Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vehicle Design Standards for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

  • Chapter
Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact

Part of the book series: Solid Mechanics and Its Applications ((SMIA,volume 166))

By 1950, 60% of American households owned a car, yet vehicle design for occupant protection was poorly developed, and remained unregulated in the US until 1968 [1]. Regulation resulted in dramatic improvements in occupant safety [2]. Similarly, although researchers have had a basic understanding of the relationship between vehicle design and pedestrian injuries since the 1960s [3], the safety of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists was not a serious consideration in vehicle design until the 1980s. This has been fuelled by the belief that little could be done to protect pedestrians in the event of a vehicle impact [4, 5] but also by vehicle manufacturers' reluctance to develop an area not governed by legislation and not considered to provide sufficient added value to the vehicle. Safety research for pedestrians and cyclists was therefore slow and poorly funded in comparison to vehicle occupants and scientific consensus on the requirements of vehicle design for pedestrian protection has still not been achieved. In consequence, existing standards are subject to updates and legal implementation is evolving and remains limited. However, there is now substantial public appetite in many countries for the regulation of vehicle design for pedestrian safety, as evidenced by the introduction of pedestrian safety testing by consumer driven safety organisations such as the New Car Assessment Programs [6] operational in Europe, Japan and Australia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Kratzke, S., Regulatory history of automatic crash protection in FMVSS 208. SAE Paper No. 950865, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kahane, C., Lives saved by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other vehicle safety technologies, 1960–2002—Passenger cars and light trucks — With a review of 19 FMVSS and their effectiveness in reducing fatalities, injuries and crashes. NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 809 833, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Severy, D. and Brink, H., Auto-pedestrian collision experiments using full-scale accident simulation. In Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit, SAE Paper No. 660080, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crandall, J., Bhalla, K., and Madeley, N., Designing road vehicles for pedestrian protection. British Medical Journal 324, 1145–1148, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher, A. and Hall, R., The influence of car frontal design on pedestrian accident trauma. Accident Analysis and Prevention 4, 47–58, 1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. www.euroncap.com, 2006.

  7. Janssen, E. and Wismans, J., Experimental and mathematical simulation of pedestrian vehicle and cyclist vehicle accidents. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, Oxford, ESV Paper No. 881726, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  8. UNECE, Proposed draft global technical regulation (GTR) on pedestrian protection. http://unece.org/trans/doc/2004/wp29grsp/ps-116.pdf, 2007.

  9. EEVC, EEVC working group 17 report Improved test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. EC Directive 2003/102/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 17th November 2003. Protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable Road users before and in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle and amending directive 70/156/EEC, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maki, T., Asai, T., and Kajzer, J., The behaviour of bicyclists in accidents with cars. Japanese Society of Automotive Engineers 21, 357–363, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lawrence, G., The next steps for pedestrian protection test methods. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0379, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  13. ASTM 1447-94 Standard specification for protective headgear used in bicycling. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. BS 4544:1970 specification for protective helmets for pedal cyclists. British Standards Institution, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Snell_Foundation, 1995 Standard for protective headgear for use in bicycling. Snell Memorial Foundation, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Curnow, W., The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35, 287–292, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mills, N. and Gilchrist, A., Reassessing bicycle helmet impact protection. In IRCOBI Conference, 15–26, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Attewell, R., Bicycle helmet efficacy: A meta analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention 33, 345–352, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Henderson, M., The effectiveness of bicycle helmets. Motor Accident Authority, New South Wales, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McClean, A., Vehicle design for pedestrian protection. The University of Adelaide, May 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hardy, B., Lawrence, G., Carroll, J., Donaldson, W., Visvikis, C., and Peel, D., A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. Transport Research Laboratory, Great Britain, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Danner, M., Langwieder, K., and Wachter, W., Injuries to pedestrians in real accidents and their relation to collision and car characteristics. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 791008, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kalliske, I. and Friesen, F., Improvements to pedestrian protection as exemplified on a standard sized car. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 283, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Otte, D., Pedestrian impact at front end of car. Accident Research Unit, Medical University of Hannover, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ote, D., Injuries to pedestrians caused by impacts with the front edge of car bonnets. EEVC WG17, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  26. FMVSS 208, Occupant crash protection, NHTSA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kajzer, J. and Schroeder, G., Examination of different bumper system using Hybrid II, RSPD subsystem and cadavers. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 922519, pp. 119–127, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kallieris, D. and Schmidt, G., New aspects of pedestrian protection loading and injury pattern in simulated pedestrian accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 881725, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Brun-Cassan, F., Vincent, F., Tarriere, C., Fayon, A., Cesari, D., Cavallero, C., and Mauron, G., Comparison of experimental car pedestrian collisions performed with various modified side impact dummies and cadavers. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 841664, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  30. EEVC, Pedestrian injury accidents. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  31. EEVC, Proposals to evaluate pedestrian protection for passenger cars — EEVC working group 10 report. European Experimental Vehicles Committee, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mizuno, K. and Ishikawa, H., Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety working group activities — Proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection offered by passenger cars. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2001-06-0136, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lawrence, J., Hardy, B., and Harris, J., Bonnet leading edge subsystems test for cars to assess protection for pedestrians. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 402–413, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lawrence, G., Hardy, B., Caroll, J., Donaldson, W., Visvikis, C., and Peel, D., A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users — Final report. Transport Research Laboratory, UPR/VE/045/06, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cesari, D., Interaction between human leg and car bumper in pedestrian tests. In IRCOBI Conference, Germany, pp. 259–269, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cesari, D., Alonzo, F., and Matyjewski, M., Subsystem for lower leg and knee protection. In SAE Transactions, Paris, SAE Paper No. 916040, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  37. TRL, Factors influencing pedestrian safety: A literature review. Transport Research Laboratory, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lawrence, G. and Thornton, S., The development and evaluation of the TRL legform impactor. Transport Research Laboratory. Project report/VE/189/96, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wittek, A., Konosu, A., Matsui, Y., Ishikawa, H., Shams, T., and McDonald, J., A new legform impactor for evaluation of car aggressiveness in car — Pedestrian accidents. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 184, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  40. EEVC Working Group 17 Report, Improved test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars (December 1998 with September 2002 updates). EEVC, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  41. ISO ISO 11096:2002 Road vehicles — Pedestrian protection impact test method for pedestrian thigh, leg and knee. International Organisation for Standardisation, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  42. UNECE, Proposal for a global technical regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to their construction in order to improve the protection and mitigate the severity of injuries to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the event of a collision, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Konosu, A. and Tanahashi, M., Development of a biofidelity pedestrian legform impactor — Introduction of JAMA JARI legform impactor version 2002. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 378, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Notsu, M., Nishimoto, T., Konosu, A., and Ishikawa, H., J-MLIT research into a pedestrian lower extremity protection — Evaluation tests for pedestrian legform impactors. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 05-0193, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Masson, C., Serre, T., and Cesari, D., Pedestrian-vehicle accident: Analysis of 4 full scale tests with PMHS. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0428, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ishikawa, H., Kajzer, J., Ono, K., and Sakurai, M., Simulation of car impact to pedestrian lower extremity: Influence of different car front shapes and dummy parameters on test results. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 1–12, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Matsui, Y., Wittek, A., and A., K., Comparison of pedestrian subsystem safety tests using impactors and full-scale dummy tests. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2002-01-1021, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Matsui, Y., Evaluation of pedestrian subsystem test method using legform and upper legform impactors for assessment of high bumper of vehicle aggressiveness. Traffic Injury Prevention 5, 76–86, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Chalandon, S., Serre, T., Masson, C., Arnoux, P., Perrin, C., Borde, P., Cotte, C., Brunet, C., and Cesari, D., Comparative study between subsystem and global approaches for the pedestrian impact. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0429, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gaefoler, F., Anthropometric data for designers: A critical evaluation. Warren Spring Laboratory, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Janssen, E., Protection of vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with a passenger car, Part 2 — Subsystem test method of valuation and compatibility study. TNO Report No. 75405002 4/II, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lawrence, J., Hardy, B., and Harris, J., Bonnet leading edge subsystems test for cars to assess protection for pedestrians. In Proceedings of 13th International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles, pp. 402–413, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lawrence, G., The influence of car shape on pedestrian impact energies and its application to subsystem tests. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 1253–1265, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Janssen, E. and Nieboer, J., Subsystem tests for assessing pedestrian protection based on computer simulations. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 263–280, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Matsui, Y., Ishikawa, H., and Sasaki, A., Pedestrian injuries induced by the bonnet leading edge in current car–pedestrian accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 1999-01-0713, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Konosu, A., Ishikawa, H., and Sasaki, A., A study on pedestrian impact test procedure by computer simulation — The upper legform to bonnet leading edge test. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 98-S10-W-19, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schueler, F. and Glasson, E., Analysis of the pedestrian to bonnet leading edge impact — Evaluation of the impact energy. ECIA EEVC Working Group 17 Document 86, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rodmell, C. and Lawrence, J., Further pedestrian accident reconstructions with the upper leg-form impactor. Transport Research Laboratory, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Anderson, R., McClean, A., Streeter, L., Ponte, G., Sommariva, M., Londsay, T., and Wun-dersitz, L., Severity and type of pedestrian injuries related to vehicle impact locations and results of subsystem impact reconstruction. In IRCOBI Conference, Munich, pp. 289–302, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mizuno, Y., Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety working group activities — Proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection offered by passenger cars. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, Washington, ESV Paper No. 05-0138-O, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Otte, D., Influence of vehicle front geometry on injuries to pedestrians involved in accidents. Medical University of Hanover, under contract to BASt, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  62. EEVC, Cycle and light powered two wheeler accidents. In IRCOBI Conference, Delft, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Maki, T., Kajzer, J., Mizuno, K., and Sekine, Y., Comparative analysis of vehicle-bicyclist and vehicle-pedestrian accidents in Japan. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35(6), 927–940, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Glaeser, K., Development of head impact procedure for pedestrian protection. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Matsui, Y., Takabayashi, M., and Tanahashi, M., Characteristics of 3.5 kg pedestrian headform impactor prototypes developed by JAMAU/JARI and ACEA/TNO. Journal of Crashworthi-ness 10(2), 197–210, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kuehn, M., Froeming, R., and Schindler, V., Assessment of vehicle related pedestrian safety. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0044, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  67. MacLaughlin, T. and Kessler, J., Pedestrian head impact against the central hood of motor vehicles — Test procedure and results. In 34th Stapp Car Crash conference, Orlando, FL, SAE Paper No. 902315, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Matsui, Y., Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety working group activities 2003 — Proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection offered by passenger cars. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 443, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lim, Y.-J. and De, S., Real time simulation of nonlinear tissue response in virtual surgery using the point collocation-based method of finite spheres. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 196(31–32), 3011–3024, 2007.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  70. Mizuno, Y. and Ishikawa, H., Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety WG activities — Proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 280, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  71. EU, Move to improved pedestrian safety by 2009, EC. IP/08/964, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  72. EC Directive 2005/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  73. AS Motor vehicle protection systems, Part 1: Road user protection. Standards Australia. AS 4876.1-2002, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  74. JMLIT, Technical standard for the protection of heads of pedestrians, Japan Ministry of land, Infrastructure and Transport, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2009). Vehicle Design Standards for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. In: Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact. Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, vol 166. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2743-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2743-6_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2742-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2743-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation