Analysis of second row occupant injuries in passenger cars using GIDAS data from 2000–2025. Second row occupants constitute approximately 11% of all car occupants and contribute approximately 9% to MAIS2+ and slightly more to MAIS3+ injured occupants. Injury severity is higher in the second row left seat. Neck injuries, particularly whiplash, are the most common low-severity injuries, while upper-body injuries are most significant across all severity levels. Head and face injuries from seat contact are the most common injury-causing mechanism at all crash severities. The document recommends load cases should include second row occupation with 5% and 50% anthropomorphic test devices.
Study investigating the correlation between downward movement conditions of the seat and lap belt movement from the iliac crests of a human occupant in the front passenger seat during frontal impact. Simulations were conducted using an AM50 THUMS human model under two seat conditions: vertical downward movement of 150 mm, and 150 mm vertical downward movement combined with forward rotation. Results show the lap belt detached from both iliac crests during lean forward seat movement, whereas it detached from only one iliac crest during vertical movement. Abdominal injuries can be caused by downward seat movement together with forward rotation during frontal impacts.
Analysis of field data from 3,847 belted drivers in frontal car-to-car crashes to develop a real-world frontal crash assessment matrix. Field data showed injury distribution followed exposure distribution across stature and weight, no significant injury-risk differences across longitudinal seat positions or age groups, and approximately 75% of AIS2+ injuries occurred at energy equivalent speed below 40 km/h. The assessment matrix identifies severity-specific protection targets and crash configurations representative of real-world exposure. The approach combines crash, occupant and seating variation with human body model simulations to evaluate restraint system robustness across real-world variability.
The document describes WP.29’s approach to regulating Driver Control Assistance Systems and Automated Driving Systems. It outlines safety management system requirements including safety policy, risk management, assurance and promotion; safety case requirements for structured documentation demonstrating ADS compliance and freedom from unreasonable risk; and safety concept requirements for risk identification, hazard analysis, ODD compatibility and occupant protection. Testing and verification encompasses virtual testing using simulation toolchains, track testing and real-world testing. Virtual toolchain validation establishes credibility before use. In-service monitoring and reporting requires manufacturers to monitor ADS performance post-deployment and report significant incidents to authorities.
Presentation on the complementary roles of Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) and Human Body Models (HBMs) in frontal impact assessment. ATDs provide standardized physical evidence at defined reference conditions based on fixed anthropometries, while HBMs can represent population variability through morphable anthropometry. HBMs extend assessment to human and crash variability that standardized ATD tests cannot practically cover, including occupant size variants, seat positions, postures, and crash severities. Neither tool is a universal substitute for the other; complementary capabilities improve robustness and confidence in real-world occupant protection performance.
Presentation on human body models (HBMs) for virtual testing, addressing their advantages over anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) in assessing occupant diversity, body regions, and injury criteria. Discusses challenges including harmonization of anthropometry and posture, biofidelity qualification variability, and injury assessment methodology. Proposes stepwise implementation with minimum harmonization requirements and development of HBM-specific injury risk curves for consistent application across different anthropometries.
Results from a workshop on frontal impact robustness held in Tokyo, Japan on 4-6 November 2026. The workshop established a robustness concept: the vehicle’s ability to ensure effective protection for occupants across a representative range of characteristics (taking into account variations such as differences in shape, sex, weight and age), in relevant vehicle settings, and in representative real-world collisions (up to current regulatory severity levels). Human Body Models (HBMs) are noted as a promising complementary tool for evaluating robustness alongside ATD testing. The workshop ranked injury types by priority, including brain injuries, submarining, neck, chest, abdomen, lower extremities, and rear seat row protection. An action plan was developed to address brain injuries, submarining, rear seat row assessment, and robustness assessment methodology.
Workshop participants agreed on a concept of robustness as the vehicle’s ability to ensure effective protection for occupants across a representative range of characteristics including variations in body shape, sex, weight and age in relevant vehicle settings and in representative real-world collisions up to current regulatory severity levels. Current regulations can identify clearly inferior systems but do not encourage robustness as defined.