Mr Belcher presented a consolidated summary of the crash data provided to Australia by the various contracting parties (PSI-02-06).

Mr Loew asked why fatal pole/tree side impact crashes are so common in Australia. Mr Hogan explained that road conditions are different for each country, and in the case of Australia, there is a very large road network, including in rural areas.

Ms Dausse presented a summary of initial French national and LAB pole side impact data (PSI-02-07). Further data will be provided.

Mr Petit provided an update on the progress on the development of the ISO/WG6 WorldSID 50th injury risk curves (PSI-02-15). Mr Petit advised that the ISO/WG6 had agreed to use the survival analysis statistical method to construct the injury risk curves. To enable injury criteria limits to be finalised the ISO/WG6 will now need to establish the most suitable injury risk predictors for each body region (e.g. pelvis injury risk could be predicted by 3ms pelvis acceleration and/or pubic force) and the recommended thresholds. The same process would need to be followed for the WorldSID 5th. WG6 would meet again in May.

Mr Belcher presented data (2000-2009) on fatalities and serious injuries in Victorian (Australian state) side impact crashes by occupant age (PSI-02-16). It was noted that the 45 year age, which is currently used for the age scaling of current side impact dummy injury risk curves, exceeds (by age) around 85% of Victorian pole/tree side impact crash fatalities, but only around 50% of other side impact fatalities.

Mr Ridella presented a summary of an UMTRI investigation of the effects of occupant age on AIS 3+ injury outcomes (PSI-02-17). Mr Ridella undertook to investigate with UMTRI the possibility of separating pole side impacts from other side impacts in the data presented in this study. In response to a question from Ms Tylko, Mr Ridella indicated that while it would decrease the number of available cases, it was possible to identify contact point in the NASS data base.

39. The Chair of the informal group on CRS introduced the latest Regulation proposal from his group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/15 and GRSP-49-08) and the new terms of reference of the informal group (GRSP-49-01-Rev.1) showing a multistep approach, in three phases:

(a) Phase 1 dealing only with ISOFIX-Integral CRS, keeping Regulation No. 44 valid during its implementation.
(b) Phase 2 dealing with Non-Integral CRS.
(c) Phase 3 dealing with amendments to Regulation Nos. 44, 14 and 16 to cover the category of child restraints secured with adult safety belts.

40. The expert from France gave a presentation (GRSP-49-25) on data available from the field indicating safety priorities for children in cars. The Regulation proposal received several comments (GRSP-49-27, GRSP-49-29, and GRSP-49-34). Some experts stated that the proposal should not address the use of CRS. GRSP noted that the next meetings of the informal group were scheduled on 5 July, in Bonn (Germany) and 8 September 2011 at OICA’s office in Paris. Following the suggestion of the expert from the United Kingdom, GRSP agreed that the informal group should: continue (i) discussion on Phase 2 (ISOFIX non-integral “Universal”) in parallel to the finalization of Phase 1 (ISOFIX integral) and (ii) review if the proposed frontal impact crash test pulse is still appropriate.

41. GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-49-39, encompassing all the changes to the draft Regulation agreed during the session (including GRSP-49-08, GRSP-49-27, GRSP-49-29 and GRSP-49-34), with an official symbol at its December 2011 session. Moreover, it was recommended to experts and to the informal group to send comments to GRSP-49-39 as official documents for the next session of GRSP to give time to the experts to examine the changes proposed.

42. Finally, GRSP adopted the new terms of references of the informal group (GRSP-49-01-Rev.1) as reproduced in Annex IX and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 at its June 2011 session.

Update on the efforts to resolve remaining issues regarding the thoracic skeletal and soft tissue injury risk curves.

Presentation on issues and concerns related to the introduction and proliferation of child restraint systems and on data related to ISOFIX seat safety benefits versus other CRS.

Review of the presentation of different case possible on the market from P. LESIRE Phase 2 & 3 (CRS-35-03e)

Question on car handbook tables ECE16 (CRS-38-11): if you do something new in the car for iSize you need to modify your handbook, if you change nothing in your car, you do not need to change your handbook.

Positive guide straps: Should positive guide maintain properly the belt only during the crash or also during daily life with a moving child?

How to test it?
Tommy suggests using the body block described in annex 22 of the R44 regulation with a higher force.

For the upper guide, is it acceptable that the belt escape from the guide, that the guide breaks or deforms?

“Positive” mean “permanent point” for the chairman.

4.5.1. Anchorage positions
Current NPACS lower anchorages induce interference problems (load cell and belt plate) in lateral configuration with intruding door.

Presentation from F. RENAUDIN of anchorages positions (CRS-38-07).

The recommendation of the group is to investigate cutting of the door to prevent these interactions rather than modifying anchorages positions. Action: CLEPA with TRL collaboration.

4.5.2. Strap definition
Strap definition : use the same definition as R44

First the anchorages location needs to be defined. Then the belt length could be defined using the R16 gabarit.

Retractor: A more clear definition of the feature is needed.

4.5.3. Installation on test bench
Take the installation method from the R44 regulation and adapt it for iSize reg. Action: Chairman + Secretary with advice of TSG.

Presentation of the review of seatbelt anchorage and dimensions of test bench seat cushion form JASIC (CRS-38-08).

Presentation of accident case (CRS-38-09) by Philippe LESIRE: Soft vehicles with low impact speed (45kmh vs 45 km/h with 30° angle => this accident was not more severe than the R44 level). After this accident, adults were OK, but the 28 month child seated in a booster shield died. The car seat was chosen by parents because it is a good one according to rating. The child fatal injuries occur on head and abdominal area. The shield restrain explain the fatal injury mechanism on the abdomen.

Proposal for Phase 3 development aimed at preventing the approval of CRS systems with unduly complex fixation designs.

Presentation on scope and content for the third-phase development of UN R129.

6.2. Installation Procedure

Phase III seatbelt use for CRS fixation (Philippe LESIRE from LAB) CRS-59-10e

The goal is to ensure that the approval of products with a complex belt routing is not possible.
From a study on the market, some “good” and “poor” belt routing where highlight for forward and rearward facing. ISO method for scoring the ease of use of CRS will be use during evaluation in July 2016.

Farid BENDJELLAL from BRITAX: do we have to take into account the car environment as new technologies (belt & bag), buckles access, buckle interaction?

For James ABRAHAM (FORD) by forcing CRS manufacturer to have kind of universal installation for belted CRS, you will impose the belt anchorage position to the car manufacturer. For Pierre CASTAING (UTAC & Chairman), pre-tensioners are not take into account and can have big influence on child safety if accident, and then we have to think about.

Ansgar POTT (HYUNDAI): this work is more relevant for the CRS manufacturer but it could be important to have frequently feedback from this subgroup.

Pierre CASTAING (UTAC & Chairman) ask to OICA : it could be good if OICA can share and give whishes about the best use of their adult safety belt, and which kind of CRS belt routing are well design or not. OICA could send these remarks and wishes to this subgroup. Does OICA have some constraints (geometry, block the buckle, block the retractor ,) to be given to the subgroup?

Pierre CASTAING (UTAC & Chairman) asks to CLEPA: could you confirm that some current products are difficult to be installed and the fact that the work from this subgroup can help the ease of use and avoid lot of misuse in the future?

Farid BENDJELLAL from BRITAX: when do have to provide this work, when is the dead line of this sub group. For Pierre CASTAING (UTAC & Chairman), it could be nice to have formal document for May 2017.

Check of the distribution of head impacts on vehicle.