Sonstige
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Buch (Monographie) (2) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Fußgänger (2) (entfernen)
Institut
- Sonstige (2)
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (1)
This thesis gives a detailed picture of how planners, politicians, residents and transport engineers in three societies, Britain, Germany and the United States reacted to one of the most powerful inventions of the late nineteenth century, the motor car. Misjudgments of the potential growth of motor vehicle ownership and its adverse effects had serious repercussions in the coming decades, primarily in the dense urban areas. Disturbing has been the underestimation of the importance of public transport as a real alternative to the motor car in urban areas, first by the United States and even several decades later by Britain. Of the three countries, only Germany seems to have struck a better balance. Not surprisingly, already at the beginning of the twentieth century, conflicts occurred between the weaker road participants (pedestrians and cyclists), the existing urban fabric and the motor vehicle. A more comprehensive comparison between Britain and Germany shows that both countries developed specific patterns and had different attitudes towards road transport. Far more has been invested and planned in Germany whereas Britain has shown not so much a lack of foresight in planning but 'in investment in road transport. This major difference has had very visible effects an today's urban structure and transport situation. The demand for restraint of motor traffic had different motives in the two countries, and is not such a new idea as is often assumed. While in Germany even in the 1920s and 30s the protection of historic inheritance was a decisive motive, in Britain that was not the case. Questions of traffic restraint were however raised in connection with road safety and later in the 60s as a means of improving the urban environment. The turning point of nearly unlimited promotion of car use in urban areas took place in Germany during the 60s and 70s, whereas the Buchanan Report had already warned in the early 60s against the adverse effects cars could have in urban areas if they were not controlled. Although even in Britain the report was misunderstood and largely not put into practice, the wave of protest against road building occurred earlier there than in Germany. As a whole, Britain has shown a brillance of ideas in restraining motor vehicles which was lacking in the Federal Republic. At the beginning of the 70s, discussions started seriously in Germany an traffic calming concepts which were slowly transformed into reality, Britain seems to have followed these examples, but with a considerable time lag.
A series of drop tests and vehicle tests with the adult head impactor according to Regulation (EC) 631/2009 and drop tests with the phantom head impactor according to UN Regulation No. 43 have been carried out by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS). Aim of the test series was to study the injury risk for vulnerable road users, especially pedestrians, in case of being impacted by a motor vehicle in a way described within the European Regulations (EC) 78/2009 and (EC) 631/2009. Furthermore, the applicability of the phantom head drop test described in UN Regulation No. 43 for plastic glazing should be investigated. In total, 30 drop tests, thereof 18 with the adult head impactor and 12 with the phantom head impactor, and 49 vehicle tests with the adult head impactor were carried out on panes of laminated safety glass (VSG), polycarbonate (PC) and laminated polycarbonate (L-PC). The influence of parameters such as the particular material properties, test point locations, fixations, ambient conditions (temperature and impact angle) was investigated in detail. In general, higher values of the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) were observed in tests on polycarbonate glazing. As the HIC is the current criterion for the assessment of head injury risk, polycarbonate glazing has to be seen as more injurious in terms of vulnerable road user protection. In addition, the significantly higher rebound of the head observed in tests with polycarbonate glazing is suspected to lead to higher neck loads and may also cause higher injury risks in secondary impacts of vulnerable road users. However, as in all tests with PC glazing no damage of the panes was observed, the risk of skin cut injuries may be expected to be reduced significantly. The performed test series give no indication for the test procedure prescribed in UN Regulation No. 43 as a methodology to approve glass windscreen not being feasible for polycarbonate glazing, as all PC panes tested fulfilled the UN R 43 requirements. The performance of the windscreen area will not be relevant for vehicle type approval according to the upcoming UN Regulation for pedestrian protection. However, it is recommended that pedestrian protection being considered for plastic windscreens to ensure at least the same level of protection as glass windscreens.