“Assessment of the need for, and the likely benefits of, enhanced side impact protection in the form of a Pole Side Impact Global Technical Regulation”: final report from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC).

Assessment of the need for, and the likely benefits of, enhanced side impact protection in the form of a Pole Side Impact Global Technical Regulation

Mr Hogan provided the group with an update on progress towards completion of the MUARC report, noting that comments received to date were being considered at length prior to finalisation. As soon as these comments have been reviewed and the report revised, Australia would circulate a copy of the report to members of the informal group.

ACTION: Australia to circulate final MUARC report to members of the PSI GTR informal group (when available).

Further injury risk analysis and the cost-effectiveness of enhanced side impact protection in the form of a GTR for PSI crashes.

Dr Fitzharris presented an update of the MUARC analysis commissioned for the development of the pole side impact GTR by Australia (PSI-06-03).

Dr Fitzharris advised that head injuries were a very common cause of death for occupants of both M1 and N1 vehicles in pole side impact and other side impact crashes in Australia. Dr Fitzharris noted that when Australian coroners specify multiple injuries as the cause of death, the medical records for these cases generally include fatal head injury, but these had not been quantified and included in the analysis to date.

Dr Fitzharris also noted that severe head injuries make up a large proportion of injuries sustained in the pole and other side impact crashes and that people who suffer severe traumatic brain injuries have very high lifetime care costs. Known lifetime care costs for serious and severe head injuries have been factored into the benefit-cost analysis (AIS 3: $3.7 million (Australian $s), AIS 4+: $4.8 million).

Dr Fitzharris presented cost data – incremental costs for M1 vehicles and full costs for N1 vehicles. Benefit:cost ratios were high for both vehicle categories, but more so for M1 vehicles.

Ms Tylko noted some cost reductions could be achieved through harmonization of the test procedure.

Ms Tylko asked how fatalities and head injuries due to ejections/rollovers had been treated in the analysis.
Dr Fitzharris advised that no benefits had been claimed for rollovers.

Mr Hogan added that Australia had originally intended to investigate potential rollover benefits, but that it had proven too difficult to quantify. Instead the analysis adopts a conservative position, similar to the FMVSS 214 pole side impact test regulatory impact analysis, by not claiming benefits from mitigation of injuries inrollover crashes.

ACTION: Australia to circulate final MUARC report to members of the informal group (when available).

Mr Hogan noted that the benefits presented by Mr Fitzharris were considerable. Although the analysis was largely based on Australia, substantial benefits were predicted for both pole side impact and other side impact crashes. A pole side impact GTR should therefore be attractive to a number of countries. Given, the benefits that could be achieved through implementation of the GTR, the group should work to resolve any outstanding technical issues and progress the GTR to AC3 as soon as possible.

Monash University Injury Research Institute Accident Research Centre crash data analysis.

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).