Proposal to clarify the positioning of lateral protection devices on central axle trailers.

Proposal to clarify the positioning of lateral protection devices on central axle trailers

Proposal to amend geometrical criteria (dimensions and distances between lateral protection devices) and installation provisions for lateral protection barriers in order to improve their performance with regard to vulnerable road users. The proposal would

1. increase the maximum distance between lateral rails from 300 mm to 400 mm
2. redefine the limits for the lower edge from “550 mm above the ground” to definition via an isosceles triangle formed by lines drawn at 8° from the ground contact points of the vehicle tires intersecting at point “I” above the road surface where the maximum limit “I” is between 350-450 mm
3. define the upper edge as from 450 mm rather than 300 mm maximum from the vehicle structure or maximum height of the upper edge above the ground from 950 mm to 850 mm
4. update the horizontal static force requirement for lateral protection devices to 3 kN and the deflection under load criteria to 90 mm over the rearmost 250 mm of the device and 450 mm over the remainder of the device.

Proposal to amend geometrical criteria (dimensions and distances between lateral protection devices) and installation provisions for lateral protection barriers in order to improve their performance with regard to vulnerable road users. The proposal would

1. increase the maximum distance between lateral rails from 300 mm to 400 mm
2. redefine the limits for the lower edge from “550 mm above the ground” to definition via an isosceles triangle formed by lines drawn at 8° from the ground contact points of the vehicle tires intersecting at point “I” above the road surface where the maximum limit “I” is between 350-450 mm
3. define the upper edge as from 450 mm rather than 300 mm maximum from the vehicle structure or maximum height of the upper edge above the ground from 950 mm to 850 mm
4. update the horizontal static force requirement for lateral protection devices to 3 kN and the deflection under load criteria to 90 mm over the rearmost 250 mm of the device and 450 mm over the remainder of the device.

Discussion of the evolution of UN R73 with a proposal to update load requirements for lateral protection devices:

• Application of a force of 3kN perpendicular to the device (as currently defined)
• Max. strain under loading at 90mm over the 250mm most rearwards part
• Max. strain under loading at 450mm on the other parts.

Proposal to update the horizontal static force requirement for lateral protection devices to 3 kN and the deflection under load criteria to 90 mm over the rearmost 250 mm of the device and 450 mm over the remainder of the device. The purpose is to reduce the risk of running over a person (e.g., a motorcycle rider) during a lateral collision.

Proposal to amend geometrical criteria and installation provisions for lateral protection barriers in order to improve their performance with regard to vulnerable road users (e.g., lateral contact with a motorcycle or its rider(s)).

Proposal to expand the scope of the regulation by deleting paragraph 1.2.2. which allows for the exclusion of “vehicles designed and constructed for special purposes where it is not possible, for practical reasons, to fit lateral protection devices” from the text. The proposal allows Type Approval Authorities to nonetheless exempt “vehicles where any LPD (e.g. fixed, removable, foldable, adjustable, etc.) is incompatible with their on-road use” through the addition of new paragraphs.

Proposal to expand the scope of the regulation by deleting paragraph 1.2.2. which allows for the exclusion of “vehicles designed and constructed for special purposes where it is not possible, for practical reasons, to fit lateral protection devices” from the text. The proposal allows Type Approval Authorities to nonetheless exempt “vehicles where any LPD (e.g. fixed, removable, foldable, adjustable, etc.) is incompatible with their on-road use” through the addition of new paragraphs.

Updated proposal, revised for clarity, to amend document GRSG/2016/2 by replacing paragraph 1.2.2. rather than deleting it. Drawing from the recently approved amendment to UN R58 (document GRSG/2015/17), this proposal would amend paragraph 1.2.2. to read, “Vehicles where any LDP (e.g. fixed, removable, foldable, adjustable, etc.) is incompatible with their on-road use may be partly or fully exempted from this Regulation, subject to the decision of the Type Approval Authority.”

Proposal to amend document GRSG/2016/2 by replacing paragraph 1.2.2. rather than deleting it. Drawing from the recently approved amendment to UN R58 (document GRSG/2015/17), this proposal would amend paragraph 1.2.2. to read, “Vehicles where any LDP (e.g. fixed, removable, foldable, adjustable, etc.) is incompatible with their use on [traffic] roads may be partly or fully exempted from this Regulation, subject to the decision of the Type Approval Authority.”

Proposal to expand the scope of the regulation by deleting paragraph 1.2.2. which allows for the exclusion of “vehicles designed and constructed for special purposes where it is not possible, for practical reasons, to fit lateral protection devices” from the text. The UK submits that paragraphs 13 and 16 of the regulation provide specific provisions that address this situation whereas the exclusion clause allows for a broader interpretation that unnecessarily limits the use of lateral protection devices. Moreover, exemptions may still be accorded at the national level.

Correction of the French text only of the 01 series of amendments to UN R73.

Proposal to delete the exclusion of “vehicles designed and constructed for special purposes where it is not possible, for practical reasons, to fit lateral protection devices” from the text. The UK submits that paragraphs 13 and 16 provide specific provisions that address this situation whereas the exclusion clause allows for a broader interpretation that unnecessarily limits the use of lateral protection devices.

UN Regulations Nos. 58 and 73 contain exemptions which can be applied by an approval authority and we are concerned that a vehicle which is correctly approved using such an exemption cannot then be required to have an RUPD or sideguards. The UK seeks the views of GRSG on how the wording of the exemptions may be improved to ensure that as many vehicles as possible are fitted with RUPD and sideguards.