WP.29/2013/129
Fourth progress report for Phase 2 of GTR No. 9
Fourth progress report for Phase 2 of GTR No. 9
|
Reference Number: WP.29/2013/129
|
Report on the development of the Flex-PLI legform impactor and its use within pedestrian protection performance testing.
|
Document date: 22 Aug 13
|
Relevant to
|
WP.29/2013/36
Third progress report for Phase 2 of Global Technical Regulation No. 9
Third progress report for Phase 2 of Global Technical Regulation No. 9
|
Reference Number: WP.29/2013/36
|
Progress report submitted by the chair of the Informal Group on the Phase 2 development of the pedestrian safety GTR.
|
Document date: 21 Dec 12
|
Relevant to
|
View full document file for more information
|
WP.29/1102
Report of the World Forum on its 159th session
WP.29/2012/120
Second progress report for Phase 2 of GTR No. 9
WP.29/2012/58
First progress report for Phase 2 of GTR No. 9
First progress report for Phase 2 of GTR No. 9
|
Reference Number: WP.29/2012/58
|
First progress report of the informal group developing the Flex-PLI legform impactor test tool for use in the GTR on pedestrian safety.
|
Document date: 05 Apr 12
|
Relevant to
|
View full document file for more information
|
WP.29/2014/29
Fifth progress report for Phase 2 of GTR No. 9
Fifth progress report for Phase 2 of GTR No. 9
|
Reference Number: WP.29/2014/29
|
Progress report on the second-phase development of the GTR on pedestrian safety focused on the introduction of the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) as a single harmonized test tool in order to enhance the level of protection for lower legs of pedestrians.
|
Document date: 20 Dec 13
|
WP.29-162-03
Guidance, by consensus decision on elements of draft GTR No. 9 – Phase 2 that have not been resolved by the Working Party on Passive Safety
Guidance, by consensus decision on elements of draft GTR No. 9 – Phase 2 that have not been resolved by the Working Party on Passive Safety
|
Reference Number: WP.29-162-03
|
Phase 2 of GTR No. includes proposals for injury assessment reference values (IARV). The United States has asserted that the IARV have not been sufficiently validated through cost-benefit analysis, which is a requirement in US rulemaking. Therefore, the US has proposed to permit regulators to select IARV that correspond to their local vehicle populations. However, adding this qualification (through a footnote) would create a precedent for future GTR and OICA has lamented that such diversity in application hampers the goal of harmonization. Therefore, the GTR 9 informal group and GRSP are putting this issue before the World Forum for guidance.
|
Document date: 06 Feb 14
|
Relevant to
|
View full document file for more information
|
GRSP-54-32
US comments on the draft amendment [2] to Global Technical Regulation No. 9 on pedestrian safety
US comments on the draft amendment [2] to Global Technical Regulation No. 9 on pedestrian safety
|
Reference Number: GRSP-54-32
|
Statement of US concerns with the draft amendment to introduce the Flex PLI test tool into GTR No. 9 (document GRSP/2013/25) in particular with regard to the use of the injury assessment reference values (IARVs). US definition of the IARV will be dependent upon the outcome of a US cost-benefit analysis based upon the characteristics of the American vehicle population. The US cannot accept injury curves that do not fall within what is justifiable according to US traffic conditions.
|
Submitted by: USA
|
Document date: 17 Dec 13
|
Relevant to
|
View full document file for more information
|
WP.29-162-03
Guidance, by consensus decision on elements of draft GTR No. 9 – Phase 2 that have not been resolved by the Working Party on Passive Safety
Guidance, by consensus decision on elements of draft GTR No. 9 – Phase 2 that have not been resolved by the Working Party on Passive Safety
|
Reference Number: WP.29-162-03
|
Phase 2 of GTR No. includes proposals for injury assessment reference values (IARV). The United States has asserted that the IARV have not been sufficiently validated through cost-benefit analysis, which is a requirement in US rulemaking. Therefore, the US has proposed to permit regulators to select IARV that correspond to their local vehicle populations. However, adding this qualification (through a footnote) would create a precedent for future GTR and OICA has lamented that such diversity in application hampers the goal of harmonization. Therefore, the GTR 9 informal group and GRSP are putting this issue before the World Forum for guidance.
|
Document date: 06 Feb 14
|
Relevant to
|
View full document file for more information
|