Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the Fields of Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users
TRL
Active Safety
Code
Measure
GSR_ACT_1_ACC
Automatic cruise control
<1
Do not legislate on its own (not cost-beneficial and may be disbenefits in some situations. Consider mandating if AEBS
mandated (much of the hardware cost would be borne by the AEBS)
GSR_ACT_2_AEB
Expansion and enhancement of AEB, BAS and LDW to avoid or
mitigate collisions, inc. inter-urban, city and those with VRU
~1
Greatest casualty benefit for AEBS is for M1 then N1 vehicles, although cost-benefit less clear than for N2/N3. System cost
estimates suggest 'city safety' systems may be getting to the breakeven cost point
GSR_ACT_3_ISA
Speed limiters controlled by road speed limit (speed assist,
intelligent speed adaptation)
>1
BCR>1 for 6 European countries, for voluntary activation (switched on/off by the driver) and mandatory activation, and
public acceptability of the systems considered to be growing. BCR higher for mandatory activation system, but both have
positive BCR
GSR_ACT_4_LDW
Lane departure warning system
<1 to >1
Insurance data suggests LDW not as effective as originally predicted, so BCR currently uncertain, although systems may
not have been switched on
GSR_ACT_5_LCA
Lane change assist (incorporating blind spot detection systems)
<1
Benefits may be more robust than for LDW, but system costs (based on retail price) currently too high for BCR>1
GSR_ACT_6_LKA
Lane keeping system
>1
Costs higher than LDW and similar to LCA, but benefits higher because higher expected effectiveness than LDW/LCA
GSR_ACT_7_PCD
Pedestrian/cyclists detection systems
<1
No BCR studies identified and breakeven costs exceed current system costs. If other systems that share hardware with
PCD systems are mandated and reliable system cost estimates can identified, this measure should be re-evaluated
GSR_ACT_8_TSR
Traffic sign recognition
GSR_ACT_9_NVIS
Night vision systems to detect obstacles and persons in unclear
ambient lighting conditions
<1
Issues with distraction with always-on systems; warning systems may be helpful, but the BCR is not yet clear
GSR_ACT_10_REV
Reversing detection and reversing camera systems to prevent
accidents involving children behind reversing cars
>1
BCR>1 when including damage-only accident mitigation and regulatory requirements are being introduced in the US, so
the technology is likely to become commonplace and costs are likely to reduce further
GSR_ACT_11_SURC
Surround camera systems, aiding the driver at visually obstructed
intersections
?
BCR not sufficiently well defined; better information needed on target population, system effectiveness and system costs
GSR_ACT_12_VIS
Better field of vision in the close surroundings of the vehicle (e.g.
Japanese requirements)
?
Benefits similar to reversing cameras, but likely to involve high design cost that could affect safety in other ways and may
not be as effective at preventing accidents compared with alerting systems or well-positioned cameras
GSR_ACT_13_AFL
Fully automatic lighting and advanced adaptive front lighting
combined
?
US insurance data indicates high intensity lights and dynamic beam patterns reduce collisions and injuries, and that
automatic high-beam assist reduces damage claims but greatly increases injury claims (suggesting that collisions are
reduced, but those that occur are more severe). May want to consider legislating against high-beam assist
GSR_ACT_14_SML
Side marker lamps on passenger cars and vans to improve
conspicuity
>1?
Insufficient accident data to determine benefit and effectiveness, but implementation costs likely to be low. Specific study
required.
GSR_ACT_15_EBD
Standard fitment of the emergency brake light display (i.e. rapidly
blinking brake lamps) in case of hard braking
>1
No formal BCR for EBD were identified, but costs likely to be very low and collision and injury benefits expected - therefore
BCR may be >1
GSR_ACT_16_TMP
Temperature sensors warning for unexpected icy road conditions
?
No BCR information identified, but external temperature warning displays are already almost universally fitted.
Requirements to standardise visual and audible warnings may be worth considering
GSR_ACT_17_ICS
Integrated cleaning system (water comes from the wipers)
?
Scale of benefits and costs are unknown, but benefits considered to be very low so BCR likely to be <1
Summary for Stakeholder Meetings 27 and 28 October, 2014
Feasible?
BCR
?
Legislate? Recommendations
No appropriate test procedures available from which to set legislative performance requirements and cost-benefit not clear.
Recommend encouraging through other means
1
Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the Fields of Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users
TRL
Crashworthiness, HGVs and Fuels
Code
Measure
GSR_CWT_1_FSO
Crashworthiness in small-overlap frontal crashes
GSR_CWT_2_FCO
Compatibility with crash partners (incorporating HGV rear underrun)
GSR_CWT_3_VEL
Feasible?
BCR
1?
Legislate? Recommendations
Maximum benefit likely from NHTSA-style low overlap, for which there is less info available on likely EU benefits and
particularly costs. Further work may be required
<1 / >1
Insufficient benefit from compatibility testing for M1; consideration could be given to a voluntary agreement for height of
energy absorbing structures in a similar way as in the US. For HGV, improved rear under-run guard likely to have BCR>1
Increased crash speeds
?
Higher speed test unlikely to change vehicle design, because vehicles already meet Euro NCAP; may affect some vehicles
where the worst case model (tested in UN Regulations) is significantly different (e.g. much larger engine) than the most
popular model (that is tested in Euro NCAP)
GSR_CWT_4_FFW
Crashworthiness in full-overlap frontal crashes to better assess
occupant restraint systems
1
Current proposal unlikely to lead to improved restraint systems, so minimal cost and minimal benefit. Further work likely
required in order to define requirements that would ensure improved restraint systems for a wider range of occupants in a
wider range of collision severities
GSR_CWT_5_ROL
Roof strength testing to protect occupants in case of roll-over
accidents
?
Unlikely to be sufficient cost-benefit, since many vehicles are already likely to meet US requirements
GSR_CWT_6_SUB
Requirements to ensure that occupants are always capable of
escaping a vehicle in water
GSR_HGV_1_LAT
Lateral protection of trailers/trucks (removal of some exemptions)
GSR_HGV_2_DIM
Safer HGV front end design (enabled by changes to the weights
and dimensions legislation)
GSR_FUE_1_AFE
Comprehensive testing of fuel systems to avoid fires; possible
inclusion of automatic fire extinguishers (LCV and HCV)
?
Required by insurers for buses in some countries and has been effective; further work would be required on costs and
benefits before legislation could be considered
GSR_FUE_2_CNG
Specific enhanced requirement for CNG vehicles in case of fire (as
proposed by the Dutch delegation in GRSG of UNECE)
?
Recommend updates to reg in line with hydrogen vehicle requirements and application of reg to class I vehicles with CNG
propulsion; requirements for emergency responder access to the engine compartment may also be considered. Costbenefit for automatic fire extinguishers not clear; these have been encouraged as after-market equipment in some markets
GSR_FUE_3_RFT
Rear impact protection of the tank (e.g. US, Canadian and
Japanese requirements)
?
Insufficient coat and benefit information identified
Summary for Stakeholder Meetings 27 and 28 October, 2014
?
<1
<1 to 1
>1
?
Unlikely to be cost-beneficial
Cost benefit likely to be less than 1 for vehicles that genuinely need either an exemption (or adjustable side guards);
however, the classification of these vehicles should be improved, which will reduce the number of vehicles receiving an
exemption
Breakeven cost per vehicle €1,448–€4,889, so likely to be cost beneficial. Further work required to define suitable
requirements, which will affect costs, so final BCR should be updated
2
Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the Fields of Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users
TRL
Car Occupants and Pedestrians
Code
Measure
GSR_OCP_1_SEN
Improved protection of seniors and small stature occupants
through the adoption of advanced anthropometric test devices
GSR_OCP_2_SFS
Protection of far-side occupants in side impact collisions
>1
Likely to be cost-beneficial (spans 1, and cost estimate considered to be high) and already in production vehicles. Work
would be required to define suitable test and assessment procedures
GSR_OCP_3_FWA
Full-size window airbags for side impact protection of occupants of
all sizes and to prevent ejection
<1
Costs likely to exceed benefits, but cost information not very reliable. Costs would also have to be re-evaluated if a small
overlap test procedures was introduced because this may encourage improved side airbags for front seat occupants.
Legislation could also be considered on the basis of providing equality of protection for all occupants, including rear seat
occupants
GSR_OCP_4_PRE
Pre-crash seat-belt tensioners and occupant position adjustments
in case of an inevitable impact
?
GSR_OCP_5_SBR
Seat-belt reminder systems in front and rear passenger seating
positions
GSR_OCP_6_BLE
Pedestrian upper leg and pelvis to bonnet leading edge
GSR_OCP_7_HED
Adult head to windscreen protection
GSR_OCP_8_REG
Influence of front registration plates (not present in type-approval
testing) on pedestrian protection
?
0
No evidence of an injury risk identified and therefore no benefit predicted, while costs would be incurred
GSR_OCP_9_3RD
Influence on safety of third-party (non-OEM) replacement parts
on pedestrian protection
?
?
No cost or benefit information identified
GSR_OCP_10_RRR
Rear row occupants in rear impacts
?
?
No information on feasibility, costs or benefits was identified. However, some evidence that rear-row occupants have twice
the fatality risk of front row occupants in a rear impact. Legislation could be considered on an equality of protection basis,
but considerable further work would be required to demonstrate feasibility and cost-benefit
GSR_OCP_11_ISO
Strength of ISOFIX connectors installed in vehicles to provide
appropriate protection of heavier children
?
No evidence of real-world injuries due to failure of ISOFIX connectors was identified; however CRS designs are changing
and there is strong evidence that CRS load the anchorages to as much as 13 kN dynamically, compared to a static
requirement in Reg.14 of 8 kN, and that loads may increase with some R.129 designs. Further work recommended to
develop requirements and BCR
GSR_OCP_12_HOT
Raising alarm if small children are detected being abandoned in
hot cars
?
Not possible to predict reliably the cost:benefit ratio due to lack of EU-wide data on accidents and costs of systems, but
likely BCR<1. There is evidence that the performance of current systems is unreliable, which affects feasibility, and a
number of manufacturers and developers have withdrawn potential systems due to liability concerns
Summary for Stakeholder Meetings 27 and 28 October, 2014
Feasible?
BCR
?
?
Legislate? Recommendations
No BCR due to lack of cost information. However, at least two different test severities would be required before significant
benefit would be expected to accrue in the current (R94) and full-width test conditions. An advanced ATD would be
necessary for small overlap (see GSR_CWT
Feasible technology (already on production vehicles), but not obvious how to encourage fitment and cost:benefit unknown.
May be better encouraged through rewards in consumer information testing
>1
Legislate for M1 front seats, M2, M3, N2, N3. Could consider legislation for M1 second and other row seats on basis of
safety equality
<1
Small numbers of pelvis and upper leg injuries caused by modern cars. Potential benefit for head, thorax and abdomen
protection for children not quantified and should be reviewed. Otherwise, BCR likely to be <1
<1 to 1
BCR from 0.25 to 1, depending on real-world effectiveness of measures. There are indications that performance of the
central area of the windscreen can be controlled better at negligable cost and this should be investigated further
3
Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the Fields of Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users
TRL
Driver Interface, Distraction and ITS
Code
Measure
Feasible?
BCR
GSR_DID_1_SVC
Legislate? Recommendations
Standardisation of uniform vehicle controls
?
?
Considered likely to have an effect on distraction, but no evidence for accidents being caused by variation in vehicle
controls was identified, so not possible to estimate the target population or benefit
GSR_DID_2_IOV
Improving the intuitive operation of vehicles
?
?
Considered likely to have an effect on distraction, but no evidence for accidents being caused by variation in vehicle
controls was identified, so not possible to estimate the target population or benefit
GSR_DID_3_INF
Driver interface provisions and restrictions for on-board
infotainment systems;
?
1
Currently handled by voluntary agreements and standards, which allows innovation but also non-standardised, nonintuitive controls that do not necessarily comply with the standards. Suggest development of tests to quantify compliance
with the guidelines and continuous monitoring of effect on collision rates as systems become more commonplace
GSR_DID_4_DIS
Reducing driver distractions
?
1
BCR likely close to 1, but it is currently not clear how to legislate effectively to reduce distractions within the Type Approval
system. Various standards committees are active in this topic and the situation should be monitored
GSR_DID_5_DDR
Driver distraction and drowsiness recognition
?
>1
GSR_DID_6_RVC
Cameras to replace all the rear view mirrors
?
No BCR studies identified and main benefit would be reduced fuel consumption. Legislation could be considered that would
permit, rather than require, cameras to replace wing mirrors, provided that adequate standards for system (camera and
screen) can be defined to ensure image quality at least equivalent to conventional mirrors in all lighting and weather
conditions
GSR_DID_7_ALC
Alcohol interlock devices to prevent drink driving
?
Legislate to ensure that it remains possible to connect an alcohol interlock to the vehicle in the future (not for fitment of
the interlock), i.e. via a standard interface
GSR_DID_8_MOB
Interlock to prevent the use of non ‘hands free’ mobile telephone
systems while driving
?
Technology exists to apply this voluntarily, e.g. for commercial fleets, where use of the technology can be a condition of
employment; however, it is not clear how this could be implemented within Type Approval. If distraction and drowsiness
recognition implemented, specific requirements for mobile phones may become less important
GSR_DID_9_EDR
EDR acting as a possible psychological stimulant to safe driving
(from DG MOVE study)
GSR_ITS_1_C2C
BCR likely >1 for private cars and commercial vehicles, due to the large number of collisions involving distraction as a
causative factor. However, further work required to determine how to define and test effectiveness of
distraction/drowsiness monitoring systems needs further work and to define what action the system should take if
inattention detected
>1
Real benefits identified, although difficult to monetise. However, most new European vehicles have EDR functionality
(althoughcurrently not accessible in most), so most of the cost has already been spent. Recommend legislating to
standardise specification for EDR and standardising technical protocols for access to the information (the latter most likely
harmonised with US Part 563)
Car-to-car communication
?
US considering mandating in-vehicle systems so that cars can take advantage of developing car-to-car communication
service but not mandating the services themselves. Systems and test procedures not sufficiently mature for type approval
GSR_ITS_2_C2I
Car-to-infrastructure communication
?
US considering mandating in-vehicle systems so that cars can take advantage of developing car-to-car communication
service but not mandating the services themselves. Systems and test procedures not sufficiently mature for type approval
GSR_ITS_3_NAV
Standard accident avoidance functions in navigation systems;
appropriateness of route data for vehicle type/dimensions
?
There is a commercial market that appears to be working and it seems unlikely that market intervention would be
warranted
NB:
BCR are estimates and new information could update these at any time
BCR will change as cost comes down (better development of the technology and increasing production volume) and effectiveness goes up (better development of the technology)
Work likely required to develop suitable legislative test procedures
Recommendations based on feasibility and BCR at this time and should be revisited as technology, costs and understanding of effectiveness develop
Summary for Stakeholder Meetings 27 and 28 October, 2014
4