Structures and Materials 28 4.6 Integrated Safety 30 4.7 Test methods and tools 35 4.8 Motorcycles and mopeds 39 4.9 Pedestrians and cyclists 44

5 Other issues 46 5.1 Belt use 46 5.2 Road engineering 48 5.3 Primary Safety 50 5.4 Tertiary Safety 51 5.5 Regulations and consumer tests 53

6 Concluding Remarks 55 List of acronyms 56

Acknowledgement 57



1. INTRODUCTION In 2000 the European Union recorded 42.000 lives lost in traffic related accidents, which represents a heavy toll for meeting one of the most basic needs of the European society: Mobility. The European Commission therefore formulated the goal of halving the number of traffic fatalities in Europe over a 10 year period. At the time of publication of this report we are halfway through this 10 year period and the European Commission is drafting its midterm review report. Substantial progress has been made. The latest figures for 2004 indicate 32.000 road casualties meaning that the EU15 has been able to achieve an average reduction in road casualties of more then 4% per year. The year 2004 itself showed a reduction of 8.2%, the highest figure for the last 20 years. However, an average reduction of 4% will not enable the target to be reached and even then a figure of 20.000 lives lost per year remains an unacceptable social burden. Compared with natural disasters, this is equivalent to a major earthquake strike in Europe every year. In Central Europe, with many new EU member states, the number of fatalities is on the rise. The year 2004 shows an increase of almost 2% compared with 2003. It is also noteworthy that 70% of fatalities occur outside of urban areas, where the driving speed is higher, but 70% of injuries occur within urban areas. With 30% of fatalities within urban areas and 15% of all fatalities being pedestrians, the conclusion can be drawn that approximately half of the people killed in EU city traffic are pedestrians. The new EU regulation on pedestrian Safety will make a considerable contribution towards reducing this number in years to come. More needs to be done. Traffic Safety needs to be improved using all available strategies, from public education, via safer cars to trauma care and better roads. The aim of the Advanced Passive Safety Network (APSN) is to contribute to road Safety by mobilising the European scientific and business expertise in vehicle passive Safety to accelerate improvements in road Safety at affordable costs. The APSN is a Network of Excellence for a durable integrated European vehicle passive Safety research & implementation program. APSN works within the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission and the APSN membership represents more then 50 different organisations in the field of passive Safety from over 20 countries. The APSN is the successor of the PSN (Passive Safety Network) that worked within the 4th and 5th Framework Programme and who published the ‘Roadmap of Future Automotive Passive Safety Technology Development’ in 2004. The purpose of the APSN Secondary Safety Research Action Plan is to provide a follow up for the PSN roadmap by providing both a prioritisation and selection of topics and by indicating concrete R&D subjects and actions. The goal of this Research Action Plan is to describe in more detail the main actions that are needed to achieve the EU road Safety target. It will serve as input for definition of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission and other (inter)national action plans to improve road Safety. The prioritised R&D issues described in this Research Action Plan will lead to the introduction of new Safety technology and improved systems on the market. The success of these new products in terms of reducing the number of road casualties and injuries will depend on the rate of market penetration achieved following introduction. If not mandated by law, new safety systems tend to be introduced in a market-driven manner, i.e. they are introduced on the high-specification (and therefore most expensive) models first before becoming more widely available. The APSN acknowledges that the achievement of a high market share of a new technology may be a more



important milestone then the initial introduction. Consequently this Research Action Plan, where possible and necessary, also indicates measures and tools that will accelerate market penetration. Improvement of the figures in future road Safety statistics is the prime objective for APSN. However, care has to be taken to ensure that the prioritisation of subjects is not restricted by targeting statistical results within a given time horizon. Road Safety work has to continue beyond the goal of halving the Y2000 figures. Work therefore needs to be consistently pursued to generate new knowledge for long term road Safety improvements over the coming decades. Road Safety is a broad subject that today is generally structured in three areas: primary, secondary and tertiary Safety. Primary Safety refers to Safety during normal driving. Secondary Safety refers to Safety during a crash and just before when onboard systems detect that a crash is likely to happen. Tertiary Safety is the third and very important phase of rescue and care after a crash. The focus of the APSN is mainly on secondary Safety. The main content of this Research Action Plan is a description of nine priority areas of secondary Safety. The report defines main milestones within each of the priority areas and defines the main actions to achieve these milestones. Starting with research, actions are also defined on the subsequent levels of development and implementation. The results are presented in roadmaps. Secondary Safety relates naturally to the phase before and after the crash i.e. primary and tertiary Safety. Regulation and road infrastructure also have an important influence on secondary Safety. The section ‘Other Issues’ mentions aspects that APSN wants to highlight as most relevant to achieve the European road Safety targets. If not mandated by law, new safety systems tend to be introduced in a market-driven manner, i.e. they are introduced on the high-specification (and therefore most expensive) models first before becoming more widely available.



2. GENERAL TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Society, Science and Technology are developing at a rapid pace. The Secondary Safety Research Action Plan not only reflects this changing world, but also takes advantage of it. This requires a view on the underlying trends, the main ones relating to road Safety being described in the following sections. Technology trends Electronics and software drive Automotive research and development. They offer improved and new functionality throughout the car. In the area of secondary Safety advanced sensors and software based mechatronic systems have a big potential to improve occupant protection. 2005 has seen the first commercially available PreCrash system based on the new 24 MHhz radar sensor technology for near vehicle environment scanning. Based on the achievement of this milestone, two main lines of development can be identified. Firstly, technology development will continue to produce ever more intelligent and efficient Safety systems that will eventually lead to autonomous vehicle actuation in emergency situations. Secondly, at the same time, a commercial development will take place that will increase market penetration of PreCrash systems. This is of major significance because the full casualty reduction potential of these systems will only be realised through widespread installation of such systems in new vehicles. A third and related development line is the integration of intelligent vehicle systems with telematics. In the future, vehicles will be able to communicate with each other and with the infrastructure. In this way cars will be able, for instance, to communicate their relative position even if they are not in line of sight with each other. This technology will also facilitate new Safety related services such as automatic post crash emergency calls. The trend towards ever more intelligent systems will result in the development of restraint systems that adapt their functionality to individual occupant characteristics and crash situations to provide the optimum protection though the most effective means of energy absorption. However effective the restraint system, the basis of crash Safety is still the protection and the energy absorption provided by the body shell. This area has seen great advances in the past and still has great potential. New materials such as Ultra High Strength Steel can make bodywork stronger and lighter and technology, such as carbon fiber, can lead to considerable higher levels of energy absorption with an additional advantage of reduced weight. Meanwhile the standards for improved Safety cage and crumple zone construction have been raised from providing protection in a crash against a wall or a barrier to being effective in real world crashes with other vehicles. This raises the issue of compatibility of crash structures between different kinds of vehicles where a major Safety breakthrough is yet to be demonstrated. Within these developments advanced testing methods will be instrumental in producing the best results and the shortest time to market with lowest development costs. Advanced simulation techniques enable virtual testing with a level of real world relevance that is equivalent to or sometimes even better than conventional testing. In the future it will surpass conventional testing by providing assessment of a far wider range of crash circumstances with equivalent confidence levels. Social “Sustainable Mobility” is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the European economy. Significant growth in the demand for transport of people and goods is foreseen in the next years.



Especially in the sector of transport of goods, experts predict an increase in passenger/vehicle kilometres of 38% within the next decade. We should note, that this sector of mobility is extremely cost driven by market forces and globalisation. But also commuter traffic and traffic related to recreation activities will increase by 24% in the same period (expert market forecast). As an already existing concomitant phenomenon congestion is getting worse in all European urbanised areas which will have an impact on the type and frequency of accidents. Congested roads result in a higher number of low speed accidents which given today’s standards of Safety in cars are generally survivable. However, these accidents do have a considerable risk of generating long-term or disabling injuries with high societal costs, such as whiplash. These crashes could potentially be overcome through integrated Safety electronics such as Forward Collision Warning systems. On the other hand high speed crashes on congested roads are likely to involve multiple vehicles, increasing the potential seriousness of the incident. Information and communication systems have now made their way into cars, changing drivers’ activities during driving. Phone calls, navigation systems and message services create a source of distraction from full attention on the driving task and road Safety. Portable DVD systems are also a significant threat in this respect. Distraction from driving tasks by on board systems has become a problem and a Safety risk. The driver risks becoming overloaded with information and other non-driving related tasks. Research and new solutions are needed to prioritise and channel information to the driver. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems can help to balance the risk, but add another risk in themselves. Drivers may opt to rely on these systems in ways for which they are not intended, and to use them for delegatory assistance rather then supplementary assistance. A primary use of many cars, related to the above mentioned recreation activities but as well in a day-to-day use, is for transport of children and therefore on-board child Safety is gaining in importance. Large improvements can still be made in this area through both educational and technical approaches. Belt wear rate among young children is too low which could simply be a matter of knowledge and education, but could also indicate discomfort through unfit belt configuration. Child seat systems on the market have made a big improvement to child Safety, but on the other hand take-up of the Iso-Fix systems that ensure proper installation of the seat is low both on in cars as well as the child seats themselves. More knowledge about child biomechanics is needed to improve further the equipment, and to prepare for the development of self adjusting restraint systems. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of Safety education programs. The question is not whether to continue such programmes but how to improve them. Traffic Safety educational programs are a priority as long as people are still getting killed on the road. Demographics Since 1993 traffic fatalities in the age group 20 to 30 years old have shown a positive development. The annual number of fatalities in this age group dropped by almost 30% over this period. However, drivers aged between 16 and 24 years old remain the highest risk group in terms of fatalities. The average age of the driving population is increasing. People are becoming older and are continuing to drive on the roads at a higher age. With advancing age, biomechanics change and reaction time becomes slower. This shows most clearly in the fact that 44% of pedestrian fatalities are above 65 years old.



The number of elderly people will continue to increase and so will their presence on the road. Elderly people may have more difficulty in adapting to new driving habits such as multi-tasking with new technologies both moderating (integrated Safety) and aggravating (infotainment) the effect. The possible effect of higher numbers of older drivers requires attention. Market Considerable changes have taken place in the car market that have affected the model mix. The segment for SUV’s and similar vehicles has shown a big increase, these vehicles being higher and heavier than cars, and should therefore be taken into account in crash compatibility. In the USA, SUV’s are considered as an area for special attention due to their often different construction in comparison with regular passenger cars. The European fleet of motorcycles and moped is increasing over time, as well as the use of those vehicles, especially in cities as an alternative to cars because of congested traffic. This highlights the importance to be given to motorcycle safety. New diesel engine technologies have given vans performance equivalent to a car, which has resulted in a similar driving style; vans today can often be seen overtaking passenger cars. This indicates the need for an upgrade of on board Safety systems in vans to at least a level equivalent to that seen in cars. The newest segment in the vehicle market is maybe that of ‘low cost cars’. In Europe the cost of cars and driving them has increased at a far higher rate then public buying power. This has opened a market for low cost cars from China and Eastern Europe. Although lower cost does not necessarily mean unsafe cars, strict cost targets naturally have an impact on equipment levels and emerging countries do not necessarily place the same priority on Safety. A first and recent import from China performed considerably worse in a crash test then current European market standards, but still fulfils homologation requirements. This points at a weakness in the EU Safety program that stimulates Safety improvements by rating test outcomes at crash speeds higher then legal requirements. This is therefore a matter for attention and communication through general media is important in this area. For the future an important change in the car fleet is likely to be the growth in the area of alternatively fuelled cars. The Safety implications of a.o. large batteries, gaseous fuel tanks and, in the further future, hydrogen storage in the car requires research. New member states, new targets? The EU commission used the year 2000 as a reference when setting the goal of reducing the number of road traffic casualties by half by 2010. However the EU looks very different now then in 2000. Ten new member states have now joined and two more are planned to follow before 2010. Since Y2000 the number of road casualties in the EU15 has been reduced by approximately 25%. In the same period the EU has grown with 10 new member states with a substantial numerical increase in population and road accidents. With the addition of the new member states the total number of road casualties for the EU rose to over 43,000 in 2004. This equals the number of road casualties that the EU15 suffered in Y2000. The effect of the enlargement of the EU shows as a shift in time of the absolute number of casualties of approximately 4 years. Halving that figure in 10 years will be an enormous challenge. However with a steady decrease of 6.5% per year it can be done. The present rate is better then 4% per year, but this is not sufficient and more needs to be done. New technologies and intelligent systems offer unprecedented



possibilities for accident prevention and mitigation, advanced restraint systems, compatibility engineering and all round testing methods.



3. WORK PROCESS The Roadmap of Future Automotive Passive Safety Technology Development (PSN/2004) provided a development path for 10 technology themes in relation to 6 accident types. The Roadmap laid out development paths through milestones over a 10 year period to 2015. As a next step APSN wishes to further focus and detail the Roadmap. In preparation for this work APSN consulted experts and stakeholders for input and has taken recent technology developments and reports of APSN and other Safety organisations into account. After this preparatory work APSN defined three working principles: 1 The prioritisation should be carried out on the basis of accident types. 2 The necessary detail should be described on the basis of technology developments. 3 Therefore the relationship between technology developments and accident types needs to be

clear. This relationship is clarified in a matrix (figure 1) which indicates technology areas in relation to accident types. A milestone included in this Research Action Plan may require developments in different technology areas and can have an effect on different accident types. The matrix served to identity these relationships.

This matrix was populated with more than 50 targets to be achieved and actions needed in support. The next stage in order to achieve the required prioritisation of the targets within the accident types was a rating on Benefit and Cost, the process being based on expert opinions within APSN and related organisations. The analysis was performed in various ways resulting in 4 ranking lists using Cost/Benefit ratios, the relative importance of the related accident type on European statistics and estimations of the effect of the target on these statistics. This process resulted in the selection of 20 targets which were consistently prioritised as the most important by all 4 ranking lists. Within these 20 prioritised targets, there was a certain degree of overlap and repetition, hence they were combined into a 'Top Box' of 9 items that are all seen as priority items with associated milestones and actions. Priority differences within this group were regarded as not relevant.

Figure 1: Relationship matrix (Source PSN Roadmap 2004)



Analysis of the Top Box showed that they relate to all defined accident types. The Top Box therefore covers a broad spectrum of the Secondary Safety Research area while at the same time identifies the most efficient milestones on which R&D efforts should be focussed. The milestones in the Top Box can be grouped into 7 Technology Areas: • Accidentology • Impact biomechanics • Compatibility • Restraint systems • Vehicle structures and materials • Integrated Safety • Test methods and tools A number of milestones specifically target the 2 groups of Vulnerable Road Users: • Motorcycles and mopeds • Pedestrians and cyclists These 9 priority items are further described in the section ‘Priority Issues’ of this report. These chapters include main actions to achieve the identified milestones. The actions are mapped in time and presented in graphs. For each action the first responsible group of organisations has been identified.

50 T

arg

ets

To

p

20

Targ

ets

30 T

arg

ets

• Cost/Benefit

• Importance in Europe

• Impact

9 P

rio

rity

Ite

ms



4. PRIORITY ISSUES This chapter is the core part of the report; it proposes, for each of the 9 priorities issues, a definition in order to have a common understanding of the topic, a status of the topic showing current knowledge and gaps, and milestones subdivided into actions which primarily concern research works to be conducted, but also sometimes, actions derived from research results. 4.1 Accident Data Definition Accident data provides the basis for most of the improvements in vehicle safety. Macroscopic data, normally gathered at national level or by insurance companies, is used to assess broad trends over time and to identify key road user groups at risk. In-depth data is normally based on specialist investigations conducted by dedicated, independent teams with a research focus, it is used to provide feedback on technologies to Government and Industry and to support the development of new active and passive safety systems. Status Historically most in-depth material has been gathered within the framework of research projects either at national level in a few countries or by industry. This has resulted in unharmonised data with generally inadequate sample sizes of newer vehicles – those of most interest. More recently several European level projects have been successful in developing standard procedures for investigations of the passive safety of cars and assembling a pan-European data gathering system. The current work to prepare the European Road Safety Observatory (www.erso.eu) will provide a very strong basis to gather and disseminate in-depth accident data as well as macroscopic and other safety data. The main challenge for the future is to build on this approach by broadening the European representation and integrating the data gathering more fully into the wider EU research and policy development. It is clear from accident analysis that passive safety still has much to offer casualty reduction and continued data on the safety performance of modern vehicles will be needed for the foreseeable future. However, the development of new integrated and active safety systems has identified a need for new types of accident causation data and has placed new demands on the accident data and there is a convergence of requirements with passive safety. In both cases the vehicles of most research value are those that are equipped with more recent technologies where the need for feedback is most urgent. On the other hand these vehicles tend to be involved in crashes much less often and only multi-centre, international studies normally have the capability to rapidly bring together sufficient data to provide statistically valid results. Milestones and actions Passive safety Milestone 1 Continuous Passive Safety Accident Data gathering The rapidly changing technologies installed on vehicles means priorities for injury reduction routinely change, in-depth accident data can identify these changes and help focus resources onto the areas of greatest value. New technologies can be highly effective under experimental conditions but real-world crashes are highly varied, a system that works well in the laboratory may be poor on the road due to unanticipated confounding factors. Accident data can provide feedback to OEMs and suppliers on the real effectiveness of safety systems. Examples include new restraint systems, new designs of vehicle structure and anti-whiplash seats. However the



multiplicity of systems fitted to new cars and the nature of the algorithms means that collaborations between industry and independent researchers are needed to fully evaluate safety systems. In a similar way accident data can provide feedback on the appropriateness and benefits from safety regulation or consumer information systems. To address these issues a programme of continuous accident investigation and data gathering is required to bring together in-depth data covering all road user types within the framework of the European Road Safety Observatory. The data should represent the performance of safety systems across the range of conditions experienced on European roads and there should be a dialogue between those assembling future research plans and those responsible for accident investigation to ensure that the programmes are properly aligned. Milestone 2 Long-term impairment from crash injuries Much of the research and development to improve the passive safety of vehicles has concentrated on methods to prevent fatalities and life-threatening injury. The increasing effectiveness of safety systems has resulted in more attention being dedicated to the issues of crash survivors, who form the majority of injured road users. The issues for this group of people concern the socio-economic costs to society and the impairment and health losses of the individuals. There is an absence of research tools and data to support this research and in particular improved data on the longer term impact from crash injuries is urgently required. This has to be accompanied by better information about the financial costs of treating the injuries and the overall losses to society. Milestone 3 Specialist Injury data In-depth accident data supports bio-mechanics research by identifying the population at risk and monitoring changes that occur, for example with the ageing population. It also can ensure that priority injury mechanisms are assessed by dummies and test procedures and for some user groups, such as children, it is the only direct method available to evaluate injury risks. Virtual testing methods, using humanoid models, frequently require specific case studies to be available to validate that models give similar results to real-world crashes. Specialist accident data is needed to support these areas and the European Road Safety Observatory will be able to supply the data but coordination is needed in advance to ensure the research programmes are compatible. Integrated and Active Safety Milestone 4 In-depth Accident Causation Data New active safety systems add new requirements of accident data. Detailed data on the causes of crashes and the role of specific vehicle, road and driver features is essential. As yet there is no agreed method of classifying accident causation and a variety of techniques have been developed. Harmonised in-depth accident causation data is needed to provide the basis for system development and evaluation, the data should be representative of as broad a range of European conditions as possible. This data will facilitate a closer integration of active safety and traditional road safety strategies for maximum casualty reduction. Milestone 5 Exposure Data Exposure data is an essential corollary to accident causation data as it is used to measure risk, it is needed at a level of detail that compares with that in the in-depth accident data. It can be gathered within the framework of in-depth accident data and there should be many key data fields in common. Broader information on normal driving is also needed by conducting naturalistic



driving studies, representative of the range of the driving population and of urban, rural and motorway driving conditions. This data is comparable to the US “100 Car Study” and will directly support active safety system development by identifying driving parameters at points when automatic support to the driver is needed. Milestone 6 Effectiveness of Active Safety Systems and Event Data Recorders Some statistical methods are available to measure the effectiveness of active safety systems, even though accident data will not directly measure accidents that have not occurred. There are advantages to be gained by developing these methods and amalgamating macroscopic and in-depth data with details on equipment fitted to cars. Nevertheless the most accurate evaluation of active safety systems on the road will require a record of the driving parameters immediately before the crash which should be stored to later provide an assessment of the system performance. This development of the “black box” approach will give important information to system designers and will provide a platform for more advanced systems that will be in use in the future. Effective collaborations between industry and research institutes are needed to ensure technical barriers can be overcome. Such Event Data Recorders will also give benefits to passive safety system development as they can also be used to store the crash pulse and other information. Milestones and actions: Accident data



4.2 Impact Biomechanics Definition The general objective of secondary Safety is to improve the protection of road users in accidents; it is then important to take into account human characteristics and human impact response in the development of safety systems, and to develop human models (mechanical or virtual) aimed at predicting injuries. This is the field of impact biomechanics. Status IRCOBI (International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact) has recently issued a white paper on biomechanical research. The ideas contained in this paper are shared by the APSN1: The purpose of biomechanics research is to improve our understanding of the human body so that we can build better tools to assess the risk of injury. These tools can be physical - crash test dummies -, or numerical - computer simulations. The research issues and needs for further knowledge demonstrate a series of more general questions in our understanding of injury biomechanics that apply to each of the body regions: • How can we better describe the biophysical characteristics of the variety of human structures,

components and subsystems that can be injured • How can we better characterize the dynamic response of these components and structures to

external insult? • How can we better characterize the mechanisms by which these structures undergo

mechanical failure? • How can we better define and measure the limits at which these structures begin to fail? • How can we better take into account the variability of human beings in terms of age, sex, race,

etc.? • How can we better take into account the fact that humans are not inanimate systems but

rather ones which can react, via muscle response, to impending insults?" A coordinated research programme in impact biomechanics, combining an experimental approach and numerical simulations, is needed in order to prepare the answers to the above questions, which are necessary to develop safety solutions compatible with human body characteristics and performances. Milestones and actions Milestone 1 More discriminating injury criteria and injury tolerance values Further biomechanical research is required to develop new injury criteria, risk functions and tolerances for the complete population of car occupants including children and the elderly. Synergies between injury biomechanics and other disciplines such as ergonomics and comfort are required to address non life-threatening, long-term trauma such as lower back pain and to study human behaviour in pre-crash or low severity crashes. Anthropometric research should focus on the current differences within Europe and to determine the future anthropometric changes for the next 20 years. 1 Source IRCOBI White Paper: "Future Research Directions in Injury Biomechanics and Passive Safety Research"



Milestone 2 Injury criteria for specific road users Neck injuries are frequent and high cost for the society. Further research to understand and to reduce injury risks during low-speed rear-impacts is requried. A new generation of adaptive head restraints needs to be developed that takes into consideration varying occupant sizes and seating positions. A driver for fast implementation will be an accepted EuroNCAP assessment methodology. Intelligent, real-time controlled, restraint systems require biomechanical research with respect to acceptable loads and injury risks for occupants of different size, age and gender (2010) for the different vehicle segments. The problem of interference of out-of-position occupants with side or curtain airbags needs to be addressed. The priority issues “Pedestrians and cyclists” and “Motercycles and mopeds” include several biomechanical research topics. A high priority is the development of a new head injury criterion. Milestone 3 Improvement of tools validation Further biomechanical research is required to define appropriate validation sets for dummies and human models. This does not include the development of assessment tools which are discussed in chapter 4.7. Furthermore, there is a need to demonstrate the usefulness of the human models, for instance to be applied to the improvement of restraint systems. Evaluations of biofidelity of human models (virtual and physical) are based on rather old PMHS tests which have been performed with limited instrumentation and under conditions which are generally not described in detail. These validation sets will concern the kinematic behaviour of body parts in full body tests and the mechanical response in dynamic localised impact tests.



Milestones and Actions: Impact Biomechanics



4.3 Compatibility Definition Compatibility has been a research issue for many years but has gained more prominence recently as vehicle designs have adapted to more stringent crash Safety requirements, largely driven by EuroNCAP testing. The ability of a vehicle to realise these improved occupant protection capabilities in real world situations requires all vehicles to be ‘compatible’ with each other, i.e. in broad terms to deliver the vehicle’s protection regardless of the collision partner. The compatibility of a vehicle is understood as both self and partner protection in such a way that optimum overall Safety is achieved. This means that compatibility seeks to minimize the number of fatalities and injuries, regardless of the vehicle in which the injuries or fatalities occur. It is generally accepted that this should take place without compromising self- protection. Status The research carried out by industry, Government and other stakeholders over many years has resulted in a good understanding of the frontal impact compatibility phenomenon. However, research work has only just started to understand side impact compatibility. For frontal impact compatibility although mass is obviously a significant factor when 2 dissimilar vehicles collide, the most important objective is to obtain maximum energy absorption and management using the structures of both vehicles. To achieve this, good structural interaction is the first priority. Once this is achieved, then the stiffness and compartment strength of each vehicle as presented to the other becomes important as the structures deform and absorb energy, with the objective of avoiding passenger compartment intrusion and optimising the compartment deceleration pulse so that the restraint system can operate efficiently. A priority issue at present is the compartment strength of lighter cars. At present, two test and assessment approaches are under development in the EC project ‘VC-COMPAT’ to measure and control a car’s frontal impact compatibility, namely the Full Width Deformable Barrier (FWDB) approach and the Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) approach. These approaches assess a car’s compatibility in fundamentally different ways. The FWDB approach uses the force distribution measured on a Load Cell Wall positioned behind a small depth of deformable element whereas the PDB uses the deformation of a specially designed deep deformable element. Compared with each other, neither approach has a clear advantage over the other, so to date both approaches have been developed in parallel. Indeed, the approaches could possibly be implemented in a complementary way. It is generally agreed that both a full width and an offset test are required to assess a car’s frontal impact crash performance, so as the FWDB test is a full width test and the PDB test is an offset test, a possible way forward could be to use both the FWDB and PDB tests to assess a car’s compatibility in both impact configurations. EEVC WG15 are expected to recommend an approach to assess a car’s structural interaction potential in 2007. Once the test and assessment protocols have been established, they may be adopted either as a regulation and / or as an addition to the EuroNCAP test regime. The principle of compatibility does not only apply to car-to-car collisions, although this is the primary focus of current research. Collisions with any object (pedestrians, HGVs, guardrails or poles) have implications for compatibility and should impose requirements on a vehicle structure to interact appropriately with that obstacle. This is already seen in the field of pedestrian Safety where a new European Directive requires cars to be more ‘compatible’ with pedestrians. Work is also progressing with HGV compatibility. The EC project ‘VC-Compat’ is addressing both car-to-car and car-to-truck interactions. HGV compatibility requires good interaction with the under-run systems fitted to HGVs. Compatibility with road infrastructure (guardrails, lampposts, etc) is less



well addressed and while guardrails now have to meet well-defined criteria, these are not based on the structural performance of the current car fleet.

Milestone1: Improved Structural Interaction for all vehicles (trucks, SUVs, LTVs, cars, infrastructure) Passenger car impacts with other vehicles, including both trucks and passenger cars are of high statistical significance. Based on the lack of structural interaction in passenger car-to-truck collisions and a desire to improve car-to-car accident results, there is a basic need for greater structural interaction between all crash partners. The basis for good compatibility is a wide area over which force is distributed in the event of a collision. In addition, the force would ideally be uniformly distributed over this area during the impact event. One of the first steps in this process is the definition of a suitable common overlap area for structural interaction to maximize energy absorption between all crash partners in all crash events. This is also important in impacts with roadside infrastructure such as guardrails. Therefore, a structural interaction zone needs to be defined (height, ground clearance, width requirements) which will apply to all crash partner geometries. Since there are several restrictions it seems to be reasonable to promote a convergence of structures rather than forcing all structures down to ground level. It will be necessary to involve stakeholders from passenger and heavy vehicle manufacturers, infrastructure suppliers, governments, research institutes and universities to facilitate the definition of such an area. The first stage in defining a common structural interaction area should be a discussion amongst all stakeholders on the definition of such a zone. A proposal has already been made by ACEA for the definition of a common structural interaction area and this discussion now needs to be progressed to take into account the existing geometry of HGV under-run systems and roadside infrastructure so that the proposals can be implemented without major impact on other road stakeholders. EEVC are due to propose test procedures to assess a vehicle’s structural interaction potential along with principles for monitoring the magnitude of frontal force levels in 2007. Milestone 2: Definition of requirements for car frontal force levels and compartment strength As well as improving structural interaction between vehicles, it will be important to control any new requirements for passive Safety (regulatory and consumer rating) to ensure that mismatches in frontal force levels are reduced and in the short term do not become greater than they currently are. In particular the increase in frontal force level of heavy vehicles needs to be controlled. Likewise, it needs to be ensured that compartment strength does not become less than current levels, especially for light vehicles. Once frontal force levels are being monitored in the vehicle fleet, the next stage would be to match force levels between vehicles and thereby optimise the energy absorbing potential of both vehicles. A more long term issue which requires additional research effort is the matching of the compartment strength with the front-end resistance of the opponent vehicle. The influence of changes to passenger vehicle front-ends in front-to-side collisions must be also be taken into consideration. EEVC are planned to generate test procedures and requirements for frontal force levels and compartment strength in 2009.



To progress this subject and realise the Safety benefits research is required in the form of a follow-on project to VC-Compat (driven by EEVC) to establish the criteria to be achieved and the feasibility of doing so. Milestone 3: HGV under-run protection systems on all sides of the vehicle HGV compatibility remains a key issue for reducing deaths and injuries caused by heavy vehicles. Front under-run systems are now commonplace on the vehicle fleet and have been mandated since 2003, with work in the VC-Compat project examining the potential additional benefits to be gained from energy absorbing front under-run systems and rear under-run systems. However, the fitting of side under-run protection is still variable across Europe despite having the potential to reduce casualties significantly by protecting pedestrians and cyclists. No technological research is necessary in this area although work may be required to prove the cost/benefit of enforcing the fitting of these systems. The onus therefore lies with legislative authorities to complete this analysis and to mandate the fitting of side under-run systems. If this were to be initiated, immediately, it is unlikely that regulation would come into force before 2012. Milestones and Actions



4.4 Restraint Systems

Definition One of the most effective countermeasures in the field of passive Safety was the implementation of 3-point Safety-belts. Their effectiveness in decelerating the occupant in line with the vehicle has since been complemented by pretensioners, seat structures and the introduction of airbags. Today restraints incorporate mechatronic control to operate them proactively and in proportion to the crash severity and the individual occupants’ physiology. Status The status of 3-point belts in terms of both technology and use differ for front and rear seating positions. In the front seats beltload limiters, height adjusters and pretensioners are commonplace and belt use in EU is now almost 80% according to official reports. However, rear seating positions are generally fitted with basic belt configurations and the belt use rate is only half that of front passengers (see also “Other issues – belt use”). Currently multistage airbag concepts are widely used on new car models in order to optimise their function through controlled deployment. Forecasts indicate 100% implementation of passenger/driver airbags by 2007, and side airbags and headbag implementation are expected to reach 100% by 2009. Airbag modules in other areas such as knees, lower legs and anti sub-marining are still rare and may remain exclusively for high end models with more cost effective alternatives introduced on lower priced cars. Further implementation of existing concepts is necessary: • Easy entry and buckle-up concepts to increase the belt use rate. • Window airbags for SUVs, Vans, Trucks and Buses in order to reduce risk of injury during

rollover. • Side airbags for front seats (with headbag when there is no windowbag). • Implementation of belt-in-seat applications where the individual seat movement range is large,

and in vehicles with higher roll-over risks (SUVs and Vans). European legislation is already in place for this (ECE-R14 dynamic ).

• Application/ adaptation of ISO-FIX anchorage points for rear seats, passenger seats in cars and to some extent in buses. For applications with front airbags this should be done in combination with automatic child seat detection (on-off transmitter in seat and Child seat) as the technology is proven and robust.

• Fitment of (front seat) luggage retention in cars with open luggage space.. • Airbag concepts for buses, such as airbag in belt applications. • Knee airbags, or alternatives, to reduce the knee loads during frontal impacts. • Seat-cushion airbags to control sub-marining. • Footwell intrusion airbags and other mechanical solutions. The greatest changes in the optimisation of restraints will be in the field of advanced pre-crash and feedback sensors. In the USA the first systems for determining the occupant position and size have already been implemented (FMVSS208) but are still expensive and sensitive to errors. In Europe the first collision mitigation systems are being implemented on high end cars. Estimates are that mitigation systems may help to reduce by fatalities by 35%. About 60% of the rear-end collisions and 30% of the frontal collisions would not happen if the driver were able to react even just half a second earlier. The realisation of the full functional potential and market penetration of these systems is being held back by product liability aspects which needs to be addressed by EU actions. A major roadblock will be the huge development time and cost to ensure the robustness of new concepts. New ways are needed to test and reduce the development time and costs for these smart restraint systems (see chapter Test procedures and tools).



The long term development target should be a further reduction of fatalities through a combination of future smart restraint systems and autonomous vehicle systems. Milestone 1 Introduction of intelligent restraints Development of intelligent, real-time controlled, restraints that adapt to individual occupants with respect to gender, size, age and seating position, the individual car and the individual crash. The applied technology must be effective, robust and affordable to ensure widespread implementation in cars. The technology should also be adapted for use in trucks, buses and vans. Integration of active and passive systems using pre-crash and driver assistance information should be established in an efficient way (see also “Integrated Safety”): • Application of belt load limiters and pretensioners for all seating positions.

o For the front row, left and right pretensioners should be standardised. o For children the pretensioner and the maximum load should be optimised. o Further development of belt pretensioners to remove excess slack in the early moments in

the crash. • Accident analysis is needed to define the effectiveness of (current) intelligent restraint systems

in order to define development priorities and refinements (see Chapter 4.1). • Biomechanical and anthropometric research with respect to acceptable loads and injury risks

for occupants of different size, age and gender for the different vehicle segments and the future anthropometric changes for the next 20 years (see Chapter 4.2).

• Definition of use and test conditions that address all user/traffic situations and reduce the litigation risks.

• Development of sensor systems for external and internal (i.e. occupant position) monitoring, data fusion, algorithms and simulation models for interpretation of sensor data and decisive actions, development of actuators for adjustment of restraints and seats.

• For frontal and side crashes the focus will be on improving the sensors and assessment methods for a wider range of occupant classes, i.e. children <12 years old, 5% female, 50% male and 95% male.

• Market introduction of real-time controlled restraint systems that adapt to the occupant and seating position to establish the optimal restraint condition with the lowest risk: o Adjustment of belt load limitation for different sized/aged occupants. o Controlled airbag deployment (forces) in combination with belt performance and occupant

position. Milestone 2 Improved Child Safety Equal protection for all road users is required. For children the current seatbelts do not fit optimally, therefore new, adaptive systems are required: • The improvement of child dummies for a better biofidelity and new injuury criteria, especially

for side impact protection (see chapter 4.2). • Full implementation of anchorage points for child seats that allow easy installation, such as

ISO-FIX. This should be supported by evaluation and further development of such systems. • Adjustable booster cushions for children between 3 and 12 years to ensure correct routing, i.e.

legislated SRP points for children of different ages/groups. Legislation should be preceded by guidelines to enable fast implementation

• Implementation of 5-point belts for small children and 4-point belts for children up to 12 years using booster seats

• Additional EuroNCAP points for child restraint concepts.



• Adaptation of current child seats to make them also fit in buses. This requires an adaptation of the current concept and the installation of belts in buses.

Milestones and Actions: Restraint Systems



4.5 Vehicle Structures and Materials Definition The vehicle body structure plays an important role in the mitigation of injuries during a crash (structural crashworthiness). The vehicle strength (resistance against intrusion into the passenger space) as well as the deformability offered through crumple zones of the vehicle structure are important factors for injury risk reduction in all crash modes including front, side, rear and rollover. This area is strongly related with the issues of compatibility and impacts with vulnerable road users covered elsewhere in this Researcg Action Plan. The protection offered by the vehicle body itself needs to be considered in conjunction with efficient restraint systems (see priority issue Restraint Systems). This chapter will focus in particular on new materials in vehicle structures and general trends in future vehicle structural design not covered elsewhere. Status In modern vehicles the structural crashworthiness is primarily dependent on steel and aluminium structures that have been designed with particular emphasis on their behaviour under crash conditions, e.g. crash boxes, longitudinal beams and side impact protection beams. Polymer materials are found in areas where less severe crash conditions take place or in areas where the human body has to be protected against direct impacts, such as bumpers and front ends in the case of a pedestrian impact and the car interior for side impacts. However, there is currently a drive in the automotive industry to increase the application of light-weight and other materials such as composites, metallic foams, polymeric foams, multi-materials and sandwiches. This increasing introduction of lightweight vehicle structures is particularly driven by the need to reduce CO2 emission levels. At the same time a growing influence on the choice of materials for vehicle construction is the requirement to recycle as much of the vehicle as possible at the end of its life. The challenge for the vehicle designers will be to offer lightweight vehicles with the same, or preferably an even better, protection for the occupants in the event of a crash. The vehicle structural response is determined mainly by the response of the crash structures, the materials they are made of and the joining techniques as well as the response of other important vehicle components including wheels, suspension and the engine. One important aspect of vehicle crashworthiness design is the ability to perform numerical crash simulations with increasing accuracy (the field of virtual testing). Such simulations play an important role in reducing the design costs and in shortening the design cycle. Moreover they increasingly allow the study of, and optimization for, accident conditions for which no physical regulatory tests are defined (see also Test Procedures and Tools). A fundamental basis of such simulations is a detailed knowledge of the material behavior under crash conditions and realistic models that are able to describe this behavior (material laws and constitutive equations). When simulating crash situations we are often dealing with high strain rates, multi-axial stress and unstable material response, including buckling, and the need for accurate material data and descriptive models is therefore high as slight deviations in the models may have a significant effect on the overall response of the structure. Today knowledge for conventional steel structures is considered quite adequate in this field, but for other materials such as advanced energy absorbing materials as metal and plastic foams, knowledge is still rather limited. The seat and head-rest structure play an important role in the mitigation of neck injuries in rear-end impacts. However, in other crash modes the seat construction is also important, for instance in combination with the seat-belt, in preventing sub-marining. Seat designs are expected to become lighter in the future and to occupy less space (application of folding seats) while increased human comfort requirements will also have to be fulfilled. Such novel seat designs will require special attention to their crash behavior and occupant protection.



Intelligent materials are also now entering the market. Such materials have the capability to change their mechanical response on the basis of changes in the environment (for instance a change in magnetic field). Milestone 1 Advanced body and seat structures through new materials The development of advanced vehicle structures with superior crash Safety performance will largely depend on the application of new materials. This requires the integrated development of materials and simulation technologies, especially in the case of intelligent materials. These developments will focus on applications to the body and seats. These parallel developments will lead to the introduction both advanced body and seat structures. Required actions are: • Advanced seat concept

Research into new seat designs is required with a particular focus on increased occupant protection capabilities, in particular for rear impacts in combination with lighter design, lower space requirements and increased comfort. These new concepts should also include the integration of sensors that provide information on occupant size and position to support new Integrated Safety systems. Furthermore, research is needed into new seat concepts that move during the crash for additional occupant protection and that actively prevent sub-marining by means of pop-up elements or a dedicated airbag.

• New materials for crash protection High priority should be given to research into optimization of the crash response and energy absorbing potential of lightweight and other (new) materials such as composites, metallic foams, polymeric foams, multi-materials, sandwiches and ultra high strength steels (UHSS). One important aspect to consider is the influence of the manufacturing process on the structural behavior of the formed pieces, particularly in terms of the effect that residual stresses have on the impact performance of materials. The effects of material aging and degradation on the crashworthiness of a vehicle also needs to be studied. Adoption of these new materials will require in-depth research into more appropriate joining technologies, with particular attention paid to both the specific properties of the joint and the appropriate choice of joint type in the case of multi-material joints.

• Adaptive structures and Intelligent materials Current research related to smart materials & structures in an automotive environment is mainly being directed towards new solutions for noise reductions and vibration and shape control. Applications for vehicle crash Safety are substantially different due to the significantly higher energy levels involved. This area is closely linked to the priority area “integrated” Safety and one of the aims is to generate an optimal crash pulse for an accident condition. Completely new strategies for smart materials/structure applications in crash conditions need to be developed, for example by making use of smart fluids that are planned to be developed for dampers. These fluids change their viscous properties under the influence of a magnetic field, offering capabilities for smart compatibility applications.

• Reliable simulation models In conjunction with the development of new materials, reliable simulation models are needed that support the development of new materials and which will be used in the vehicle design process and virtual testing applications. For current materials further improvements in simulation models are needed for, among others, foam materials (both metallic and polymeric), sandwich construction materials (research is needed into failure modes with particular reference to the bond between the core and the external sheets and the load transfer between the different constitutive parts), ultra high strength steels and multi-materials. Moreover, models are needed that take ageing effects into account and describe the joints



(like spot welds) in a vehicle body in a more realistic way. Some of this research is taking place in the APROSYS project.

Milestone 2 Safety of alternative fueled vehicles. One of the greatest influences on the automotive vehicle in coming years will be the need for more fuel efficient vehicles and the transition from fossil fuels to alternative means of propulsion. Various technologies are being developed, including hybrid vehicles, fuel cell powered vehicles and the use of hydrogen as a fuel. Each of these technologies has a different impact on the overall vehicle as the entire powertrain (engine and transmission) will be modified. All of these changes to the vehicle will have a consequential effect on the vehicle structural design. Alongside the development of new propulsion systems, a parallel stream of research must be carried out that examines the Safety implications of each of these systems. Required actions are: • Safety of new vehicle design concepts. The effect on safety of a new vehicle powertrain and propulsion must be examined in terms of the Safety of its occupants under a range of crash conditions. Alternative design principles for crash mitigation should be considered including new concepts such as the ‘bionic car’ concept introduced recently by Daimler Chrysler Research. • Effect of changing fleet composiiton The implication of a modified vehicle fleet with a mixture of traditional and various ‘new-type’ vehicles must be studied to determine whether the introduction of new vehicles into the existing fleet will result in changes in casualties and in case of a negative impact on casualties, adequate countermeasures should be defined. Milestones and Actions



4.6 Integrated Safety Definition The definition of ‘Integrated Safety’ varies widely across the world with many different definitions in existence today. In the context of this Research Action Plan, the term ‘Integrated Safety’ is used to describe the domain where secondary Safety makes use of environmental data to optimise occupant restraints. Advanced secondary Safety, or PreCrash systems, in the context of Integrated Safety are adaptive Safety systems that employ individual occupant data and PreCrash information obtained from environmental sensors, dynamic car data and/or infrastructure or other vehicles. The fragmented picture of vehicle Safety technology and evaluation procedures that exists today will in the future consolidate to encompass the full Safety spectrum from vehicle structures to post crash systems. Status Products and vehicles that make use of crash or occupant information to adapt the Safety system functionality have now been on the market for a couple of years. Two-stage airbags, adaptive load limiters and reversible, pre-triggered restraints, are now almost standard features in new vehicles up to the average vehicle category. Nevertheless a high market penetration is not achieved so far and this process will proceed along the boundary conditions and trends mentioned in chap.2 and the milestones in “Restraint Systems”. Systems with environmental sensors that use PreCrash information are on the market in Japan and have also recently been introduced or announced by European OEM’s. In Japan these systems also feature autonomous braking, however within the European market to date system activation has had to be initiated by the driver. Pre-crash information is used to pre-condition the restraint systems with the objective of injury mitigation. The market introduction of such systems takes place in a “top-down” fashion, i.e. initially in vehicles within the luxury class (with the exception of two-stage-airbags which were needed for regulation purposes). It should be noted that in Japan the advanced (autonomous) functionality of pre-crash systems at present is covered by specific legislation to limit product liability. Some of these developments, such as basic occupant sensing technologies, have come about as a result of the requirements of regulation compliance. However, conversely, legal requirements and homologation processes can also be a limiting factor, either by setting technological constraints (e.g. 24 GHz radar), or by not adapting to new developments. The realisation of the full potential of pre-crash Safety systems will not be possible, or at least will be limited (ref. PRISM Project), by the use of classical assessment procedures and test tools such as crash dummies. To release the full potential benefit of new pre-crash Safety features such as “mitigation”, “individual”, “adaptive” or “smart” ones, new (possibly including virtual) assessment procedures taking into account fundamental disciplines such as biomechanics, need to be developed. In this primary stage of market introduction little is known of the customer appreciation of, and familiarity with, the benefit and functionality of these systems. This is another area for further research. Milestone 1 High share of PreCrash systems for front impact The area of PreCrash systems is generally regarded as having a high potential for further traffic Safety improvements. The basic technologies are available for product implementation and the



industry is investing heavily in R&D. The question now is how to accelerate a wide implementation of integrated Safety systems in order to fully realise their Safety benefits. Three aspects need to be taken into account: • The response (acceptance / customer demand) of the market is not yet validated and the

capability of the systems has also not yet been fully established for wide scale implementation. • The enabling technologies (sensor, algorithm, EE-platform) are seeing continuous

development as the fields of active and passive Safety merge. The functionality will develop stepwise with new system generations.

• New assessment tools are being developed and homologation processes need to be adapted. To reach the milestone of a high share of PreCrash systems on the market the following actions are needed: Due to the fact, that some of the action items are related to specific R&D subject areas, we propose the following substructure of actions to address possible stakeholders in that field. In particular a TECHNOLOGY area is now characterised by a highly integrated development and research within the primary and secondary safety field. But for a high market share of a product we have to state the following needs: • Mature and reliable sensor technology:

o Development and implementation of a new generation of sensors to meet European requirements for high market penetration.

o Advanced multiple sensor technology (sensor fusion) • Validation of the latest technologies and functional scenarios in the traffic environment –

Definition (mandatory) and agreement on system limitations • Validation of the new technology by large scale field tests - incorporating generation2 system

development and research based on results and experience regarding “driver in the loop” and reflecting the “intended use by the customer”

Further a development process and finally a market introduction of new products demands also appropriate ASSESSMENT procedures and TOOLS. As mentioned in other chapters, pre-crash related adaptive and smart protection systems definitely enforces also a new generation of tools based on consolidated findings in the biomechanical research area. Regarding specific actions in that area we propose the following: • Research on the development of test methodology and assessment procedures for

‘Integrated Systems’ (addressed by APROSYS1) o Development and evaluation of virtual assessment tools (see also chapter ‘Test

procedures and tools’) o Acceptance and implementation of virtual testing procedures for regulation or consumer

ratings. o Adaptation of the current quality assurance and development methods to cope with the

increasing complexity and communication dependency between different systems. Use of design methods such as FMEA must be compared with other areas such as aerospace, aeronautics, nuclear, and medical. (addressed by RESPONSE 3 /PReVENT2)

For benefit estimation in real world also BASIC ASSESSMENT / ACCIDENT ANALYSIS methodologies has to be developed. The primary safety area already stated the need for more and detailed in depth studies also regarding driver or human behaviour to assess the population benefit of pre-x systems. Due to the fact, that we discuss the promotion of such system in this chapter, we have to call also for prospective methodologies:



• Improvement of statistical analysis and evaluation methods, including research on and implementation of a prediction methodology.

• Increased accident and statistics analysis, including research on an appropriate and harmonised communication of system benefits and effects in accident statistics.

This action will also lead us to the final subject area concerning high share of pre-crash systems on the market. Precrash systems may be perceived as the first generation of integrated systems. The basic technology is available, however for accelerated MARKET INTRODUCTION and increasing PUBLIC AWARENESS the technology push has to be replaced by market pull. The question addressed is how to speed up market penetration as a stimulus for continued system development. The primary actions should be as follows: • Address product liability concerns of OEM’s in order to realise the system Safety potential

earlier, by regulatory or financial means. • Stimulate / enforce market development by financial incentives for the customers and

recognition in Safety rating systems. Research is needed on customers demand and conception.

Milestone 2 Reliable technology and data processing algorithms for side impact – pre-crash systems for side impact ready for market introduction. Just copy the action items from frontal impact to side impact might be not very successful. On the one hand side impact is still a crash event with high incidence of casualties – but on the other hand a side impact is also a very complex scenario which may change from “minor damage” to “severe consequences” within milliseconds – and for this, challenging for the technology area in that case.

• Research on appropriate side impact sensor and actuator technology – as well intelligent structure and material development

accompanied by

• Research on cost benefit analysis and market observation for pre-crash side impact systems in a future, integrated safety scenery (C2C-, C2I- communication, etc.)

will be the primary actions concerning this milestone. Within further system development, of course, the above mentioned actions of frontal impact will become as well relevance for the promotion of a market introduction. Due to the fact, that we are acting in a complex scenario, it might be, that we have to put extra effort on

• Research on reliable and mature technology and algorithms for pre-crash side impact systems.

Finally, the area of integrated safety offers new and very promising effects on road safety. More than others it will grow over time with new and interlinked intelligent vehicle systems. A continuous monitoring of the actions and milestones in this area and adaptation on varying needs will be mandatory for prosperous implementation.



Effect on statistics As the introduction of PreCrash systems is linked with modernisation of the car fleet and within this process a “top down” process (E-segment > A-segment cars) is likely to take place, the effect on accident statistics will be continuous over a number of years. To assess the process of market introduction of forthcoming PreCrash systems and the consequent effect on accident data, a comparison with ESP may be the best method, on the basis of a ‘high uptake’. This leads to an estimation of an overall effect of a 15%-20% reduction of car fatalities by 2015. Milestones and Actions:



4.7 Test Methods and Tools Definition By law, all new car models must pass certain Safety tests before they are allowed on the road. These Safety tests generally consist of standardised protocols to which tests must be executed including the use of specified crash test dummies that represent the human occupants. In Europe, most regulatory test procedures have been developed by the European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) on the basis of the “real world” injury priorities at the time they were first introduced. Increasingly, computer simulations are used by vehicle manufacturers to predict the outcome of a crash test in the design phase of a vehicle. Status While legislation provides a minimum standard of Safety for new cars, consumer programmes such as Euro NCAP encourage manufacturers to exceed the legal requirements. Today's passenger vehicles are designed to be more crashworthy than they used to be, largely thanks to these tests. The introduction of new restraint systems and further diversification of the vehicle fleet, however, has brought new priorities and challenges for occupant protection. Another factor is that the biomechanical knowledge of the human body has made important advancements, leading to a better understanding of human impact behaviour and more advanced injury criteria. It is essential that the test procedures and crash test dummies used in regulations and consumer test programs incorporate new knowledge and remain an accurate reflection of the real world situation. They should be updated accordingly. Regulatory acceptance of virtual test procedures that include a wider variety of accident scenarios could drive further reductions in road casualties, while preserving the competitiveness of European vehicle manufactures. Where possible, harmonisation of European test procedures and/or dummies with those applied in other regions of the world, in particular the US, should be pursued to facilitate the export of cars to these regions. Milestone 1 Head impact test in Euro NCAP (2007) Head injury due to contact with the vehicle interior or exterior is the most common contributor to fatalities in side impacts. EEVC has been drafting an interior surface test procedure to assess the risk of head injury in side impact. Adoption of this test by EuroNCAP would motivate manufacturers to improve the structural design and energy absorption in areas of risk, inevitably leading to a reduction of fatal head injury on the European roads. Actions include: • Cost/benefit study. • Validation of EEVC Interior Surface Test Protocol, including the validity of the headform

impactor, injury criteria and proposed limits. • Development of EEVC based EuroNCAP test protocol and rating scheme. Milestone 2 Global side impact regulation (GTR) effective Side impact protection has been a top crash Safety priority in many regions for more than a decade. Despite mandatory tests in the EU Directive/ Regulation 95 and consumer rating programs the number of fatalities and injured is still high. The changing fleet characteristics and the introduction of new technologies in vehicles necessitate further research to improve the effectiveness of crash tests for side impact. Furthermore, procedures, dummy and criteria are not globally harmonized, even though injury patterns are consistent around the world. Regulators supported by industry should take the lead in realising a global side impact regulation that



addresses the main side impact scenarios of today and injuries in the field for the most vulnerable occupant population. Actions include: • Accident studies to quantify the magnitude of the problem and potential benefit. • Specification of adequate mobile deformable barrier, pole and interior head impact test

(protocols) • Completion and introduction of harmonised side impact dummy family with advanced criteria

for injury assessment (tools). • Development of test procedure and requirements for the non-struck side occupants. Milestone 3 Virtual test accepted for homologation Computer simulations are widely used in industry to support the design of vehicle structure and restraint systems. Virtual testing offers many benefits over physical testing, such as cost reduction, design robustness and optimisation opportunities. Virtual testing also opens the potential to cover a much wider range of traffic scenarios and human bodies (size, age, gender). Virtual testing may even be considered a necessity to develop and validate new generations of integrated Safety systems as conventional test methods fall short in assessing system intelligence. The difficulty is in the reliability of models used and the lack of statistical prediction of product variability. Virtual test models and procedures are not standardised and therefore not 100% comparable between different sources. Industry based research should lead to standardised models and validation procedures (rating) as well as statistical modelling strategies. Regulators should focus on the development of standardised impact scenarios. Two ways are proposed to include virtual testing in homologation procedures: 1 Use a selected hardware test as a baseline and simulated tests to validate a full range of

crash scenarios. 2 Use virtual tests for specific injuries (such as brain injuries) that cannot be tested with a

physical test. The following actions are needed: • Development of standardised model validation procedures and tools. • Statistical modelling strategy development and validation. • Development of a standardised range of biofidelic human occupant models • Expansion of regulatory test configurations with virtual testing. • Implementation in regulation (first case). Milestone 4 Next generation crash test dummies

• Continuation of ongoing research is needed for the development of a “second generation” advanced, highly biofidelic crash test dummies for frontal and side impact such as THOR and WorldSID and the specification of a full-body pedestrian dummy. In the period envisioned, improvements will focus on frontal impact (compatibility and new, advanced crash dummies), side, rear and pedestrian impact.

• New technological opportunities will be explored in the field of dummy design such as fully integrated in-dummy data acquisition, advanced sensors, active dummy response and omni-directional performance.

Milestone 5 Rollover test development Rollover accidents are currently not addressed in European regulations or consumer tests. Recent European research (in the EC Rollover project) has demonstrated the complexity of this impact



scenario which often follows a frontal or side crash. It is assumed that the increasing number of SUVs on European roads may further drive up the frequency of rollovers reported, even though new active systems installed on these vehicles such as ESP may partially mitigate the risks. Various industry standards have been developed over time to assess the protection offered to occupants in a roll-over accident, yet none of these are generally accepted, due to the lack of accepted test tools, criteria and potential benefit. Industry should take the lead in developing a unique set of procedures that addresses the most common of rollover scenarios with potentially the largest benefit in lives saved. Regulators and consumer organisations should subsequently adopt these as standard. Actions defined are: • Accident studies to quantify the magnitude of the problem and potential benefit. • Specification of an adequate test device for roll-over which may involve active dummy

elements to represent human response in the intial phases of rollover. • Development of appropriate physical and/or virtual protocols for the assessment of various

rollover scenarios. Effects on statistics The proposed actions are expected to reduce the fatalities and seriously injured in most common road accidents by 15-20 % in 2020 (in addition to the existing general trend).



Milestones and Actions



4.8 Motorcycles and Mopeds Definition At present almost 43,000 persons are killed every year on EU roads of which about 16% are drivers and passengers of Powered Two Wheelers - P2W - (i.e. motorcycles and mopeds). Motorcycle or moped travel carries a risk of death per kilometre travelled 20 times higher than for car travel and P2W accidents now represent a major road Safety concern in Europe. The Safety of vulnerable road users2, including motorcycle and moped riders, is one of the priorities of the European Community as stated in the White Paper on Transport Policy 2002-2010 and underlined by the Council of Ministers in June 2003. Status Both mopeds and motorcycles have specific characteristics which directly or indirectly contribute to their relatively high number of accidents. The fact that they are single track vehicles means that they are more difficult to control, especially when cornering or braking and in emergency situations. A small frontal area contributes to the problems of their perception by other road users. The small size of P2Ws and their low weight in relation to their engine performance enable traffic behaviour which is different from cars. The absence of bodywork makes riders and passengers very vulnerable in collisions and this can only partly be compensated by wearing a helmet or other protective clothing. Safety of Powered Two Wheelers addresses three major technological areas: • Vehicle • Infrastructure • Protective clothing and helmets The vehicle itself is the most natural place to integrate Safety systems. A lot of work has been carried out over the past 10-15 years in terms of motorcycle technology, including the development of antilock braking systems. Handling and tyres which are crucial to motorcycle Safety, have also improved greatly. The design of passive, or secondary, Safety systems for P2W’s has presented greater difficulties. The main problems derive from the number of variables that influence the occurrence and the outcome of a P2W accident. This is verified by accidentology studies which have always indicated that a high number of significant configurations should be tested in order to ensure the validity of a Safety device or design proposal. This fact limits the possible solutions that might be developed and necessitates a comprehensive research programme. Research over the past 30 years has addressed issues such as airbags and rider leg protection, but this has met with low market acceptance. In the last 5 years some results have become available on the virtual testing of motorcycle crashes and an important contribution to the use of a common crash methodology has been made by ISO Standard 13232. As regards infrastructure, a lot of work has been done since the 1980s. The main research themes were the design of more forgiving guardrails and the improvement of existing guardrails to reduce their potential to cause harm to riders of P2Ws. Many studies conducted in Australia focused on a specific type of road Safety barrier (the wire rope Safety barrier) and its performance in comparison with other common types. At present, no Europe-wide standard for the assessment of the performance of road Safety barriers against motorcyclists exists.

2 Bicyclists are considered under APSN priority issue ‘pedestrians’.



Most studies relating to protective clothing have investigated their Safety effectiveness or have been aimed at the definition of test procedures. An important milestone is the EU ‘PROMISING’ project, which defines the most important areas of the clothing and their strength. Several European standards define the requirements and test methods both for professional and non-professional riders. Much information is available on helmet design and materials, especially polystyrene foams. Helmets are by far the most advanced protective clothing available for P2W users and test requirements and test methods for helmets are defined by ECE R22.05 -2003. Regarding helmets, it is also worth to mention the COST 357 action on ‘Accident Prevention Options with Motorcycle Helmets’, which is being conducted actually. Several of the research items mentioned above are addressed by several EU projects APROSYS3, PISa4. and SIM4 The related deliverables of these projects are included in the milestones and actions below. Recently, ACEM published a report suggesting guidelines for powered two wheelers safer road design in Europe. One of the most important milestones will be a common strategy for the development and implementation of the most effective technical solutions to reduce the number of killed and injured P2W users. Nonetheless, at present major P2W Safety advances can be envisaged by addressing all technology areas: vehicle, infrastructure and protective clothing. Milestone 1 Common strategy agreed to reduce the number of killed and injured P2W users A strategy for the development and implementation of the most effective technical solutions is required, supported by all major stakeholders. Non-technical solutions, such as the enforcement of helmet wearing, are also necessary, however not addressed in this chapter. Actions are: • Analysis of the outcome of recent P2W accident investigation studies, e.g. MAIDS, and

identification of the most relevant accident scenarios, accident causes and most frequent injury patterns.

• Discussion of APROSYS results and other proposals with stakeholders, i.e. P2W industry (e.g. ACEM), suppliers of Safety systems, helmets and clothing, P2W rider/consumer groups, EC, national governments.

• Agreement on a common strategy. Milestone 2 New generation of protective clothing (including helmets) This milestone is related to advanced materials and designs for clothing and body protectors, as well as for crash helmets, reducing specific (head) injuries, increasing the energy absorption and comfort, lowering the weight and optimising the friction when sliding on the road. Some intermediate milestones/deliverables can be foreseen: • Accident investigation studies focussing on less severe, but common, P2W user injuries. • Advanced material technology for protective clothing including smart materials. • Improved virtual testing models and methods for advanced materials, composites and human

tissue. • Develop and adapt standards for protective clothing and helmets to reflect technological

progress.

3 IP on Advanced Protection Systems, sub-project 4 “Motorcycle accidents”, contract no. TIP3-CT-2004-

506503, started 1-4-2004. 4 STREPs on P2W Integrated Safety started in 2006.



• Development of protective clothing demonstrator. • New helmet design based on new biomechanical head injury criterion. • New helmet designs providing adequate ventilation, encouraging use in hot weather

conditions. • Development of low cost helmets for developing countries. • Implementation plans for market introduction of new generation protective clothing and

helmets. Milestone 3 Widespread integrated Safety systems in fleet Current research and technology development on integrated Safety is focussed mainly on passenger cars. However, there is also a clear need for such systems for P2W’s, integrating preventive, active and passive Safety aspects, as well as HMI aspects. Some intermediate milestones /deliverables can be foreseen: • Assessment of the feasibility of a European New Motorcycle Assessment Programme

(EuroNMcAP). • Feasibility study on airbags (motorcycle industry study). • Guidelines for evaluation of protective equipment. • Improved virtual testing models and methods for P2W, other vehicles, Safety systems, riders,

handling and crash (including compatibility). • Develop and adapt standards for primary and secondary Safety to reflect technological

progress (including braking, stability, adaptive light, crash testing). • Demonstrator of protective equipment including a jacket airbag. • Demonstrator of combined sensor-HMI-actuator system. • Implementation plans for market introduction. • Market testing of (modular) integrated Safety systems.

Milestone 4 Improved road infrastructure (i.e. guardrails) implemented The MAIDS study indicated that the road environment is a factor in about 8% of P2W accidents. This milestone is aimed at the reduction of the high injury risk when a P2W crashes or slides against road equipment and infrastructure elements, by implementation of improved design, materials, energy absorption and compatibility. Some intermediate milestones/ deliverables can be foreseen: • Accident investigation studies focussing on the cost-benefit effectiveness of potential Safety

improvements. • Test procedure for P2W users / infrastructure compatibility. • Design guidelines for road infrastructure. • Develop and adapt standards for road equipment and infrastructure to reflect technological

progress (see also chapter Compatibility). • Development of P2W-compatible road equipment. • Implementation plans for P2W-compatible infrastructure financed by EU budgets. Effect on statistics The MAIDS study showed that 0.8% of motorcycle riders were not using a helmet and for moped and mofa riders this was even greater at 17.3%. Law enforcement with respect to (correct) wearing of crash helmets will have a positive effect. ‘Only’ 20% of helmeted riders suffered a head injury, so a new helmet design will have a limited effect on the total P2W user population. Protective clothing will mainly affect minor/serious injuries including abrasions and fractures.



A large effect can be expected from improved road infrastructure, but the number of cases is ‘only’ 10%. A strong effect is anticipated from the widespread implementation of integrated Safety systems in the P2W fleet, combining accident avoidance and injury prevention technologies. By 2015 an overall effect of 50% fatality reduction of P2W users is anticipated, contributing to 8% of the total number of road fatalities (based on 2004 accident figures).



Milestones and Actions



4.9 Pedestrians and Cyclists Definition For many years pedestrian Safety has only been addressed through infrastructure measures such as crossings and segregation from other traffic. The passive Safety directive that has recently become effective in Europe has made a significant change to this situation by including passenger cars in the drive to reduce pedestrian casualties. Further improvements will require the engagement of even more stakeholders and all pedestrians will need to be considered, including cyclists5, roller skaters, etc.. Status Every year approximately 8,500 pedestrians and cyclists die on European Roads, mainly as a result of being hit by passenger cars in frontal impacts. The highest risks are for children (non fatal accidents) and for elderly people (fatal accidents). A larger proportion of pedestrian accidents occurs in urban areas at lower speeds. Phase 1 of the new EU directive has become applicable and phase 2 of this directive is in the final process of decision-making. Milestones and actions for improvement Pedestrian protection is a relatively new topic in the field of vehicle Safety, and the benefits of implementation of the measures are not for the individual car buyer. Therefore the improvements in car design to provide improved pedestrian protection are best advanced through regulations and consumer tests, rather then by commercial market forces. EuroNCAP has proved a very effective measure to stimulate the market penetration of new Safety devices over and in advance of legislation. Milestone 1 Future improvement of assessment methods. The methodology used for the assessment of pedestrian protection was developed by EEVC and proposed 6 years ago. The experience gained and the consequential improved knowledge of pedestrian Safety has raised issues related to the limitations of the current test method. The improvements seen as necessary are summarised below. • Research on knee response biofidelity requirements

The response specifications for the mechanical knee of the pedestrian leg impactor are based on PMHS test results. Biomechanical knee response has been investigated by several research teams, but when the results are applied to a mechanical leg a conflict arises with the current protection of pedestrians in accidents. Further biomechanical research aimed at determining the response of the human knee is needed in order to go further with the development of a biofidelic leg impactor. This research can be completed by 2008.

• Research on the relation between car shape and injuries The method for bonnet leading edge assessment using upper leg impactor has been revised twice during over recent years, but it is still not optimised to reproduce the relevant injury mechanisms correctly. Accident research aimed at establishing a better correlation between injury risk and car shape is needed and this has to be completed with refinement of the requirements for the current impactor, or development of a new design of impactor.

• Test method extended to high bumper cars The current test method has been validated for bumper impacts as long as the impact occurs at knee level or below. Research work aimed at proposing an improved (or new) test method for high bumper cars is planned, however such a method will probably not be applicable before 2012.

5 Mopeds and scooters are considered in the chapter Motorcycles.



• Towards a leg impactor with deformable bones. The Flex-PLI leg impactor developed in Japan includes deformable tibia and femur and is under evaluation until the end of 2007. It will take three more years to introduce this tool into standard test methods (2010).

Milestone 2 Technological innovation for enhanced Safety levels. The improvement of test methods will allow the development of new technological solutions providing improved protection for pedestrians and support for primary Safety solutions that will reduce the impact speed (or avoid the collision) • Pedestrian detection through activation of deployable systems and reduction of collision

speed. Detection of the pedestrian as early as possible before the impact is a big challenge as it opens the doors for activation of deployable systems and allows reduction of the impact speed, increasing the number of victims that could benefit from passive Safety systems.

• Pillar and windscreen frame protection The pillar and windscreen frame are the most aggressive car features for a pedestrian’s head, yet current legislation excludes these parts due to the difficulties that need to be overcome in order to develop effective solutions, partly because of the other functions of these components (driver vision, roof strength, etc.). Having addressed protection against impacts to the front of the car and to the bonnet, this issue will become more important, and in the longer term (2015) we could expect to see the introduction of deployable systems for protection of impacts against the A pillar and windscreen frame.

Effects on statistics The proposed actions are expected to reduce the fatalities in pedestrian accidents by 20 % in 2015 (in addition to the existing general trend). This corresponds to a reduction of road fatalities of approximately 6 % in the same time frame. Milestones and Actions



5. OTHER ISSUES The following items are addressed in this chapter: - Increasing of belt use rate. - Road engineering in relation to safety. - Primary safety issues interacting with safety. - Tertiary safety in relation to passive safety. - Regulations and consumer tests in the field of passive safety. These topics are in the field of passive safety and can be implemented using research results or are not in the field of passive safety but whose results may interfere with passive safety research and implementation. 5.1 Belt Use Fundamental to occupant protection is the use of Safety belts by all vehicle occupants including the use of booster cushions and child seats for children - there is no more effective single Safety measure for car occupants. Universal seat belt use alone could prevent 6,000 deaths and 380,000 injuries every year in Europe (ICF Consulting 2003), however seat belt wearing rates in the in EU vary considerably. According to ETSC estimates this variation is by between 45% and 95% for front seat occupants and between 9% and 75% for rear seat passengers. The average wearing rate in the European Union is 76% for front seat occupants and 46% for rear seat occupants (ETSC, 2003). Belt use rates are lower in urban areas and the highest national scores for seat belt use in cities in Europe is no higher then 64% (Sartre2/Inrets), but as low as 16% for Greece and Italy. Belt use rates also vary among user groups. Only 15% of truck drivers in Germany wear belts (ETSC) and more then 50% of truck drivers killed in accidents do not wear belts. Therefore mandating belt wearing in all vehicles (including trucks, buses and vans) for all seating positions still is an effective measure. Improvement in seat belt use rate is the most effective Safety measure and can be achieved in three ways. Education campaigns The need for seatbelts is often underestimated. The Sarte2 study (Inrets) showed that 20% of the public thinks that using belts is not necessary when driving carefully. However an attitude shift is possible as has been seen in Portugal and Spain where a considerable increase in the use of belts has been observed. Targeting communication at young drivers as they feature prominently in accident statistics and lack of belt use. This should also be a part of driving license training and examination. The Netherlands have also been successful with a campaign targeted at children. Law enforcement In 2004 the EU commission has issued a recommendation to have enforcement actions at least three times a year over a period of at least two weeks. Increase the miss-use detection and penalisation by using traffic control systems such as traffic control cameras, toll registration systems and systematic traffic controls. Law enforcement can be very effective. After having raised penalties in 2003, France reported a reduction of 20% in accident deaths caused by non use of belts which represents the saving of 173 lives per year. On board systems ETSC experts estimate that audible seat belt reminders for front seat occupants can raise seat belt wearing among front seat occupants to 97%. The benefits of requiring audible seat belt reminders for the front seat occupants of cars in the European Union exceed the costs by a ratio of 6 to 1 (ETSC, 2003a). EuroNCAP has included seat belt reminders in their rating system and



most cars now have some form of reminder for the driver’s seat. Extended fitment to the passenger and rear seats is highly recommended. The challenge for the car industry is to think of systems that are both very effective and not considered a nuisance by the target group, e.g. belt reminders with positive recognition of occupant presence and position, through activation of comfort functions such as light on, climate control on, etc.



5.2 Road Engineering The infrastructure in the road network encompasses the paved roadbed, bridges, tunnels, signalling, road marking, poles and the surrounding environment. From a passive Safety point of view, the infrastructure elements of interest are those involved in single vehicle collisions. Run-off-road collisions represent at least one third of the annual fatalities in Europe and can be categorized as being higher speed collisions than typical vehicle-vehicle collisions. Roadside elements - trees, guardrails, signs, ditches, etc. - are potential collision objects that must be addressed in future Safety developments. Road infrastructure investments are often expected to be amortized between 10 and 30 years (apart from low cost measures) and represent a challenge for the road owners and operators. The primary advances in road infrastructure have been through legislation/political changes. The planning and implementation of roadside environments are directed by the road authority policies and guidelines and investments are made by the state in most cases. Technology advances have followed these requirements and have advanced significantly with the implementation of new EN standards such as EN1317. Today, road restraint systems’ requirements are based in this standard (EN1317). The assessment method is needed to be revised taking into account accident data & injuries and the diversity of vehicles fleet, exploring the possibility of introducing biomechanics injury assessment methods and real installation conditions and guidelines. Bridge parapets need also to be addressed. Within this standard, the validity and levels of the ASI and THIV values need to be further re-studied and the influence of the actual vehicle restraint systems need to be taken into account. The future of road infrastructure will incorporate new active Safety systems which are still in their infancy. Vehicle based technologies (road edge detectors, electronic stability programs, active cruise control, etc.) will have an influence on the types and numbers of single vehicle collisions and road infrastructure to vehicle communication is under review in many countries and will become evident on future highways. In terms of actions required to improve the passive Safety of road infrastructure, development of a common structural interaction area as described in the compatibility section of this document is of prime importance. This common structural interaction area should not only include vehicles but also involve the road infrastructure. Standards for road infrastructure should consequently be examined and adapted to correspond with the defined structural interaction area. Accident data analysis is an important activity that needs to be undertaken to support passive Safety research. There have been some recent new collection activities initiated, but the use of medical and insurance data is not well exploited despite there being a lot of information contained therein that would be relevant to road infrastructure Safety and which is not held elsewhere. Further, there is a need to be able to select the best solutions for infrastructure elements for a given road situation and further research, including simulation of vehicle to infrastructure crashes is needed to understand how the size and location of road equipment should be determined, this research being best initiated by National Governments or the EC. Computer modeling is becoming commonplace in vehicle engineering as a reflection of the recent advances in computational resources. These tools should be used for the standardization of road equipment, as well as for the analysis of the application of equipment in real world situations. This activity would be carried out by industry based on guidelines that would be drawn up National Governments or the EC.



There is very little research going on in the realm of material technologies for roadside infrastructure applications. The use of recycled or alternative materials may become more relevant with increased focus on environmental issues and the Safety implications of impacts involving these new materials need to be taken into account.



5.3 Primary Safety Primary Safety (also referred to as active Safety) addresses all strategies that may be used to avoid an accident (i.e. accident prevention). The subject includes a wide range of issues including infrastructure design, vehicle systems for accident avoidance, human machine interaction (HMI), human training and education, traffic regulation, enforcement, etc. This area is linked to the priority area “integrated Safety” which combines primary and secondary (passive) Safety. A significant proportion of current R&D investments are being directed at the field of intelligent vehicle systems (or e-Safety) and a number of systems have already been introduced onto the market such as ESP (electronic stabilisation programme), ACC (adaptive cruise control) and LDWA (Lane Departure Warning Assistance). In particular, ESP has already been proven to be very effective in reducing accident risk. As part of the European Research program FP6, several Integrated Projects (IP’s) commenced in 2004 dealing with different aspects of e-Safety. These include AIDE (Adaptative Integrated Driver Vehicle Interface) and PReVENT (Preventive and active Safety research). PReVENT is focussed on sensor, communication and positioning technologies in order to provide solutions for improved road Safety. PReVENT addresses topics such as safe speed and safe following, lateral support (lane departure warning), driver monitoring, interaction Safety and in the case of vulnerable road users, collision mitigation. A large market penetration of e-Safety based systems is foreseen in the next 10-20 years. As a consequence of the growing implementation of active Safety systems in the European car fleet, accident scenarios and accident conditions will change in the future. For example, ESP is likely to reduce the number of rollovers and single vehicle accidents. PreCrash systems will influence the speed and energy of a crash and may also change driving behaviour. Little is yet known on this HMI aspect of PreCrash systems but it is important and requires further research, through large scale field tests in the short term and by focussed accident analysis studies in the long term. HMI will also play a vital role in the success of the first generation of PreCrash systems currently being introduced. Their functionality relies on providing warning to the driver and they remain passive until the driver initiates an action. However, the appropriate warning levels vary with individual drivers’ styles, age and traffic culture (national, rural or urban). Early warning may also irritate the driver and impair market penetration of the technology whereas late warning may leave too little time for crash avoidance. Large scale field tests in various countries and regions are needed to advance knowledge in this area. The HMI aspect will be even more relevant with the future introduction of co-operative systems whereby vehicles communicate and interact with increasing autonomy. For further development and (widespread) implementation of such systems a number of important problems still have to be resolved such as liability and the reliability (or dependability) of electronic systems and the corresponding embedded software. References • Final Report and Recommendations of the Implementation Road Map eSafety Working Group . 18

October 2005: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/eSafety/forum/roadmaps/index_en.htm • Adase roadmap, 1 July 2004. www.adase2.net



5.4 Tertiary Safety Tertiary Safety, or Post Crash, is an integral part of the holistic Safety approach, but is often not accepted or considered within “Integrated Safety” discussions. Disregarding the potential of an optimised rescue process may miss a realistic chance to improve the road casualty figures. Experts indicate that there is a potential of a 10% to 25% saving of fatalities by optimising activity (i.e. rescue and acute trauma care) within the “golden hour”, i.e. the hour between an accident occurring and emergency treatment being administered. The emergency call or the initial alarm and information transfer represents one key factor in the field of post crash and saving of time before assistance reaches and injured person. The e-call initiative is currently addressing this issue with an implementation date of 2009. Unfortunately the amount of data will be limited (position, car model, phone ID) but to enhance this data set and prepare more prior knowledge for the emergency services, an integrated project GST “( Global System for Telematics), was commenced within FP6 to develop and verify telematics technology and framework issues. The main tasks and action items within this project relate to post crash technology for data transfer of accident and injury information: • Data integrity • Business model / operator • Compatibility of technology and agreement on data sets and format The data logging function (“crash recorder”) described in chapter 7.4 (Accidentology) links with this.

A further opportunity to optimise the rescue procedure and to reduce specific hazards for the emergency services and the fire fighters (and ultimately the car occupants) on the scene is to prepare information and knowledge on vehicle specific Safety devices and appropriate occupant extraction strategies. The current status in this field is: • A rescue procedure is being developed and established for trucks / truck driver extraction

(Consortium: Emergency Services/physician / MAN / Mercedes Trucks – 4th DEKRA/VDI Symposium on Safety of Commercial Vehicles; Oct. 2004).

• Some OEM’s are preparing vehicle specific information (pyrotechnic devices, information on Safety functions, location of battery etc.) and are also providing suggested rescue procedures on the internet or other databases (CD, booklets). Other OEM’s are placing vehicle specific information (cut-off sections, Safety device equipment) directly on the car itself.

• The way in which emergency services are organised varies largely between regions, countries and across the world. Financing, technology equipment, work methods, access to information (internet, network, etc.) or simply knowledge and training status show large variations. It is important to address these different approaches as they may lead to different solutions.

Easy access to information at the site of the accident is important for reducing casualties in the post crash emergency situation as humans are operating under extreme time and emotional pressure. Vehicle specific information for rescue purposes therefore needs to be made available in standard formats. The following action items for basic rescue information are proposed: • Formulation and implementation of standards regarding information technology and interfaces

in rescue co-ordination centres, rescue vehicles etc. (Govt/EU) • Organisation of multi disciplinary working groups / research projects (emergency services/

physician / manufacturer) to implement and agree on standards and rescue procedures. Govt/EU research project / Industry



• Harmonised and concentrated information database for vehicle data and rescue strategy information – to be clarified: responsibilities, business model / operator, update procedures. Govt/EU / Insurance / Industry

• Agreement on data sets and format (in databases / on vehicles > worldwide implications). The provision of such data should be mandated as an integral part of homologation requirements. Industry / Consumer Org / Govt / EU



5.5 Regulations and Consumer Tests Regulations for occupant protection exist in all developed countries for the main crash scenarios, although those for pedestrian Safety have only recently been put in place and so far only exist in Japan and Europe. However, they do represent a milestone in being the first Safety regulations that take into account the Safety of people outside the vehicle to which the regulation applies. Another major development in the area of European regulations has been the introduction of rating or consumer tests. Rating test procedures as carried out by EuroNCAP have in some areas proven to generate results earlier than legislative processes. A comparison between the benefits of regulation and rating systems is given below: • A regulation ensures that all new cars fulfil the requirements. Rating systems today only test

the most popular models within a carline. This does not guarantee that all versions of a specific model will provide the same level of protection.

• A regulation does not determine which cars provide a higher level of protection and which ones a lower level. Rating systems such as EuroNCAP allow the ranking of cars according to the relative level of protection provided.

• The process of developing a regulation tends to be rather long and is subject to the pressure of lobbying groups. This explains how in some cases the final content of a regulation is not exactly that which the researchers who provided the base information intended. A rating system is quicker to implement and takes less time to update. It is therefore better suited to follow the rapid pace of technological developments as seen in the area of vehicle electronics.

Both systems should be used to make best use of the advantages of each. However as a general improvement regulations should evolve step by step to become more demanding over time and continue to improve Safety. This should be driven by new knowledge of accident studies and biomechanical research as well as the experience gained by using the type approval test. It is also important that the benefits of the application of a new regulation are evaluated in terms of real world Safety benefits which is generally not done today. For both systems there is a tendency, with the aim of reproducing more closely what happens in real accidents, to develop more and more complicated regulations by using sophisticated tools and test procedures. This has the disadvantage of decreasing repeatability and reproducibility and making the interpretation of results more difficult. Considering the above in relation to the new subject of pedestrian Safety gives the following picture: • In 1999 EECV proposed a set of test methods to assess pedestrian protection. The European

directive, EuroNCAP and the Australian NCAP are based on EECV work. IHRA (International Harmonised Research Activities) has refined the conditions and tools of head tests. Results of IHRA work serve as a basis for Japanese regulation.

• Regulation developments are continuing through an informal group, aimed at drafting a pedestrian GTR. The group plans to present final proposals to the GRSP by May 2006.

• At the same time EuroNCAP has improved its rating procedure for pedestrian protection, based on EEVC WG17 proposals. For the first time a (large family) car got 4/4 stars for pedestrian Safety. This car is equipped with several innovations including a pop-up bonnet, however not all areas likely to be impacted by a pedestrian gave a biomechanically acceptable result. In particular, the head injury values determined by head impacts against the windscreen surround are higher than the acceptable limit. As it has now been proved that it is technically possible to achieve 4 stars in EuroNCAP pedestrian tests, other car models are anticipated to be designed to achieve 4 stars, most likely in the midsize and family range. Assuming that similar trends are followed as for EuroNCAP results for occupant protection it



seems realistic to expect that almost all midsize and large family cars will achieve 4 stars for pedestrian Safety by 2012. The proportion will be lower for smaller cars.

• As the pedestrian regulation is rather complex, it should be reviewed and, if needed, revised in a few years taking into account the experience gained during the first years of application.

• The first phase of the EU directive has recently been put in place for new car models; the first step of the Phase II regulation will become effective in 2010. The content of the Phase II EC regulation will be affected by international harmonisation discussions through the GTR on pedestrian Safety, which will be completed before May 2006 and will include active Safety measures (such as compulsory fitting of cars with emergency brake assist systems) in addition to passive Safety requirements.

• As regulations on car pedestrian protection are relatively new we can expect that the regulation will continue to evolve over coming years, especially the replacement of the rigid bone leg impactor by a deformable one as already foreseen by the GTR. It should be noted that replacing the rigid bone leg impactor by the Flex PLI impactor, would introduce a more biofidelic leg test tool but will not necessarily improve the regulation, due to the complexity of the Flex PLI.

This example illustrates the interrelation between research, regulations, harmonisation and consumer testing. Another area were this complex process could occur and should be prevented is that of low-speed rear impact neck injuries. • A Global Technical Regulation (GTR) must be established to avoid conflicting definitions of

counter-measurers which create additional costs. A concrete technical document release is expected at the end of 2006. Alignment of the C/FMVSS 202 and ECE R17 should be targeted for 2009 - ADR, CCC and TRIAS will probably align to the global proposal.

• Application of the regulation for cars must also be applied to trucks and buses. However, since accident data do not show high injury rates a set of reduced requirements will be sufficient for this segment.

Regulation and consumer programmes use standard tests with a very limited number of test conditions, whereas the accidents occur in a wide variety of configurations; this drives the design of cars in the direction of a unique condition and does not necessarily ensure the protection to all the population at risk in the different accident conditions. The introduction of virtual testing in addition to crash tests may allow to widen the assessment of the protection. Regulations require international harmonisation to ensure that cars provide the same level of protection worldwide. It proves to be difficult to harmonise existing regulations. Since new regulations are often based on scientific input, harmonisation can start with the development of a common view on the scientific content of a future regulation. IHRA coordinated research with that objective. This becomes even more important as regulations are getting more complicated. Insurance industry has also developed standard tests aimed at evaluating damageability and reparation costs. In principle, these tests have no direct link to Safety; however, they may drive the design in conflict with Safety optimisation. This may be especially true for vulnerable road user protection, and then, there is a need to organise a dialogue between insurance test developers and specialists on regulation and consumer tests requirements. The introduction of new road Safety developments as described in this report can be greatly advanced by introducing virtual testing in homologation purposes. Reference is made to the Cars 21 report and the chapter Test methods and Tools of this Research Action Plan.



6. CONCLUDING REMARKS Vehicle and traffic safety is currently carried and accompanied by technology development and new product introductions within a modern European economy and a expanding “communication society” – nevertheless this society demands also for sustainable and enhanced mobility in the same way as for information and entertainment: efficient and safe – at anytime, everywhere ! Secondary Safety, in the field of safe and secure road transport, will consequently merge in an increasing integrated system approach – but will not lose their prominent role and position in that area ! To assure this approach and in the same way, to assume responsibility for an increasing high standard of traffic safety on European roads and, of course, world wide, this action plan on research and guidance in the area of secondary safety was developed by the APSN members to contribute to a significant road casualty reduction within the next two decades and beyond. ~~~



List of Acronyms ABS Anti-lock Braking System ACC Adaptive Cruise Control

ACEA Association des Constructeurs Europeens d'Automobiles

ACEM Association des Constructeurs Europeens de Motorcycles

APSN Advanced Passive Safety Network CAN-bus Controller Area Network - bus C2C Car to Car (-communication) C2I Car to Infrastructure (-communication) DVD Digital Video Data ECE Economic Council of Europe EEVC European Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Committee ESP Electronic Stability Control ETSC European Transport Safety Committee EU European Union EU15 European Union (15 States) EuroNCAP European New Car Assessment Programme EuroNMAP European New Motorcycle Assessment Programme FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard FWDB Full Width Deformable Barrier GTR Global Technical Regulation HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HMI Human Machine Interface IHRA International Harmonisation of Reseach Activities IP Integrated Project

IRCOBI International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact

ISO Internation Standards Organisation LDW Lane Departure Warning LDWA Lane Departure Warning Assistance LTV Light Truck or Van OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer P2W Powered Two-Wheeler PDB Progressively Deformable Barrier PMHS Post Mortem Human Surrogate PSN Passive Safety Network

PRISM - EU Project Proposed Reduction of car crash Injuries through improved SMart restraint development Technologies

R&D Research and Development STREP Specific Targetted Research Project SUV Sports Utility Vehicle USA United States of America VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure WorldSID World Side Impact Dummy



Acknowledgement This report has been realized thanks to contributions of the following authors, members of the APSN:

Dominique Cesari INRETS (WP2 task leader and SSRAP editor) Edgar Janssen TNO Mirko Junge Volkswagen Christian Mayer Daimler Chrysler Charles Oakley TRL Michiel van Ratingen FTSS Jan Thunnissen Johnsson Controls Jac Wismans TNO

For initiating the work process and collecting the data, the APSN assigned J.W. van der Wiel VDWBD consultancy Compiled by Antoinette Charpenne INRETS www.passivesafety.com

report: d40 - secondary safety research action plan safety_action_pla… · the secondary safety...

Documents