Mr Hogan presented a consolidated summary of safety data provided thus far by participating countries (PSI-01-07). It was agreed that a more comprehensive presentation should be provided at the next meeting.

Mr Hogan requested contracting parties participating in the Informal Group that had not already responded to Australia’s request for safety need data (originally made by email on 17 September 2010) to do so by the end of December 2010.

Mr Hogan undertook that Australia would liaise bilaterally with Governments where issues with data provided so far (e.g. coding issues) had been identified. Australia may also approach contracting parties for more detailed data (e.g. gender and body region analysis).

Dr Gail presented the results of a BASt study of the ‘Influence of Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) on Accidents on Rural Roads’ in Germany (PSI-01-08).

Ms Meyerson noted that the US had assumed 35% ESC effectiveness for passenger cars, and 67% ESC effectiveness for SUVs when determining the benefits of adding a pole side impact test to FMVSS 214.

Mr Terrell presented an evaluation of electronic stability control (ESC) completed by Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) using Australian used car safety ratings data (PSI-01-09).

The general conclusion from both VSC / ESC studies presented (PSI-01-08 and PSI-01-09) was that ESC would have a significant impact in reducing single vehicle crashes, particularly for SUVs, but would not resolve the problem being addressed by the GTR.

Dr Müller commented that some single vehicle accidents cannot be prevented by ESC due to factors such as slippery road conditions and high speed, but that the effectiveness of other technologies needs to be determined for the subset of accidents that would not otherwise be prevented by ESC.

Mr Hogan sought the view of Informal Group members on the target vehicle categories that should be covered by the GTR. Mr Hogan stated that Australia considered the GTR should cover both M1 and N1 type vehicles.

Mr Wondimneh noted that the vehicle category definitions used by the US in FMVSS 214 are different to the M1 and N1 vehicle categories, and suggested the scope of the GTR should be based on the definitions of Special Resolution No. 1. In the US, commercial vehicles are frequently used as passenger vehicles and many commercial vehicles have ‘sister’ vehicles that are passenger vehicles. For this reason the US does not distinguish between passenger and commercial vehicles in FMVSS 214, but instead uses vehicle mass.

Mr Damm stated that Germany would be happy if the scope of the GTR included UNECE M1 and N1 vehicle categories, but noted the Informal Group should use the vehicle category definitions used in GTRs.

The view of the meeting was that the Scope of the GTR should be based on the definitions of Special Resolution No. 1 and include vehicles with a gross vehicle mass not exceeding 10,000 lbs (approx 4536 kg).