Documents (Latest posted on 8 Jun 2015)
Related Meetings : World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations | Session 161
Documentation Discussion/Report

86. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposed draft UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/120) was established in the UN Global Registry on 13 November 2013 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting: Australia, China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and Turkey.

87. The technical report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/121) and the adopted proposal for the development of the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/28) will be appended to the established UN GTR.

88. The representative of the United States of America abstained from voting because of the existence of a national pole side impact regulation that incorporates both the 50th percentile and the 5th percentile test dummy in his country. He added that the United States of America was not in a position to commit to proposing the GTR domestically because it included only a 50th percentile test dummy. In addition, the test procedure and injury criteria in the proposed UN GTR had yet to be demonstrated as at least as effective as the existing American standard. The representative of Canada also abstained from voting and gave a similar statement.

89. The representative of the EU volunteered to review the proposed amendments by the United States of America contained in WP.29-161-07 and to provide a written statement for the next session of GRSP that the EU is committed to discuss and, if possible, to address the issues at stake in the second phase of the programme.

90. The representative of India recognized the contribution of Australia in developing the UN GTR. However, he indicated that some areas of improvement need to be addressed, such as the harmonization of the World Side Impact Dummy (WorldSID) and impact test speeds with adequate tolerances.

91. A statement given by the representative of Australia is reproduced in Annex V to this report.

[Russia noted that its transposition of the regulation will be undertaken once its UN Regulation counterpart has been finalized.]

Annex V

Oral statements by the representative of Australia during the Executive Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Agreement concerning the establishment of the gtr on pole side impact in the Global Registry

A. Pre-Vote

It is my great pleasure to bring forward the draft UN GTR on Pole Side Impact (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/120) for voting by AC.3. This UN GTR represents the culmination of over three years of work by the informal working group, by GRSP, WP.29 and AC.3.

A number of Contracting Parties, organizations and individuals have played large roles in the process of developing the UN GTR and if there is opportunity I will comment on this further after the vote.

This UN GTR is a life-saving and injury reducing legislation, and one of which I hope all members of WP.29 will be proud. It will save lives in both pole side impacts and other side impacts, including vehicle to vehicle crashes. It will reduce serious injuries, in particular brain injuries which are common in both pole side and other side impacts and which have enormous societal impact and high cost.

Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) has estimated that in Australia the UN GTR will save nearly 700 lives over a 30 year period and avert or diminish some 800 severe or serious brain injuries. MUARC estimates suggest the benefit cost ratio is likely to be at least 7:1 for Australia. MUARC final report on the benefits of the UN GTR can now be found at the GRSP Pole Side Impact website.

The incidence of side impacts and costs and benefits will vary from country to country, but overall the UN GTR will save many lives and be highly beneficial.

Two points are worth stressing in conclusion: first, that while the costs of implementation may be higher in some countries, where airbag fitment is low, benefits will be correspondingly higher. Second, benefit cost analysis should take full account of the cost of severe and serious brain injuries, which are much more costly than the average figures generally used for severe and serious brain injuries.

I commend the UN GTR to you.

B. Post-Vote

With the vote now taken, I would like to make some additional comments.

In particular, I would like to provide my thanks, starting with the members of the informal working group: Canada, China, the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA). Germany, the European Commission, the United States of America, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, BMW and OICA all hosted informal working group meetings.

To Canada which cooperated with Australia in a large crash programme, to other countries that undertook crash programmes and to the United States of America for its leadership on development of the WorldSID, I say additional thanks.

Finally, to some key inviduals, and I am sorry for leaving anyone out but there are limits of time: I thank Mr. Ian Yarnold, Dr. Lee and his colleagues from the Republic of Korea and Mr. Onoda for their strong early encouragement; Mr. Richard Damm from Germany, Ms. Suzanne Tylko from Canada, Ms. Mary Versailles and Mr. Steve Ridella from the United States of America, Mr. Hans Ammerlann from the Netherlands, Mr. Peter Broertjes from the EC and our many industry colleagues for their assistance on drafting and technical questions; and Mr. Edoardo Gianotti for all his assistance.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my Australian colleagues: Mr. Mark Terrell and especially Mr. Thomas Belcher, who is here today, for their outstanding work and dedication.

Australia has been transposing the UN GTR into a UN Regulation and will present a draft to GRSP in December 2013.

Thank you.