| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | MUARC presentation on injury risk analysis and side-impact protection costs | ||||||||
| Reference Number | PSI-06-03 | ||||||||
| Date |
12 Jul 2012
|
||||||||
| Summary | Further injury risk analysis and the cost-effectiveness of enhanced side impact protection in the form of a GTR for PSI crashes. | ||||||||
| Source(s) | MUARC | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | GTR No. 14 Pole Side Impact | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| PSI | Session 6 | 20-21 Jun 2012 |
Dr Fitzharris presented an update of the MUARC analysis commissioned for the development of the pole side impact GTR by Australia (PSI-06-03). Dr Fitzharris advised that head injuries were a very common cause of death for occupants of both M1 and N1 vehicles in pole side impact and other side impact crashes in Australia. Dr Fitzharris noted that when Australian coroners specify multiple injuries as the cause of death, the medical records for these cases generally include fatal head injury, but these had not been quantified and included in the analysis to date. Dr Fitzharris also noted that severe head injuries make up a large proportion of injuries sustained in the pole and other side impact crashes and that people who suffer severe traumatic brain injuries have very high lifetime care costs. Known lifetime care costs for serious and severe head injuries have been factored into the benefit-cost analysis (AIS 3: $3.7 million (Australian $s), AIS 4+: $4.8 million). Dr Fitzharris presented cost data – incremental costs for M1 vehicles and full costs for N1 vehicles. Benefit:cost ratios were high for both vehicle categories, but more so for M1 vehicles. Ms Tylko noted some cost reductions could be achieved through harmonization of the test procedure. Ms Tylko asked how fatalities and head injuries due to ejections/rollovers had been treated in the analysis. Mr Hogan added that Australia had originally intended to investigate potential rollover benefits, but that it had proven too difficult to quantify. Instead the analysis adopts a conservative position, similar to the FMVSS 214 pole side impact test regulatory impact analysis, by not claiming benefits from mitigation of injuries inrollover crashes. ACTION: Australia to circulate final MUARC report to members of the informal group (when available). Mr Hogan noted that the benefits presented by Mr Fitzharris were considerable. Although the analysis was largely based on Australia, substantial benefits were predicted for both pole side impact and other side impact crashes. A pole side impact GTR should therefore be attractive to a number of countries. Given, the benefits that could be achieved through implementation of the GTR, the group should work to resolve any outstanding technical issues and progress the GTR to AC3 as soon as possible. |
||||||||