The action items agreed in the previous session were individually reviewed (TF-BTA-5-02, agenda item 7) and were all considered closed:

BASt: Double-check whether it is possible to do a case by case assessment for the widening of the test area (see agenda item 5).

Mr. Zander explained that BASt did not carried out a case-by-case analysis since this was considered to be too time consuming and might have slowed down the progress of this group. However, he announced to show some details from accident data that should be able to explain issues with the widening.

TRL: Check how comments on the benefit assessment can be considered appropriately (see agenda item 5).

Mr. Carroll stated that the detailed cost benefit analysis will part of the final report of TRL’s activities under the contract of the European Commission. This final report will be available soon. Also, the assessment of the benefit especially for the corner area will be provided. Mr. Schmitt wondered when the report will be available and Mr. Broertjes added that the Commission lately got a draft version and will try to make sure to release the final report soon. (Note of the secretary: the report is available as document TF-BTA-6-09.)

Industry: Report about the design effects and feasibility issues with regard to the small overlap testing requirements in the US IIHS testing (see agenda item 5).

From the industry’s perspective, Mr. Kinsky explained the small overlap currently is a highly competitive subject and that therefore industry may not be able to share all relevant detailed information. However, an existing patent application of GM was shown that underlines that small overlap requirements do not necessarily have to interfere with pedestrian safety requirements or impair the effectiveness. The provided document is public and is added as document TF-BTA-6-08. During the session, Mr. Roth showed similar, but proprietary details for an Audi production vehicle, which were subject to discussion in the group. Given the confidential nature of the information provided, which did indeed confirm that mitigation measures do not necessarily have to be constructed and added to the outboard front bumper areas of the vehicle, the document was not officially submitted for future reference.

Commission/Industry: Prepare a first draft for a test procedure based on the discussion in this meeting.

It was noted that several proposals were handed in to be discussed in the meeting.

Mr. Carroll presented the final report delivered by TRL to the European Commission (see document TF-BTA-6-09). He explained that the document covers three main subjects: a historic review, analyses of the pedestrian protection performance of current vehicles as well as analyses of the proposed measures to extend the bumper test area. Mr. Broertjes added that this report will also be presented on the website of the European Commission.

Mr. Roth wondered how the cost benefit analysis would be considered in the further work of the Commission. Mr. Broertjes noted that the TRL figures present a benefit from the discussed changes to the bumper test area. Mr. Zander added that, however, cost benefit analyses should cover the whole world since the bumper test area is a gtr subject. With this, also e.g. the US will need to carry out their own cost benefit analysis for the US. Mr. Broertjes explained that he in fact wishes to achieve a safety level where no further costs will be added. Manufacturers also need to take into consideration that it is not intended to change current vehicles and future changes are expected to be cost neutral compared to today’s solutions. Mr. Kinsky added that, however, also conducting the witness tests with a Technical Service represents certain efforts and that industry will have to pay for these efforts. Therefore, industry requests to decide for one procedure for the determination of the bumper test area.