The BioRID seems adequately repeatable and reproducible based on Gen-X tests and production seat sled tests. However, the BioRID appears to exhibit poor biofidelity in flexion so that there is only a poor correlation between BioRID measures and PMHS flexion injuries. One reason is that the BioRID was initially designed and tuned to match extension kinematics (of volunteers).

However, this does not mean that the BioRID is not a suitable tool for advancing safety in rear impact. Japan and EEVC have shown that HIII is not an acceptable tool for whiplash testing (e.g. inverse flexion).

The use of seat performance criteria (e.g. EuroNCAP/JNCAP/IIHS) may be capable of reducing whiplash injuries even though the criteria may not be directly linked to the injury mechanism.
The group discussed several proposals on how to set limits for the proposed seat
performance / injury criteria.

Guidance is needed by the contracting parties which level of risk related to what kind of injury (AIS1+, WAD2+, PMI) is acceptable.

The correlation work on BioRID injury criteria measures to PMHS injuries is not completed and there might be a longer time frame needed to fulfil this work than the schedule agreed by WP.29.

However, there are other approaches to set limits for seat performance criteria that should be considered by the contracting parties:

a) A promising new approach on how to develop injury criteria risk functions based on insurance data

b) The criteria and limits proposed from Japan are backed by extensive simulation work and JNCAP data and are partially well correlated to the work of NHTSA/VRTC.

c) Based on the experience of Euro NCAP whiplash seat testing and assessment of over 200 different seat models limits can be proposed following a kind of good practice approach.