Session 65 | Geneva | 13-17 May 2019
Session Report
Results of AC.1 votes
3. (a)
GTR 9: Proposal for Amendment 2 (Phase 2)

7. The expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the pedestrian safety IWG, introduced the amendment to M.R.1 for the new Addendum 3 to M.R.1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4), incorporating drawings, specifications and the manual of the Flex Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI): GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02. The experts from France and the Russian Federation confirmed that the manual and technical specifications should not be translated. However, it was noted that GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02 would not be displayed on the WP.29 website until a disclaimer letter would be provided (see para. 4). Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4 unamended. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as Amendment 2 to M.R.1 for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.

GRSP-65-01 | MR1: Drawings and specifications of Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI)
GRSP-65-02 | MR1: User Manual of Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor
GRSP/2019/4 | MR 1: Proposal for Amendment 2
3. (b)
GTR 9: Proposal for Amendment 3

8. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-17, explaining that the intention of the pedestrian protection test procedures as described in UN GTR No. 9 and UN Regulation No. 127 was to deliver an adequate level of protection for pedestrians in accidents up to an impact velocity of 40 km/h. International Harmonized Research Agenda research has shown that the cumulative frequency curves versus vehicle impact speed for pedestrian injuries and their respective injury causing parts showed that 58 per cent of the child head abbreviated injury scale (AIS) 2+ injuries were addressed to a vehicle impact speed up to 40 km/h, 40 per cent to adult head AIS2+ injuries and 50 per cent of the adult leg AIS2+ injuries respectively. He added that test procedures described in UN Regulation No. 127 and UN GTR No. 9 were meant to represent worst case scenarios. However, it was agreed that this was not the case for all possible scenarios and that also at lower impact speeds higher injury risk could occur due for example to different heights of the vehicle because of adjustable suspension systems. The representative from OICA reminded that during the type approval process the worst case scenario will be considered. GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-65-17 as an informal document for the December 2019 session of GRSP, awaiting further rationales to develop a proposal of amendments.

GRSP-65-17 | GTR 9: Proposal for Amendment 3
3. (c)
GTR 9: Proposal for Amendment 4

9. The expert from the Republic of Korea, on behalf of the Chair of the IWG on Deployable Pedestrian Protection Systems (DPPS) informed GRSP about the work progress of the IWG. He explained that the group had its fourth meeting in Paris (12-14 March 2019) and that there were some controversial issues remaining such as a verification impactor which was used for testing the ability of the system to determine the most difficult to detect pedestrian within the appropriate pedestrian stature range. Moreover, he also mentioned that the defining of the head impact test area in case of a deployable pedestrian protection system remained an issue. Moreover, he noted that were few contracting parties attending IWG meetings regularly and encouraged broader participation. He also invited experts of concerned parties to have a web-meeting to resolve the above issues before the next meeting, scheduled in September in London. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item at its December 2019 session.