Mr Roth showed one example of a vehicle on the market sold by his company (see TF-BTA-2-05). He pointed out that the legislation test zone is smaller than the actual leg protection zone. The vehicle was tested tested for European legislation (as well as by Euro NCAP) and performed well. He also stated that outside an area indicated in his presentation testing does not make sense since impactor rotation is too high. Finally, Mr Roth concluded that according to his opinion the car well represents the current fleet.

On request of the chair Mr Roth stated that earlier vehicle models of his company did not need to meet the requirements on pedestrian safety and therefore may not be representative. Also, he feels not able to clearly describe were the new bumper corners could be where impactor rotation still is acceptable. The current test area of the car model shown is as defined by Euro NCAP.

Mr Schmitt also showed examples from the vehicle fleet of his company (see TF-BTA-2-06). He explained that design features are used here to attract the customer but that this does not necessarily mean that the test areas are decreased.

26. Finally, Mr Roth presented vehicle data (see document TF-BTA-03-10) in addition to the one example he had shown during the last meeting (document TF-BTA-02-05). He explained that also at these vehicles the area that provides protection to the lower leg is much larger than the area that is tested for legislation. Mr Gehring wondered what the basis for the protection zone is and Mr. Roth confirmed that this is the test area of Euro NCAP.