General Safety Regulation: accident analysis assesses effectiveness of proposed safety measures

Accident AnalysisPrepared by TRL, CEESAR, ACEA September 2018 PREAMBLE2•Despite a three-fold increase in traffic, road safety in Europe has improved significantly in the last 30 years•Maintaining this trend is equally important to society, authorities and the automobile industry•In order to identify and implement appropriate vehicle safety systems for future application, in-depth accident research needs to be conducted to enable informed decision making•To that end, a detailed analysis of road accident statistics was carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) and Centre Européend’Etudesde Sécuritéet d’Analysedes Risques(CEESAR) PREAMBLE3•This document presents the results of the TRL/CEESAR accident analysis, and was prepared jointly by TRL, CEESAR and the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA)•From ACEA’s side, the Task Force Accidentology(bringing together safety experts from the 15 major EU automobile manufacturers) provided input•In some rare cases, this analysis only provides data by TRL (United Kingdom) or CEESAR (France) for the simple reason that data for the other country was not available•In those cases, this study presents the available data METHODOLOGY4•Thisaccident analysis follows the methodology described below•Detailed evaluation of eight measures:1.VIS: Improved front end design for direct and indirect driver VISion2.ISA: Intelligent Speed Adaptation 3.FSO: Frontal impact Small Overlap crash test4.SFS: Side impact Far Side occupant crash test 5.F94: Front impact crash test (removal of exemptions from regulation 94) 6.S95: Side impact crash test (removal of exemptions from R95)7.HED: Adult HEaDto windscreen area 8.REV: REVersing detection METHODOLOGY5•Phase 1 of the analysis defines the casualty target populations for each measurein terms of the killed, serious, and slightly-injured casualties•Phase 2 of the accident analysispresents the effectiveness estimatesreferring to the eightmeasures which have been assessed•Using this methodology, the results presented in this accident analysis provide clear guidance about the strengths, weaknesses and effectiveness of the assessed safety measures in terms of how much they can further improve road safety Adult head to windscreen (HED) for M1 vehicles •SummaryoTarget populations, with reference to all KSI: AEB and ISA▪All fatally and seriously injured Pedestrians and cyclists in M1 frontal collisions:▪VOIESUR (2011): 10,2% , STATs19 (2012-2015): 15,0%, GIDAS (2000-2016): 15,4% oTarget population, with reference to all KSI: PPA▪KSI Pedestrians & Cyclists w. AIS2+ Head Injury and contact to Windscreen area ▪VOIESUR (2011): 1,0%, STATs19 (2012-2015): 3,7%, GIDAS (2000-2016): 1,3%oPotential benefits expected: AEB, ISA & PPA→AEB addresses a larger Target Population than the PPA•Comments on the PPA evaluationoApplied injury risk functions (Autoliv, 2015*) might lead to an overestimation of the PPA effectiveness oInjuries to VRU, that cannot be addressed with PPA, are still included in the target population:▪AIS2+ head injuries caused by ground impact▪AIS2+ Injuries of body regions other than head region (e.g. AIS2+ leg injury)M1M2M3N1N2N3O3O4HED–ADULTHEAD TO WINDSCREEN(M1) MeasurementEffectivenessfor KSI PED/CYC vs. M1 FrontOverall Effectiveness for all KSIVOIESURSTATS19GIDASVOIESURSTATS19GIDASAEB-30,3%-55,9%-50,1%-3,1%-8,4%-7,7%ISA*-0,7%-1,4%n/a-0,1%-0,2%n/aPPA**-0,7%-0,4%-1,0%-0,1%-0,1%-0,1%*additional effectiveness with AEB**additional effectiveness with AEB+ISA*Fredriksson, R. Potential Head Injury Reducing Benefit of Combining Passive and Active Pedestrian Protection Systems. Proceedings of SAEGIM 2015, 2015. WashingtonKSI-KilledandseverelyinjuredPED-PedestrianCYC-CyclistsAEB-AutonomousEmergencyBrakingISA-IntelligentSpeedAdaptionPPA-PedestrianProtectionAirbagAIS-AbbreviatedInjuryScale •DescriptionoWithin this analysis, the effectiveness of measures addressing injuries to the head caused by contact at the Windscreen area from M1 vehicles is analyzed. The windscreen can be differentiated between frame (scuttle, A-pillar, header) and central window area. Due to other technical requirements for the central windscreen area, no effectiveness of passive measures can be assumed for this analysis. Therefore, the analysis focuses on measures addressing the frame areas. As base for the analysis, the state-of-the-art countermeasure “pedestrian protection airbag” (PPA) is evaluated (see figure below).HED–ADULTHEAD TO WINDSCREEN(M1) 8M1M2M3N1N2N3O3O4Source: http://www.moditech.com/de/pedestrian-protection-airbag •Target Populations for AEB and for PPAHED–ADULTHEAD TO WINDSCREEN(M1) M1M2M3N1N2N3O3O4The analysis does not consider slightly injured pedestrians and cyclists as the PPA does not address slight injuries. Despite this fact, other measures, like the AEB, can potentially reduce this share as well.TP PPA = KSI PED & CYC w. AIS2+ Head Injury and contact to WS in frontal collisions with M1 vehiclesTP-TargetPopulationKSI-Kill