Preventing Passenger Vehicle Occupant Injuries by Vehicle Design—A Historical Perspective from IIHS

Motor vehicle crashes result in some 1.2 million deaths and many more injuries worldwide each year and is one of the biggest public health problems facing societies today. This article reviews the history of, and future potential for, one important countermeasure—designing vehicles that reduce occupant deaths and injuries. For many years, people had urged automakers to add design features to reduce crash injuries, but it was not until the mid-1960s that the idea of pursuing vehicle countermeasures gained any significant momentum. In 1966, the U.S. Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the government to issue a comprehensive set of vehicle safety standards. This was the first broad set of requirements issued anywhere in the world, and within a few years similar standards were adopted in Europe and Australia. Early vehicle safety standards specified a variety of safety designs resulting in cars being equipped with lap/shoulder belts, energy-absorbing steering columns, crash-resistant door locks, high-penetration-resistant windshields, etc. Later, the standards moved away from specifying particular design approaches and instead used crash tests and instrumented dummies to set limits on the potential for serious occupant injuries by crash mode. These newer standards paved the way for an approach that used the marketplace, in addition to government regulation, to improve vehicle safety designs—using crash tests and instrumented dummies to provide consumers with comparative safety ratings for new vehicles. The approach began in the late 1970s, when NHTSA started publishing injury measures from belted dummies in new passenger vehicles subjected to frontal barrier crash tests at speeds somewhat higher than specified in the corresponding regulation. This program became the world's first New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and rated frontal crashworthiness by awarding stars (five stars being the best and one the worst) derived from head and chest injury measures recorded on driver and front-seat test dummies. NHTSA later added side crash tests and rollover ratings to the U.S. NCAP. Consumer crash testing spread worldwide in the 1990s. In 1995, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) began using frontal offset crash tests to rate and compare frontal crashworthiness and later added side and rear crash assessments. Shortly after, Europe launched EuroNCAP to assesses new car performance including front, side, and front-end pedestrian tests. The influence of these consumer-oriented crash test programs on vehicle designs has been major. From the beginning, U.S. NCAP results prompted manufacturers to improve seat belt performance. Frontal offset tests from IIHS and EuroNCAP resulted in greatly improved front-end crumple zones and occupant compartments. Side impact tests have similarly resulted in improved side structures and accelerated the introduction of side impact airbags, especially those designed to protect occupant's heads. Vehicle safety designs, initially driven by regulations and later by consumer demand because of crash testing, have proven to be very successful public health measures. Since they were first introduced in the late 1960s, vehicle safety designs have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and prevented countless injuries worldwide. The designs that improved vehicle crashworthiness have been particularly effective. Some newer crash avoidance designs also have the potential to be effective—e.g., electronic stability control is already saving many lives in single-vehicle crashes. However, determining the actual effectiveness of these new technologies is a slow process and needs real-world crash experience because there are no assessment equivalent of crash tests for crash avoidance designs.

[1]  Joseph M Nolan,et al.  Crash compatibility between cars and light trucks: benefits of lowering front-end energy-absorbing structure in SUVs and pickups. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Allan F. Williams,et al.  Increasing seat belt use in North Carolina , 1996 .

[3]  Allan F Williams,et al.  The role of enforcement programs in increasing seat belt use. , 2004, Journal of safety research.

[4]  C A Hobbs THE NEED FOR IMPROVED STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY IN FRONTAL CAR IMPACTS , 1991 .

[5]  J Breen,et al.  European Transport Safety Council. , 1999, European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine.

[6]  Leon S. Robertson,et al.  Automobile seat belt use in selected countries, states and provinces with and without laws requiring belt use , 1978 .

[7]  A K Lund,et al.  Preliminary estimates of the effects of mandatory seat belt use laws. , 1987, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Charles M Farmer,et al.  Relationships of Frontal Offset Crash Test Results to Real-World Driver Fatality Rates , 2005, Traffic injury prevention.

[9]  L. A. Foldvary,et al.  The effectiveness of compulsory wearing of seat-belts in casualty reduction (with an appendix on chi-square partitioning-tests of complex contingency tables) , 1974 .

[10]  L S Robertson,et al.  Safety belt use in automobiles with starter-interlock and buzzer-light reminder systems. , 1975, American journal of public health.

[11]  Donna Glassbrenner,et al.  The impact of a nationwide effort to reduce airbag-related deaths among children: an examination of fatality trends among younger and older age groups. , 2005, Journal of safety research.

[12]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Roof Strength and Injury Risk in Rollover Crashes , 2009, Traffic injury prevention.

[13]  Randa Radwan Samaha,et al.  NHTSA SIDE IMPACT RESEARCH: MOTIVATION FOR UPGRADED TEST PROCEDURES , 2003 .

[14]  B J Campbell,et al.  SEAT BELT LAW EXPERIENCE IN FOUR FOREIGN COUNTRIES COMPARED TO THE UNITED STATES , 1986 .

[15]  Anne T. McCartt,et al.  Efficacy of Side Airbags in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side Car and SUV Collisions , 2007, Traffic injury prevention.

[16]  Brian O'Neill,et al.  Factors Associated with Observed Safety Belt Use , 1972 .

[17]  C J Kahane,et al.  CORRELATION OF NCAP PERFORMANCE WITH FATALITY RISK IN ACTUAL HEAD-ON COLLISIONS. NHTSA TECHNICAL REPORT , 1994 .

[18]  L S Robertson,et al.  A controlled study of the effect of television messages on safety belt use. , 1974, American journal of public health.

[19]  S. Gerberich Injuries: Causes, Control Strategies, and Public Policy , 1983 .

[20]  Ruth Welsh,et al.  Struck side crashes involving post-regulatory European passenger cars - crash characteristics and injury outcomes , 2007 .

[21]  L S Robertson,et al.  Observed daytime seat-belt use in Vancouver before and after the British Columbia belt-use law. , 1979, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[22]  Bryan C. Baker,et al.  Effects of seat belt load limiters on driver fatalities in frontal crashes of passenger cars , 2007 .

[23]  Brian O'Neill Improving U.S. Highway Safety: Have We Taken the Right Road? , 2005 .

[24]  Margaret M. Peden,et al.  World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention , 2004 .

[25]  Dot Hs,et al.  Lives Saved by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other Vehicle Safety Technologies, 1960-2002 , 2004 .

[26]  Brian O'Neill,et al.  CRASH COMPATIBILITY ISSUE IN PERSPECTIVE , 2000 .

[27]  L. Robertson The seat belt use law in Ontario: effects on actual use. , 1978, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[28]  Eberhard Faerber EEVC Approach to the Improvement of Crash Compatibility between Passenger Cars , 2005 .

[29]  Brian O'Neill,et al.  Crash Incompatibilities Between Cars and Light Trucks: Issues and Potential Countermeasures , 2004 .