Objective: Tests are routinely conducted where instrumented headforms are projected at the fronts of cars to assess pedestrian safety. Better information would be obtained by accounting for performance over the range of expected impact conditions in the field. Moreover, methods will be required to integrate the assessment of secondary safety performance with primary safety systems that reduce the speeds of impacts. Thus, we discuss how to estimate performance over a range of impact conditions from performance in one test and how this information can be combined with information on the probability of different impact speeds to provide a balanced assessment of pedestrian safety. Method: Theoretical consideration is given to 2 distinct aspects to impact safety performance: the test impact severity (measured by the head injury criterion, HIC) at a speed at which a structure does not bottom out and the speed at which bottoming out occurs. Further considerations are given to an injury risk function, the distribution of impact speeds likely in the field, and the effect of primary safety systems on impact speeds. These are used to calculate curves that estimate injuriousness for combinations of test HIC, bottoming out speed, and alternative distributions of impact speeds. Results: The injuriousness of a structure that may be struck by the head of a pedestrian depends not only on the result of the impact test but also the bottoming out speed and the distribution of impact speeds. Example calculations indicate that the relationship between the test HIC and injuriousness extends over a larger range than is presently used by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), that bottoming out at speeds only slightly higher than the test speed can significantly increase the injuriousness of an impact location and that effective primary safety systems that reduce impact speeds significantly modify the relationship between the test HIC and injuriousness. Conclusions: Present testing regimes do not take fully into account the relationship between impact severity and variations in impact conditions. Instead, they assess injury risk at a single impact speed. Hence, they may fail to differentiate risks due to the effects of bottoming out under different impact conditions. Because the level of injuriousness changes across a wide range of HIC values, even slight improvements to very stiff structures need to be encouraged through testing. Indications are that the potential of autonomous braking systems is substantial and needs to be weighted highly in vehicle safety assessments.
[1]
Robert Anderson,et al.
Headform impact test performance of vehicles under the GTR on pedestrian safety
,
2009
.
[2]
Robert Anderson,et al.
Implications of easing head impact criteria in pedestrian crash standards
,
2010
.
[3]
Rikard Fredriksson,et al.
Integrated pedestrian countermeasures: potential of head injury reduction combining passive and active countermeasures
,
2012
.
[4]
J. A. Searle,et al.
The Variation of Human Tolerance to Impact and Its Effect on the Design and Testing of Automotive Impact Performance
,
1978
.
[5]
J. Manthorpe.
Land Registration and Land Valuation in the United Kingdom and in the Countries of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
,
1998
.
[6]
Hirotoshi Ishikawa,et al.
SUMMARY OF IHRA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WG ACTIVITIES (2005) - PROPOSED TEST METHODS TO EVALUATE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION AFFORDED BY PASSENGER CARS
,
2001
.
[7]
Yutaka Okamoto,et al.
Pedestrian Head Impact Conditions Depending on the Vehicle Front Shape and Its Construction--Full Model Simulation
,
2003,
Traffic injury prevention.
[8]
D C Viano,et al.
Limits and challenges of crash protection.
,
1988,
Accident; analysis and prevention.
[9]
Kip Smith,et al.
Pedestrian injury mitigation by autonomous braking.
,
2010,
Accident; analysis and prevention.
[10]
Jeffrey Dutschke,et al.
Protection of the unhelmeted head against blunt impact: the pedestrian and the car bonnet
,
2011
.
[11]
Robert W. G. Anderson,et al.
An Analysis of Head Impact Severity in Simulations of Collisions Between Pedestrians and SUVs/Work Utility Vehicles, and Sedans
,
2011,
Traffic injury prevention.
[12]
Harold J. Mertz,et al.
The Position of the United States Delegation to the ISO Working Group 6 on the Use of HIC in the Automotive Environment
,
1985
.
[13]
Johnny Korner,et al.
A Method for Evaluating Occupant Protection by Correlating Accident Data with Laboratory Test Data
,
1989
.
[14]
J. D. Horsch.
Evaluation of occupant protection from responses measured in laboratory tests. Comments
,
1987
.
[15]
Harold J. Mertz,et al.
Injury Risk Assessments Based on Dummy Responses
,
2002
.