Vehicle Safety

www.dacota-project.
eu
Vehicle Safety
Please refer to this document as: DaCoTA (2012) Vehicle Safety, Deliverable 4.8u of the EC
FP7 project DaCoTA
Project co-financed by the European Commission Directorate General for Mobility & Transport
31/01/2013 Page 1
www.dacota-project.eu
Contents
VEHICLE SAFETY............................................................................................................................ 1
1 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................ 4
2 VEHICLE DESIGN AND ROAD SAFETY ....................................................................... 6
2.1 What can vehicle design contribute?............................................................................................. 6
2.2 What role does research play? ....................................................................................................... 8
2.3 What can vehicle safety deliver in future? .................................................................................... 9
3 VEHICLE SAFETY POLICY ............................................................................................. 11
3.1 What are the main policy mechanisms? ..................................................................................... 11
3.2 Regulation ......................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Who regulates vehicle safety?........................................................................................................ 11
3.2.2 What are the key EU vehicle safety standards? .......................................................................... 14
3.2.3 How are legislative crash tests developed? ................................................................................. 14
3.3 Consumer Information .................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.1 What is consumer information? ...................................................................................................... 14
3.3.2 What are predictive rating systems? ............................................................................................. 14
3.3.3 What are retrospective rating systems? ........................................................................................ 15
3.4 Car industry policies ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.5 Product liability ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.6 What can EU countries do at national level? .............................................................................. 16
4 KEY ISSUES FOR VEHICLE SAFETY DESIGN ....................................................... 18
4.1 What forces can be tolerated the human body? ........................................................................ 18
4.2 What are the main crash injury problems? ................................................................................. 19
4.3 Crash avoidance and mitigation, crash protection, post-crash care, integrated
approaches ................................................................................................................................................. 20
4.4 Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ............................................................................................ 22
31/01/2013 Page 2
5 SAFETY DESIGN NEEDS ................................................................................................. 22
5.1 Cars .................................................................................................................................................... 22

5.1.1 Crash avoidance and mitigation measures .................................................................................. 22
5.1.2 Crash protection measures ............................................................................................................. 28
5.2 Motorcycles ...................................................................................................................................... 40

5.2.1 Exposure measures ......................................................................................................................... 41
5.3 Heavy commercial vehicles ........................................................................................................... 46

5.4 Light vans and minibuses .............................................................................................................. 49
5.5 Buses and coaches ......................................................................................................................... 50

5.5.1. Crash avoidance and mitigation ..................................................................................................... 51
5.5.2 Crash protection ............................................................................................................................... 51
5.6 Bicycles ............................................................................................................................................. 52

5.6.1 Crash avoidance ............................................................................................................................... 52
6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS .......................................................................................................... 53
6.1 The epidemiology of road traffic injury ....................................................................................... 54
6.2 Biomechanical research ................................................................................................................. 54
6.3 Crash avoidance .............................................................................................................................. 55
6.4 Crash mitigation and protection ................................................................................................... 55
6.5 Advanced and integrated technologies ....................................................................................... 55
6.6 Hybrid and electric Vehicles .......................................................................................................... 56
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 57
Please note: This web text aims to give an overview of the main issues and developments in vehicle
safety in Europe. Where there is significant overlap with other ERSO web texts (notably in the Safety
Ratings and eSafety texts in coverage of consumer information on vehicle safety and new and
integrated technologies) readers are directed as appropriate to these web texts
31/01/2013 Page 3
1 Overview
Vehicle design and road safety
Improving vehicle safety is a key Safe System strategy used in addressing international and
national road casualty reduction goals and targets for the long-term and the interim. Vehicle
safety is a pillar in the Decade of Action’s Global Plan for Road Safety 2011-2020 and in the
proposal for the next EU Road Safety Action Programme 2011-2020. In best practice
activity, countries actively target improvements in vehicle safety in safety programmes.
Vehicle safety addresses the safety of all road users and comprises measures to help avoid
a crash (crash avoidance), mitigate the severity of a crash before it occurs through slowing
the vehicle through intelligent speed management or advanced braking (crash mitigation)
reduce injury in the event of a crash (crash protection) and reduce the consequences of
injury (post-crash response). Increasingly, vehicle systems which integrate these objectives
are being pursued and which can integrate vehicle and road network interventions
(integrated systems).
Substantial and evidence-based improvements have been made in vehicle safety the last 20
years. Improvements in vehicle safety design over this period have reduced the risk of death
and serious injury for car occupants by 50% or more. Improvements in vehicle safety design
and equipment for pedestrians and motorcyclists are expected over the next decade, as are
further developments in driver support and assistance. Research has identified large scope
for enhancing vehicle safety further although the increasing variety in the vehicle fleet is
expected to bring new challenges over the next decade.
There is large future promise of casualty reduction from crash avoidance and active safety
technologies as long as development is prioritised to maximise casualty reduction. New
mechanisms are being put in place to monitor and encourage this. There is significant
potential to improve crash protection further. The potential value of developing an integrated
approach to vehicle safety, linking preventive, crash protection and post-crash approaches
into cooperative systems for drivers, passengers and vulnerable road users as well as
vehicle and road network safety systems is being increasingly understood.
Effective vehicle safety design results rely upon continuing research and development,
understanding of the source and mechanism of injury protection in a range of crash
conditions, regular monitoring of performance in real-world conditions, and confirmation that
new technologies are used and accepted. Socio-economic appraisal of measures ensure
that reasonable societal benefits are derived from new safety designs which cost less at
design stage than during subsequent stages of production.
31/01/2013 Page 4
Vehicle safety policy

Improvements to vehicle safety result from legislation (much of which is now agreed in the
European Union and within the UN ECE process) consumer information, product liability
considerations as well as specific initiatives of the car manufacturing industry. EU legislation
aims for a minimum but high level of protection across the product line; consumer information
aims to encourage the highest possible levels of safety performance based on state of the art
testing and protocols; and car industry policies increasingly promote safety as a marketable
commodity.
Further EU action on vehicle safety is essential if new goals and targets are to be met
(ETSC, 2008). Priority policy actions for reducing serious and fatal casualties identified by
research are a standardized test method for car-to -car compatibility; truck to car
compatibility and improved methods for front; side and rear impact protection for car
occupants; improved frontal protection for vulnerable road users over and above what is
covered in current legislation; implementation of Intelligent Speed Adaptation systems, seat
belt reminders in all seating positions, alcolocks for fleet drivers, event and journey data
recorders and identification of further systems with large potential for casualty savings.
As noted by Euro NCAP, the presence of (new) international players in European Markets
inevitably will lead to a new push for global road safety regulations through the UN ECE
process. Care must be taken to ensure that existing safety levels in Europe are not
compromised. At the same time careful management should ensure that further measures
aimed at preventing serious health loss in crashes are not superseded by the green agenda.
Although, as the Volvo Car Corporation has observed, while it is often stated that vehicle
design to reduce the environmental footprint of motor vehicles is in conflict with improved
road safety, these challenges are likely to be overcome given the advances in new modern
technologies.
Countries active in safety typically engage in international legislative development work;

carry out national research and monitoring of vehicle safety; support the influential European
New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP); ensure that safety helmet and safety
restraint usage laws are properly enforced and encourage local car industry to fast track key
safety measures through government procurement and in-house travel policies.
Key issues for vehicle safety design

• Addressing human capacities: Evidence-based vehicle safety measures need to address
human capacities and be designed to prevent crashes, reduce injury severity in the event
of a crash and facilitate faster access to the emergency medical system through
enhanced post-crash response. The main road traffic crash types which need to be
addressed to reduce fatal and serious injury are head-on crashes, run-off-road crashes,
intersection crashes and pedestrian and other vulnerable road user crashes. Safe
System approaches aim to inter-link vehicle safety measures with other system
measures e.g. separated facilities in the road network, in-vehicle lane departure systems
linked to road markings, crash-protective medians and roadsides and speed
management to ensure tolerable kinetic energy in the event of a serious and fatal crash.
31/01/2013 Page 5
Achieving safe compatibility between different types and sizes of motor vehicles and
between vehicles and non-motorised vehicles continue to be the overarching issues for
vehicle safety design in the next decade
• Car occupants comprise over 50% of total EU (27) road traffic deaths. Car-to-car
collisions are the most common crash type with frontal impacts followed by side impacts
being most common in fatal and serious crashes. Different factors influence crash
severity, the most important being speed of travel, seat belt use, vehicle mass and the
level of crash protection provided in the vehicle.
• Pedestrians comprise around 20% of total EU (27) road traffic deaths and around two-
thirds of these occur in urban areas. The survival of pedestrians in traffic depends upon
their separation from the high speeds of motor vehicles or, where shared use is common
sufficiently low vehicle impact speed to prevent severe crash injury and provision of crash
protective car fronts addressing the vulnerabilities of the high-risk user groups.
• Motorized two-wheeler users comprise around 17% of total EU (27) road traffic deaths.
Fatally injured motorcyclists sustain multiple injuries in crashes to the head, chest and
legs. The majority of fatal injuries are to the head, despite helmet use. Lower-leg injuries
result either from direct contact with the impacting vehicle or as a result of being crushed
between the motorcycle and the ground.
• Cyclists comprise around 6% of total EU (27) road traffic deaths but a higher share of
total deaths (though often lower injury risks) in countries where cycle use is high e.g. the
Netherlands. Single vehicle crashes are most common. Head injuries are the major
cause of death in around 75% of cyclist deaths leading some countries to mandate cycle
helmet use for different age-groups.
• Minibus,bus occupant and heavy commercial vehicle users in crashes are a smaller but
treatable part of vehicle problem, though heavy vehicles have disproportionate
involvement in fatal crashes.
Against the background of the current knowledge base and a rapidly evolving design context,
a range of vehicle safety measures and research needs is outlined in this web text for the
protection of car occupants, pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists, minibus, bus and heavy
commercial users in EU countries. See also ERSO eSafety, Safety Ratings web texts.
2 Vehicle design and road safety

2.1 What can vehicle design contribute?
Vehicle design is fundamental to a Safe System approach which requires safe interaction
between users, vehicles, the road environment and prompt access to the emergency medical
system. Vehicle design, which takes account of the behavioural and physical limitations of
road users and other system risks, can address a range of risk factors and help to reduce
crash involvement, crash injury severity and crash injury consequences. To date, vehicle
safety provision in cars on the road has usually been directed towards modifying a vehicle to
help the driver avoid a crash, or to protect those inside in the event of a crash. New attention
in Europe and globally is being given to ensuring vehicle crash protective design for those
outside the vehicle, in-vehicle driver assistance measures which can help to improve safety
31/01/2013 Page 6
behaviours and actively mitigate crash severity and post-crash response. The role of
vehicle safety intervention for a Safe System is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: The role of vehicle safety measures in Safe System intervention
Key system measures System use Vehicles Road Emergency

Medical
System
Examples Examples Examples Examples
Pre-crash crash Speed Lighting, Safe System
occurrence management braking, road design,
and crash handling, driver layout, speed
mitigation Unimpaired road assistance for limits and user
use speed and facilities
impairment
management
Crash injury Use of safety Crash protective Crash Links to
during the restraints or design protective vehicle and
crash helmets medians and roadside
roadsides crash
notification
Post-crash Post-crash Early access to Evacuation Safety of post- Fast
injury care crash sites for emergency
Crash safe recovery medical
notification response,
equipment early
diagnosis
and efficient
trauma care
New attention is also being given to the provision of integrated protection systems aimed at
addressing the safety needs of each phase of the crash for those inside and outside of the
vehicle shown diagrammatically in Figure 1 in the European Car Manufacturers’ Association
(ACEA)’s model.
31/01/2013 Page 7
Figure 1: The integrated vehicle safety system ACEA safety model
A review of the effectiveness of casualty reduction measures in the United Kingdom between
1980 and 1996 found that the greatest contribution to casualty reduction was vehicle crash
protection (Broughton, 2000). The SUNFlower study of road safety in Sweden, United
Kingdom and The Netherlands attributed 20% reduction of fatalities from 1980-2000 (i.e.
about 1% per year) to vehicle safety improvements (Koornstra et al. SUNFlower, 2002).
Major improvements in vehicle safety design have taken place over the last fifteen years and
crash data has confirmed that a 50% reduction in the risk of serious injury has been achieved
in new car models. See SARAC II. These results are due to a combination of the effects of
new European legislative crash protection standards and the impact of consumer information
systems providing objective data on the performance of cars in state of the art crash tests
and real crashes. The latest research has concluded that a good correlation exists between
Euro NCAP test results and real-world injury outcomes with 5-star rated Euro NCAP cars
found to have a 68% lower risk of fatal injury and a 23% lower risk of serious injury compared
to 2-star rated cars (Kullgren et al., 2010) See ERSO Safety Ratings web text.
2.2 What role does research play?

Effective vehicle safety design result relies upon continuing research and development,
understanding of the sources and mechanisms of injury in a range of crash conditions,
regular monitoring of performance in real world conditions, and confirmation that new
technologies are used and accepted.
Road crash injury research confirms the importance of designing for the real world (using
field trials) rather than for test conditions (in laboratory conditions) which may not reflect
conditions found in normal driving or in crashes. Effective design is the result of complex
multi-disciplinary scientific research and development which can take up to ten to fifteen
years from definition of concept to practical realization.
31/01/2013 Page 8
2.3 What can vehicle safety deliver in future?

Vehicle safety is identified as a key strategy by the EU towards addressing the proposed EU-
wide goal to reduce deaths by 50% by the year 2020.
Considerable room for further evidence-based improvements has been identified by

European organisations including the International Research Council of the Biomechanics of
Injury IRCOBI, the European Transport Safety Council (Hobbs, 2001; ETSC, 2010; ETSC,
2009) the European Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Committee (Cesari, 2005; EEVC 2005,
ESV), the Passive Safety Network Roadmap and Euro NCAP’s Strategic Map 2009 and its
update to 2015 (Euro NCAP 2009) and the European Commission’s CARS 21.
Recommendations for a wide range of EU action in the public consultation carried out on the
next EU’s road safety programme - Technical Assistance in support of the Preparation of the
Road Safety Action Programme to 2011- 2020 - are set out in Table 2. (COWI, 2010).
31/01/2013 Page 9
Table 2: Vehicle safety recommendations from the public consultation on developing the EU
road safety action programme 2011-2020. (Source: COWI, 2010)
31/01/2013 Page 10
3 Vehicle safety policy

3.1 What are the main policy mechanisms?
The availability and quality of vehicle safety is determined by a combination of international
and national regulation, consumer information, car industry policies and product liability
considerations. Whilst market forces tend to produce more rapid responses in individual
product design, evidence-based legislation can ensure a uniform, acceptable level of safety
across the product range.
Over the last 15 years, tests and protocols used by the European New Car Assessment
Programme in safety ratings, which promote and reward good and best practice, represent
the global state of the art in approaches to provide better protection in car crashes.
3.2 Regulation
3.2.1 Who regulates vehicle safety?
Vehicle safety in Europe is regulated by international standards and regulation devised by
the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN
ECE). Within Europe, there are two systems of type approval for high-volume vehicles. One
is based around EC Directives (and adopted UN ECE Regulations) and provides for the
approval of whole vehicles, vehicle systems, and separate components. The other is based
around UN ECE Regulations and provides for approval of vehicle systems and separate
components, but not whole vehicles.
EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA)

In 1970, the EU and its Member States developed a new framework for international
agreement and co-operation on vehicle safety initiatives culminating in mandatory EC Whole
Vehicle Type Approval for cars (which came into full effect in 1998) and for two and three
wheeled motor vehicles (into effect in 2003). From April 2009, legislation was extended to
cover all new road vehicles such as buses, coaches, trucks, trailers (including caravans) and
certain special purpose vehicles such as wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs). While the
main objective of ECWVTA is removal of barriers to trade, harmonized vehicle standards
must provide a high level of consumer protection In accordance with Single Market
legislation. An EU Framework Directive lists a series of separate technical Directives that the
vehicle must comply with. In order to gain Whole Vehicle Type Approval, the vehicle must
meet the requirements of each of the applicable individual Directives. However, the
Framework Directive also lists a series of UN ECE Regulations that are considered
equivalent to or have superseded certain of the separate technical Directives and proving
compliance with these Regulations forms an acceptable alternative to compliance with the
relevant Directives.
EU derived standards are mandatory for all the members of the European Union if they fall
within ECWVTA. In other circumstances, European countries can adhere to UN ECE either
voluntarily or mandatorily if a country decides to incorporate the regulation into national
regulation.
31/01/2013 Page 11
EU vehicle classification
EU vehicle standards legislation separates motor vehicles and their trailers into four broad
categories.
Table 3: EU vehicle classification
Category L Mopeds and motorcycles fall into this

category, as do all-terrain vehicles (quads)
and other small motor vehicles with three or
four wheels. Within the L category,
motorcycles are split into two groups - those
with and without sidecars. There is also a
division for mopeds with three wheels, which
have smaller engines and lower top speeds
than motor tricycles.
Category M Motor vehicles with at least four wheels that
are designed to carry passengers.
Category N These power-driven vehicles are designed to
carry goods. Grouped by size, they include
lorries and vans.
Category O Trailers and semitrailers
Source: Directorate of Enterprise and Industry
Legislative and policy work on vehicle at EU level is led by European Commission’s

Directorate of Enterprise and Industry. The Directorate of Mobility and Transport – the lead
EC agency for road safety – also plays a key role. As part of the Commission's industrial
policy, the CARS 21 (Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century)
process launched in 2005, made recommendations for the short-, medium-, and long-term
public policy and regulatory framework of the European automotive industry. This framework
aims to enhance global competitiveness and employment, while sustaining further progress
in safety and environmental performance at a price affordable to the consumer. The final
report was presented in 2006 and encouraged the Commission to come forward with
proposals on Electronic Stability Control, seat belt reminders, brake assist systems,
improvement of heavy duty vehicles’ blind spots and conspicuity, ISOFIX child seats and
daytime running lights. The report also noted that several active safety technologies, such as
obstacle recognition systems, are at an advanced development stage and encouraged their
development and market introduction to be pursued as fast as possible.
The European Commission’s new Cars 21 strategy envisages an automotive industry that is
leading in technology (clean, fuel-efficient, safe, connected) and where vehicle safety can
and should be further improved, for occupants and unpotected road users. Vehicle safety
promotion is also pursued by the European Commission through initiatives such as DG
Transport’s EU road safety action programme and DG Information Society’s Intelligent Car
initiatives.
31/01/2013 Page 12
Global Technical Regulation (GTR)

The accession of the EC to the UN ECE 1958 and 1998 Agreements as a contracting party is
giving further impetus to work on global technical regulations (GTRs). GTRs are
administered by the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP 29), which
is a subsidiary body of the UN ECE. The European Commission exercises the right to vote in
WP 29 on behalf of the EU and its 27 Member States. At the same time, the EU retains its
ability to legislate independently of UN ECE where there is a need for earlier or more
stringent action.
The World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations agreed in March 2010 on the
need to review and update the 1958 Agreement. Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 on the
general safety of motor vehicles (the GSR)6 repealed numerous EU Directives and replaced
them with UN ECE Regulations. As of 31 December 2010, the EU had acceded to 106
Regulations under the 1958 Agreement and to all 11 Global Technical Regulations under the
1998 Agreement (see box below). Discussions started in 2010 to develop a new GTR
concerning the safety of vehicles with hydrogen propulsion. Also, a working group has been
established to develop another new GTR on pole side impact.
Adopted safety GTRs

Global technical regulation No. 9: Pedestrian safety (Adopted 12.11.2008)
Global technical regulation No. 8: Electronic stability control systems (Adopted 26.06.2008)
Global technical regulation No. 7: Head restraints (Adopted 13.03.2008)
Global technical regulation No. 6: Safety glazing materials for motor vehicles (Adopted
12.03.2008)
Global technical regulation No. 5: Technical requirements for on-board diagnostic systems
(OBD) for road vehicles (Adopted 15.11.2006)
Global technical regulation No. 3: Motorcycle brake systems (Adopted 15.11.2006)
Global technical regulation No. 1: Door locks and door retention components (Adopted
18.11.2004)
While such global work will increase the convenience of manufacture and removal of barriers
to trade, it is clear that decisions concerning new vehicle standards and their implementation
are far removed from detailed scrutiny at national level and citizens must rely on Government
action to ensure the safety of vehicles (VSRC, 2011). As noted by the World Health
Organisation and World Bank in the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. (2004)
vehicle safety standardization at regional level can often produce faster action than a similar
process at the international level
National type approval schemes

National type approval schemes also exist in different Member States e.g. the National Small
Series Type Approval (NSSTA) in the UK but are limited in scope and are for low volume
vehicles.
31/01/2013 Page 13
3.2.2 What are the key EU vehicle safety standards?

A list of Directives and global UN ECE regulations can be found on the European
Commission DG Enterprise and Industry website. In recent years the most important vehicle
safety Directives have been the introduction of crash tests for frontal impact protection and
side impact protection to car occupants, sub-system tests for pedestrian protection and a
Directive on the General safety of motor vehicles which introduces a range of measures for
new cars in 2014, the most important of which identified for safety is electronic stability
control.
3.2.3 How are legislative crash tests developed?

European car crash tests and pedestrian sub-system tests have been developed by the
European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee which brings together national experts and
Governmental representative from several countries. Such tests aim to reflect the types and
speeds of impact of the most common types of serious crashes and are incorporated in
legislation and consumer information programmes after extensive multi-disciplinary research.
The European Motor Vehicle Working Group is an advisory group of EC DG Enterprise and
Industry which brings together representatives of the European Commission, Member States
and non-governmental and trade associations to discuss proposals for new Directives and
standards on vehicle safety. The Committee on Adaptation to Technical Progress is a
decision-making group comprising representatives of Member States which advises on
specific amendments to EU legislation.
The main scientific conferences for international information exchange on vehicle safety
policy and research are ESV, STAPP, IRCOBI and AAAM. More recently global co-operation
in research has taken place within IHRA.
3.3 Consumer Information

3.3.1 What is consumer information?
Consumer information provides prospective car buyers with factual information about the
safety performance of cars in crashes and encourages manufacturers to introduce evidence-
based safety designs beyond those required by legislative norms.
In recent years, safety has been marketed increasingly by car manufacturers and a variety of
methods for rating car crash safety are used to provide impartial information which can guide
car buyers. These methods fall into one of two broad categories: predictive systems and
retrospective systems which are summarised below. For a full outline of the rating systems in
use see the ERSO Safety Ratings web text
3.3.2 What are predictive rating systems?

Predictive systems aim to assess a car's safety performance before it is used on the road.
The predictions are based on controlled whole car crash tests of individual models; tests of
components of the car which have been proven to be important in crashes; and/or visual
inspections and rating of the interior of cars.
31/01/2013 Page 14
Since 1997 the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) has provided star
ratings of the performance of different cars in dynamic tests which include full-scale frontal
and side-impact tests, front-end component tests for pedestrian protection and sled tests for
whiplash prevention during rear-end crashes. The presence of seat belt reminders, intelligent
speed adaptation (advisory) and electronic stability control and child protection tested to Euro
NCAP’s protocols also boost a vehicle’s rating. The programme also uses visual inspection
in addition to crash testing in determining the safety rating assessment.
Launched in July 2011, Euro NCAP Advanced is a complementary reward system to the
existing star rating system. It aims to provide advice to car buyers about the potential safety
benefits offered by technologies which have a scientifically proven safety benefit. Cars are
eligible for a Euro NCAP Advanced reward only if they have achieved a creditable three star
rating in the overall rating scheme. In order to encourage further progress in pedestrian
protection Euro NCAP will require from 2012 a minimum 60% score in the pedestrian tests
for new cars to receive a 5 star rating. A new road map is underway to allow emerging crash
avoidance technologies to be included (albeit not supplanting crash protection measures)
into the assessment scheme by 2015. With the rapid deployment on to the market of new
technologies evaluation of systems with reference to real world crash analysis is essential
before wide-scale deployment is anticipated. See www.euroncap.com.
Monitoring shows that Euro NCAP has contributed to marked improvements in crash
protective design to protect vehicle occupants with crash tests which are generally
representative of the types of crash scenarios found on Europe’s roads (Lie and Tingvall,
2000), (Fails and Minton, 2001). SARAC II (Kullgren et al., 2010). The European
Commission believes that Euro NCAP has become the single most important mechanism for
achieving advances in vehicle safety. Car manufacturers use Euro NCAP star ratings in their
advertising. See ERSO Safety Ratings web text for further information.
3.3.3 What are retrospective rating systems?

In retrospective systems, safety ratings are based on the actual performance of cars in real
crashes. Such ratings are of particular value for used cars buyers. The frequency and
severity of injury to car occupants in individual model cars are determined by examination of
police crash statistics and/or insurance injury claim data. The main retrospective system in
use at present is Folksam’s Safe Car Guide. Although the general principle of this approach
is the same for all systems, there are many differences in the exact methodology.
See ERSO Safety Ratings web text for further information.
3.4 Car industry policies

While the car industry tends to speak with through national or regional trade associations in
responding to legislative proposals, individual manufacturers have introduced different
vehicle safety measures without legislation, in advance of legislation or in response to
consumer information programmes, especially in recent years. Examples include the WHIPS
system introduced by a Swedish manufacturer to reduce the risk of neck injury or pedestrian
protection introduced in advance of legislation by a Japanese manufacturer or in excess of
31/01/2013 Page 15
legislation by a French manufacturer. European frontal airbags fitted to many cars are not
regulated in Europe, though are mandatory in the United States. The Volvo Group has set a
highly ambitious goal and states that ‘Our ultimate goal is zero accidents with Volvo Group
products’.
The European industry associations include the European Car Manufacturers Association
ACEA; ACEM (motorcycle industry) and the IRU (truck and bus industry). Like the IRU,
ACEM is a signatory to the European Road Safety Charter and has made several road safety
pledges. Car companies come together within the European Council for Automotive R&D -
EUCAR to co-ordinate proposals for EU funded research.
3.5 Product liability

Globally, there is much variation in the provision of vehicle safety equipment from region to
region. Some models may be sold with safety equipment in one country but with a lower
specification in others, if the equipment is not required in legislation. Product liability law is
based on the level of protection the consumer could reasonably expect.
The EU General Product Safety Directive was introduced in 1985 with strengthened
provisions introduced in 1992 and 2001. While European provision for product liability is
more limited than the US system, product liability can focus car manufacturing attention on
innovative design which goes beyond compliance with current legislation.
3.6 What can EU countries do at national level?

While many decisions on vehicle safety are taken at international rather than national level,
EU Member States can play an important role. The best performing countries in road safety
typically engage in the following activities towards improving vehicle safety:
Engaging fully in international legislative development work Most European countries are
represented in technical committees of the UN ECE and the EU associated with the
development of vehicle safety standards and legislation. In addition, several European
countries participate actively in the work of international organisations towards the
development of legislative tests and standards. For example, France, Germany, Spain,
Sweden and the UK contribute to the work of the various working and steering committees of
the EEVC and global research co-operation within the International Harmonised Research
Activities IHRA.
Carrying out national research and monitoring of vehicle safety measures The monitoring of
the performance of European vehicle safety legislation in real crashes to identify progress as
well as future priorities for vehicle safety has taken place systematically in few European
countries. .A notable example is the Cooperative Crash Injury Research Study in the UK
which has run for over 20 years. European protocols for in depth research have been
following the EU-wide projects STAIRS and PENDANT. Achieving vehicle safety legislation
which reflects real–world conditions necessitates programmes of in-depth crash injury
research, crash dummy development and other biomechanical work. During the last 20
31/01/2013 Page 16
years, countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and France have devoted
significant national resource to programmes of work aimed at safety standard development.
Creating a market for vehicle safety Sweden, for example has been pre-eminent in
introducing a range of policies which can help to establish a national market for optimal
vehicle safety design and vehicle safety equipment. These range from active support for the
development of consumer information safety ratings and targeted outcomes in national
safety programmes, encouraging national fast-tracking of key safety measures through
procurement and organisational in-house safe travel policies and, in several countries, and
encouraging financial incentives for the use of protective equipment.
• Supporting and joining the European New Car Assessment Programme

Various national governments have joined the European New Car Assessment
programme since its inception in 1996 including the United Kingdom, Sweden, the
Netherlands, France and Germany. Some countries actively promote Euro NCAP
results. Others target increases in the vehicle fleet with 5 star ratings. In Sweden, the
Swedish Transport Administration promotes an in-house travel policy which requires that
all cars used in official business have at least a 5* safety rating.
• Encouraging local car industry to fast-track key safety measures

The Swedish Roads (now Transport) Administration has within the Vision Zero policy
been highly successful in recent years in encouraging rapid voluntary adoption of seat
belt reminders in the national car fleet and the voluntary installation of alcohol interlock
devices in the national truck fleet. For example, alcohol interlocks are installed in over
1500 vehicles and, since 2002; two major truck suppliers have been offering interlocks as
standard equipment on the Swedish market. The majority of new cars sold in Sweden are
fitted with seatbelt reminders.
• Encouraging financial incentives for the use of protective equipment

Some countries provide financial incentives for the fitment or use of safety equipment.
For example, in the Netherlands there is a tax (called BPM tax) for passenger cars and
motorcycles. However, a purchase of a passenger car or a motorcycle fitted with specific
safety systems is exempt from BPM tax. The specific safety equipment is side airbags,
anti-whiplash head rest system, and navigation devices for passenger cars and ABS and
CBS (Combined Brake System) for motorcycles.
Ensuring that national roads and vehicle authorities understand the safety value linkages
between in-vehicle technologies and road network treatments Improving the level of
protection in the road traffic system requires active partnerships between roads and vehicle
authorities in ensuring compatibility of designs which take better account of human tolerance
thresholds and available crash protection in speed management. Also in-vehicle
interventions such as Lane Departure Warning Systems will be dependent on quality lane
road markings for a positive safety effect.
31/01/2013 Page 17
Ensuring that protective equipment usage laws are properly enforced Clearly protective
equipment required by law such as seat belts, child restraints and crash helmets are of little
value unless they are used. A range of EC funded research reviews have been carried out
which have highlighted best practice in enforcing vehicle measures requiring user action e.g.
ESCAPE, GADGET, ETSC, SUPREME.
4 Key issues for vehicle safety design

4.1 What forces can be tolerated the human body?
The tolerance of the human body to kinetic forces released in road traffic crashes is limited.
Injury is broadly related to the amount of kinetic energy applied to the human frame.
Biomechanical research reported over the years to international scientific conferences (e.g.
IRCOBI, STAPP, ESV) indicate that the relationship between crash forces and injury is
known for a number of parts of the body and types of injury for different categories of road
user as well as for different age groups. For example, a crash load applied to the chest of a
young male may result in a bone fracture, but if applied to an elderly female, may produce a
life-threatening injury. Whereas current vehicle crash protection is focused on the average-
sized male occupant, the driving population is set to become more vulnerable to injury as it
ages in line with general demographic trends.
Small differences in speed can have a profound effect on the occurrence and severity of road
crashes and injuries. A 1% decrease in average speed corresponds with a 2% decrease in
injury crashes, a 3% decrease in serious injury crashes and a 4% decrease in fatal crashes
and vice versa. A 5% increase in mean speed will lead to a 20% increase in fatal crashes
and vice versa (Nilsson, 2004; Elvik, 2009).
For a collision between a car and a pedestrian, the following relationship between speed and
survival chance has been established in in-depth studies (Ashton and McKay 1979). Later
research (which includes different types of study) indicates that the threshold for fatalities
may have increased since then, although this is not necessarily the case for serious injury.
See ERSO Speeding web text.
Table 4: Pedestrian deaths by impact speed
% fatally injured
Car speed
pedestrians
32 km/h 5%
48 km/h 45%
64 km/h 85%
Source: Ashton and McKay, 1979
31/01/2013 Page 18
As shown above the probability of a pedestrian being killed rises by a factor of 8 as the
impact speed of the car rises from 30km/h to 50km/h (Ashton and McKay 1979). The best-
designed vehicle on the road today provides crash protection currently up to 70km/h for car
occupants wearing seat belts in frontal impacts and 50 km/h in side impacts (Tingvall &
Haworth, 1999).
It has been estimated for the Swedish traffic system (and no doubt the traffic system in most
EU countries) that speeds are tolerated on many roads well in excess of the thresholds noted
above without separate facilities or protective designs and possibilities of use (by engine
capability) to more than 200 km/h (Tingvall, 1987). Against this background, in the Swedish
Vision Zero strategy (known generically as Safe System), the amount of biomechanical
energy to which people can be exposed without sustaining serious injury is promoted as the
basic road and vehicle design parameter. See ERSO Road Safety Management web text.
4.2 What are the main crash injury problems?
Car occupants: Car occupants are the largest single casualty group comprising over 50% of
total EU (27) deaths with the majority of car occupant deaths occurring on non-motorway
rural roads (COWI, 2009). The main injury risks for car occupants arise from the way vehicles
interact with each other and with the roadside. Car-to-car collisions are the single most
frequent category of crash. For both fatally and seriously injured occupants, frontal impacts
are the most important crash type followed by side impacts. The head is the body area most
frequently involved in life-threatening injury, followed in importance by the chest and then the
abdomen. Among disabling injuries, those to the leg and neck are important (Hobbs, 2001).
Determinants of injury severity include:
• Speed of travel
• Restraint use
• Contact by occupant with the car ’s interior, exacerbated by intrusion into the passenger
compartment caused by the colliding vehicle or object
• Mismatch in terms of size and weight between vehicles involved in a crash
• Ejection from the vehicle
• Inadequate vehicle crash protection.
Pedestrians: Pedestrians comprise around 20% of EU (27) road traffic deaths and around
two thirds of these occur in urban areas. Research suggests that the majority of all fatally
and seriously injured pedestrians in Europe are hit by the fronts of cars. Lower-limb injury is,
in general, the most common form of pedestrian injury, while head injury is responsible for
most pedestrian fatalities (EEVC 1998, update 2002). The survival of pedestrians in traffic
depends upon ensuring either that they are separated from the high speeds of motor
vehicles or – in the more common situation of shared use of the road – that the vehicle
speed at the point of collision is low enough to prevent serious injury on impact with crash-
protective safer car fronts (Peden et al. WHO, 2004).
31/01/2013 Page 19
Motorised two-wheeler users comprise around 17% of total EU (27) deaths and typically
sustain multiple injuries in crashes, including to the head, chest and legs. The majority of the
fatal injuries are to the head, despite helmet use. Lower-leg injuries result either from direct
contact with the impacting vehicle or as a result of being crushed between the bike and the
ground (Peden et al. WHO, 2004). EU-funded EEVC research has shown that a car is
involved in a half to two thirds of crashes. A quarter to a third of all motorcycle crashes were
single vehicle crashes without collision with another vehicle. Off-road impacts where the
motorcyclist leaves the roadway and overturns or strikes a roadside object is the most
frequently occurring motorcycle crash type (EEVC, 1994). Research in several European
countries indicates that many serious injuries to motorcyclists go unreported to the police
which mean that national statistics typically underestimate the size of the problem (IRTAD,
1994).
Cyclists comprise around 6% of road user deaths across EU (27) countries but a larger
numerical share in countries where usage is higher than the EU average, though fatality risks
lower, e.g. the Netherlands and Denmark. There is evidence that cyclists' crashes are
frequently under-reported in national statistics, particularly in non-fatal single vehicle crashes.
Single vehicle crashes comprise the most typical crash type. Head injuries are the major
cause of death in around 75% of cyclist fatalities. Head or brain injury comprises about 50%
of all younger hospitalised crash victims.
Minibus, bus occupants and heavy commercial vehicle users in crashes are a smaller but
treatable part of vehicle problem, though heavy vehicles have disproportionate involvement
in fatal crashes.
4.3 Crash avoidance and mitigation, crash protection, post-crash care,

integrated approaches
Vehicle engineering improvements for safety have been achieved to date by modifying the
vehicle to help the driver or rider avoid a crash and by modifying the vehicle to provide
protection against injury in the event of a crash for those inside and outside the vehicle. .
New attention in Europe and globally is being given to ensuring vehicle crash protective
design for those outside the vehicle; driver assistance measures which can help to improve
safety behaviours; in-vehicle measures aimed at improving post-crash response and the
development of integrated approaches linking communication between vehicles and with the
road network.
31/01/2013 Page 20
Table 5: Vehicle safety strategies and measures
Crash avoidance or Devices to avoid a crash e.g. daytime running lights,

primary safety electronic stability control, intelligent speed adaptation,
alcolocks. EU level developments in safety are focusing much
more around new vehicle based primary safety systems that
may prevent collisions occurring. Examples include Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) (which are already showing substantial
road safety returns), lane keeping systems and pedestrian
detection and auto braking systems (OECD, 2003). There are
high expectations that these new systems will provide the
largest reductions in casualties into the future though the
evidence in many cases remains weak (VSRC, 2011).
Crash mitigation Examples are intelligent speed assistance or advanced
systems braking systems which actively aim to lessen crash severity
before the crash occurs.
Crash protection or Protection in the event of a crash e.g. seat belts, airbags, front
secondary safety or and side impact protection. Opportunities exist for further
passive safety important improvements at EU level such as in vehicle to
vehicle compatibility, the protection of side impact occupants
on the far side of the vehicle, prevention of whiplash injuries
and the protection of more vulnerable car occupants such as
elderly drivers and passengers.
Active safety The term active safety is often used to mean crash avoidance
but care should be taken in its use since it is also used to
denote deployable systems such as crash-protective pop-up
bonnets for pedestrian protection or seat belt reminders.
Integrated technologies In recent years there has been a move away from traditional
and co-operative approaches towards crash avoidance and crash protection
systems towards holistic in-vehicle approaches. The aim here is to
achieve a truly integrated technological vehicle response to
the risk of crash and better outcomes before, during and
following the crash event. Accordingly, more advanced
technologies are under development and testing which
support information connectivity between vehicles and with
road infrastructure. These are known as co-operative systems
(Euro NCAP 2009).
For further discussion on co-operative road‐vehicle systems and integrated technologies -
See ERSO web text on eSafety.
31/01/2013 Page 21
4.4 Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness

As in other areas of road safety policy, socio-economic appraisals of vehicle safety measures
are usually carried out to ensure that reasonable societal benefits can be derived from any
additional manufacturing costs. In general, new safety design can be more easily assimilated
into new car manufacturing costs at the original design stage rather than during subsequent
stages of production.
However, while the task of evaluating the costs and benefits of relatively simple systems is
not difficult, new methodologies need to be devised to help estimate more accurately the cost
of more complex systems.
For further information on methodologies for assessing costs and benefits see ERSO web
text Cost-Benefit Analysis.
5 Safety design needs

5.1 Cars
5.1.1 Crash avoidance and mitigation measures
Speed: Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)

ISA is a system which informs, warns and discourages the driver to exceed the speed limit.
The in-vehicle speed limit is set automatically as a function of the speed limits indicated on
the road. GPS allied to digital speed limit maps allows ISA technology to continuously update
the vehicle speed limit to the road speed limit. There are three types of ISA:
Informative or advisory ISA gives the driver a feedback through a visual or audio signal
Supportive or warning ISA increases the upward pressure on the gas pedal. It is possible
to override the supportive system by pressing the accelerator harder.
Intervening or mandatory ISA prevents any speeding, for example, by reducing fuel
injection or by requiring a "kick-down" by the driver if he or she wishes to exceed the limit.
Research indicates that the more the system intervenes the more significant are the benefits.
Estimates show that if mandatory installation of informative or supportive ISA, injury crashes
could be reduced by 20%. The use of a mandatory ISA system, when combined with a
dynamic speed limit regime, has the estimated potential to reduce overall injury crashes by
up to 36%, fatal and serious crashes by 48% and fatal crashes by 59% (Carsten and Tate
2005). A study in the Netherlands showed that ISA could reduce the number of hospital
admissions by 15% and the number of deaths by 21% (Van Loon and Duynstee, 2001). The
most recent estimates of savings are presented in Table 6.
31/01/2013 Page 22
Table 6: Expected road safety results from a range of ISA options
Advisory Voluntary Mandatory

% reduction % reduction % reduction
Fatal crashes 5% 21% 46%
Serious injury crashes 3% 14% 34%
Source: Carsten O (2012) Personal communication of additional results to study Lai F,

Carsten O and Tate F,(2012) How much benefit does Intelligent Speed Adaptation deliver:
An analysis of its potential contribution to safety and environment, Accident Analysis and
Prevention 48 (2012) 63– 72
Different trials using informative and supportive systems across Europe have shown that
approximately 60–75% of users would accept ISA in their own cars. An FIA Foundation
survey indicates 61% support for physical in-car limiter systems to prevent exceeding speed
limits in residential areas, and over 50% support for these systems on main roads and
motorways.
The Swedish Transport Administration equips its whole fleet with ISA systems and studies in
Europe have been carried out in Norway, the Netherlands and the UK. There have been two
major EU-funded projects on ISA. The SRA co-ordinated project PROSPER looked into
ways that advanced assisted driving technology and technology relating to speed limitation
devices can improve safety, and what are the barriers for the implementation of ISA.
SpeedAlert co-ordinated by ERTICO proposed harmonisation of the in-vehicle speed alert
concept definition and investigated the priority issues to be addressed at the European level,
such as the collection, maintenance and certification of speed (SpeedAlert Project).
Event data recorders

Black boxes or event recorders can be used in cars as a valuable research tool to monitor or
validate new safety technology, to establish human tolerance limits and to record impact
speeds. Current general practice is to use the onboard computer which now is fitted on most
cars, and to adapt the transducers and the data collected. In the US, the car manufacturer
GM has been using event data recorders since the 1970s to evaluate the performance of
airbags in crashes. In the UK, police fleet cars have been fitted with black boxes. In
Germany a special crash recorder called UDS by Mannesmann/VDO has been on the
market for more than 20 years. Experience in Germany gained with this recorder shows that
it can influence driving behaviour considerably and thus contributes to crash reduction,
especially in vehicle fleets, of between 20 – 30%. In Sweden, tens of thousands of vehicles
have been equipped with event recorders for research purposes since 1995.
An EC project VERONICA collated information on the feasibility of black boxes in European

vehicles. Three important questions related to black boxes are the standardisation of
procedure and tools to retrieve the data, the use of the data collected (for crash research, or
31/01/2013 Page 23
by the police to check driving conditions, or in legal applications to help in the determination
of the responsibilities in a crash) and questions concerning the ownership of the data.
Visibility:
Daytime Running Lights (DRL)

(DRL) are multi-purpose or specially designed lights on the front of a vehicle for use in
daytime to increase its visibility and avoid multi-party crashes. There are various DRL
options all of which have positive benefit-to-cost ratios. The options of mandatory manual
operation of dipped lights in existing cars and a compulsory advanced DRL unit fitted to new
cars seem most advantageous, according to Dutch reviews (Koornstra, 1997; TNO, 2003).
Meta-analyses of the effects of DRL use in cars show that DRL contributes substantially to
reducing road crashes, car occupant and vulnerable road user injuries whatever the
country’s latitude. A reduction in multi-party crashes of between 8%-15% was found as a
result of introducing mandatory laws on daytime use (Elvik et al., 2009 Handbook). A
Norwegian meta-analysis of 25 studies that have evaluated DRL for cars and 16 studies that
have evaluated DRL for motorcycles found that DRL reduces the number of multi-party
daytime crashes by 5–10 per cent (Elvik et al., 2003). A Dutch review found that DRL
reduced multi-party daytime crashes by around 12% and deaths and injured victims by 25%
and 20% respectively (Koornstra, 1997). Motorised two-wheeler users have expressed
concerns that daytime running lights on cars could reduce the visibility of motorcyclists.
While there is no empirical evidence to indicate this is the case, such an effect would be
likely to be offset by the benefits to motorcyclists of increased car visibility (Koornstra, 1997),
(PROMISING, 2001).
It has been estimated that the fitment of DRL to cars in EU countries could lead to an annual
reduction of 2,800 deaths. The calculation of the cost/benefit ratio (CBR) illustrates that the
costs of DRL are considerably lower than the benefits (value 1:4.4). With even more
favourable if special DRL-lamps equipped with economical bulbs were installed increasing
the CBR to 1:6.4 (ETSC, 2003).
EU Directive 2008/89/EC requires the mandatory fitment of DRL in all new EU cars from
February 2011 and for trucks and buses from August 2012.
Braking and handling measures:

In general most of the devices described for improvement of braking and handling interfere
with driver behaviour, and the questions of driver acceptance, risk compensation and driver
reaction when the system is activated (especially old drivers) are important.
31/01/2013 Page 24
- Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS)

The main purpose of ABS is to prevent skidding where loss of steering and control result
from locked wheels when braking hard. Such systems are now fitted to many new cars. A
meta-analysis of research studies shows that ABS give a relatively small, but statistically
significant reduction in the number of crashes, when all levels of severity and types of
crashes are taken together. However, while injury crashes decrease (-5%), fatal crashes
increase (+6%) (Elvik et al., 2009 Handbook). There are statistically significant increases in
rollover, single-vehicle crashes and collisions with fixed objects. There are statistically
significant decreases in collisions with pedestrians/cyclists/animals and collisions involving
turning vehicles. ABS brakes do not appear to have any effect on rear-end collisions.
A German study found that ABS brakes can lead to changes in behaviour in the form of
higher speeds and more aggressive driving (Ashenbrenner, 1987). The results also may also
be partly due to lack of knowledge or incorrect assumptions amongst car drivers about how
ABS brakes actually function (Elvik et al., 2009 Handbook). A British study, for example,
indicated that one reason why ABS was not realising its full potential to reduce crashes was
that many drivers had little or no knowledge of ABS (Broughton & Baughan, 2000).
- Brake Assist
Brake Assist in emergency situations is a technology which is fitted as standard on some
new cars and will be mandatory for new cars in 2014 as part of a legislative package on
pedestrian protection. It aims to address the problem of insufficient pressure being applied to
the brake by drivers in emergency situations, so increasing stopping distances. Car
manufacturing trials have shown that brake assistance systems could help by providing full
braking effect, where the driver does not press hard enough on the pedal. In marketing
material, Daimler Chrysler indicate that for a car braking at 100km/h, Brake Assist can
reduce the normal stopping distance by 45%. Brake assistance systems can use the ABS
capability to allow heavy braking without the risk of wheel locking, but have to distinguish
between emergency and normal braking as well as respond appropriately to reduced brake
pressure.
While a prospective estimate has been made for Brake Assist to reduce fatal and serious
injuries among pedestrians by 10%, the same study noted that the casualty reduction effect
of Brake Assist has yet to be scientifically established (Hardy & Lawrence, 2005). A Swedish
study of real-world pedestrian crashes found that the effects of Brake Assist on pedestrian
safety were not significant (Strandroth, 2011).
- Autonomous Emergency Braking

Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems can help to avoid crashes or to mitigate
their severity by warning the drivers and supporting their braking response and/or by
applying the brakes independently. All EU heavy commercial vehicles have to be fitted with
autonomous emergency braking (AEB) technology by November 2013, though a requirement
is not in place for other vehicle types. According to Euro NCAP, real world performance data
suggests that these systems can reduce car crashes by up to 27% and some car models are
31/01/2013 Page 25
attracting Euro NCAP Advanced rewards. Euro NCAP has grouped systems into three main
categories: City, Inter-Urban and Pedestrian. Systems may fall into more than one category,
or may meet the requirements of all three. One manufacturer has developed a pedestrian
detection system that automatically brings a car to a halt at speeds of up to 35 km/h
whenever a person steps out in front of it. It should be noted that this form of autonomous
emergency braking differs from Brake Assist which requires action from the driver and
alongside crash protective requirements forms part of the EU legislative package on
pedestrian protection.
- Electronic Stability Control (ESC)

Electronic stability control (ESC) addresses the problem of skidding and crashes due to loss
of control on wet or icy roads. Such devices are now being fitted increasingly into new cars
and fitment is rewarded by points towards a star rating in the European New Car
Assessment Programme which has developed a protocol for ESC testing. A mandatory
requirement for fitting ESC to EU cars from 2011 (new types) and 2014 (all new vehicles)
has been introduced. Sweden has been foremost in encouraging the take up of ESC
nationally and in December 2010, 99% of all new passenger cars were equipped with ESC
(Swedish Government, 2011).
Evaluation studies have shown that ESC has led to substantial reductions in crashes
involving large cars at the top end of the market. A Swedish study in 2003 showed that cars
fitted with ESC were 22% less likely to be involved in crashes than those without with 32%
and 38% fewer crashes in wet and snowy conditions respectively (Tingvall, 2003). In Japan,
a study showed that electronic stability reduced crash involvement by 30-35% (Aga and
Okada, 2003). In Germany, one study indicated a similar reduction while another showed a
reduction in “loss-of-control” crashes from 21% to 12% (Breuer, 2002). A recent US study
indicated a 5% overall reduction in all impacts and a 23% reduction in fatalities in passenger
car crashes reported to the police (Sivinski, 2011).
Impairment detection systems:

Several systems exist for detecting driver impairment caused by excess alcohol, drowsiness,
illness, or drug abuse, which prevent the vehicle from starting or warn the driver or perform
an emergency control function that will stop the vehicle. While many systems are at different
stages of development with, in some cases, their feasibility being unknown, one particularly
promising application is the alcohol interlock system.
- Alcolock systems are automatic control systems which are designed to prevent driving
with excess alcohol by requiring the driver to blow into an in-car breathalyzer before starting
the ignition. The alcohol interlock can be set at different levels. Alcolocks have been used
widely in North America in repeat drink-drive offender programmes and, when used as part
of a comprehensive scheme, have led to reductions of between 40% and 95% in the rate of
repeated offending. See ICADTS Working Group Report 1 (ICADTS, 2001).
Alcohol interlock systems are also widely used in Sweden in rehabilitation schemes for
offenders driving with blood alcohol content over the legal limit and in government and
31/01/2013 Page 26
company fleet cars. In 2004 the Swedish government decided that all vehicles purchased or
leased in 2005 or later, and intended to be used by the government should be fitted with
alcohol interlocks. Some 70 000 alcolocks are now used in Sweden in trucks, buses and
taxis on a voluntary basis (Swedish Government, 2011). A transport company in Sweden
decided to equip all their 4000 vehicles with alcohol interlock systems before the end of
2006. The Swedish Driving Schools Association has fitted all their 800 vehicles with alcohol
inter-locks (Kullgren, 2005).
A major US initiative is entering its second phase in an attempt to develop an in-car detection
system that can be more widely used. The US Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety
Program is exploring the feasibility, the potential benefits of, and the public policy challenges
associated with a more widespread use of noninvasive technology to prevent alcohol-
impaired driving. Two specific approaches have been chosen for further investigation; tissue
spectrometry, or touch based, and distant/offset spectrometry, or breath based sensors. Two
of the sensors are designed to remotely measure alcohol concentration in drivers’ breath
from the ambient air in the vehicle cabin, and the third is designed to measure alcohol in the
drivers’ finger tissue through placement of a finger on the sensor. Prototype testing has
indicated that there are potential technologies that ultimately could function non-invasively in
a vehicle environment to measure a driver’s BAC. Research vehicles will demonstrate the
technologies by the second half of 2013 (Ferguson, 2011).
Collision Avoidance Systems

Research and development of collision warning and collision avoidance systems has taken
place in Japan, the United States and in the European Union over the last decade and some
car models now offer such devices. Large estimates of the safety potential of such systems
have been claimed following laboratory studies, but the range of technical and behavioral
issues involved in many of the concepts require full on-road assessment. To be practicable,
most of the proposed systems require a well-controlled traffic situation, such as that found on
motorways, but where the casualty reduction potential is relatively low. Most existing
systems are warning only systems. Examples of such systems are:
• Forward Collision Warning is a system which comprises a visual and audible warning that
the driver is too close to the vehicle in front. The warning depends on how long the
distance is between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead. The level of warning changes
from “safe” to “critical” as the following distance decreases.
• The Reverse Collision Warning System is a visual and audible system which warns
drivers about the likelihood of collision with an object behind the vehicle by means of
sensors in the rear bumper. The warning intensifies when the distance between the
vehicle’s rear and the object decreases.
• Adaptive Cruise Control enhances automatic cruise control found in many new vehicles
by automatically maintaining a set following distance to the vehicle in front. The distance
to the preceding vehicle is measured by radar either with laser radar or millimetre wave
radar. When the speed of the vehicle in front is slower than the adjusted speed, the ACC
system adjusts vehicle speed to allow a safe distance the lead vehicle at a safe distance.
31/01/2013 Page 27
• Lane-Keeping Devices are electronic warning systems that are activated if the vehicle is
about to veer off the lane or the road. Times to collision in safety-critical lane changes are
normally much less than one second. Since mean driver reaction time is about one
second, there is not sufficient time for a driver to respond to a warning before crashing.
Because there is insufficient time for reaction to a warning, lane change and merging
crashes can probably only be avoided by intervening systems. But these have their own
problems: how to detect driver intentions and how to intervene. This may be by taking
over the steering from the driver or by providing feedback through the steering wheel.
Implementing intelligent transport systems for road safety

Intelligent transport systems (ITS) require a detailed international framework for
implementation which currently does not exist. Such a framework includes work on
standardisation, the development of functional specifications for ITS measures and
Memoranda of Understanding on their fitment and use. Digital maps, sensors, ensuring
appropriate human machine interface, as well as developing communication protocols all
form part of the implementation process. Establishing public acceptance as well as legal
liability for ITS measures are also fundamental issues (OECD, 2003; Rumar, 1999).
Does car colour influence road safety?

Brightly coloured or light coloured vehicles are sometimes regarded as safer because they
seem to be more visible but is this the case? While a small number of studies have started
to explore this question (Furness et al., 2003; Lardelli-Claret, 2002) the association between
the colour of cars and their safety should be treated with some caution. For instance, if
yellow cars were proven to be safer than other colours, it does not mean that safety would
improve if all cars were yellow. It is the variation in colour, just as much as the colour itself
that generates differences in safety.
5.1.2 Crash protection measures
Fundamental issues of structures, compatibility and restraint
What happens in a typical crash?

Newton's Third Law, states that "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
In a frontal crash, the most common impact type, an unrestrained occupant continues to
move forward at the pre-crash speed and hits the car structures with an impact speed
approaching the pre-crash speed. Use of a seat belt or restraint helps to slow the occupant
down in a crash by applying forces to the strong skeletal structures of the pelvis and rib cage;
reducing the risk of major contact with the car structure and preventing ejection.
How does crash protection work?

Vehicle crash protection aims to keep the consequence of a crash to a minimum. For car
occupants, this means:
• Keeping the occupant in the vehicle during the crash
• Ensuring that the passenger compartment does not collapse
31/01/2013 Page 28
• Reducing the crash forces upon the occupants by slowing down the occupant or
pedestrian over as long a distance as possible and spreading the loads as broadly as
possible to reduce the effect of the impact forces
• Controlling the deceleration of the car
So reducing the risk of:

• An unrestrained occupant being ejected from a car so increasing the risk of fatal injury;
• A poorly designed passenger compartment which reduces the occupant’s survival space;
• Occupant contact with a poorly designed car interior or intruding object
The vehicle’s structure, its compatibility with other vehicles or objects on the road and the
design and use of the vehicle’s restraint system are all key elements for crash protective
design. The type of crash protection countermeasure used is dependent on the nature of the
crash configuration, i.e. the direction of the impact (using clock direction) and the type of
collision partner.
Structures
Crash protection needs to be provided for different parts of the car structure which are struck
in different types of crashes. The most common injury-producing crash types are frontal
crashes, followed by side impacts, rear impacts and rollovers. Legislative tests cover the
crash performance of new cars in front and side impacts. Euro NCAP consumer tests provide
a star rating for crash performance in front and side impact tests based on legislative tests, a
pole test, sub-system pedestrian tests, and inspection of aspects of the vehicle interior and
restraint systems.
Figure 2: Frontal impact test
Frontal impact The current EU legislative test (which is same as UN ECE Regulation 94) is a
40% offset deformable barrier test conducted at 56km/h. The current Euro NCAP test is
conducted at 64km/h to represent the majority of severe I jury producing frontal crashes.
31/01/2013 Page 29
Various suggestions have been made for improvements in the legislative test by the EEVC
and others (EEVC, 2000; TRL, 2009).
For car occupants, contact with the car’s interior, exacerbated by the presence of intrusion, is
the greatest source of fatal and serious injury. The recent priority in frontal impact protection
has been to improve the car structure to endure severe offset impacts with little or no
intrusion. Without intrusion, the seat belts and airbags have the space to decelerate the
occupant with minimum injury risk.
A full width frontal barrier test is used in other regions of the world to test occupant restraint
systems. Both tests are needed to ensure crash protection for car occupants (Peden et al.
WHO, 2004).
Side impact French, Swedish and UK national data has been analysed and shown that
around one quarter of car occupant casualties is injured as a result of a side impact.
However, this rises to between 29% and 38% for those fatally injured, illustrating their more
injurious nature. In side impacts 60% of casualties are ‘struck side’ (SS) occupants and 40%
are ‘non-struck side’ (NSS). The proportion of fatal casualties in simple car to car or car to
pole impacts is substantial, 50% and 67% for the UK and France (EEVC, 2010). In side
impacts the struck side occupant is directly involved in the impact. Contact with the car
interior is difficult to prevent so the aim is to improve the nature of the intrusion and provide
padding and side-airbags.
Figure 3: Side impact test
Head protection is a priority in side impact which is not yet addressed in the current EU
legislative test. In addition to a side impact test, Euro NCAP has a pole test which is
encouraging improved crash protection for the head in side impacts.
31/01/2013 Page 30
Various suggestions have been made for improvements in the legislative side impact test
The EEVC notes that a regulatory pole test (to current Euro NCAP specification with full
dummy assessment) into the existing UN ECE Regulation 95 would deliver significant
benefits to society in terms of fatal and serious injuries saved. EEVC recommends the
development of a more representative (mass and stiffness distribution) barrier than the one
used currently in regulation and work towards protecting non-struck side occupants who are
not covered by existing regulatory test procedures (EEVC, 2010). The case for a Global
Technical Regulation on Pole Side Impact (PSI GTR) is being discussed in UN ECE’s WP 29
following a proposal from Australia.
Rollover crashes
• Most rollovers occur off the carriageway. Providing the occupant is not ejected from the
vehicle and the car does not strike any rigid objects, then rollovers are the least injurious
of the different impact types;
• If occupants remain completely inside the car (i.e. no partial ejection) they have a low
injury rate as they decelerate over a relatively long period;
• The risk of rollover varies with different vehicles depending on e.g. the height of the
centre of gravity, suspension characteristics and loads carried;
• The severity of injury depends on the presence of crash-protective roadsides and the
speed of impact.
• Electronic Stability Programmes can reduce some single vehicle crashes and loss of
control crashes including rollovers.
Rear impacts
• Rear impact and whiplash type injury is a serious problem in terms of both injury and cost
to society. Around 50% of neck injuries leading to disability following crashes occur in
rear impacts (Krafft, 1998).
• The risk of whiplash injury is not simply related to head restraint position, but is
dependent on a combination of factors related to both head restraint and seatback design
(Kleinberger, 2003). Traditionally, attempts have been made to prevent injury by changes
in the headrest geometry. A headrest located less than 10cm from the head has proved
more beneficial than a distance of more than 10cm (Olsson, 1990; Jacobsson, 2004).
Research into the injury mechanisms of neck injury has shown that the dynamic
behaviour of seat backs is one of the parameters most influencing neck injury risks
(Krafft, 1998).
• Several special test dummies and test devices have been developed to date for the
assessment of whiplash injury and several static and dynamic test procedures have been
developed (EEVC, 2005 WG20) . A Euro NCAP test protocol also addresses whiplash
injury.
• Systems aimed at preventing neck injuries in rear impacts have been presented in recent
years and used in several car models (Lundell, 1998; Wiklund & Larsson, 1998).
Evaluation in real crashes has shown that an anti-whiplash system can reduce average
whiplash injury risk by 50%; that energy absorption in the seat back reduced occupant
acceleration and the risk of sustaining a whiplash injury; and further reductions in injury
31/01/2013 Page 31
risk could be achieved by improved head restraint geometry (Krafft, 2004). A Norwegian
meta-analysis indicated that the effects of WHIPS systems differ with respect to injury
severity. Slight injuries are reduced by about 20%, serious injuries by about 50% (Eriksen
et al., 2004).
Compatibility
The varying mass of different cars and the different crash types make achieving compatible
protection in car crashes quite complex. While cars mostly hit other cars either on the front
or sides, they also hit roadside objects, pedestrians and commercial vehicles. Compatibility is
seen by vehicle safety experts as next major step forward in improving car occupant safety
(Faeber, 2005; Hobbs, 2001; Passive Safety Network).
Figure 4: Car-to-car compatibility
Many new cars can absorb their own kinetic energy in their frontal structures in crashes, so
avoiding significant passenger compartment intrusion. But when cars of different stiffness hit
each other, the stiffer car overloads and crushes the weaker car. When a car impacts with
another, the stiff structures need to interact to minimise injury. There is currently no control of
the relative stiffness of the fronts of different models of car. For example, there’s a need to
reconcile sports utility vehicles with smaller passenger cars, which form the majority of
vehicles on Europe’s roads. The question of geometry and matching of structures is also
important to provide better compatibility, and avoid override/underride of different vehicles
and objects. The EEVC is developing test procedures to improve car-to-car compatibility for
both front-to-front and front-to-side crashes and an EU-funded research programme is
coordinating international research.
31/01/2013 Page 32
Figure 5: Car to roadside objects
Impacts with roadside objects such as poles cause between 18%- 50% of car occupant
deaths in EU countries. Current legislation only requires the use of crash tests with barriers
representing car-to-car impacts. A side car-to-pole test protocol is used in Euro NCAP
Coordination is required between the design of cars and crash protective or ‘forgiving’ safety
barriers.
Figure 6: Car to pedestrian tests
Most fatally injured pedestrians are hit by the fronts of cars.
31/01/2013 Page 33
Four sub system tests have been devised by the EEVC to test areas of the car front which
are a source of serious and fatal pedestrian injury in impacts. The tests at 40 km/h comprise:
• A bumper test to prevent serious knee and leg fractures;
• A bonnet leading-edge test to prevent femur and hip fractures in adults and head injuries
in children;
• Two tests involving the bonnet top to prevent life-threatening head injuries.
Minor amendments to the EEVC tests were proposed following an EC funded feasibility
study (Lawrence, 2003). The European Commission stated in 2003 that take up of these
challenging tests could avoid 20% of deaths and serious injuries to vulnerable road users in
EU countries annually, although rejected inclusion of all in a legislation on the grounds of
feasibility in existing car designs (EC, 2003).
Euro NCAP rewards the provision of pedestrian protection in new cars. A pedestrian protocol
comprising sub-system tests based on those devised by the EEVC are carried out to
replicate crashes involving child and adult pedestrians where impacts occur at 40km/h
(25mph). A leg form test assesses the protection afforded to the lower leg by the bumper, an
upper Leg form assesses the leading edge of the bonnet and child and adult Head forms are
used to assess the bonnet top area. Impact sites are then assessed and rated fair, weak
and poor. Euro NCAP released a separate star rating for pedestrian valid from 1997 to 2009.
The pedestrian protection rating was based on the adult and child head form tests and the
two leg form tests. As of 2009, the pedestrian score has become integral part of the overall
rating scheme but the technical assessment has remained the same. In general, the car
industry has still to respond well to these tests in their designs. In order to encourage further
progress Euro NCAP will require from 2012 that a minimum 60% score in the pedestrian
tests will be required for new cars to receive a 5 star rating.
Research has indicated a significant correlation between Euro NCAP pedestrian score and
injury outcome in real-life car to pedestrian crashes. One study found a 20% reduction in
permanently disabling injuries for two star pedestrian protection compared to one star cars
with increasing injury reduction grows with higher levels of impairment and in crashes with
lower impact speeds (Strandroth, 2011). Another indicated that there is a correlation between
the number of Euro NCAP points and the reduction of MAIS2+ injured pedestrians although
even achieving 36 Euro NCAP points will not necessarily reduce the number of seriously
injured pedestrians to an acceptable extent (Liers et al., 2009).
EU legislation (aligned with the new Global Technical Regulation 9’s passive safety sub-
system tests for Phase 2) requires a mixture of crash protection tests (offering a lesser level
of protection than the EEVC-based Euro NCAP tests) and crash avoidance measures and
comes into force for all new type approvals in 2015 and for new registrations in 2019.
31/01/2013 Page 34
Figure 7: Car to HGV
Front and rear under-run protection on trucks is a well-established means of preventing

“under-running” by cars (whereby cars go underneath trucks with disastrous results for the
occupants, because of a mismatch between the heights of car fronts and truck sides and
fronts). Similarly, side protection on trucks prevents cyclists from being run over.
Legislative requirements for front rigid guards exist. Energy-absorbing front, rear and side
under-run protection could reduce deaths in car to lorry impacts by about 12% (Knight,
2001). Research shows that the benefits of a mandatory specification would exceed the
costs, even if the safety effect of these measures was as low as 5% (Elvik, 1999).
Figure 8: Frontal underrun test
31/01/2013 Page 35
Restraint systems:
Occupant restraint is the single most important safety feature in the car and most crash
protective design is based on the premise that a seat belt will be used.
Over the last 20 years restraint systems fitted in many new cars feature seat belts, frontal air
bags, as well as seat belt pre-tensioning systems and belt force limiters – all of which have
done much to enhance seat belt protection. Measures to increase the use of restraints by
means of legislation, information, enforcement and smart audible seat-belt reminders are
central to improving the safety of car occupants. For overview see World Report on Road
Traffic Injury Prevention (Peden et al., WHO 2004).
Seat belts when used, reduce the risk of serious and fatal injury by between 40% and 65%.
Typically, seat belts provide the best protection in frontal impacts, rollovers and in side
impacts for the non struck side occupants. While front seat belt use is generally high in
normal traffic in many parts of Europe, usage in fatal crashes has been shown to be as low
as 30-50%. Seat belt use is also much lower in the rear than on the front seat. Seat belts,
their anchorages and their use are covered by European legislation and standards. See
European Commission.
Seat-belt reminders are intelligent, visual and audible devices that detect whether seat-belts
are in use in various seating positions and give out increasingly urgent warning signals until
the belts are used. Research shows that occupants are much more likely to wear their belts
in cars equipped with a seatbelt reminder than in those without. It is estimated in Sweden
that reminders in all cars could contribute to a reduction of some 20% in car occupant deaths
Of all the new cars tested in Euro NCAP in December 2010 almost 95% of the new car sales
had a seat belt reminder specification for the driver. 75% had a reminder for the passenger
and 35% a system to monitor seat belt use in the rear seat (Swedish Government, 2011).
Seat belt reminders are highly cost-beneficial with a benefit to cost ratio of 6:1 (ETSC, 2003).
Euro NCAP assesses seat belt reminder systems in tests and rewards their installation See
ERSO eSafety web text for further information.
Frontal airbags are fitted voluntarily by car manufacturers in most new European cars,
although their use is required mandatorily in other regions such as the US. Driver and front-
seat passenger airbags reduce the risk of fatal injury by 68% when combined with seat-belt
use (Cummings, 2002). Airbags do not offer protection in all types of impact and do not
reduce the risk of ejection. Airbags are no substitutes for seat belts, but are designed to work
with them. Estimates of the general effectiveness of frontal air bags in reducing deaths in all
types of crashes range from 8% to 14% (Ferguson, 1995).
However, some of the protective measures provided by airbags designed for adults in a
normal seating position pose a serious threat to children sitting rearward facing child seats
and out-of-position (OOP) adults. Small drivers sitting close to the steering wheel are also at
risk of being injured by the deploying airbag. The injury risk increases the closer the driver
sits to the steering wheel and research shows that this reduces if the distance is 25 cms or
over. Warning labels now have to be fitted in cars to avoid the installation of rearward facing
child restraints and in some cars there is now provision for automatic detection of child
31/01/2013 Page 36
restraints and out of position occupants or a manual switch to disconnect the passenger
airbag system.
Head protecting airbags Head protecting airbags are now increasingly common and help to
provide protection for the head against impacts with the car’s interior and particularly with
structures outside the car. Their introduction, in combination with torso protecting airbags,
offers the possibility of providing protection against the stiff B pillar (the stiff pillars in the
middle of the passenger compartment). Monitoring of the effectiveness of head curtains in
reducing injury is being carried out.
Side airbags Research to date is inconclusive about the performance of side air bags in
crashes which are designed to protect occupants in side impacts. No studies to date show
convincing evidence of major injury reductions and there are some indications of airbag
induced injuries (Morris, 2005; Yoganandan, 2005).
Smart restraint systems Smart restraint systems are vehicle restraint components or
systems that adapt their geometry, performance or behavior to suit varying impact types
and/or occupants and occupant positions. Few of the systems today attempt to adapt its
characteristics to those of the person to be protected, and this is a key issue for the future
with more biomechanical research needed. To date, most of the current smart restraint
systems are intended to reduce the inflation power and aggressivity of frontal airbag
systems. The future holds much promise for intelligent systems which can identify variables
such as occupant physique and positioning, so providing more tailored crash protection. The
EC PRISM project aimed to facilitate the efficient and effective development of "smart
restraint systems".
Child restraints Children in cars need appropriate child restraints for their age and size.
Several types of child restraint systems are in use within the EU. These include: infant
carriers, child seats, booster seats and booster cushions. Infant carriers are used rearward-
facing up to the age of 9 months. Both forward and rearward-facing child seats are used for
children between 6 months and 3 years old. Booster seats and cushions are used forward
facing up to approximately 10 years of age. All types are covered by European standards.
See Euro NCAP protocols.
Research shows that the use of rearward facing restraints provides the best protection and
should be used up to as high an age as possible (although not used adjacent to frontal
passenger airbags). Rearward-facing systems have been shown to reduce injuries between
90% and 95%, while forward-facing systems have been shown to have an injury reducing
effect of approximately 60% (Tingvall, 1987; Volvo, 1997). The use of child safety seats has
been shown to reduce infant deaths in cars by approximately 71% and deaths to small
children by 54% (National Highway, 2002).
Increasing the use of child restraint systems is the most important action in countries where
the usage rate is low. Misuse of child restraints has in many EU Member States been
identified as a major problem since most child restraints are not manufactured by car
31/01/2013 Page 37
manufacturers and are not integrated into the original design of the car. Another problematic
area for all child restraint systems is side impacts. Euro NCAP has shown the limited ability
of current restraints to constrain the movement of the child’s head and prevent contact with
the car’s interior. A side impact test procedure for child restraints is under the development
within ISO TC22/SC12/WG1.
Euro NCAP has developed a child protection protocol to encourage improved design. Points
are awarded if universal child restraint anchorages ISOFIX are provided’ for different types of
child restraint provision and the quality of the warning labels or presence of de-activation
systems for frontal passenger airbags.
Rear restraints The rear seats of cars are occupied much less frequently that the front seats
and the severity of injury is generally lower, where seat belts are worn. Occupants seated in
the rear of cars are less exposed to intrusion problems so that improving the intrusion
resistance of passenger compartments is likely to provide less benefit to rear seat occupants,
particularly children. There are no legislative or crash tests which cover the crash protection
of rear occupants or the performance of occupant restraints.
Head restraints The risk of whiplash injury is related to both head restraint and seatback
design and dynamic seat back tests (Kleinberger, 2003). Evaluation in real crashes has
shown that an effective anti-whiplash system can reduce average whiplash injury risk by
50%; that energy absorption in the seat back reduced occupant acceleration and the risk of
sustaining a whiplash injury; and further reductions in injury risk could be achieved by
improved head restraint geometry (Krafft, 2004).
A headrest located less than 10cm from the head has proved more beneficial than a distance
of more than 10cm (Olsson, 1990; Jacobsson, 2004). The greatest protection is provided by:
• Correct vertical adjustment. The top of the head rest must, if possible, be at the same
height as the top of the head. The minimum is just above the ears.
• Correct horizontal distance between head and head rest. This must be as small as
possible: in any case less than 10 cm and preferably less than 4 cm.
Head restraint ratings based on static measurements of head restraint geometry using the
Head Restraint Measuring Device (Gane & Pedder, 1999) are used by the insurance
industry around the world (Thatcham).
A Euro NCAP test protocol assesses the geometry of the restraint in relation to the head and
tests the seats in three severities of impact – high, medium and low – using a dummy
specially designed for rear impacts. Seats at the top of the table are likely to offer better
protection than those at the bottom. Rating categories are good, medium and poor.
Phase 1 of a Global Technical Regulation 7 on head restraints was adopted in 2008.
31/01/2013 Page 38
Car occupant interior head, knee and lower leg protection

Head injury The head is the highest priority for protection in road crashes. Although seat
belts and frontal airbags offer protection, they do not prevent contact with the car’s interior in
all crash scenarios. For example, angled frontal impacts present considerable head injury
risk as current restraint and airbag systems may not prevent contact with parts of the car
such as the windscreen pillar. Interior surfaces that can be impacted by the head need to be
padded and the idea of an interior head form test has been proposed as a potential tool by
European vehicle safety experts (Hobbs, 2001). Partial ejection of the head in side impacts
and contact with the striking object is also a key determinant of survivability The Euro NCAP
pole test is encouraging increasing provision of head air bags in new cars.
Knee injury Currently, there is no dummy instrumentation or biomechanical data in

legislative tests to cover knee damage from direct impact against the knee. Furthermore,
there is no test procedure for testing the whole of the potential knee impact area of the facia.
Sources of knee injury are included in the Euro NCAP inspection procedure which forms part
of the safety rating analysis.
Lower legs, feet and ankles Lower leg injuries can result from direct impact against the
fascia, parcel shelf or foot pedals or from loads applied to the foot or leg. Offset frontal
collisions present a high risk for lower extremity injuries with long impairment and high
societal costs. Crashworthiness optimisation to alleviate serious injury risk to some body
regions leads to changes in injury distribution patterns and shifts the focus to other areas of
the body. Injuries to the lower legs have been neglected until recently and the introduction of
an improved dummy leg is awaited. Sources of injury to lower legs, feet and ankles are
included in the Euro NCAP inspection procedure which forms part of the safety rating
analysis.
Other issues - rescue systems

Emergency Notification Systems or ‘Mayday’ systems aim to reduce the time between when
the crash occurs and when medical services are provided. By improving information transfer
between the trauma care physician and emergency medical service personnel, they aim for
faster and more appropriate treatment. In 2000, Autoliv and Volvo introduced one of the
world's first post-crash safety systems (Volvo Club).
Automatic Crash Notification (eCall) takes the safety benefits of Mayday systems further by
providing emergency responders with data that indicates the severity of the crash and the
nature of injuries sustained. A Finnish study has estimated that such a system might reduce
between 4-8% of road deaths and 5-10% of motor vehicle occupant deaths in Finland
(Virtanen, 2006). See ERSO eSafety and Post Impact Care web texts for further information.
31/01/2013 Page 39
Electric vehicles
Fully electric vehicles are increasingly being introduced to the passenger car market. Hybrid
and full electric vehicles potentially have new safety concerns that will need to be addressed
which will become an increasingly important area of vehicle safety.
Standards relating to performance for protecting occupants from electric shock after the
collision of an electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle were established in UN ECE’s WP.29 in
2010.. A new safety regulation for a Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) is now
being discussed at WP29.
New Car Assessment Programs (NCAPs) have subjected several petrol-electric hybrid
vehicles to the 64km/h frontal offset crash test, 50km/h barrier side impact test and the
29km/h side pole test. No problems with the electrical systems or batteries were
encountered.
A review of the potential hazards afforded by electric vehicles has recommended that further
research should be conducted into the robustness of Li-ion batteries in a crash scenario,
investigation should consider the types and severities of crash that can be expected to place
severe demands on in the in-built safety systems of electric vehicles and their batteries.
Further research is also needed to develop appropriate and consistent post-crash
procedures for dealing with electric vehicles, including fires (Paine et al., 2011)
5.2 Motorcycles
Motorcycle use is the most dangerous mode of road travel. Around 7000 motorised two
wheeler users die each year in the EU (27), comprising 17% of total deaths. In line with rising
use, motorcyclist deaths have risen annually as a percentage of all road deaths in the EU.
The numbers of moped deaths have, however, declined from 1,670 to 1,456 (between 2005
and 2008), although the proportion of moped deaths in relation to all deaths has remained
about the same. Two thirds of motorcyclist deaths are in the 25-49 age group, and 19% are
aged 18-24 and deaths have increased annually in line with increasing use. The risk of death
for motorcyclists has been estimated at around 18 times that of car occupants (ETSC, 2007).
Motorcycles tend to have much higher power-to-weight ratios than cars, and increasing
numbers of motorcycles are capable of very high speeds and accelerations. Apart from their
inherent instability, compared with other motorised vehicles, motorised two-wheelers,
because of their size and shape, are less easy to see than other motor vehicles and have
poor visibility in daytime. Various attempts have been made to improve the general stability
of motorcycle through concepts such as the BMW C1.
In the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention (Peden et al., 2004 WHO) the World
Health Organisation and World Bank have advised that care should be taken to avoid the
adoption of policies which could encourage the growth of motorised two-wheeler traffic by
giving advantages to motorised two-wheeler users. Research shows that in addition to
managing exposure to risk, vehicle engineering and protective equipment measures play a
31/01/2013 Page 40
particularly important role in reducing injuries and crashes amongst motorised two wheeler
users.
Notwithstanding the high risks associated with motorcycle use, relatively little research on
motorcycle safety design has been carried out. However, with the increasing popularity of
this transport mode and increased casualty levels, new EU and national attention is currently
being given to this area.
5.2.1 Exposure measures

Restricting engine capacity for novice motorcyclists from 250cc to 125cc, accompanied by a
limitation on the maximum power output (to 9 kW) proved to be a successful measure in the
United Kingdom in the early 1980s. Many inexperienced motorcyclists transferred to less
powerful vehicles, leading to an estimated 25% reduction in casualties among young
motorcyclists. Significantly greater crash risk is associated with larger motorcycles, even
when these machines are ridden by more experienced riders (Broughton, 1987).
However, many studies of the relationship between engine size and crash risk have failed to
control for confounding variables which has had a major influence on the results of studies
(Ruijs, 1997; Elvik et al., 2009 Handbook). For example, a study by Ingebrigtsen (1990),
showed only weak effects of engine size once a host of other variables influencing the crash
rate had been taken into account.
Japan imposes limits, for safety reasons, on the engine size and performance of large
motorcycles used domestically. For most exported motorcycles, outputs of 75–90 brake
horse power (56 –67 kW) or even 130 brake horse power (97 kW) are common with top
speeds reaching almost 322 km/h (RoSPA, 2001).
Daytime Running Lights

The objective of mandatory use of daytime running lights for motorcycles is to reduce the
number of crashes by making it easier for other road users to see motorcycles in traffic. The
use of daytime running lights (generally low beam) is compulsory in several EU Member
States (e.g. Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain and Portugal). Some of these require
action on the part of users to switch on headlamps.
The effects of headlights have been studied in a case control study in New Zealand (Wells et
al, 2004) and the crash rate was found to be 27% lower for motorcycles with headlights on
during daytime. A meta-analysis of mainly US studies concluded that the average effect of
making the use of running lights on mopeds and motorcycles mandatory is a reduction of
around 7% (± 3%) in the number of multi-party accidents in daylight (Elvik et al., 2009
Handbook). In Europe the use of daytime running lights by motorized two-wheelers has
reduced visibility-related crashes in several countries by between 10% and 16%. In Europe,
motorcyclists who use daytime running lights have a crash rate that is about 10% lower than
that of motorcyclists who do not. In Austria, automatic DRL reduced the number of injured
31/01/2013 Page 41
motorcyclists in daytime multiple crashes by about 16% (Bijleveld, 1997). One estimate of
the cost–benefit ratio of using running lights in daytime is put at around 1:5.4 for mopeds and
1:7.2 for motorcycles (Elvik et al., 2009 Handbook).
EU-registered motorcycles are not required to be fitted with DRL although manufacturers are
fitting new motorcycles increasingly with headlights which come on automatically with
ignition. Research indicates that two lamps and lamps over 180mm diameter have greater
influence than single or smaller lamps (Donne & Fulton, 1985).
Anti-lock Braking Systems

Research shows that riders often fall off machines while braking before impacts with cars.
Improved braking systems such as ABS, combined braking and enhanced braking are likely
to make a contribution in single vehicle crashes and crashes where the rider falls Until
recently the potential casualty reduction information on ABS has been prospective and
positive (Sporner & Kramlich, 2000). A Swedish study (Rizzi et al., 2009) has evaluated the
effectiveness of antilock brake system (ABS) technology on motorcycles in reducing real life
injury crashes and to mitigate injury severity. Induced exposure analysis showed that the
overall effectiveness of ABS was 38% for all injury crashes and 48% for severe and fatal
crashes, with a minimum effectiveness of 11 and 17% respectively. Since the launch of the
Swedish Transport Administration’s study results in June 2009, Swedish importers increased
the number of motorcycle models with ABS as standard and the share of new motorcycles
with ABS has gone from 15% in 2009 to 60% in 2010 (Swedish Government, 2011).
Typically, these systems are available on more expensive models of motorcycle. In 2004, the
Association des Constructeurs Européens de Motorcycles (ACEM) made a commitment to
offer the majority of PTW street models to be equipped with advanced braking systems. An
Advanced Braking System is a braking system in which either an antilock brake system
and/or a combined brake system is present by 2010 and has set a further objective of 75% of
new models to equipped with ABS or offered as an option by 2015. As a result of the 2004
commitment, ACEM reports that 35% of the motorcycles sold by the ACEM manufacturers
and registered in Europe in 2008 were equipped with advanced braking systems.
Mandatory crash helmet use

Approximately 80% of motorcyclists killed on European roads sustained head impacts and in
half of these cases, the head injury was the most serious. Motorcycle helmets aim protect
against head injuries in the event of a crash and to reduce the severity of such injuries. Full
face helmets provide better protection than open face helmets (EEVC, 1994). Helmets can
reduce fatal injury by around 44% (Elvik et al., 2009).
31/01/2013 Page 42
Table 7: Injury-reducing effects of helmets for moped-riders and motorcyclists
Percentage change in number of injuries

Injury severity Type of injury affected Best estimate 95% confidence
interval
Fatal injury (3%) Head injury -44 (-55; -32)
Serious injury Head injury -49 (-58; -39)
(17%)
Slight injury (80%) Head injury -33 (-41; -25)
All injuries (100%) Head injury -44 (-22; -41)
All levels of severity Injuries other than head -8 (-22; +8)
injuries
All levels of severity All types of injury -25 (-30; -20)
Source: Elvik et al., 2009
Research shows that only mandatory use legislation can achieve high levels of use and
injury reduction. A meta-analysis of studies – mainly from the United States, where many
laws on helmets were introduced in the period 1967 –1970 (and about half of which were
repealed between 1976 and 1978) found that the compulsory helmet wearing reduced the
number of injuries to moped riders and motorcyclists by 20 –30%. Analysis of the effects of
repealing helmet wearing laws showed that withdrawing them resulted in 30% more deaths,
a 5 –10% increase injuries to moped riders and motorcyclists (Elvik et al., 2009 Handbook).
In Europe, an evaluation of helmet use and traumatic brain injury, before and after the
introduction of legislation, in the region of Romagna, Italy, found that helmet use increased
from an average of less than 20% in 1999 to over 96% in 2001, and was an effective
measure for preventing traumatic brain injury at all age (Servadei, 2003).
Research has found that present helmets are too stiff and too resilient, with the maximum
energy absorption of the liner occurring at high impact velocities where the probability of
death is high. Research shows that helmet shells and liners should be less stiff in order to
provide maximum energy absorption at lower, more prevalent, impact velocities where the
benefit of a wearing a helmet can be more effectively realised (Elliott, 2003). The COST 327
European Research Action on motorcycle helmets reported that improvements in helmet
design could save up to 1,000 lives per year across the EU. A UN ECE regulation exists but
has superseded the British Standard 6658 which included tests for rotation and the chin
guard deemed necessary following in depth crash injury research (Elliott, 2003). A new UK
consumer information programme provides comparative safety assessment of over 30
different new helmets. See SHARP.
31/01/2013 Page 43
Chest air bags

In head on collisions, the rider continues to move forward in a seated position and hits the
opposing object at close to pre-impact velocity. These crashes often result in fatal or serious
injury to the head and upper body of the motorcyclist.
While the provision of air bags on motorcycles is more complex than installation in cars,
because the dynamics of a motorcycle crash are more difficult to predict, early crash tests
with airbags on motorcycles (1973) indicated that an airbag system could be beneficial in
frontal impacts. In the early 1990s tests were completed in the UK in which three different
types of motorcycle were fitted with an airbag (Happian-Smith & Chinn, 1990). The results
showed that full restraint was not possible above a speed of 30 mile/h, though reducing
speed and controlling rider trajectory could still be beneficial. Further work was carried out by
the Transport Research Laboratory and Honda during the 1990s (Chinn et al., 1997).
In 2004, Honda announced that it had developed the world’s first production motorcycle
airbag system to be made available in 2006 on new Gold Wing motorcycles. The airbag
module, containing the airbag and inflator, is positioned in front of the rider. A unit in the
airbag positioned to the right of the module analyses signals from the crash sensors to
determine whether or not to inflate the airbag. Four crash sensors attached on both sides of
the front fork detect changes in acceleration caused by frontal impacts.
Figure 9: Honda air bag system
Leg protection
Injuries to the legs of motorcyclists occur in approximately 80% of all crashes. In all collisions
in which the motorcyclist is hit in the side by a car or other party, the forces involved impact
the legs directly.
31/01/2013 Page 44
A large amount of research has been conducted in this area which shows that leg protectors
could help reduce those injuries which result from direct crushing of the rider’s leg against
the side of the motorcycle during impact (Huang and Preston, 2004). Studies show different
possibilities for optimising leg protection (Chinn & Hopes, 1985; Chinn & Macaulay, 1986).
Studies with leg protective airbags have also been carried out (Sporner, 1990; Sporner,
2000). It has been estimated that the severity of leg injuries would be reduced in
approximately 50% of the crashes which involved serious leg injury if leg protection were to
be fitted (Nairn, 1993). Further work in this area has been recommended to ensure that leg
protection does not change rider trajectory to result in negative side effects (Hobbs, 2001).
Protective clothing
Many riders sustain soft tissue injuries from road impact, and suitable protective clothing
systems have been developed. A European CEN standard now exists to promote higher
levels of effectiveness in clothing (EN 13594 gloves; EN 13595-1 bis - 4 jackets, trousers and
combi-units;EN 13634 shoes). A drop-test is used to measure shock absorption. Special
protector systems are used on the shoulders, elbows, arms and thorax, and special back
protectors are used to protect the spine.
A review of the literature found that improved design and wider use of protective clothing
could make a significant contribution to lessening the severity of motorcycle injuries.
Protective clothing can:
• Prevent most laceration and abrasion injuries that occur when a rider slides on the road
surface after falling off.
• Prevent contamination of open fractures by road dirt.
• Reduce the severity of contusions and fractures, with the prevention of some fractures
and joint damage.
• Reduce the severity (or prevention) of muscle stripping and de-gloving injuries,
particularly to the lower leg and hands.
• Prevent crashes by maximising the conspicuity of the rider.
• Prevent crashes by maintaining the rider in good physiological and psychological
condition by keeping the rider dry, warm, comfortable and alert (Elliot, 2003).
The selection of single items of clothing and their combined use should be based on the
following considerations:
• Clothing must be able to protect against, wet, cold and heat even when these occur for
long periods.
• Falls and impacts are common in all types of riding (including off-road) except on
motorways. Collision severity is dependent on the surface impacted. However because it
is not possible to control where a rider will travel at any one time, the clothing must satisfy
all requirements.
• A set of clothing may be bought by a rider from different sources. It is therefore important
that advice should be given on compatible items. For example there should not be a gap
between boots and trousers.
• The outermost layer should always be of high conspicuity even in wet weather.
31/01/2013 Page 45
Clothing should be designed to ensure that all tasks required of a motorcyclist are easily
accomplished and in particular movement must not be restricted.
5.3 Heavy commercial vehicles

Heavy commercial vehicles are those with a total weight above 3,500 kg. (vehicle + load).
Heavy goods vehicles are over-involved in fatal crashes, since their high mass leads to
severe consequences for other road users in crashes. In view of this and the growth in heavy
good vehicle traffic internationally over the last twenty five years, the safety of heavy goods
vehicles continues to be strictly regulated in the best performing countries in road safety and
work-related road safety action encouraged. See ERSO Work-related road safety web text.
EU Whole Vehicle Type Approval was introduced for heavy commercial vehicles in 2009.
Speed limitation
It has been estimated that automatic speed limitation through the installation of speed
governors to heavy goods vehicles could contribute to a reduction in 2% of all injury crashes
(Elvik & Vaa, 1997).
In European Union countries in-vehicle speed limitation is required Initially applying a 90

km/h limit to commercial vehicles over 12 tonnes in 1992, the provision was extended in
2002 to all commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes (by 1st January 2005 for all new vehicles
and 1st January 2006 for existing vehicles) by EC Directive 2002/85.
Vision and conspicuity:

Blind spot mirrors Every year, around 400 road users are killed in crashes where truck
drivers fail to notice them when taking a right turn (or a left turn in the UK, Ireland, Malta or
Cyprus). Both new and old heavy duty vehicles are now required by EU legislation to be
equipped with blind spot mirrors. In-depth crash investigation has shown that restricted
driver vision to see pedestrians and bicycle riders is a factor in crashes with particularly high
risks whilst manoeuvring or reversing.
In 2003, the European Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2003/97/EC on rear view
mirrors and supplementary indirect vision systems for motor vehicles. This Directive aims to
improve road user safety by upgrading the performance of rear view mirrors and accelerating
the introduction of new technologies that increase the field of indirect vision for drivers of
passenger cars, buses and trucks. The Directive was further amended by Directive
2005/27/EC to extend the installation of wide angle mirrors to more vehicle types and in 2007
to require retrofit.
Retro-reflective markings: In depth crash investigations show that nearly 5% of severe truck
crashes involve the poor conspicuity of the truck or its trailer at night where car drivers failed
to see truck or truck combinations turning off the road, turning around or driving ahead of
them. Different studies have shown that trucks can be rendered much more conspicuous by
marking the sides and rear of commercial vehicles using retro reflective markings
31/01/2013 Page 46
(Langewieder, 2000). Currently, the European standard ECE-Regulation 104 (January 1998)
which refers to the conspicuity of long and heavy vehicles and their trailers is optional.
Braking and handling:

Electronic stability devices In loss of control crashes due to speed or steering behaviour and
driving through narrow bends or during evasive movements, the truck or trailer can slide or
jack-knife. Prospective research indicated that Electronic Stability devices for trucks could
improve the safety during the driving through bends by about 40% (VDI, 2000).
EU legislation on Electronic Stability Control (ESC) for heavy commercial vehicles is being
phased in from 2012. Mandatory Advance Emergency Braking (AEBS) on large vehicles
employing sensors to alert the driver when a vehicle is too close to the vehicle in front and, in
certain situations, apply emergency braking to prevent or reduce the consequences of a
collision is being phased in from 2013. According to the European Commission, preliminary
estimates suggest that the new measures for fitting advanced systems to heavy vehicles
could ultimately save around 2500 lives per year (around 500 for ESC and 1000 each for
AEBS and LDW) and many more lives outside the EU since the legislation will encourage
manufacturers to fit ESC as standard for a wider range of markets.
Rollover stability: By continuously monitoring the vehicle’s movement and its relationship to
the road surface, the rollover stability system automatically applies brakes and/or reduces
engine power when a potential rollover situation is identified. This system has been
introduced on various truck models. In depth research shows that since HGV rollovers do not
usually result in serious injury, any benefit derived may be more to reduce congestion than
road safety.
Impairment by alcohol and fatigue:

Alcolock systems are automatic control systems which are designed to prevent driving with
excess alcohol by requiring the driver to blow into an in-car breathalyzer before starting the
ignition. Since the late 1990s Sweden has experimented widely with alcolocks in commercial
vehicles and manufacturers have been offering fitment as an option. The technology used is
a simplified version of the Alcolocks used in car offender programmes in order to allow
companies to have more than one driver able to use the interlocks (ETSC, 2005).
Since 2007 all trucks of 3.5 tons and over, which are contracted by the Swedish Road
Administration (SRA) for more than 100 hours per year have to be fitted with alcohol
interlocks. Several EU countries are introducing alcolocks into their high risk-offender drink
drover programmes. See ERSO eSafety, Alcohol web texts.
Compliance with drivers’ hours Driving fatigue has been identified as a special problem for
commercial transport, given the long distances which need to be covered and irregular shift
patterns which affect sleep. Research indicates that fatigue is most prevalent in long distance
lorry driving (Maycock, 1995) and a factor in 20-30% of commercial road transport crashes in
Europe and the United States (ESC, 2001; NHTSA Expert Panel, 1996). The Commission
has moved to strengthen driving and working time rules and enforcement in recent years. EU
legislation regulates the driving time of professional drivers in cross-border transport where
31/01/2013 Page 47
part or all of the journey is in EU territory. Driving hours should not exceed nine hours per
day or 56 hours per week. After driving for four and a half hours, a break of at least 45
minutes is mandatory. See Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain
social legislation relating to road transport. See also ERSO web text on Fatigue for detailed
discussion.
Digital tachographs Council Regulation (EC) 2135/98, which amends Regulation (EEC)
3821/85, introduced a new generation of fully digital tachographs to assure compliance with
drivers’ hours legislation. The digital tachograph is a more secure and accurate recording
and storage device than the present equipment. The device records all the vehicle’s
activities, for example distance, speed and driving times and rest periods of the driver. The
system includes a printer, for use in road side inspections and a personal driver card
incorporating a microchip, which drivers must insert into the tachograph on taking control of
the vehicle. The technical specifications for the digital tachograph have been laid down in
Commission Regulation (EC) 1360/2002, to be mandatorily fitted in new vehicles from
August 2004.
Seat belts and seats

The restraint rate of truck drivers and also of passengers of trucks is very low in Europe. For
example in 2001 in Germany seat belt use ranged between 5% and 10%. The installation
and use of seat belts in heavy goods vehicles has recently been covered by European
legislation. EEC Directive 2003/20/EC amending 91/671/EEC, mandates the use of safety
belts where fitted by 2006 in all forward facing front and exposed rear seats in new HGVs.
No mandatory EU-wide installation requirement exists for seat belts in heavy goods vehicles,
though national regulations in some countries apply. For example the UK regulation states
that every heavy goods vehicle first used on or after 1 October 2001, and having a maximum
gross weight exceeding 3.5 tonnes, shall be fitted as respects the driver's seat belt with a
three-point "lap and diagonal" belt or two-point lap belt, and as respects every other forward-
facing front seat with a three-point "lap and diagonal" belt or two-point lap belt. Research
indicates that to improve restraint use, 3-point belts should be integrated directly into the seat
of the driver and passenger.
Driver cabin structure

Ongoing crash investigation indicates that the stiffness of the driver cabin, especially for
truck/truck collisions or single-truck collisions is not sufficient. Currently in Europe two
(optional) regulations exist relating to the stiffness of driver cabins (ECE-Regulation 29,
VVFS or “Sweden-Test”). Enhanced cabin structure together with restraint use would
improve the survivability for HGV occupants in severe HGV crashes (Langwieder, 2000).
Front underrun protection Due to the size and mass of heavy vehicles, the problem of
compatibility with other road users in crashes is a significant safety issue. Trucks are stiff,
heavy and high and pose a serious threat to occupants of other vehicles in the event of an
impact. Frontal car-to-truck collisions are the most common impact type in crashes where
31/01/2013 Page 48
trucks are involved. It has been estimated that energy-absorbing front, rear and side under-
run protection could reduce deaths in car to lorry impacts by about 12% (Knigt, 2001).
An EU requirement was introduced in 2000 based on ECE Regulation 93 requiring

mandatory rigid front underrun protection defining a rigid front underrun protection system for
trucks with a gross weight over 3.5 tonnes Directive 2000/40/EEC. Studies performed by
EEVC WG 14 have shown that passenger cars can ‘survive’ a frontal truck collision with a
relative speed of 75 km/h if the truck is equipped with an energy absorbing underrun
protection system. Furthermore, these systems could reduce about 1,176 deaths and 23,660
seriously injured car occupants in Europe per year. Research shows that the benefits of a
mandatory specification for energy absorbing front underrun protection would exceed the
costs, even if the safety effect of these measures was as low as 5% (Elvik, 1999). Energy
absorbing systems are available from all truck manufacturers as an optional device but not
there is no mandatory fitment requirement for these at EU level.
Rear underrun protection Council Directive 70/221/EEC and amendments mandate a rear
underrun protection system for trucks and trailers with a gross weight of more than 3.5
tonnes. The regulation describes for example a ground clearance of 550 mm and test forces
of maximum 25 km/h, respectively 100 kN, depending on the test point.
Research, however, indicates that the ground clearance of rear underrun protection systems
is insufficient and that the systems are insufficiently strong. Research indicates that the
ground clearance needs to be reduced to 400mm, the cross-member height and the test
forces need to be increased (Minton & Robinson, 2010). The first conservative estimates of
EEVC WG14 on underrun protection devices have indicated that improved rear underrun
protection systems with a lower ground clearance as well as higher test forces would reduce
fatally and severely injured car occupants by a third in rear underrun impacts in Europe. In
addition, Working Group 14 has found that the costs for fatalities and severe injuries could be
reduced by 69 -78 Million Euro.
Side underrun protection Council Directive 89/297/EEC mandates side underrun protection
on heavy goods vehicles to prevent pedestrians, bicycle riders and motorcyclists from falling
under the wheels of the heavy good vehicle when it turns.
In the Netherlands research indicates that the existing legislative requirement is limited and
that an improved side underrun protection system could reduce pedestrian and cyclist deaths
in such situations by about 10% (Kampen & Schoon, 1999; Langeveld & Schoon, 2004). In
addition, protection needs to be provided in side collisions with cars and motorcycles.
5.4 Light vans and minibuses

There is relatively limited data in Europe on lights good vehicle crashes and these vehicles
are yet to be covered by EU Whole Vehicle Type Approval legislation. In-depth work has
been carried out in Britain (Lenard, 2000) and Germany (Niewohner, 2000) which forms the
basis of information in this section.
31/01/2013 Page 49
• Casualties: Research in the UK indicates that LGV casualties comprise around 4% of

total fatal or seriously injured vehicle occupant casualties, with over 80% comprising
drivers. The majority of crashes involved a car (46%). German research indicates what
while vehicles do not necessarily have a higher crash rate than other motor vehicles,
crashes tend to occur in predominantly urban environments.
• Crash types: UK and German studies both found that respectively around 59% and 60%
of the crashes with passenger cars were frontal impacts and 14% and 26% were side
impacts. In the British study around 22% were rollovers and 16% in Germany were rear
impacts as opposed to 4% of cases in Britain. Evidence for belt use by drivers in such
vehicles was relatively low, in the order of 20% in Germany and 47% in Britain.
• Key issues: The UK in-depth study of around 500 light goods vehicle (up to 3500 kg
GVM) crashes indicates three key issues for LGV design:
Poor crash compatibility between LGVs and passenger cars in car-to-LGV crashes in Britain,
car drivers bear greatest risk of injury at every level of severity. LGVs tend to have greater
size and mass and usually have their stiff structures at a greater height than those of
passenger cars. This misalignment of stiff structures can result in the large vehicle over-
riding the smaller vehicle. This in turn has the effect of penalising the occupants of the
smaller collision partner, since there is an inherent risk of greater intrusion in the smaller
vehicles that are already at a mass disadvantage. Any regulatory crash-testing option needs
to take strong account of LGV to car compatibility needs.
Low restraint use amongst LGV occupants compared with car occupants in fatal crashes in
Britain, 77% were not wearing seat belts and around one-third of drivers and almost half of
passengers were found not to have been wearing the seat belt at the time of the crash.
Possibilities for increasing seat belt use include the use of in-vehicle seat belt reminder
systems; higher profile awareness and education programmes; stricter policing and
enforcement actions; and a review of the categories of occupants who are currently
exempted from the mandatory wearing of seat belts.
5.5 Buses and coaches

Transport by bus and coach is the safest mode of road travel. However every year, around
20,000 European buses and coaches are involved in crashes causing injury or death
producing 30,000 casualties, 150 of whom die. As identified by the major European ECBOS
project (Mayrhofer, 2005) vehicle safety design can address a range of identifiable problems.
Currently, the vehicle safety performance of buses is regulated by seven ECE (Economic
Commission for Europe) regulations and 5 corresponding EC directives. Various research-
based improvements have been identified within ECBOS to inform current policymaking,
particularly crash protection measures.
31/01/2013 Page 50
5.5.1. Crash avoidance and mitigation

See section on heavy commercial vehicles re alcolocks, driving hours and digital
tachographs.
5.5.2 Crash protection

Crash analysis shows that the occupants in the first row (driver, guide) can be ejected
through the front window, or affected by the intrusion. Coupled to the seat, restraints can
control better the occupant movement during a crash such that the driver remains conscious,
allows driver control of the vehicle until it comes to rest and to facilitate evacuation. While the
use of seat belts prevents ejection and reduces the risk of severe injury, there remains the
problem of the energy absorbing capacity of the frontal area and intruding objects through
the windscreen.
Frontal crash protection

In-depth research shows that special protection devices need to be designed for the driver
protection in the front of the coach since driver safety is not adequately considered in current
regulations. Research is needed to define the requirements for front structures, a suitable
test for buses and to modify the actual designs to preserve the integrity of drivers in frontal of
front-lateral impacts (Mayrhofer, 2005).
Restraint systems
Analysis of real world crashes shows that the partial or total ejection is a mechanism for
severe injury. The injury severity of the casualties is less if the bus is equipped with a seat
restraint system and with laminated glasses. A side airbag especially developed for rollover
movement could also prevent occupant ejection. Research has also shown that seats and
their anchorages are often unable to resist the forces to which they are exposed in large
coach crashes (Mayrhofer, 2005). The risk of being injured by failing seat and anchorages
can be reduced by integrated systems and improved standards to control the strength of
seats and their anchorages.
- Rollover protection In cases of rollover where the side windows get broken, the risk of
passenger ejection and injury increases. The most common body regions injured in a
rollover, when no ejection occurs, are the head, the neck and the shoulder. Crash analysis
indicated that injury in rollover crashes can be caused by the impact of the occupants on the
side panel, on the luggage rack and also by the effects of occupant interaction. The
development of new test dummies and rollover tests has been proposed (Mayrhofer, 2005).
- Evacuation Crash injury research shows that in serious crashes bus passengers are
hindered from using the emergency doors either because they are severely injured or the
doors are locked due to the impact. ECE-Regulation 107 currently sets out the technical
rules with respect to emergency doors. An effective measure would be a side window which,
even broken, would remain in position and would act as a safety net keeping passengers in
the bus interior. At the same time the design of coach corridors should enable rapid
31/01/2013 Page 51
evacuation of bus occupants. This would require the possibility of ejecting windows easily
after the coach comes to rest by pyrotechnic charges (Hobbs, 2001).
- Safety of wheelchair users in coaches A study assessing the safety of wheelchair users in
coaches in comparison with travellers seated in conventional seats (fitted with headrests)
has made various suggestions for modifications (Le Claire, 2003). The work found that the
heads and necks of wheelchair users were particularly vulnerable but that this could be
addressed through the use of a head and back restraint. However, such a restraint should
meet the requirements of ECE Regulation 17 for strength and energy absorption and the
wheelchair should fit well up against the head and back restraint for maximum benefit.
Further recommendations from the work were that an upper anchorage location for diagonal
restraints is preferable to a floor mounted location and that the restraint anchorages should
meet more rigorous strength requirements than are required at present. A protected space
envelope for forward facing wheelchair passengers is also recommended. Under normal
transit conditions a vertical stanchion is preferable to a horizontal bar in terms of preventing
excessive movement of the wheelchair.
5.6 Bicycles
5.6.1 Crash avoidance

Bicycles are typically viewed as consumer products rather than road vehicles with much less
attention to design and maintenance issues than received by other road vehicles. As yet,
there is no EU-wide whole vehicle type approval system for bicycle design which is covered
largely by national regulation.
Reflectors and lighting: In many countries it is mandatory for the cycle to be fitted with a rear
reflector, and reflectors on the wheels. A Dutch study estimated that more than 30% of
bicycle crashes in the Netherlands occurring at night or in twilight could have been avoided if
bicycle lighting had been used (Schoon, 1996). In Denmark, requires the fitment of lamps
and requires their visibility at a distance of 200m. The quality and use of lights can be
improved by enabling the storage of separate light systems or by designing the lighting into
the cycle frame (Allsop, 1999).
Braking: Studies of bicycle impacts indicate that there are large differences in component
strength and the reliability of bicycle brakes and lighting. In the Netherlands, for example,
the failure of components such a sudden crash or brake failure causes 10% of all cycle
collisions (Schoon, 1996).
5.6.2 Crash protection
Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head and brain injuries by between 63% and 88%
(Thomas, 1994), (Thompson, 1996; Sosin, 1996). A meta-analysis of studies on the benefits
of bicycle helmets indicated that wearing a helmet had an odds-ratio efficacy of 0.40, 0.42,
0.53 and 0.27 for head, brain, facial and fatal injuries, respectively (Attewell, 2001).
31/01/2013 Page 52
Legislation requiring the use of bicycle helmets has been introduced in several countries,
including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States.
Safer car structures for cyclists Research and development to date in Europe has been
aimed primarily at improving vehicle design to protect pedestrians in the event of a crash.
There is an urgent need for research into how cars can be made more forgiving for cyclists.
Heavy commercial vehicle side guards: When trucks and cyclists are side by side and the
truck turns into the direction of the cyclists, the cyclist is at risk of being run over by the motor
vehicle. Side guards close off the open space between the wheels of the truck. While fitment
is common in several European countries and there is national regulation, no EU-wide
requirement yet exists.
6 Knowledge gaps
As the Swedish government has observed “A safe system is achieved when user
capabilities, vehicle safety, road design and speed limits all are in harmony. A holistic
perspective on road safety is under development and is important when prioritizing research
efforts.” (Swedish Government, 2011).
Relatively recent international overviews of research needs for vehicle safety have been
carried out. A progress report of recent research undertaken by the EEVC was presented in
2011 (Swedish Government , 2011). A decade earlier, the priorities for EU-wide research in
vehicle safety design were identified by the European Transport Safety Council (Hobbs,
2001; ETSC, 2001) and many of these recommendations remain relevant. The International
Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact as conducting a comprehensive review.
The Advanced European Passive Safety Network provides a forum for co-operation in
vehicle safety research and has produced a roadmap for vehicle safety research.
Current issues include the need for better understanding about the epidemiology of traffic
injury in crashes involving vehicles, research into areas of biomechanics, such as the
biomechanics of children, soft tissue injury and tolerance limits of different body regions.
How can design protect occupants of different shapes and sizes and in different crash
conditions? How can crash protection design take account of real world needs rather than
meet specific test conditions? How far can crash avoidance approaches contribute to vehicle
safety? How does the driver adapt to different vehicle measures? What are the implications
of a mixed vehicle fleet with differing capabilities and technologies? How can the vehicle
deliver truly integrated approaches to each stage of the crash phase? How can an effective
interface between vehicles and between vehicles and roadsides maximise the opportunities
for road safety?
A brief general summary of research needs as identified by the international organisations is

presented below:
31/01/2013 Page 53
6.1 The epidemiology of road traffic injury

Effective vehicle crash protection depends upon understanding of the distribution, nature and
mechanisms of road traffic injury. In particular:
• Better knowledge of the population differences in injury tolerance especially for the head,
chest, and abdominal regions is required.
• Analytical research is needed to optimise crashworthiness design across the ranges of
crash types, crash severities and populations.
• More realistic test requirements that reflect population variations in injury tolerance must
be developed to recognise the tradeoffs between the strong and the vulnerable.
• Better, quantitative assessment measures of the long-term consequences of traffic injury
are needed.
• The safety needs of elderly road users need to be evaluated more thoroughly to take
account of changing demographics. Baseline information on the physiological changes of
the elderly and the identification of injuries of special interest is required. Issues of
optimisation will need to be addressed to ensure that protective systems optimised for a
younger population are as effective with older groups.
• The slight/serious/fatal categories currently used for injury severity scaling in large
databases are inadequate. A simple injury scale is needed that is usable by police and
first responders and that is compatible with the AIS currently used in in-depth and
hospital-based studies.
6.2 Biomechanical research

Biomechanical research improves understanding of the human body so that better tools can
be built to assess the risk of injury. These tools can be physical – crash test dummies –or
numerical – computer simulations. The further development of dummies and humanoid
models depends upon improving the characterisation of human biomechanical properties at
tissue level and at structural level. Future development of injury assessment functions is
expected to depend on experimental approaches using dummies to measure the forces to
which the body is exposed and simulations to assess the human responses and the specific
nature and locations of injury. In particular:
• Better description of the biophysical characteristics of the variety of human structures,
components and subsystems that can be injured are needed.
• Better characterization of the dynamic response of these components and structures to
external insult are needed as is better characterization of the mechanisms by which these
structures undergo mechanical failure
• Better definition and measurement of the limits at which these structures begin to fail is
necessary
• Better account needs to be taken of the variability of human beings in terms of age, sex,
race, etc. New biomechanical (biofidelity) data especially for the elderly population and
for children are fundamental.
• Materials able to simulate the human body in a more realistic way are needed.
• The applicability of current dummies to advanced restraints needs investigation
31/01/2013 Page 54
• The interaction of crash dummies with sensors (occupant monitoring) is a fertile field for
research.
• Knowledge of human body response in pre-crash conditions and how that response can
be simulated must be developed.
Various proposals have been made for areas of biomechanical research covering child
biomechanics, head and brain injury, neck injury, chest and abdominal injury and injury to the
upper and lower extremities International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact.
6.3 Crash avoidance

A range of promising new crash prevention technologies offer high potential for future
casualty reduction, are being applied and require close monitoring to assess their
effectiveness in real world crashes. Their success is highly dependent upon proven
feasibility, practicability and acceptance and use by road users. Important factors needing
further research concern limitations of human adaptation to new systems and the
acceptability of the driver to relinquish control over the vehicle. In general, there are no
analytical strategies available to ensure that passive and active safety systems are optimised
together to maximise the potential casualty reduction. In collision avoidance research,
assessment methodology needs to be developed for pre-crash sensing systems in
passenger cars for occupant and pedestrian protection and in trucks.
6.4 Crash mitigation and protection

Real-world crashes show a wide variability in terms of the people involved, the
characteristics of the vehicles and the crash configuration. To protect all road users systems
should not be optimised for one specific crash test, instead they should have versatile and
robust designs that together provide the optimum protection for the full crash population. The
current use of a small range of crash conditions to specify the performance of cars in crashes
opens the possibility that vehicles will be optimised for these tests rather than for the full
range of real-world conditions. Research is needed to develop methodologies to engineer
systems for maximum benefit, particularly for side-impact protection where safety systems
are less developed and where current standards do not offer protection for non-struck-side
occupants. Additionally, a wider range of crash types needs to be incorporated into the
development process of new cars, and methodologies based on physical or virtual testing
are needed to support this. These methods should take account of the natural bio-
mechanical variations between individuals as well as the range of vehicle types within
national fleets.
6.5 Advanced and integrated technologies

Research programs are underway in several countries towards the further development of in-
vehicle car to car and car to roadside communication.
Vehicle to roadside interface Here the challenge is to see how rules, standards and
strategies for line markings and road signs could be aligned with modern vehicle system
devices to achieve good functionality and safety. Strategies for speed signs have been
highlighted as being important for vehicle mounted cameras which provide the driver with
31/01/2013 Page 55
information about the speed limit. High quality, consistent lane markings are essential for
modern lane departure assistance/warning systems. For example, for vehicle systems
depending on lane markings for their performance several issues have been identified as
being important. These include the contrast to the road surface, the spacing between the
dashed lines, the link up between lanes and exits. All these will have an impact on whether
the lane departure system provides efficient driver support aid or will be unavailable for the
majority of the road usage. A working partnership between the Swedish Transport
Administration and Volvo Car Corporation was established in 2008 towards defining the
interfaces and division of responsibilities between vehicles and infrastructure in Sweden
(Eugensson et al., 2011).
Pre-crash to post-crash assistance A further key area for research is how a vehicle can
restrict and guide the driver into a safe driving envelope through improved speed
management, more advanced braking systems and through enhanced crash protection and
post crash response.
6.6 Hybrid and electric Vehicles

Electric hybrid and, increasingly, fully electric vehicles are appearing in the vehicle fleet
bringing new potential hazards to vehicle occupants and rescue workers such as exposure to
corrosive chemicals and toxic fumes and fire following crashes. A number of NCAPs are
conducting specific tests into these new risks and hazards and a paper offering
recommendations for pre and post -impact procedures has been published in Australia with
the cooperation of ANCAP (Paine et al., ESV paper 107).
31/01/2013 Page 56
References
Aga, M. and Okada, A. (2003) Analysis of Vehicle Stability Control (VSC)’s effectiveness
from crash data. ESV Paper 541, 18th ESV Conference, Nagoya.
Allsop, R.E. ed (1999) European Transport Safety Council, Safety of pedestrians and cyclists
in urban areas, Brussels.
Ashenbrenner, K. M., Biehl, B. and Wurm, G.W. (1987) Einfluss Der Risikokompensation auf
die Wirkung von Verkehrsicherheitsmassnahmen am Beispiel ABS. Schriftenreihe Unfall-
und Sicherheitsforschung Strassenverkehr, Heft 63, 65-70. Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen
(BASt), Bergisch Gladbach.
Ashton, S.J., Mackay, G.M. (1979) Some characteristics of the population who suffer trauma
as pedestrians when hit by cars and some resulting implications, Proceedings of the 4th
IRCOBI conference 1979.
Attewell, R.G, Glase K., McFadden, M. (2001) Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33:345 –352.
Bijleveld, F.D. (1997) “Effectiveness of daytime motorcycle headlights in the European

Union”, Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid (SWOV), Leidschendam,
Netherlands, R-97-9.
Breuer, J. ESP safety benefits (2002) Daimler Chrysler press presentation, Sindelfingen.
Broughton, J. et al. (2000) The numerical context for setting national casualty reduction
targets. Crowthorne, Transport Research Laboratory Ltd, TRL Report No.382.
Broughton, J. (1987) The effect on motorcycling of the 1981 Transport Act Crowthorne,
Transport and Road Research Laboratory (Research Report No.106).
Broughton, J., and Baughan, C.J., (2000) A survey of the effectiveness of ABS in reducing
accidents. TRL Report 453, Crowthorne, Berkshire.
Carsten, O. and Tate, F. (2005) Intelligent Speed Adaptation: Accident savings and cost
benefit analysis.
Carsten, O. (2012) Personal communication of additional results to study Lai F,

Carsten, O. and Tate, F.,(2012) How much benefit does Intelligent Speed Adaptation
deliver: An analysis of its potential contribution to safety and environment, Accident Analysis
and Prevention 48 (2012) 63– 72.
31/01/2013 Page 57
Cesari, D. (2005) Status Report of the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee,

Proceedings of the 19th ESV Conference, Washington DC June 6-9.
Chinn, B. P., Okello J. A., McDonough, P. and Grose, G. (1997) Development and testing of
a purpose built motorcycle airbag restraint system. Paper presented to 15th ESV
Conference. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.
Chinn, B. P. and Macaulay, M. A. (1986) Leg protection for motorcyclists IRCOBI Zurich.
Chinn, B. P. and Hopes, P. (1985) Leg protection for riders of motorcycles, 10th ESV
Conference, Oxford.
COWI (2009) Workshop 1. Vulnerable and Unprotected Road Users, Background Paper,
Technical Assistance to the European Commission for the preparation of the next road safety
action programme 2011-2020.
COWI (2010) Technical Assistance in support of the Preparation of the European Road
Safety Action Programme 2011-2020 Final Report , February 2010.
Cummings, P. et al (2002) Association of driver air bags with driver fatality: a matched cohort
study. British Medical Journal 2002,324:1119 –1122.
Donne, G.L. and Fulton, E.J. (1985) The evaluation of aids to the daytime conspicuity of
motorcycles-Crowthorne, Berkshire:Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
EEVC (1994) Review of Motorcycle Safety.
EEVC (1998 updates 2002) Working Group 17 Report Improved test methods to evaluate
pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars. Prevention.
EEVC (2000) European Enhanced vehicle-Safety Committee: Report to European

Commission 'A Review of the Front & Side Directives' http://www.eevc.org.
EEVC (2005) WG20 Report Working Document 80 Updated State-of-the-Art Review on

Whiplash Injury.
EEVC (2005) European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Status report for the 19th ESV Conference.
EEVC Working Group 13, A Review and Evaluation of Options for Enhanced Side Impact
Protection, Report to Steering Committee March 2010, eevc.org.
Elliott, M.A.,Baughan, C.J.,Broughton, J., Chinn, B.,Grayson, G.B,.Knowles, Smith, J.

Simpson L.R. (2003) Motorcycle Safety: A Scoping Study, TRL Report TRL 581, Crowthorne.
31/01/2013 Page 58
Elvik, R., Mysen, A.B.,Vaa,T.(1997) Handbook of traffic safety [3rd ed ] Oslo, Institute of
Transport Economics.
Elvik., R. (1999) Cost-benefit analysis of safety measures for vulnerable and inexperienced
road users Oslo ,Institute of Transport Economics (EU Project PROMISING, TØI Report
435).
Elvik, R. Christensen, P. Fjeld Olsen, S. (2003) Daytime running lights. A systematic review
of effects on road safety. Report 688. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics.
Elvik, R., Vaa T, Hoye A and A Erke A and M Sorensen Eds (2009). The Handbook of Road
Safety Measures, 2nd revised edition Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISBN:
9781848552500.
Elvik, R. (2009) The Power Model and the relationship between speed and road safety,
Update and new analyses, TOI, Oslo, October 2009.
Eriksen, K. S., Hervik, A., Steen, A., Elvik, R., Hagman, R. (2004) Effektanalys av
nackskadeforskningen vid Chalmers. Vinnova Analys VA (7). Stockholm.
ETSC (2001) publicatie The role of driver fatigue in commercial road transport crashes,
Brussels, European Transport Safety Council http://www.etsc.be/.
European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) (2003) Cost Effective EU Transport Safety
Measures, Brussels http://www.etsc.be/documents/costeff.pdf.
ETSC (2005) Factsheet 04, Alcohol Interlocks, European Transport safety Council Brussels,
2005 (Report No.169). (ETSC Fact Sheet Alcolocks.pdf).
ETSC (2007) PIN Flash 7 - Reducing motorcyclist deaths in Europe, European Transport
Safety Council, Brussels 2007.
ETSC (2008) “Road Safety as a right and responsibility for all” A Blueprint for the EU’s 4th
Road Safety Action Programme 2010-2020 Brussels 2008.
ETSC (2009) How can in-vehicle safety equipment improve road safety at work, Praise
Thematic Report 1, European Transport Safety Council, Brussels, 2009.
ETSC (2010) Minimising in-vehicle distraction, Praise Thematic Report 4, European

Transport Safety Council, Brussels, 2010.
Eugensson, A., Ivarsson J, Lie, A., Tingvall,C. Cars are driven on roads, joint visions and
modern technologies stress the need for co-operation. Paper Number 11-0000. Proc 22th
ESV Conf. Washington 2011.
31/01/2013 Page 59
European New Car Assessment Programme (2009), Moving Forward 2010 – 2015 Strategic
Road Map, Brussels.
Expert Panel on Driver Fatigue and Sleepiness, Drowsy driving and automobile crashes:
report and recommendations (1996) Washington, DC, National Centre on Sleep Disorder
Research and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/.
Faerber, E., EEVC Approach to the Improvement of Crash Compatibility between Passenger
Cars, Presented to the 2005 ESV Conference,
http://eevc.org/publicdocs/ESV2005_WG15_05-0155-O.pdf.
Fails, A. and Minton, R. (2001) Comparison of EuroNCAP assessments with injury causation
in accidents, TRL Ltd, Crowthorne, Berkshire Document number 319.
Ferguson, S.A., Lund, A.K, Greene, M.A.(1995) Driver fatalities in 1985 –94 airbag cars
Arlington,VA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute.
Ferguson S.A., Zaouk A., Dalal, N., Strohl C., Traube, E .and Strassburger, R. (2011) Driver
Alcohol Detection System For Safety (Dadss) – Phase I Prototype Testing and Findings,
Paper Number 11-0230, ESV, Washington DC.
Furness,S., Connor, J. , Robinson, E., Norton, R., S Ameratunga, S. , Jackson, R. Car colour
and risk of car crash injury: population based case control study BMJ 2003;327:1455-1456
(20 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1455.
Gane, J. and Pedder, J. (1999) Measurement of Vehicle Head Restraint Geometry; SAE
1999-01-0639.
Government Status Report: Sweden (2011), Paper No 11-0462-G, ESV Conference,

Washington DC.
Happian-Smith, J. and Chinn, B. P. (1990) Simulation of airbag restraint systems in forward

impacts of motorcycles, International Congress and Exposition, Detroit (SAE 9000752)
Hardy, B.J. and G.J.L. Lawrence (2005) A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the
protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users – addendum to Final report, Report
to the European Commission, Enterprise Directorate General Automotive Industry, TRL Ltd,
Finery, Crowthorne Berkshire.
Hobbs, C. A. ed (2001) Priorities for Motor Vehicle Safety Design, European Transport
Safety Council, Brussels.
Huang, B. and Preston, J. (2004) A Literature Review on Motorcycle Collisions Final Report,
Transport Studies Unit Oxford University .
31/01/2013 Page 60
International Council on Alcohol, other Drugs and Traffic safety (2001) (ICADTS) Working
Group Report 1 on Alcohol Ignition Interlocks
http://www.icadts.org/reports/AlcoholInterlockReport.pdf.
International Road Traffic and Accident Database (1994) (IRTAD). Under-reporting of road
traffic accidents recorded by the police at the international level special report. OECD-RTR.
Road Transport Programme .
Jacobsson, L. (2004) Whiplash Associated Disorders in Frontal and Rear-End Car Impacts.
Biomechanical. Doctoral Thesis, Crash Safety Division, Dept of Machine and Vehicle
Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden .
Kampen, L.T.B. van & Schoon, C.C. (1999) The safety of trucks; an analysis of accidents
and measures commissioned by the sector organization Transport and Logistics
Netherlands. SWOV-report R-99-31 [only in Dutch].
Koornstra, M., Bijleveld, F., Hagenzieker, M. The safety effects of daytime running lights,
Leidschendam, Institute for Road Safety Research, 1997 (SWOV Report R-97-36).
Koornstra M., D. Lynam, G. Nilsson, P. Noordzij, H-E. Pettersson, F. Wegman and P.

Wouters (2002), SUNFlower: A comparative study of the development of road safety in
Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, SWOV.
Kleinberger, M., Voo, L., Merkle A., Bevan, M., Chang, S. and F. McKoy (2003) The role of
seatback and head restraint design parameters on rear impact occupant dynamics, 19th ESV
Conference.
Knight, I. (2001) A review of fatal accidents involving agricultural vehicles or other

commercial vehicles not classified. ed as a goods vehicle, 1993 to 1995 Crowthorne,
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL Report No.498).
Krafft, M., Kullgren, A., Ydenius, A., Boström, O., Håland, Y. and Tingvall, C. (2004) Rear
impact neck protection by reducing occupant forward acceleration – a study of cars on
Swedish roads equipped with crash recorders and a new anti-whiplash device, Proceedings
IRCOBI Conference.
Krafft, M. (1998) Non-Fatal Injuries to Car Occupants - Injury assessment and analysis of
impacts causing short- and long-term consequences with special reference to neck injuries,
Doctoral thesis, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kullgren et al ed (2005) In Car Enforcement Technologies Today, ETSC, Brussels.
Kullgren, A., Lie, A., Tingvall, C. (2010) Comparison between Euro NCAP test results and
real-world crash data. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2010 Dec 11(6):587-93.
31/01/2013 Page 61
Langeveld, P.M.M. & Schoon, C.C. (2004) Cost-benefit analysis of measures for trucks.
SWOV-report, R-2004-11 [only in Dutch].
Langwieder, K., Gwehenberger, J. and Bende, J. (2000) The Commercial Vehicle in the
Current Accident Scene and Potentials for Additional Enhancement of Active and Passive
Safety", Munich.
Lardelli-Claret, P., De Dios Luna-Del-Castillo, J., Juan Jimenez-Moleon, J., Femia-Marzo, P.,
Moreno-Abril, O. et al (2002) Does vehicle color influence the risk of being passively involved
in a collision? Epidemiology 2002;13: 721-4.
Lawrence, G. (2003) A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of

pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, Report to DG Enterpise and Industry, European
Commission
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/pagesbackground/pedestrianprotection/ped
estrian_protection_study.pdf.
Le Claire, M. , C. Visvikis, C. Oakley, T. Savill, M. Edwards and R. Cakebread (2003) The

safety of wheelchair occupants in road passenger vehicles , TRL Ltd, Crowthorne.
Lenard, J., Frampton, R., Kirk, A., Morris, A., Newton, R, Thomas, P. and Fay P. (2000) An
overview of accidents and safety priorities for light goods vehicles, IMechE paper.
Lie, A. and Tingvall. C. (2000) How does Euro NCAP results correlate to real life injury risks
- a paired comparison study of car-to-car crashes, Paper presented at the IRCOBI
conference Montpellier.
Liers, H. and Hannawald, L. (2009) Benefit Estimation of Secondary Safety Measures In

Realworld Pedestrian Accidents, Paper Number 11-0300, 2009 ESV, Washington DC.
Loon, A. van, and Duynstee, L. (2001) Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA): A Successful Test
in the Netherlands. Ministry of Transport, Transport Research Center (AVV). Proceeding of
the Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference XII URL: http://www.rws-
avv.nl/pls/portal30/docs/911.PDF (2004-11-04).
Lundell, B., Jakobsson, L., Alfredsson, B., Lindström, M. and Simonsson, L. (1998) The
WHIPS Seat - A Car Seat for Improved Protection Against Neck Injuries in Rear End
Impacts, Proc. of the 16 th ESV conference, Windsor, Canada.
Maycock, G. (1995) Driver sleepiness as a factor in cars and HGV accidents Crowthorne,
Transport Research Laboratory Ltd (Report No.169).
Mayrhofer, E., Steffan, H. and Hoschopf, H. (2005) Enhanced Coach And Bus Occupant
Safety, 19th ESV Conference Paper Number 05-0351 Washington.
31/01/2013 Page 62
Minton, R. and Robinson, T. (2010) Rear underrun protection for heavy goods vehicles: the
potential effects of changes to the minimum technical requirements, PPR 517, TRL,
Crowthorne, Berks.
Morris, A., Welsh, Thomas, P. and Kirk (2005) "Head and Chest Injury Outcomes in Struck
Side Crashes"; IRCOBI.
Nairn, R. J. and Partners Pty Ltd (1993) Motorcycle safety research literature review: 1987 to
1991, CR 117. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety facts 2002: childeren,
Washington, DC 2002 (DOT HS-809-607).
Niewohner, W; Berg, F. A. and Froncz, M. (2001) Accidents with Vans and Box-type Trucks
(Transporters); Results from Official Statistics and Real-life Crash Analyses. In Proceedings
of Enhanced Safety in Vehicles (ESV) Conference, Amsterdam.
Nilsson, G. (2004) Traffic safety dimensions and the power model to describe the effect of
speed on safety. Bulletin 221, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund.
OECD (2003) Impact on Road Safety Technologies

http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,2340,en_2649_34351_2023014_1_1_1_1,00.htm.
Olsson, I., Bunketorp, O., Carlsson, G., Gustafsson, C., Planath, I., Norin, H., Ysander, L.
(1990) An In-Depth Study of Neck Injuries in Rear End Collisions, Proc. IRCOBI Conf. on
Biomechanics pp. 269-281.
Paine, M., Paine, D., Ellway, J., Newland, C., Worden, S. (2011) Safety Precautions and
Assessments for Crashes Involving Electric Vehicles, Paper Number 11-0107, ESV,
Washington DC
Passive Safety Network, http://www.passivesafety.com/06_publications/psnroadmap.html.
Peden, M., Scurfield, R., Sleet, D., Mohan, D., Hyder, A., Jarawan, E. and C. Mathers eds.
(2004) World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva, World Health Organization.
PROMISING (2001) Promotion of mobility and safety of vulnerable road users

Leidschendam, Institute for Road Safety Research.
Rizzi M, Standroth J, Tingvall C (2009) The Effectiveness of Antilock Brake Systems on

Motorcycles in Reducing Real-Life Crashes and Injuries, Traffic Injury Prevention,10(5), pp.
479- 487.
RoSPA (2001) Motorcycling safety position paper. Royal Society for the Prevention of
Accidents, Birmingham.
31/01/2013 Page 63
Ruijs, P.A.J. (1997) 'Literature survey of motorcycle accidents with respect to the influence of
engine size', TNO Automotive, report number 97.OR.VD.056.1/PR, Delft, The Netherlands.
Rumar, K. ed.(1999) Intelligent transport systems and road safety, European Transport
Safety Council, Brussels.
Schoon, C.C. (1996) Invloed kwaliteit fiets op ongevallen. The influence of cycle quality in
crashes Leidschendam, Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV Report R-96-32).
Servadei, F. et al (2003) Effects of Italy’s motorcycle helmet law on traumatic brain injuries.
Injury Prevention 9:257 –260.
Sivinski, R. (2011) Update of NHTSA’s 2007 Analysis of ESC Effectiveness, ESV Paper No.
11-0304, ESV, Washington DC.
Sosin, D.M., Sacks, J.J., Webb, K.W. (1996) Pediatric head injuries and deaths from
bicycling in the United States. Pediatrics 1996,98:868 –870.
SpeedAlert project http://www.speedalert.org/.
Sporner, A. (2000) Passive Sicherheit auch auf dem Motorrad – Möglichkeiten durch den
Airbag. Fachtagung “Fahrzeugairbags”, Essen
Sporner, A., Langwieder, K., and Polauke (1990) Passive Safety for Motorcyclists – from the
Legprotector to the Airbag. International Congress and Exposition, Detroit.
Sporner, A. and Kramlich, T. (2000) Zusammenspiel von aktiver und passiver Sicherheit bei
Motorradkollisionen. Intermot 2000, München, September 2000.
Strandroth, J., Rizzi, M., Sternlund, S., Lie, A. and Tingvall, C. (2011) The Correlation
Between Pedestrian Injury Severity In Real-Life Crashes And Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test
Results, ESV 2011, Washington DC.
Thatcham
http://www.thatcham.org/ncwr/index.jsp;jsessionid=20B7C360F0B2E0915E83EC6608A3F4D
3?page=112.
Thomas, S. et al.(1994) Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injury in children:

case-control study. British Medical Journal 308: 173 –176.
Thompson, D.C., Ri vara F.P., Thompson, R.S (1996) Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets
in preventing head injuries: a case-control study. Journal of the American Medical
Association 1996,276:1968 –1973.
31/01/2013 Page 64
Tingvall, C. and Haworth, N. (1999) Vision Zero - An ethical approach to safety and mobility,
Paper presented to the 6th ITE International Conference Road Safety & Traffic Enforcement:
Beyond 2000, Melbourne, 6-7 September 1999.
Tingvall , C. et al (2003) The effectiveness of ESP (Electronic Stability Program) in reducing

real-life accidents. ESV Paper 261,18th ESV Conference, Nagoya.
Tingvall, C. (1987) Children in cars: some aspects of the safety of children as car passengers
in road traffic accidents. Acta, Pediatrica Scandinavica, supplement 339.
TNO (2003) Daytime Running Lights, Final Report, Contract No.ETU/B27020B-E3-2002

DRL-S07.18830 (TREN/E3/27-2002), October 2003,TNO Human Factors.
TRL (2009) Edwards, M.J, Hynd, D.,Thompson, A., Carroll, J. and Visvikis, C. Technical
Assistance and Economic Analysis in the Field of Legislation Pertinent to the Issue of
Automotive Safety: Provision of information and services on the subject of the tests,
procedures and benefits of the requirements for the development of legislation on Frontal
Impact Protection Final Report CPR 403, TRL, Crowthorne.
VDI (2000) Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDI Nachrichten 07.04.00.
Vehicle Safety Research Centre, Loughborough University (2011) Written evidence to the
UK House of Commons Transport Committee (RSF 26), HoC. London, November 2011.
Virtanen, N., Schirrokoff, A., Luoma, J. and R Kumala, (2006) eCall Safety Effects in Finland,
eSafety Forum.
Volvo (1997) CRS-study, COPS (Child Occupant Protection Seminar) Joint conference of
Stapp and AAAM, Orlando. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic safety
facts 2002: children. Washington, DC, 2002 (DOT HS-809-607).
Volvo http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/.
Wells. S, Mullin B, Norton R, Langley J, Connor J, Lay-Yee R and R Jackson Motorcycle

rider conspicuity and crash related injury: case-control study BMJ. 2004 Apr
10;328(7444):857. Epub 2004 Jan 23.
Wiklund, K. and Larsson, H. (1998) SAAB Active Head Restraint (SAHR) - Seat Design to
Reduce the Risk of Neck Injuries in Rear Impacts, SAE paper 980297, SAE.
Yoganandan, Pintar and Gennarelli (2005) "Evaluation of Side Impact Injuries in Vehicles
Equipped with Airbags"; IRCOB.
31/01/2013 Page 65

Vehicle Safety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vehicle Safety

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vehicle Safety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.dacota-project.

2 VEHICLE DESIGN AND ROAD SAFETY ....................................................................... 6

2.1 What can vehicle design contribute?............................................................................................. 6

2.2 What role does research play? ....................................................................................................... 8

2.3 What can vehicle safety deliver in future? .................................................................................... 9

3 VEHICLE SAFETY POLICY ............................................................................................. 11

3.1 What are the main policy mechanisms? ..................................................................................... 11

3.2 Regulation ......................................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Consumer Information .................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Car industry policies ....................................................................................................................... 15

3.5 Product liability ................................................................................................................................ 16

3.6 What can EU countries do at national level? .............................................................................. 16

4 KEY ISSUES FOR VEHICLE SAFETY DESIGN ....................................................... 18

4.1 What forces can be tolerated the human body? ........................................................................ 18

4.2 What are the main crash injury problems? ................................................................................. 19

4.4 Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ............................................................................................ 22

5 SAFETY DESIGN NEEDS ................................................................................................. 22

5.1 Cars .................................................................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Motorcycles ...................................................................................................................................... 40

5.3 Heavy commercial vehicles ........................................................................................................... 46

5.4 Light vans and minibuses .............................................................................................................. 49

5.5 Buses and coaches ......................................................................................................................... 50

5.6 Bicycles ............................................................................................................................................. 52

6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS .......................................................................................................... 53

6.1 The epidemiology of road traffic injury ....................................................................................... 54

6.2 Biomechanical research ................................................................................................................. 54

6.3 Crash avoidance .............................................................................................................................. 55

6.4 Crash mitigation and protection ................................................................................................... 55

6.5 Advanced and integrated technologies ....................................................................................... 55

6.6 Hybrid and electric Vehicles .......................................................................................................... 56

Vehicle safety policy

Countries active in safety typically engage in international legislative development work;

Key issues for vehicle safety design

2 Vehicle design and road safety

Table 1: The role of vehicle safety measures in Safe System intervention

Key system measures System use Vehicles Road Emergency

Figure 1: The integrated vehicle safety system ACEA safety model

2.2 What role does research play?

2.3 What can vehicle safety deliver in future?

Considerable room for further evidence-based improvements has been identified by

3 Vehicle safety policy

EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA)

Table 3: EU vehicle classification

Category L Mopeds and motorcycles fall into this

Source: Directorate of Enterprise and Industry

Legislative and policy work on vehicle at EU level is led by European Commission’s

Global Technical Regulation (GTR)

Adopted safety GTRs

National type approval schemes

3.2.2 What are the key EU vehicle safety standards?

3.2.3 How are legislative crash tests developed?

3.3 Consumer Information

3.3.2 What are predictive rating systems?

3.3.3 What are retrospective rating systems?

See ERSO Safety Ratings web text for further information.

3.4 Car industry policies

3.5 Product liability

3.6 What can EU countries do at national level?

• Supporting and joining the European New Car Assessment Programme

• Encouraging local car industry to fast-track key safety measures