In thIs lest collision, lhe /ruCk bumper mtrudes dangerously close to the passenRercabm

Front End, Energy-Absorbing Tmck GuardsReduce the Risks for Motorists

Head-on colllsions between trucks andcars are deadly encounters for auto occu­pants. Researchers report that nearly two­thirds of the German car passengers killedin truck crashes were the victims of suchimpacts.

To help prevent such deaths, reosearchers at the Technical University ofBerlin developed a new fronl crash protec·tion system for trucks that. its researcherssay, could greatly reduce occupant deathand injury if adopted by vehicle manufac­turers.

Data from a previous study showedthat the average speed for real-world,head-on fatal crashes between cars andtrucks In Germany is about 47 to 56 mph.

Crash tests demonstrate that auto passen­ger compartment deformation in impactswith heavy trucks can occur at speeds 0137 mph due to the stiffness and height oftruck front ends. The researchers goal wasto develop a design that can prevent pas­senger compartment deformation and in­trusion at those speeds.

The researchers developed a designincorporating a front~d soft plastic exte­rior face to absorb minor collisions with­out damage, with a metal honeycombmounted behind to a support frame. In amore severe crash, the honeycomb ab­sorbs some 01 the crash force. The sup­port frame prevents the car from slidingbeneath the trucks front end and trans-

SAFElY RFSEARCHThis special issue of Status Report fo­

cuses on research findings presented atthe Twelfth International Technical Con­ference on Experimental Safety Vehicles inGoleborg, Sweden earlier this year.

The conference is made possiblethrough bilateral agreements betweenFrance, the Federal Republic of Germany,~aIy, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom,and the United States. Agencies of thesegovernments, the automotive industry,and YeIlicIe safety research organizationsmeet periodically to share statO<ll~hNrt

saJety technology. The conlerence reflectsthe international concern over trafficdeaths and injuries around the world.

The complete proceedings 01 the con­ference will be published by the NationalHighway TraffiC Safety Administration(NHTSA) and should be available earlynext year. Copies may be obtained bysending a self-addressed mailing label to:Linda O'Connor, Technical CoordInator,NtIDllt, NIfTSA Office of ResealCh and IJe.velopment, 400 Seventh St SW, WashlOtton, D.C, 20590.

fers the crash energy to the chassis of thetruck.

In 70 kph, or 44 mph overlappingfrontal impacts, the researchers report theguard spreads the crash force over abroad area of the car, which greatly re­duces the intrusion into the passengercompartment. In a comparison test wIlh-

(Conl'd on Page J)

2-IIHS Status Report, ~ol. 24. No 8. August 26, /989

Front/Front 260 15.6 49 38.0

Front/Side ~ 325 19.4 37 28.7

Front/Rear Olll:M 291 17.4 2 1.5

RearlFront a leG 263 15.8 22 17.1

Side/Front im 343 20.5 10 7.7

Other Types 189 11.3 9 7.0

Study Shows Heaviest Trocks Pose Most Danger for MotoristsAnew West Cerman study reveals that

head-on crashes with automobiles ac­count lor nearly 40 percenl of occupanl fa­talities in truck related crashes.

Researchers lor HUK-Verband, an asso­ciation of insurers, report that per one bil­lion kilomelers, or 621.5 million miles, oftravel. trucks are involved in 31 crasheswith fatalities in the Federal Republic of~nnany. compare<! with 18 for automo­biles,

The heaviesltrucks represent a partic­ular hazard for motorists: Trucks .....eighingbet.....een 12 and 16 tons make up only 9percent of all registered trucks but ac­count for 27 Pf'rcent of crashes ..... ith fataH­tie!l. In West Germany. one-half of alliruck­related. fatal crashes involve passengercars.

In cooperation with German authori­ties, HUK-Verband researchers conducteda study of injury crashes involving trucksin Bavaria during 1984. The researcherslimited the study to crashes involvingtrucks over 3.5 tons that were manufac­tured after 1976. This produced 2,269crashes lor study.

Of those 58 percent involved automo­biles. Atolal of 1.671 automobile occu­pants were injured and 129 died of in­juries. The largest segment, 21 percent. in­volved cars hitting the sides of trucks.The second largest group. 17 percent,involved trucks striking automobile rearends.

Allhough not the largest category,head-on crashes between cars and lrucks

emerged as the most lethal, accounting for38 percent 01 all deaths.

The researchers also found that the in­jury crashes involved mostly trucksweighing between 12 and 16 Ions. Becauseof the mass of Ihe trucks and their highbumpers, which tend to override automo­biles, severe to latal injuries occurred incrashes with speeds as low as 19 mph,and crashes at 34 mph often caused ~a

massive intrusion of the car's interior,which could be fatal 10 front seat occu­pants_

"The absence of a front protection sys­tem was also a disadvantage for thetruck: the researchers report. All testswithout a Iront protection system were

llHS Status Report, \1)/. 74. /\0 8. Augus/16. 1~3

Fmnta n:.tm l1/HJrd ubsoro5 :rush forc:1? and reduces dul1lCJfl1P to the lrod Ir,elf

Fronl~nd prolff/ion sy~tem rides low enough 10keep car from sliding under the truck In u cm.~h.

~'\odifying trucks to incorporate frontalcrash guards will, the researchers say. al­so reduce noise and improve fuel econo­my through more aerodynamic styling.

'Truck Front-End Protection Systems,89-1B-O"()04, was written by S. Crullert,Hermann Appel, and K. Langwieder.

NHfSA ReviewsADecade OfCrash Test Results

The 300 odd cars slammed into wallsat 35 mph in thf \alional Highway TrafficSafety Administration s ~IfI'SA) ~ew CarAssessment Program (NCAP) have notbeen demolished in vain, NHTSA reosearchers report considerable improve­ment in vehicle test scores since the "Iem·porary consumer information test seriesbegan in 1979.

After 10 years of testing in NCAP. sig­nificant trends toward improvE'<! dummyresponses can be noted for the passen~r

car neet say NHTSA researchers.Overall. consumers are driving safer

cars. Comparison 01 the performance ofthe tested 1981 passenger car fleet to thetested 1988 passenger car fleet shows asignificant improvement in potential safe­ty performance for restrained occupantsin high speed frontal crashes, say the re­searchers.

The tests. which use instrumenteddummies in the driver and front passen­ger seats. are designed to proVide mea­sures of relative performance in real-worldcrashes ....ithin classes and sizes of vehi­cles. The dummies' instrumentation givesreadings for head injury based on thehead injury crHerion (HIC), chest injurybased 011 chest accelerations (Chest Gs),and leg injury based on femur load. (For areview of the NCAP program see StatusReportVo[ 21, No.4.)

The researchers concluded lhat aver­age Hie and Chest Gvalues decreased by

'Contdon Page 4j

••

•,••

Truck Guards ReduceRisks for Motorists

rCont d from Page Iout the crash guard attached. the truckoverran the automobile. drh·ing the car en­gine back into the fire .....a1L and damagingthe passenger compartment.

The frontal crash guard also reduceddamage to the truck. preventing deforma­tion of the steering axle and loss of control.

•

characterized by a strong defonnation ofthe kinetics of the truck s front wheel axle.The impact against the tire shifted theaxle. the spring assemblies were also dam­aged. as was the steering assembly.... thehigh risk in secondary collisions throughthe Joss of controlled steer[ing] was thusconfirmed."

The researchers note that to preventoverride. a truck frontal crash guard de­Sign must have a 12;och ground clearanceso that the automobiles deformationstructure can engage in a crash. In addi­tion a lront crash guard should be de­formable so that it too can absorb some ofthe energy in acrash.

In tests of an air bag equipped Mer­cedes, instrumented dummy measure­ments confirmed that the addition of alower guard enhanced the effectiveness ofIh£' air bag.

The researchers estimate that improv­mg frontal crash protection would lo.....erhead-on collision injuries by 10 to 211 per·U'llt,

Passive Safely \{easures for Trucks.Eifettiveness and Priorities, 89-11J.O.OO9,.... as written b} \1 Danner. K. Langv.ieder,H. Appel. and \ Middelhau\'e.

4-1I1ISStatu' Report. IVI 24. So 8, AugaS/26. /989

NHTSA ReviewsADecade OfCrash Test Results

(C""fd from Page 3)10 to 2Q percent over the decade. Passen­ger vehicles thai were in Ihe .....orst perfor­mance group (i.e.. Hie greater than 1250and,or Chest Ggreater than 70) droppedIrorn 5110 25 percent of the weighted fleetaverage for the period.

To examine automobile manufacturerresponse 10 Ihe test data, Ihe researcherscompared a weighted average of the 1981and 19M scores: Test scores for the 19MU.S. passenger car fleet were significantly10... er.

The researchers found that as a group.heaVier vehicles performed better thanlighter vehicles. but when the data were;liE" ~hled by vehicle registrations. the per­formance differences "";ere reduced. 1'hisindicates Ihat especially In the smallweight class that the poorer pt'rformingYeh des have the lower sales volume.the} say. They also noted that many of thepoorer performing small cars tested in therarly years are gradually being eliminatedfrom the fleet.

A much larger percentage of lighttrucks and vans (56 percent unweightedand 45 percent weighted) were in thepoorer performance group than were pas·senger cars /38 percenl and 25 percent, re­spectively). These data indicate thefronlal crash test performant:e is not asgood for light trucks and \-4rlS as for pas­sengtr cars. say the researchers. Howev­er. it IS possible to produce reasonablyp:Kt performers in all light truck and vancategones. E1t'\-en 0143 of the Iightlrucksand vans tested were good enough tomeet the injury criteria 01 Standard 208 inthe NCAP test conditions.

\t.'ry fe..... of the dummies in the driverlocations were restrained suflicicnl1y toavoid contact with some portion of thesteering assembly-31 percent experi-

enced head contact with the steering as­sembly severe enough to place the vehi­cles in the lower performance group. Thelight trucks and vans showed an evenhigher probability of severe head to steer­ing assembly contacts with 46 percentranking in the poorer performance group.

The 33 late model passenger cars withthe better performance levels were evenlydistributed among the small. compact,and intermediate weight classes, and hada variety of restraint systems. The re­searchers condude, 'The performance ofthese vehicles strongly indicates the capa­bility and the increasing trend of the man­ufacturers to incorporate design parame­lers in their vehicles which produce lowdummy responses in the 35 mph NCAPtests.

Analvsis of Frontal Crash Safety Per­IQrTll<d1ce of Passenger Cars. Light Trucksand Vans and an Outline lor Future Re­search Requirements.. 89·2A.().O()1. waswrillen by James R. Hackney. William THollow~ and DanielS Cohen,

Eurobag: An Air BagPossibility ForThe Aftermarket

Volvo researchers have developed andtested a new driver side air bag called the''Eurobag, which is designed to reducethe head and facial injuries that occur de­spite belt usage, especially in high speedIrontal crashes.

The new. smaller air bag. which is con­tained entirely within the steering wheel.has an inflator that is 15 percent smallerin diameter and 20 percent lower in heightthan in conventional air bags. The smallercomponents alia.... the eledronic sensorand diagnostic components to be fitted in­to the steering wheel. Thus. the re­searchers say, the system could be in­stalled as an aftermarket item,

'The final prototypes were verified in alarge number of sled tests and lull·scalecollision tests. The system fulfilled all cri-

teria Furthermore, a number 01 differentrough-road tests were performed. andthese proved positive. i.e., tile sensor didnot trigger, say the researchers. In 30, 35.and 40 mph crash tests. the Eurobag re­duced head injUry criterion (HIC) scoresby 24 to 29 percenl Facial pressure wasreduced by an a\'erage 01 SO percent.

The Volvo researchers conclude that asmall bag optimized for belted drivers isan excellent complement to the seat belt.

"The Development of an AdvancedAirbag Concept," 8g.2A.(}.()()9, was writtenby Lennart Johansson, Jan Billig. HugoMellander, Bernd Werner. and Peter Hora.

Doctors TreatingMore Minor FacialInjuries in Crashes

Some recent studies of crashes involv­ing belted drivers indicate that althoughfatalities and serious injuries are greatlyreduced by wearing seat belts. as belt usebecomes more common. physicians aretreating more minor facial injuries.

An evaluation of injury cases compiledin the National Accident Sampling System(NASS), between 1980 and 1983 ,bowedthat 61 percent of unrestrained driverssustained head, face. and neck injuries.Among belled drivers. however. 87 per·cent had such injuries. Similar resultshave been found in Germany and the Unit­ed Kingdom.

During the last three years. the Nation·al Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) has conducted research to as·sess the extent of these injuries.

In a study of data from the 1981-85NASS files researchers Da\ id 5. Zuby ofthe Transportation Research Center, Inc.,and Roger A. Saul. from ~HTSA's VehicleResearch and Test Center. analyzed crashdata to learn more about the nature of theinjuries and their causes, From NASS theresearchers culled 170 reports involVingrestrained drivers in frontal crashes with

IIHS StoWs Repon, Vol 24, No.8, AuguSl26, 1989-5

Review of Fatal Crashes ConfirmsAir Bags Can Reduce Occupant Deaths

head or facial injuries caused by striking asleering wheel

Speed was correlated with the severityof the injury. Although 50 percent of allsteering whet'l facial injuries occur incrashes at less than 15 mph. 60 percent ofthe more severe injuries occur at highersJX"eds. Of Ihe 170 cases, injuries to theupper and lower jaw accounted lor be­tWeE'll 411 and 50 percenl of a1llhe facialtrauma. Another 21 percent occurred intnt> nasal region.

Thlrt)'·four percent of the facial in­Juries Imolved bruises. 20 percent in­\0 ved fr~ tures. 35 percenl cuts. i per-

Astudy ul car occupant fatalities inBntain indicates that air bags and devicesthat automatically tighten seat belts couldsignilicantl)' reduce fatahtil's among bothbelted and unbelled Iront seat occupants.

Adding underride guards to the front.sides. and rear 01 large trucks would alsosi~nificantly reduce the deaths of beltedfront seat occupants, say the British re­searchers whose work was supported bythe Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

In January 1983 Britain's seat belt uselaw took effect. One of the world's mostsuccessful belt use statutes, surveysshol'led that in the tWI) years follOWing thelaw's implementation. belt use amongfront seat occupants was about 95 per­cenl. Automobile occupant fatalities de­dinpd by 23 pl.'rcent in the first 12 monthsulthe law and by 17 percent in the secondyear.

The n-searchj'rs evaluated crashes in­\"Ol\ing 176 car occupants killed in frontal

Us ons during the lirst t\\,o years fol­o\l,:ing implementation of the law to ascer­tam ,.hat further steps might be taken toreducE' fatallnjurics in frontal crashes.

lsing data derived from police and

cent scrapes, and I percent torn tissue.More than 90 percent ollhe injuries wererated as minor.

Although 20 percent of the injurieswere recorded as fractures, they common­ly involved missing or broken teeth ornasal region fractures, which are usuallyconsidered minor. '1ore severe injuries in­volved fractured jaws and the bone struc­ture around the eye.

Restrained Drivers' Facial Skeleton In­juries Resulting from Steering AssemblyContact AConspectus. 894A.Q.OO3. waswritten by David S. luby. Roger A. Saul.

pathology reports, the researchers ascer­tained that 116 of the fatally injured occu­pants were drivers. 39 were front seat pas­sengers, and 21 were rear seat p.lsspngprs,Of the drivers, 82 percent were using beltsand 76 percent of the front seat passen­gers were belted. None of the 21 rear pas­sengers were belted.

The crashes most frequently involvedcollisions with other cars, heavy trucks.and fixed objects. Thirty of the 47 crashesinvolving trucks were head-on. In 24 per·cellt 01 all the frontal collisions. "there wassignificant underrun of the struck vehi­cle. '. the researchers report,

The researchers found belted driverswho died were more likely to sustain beadand neck injuries than belled passengers.Among the fatally injured belted front seatpassengers. they report 45 percent suf·fered some head injury compared with 74percent of the drivers.

About one-half 01 the latally injuredbe ted drivers had severe or critical chestinjuries. The steering system. followed byseat belt webbing. played a prominentrole in these injuries and direct contactwith the striking vehicle was responsiblefor 11 of the more severe chest injuries.

they concluded. Twenty-six of the belteddrivers experienced severe to fatal ab­dominal injuries. Of this group, tWl>-thirdswere injured by sources within the car.most oflen the steering wheel. followed byU1e seal bell.

An analysis of possible countermea­sures revealed that 69 percent of the occu­panl deaths could have been preventedby application of existing technologies.the researchers say. Of the deaths consid­ered preventable. i7 percent could havebeen avoided by application of a singlecountermeasure.

While seat belts work well in lowerspeed crashes. at higher speeds Ihey per­mit drivers to contact the steering wheelas the)' ride dO.....l1 the crash. For the belt­ed passenger, virtually all of the crashforces are concentrated on the belt web­bing which can cause injuries. For thedriver and especially the passenger. theaddition of a pretensioning de\'ice to takeup belt slack. coupled with an air bag tohelp spread and absorb the crash forces.will greatly improve the chances 01 sur­vival without serious injury.

'llie air bag is by lar the most neededcountermeasure, not only in terms of sup­plementing protection provided by seatbelts in severe frontal crashes (along witha belt pretensioner) but also for savingthe lives of unbelted front seat occupants,who comprised 20 percent 01 the frontseat occupants killed. the researcherspoint oul.

Britain should "encourage the installa­tion and use 01 rear seat bells ... not onlyto reduce the deaths 01 these occupantsbut also to lurther reduce deaths amongfront seat occupants that resulllrom addi­tional loading on them by unbelted rearseat passengers in Irontal crashes.

Characteristics of Fatal Frontal Im­pacts and Future Countermeasures inGreat Britain. 89-28-00-13 was wrillen byPeler F. Gloyns. Stephen J. Rattenbury.and Ian S. Jones,

6-1f1/S SlalUs R,pan, IbI 24, Na 8, August 26, /989

New Child RestraintProtects Child FromBirth to Age of 10

Agroup of automotive engineers havefound an effective way to build restraintsthai protect children ranging from infancyto the age of 10.

In a study undertaken for EleclroluxKlippan, a producer of seal belts and airbags, and the Gothenburg and Folksam In­surance Company of Stockholm, re­searchers at Chalmers University of Tech­nolog}' developed an adult passenger seatthat converts inlo a fully integrated childrestraint system that will meet Europeansafety standards.

The child restraint system .....ould alsoefftx:livel)' eliminate problems related toIncorrect installation. The padded seal isfolded mto the seal back cushion 01 thepassen~'tr seal. Folded down it becomes abooster seal thai elevates an older child.....ho can properly use the adult lap andshoulder belt.

To convert the restraint system into aseat for an infant. the rearward facing seat

Front PC/$SI!Irgt'r seat In adult poSitIon

Boosler seat is unfolded from the seal back.

ReafUXlrd fuc1fl!l WaJ partlal~· unfolded from thebooster:

ThrPt-pOlnt adult belt together /LIth booJlercu~h/Q(J Sealed fortheTback than an adult,bechild u.'ill receill€ be"€r side 5lJPP01f and lupbelt fit

Inlc!groted head resl can be moved up or down.Seal ungle can be adjusted.

IlHS Status Report, Vol. 24, No.8, August 26. /989-7

Researchers Find Risk of Fractures Increases

back is unfolded and the integrated headrest is moved to accommodate a largerchild. The angle of the seal can also be ad­justed.

One of the advantages of the built-insystem, the researchers point out, is thatit can be crash tested together with thecar. so that it is possible to evaluate thesystem's performance in relation to theautomobile's performance.

In response to a petItion, the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) last year amended Federal MotorVehicle Salely Standard 213 to permitmanufacturers to install built-in child re­straint systems in vehicles. NHTSA saysbuilt-in systems can be alleast as safe asadd-on child restraints and may encour­age their use.

"Integrated Child Restraints in Cars forChildren Aged 0-10." 89-IA-G-007. was wril­len by L. Karlbrink, M. Kra((t. and C.Tingvall.

Properly Used ChildRestraints ReduceFatality Risk

When used properly child safety seatsgreatly reduce the risk of fatality, says aNational Highway Traffic Safety Adminis­tration (NHTSA) researcher. But chancesare that adults who become involved insevere crashes are unlikely to see to itthat their children ride protected.

In a paper estimating the number oflives saved between 1982 and 1987, SusanC. Partyka says child seats saved an esti­mated 713 lives and the use 01 safety beltssaved another 125. Nonetheless. Partykasays, this represents only about one-thirdof the children thaI could have been pre­vented from dying in crashes if all chil­dren under five years of age used childseats on every trip.

Using data from the Fatal Accident Re­porting System (FARS) and police reportson belted or unbelted occupants, Partykafound 7,060 latal crashes involving pas,

senger cars built after 1973 and that wereoccupied by at least one child under theage of five.

Comparing fatal injury outcomes ofchildren riding with restrained and unre­strained drivers. Partyka estimated thatchild seat use reduces the risk 01 infant fa­tality by 69 percent and toddler fatality by47 percent.

fARS data indicate that in crashes re­sulting in fatalities many children are rid­ing unrestrained. In crashes in whichsmall children died, an estimated 68 per­cent were unrestrained.

Although 50 states require small chil·dren to ride restrained, estimates of childrestraint use vary widely. NHTSA's Hkitysurvey shows 80 percent of the childrenseen are buckled into safety seats. Butmany states. noles Partyka, report childrestraint use rates under 40 percent.

Swedish researchers say that the riskof minor injury in vehicle crashes doesnot increase with age, but the risk of frac­tures does.

Older drivers are involved in morecrashes involving injuries per miles driventhan other drivers. So researchers investi­gated whether the higher risk is tied to agreater tendency to be injured at more ad­vanced ages.

In a study of data from the Volvo CarCrash Register. researchers from UppsaJaUniversity found 2,637 belted front seatoccupants involved in head-on crashes.The crash register. which contains only reoports on crashes involving Volvos, al­lowed the researchers to control for theweight 01 the vehicles. collision speed, di­rection of impact. and the occupant's sex.age, height, weight, seat belt use, and seat­ing position.

Atotal of i04, or 26 percent of all frontseat occupants received injuries requiringmedical care, the researchers report.Among this group, 529 received at leastone fracture and 144 had a chest fracture.

Even though surveys indicate child re­straint use is up, the benefits do not meetexpectations. One possible explanation isthat child seat use is lower in serious acci­dents than it is in general traffic. Such aview is supported by the fact thaI adultbelt use in crashes is lower than belt useseen in general traffic. This means theadults most likely to become involved inserious crashes are the least likely tobuckle up and are also less likely 10 pro­tect their own children.

Says Partyka. "it appears clear thaIsafety seal use in accidents is much lowerthan reported in observation surveys.While child seat use has increased overthe last five years, children in serious acci·dents are still all too often unprotected."

"Lives Saved by Child Safety Seals from1982 Through 1987.' 89-IA-O-OO2 was wril·ten by Susan C. Partyka.

Thirteen percent of the occupants in·valved in low speed collisions had injuriesserious enough to require medical atten·tion, 24 percent in the medium speedcrashes, and 47 percent of the occupantsin high speed impacts.

When comparing the risk of injury byage group. the researchers found that rela­tive to young people aged 18 through 24.people in the 25 through 34 age group hadthe greatest increase in risk of injury re­Quiring medical attention. There was.however. no systematic rise in risk of in­jury associated with older drivers.

The researchers did find. however, thatthe risk of a fracture is much greater forolder individuals than for young persons.Among those aged 65 through 74. the riskof a fracture was more than three timesgrealer than persons aged 18 through 24.And the risk of a rib fracture is nearly 11times higher than the youngest age group.

"Age and Risk of Injury," 89-IA-Q-OI2.was written by Bengt Brorsson. UppsalaUniversity, Uppsala, Sweden.

8-IIHS Status Report, Vol 24, No 8, Augusl26, f989

Researchers Compare Side Impact TestsWith Collisions in the 'Real World'

For years regulators on both sides ofthe Atlantic have been investigating waysto limit the human damage that resultsfrom side Impacts. In 1988 the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) issued a notice of proposed rule­making to improve side impact standardsfor automobiles.

A new dummy and moving barriercrash test procedure was proposed andacross the ocean, the European EconomicCommunity through the European Experi­mental Vehicle Committee (EEVe) pro­posed an alternative moving barrier, dum­my. and procedure.

The NHTSA proposal would requirenew cars to withstand an impact from amoving barrier with a mass representingthe median value of U.S. cars and of a stiff­ness similar 10 that of light trucks. Thebarrier would approach the stationarytest car at a speed of 33.5 mph, or 54 kph,stnking the car side with barrier wheelsturned, to simulale a typical intersectioncrash in which the striking vehicle is mov·ing at 30 mph and the struck car is movingat 15 mph. Side impact dummiespositioned in the front and rear wouldmeasure chest and pelvic loads.

The EEVC's proposed barrier is softerthan the i'iHTSA barrier, and this is morerepresentative 01 the average Europeancar. The barrier would strike the passen­ger car perpendicular to it at aspeed of 31mph. or 50 kph. AEuropean-developeddummy known as "Eurosid" would assesspotential head, chest, abdomen, and pelvisinjuries.

Under a research program sponsoredby the British Department of Transportand Road Research Laboratory, Ford Mo­lor Co .. Rover. and Nissan U.K. re­searchers from the accident research unitof ICE Ergonomics in Loughborough. Eng­land. analyzed data from side impact

crashes in the United Kingdom. The pur­pose of this study was to see how closelythe European and U.S. tests simulate realworld crashes.

The researchers found that in actualcrashes most of the fatal impacts were theresult of collisions with objects other thancars, most commonly trees and utilitypoles. The proposed test impact angles,however, do reproduce vehicle-to-vehicleside impacts in which there are serious in­juries.

They also found that among the sideimpact crashes studied in England, the Eu­ropean barrier is 200 kg lighter than themedian mass of the striking vehicle in fa­tal crashes and the American barrier is200 kg heavier.

Both test procedures produce crashseverities that are well below the mediancrash severity for side crashes resulting inserious injury or death, the researchersreport.

In addition field data show that whentwo Or more people are seated side byside, they frequently interact in side im­pacts. Individuals seated on the side ofthe vehicle lurthest away from the impactoften are hurled into people seated adja­cent to the struck side.

The researchers report "Nearly 10 per­cent 01 fatal [killed] struck side occupantshave this additional side loading appliedto some part of their body. aggravatingtheir injuries." Neither test proposal simu­lates this interaction, the researchersnote, and they recommend further studyand improvements in belt systems.

Both test proposals seek to limit chestand pelvic injuries that are commonlyseen in fatally injured occupants.~onetheless the body regions thai mostoften sustain injuries that have the mostpropensity for long term impairment ­head, arm, and legs - are not addressed

by the proposed dummies.·Without asuitable test requirement," they say, "theinjuries with the most potential for thedisablement of survivors will not be re­duced."

By adding padding to the A-pillar, B-pil­lar, and side header rails, the researcherssay, 19 percent of all head injuries in sidecrashes could be avoided. The field datashow that 59 percent of the head injuriesof fatally injured occupants were associat·ed with striking objects inside the car.Other head injuries are caused by directcontact with the striking vehicle or ejec­tion.

"Side Impact Regulations - How DoThey Relate to Real World Accidents?" 89­5A-O-024, was written by Pete Thomas andMo Bradford.

Tests ExamineSeat Belt SystemsIn Side Impacts

Almost hall of the 8.000 annual auto­mobile occupant deaths in side impactsare related to head injuries. Many arecaused by ejection, others by contact withhard surlaces within the automobile suchas door rails and side pillars.

Seat belt use will prevent ejection-relat­ed injuries and it is possible that belt re­straints also can help prevent occupantsfrom striking hard surfaces within the au·to interior but little is known about the ki­netics 01 side impacts involving belted oc­cupants.

Recently researchers from Hondd Re­search and Development Company exam­ined the effects of several seat belt sys­tems on occupant head behavior and thelevel of impacl protection they provide inside crashes in a series of 10 high·speedcrash tests.

The tests were conducted on an AcuraIntegra hatchback, a subcompact model,using a moving deformable barrier andside impact dummies. The impact speeds

JlIISStatus lI,pori, 10124, No 8, August 26,1_9

SNl aI1eI WIIl'I integrlIIed ramp• pr.....ms~;..i"ll e4Ieel

safety Features of the seatIntegrated Belt System

w 're about :W mph. The researchers test­ed the performance of lap belts, standardthree-point manual belts, two-point auto­matic belts, and three-point automaticbtlts. For comparison purposes, they alsocrashed acar with the dummies unbelted,

The researchers found that in everytest immediately alter the barrier struckthe lesl car. Ihe driver dummys head orface struck the barrier or the upper edge01 the \ehide door. Al that lest speed. theresearchers report. the J)E'ak accelerationsexperienced by the driver dummy's headat the moment of impact sU!l:gested thatbelt restramts may not provide effectiveprotedlon for the driver in side impacts

Hov.evf'r, the rt'searrhers note. it wasappan:llt that alter hitting the barrier orthe duor. that the restrained dummy shead was pulled back inside the passen­gtr compartment by the belt. The shou~

-der belts were more effective in reducingthe outward movement 01 the dummy'shead than the lap belt alone.

The three-point manual belt performedsomewhat better In reducing the outwardmovement of the dummy driver's headthan the three-point automatic belt, inthat the outward and upward movement01 the dummy was more lully reo;trained.Both were better than the lap belt aloneor the two-point automatic bell.

The researchers also found that duringthe crashes involving the dummies seatedin the front seats, the driver dummy in­Variably experienced a secondary impactwith the dummy seated in the passengerposition.

Effects of Bell Restraint systems onOccupant Protection Perfonnance in SideImpact Crashes. 89-SA-0018, was 'Millenby \. Shimada. Y. :"fishida. and A. Akiyama.

Belt System OffersUniform Protection InAll Seating Positions

BM"". the German auto maker, says ithas designed a new front seat belt systemthat is attached directly to the seat andthus provides maxilllum protection topeople of all sizes and in all seat adjust­ment positions.

Current lap and shoulder bells haveproven to be highly effective in restrainingvehicle occupants. but the shoulder beltplacement on the occupant still dependsto a large extent on the adjustment of theseat bec:ause the shoulder belt upper an­chorage is attached to the car body. Thisaffects comfort and protection becausethe shoulder belt cannot be adapted per­fecUy to every seat adjustment position,This is a particular problem for many tWI)­door cars,

In an allempt to solve this problem.BMW developed a new belt system fullyIntegrated into the seat.

This new system provides several ad­vantages. All belt anchorage points movewith the seat as it Is adjusted so that thebelt provides effective protection in allseat positions. The head restraint andshoulder belt anchorage adjust in tandemeliminating incorrect adjustment. Aspe­cial clamping device in the belt retractorreduces the amount that the belt extendsin an impact. Restraint forces engage im·mediately in a crash, which reduces occu­pant forward displacement. A ramp inte­grated into the seat sheU combined with arigid seal base provides more pelvic sup­port to prevent submarining, the tendencyof occupants to slide out lrom under theirseat belts.

The new seal and belt system also of·ler improved protection in side impactsand rear end collisions because of thehigh-strength seat frame structure Thewraparound effect of the seat and belt sys­lem strengthens protection in rollovercrashes because the occupants are held in

IIJ-IIHS Statu, Report. ful. 14. So. 8. August 16. 1989

Con! dfrom ""'I' 9)

thtir seals more effectively.The Effect of Fully Seat-Integrated

hont seat Belt Systems on Vehicle Occu­pants In Frontal Crashes. 89-5B-O-{)I5, was..... ritten by J. Haberl F. Ritz!. and S.Eichingn

Leg Shields ForMotorcyclists?Two Studies Clash

Alter the United Kingdom Departmentof Transport drafted motorcycle specifica­tions for leg protectors in July 19l:H.Japanese and British researchers conduct·ed separate test programs to evaluate thll'!1t'cts of leg protectors thai met theBntlsli specifications The t'lloO programsdif l'f widel) In their conclusions.

he Bntish researchers. sponsored bythe Transport and Road Research Labora­1011. conduded that the leg protectors of­ler significant reduction in potentialltog in­JUT) .... lthout any mCTease In potentialhf'ad mjuT). while the Japanese, spon­sored by tht' Japan Automobile Manufac­turers Association, report that not only dothe protectMs fail to reduce lower leg In­juries. they (ould also cause more seriousinjuries to the upper leg and olher !>artsof the bndy as well.

Th(' British reported the leg protectorsto be beneficial under almost all circum­stann>s, Thf' British conducted tests Im­pactinlil a large motorcycle with a moving\!ehide and a stationary vehicle. For thetests. the British chose the most popularmedIUm sized cars in the United Kingdom.The motorcycle used was a , 'orton Inter­pol III The leg protector consisted of ahbe~ gl'Lc;s shell. energy absorbmfi: materI­al. and a strong rigid element to posillonthe protector system components and at­tach It to the motorcycle. Tests were COil­

ducted with and without the le:o: protec­lors, Impact configurations chosen were:10 degrees to the front and side, If:>TO de-

gree oflset-lronl. 60 degree Iront corner,and 90 degree side impacts.

Researchers used a dummy with in­strumented aluminum honeycomb legsand accelerometers in the head. chest.and pelvis. Accelerometers were also fit­ted to the motorcycle engine.

Results showed Ihat the impact on theleg was always significantly lower in thetests where leg protection was used. Re­searchers found no Instances where thepotenliallor leg Injury was made worsenor was the risk of head injury Increased

pmFSfRIAN PR0TECI10NThe European Experimental Vehicles

Committee has set up a working groop todevelop methods lor Improving passengercar protection for pedestrians.

Crash data show lhal lhe bumper, lheleading edge oIlhe hood, and lhe lop 01the hood cause the most serious pedestri­an injuries. Of the Ihree, bumpers strikepedestrians most oken and lhese pedes­trians are mostlii.ely to sutler leg injuries.

In faci research done by the U.s. De­partmenl 01 Transportation shows lhal 70to 85 percenl of pedestrians injured incrashes sustain leg Injuries. However,head injuries are the most lrequent causeof pedestrian fatalilles, and these often re­sult from striking the top of Ihe hood.

The working group plans to developthree separate subsystem tests for thebumper, hood edge, and hood lap and willoutline measures 10 lessen Ihe dangers topedestrians.

Test methods will be considered tllatevaluate what happens when these partsstrike child and adult dummies at speedsup to 25 mph. Methods will include dum­my tests, mathematkal computer simula­tions, and crash data.

The study is scheduled to be complet­ed hy March 1m.

ftStudy of Test Methods 10 EvaluatePedestrian Protection For Cars,ft 89-6A.().001, was written by J. Harris.

with leg protection. British researchersconcluded thai the leg protectors offer aworthwhile reduction in injUry risk.

The Japanese study differed from theBritish research in several ways. Amedj..urn sized motorcycle was tested becausethat size vehicle represents 50 percent ofcrashes in Japan. The leg protectors weresheel steel and aluminum honeycombwith padding of polyurethane foam.

AToyota Crown passenger automobilewas selected as the opposing vehicle. Amodified Hybrid II crash test dummy wasselected with legs made of breakablebakelite bone and urethane loam muscle.The dummy was not instrumented 10 mea­sure forces or accelerations.

Three test conditions were chosen torepresent real world collisions with amov­

ing car: 45 degreeangled collisionbroadside collision.and offset Iron talcollision (front ofmotorcycle struckby front lender ofcar). To be consis­tent with an earlierBritish study, a 30

degree barrier impact test using a dummywith steel bones was used.

High speed film analysis was used to~tudy the effects of leg protectors on mo­torcycle and rider trajectories, Fracturemodes of leg bones and head velocitywert' observed to determine injury effectsof reinforced leg protection.

Test results for all three collision typesindicated that bone fractures occurred inboth the upper and lower leg. The leg wasrestrained by the leg protector forcing Iht'dummy to move with Ihe motorcycle. Re­searchers found that the leg protectorscaused higher hip lifts and a more violentejection of Ihe dummy that could result inserious head injuries and neck and spinalcord damage. Japanese researchers foundthat the leg protectors complying withBritish specifications failed to reduce leg

/lHS Status Repo". Vol 24, No.8, August 26, /989-/ /

injury and increased potential for more se­rious injuries.

That two studies on the same subjectusing different vehicles, crash configura­tions. and test dummies could draw differ­ent conclusions is not surprising. Butthese two have achieved a polarity thatwill require further research to end thecontroversy.

Leg Prote<:tion and Its Effect on Motor­cycle Rider Trajectory," 89-6B.()002 waswritten by RP. Chinn. P.O. Hopes and M.P.Finnis. Difficulties in Leg Protection Re­search. ' 89-6B-0007 was written by S.Sakamoto.

Tw()-Year StudyBegins on ImprovingTruck Visibility

Researchers in West Germany havefound that at night trucks with low silhou­ettes are involved in more crashes thanother trucks. For example, in the early 'BOsnat bed trucks had the highest rate of sideand rear impact crashes. Making suchtrucks more conspicuous might lowerthese collision rates. Researchers are un­dertaking a two year study of 1,000 trucksequipped with reflective tape to improvenighttime conspicuity. The study will alsoassess the effects of pollution and normalwear and tear on the tape.

The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) conducted a sim­ilar study of trucks outlined with reflectivetape. but these findings were inconclusivebecause the research design was poorlyexecuted. The Insurance Institute for High­way Safely urged NHTSA to follow up wilha large scale lIeet evaluation of reflectivetapes. (See Status Repo", Val. 22. No. 14,Dec. 26. 1987.) To date, however, no fur­Iher action has been taken.

"Large Scale Experiment About Improv­ing the Night-Time Conspicuity of Trucks,~

894B-Q.OO7, was written by H.J. Schmidt­Clausen.

In a Variety of Tests,Four Antilock BrakeSystems Perform Well

England's Transport and Road Re­search Laboratory tested a BMW 320i,Mazda 626 GT, Honda Prelude, and FordEscort to evaluate driver control andbrake stopping distances with their an­tilock braking systems. U.S. versions ofthe BMW and Mazda have the same typeof brakes-the Ford Escort and the HondaPrelude do not. Tesls results show theseantilock systems to be highly effective.

The researchers tested the cars loadedand unloaded on a variety of wet and drypavements representative 01 road surfacesin the United Kingdom. Most of the testingcompared the performance of a vehiclewith its antilock system either fully func­tioning or at least partially disabled.Three separate braking tests were per­formed on each vehicle.

In a straight line braking test, the driV­er sharply braked the vehicle from differ­ent speeds, starting at 12 mph and in­creasing in six mph increments to the finaltest at 62 mph.

Braking on a curve involved drivingthe vehicle at constant speeds in increas­ing increments through a curved path andthen braking while still turning.

The split surface braking test exam­ined the controllability of a vehicle whenit is braked heavily on a split surface. sim­ulating the effect of snow. ice, or water onone side of an otherwise dry road.

Tests showed that BMW's and Mazda'selectronic antilock brake systems per­formed well. Researchers found the im­provements in stopping distances impres­sive, and the controllability for both theBMW and Mazda under sudden brakingconditions on all surfaces was excellent.

Honda's somewhat simpler electronicsystem performed in a similar way to themore complicated electronic systems andIhe stopping distances were found to be

significantly reduced when compared 10the antilock system disconnected.

The Ford Escort's simple mechanicalantilock system provided good controL

"Braking and Stability Performance ofCars Fitted with Various Types of AntilockBraking Systems." 89-4B-Q..Ot3 was writtenby BJ. Robinson and B.S. Riley.

VEHICLE CONSPICUITYAcommon complaint heard from mo­

torists involved in collisions is that theydid not see the oncoming vehicle until itwas too late.

One of the keys to avoiding multiplevehicle crashes is 10 increase the visibilityof vehicles so that other motorists canreadily spot and react in time to avert acollision, says a researcher from Sweden'sRoad and Traffic Research Institute.

In a paper analyzing the record of day­time running lights as a crash avoidancemeasure, the researcher says studies con­sistently show benefits from daytime run­ning lights. A1981 Swedish study found arequirement lor daytime running lights orlow-level beams in that country since 1977has reduced daytime crashes involVingother vehicles by 13 percent. Head-on co~

!isions were lowered by 10 percent, angu­lar crashes by 9 percent, and rear-end im­pacts by 2 percent. The largest benefit,however, was for car collisions with bicy­clists and pedestrians: Crashes with bicy­clists were reduced by 17 percent and car­pedestrian collisions by 21 percent. In theUnited States, a study conducted by theInsurance Institute for Highway Safetyfound a 7 percent reduction in relevantmultiple vehicle daytime crashes.

Studies show that the Iights-on policyhas improved motorists' peripheral andcentral vision perception of oncomingtraffic and that they lend to estimate a carwith running lights as being closer tothem than an unlil car.

"Vehicle Conspicuity," 894B-Q.004. waswritten by Kare Rumar.

SPECIAL ISSUEThis special issue of Status Report focuses on designing salervehicles. Other issues have focused on the following subjects;

Vol. 24, No.8, AullU" 26, 1989

Truck Crash Congestion\1akin~ Traffic Laws \\orkSeat Belt and Helmet Laws~HTSA Safely Rulesvehicle Size and Death IYtesUS. Safety Act'Seat Belt Lsf." LawsSchool Bus SafetySeat Bell Lse LawsTeenagers Drhing1he Injury Fuef BookAutomatic RestraintsTruck (rashesSmall Car HazardsDrunk DriVIng

23:12. t98823:6. 198822:13,198722:9. 1987221,198;21:11.198620:12.198520:5. 19851914. 198419:10. 198419:;. 198418:18. 198318:4. 1983li:20. 198217:18.1982

If you are not now receiving Statu. Report 00 a regular ba­.. but would like 10, simply drop a nole to the Communica­tions Department at the address below and we will addyour name to the mailing Jist

STATUSlOllS \, tIll (jj, 1)1' IbMdArlin!/lllll ~A mOlIIIIJ)24; 1500

frl~ur,b"leSH \hrlll'yUwolal~Edililt Rt~ TyItr

iltnters K.itfetl ~l'lnt'r, ~alUll J Rl.<musSC'llf.ddunal <\..I!;1$lanlS ';lIkn~ Hu~, l.lll\'lta M,>fTIJOOPrudkj(( ill Oiib.uln HIl Shrill~' '"

I''iUl'''-GNllflDn

""IV~WI1\ REPORT

Tbt~ Inslllu\r lot tt.gITwlY Saholy 1$ anI~den rMlllpIUht Irirntlllr and edur.oollll C.IlpIlI1.ahOll It is

dediclltl1lln~ lilt IoNeHSeitths,lnjunn IUd prvp­!'fh ~kltlfl trum m ~ flII tilt Mhon, h.p.WI~' Thr "~htut .. i:Ii IllppPl1t<1 ~ tlw ~. InsUf·.IIll.'l! ~\II.) ~elY .\»odil~, Ibt 4.mrocu InsUfl'l'$~ smty ~r Ihr 'imlnlII AuodlItIon cI Jndt..

'n1 mo:m SIIel~ AsInl:WIoA and ,""III inlfio,idulII

,~-

~ 1DoI\ l:r~ ..!lolr <ll' II put ..ith .In

"'mSSN OOt8 988X