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.