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participating in the Informal Group that had not already responded to Australia’s request for safety need data (originally made by email on 17 September 2010) to do so by the end of December 2010.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

Ms Meyerson provided an update on the progress and activities of the Informal Group on the Harmonization of Side Impact Dummies (WorldSID group). It was noted that the WorldSID 50th male is likely to be completed in 2011, with injury risk curves potentially taking a little longer; the WorldSID 5th female is envisaged to be completed around 2013.

Ms Tylko provided an ISO WorldSID Positioning Sub-Committee Update (PSI-01-18). It was advised that the seating procedure would specify that the seat base be set to the lowest position, but that the procedure for the seat back angle was yet to be finalized. It was planned to hold an ISO workshop in January 2011 to finalize the seating procedure for the WorldSID 50th.

Mr Terrell presented a summary of pole side impact test procedures in use in regulatory or consumer crash test programs or proposed for use (PSI-01-13).

Ms Tylko presented a summary of recent Canadian oblique pole side impact research using the WorldSID 50th RibEye, WorldSID 50th IRTRACC, and ES-2re dummies (PSI-01-14).

Mr Belcher presented a summary of recent Australian oblique, perpendicular, and offset perpendicular pole side impact research using WorldSID 50th dummies (PSI-01-15).

There was discussion of the respective roles of the WorldSID and Pole Side Impact groups with regard to injury criteria and limits. Ms Meyerson suggested that the WorldSID group should be responsible for establishing injury risk curves for the WorldSID dummies and making recommendations on these curves, but that the pole side impact group should take responsibility for the injury criteria and limits to be applied in a pole side impact GTR. It was then agreed that the pole side impact group would be tasked with setting the injury criteria and limits for a pole side impact GTR.

Mr Hogan canvassed the Informal Group to obtain member’s views on the best pole side impact test method (oblique vs. perpendicular vs offset perpendicular), the most suitable impact speed, and the most suitable test dummy.

There was a clear consensus that the test procedure in a pole side impact GTR should utilise WorldSID dummies.

There was general agreement that it was premature to identify an agreed test procedure and that consideration of test procedures based on FMVSS 214, EuroNCAP and the offset perpendicular test recommended by APROSYS should be carried forward.

It was agreed that benefit cost analysis would be a major element in comparing the three candidate procedures. However, some members also expressed reservations about the capacity of available data sources to answer the necessary questions, as gaps and coding issues are known to exist for many field data sources. For example it was noted that distinguishing impact angle was difficult and that the choice of angle in a test procedure could be determined by the outcome being sought rather than the most common impact point.

Mr Terrell indicated a preference not to use the NCAP procedure as this did not load the thorax sufficiently.

Mr Limmer noted that introduction of WorldSID would constitute major change and that other changes should be minimised – a test procedure should be based on the current perpendicular or oblique test, although he favoured the oblique test as more robust.

Dr. Müller noted that Ford, and many other global automotive manufacturers supplied vehicles to both Europe and North America. For these companies, parts of the company would need to adjust if an oblique test was used, and other parts would need to adjust if a perpendicular test was used. However, there would be benefit from one harmonized procedure.

Mr Damm pointed out that there would be cost savings achieved by removing multiple side impact dummies from test procedures and replacing them with a globally agreed side impact dummy.

Mr Belcher presented a summary of Australian Category 2 vehicle sales and safety need data (PSI-06-07).

The data showed that vans had very low pole side impact fatality and serious injury rates per registered vehicle relative to both passenger vehicles and utes/pickups. Vans also had a significantly lower overall side impact fatality rate per registered vehicle. Serious injuries (hospital admissions) from other (e.g. vehicle-to-vehicle) side impacts were higher for vans than utes/pick-ups, but the severity and body regions of these injuries was unknown.

ACTION: US to make presentation on safety need for Category 2 vehicles at next meeting.

Summary of Rib Deflection Responses from Pole Side Impact Tests using WorldSID 50th percentile dummy with RibEye.

In Australian and Canadian testing, the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy responses indicated a significantly lower AIS 3+ thorax injury risk for the Canadian vehicle. This presentation includes further results and analysis to investigate and explain the differences.

Mr Belcher presented an updated summary of results from joint Australian and Canadian pole side impact crash test research (PSI-07-03). This update provided further details of oblique and perpendicular pole side impact tests of Australian and Canadian market Fiat 500s.

The WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy responses indicated a significantly lower AIS 3+ thorax injury risk for the Canadian model. It was noted that the thorax airbag in the Canadian market vehicle had deployed significantly earlier and was substantially larger than the thorax airbag in the Australian market vehicle. There had been significantly less kinetic impact energy absorbed through deflection of the dummy ribs in the Canadian vehicle and there was no evidence of a substantial increase in impact energy absorption for other body regions. The improved thorax responses observed for the Canadian model were therefore most heavily linked to earlier airbag deployment and more impact energy being absorbed by the larger thorax airbag design.

Results presented for repeated 32 km/h oblique pole side impact tests of the Canadian market Fiat 500 showed excellent repeatability in dummy responses and test configuration (alignment etc).

Mr Hogan noted that the degree of adaptation required for vehicles to meet a 32 km/h oblique pole test standard was likely to be relatively minor for countries with a substantial proportion of 5 star NCAP rated vehicles.

Ms Versailles added that many of the development costs associated with meeting a 32 km/h oblique pole test regulation have already been incurred by manufacturers who have designed vehicles to meet the FMVSS 214 pole side impact requirements. This means many manufacturers have already developed effective countermeasures that are already in production and costs will be likely to decrease with time.