Sonstige
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (42) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Bewertung (42) (entfernen)
From an automotive safety occupant protection standpoint, effective occupant restraint requires a system capable of providing non-injurious occupant ride down of anticipated crash forces. This is not only the case for frontal collisions, where occupant restraint is provided primarily by seatbelts and airbags, but is also critical for other crash modes such as side impacts, rear impacts, rollovers, as well as multiple impact events. In the rear impact crash mode, occupant restraint is provided primarily by the seatbacks and to some extent the seatbelts. Foundationally, therefore, what becomes fundamental to the seatback's role in rear occupant protection is its ability to contain the occupant within the seat, preventing occupant ramping, as well as preventing the seat's, and/or its occupant's, dangerous intrusion into the rear occupant's survival space where contact with rear compartment components and/ or rear seated occupants can present a significant injury risk. An analysis is presented of a series of rear impact sled testing conducted by the authors that evaluates the timing, position and extent of the front seatback's reward displacement toward and into the rear occupant compartment as well as consideration of the front seat occupant' ramping potential and its injury potential relative to the rear compartment. Additionally, three other series of testing are presented which assess various seat designs occupant retention capabilities. Lastly, a matched-pair comparison test series is presented which evaluates occupant motion in rear impact with and without use of a typical vehicle body mounted 3-point seatbelt. Discussion of restraint system performance observed in all the testing is included along with ATD biofidelity and thigh-gap considerations. The data collected and presented includes accelerometer instrumentation and high speed video analysis.
The Decision Support System (DSS) is one of the key objectives of the European co-funded research project SafetyCube in order to better support evidence-based policy making. Results will be assembled in the form of a DSS that will present for each suggested road safety measure: details of risk factor tackled, measure, best estimate of casualty reduction effectiveness, cost-benefit evaluation and analytic background. The development of the DSS presents a great potential to further support decision making at local, regional, national and international level, aiming to fill in the current gap of comparable measures effectiveness evaluation. In order to provide policy-makers and industry with comprehensive and well-structured information about measures, it is essential that a systems approach is used to ensure the links between risk factors and all relevant safety measures are made fully visible. The DSS is intended to become a major source of information for industry, policy-makers and the wider road safety community.
Various kinds of demerit point systems have been developed and implemented in European countries, aimed at tackling repeat offences in road transport by acting as a deterrent and providing sanctioning. The impact of a demerit point system on the number of crashes is often reported to be significant, but temporary. The objective of the EU BestPoint project was to establish a set of recommended practices that would result in a more effective and sustainable contribution of demerit point systems to road safety. A high actual chance of losing the licence and a high perceived chance of losing the licence are basic prerequisites for the effective operation of demerit point systems. For measures applied within the context of a demerit point system, a four-step-approach is recommended: warning letter, driver improvement course, licence withdrawal, rehabilitation course. Further recommendations concern issues like points and offences, e.g. which offences should lead to points, target groups, and the administration of demerit point systems. The final result of the EU BestPoint project is a handbook (van Schagen & Machata, 2012) which provides a concise overview of all recommended practices. The presentation/paper outlines how sustainable safety improvements can be achieved if national demerit point systems are implemented and maintained according to the recommended practices. In addition, potential further steps towards an EU-wide demerit point system (cross-border exchange on points and/or offences) are presented.
Assessment of the effectiveness of Intersection Assistance Systems at urban and rural accident sites
(2015)
An Intersection Collision Avoidance System is a promising safety system for accident avoidance or injury mitigation at junctions. However, there is still a lack of evidence of the effectiveness, due to the missing real accident data concerning Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. The objective of this study is the assessment of the effectiveness of an Intersection Collision Avoidance System based on real accidents. The method used is called virtual pre-crash simulation. Accidents at junctions were reconstructed by using the numerical simulation software PC-Crashâ„¢. This first simulation is called the baseline simulation. In a second step the vehicles of these accidents were equipped with an Intersection Collision Avoidance System and simulated again. The second simulation is called the system simulation. In the system simulation two different sensors and four different intervention strategies were used, based on a time-to-collision approach. The effectiveness of Intersection Collision Avoidance System has been evaluated by using an assessment function. On average 9% of the reviewed junction accidents could have been avoided within the system simulations. The other simulation results clearly showed a change in the principal direction of force, delta-v and reduction of the injury severity.
Many safety-relevant tasks in control or diagnostics require binary choices such as "conflict versus separation" in air traffic control, "normal versus pathological" when interpreting x-ray pictures, or "permitted versus forbidden" when inspecting airport security scans. Deciders often are uncertain, but nevertheless required to decide between two alternatives, that is, they have not only to decide upon an action, but also about the admissible level of uncertainty. If the accepted level of judgment certainty is not taken into account, the sequence of decisions does not capture the full picture of the underlying decision process. Differences in judgment certainty are relevant, because they reflect not only the adequacy of the human-machine interface that is evaluated, but also the differences in expertise of the decider and the requirements of the actual situation or task. Therefore, capturing both judgment certainty and discrimination performance is essential. A comparison of different human-machine-interfaces (for air traffic control) is used to illustrate a methodological approach, which allows for integrated analyses of decision processes based on receiver-operator-characteristics and practical guidelines for the evaluation of human-machine-interfaces for safety-relevant operation procedures are provided.
In the project SECMAN " SECurity MANual " a simple four-step procedure for the identification of critical road infrastructures, assessment of these infrastructures regarding various man-made threats and the determination of effective protection measures was developed. These methodologies are summarized and combined into a comprehensive best-practice manual which allows for a trans-national structured and holistic security-risk-management approach for owners and operators of road infrastructures in Europe. This paper presents the developed methodology starting from the assessment procedures of a network's criticality over an object's attractiveness and vulnerability to the selection process of appropriate protection measures.
Today's volumes of traffic require more and more responsibility from each individual road user in their interactions. Those who drive motor vehicles have the singular obligation to minimise the risk of accidents and hence the severity of injuries, particularly with a view to the most vulnerable road users such as motor bikes, bikes and pedestrians. Since responsible and pro-active driving depends first and foremost on the visual information relayed by our eyes and the visual channel this requires good command of the traffic and all-round visibility from our driver's seat. Granted that human error can never be fully excluded, improving visibility around the car is nevertheless an urgent priority. To do so, we need to rate visibility in the most realistic driving situations. Since the existing visibility metrics and methodology are not applicable to real-life driving situations, this study aimed at developing a new visibility rating methodology based on real-life accident scenarios. On the basis of the cases documented by the accident research project, this study analysed criteria indicative of diminishing visibility on the one hand and revealing some peculiarities in connection with the visibility issue on the other. Based on the above, the project set out to develop a rating methodology allowing to assess all-round visibility in various road situations taking into account both driver and road geometries. In this context, the assessment of visibility while turning a corner, crossing an intersection and joining traffic on a major road (priority through route) is of major importance. The first tests have shown that critical situations can be avoided by adapting the relevant geometries and technical solutions and that significant improvements of road safety can be derived therefrom.
A means of assessing the passive safety of automobiles is a desirable instrument for legislative bodies, the automobile industry, and the consumer. As opposed to the dominating motor vehicle assessment criteria, such as engine power, spaciousness, aerodynamics and consumption, there are no clear and generally accepted criteria for assessing the passive safety of cars. The proposed method of assessment combines the results of experimental safety tests, carried out according to existing legally prescribed or currently discussed testing conditions, and a biomechanical validation of the loading values determined in the test. This evaluation is carried out with the aid of risk functions which are specified for individual parts of the body by correlating the results of accident analysis with those obtained by computer simulation. The degree of conformance to the respective protection criterion thus deduced is then weighted with factors which take into account the frequency of occurrence and the severity of the accident on the basis of resulting costs. Each of the test series includes at least two frontal and one lateral crash test against a deformable barrier. The computer-aided analysis and evaluation of the simulation results enables a vehicle-specific overall safety index as well as partial and individual safety values to be determined and plotted graphically. The passive safety provided by the respective vehicle under test can be defined for specific seating positions, special types of accident, or for individual endangered parts of the body.
Side-impact safety of passenger cars is assessed in Europe in a full-scale test using a moving barrier. The front of this barrier is deformable and represents the stiffness of an 'average' car. The EU Directive 96/27/EC on side impact protection has adopted the EEVC Side Impact Test Procedure, including the original performance specification for the barrier face when impacting a flat dynamometric rigid wall. The requirements of the deformable barrier face, as laid down in the Directive, are related to geometrical characteristics, deformation characteristics and energy dissipation figures. Due to these limited requirements, many variations are possible in designing a deformable barrier face. As a result, several barrier face designs are in the market. However, research institutes and car manufacturers report significant difference in test results when using these different devices. It appears that the present approval test is not able to distinguish between the different designs that may perform differently when they impact real vehicles. Therefore, EEVC Working Group 13 has developed a number of tests to evaluate the different designs. In these tests the barrier faces are loaded and deformed in a specific and/or more representative way. Barrier faces of different design have been evaluated. In the paper the set-up and the reasoning behind the tests is presented. Results showing specific differences in performance are demonstrated.
The European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee wants to promote the use of more biofidelic child dummies and biomechanical based tolerance limits in regulatory and consumer testing. This study has investigated the feasibility and potential impact of Q-dummies and new injury criteria for child restraint system assessment in frontal impact. European accident statistics have been reviewed for all ECE-R44 CRS groups. For frontal impact, injury measures are recommended for the head, neck, chest and abdomen. Priority of body segment protection depends on the ECE-R44 group. The Q-dummy family is able to reflect these injuries, because of its biofidelity performance and measurement capabilities for these body segments. Currently, the Q0, Q1, Q1.5, Q3 and Q6 are available representing children of 0, 1, 1.5, 3 and 6 years old. These Q-dummies cover almost all dummy weight groups as defined in ECE-R44. Q10, representing a 10 year-old child, is under development. New child dummy injury criteria are under discussion in EEVC WG12. Therefore, the ECE-R44 criteria are assessed by comparing the existing P-dummies and new Q-dummies in ECE-R44 frontal impact sled tests. In total 300 tests covering 30 CRSs of almost all existing child seat categories are performed by 11 European organizations. From this benchmark study, it is concluded that the performance of the Q-dummy family is good with respect to repeatability of the measurement signals and the durability of the dummies. Applying ECE-R44 criteria, the first impression is that results for P- and Q-dummy are similar. For child seat evaluation the potential merits of the Q-dummy family lie in the extra measurement possibilities of these dummies and in the more biofidelic response.