108. The representative of Consumer International presented the project aiming at raising awareness about the safe transport of children among consumers in Latin America (PESRI).

109. The representative of the Russian Federation thanked Consumer International for the presentation and noted that the Russian Federation also made significant efforts for increasing child safety during transportation. He also noted that WP.29 adopted the supplement to UN Regulation No. 44 initiated by the Russian Federation, which excluded various adapters from the types of child restraint systems. This initiative increased child safety during transportation by vehicles.

Proposal to introduce limit values for the chest vertical acceleration (Az) of Q dummies during dynamic testing of Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS) until such time as upper neck tension Force (Fz) and upper neck flexion moment (My) criteria can be established.

41. The expert from GlobalNCAP introduced a presentation (GRSP-65-34) that highlighted cases of ISOFIX anchorage ruptures of forward-facing CRS. He then proposed to review the UN Regulation that allowed deformations and load configuration tests. The expert from CLEPA stated that these failures should be further investigated, and requested more time and data. The expert from GlobalNCAP clarified that he was only highlighting the issue and was not a position to quantify the number of failures. The expert from OICA requested that all available findings should be analysed to identify the causes. Finally, GRSP agreed to create a group of interested experts to coordinate the research, and to resume discussion on this agenda item awaiting further evidence at its December 2019 session.

Proposal to introduce chest vertical acceleration (Az) criteria until such time as upper neck tension Force (Fz) and upper neck flexion moment (My) criteria can be established.

35. The expert from GlobalNCAP also introduced GRSP-65-06 proposing limit values for the chest vertical acceleration of Q-dummies during dynamic testing of Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS). The expert from CLEPA expressed general concern and raised a time reservation. The expert from United Kingdom stated that a permanent solution was needed. He added that this was not the case to implement the chest vertical acceleration but rather to develop the upper neck tension force on the basis of available data. The expert from EC stated that discussion should be deferred until data was available. The expert from CLEPA expressed similar view and suggested collecting support data before the December 2019 session of GRSP. The Chair of GRSP suggested to create a TF led by a representative of a contracting party to coordinate efforts. GRSP agreed, in principle, with the proposal of Chair and agreed to resume discussion at its December 2019 session on the basis of the outcome of above-mentioned TF research. At the same time GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-06 with an official symbol at its next session.

This presentation was accompanied by a crash test video.

163. The representative of Global NCAP presented Informal Document WP.29-176-39 highlighting the unsatisfactory results of crash tests of certain vehicle models sold in South Africa.

164. The representative of South Africa pointed at the fact that the vehicle model showing poor crash performance was one of a different vehicle category, not subject to frontal impacts regulatory requirements.

Global NCAP letter of November 2016 supporting attention to the crashworthiness of L-category four-wheeled vehicles (L6/L7) via a “new global standard”.

40. The experts from Global NCAP and from ANEC on behalf of Consumers International introduced GRSP-63-14 which proposes to include L7 (quadricycles) categories of vehicles in the scope of UN Regulation No. 137, in line with the recommendation of the WP.29 (GRSP-63-15 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1141, para. 41) aimed at offering a minimum protection to L7 vehicle occupants in case of a crash. They also mentioned GRSP-63-16, for information, concerning the “Public Interest Litigation Regarding Motor Vehicle Safety in India”. They added that quadricycles are not subject to the same legislation as conventional passenger cars and their crashworthiness should be addressed by GRSP as recommended by WP.29. They stressed the risk that consumers buy this type of vehicle to cater to an individual’s need for a car but without being informed about the lack of safety requirements in those vehicles which might expose them to serious injuries in case of a crash. They indicated that NCAP tests showed cases of safety-belts that snapped off and even ineffective airbags and revealing that these types of restraint systems and performance of this type of vehicles were far below similarly-sized passenger car. Moreover, they informed GRSP that L7 vehicles are becoming more popular, also because they are considered as new environmentally friendly mobility solutions and are expected to become more numerous in the future. They clarified that the proposal of Global NCAP and Consumer International to extend the scope of UN Regulation No. 137 to L7 vehicle would be in line with the test speed scenarios and biomechanical injury criteria that provide for the safety of occupants, as in other types of passenger vehicles.

December 2015 notes prepared by Global NCAP in safety awareness following “Safer Cars in India” program.

40. The experts from Global NCAP and from ANEC on behalf of Consumers International introduced GRSP-63-14 which proposes to include L7 (quadricycles) categories of vehicles in the scope of UN Regulation No. 137, in line with the recommendation of the WP.29 (GRSP-63-15 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1141, para. 41) aimed at offering a minimum protection to L7 vehicle occupants in case of a crash. They also mentioned GRSP-63-16, for information, concerning the “Public Interest Litigation Regarding Motor Vehicle Safety in India”. They added that quadricycles are not subject to the same legislation as conventional passenger cars and their crashworthiness should be addressed by GRSP as recommended by WP.29. They stressed the risk that consumers buy this type of vehicle to cater to an individual’s need for a car but without being informed about the lack of safety requirements in those vehicles which might expose them to serious injuries in case of a crash. They indicated that NCAP tests showed cases of safety-belts that snapped off and even ineffective airbags and revealing that these types of restraint systems and performance of this type of vehicles were far below similarly-sized passenger car. Moreover, they informed GRSP that L7 vehicles are becoming more popular, also because they are considered as new environmentally friendly mobility solutions and are expected to become more numerous in the future. They clarified that the proposal of Global NCAP and Consumer International to extend the scope of UN Regulation No. 137 to L7 vehicle would be in line with the test speed scenarios and biomechanical injury criteria that provide for the safety of occupants, as in other types of passenger vehicles.

Presentation on Euro NCAP crash testing of very light passenger cars ( ≤ 350 kg or ≤ 550 kg).

86. The representative of Euro NCAP presented the development and outcome of their crash tests campaign with L7 category vehicles. He stated that four vehicles had been displayed on the grounds of the Palais de Nations in an exposition organized with the support of the secretariat. He presented (WP.29-170-38) the results of crash tests on eight different models of L7 category vehicles and highlighted the reasons why these vehicles received low ratings (between zero and two stars on the five-star scale). He stressed that the crash-worthiness of L7 vehicles was substandard and that more stringent regulations on the safety and the construction of these types of vehicles would be justified.

86. The representative of Euro NCAP presented the development and outcome of their crash tests campaign with L7 category vehicles. He stated that four vehicles had been displayed on the grounds of the Palais de Nations in an exposition organized with the support of the secretariat. He presented (WP.29-170-38) the results of crash tests on eight different models of L7 category vehicles and highlighted the reasons why these vehicles received low ratings (between zero and two stars on the five-star scale). He stressed that the crash-worthiness of L7 vehicles was substandard and that more stringent regulations on the safety and the construction of these types of vehicles would be justified.

Presentation on crash testing results of selected Indian passenger cars and efforts to improve minimum safety levels for the most basic passenger cars on the Indian market.

68. The representative of the FIA Foundation introduced WP.29-162-21 presenting the results of a Global NCAP research project “Safer cars for India” on the passive safety performance of the most popular vehicle models in India. WP.29 noted that Global NCAP recommended: (i) to apply UN Regulation No. 94 for all passenger cars, (ii) to mandate the use of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) and (iii) to promote collaboration between governments, manufacturers, their suppliers, automobile clubs and consumer organizations in order to improve adult and child protection in road vehicles.

69. The representative of India informed WP.29, that following these recommendations, actions had already been taken in his country to increase the stringency of vehicle regulations on passive safety. However, a transitional time would be necessary to develop the technical services capacity to perform the related tests. The representative of OICA welcomed these indications but stressed that a holistic approach was needed in order to further improve road safety, taking into account that the individual road transport conditions in the countries were different. He said that, in his opinion, focusing all efforts on vehicle specifications only, thereby making them unaffordable for a large proportion of the population, might in the end be counterproductive in that consumers would find it more difficult to move to safer transportation modes.

34. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7, proposing requirements for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paragraph 5.2.4.1. and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2013 sessions for consideration and vote as draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

35. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-52-24 to show the outcome of the frontal impact and compatibility assessment research (FIMCAR) as part of the seventh programme of research of the European Union. He indicated that amongst the candidate barriers to assess compatibility, the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB) showed better results for the time being.

36. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Impact, introduced the last progress report of the group (GRSP-52-25). He reiterated that the informal working group was considering existing results from ongoing research programmes on this matter at the international level (i.e. FIMCAR) and that as a follow‐up to these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP. Accordingly, he indicated three possible scenarios amending the UN Regulation:

(a) no change to the current requirements (benefits of 2.0 percent or less of all vehicle occupants Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI));
(b) full width barrier (FW) test added to the offset deformable barrier test (ODB) (benefits of 5 to 12 per cent of all occupants KSI); and
(c) FW test and replace ODB test with Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test (benefits of 7 to 14 per cent of all occupants KSI).

37. Furthermore, for scenario (b) and © he added that the inclusion of a FWDB would lead only to slightly increased benefits (0.3 to 0.8 percent as stated in the FIMCAR final report) and the airbag triggering time more linked to real world. However, he concluded that the option of a Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB), even if it would introduce slightly lower benefits, this option would give higher harmonization potentials (Australia, Japan, and United States). Finally, he asked GRSP experts to clearly indicate their barrier preference to better focus the efforts of the informal working group. The expert from Germany stated that due to the time constraints for the first phase of improving UN Regulation No. 94, a FWRB could be the solution for Phase 1 and the FWDB would remain as a candidate for the Phase 2.

38. The majority of GRSP experts were not in a position to provide such an indication and agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its May 2013 session, awaiting the results of a cost benefit analysis for both FWDB and FWRB prepared by the informal working group.

39. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP about the results of third Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held (GRSP-52-13). He gave a presentation (GRSP-52-29) informing that as a conclusion of the third phase of the programme, LANCAP was recommending all Latin American governments to make the requirements of UN Regulation No. 94 mandatory for all cars sold in their markets.

Review of Global NCAP activities and priorities.