Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung (2) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (2)
- Sonstige (1)
Although the number of road accident casualties in Europe (EU27) is falling the problem still remains substantial. In 2011 there were still over 30,000 road accident fatalities. Approximately half of these were car occupants and about 60 percent of these occurred in frontal impacts. The next stage to improve a car's safety performance in frontal impacts is to improve its compatibility. The objective of the FIMCAR FP7 EU-project was to develop an assessment approach suitable for regulatory application to control a car's frontal impact and compatibility crash performance and perform an associated cost benefit analysis for its implementation. This paper reports the cost benefit analyses performed to estimate the effect of the following potential changes to the frontal impact regulation: • Option 1 " No change and allow current measures to propagate throughout the vehicle fleet. • Option 2 " Add a full width test to the current offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) test. • Option 3 " Add a full width test and replace the current ODB test with a Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test. For the analyses national data were used from Great Britain (STATS 19) and from Germany (German Federal Statistical Office). In addition in-depth real word crash data were used from CCIS (Great Britain) and GIDAS (Germany). To estimate the benefit a generalised linear model, an injury reduction model and a matched pairs modelling approach were applied. The benefits were estimated to be: for Option 1 "No change" about 2.0%; for Option 2 "FW test" ranging from 5 to 12% and for Option 3 "FW and PDB tests" 9 to 14% of car occupant killed and seriously injured casualties.
Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programmes, e.g. Euro NCAP, are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully, is to determine how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit related basis. The objective of this research was to develop a benefit based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with pre-crash braking and passive safety components. A methodology has been developed which calculates the cost of pedestrian injury expected, assuming all pedestrians in the target population (i.e. pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car’s AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car’s frontal structure. For rating purposes, this cost can be normalised by comparing it to the cost calculated for selected cars. The methodology uses the speed reductions measured in AEB tests to determine the speed at which each casualty in the target population will be impacted. The injury to each casualty is then calculated using the results from standard Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. This injury is converted into cost using ‘Harm’ type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and GB and the results of a benefit analysis performed by the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. This resulted in German and GB versions of the methodology. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, with and without a current AEB system fitted. It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Also, it was found that the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area because this is where head impact occurs for a large proportion of casualties. The major limitation within the methodology is the assumption used implicitly during weighting. This is that the cost of casualty injuries to body areas, such as the thorax, not assessed by the headform and legform impactors, and other casualty injuries such as those caused by ground impact, are related linearly to the cost of casualty injuries assessed by the impactors. A methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems was developed. This methodology is of interest to consumer rating programmes which wish to include assessment of these systems. It also raises the interesting issue if the head impact test area should be weighted to reflect better real-world benefit.