IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Home , Breakover angle, Isuzu Trooper

IMPROVER Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles and Road Equipment

Final Report APPENDICES

Subproject 1

Impact on road safety due to the increasing of sports utility and multipurpose vehicles

TNO, The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Netherlands

BASt Federal Highway Research Institute, Germany

TRL Transport Research Laboratory Limited, United Kingdom

VTI National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden

Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg, Sweden

UTAC, L'Union Technique de l'Automobile, du Motocycle et du Cycle, France

April 2006

1 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

With the following partners: • TNO, The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Netherlands (Author: C. van der Zweep) • BASt Federal Highway Research Institute, Germany (Authors: C. Pastor, B. Bugsel and J. Gail) • Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg, Sweden (Author: R. Thomson) • TRL Transport Research Laboratory Limited, United Kingdom (Authors: T. Brightman and T. Horberry) • UTAC, L'Union Technique de l'Automobile, du Motocycle et du Cycle, France (Author: T. Martin) • VTI National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden (Author: T. Turbell)

2 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Contents of appendices Contents of appendices...... 3 WP 1.1 Report ...... 5 1 Data collection on SUV and MPV ...... 6 1.1 Defining Sport Utility (SUVs) and Multi-Purpose Vehicles (MPVs) ...... 6 1.2 Sales figures...... 13 1.3 Issues reported world wide regarding SUVs and MPVs safety...... 16 1.4 Conclusions...... 26 2 National statistics...... 27 2.1 Approach ...... 27 2.2 Detailed requirements ...... 28 2.3 Data analyses...... 28 2.4 Conclusions...... 32 3 Conclusions ...... 34 3.1 SUV and MPV definition ...... 34 3.2 Sales numbers...... 34 3.3 Safety issues reported world wide...... 34 3.4 National statistics...... 34 4 References ...... 36 WP 1.2 Report ...... 38 1 Abstract ...... 39 2 German database GIDAS...... 40 2.1 Method and Database ...... 40 2.2 Scope of the Data...... 41 2.3 SUV Single Car Accidents...... 41 2.4 SUV to Pedestrian Accidents ...... 44 2.5 SUV to Passenger Car Accidents...... 45 2.6 SUV to Truck Accidents...... 48 2.7 Conclusions...... 49 2.8 Recommendations...... 49 3 UK database CCIS ...... 51 3.1 Background ...... 51 3.2 Method - Selection of Cases ...... 51 3.3 Car/SUV compatibility:...... 51 3.4 In depth Study Results ...... 53 3.5 Conclusions...... 62 3.6 Recommendations:...... 63 WP 1.3 Report ...... 64 1 Analysis of SUV compatibility problem ...... 65 1.1 Measurement of structural parameters...... 65 1.2 Fleet studies ...... 65 1.3 Road restraint systems...... 65 2 Measurement of structural parameters...... 66 2.1 Introduction...... 66 2.2 Method ...... 66 2.3 Results ...... 68 2.4 Conclusion...... 74 3 Fleet Analysis of SUV Safety...... 75

3 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3.1 Mass independent approach Fleet systems analysis ...... 75 3.2 Conclusions...... 77 3.3 Geometrical approach Fleet systems analysis ...... 77 4 SUVs and the Standards EN1317 and EN12767 ...... 87 4.1 Introduction...... 87 4.2 Evaluation Criteria ...... 88 4.3 Conclusions...... 90 5 Conclusions ...... 91 6 References ...... 93 WP 1.4 Report ...... 94 1 Environmental performance of SUVs and MPVs ...... 95 1.1 Objective ...... 95 1.2 Methodology...... 95 1.3 Results ...... 96 1.4 Conclusion...... 101 1.5 Recommendations...... 102 1.6 Literature ...... 102

4 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

IMPROVER SP1 Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles and Road Equipment

WP 1.1 Report

Data collection

Impact on road safety due to the increasing of sports utility and multipurpose vehicles

with the following partners: • TNO, The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, The Netherlands • BASt Federal Highway Research Institute, Germany • Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg, Sweden • TRL Transport Research Laboratory Limited, United Kingdom • UTAC, France • VTI National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden

5 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

1 Data collection on SUV and MPV

1.1 Defining Sport Utility (SUVs) and Multi-Purpose Vehicles (MPVs)

1.1.1 Abstract The classification of cars according to their body shape is quite often used for categorising cars e.g. in crashworthiness ratings. Historically this classification has been introduced by car manufacturers. Some categories have been taken over by motor magazines, consumer organisations and also by accident researchers. However, a technically or legally based definition of the categories is often missing. The emerging discussion on Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), which initially started in the USA, demands for a clear cut definition of this car category. This report presents an approach to be able to categorise SUVs and MPVs. Furthermore the Multi- Purpose Vehicle category (MPVs) will be defined. It is intended that in the end MPVs and SUVs will be separate distinct groups, hence a car is either a SUV or a MPV.

SUVs derived historically from off-road vehicles. Thus the report starts with a review on the legal definition of “off-road” or “off-highway” Vehicles in the USA and in Europe (Paragraph 2.1.3 and 2.1.4). Simultaneously official definitions of the MPV-category are reviewed.

Section 2.1.5 introduces an approach to describe SUVs and MPVs merely on the basis of technical parameters. This concept could then e.g. be used to identify those car categories in national accident databases for research purposes.

1.1.2 Introduction The classification of cars according to their body shape or size is a quite often used methodology for categorizing cars e.g. in crashworthiness ratings. This is done because cars of different segments are often not directly comparable. Parameters used for classification were vehicle mass, market category, engine size or wheelbase. Introduced by car manufacturers categories like Minis, family cars, MPVs and SUVs became well known to the public by motor magazines and consumer organisations and are nowadays also often used by accident researchers. However, these terms do not have any technically or legally based definition. Accompanied by past years studies on SUV’s aggressivety, initially done in the US, there is a rising demand for a proper definition of those car categories in Europe. Descended from commercial and military vehicles such as the Jeep and Land Rover, SUVs could clearly be identified in the past as an “off roader that combines the load- hauling and passenger-carrying capacity of a large station wagon or minivan with features designed for off-road driving” [Enc]. Today we are already seeing a much more free approach in vehicle design. Without having a technical definition the previously intuitively made decision on category affiliation can hardly be accomplished.

6 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

This paper will give suggestions for mechanically oriented SUV and MPV definitions. The derivation will start with a review on the off-road vehicle delineation in the USA and in Europe.

1.1.3 Vehicle classification in the USA As the discussion on SUVs has been started in the USA we will first have a look at the official classification system in the American “Code of Federal Regulations” (C.F.R.), Title 49 (see e.g. [CFR]). PART 523 deals with vehicle classification. In addition there are definitions in PART 571 (FMVSS Safety Standards) and in PART 329, 531 & 533 (CAFE, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard). A glossary of vehicle distinctions for understanding Federal Safety Standards, as well as the relevant chapters of the C.F.R. is given in Appendix A.

SUV Definition First of all there is no legal definition for SUVs. As already mentioned in the introduction SUVs are historically derivates from off-road/off-highway vehicles. The term off-highway operation (which is taken by the author to be a synonym for off-road operation) is defined in PART 523.5 and describes a subgroup of the light truck vehicles. Passenger cars, as defined in PART 523.4 are explicitly defined, not to include automobiles capable of off-highway operations. Hence it is straight forward considering SUVs to be a subgroup of the light truck class. Following the PART 523.5 light truck definition an automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile:

1. That has: i) 4-wheel drive; or ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds (ca. 2,722 kg needs to be exact) gross vehicle weight; And 2. That has at least four of the following characteristics, calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile’s longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer’s recommended pressure: i) Approach angel of not less than 28 degrees ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters

Taking this definition most of the cars, intuitively to be taken as an SUV, would be included. The definition lacks SUVs which have a gross vehicle weight of less than 6,000 pounds ca. 2,722 kg and which are not 4-wheel driven, e.g. the Hyundai Santa Fe 2wd or Mazda Tribute 2wd. These cars fit the geometrical off-road requirements, but have a GVWR of just about 5,000 pounds (ca.2268 kg).

The fuel economy (CAFE) standard puts additional requirements on light trucks (and thus on most SUVs) and passenger cars. The current standard is 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) (11.7 km/ liter) for passenger automobiles and 20.7 mpg (8.8 km/ liter) for light trucks.

7 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 2.1 Description of technical parameters

Angle of Approach When viewed from the side, this is the angle between the ground and a line running from the front tire to the lowest-hanging point directly in front of it, which is usually the front bumper. This angle gives an indication of how the vehicle can approach a steep incline and its ability of climbing up to objects like rocks and other obstacles without damaging the front bumper.

Angle of Departure Also viewed from the side, this is the angle between the ground and a line running from the rear tire to the lowest-hanging point directly behind it, which is usually the rear bumper or trailer hitch. Similar to the approach angle, this angle indicates how the vehicle can depart a steep incline and it's ability to exit off of rocks and other obstacles without damaging the rear bumper.

Breakover Angle This angle is a measurement of a vehicle's ability to drive over a sharp ridge without touching its underside. the "included" angle measures the angle inside the ramp, the "excluded" angle measures from the "included angle to the vehicles horizontal. A shorter vehicle with large tires will have the best (largest) breakover angle. Most SUVs run around 20 degrees "excluded" breakover angle (stock).

MPV Definition Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicles (MPVs) are defined in PART 571.3, being “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation”. Taking this definition most (but not all) minivans, pickup trucks and SUVs fit this category.

1.1.4 Vehicle classification in Europe For finding a suitable definition of SUVs and MPVs in Europe the European Type Approval Regulation (70/156/EWG) has been consulted (see e.g. [EWG]). A copy of Appendix 2 to this regulation has been included in Appendix A of this paper.

SUV Definition As for the USA there is neither any official legal definition for SUVs in Europe. Considering again the historical origin of SUVs being derived from off-road vehicles, the legal definition for passenger cars with off-road capabilities was taken as a first approach to find a proper SUV concept in the framework of European legislation. In Europe both passenger automobiles (class M vehicles) and cargo carrying vehicles (class N vehicles) can have off-road capabilities. However, most SUVs in Europe are assigned to the passenger car group. In particular they fit the group of M1 vehicles,

8 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 which is defined as passenger car which is manufactured primarily for use in the transportation of not more than 9 individuals (Regulation 70/156/EWG Appendix 2 A). Class N vehicles, where most pickups will fit in, are not taken into account by the author, due to their minor market share in Europe.

M1 class off-roaders, in the sense of 70/156/EWG, are passenger vehicles if they have:

• At least one front axle and at least one rear axle designed to be driven simultaneously including vehicles where the drive to one axle can be disengaged, • At least one differential locking mechanism or at least one mechanism having a similar effect and if they can climb a 30 % gradient calculated for a solo vehicle.

In addition, they must satisfy at least five of the following six requirements:

• The approach angle must be at least 25 degrees, • the departure angle must be at least 20 degrees, • the ramp angle must be at least 20 degrees, • the ground clearance under the front axle must be at least 180 mm, • the ground clearance under the rear axle must be at least 180 mm, • the ground clearance between the axles must be at least 200 mm.

This definition, especially the part determining the geometrical requirements is quite close to the US standards. Generally the demands for off-road capability are less strict in Europe. For a comprehensive comparison see Table 2.1.

9 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Table 2.1 Comparison of legal off road requirements in US and European standards Requirements US-standard European- standard Approach angle 28 ° 25 ° Departure angle 20 ° 20 ° Ramp angle / Breakover 28 °/14 ° 20 °/10 ° angle Front and rear axle 180 mm 180 mm ground clearance requirments Geometrical Ground clearance 200 mm 200 mm between axles AND AND 4 Wheel Drive 4 Wheel Drive At least “switch

ts on” 4 Wheel OR Drive AND GVWR > 6,000 Differential lock Add-on lbs 2,500 kg mechanism requiremen

Like the definition for off-highway vehicles in the USA the European definition for M1- off-roaders can not serve as a proper SUV concept. Although there is no mass requirement which caused inconsistencies for the American definition there is now a compulsory 4 Wheel Drive requirement, due to which all 2 wheel driven SUV type vehicles – like the 2wd Hyundai Santa Fe – are no off-road vehicles.

MPV Definition There exists an official definition for MPVs in the European Type Approval Regulation 70/156/EWG Appendix 2 C. Determining body types of M1-class-vehicles the regulation differentiates between

1. AA Saloon 2. AB Hatchback 3. AC Station Wagon 4. AE Convertible 5. AF Multi-purpose vehicle

This differentiation is essentially based on ISO Standard 3833 – 1977, term No. 3.1.1. Multi-purpose vehicles (MPVs) are defined to be “motor vehicles other than those mentioned in AA to AE intended for carrying passengers and their luggage or goods, in a single compartment [..]” (see also Appendix B).

However, the body shape definitions according to ISO Standard 3833 – 1977 are not one-to-one. From the author's point of view there is a clear need to update this ISO Standard. It is not adapted to nowadays national car parks. This results in quite ambiguous definitions (e.g. no clear cut between Hatchback and MPV vehicles) which leaves the manufacturer almost free to choose the body type of a new car when submitting the type approval documents.

10 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Having this in mind the legal MPV definition is of no use for a clear cut definition of MPVs.

1.1.5 A unified SUV and MPV definition Section 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 has shown that neither the American nor the European definition of off-road vehicles can immediately be used for defining SUVs. On the other hand both definitions describe most SUVs quite correctly. Hence, there is legitimate hope that by using the off-road definition and adding some little changes we can construct a good and meaningful SUV definition. The intuitively expected outer appearance of a SUV is in good line with the geometrical requirements (ground clearance, approach angle, etc.) in both definitions. The problem is caused by non 4 wheel driven cars which, do not reach a certain GVWR. Following this argumentation, the geometrical demands have been kept, while the additional requirements have been cancelled. As this project has the major intention to find suitable definitions for the European car fleet the geometrical requirements from the regulation 70/156/EWG have been adopted. As mentioned in chapter 2.4 most SUVs in Europe fit the group of M1-class-vehicles. Thus, pickups and other N-class vehicles have been ignored by the author due to their relatively small market share in Europe. This is a very different situation as compared with the USA, where pickups compose a good part of the car park.

In addition a database analysis of about 20,000 car make and models has been compiled to find more parameters which could be helpful in identifying SUVs and MPVs. It came out, that the height of a car is quite a good predictor. A height of 1600 mm proofed to be useful for distinguishing SUVs and MPVs from salon, hatchback, convertibles and cabrio cars. The height limit of 1600 mm excludes cars which, are capable of off-road operations, but are generally not considered to be a SUV. This includes cars like the Suzuki Ignis, Honda HR-V and Subaru Forester. Putting a mass limit to the SUV and MPV definition instead of a height limit, showed to be less successful.

The final definition for SUVs and MPVs is shown in Table 2.2. Following this definition MPVs and SUVs build up distinct groups of cars, MPVs being all cars (except SUVs) with a height of more than 1600 mm.

11 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Table 2.2 Final definition of SUVs and MPVs Requirements SUV MPV Approach angle >25 ° - Departure angle >20 ° - Ramp angle >20 ° - Front and rear axle >180 mm - ground clearance Ground clearance >200 mm - Geometrical requirements between axles Height > 1600 mm > 1600 mm AND AND Vehicle class (in M1-class- M1-class- accordance with reg. vehicle vehicle 70/156/EWG) On’s Add- - Notbeeing an SUV

Selected vehicles as a SUV The selected vehicles from the database are studied in a more statistical way to investigate the distribution of the selectors, like height, wheelbase and curb weight. For this the three different classes are plotted in boxplots, which gives the mean value and the 50% interval (red box) and the 90% interval (lines). The height is used as a discriminator between the passenger cars and SUV/MPV classes. The mean value for the small, medium and large SUV is respectively; 1800, 1780 and 1900. For the three MPV classes this is for the small, medium and large, 1700, 1720 and 1830.

12 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

$ 6 Car type 2250.0 Car type $ 2400.0 MPV MPV $ Saloon $ Saloon $ $ SUV $ SUV $

$ 2000.0 ]

$ ] m 2000.0

m 6

[

$ h h $

t $

g i d $ i 1750.0

e $ W H $ 1600.0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ 6$ 1500.0 6 6 1200.0 6 $

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Size classification Size classification $ 6 Car type Car type 6 $ MPV 6 $ MPV 4000 Saloon 6 Saloon 6

6 SUV SUV ]

6 ] 3000 g m $

6 k $ $

3500 [ $ m

[

$ h $

e $ g $

s 6 i

a $ $ $ e $ $

b 3000 $ l

e 2000

b $

e 6 r $

u $

$ C Wh 2500 $

6 $ 1000 2000 6 $ 6 6 $

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Size classification Size classification Figure 2.2 Height, width, wheelbase and curb weight distribution of the three (small, medium and large) MPV (left), saloon (mid) and SUV classes.

Conclusion from distribution plots The height gives a clear distinction between passenger cars and SUV/MPV classes, however, this selector can not be used to divide the SUV class in small, medium and large. This is also valid for the MPV and saloon class. The wheelbase is a good selector for the division in small, medium and large. Division based on the wheelbase, give the same distribution in the width, therefore these two can both be used to distinguish between small, medium and large. The curb weight is not a good selector; there is too much overlap between the three size classes.

1.2 Sales figures

1.2.1 Europe The limited classification of vehicle body types makes a simple extraction of the sales figures for SUVs impossible. Two different approaches are provided, the first being an analysis of the European sales reported by ACEA and the second being a detailed review individual model sales. The latter approach used models identified by the project group. Both approaches provide incomplete reporting of the sales figures, but can provide some general information on the relative size of the SUV market and trends in the recent years.

13 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Austria Belgium 10 Denmark Finland i France 8 Germany Greece Ireland 6 Italy Luxembourg Netherlands 4

% New Vehicle New % Registrat Portugal Spain Sweden 2 Uni ted Ki ngdom EU15 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Figure 2.3 Historical sales of FWD in the EU15 countries

In a detailed search of 47 vehicle models classified as SUVs, the share of new vehicles sales in 2003 was 4.6%. This value is somewhat lower than the 6% provided in Figure 2.3, but reflects SUV models identified by the project group. Figure 2.3 includes other 4WD vehicles that may not be SUV type vehicles such as AUDI and Subaru 4WD passenger cars.

To provide an overview of the share of SUV vehicles in the European fleet based on vehicle mass, the market share of SUVs and passenger cars in 100 kg intervals is plotted in Figure 2.4. Here it is important to notice the relatively small share of the market that SUVs make up compared to passenger cars. In particular, the situation in the US is dramatically different from that in Europe.

14 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

35.0 PASSENGER 30.0 SUV 25.0 20.0

%SALES 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 9 9 9 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 3 5 7 9 19 39 59 7 9 1 0-199 0- 0- 0- -1 -1 -1 -1 -2799 -2999 0 0 0 0 0 200- 4 6 8 00 00 00 600 800-1 10 12 14 1 1 2000-22200-23992400-2599260 280 MASS (Kg)

Figure 2.4 Distribution of the Vehicle Fleet by mass and Vehicle Type

The Netherlands The Dutch sales data are given per vehicle make and model; therefore the SUV and MPV list [Appendix A] is used to select the total sales of these two classes.

Total vehicle sales Total MPV Sales 700 Total SUV sales 18.0 MPV sales[%] 16.0 600 SUVs sales[%] 14.0 500 12.0

400 10.0

300 8.0

6.0 [%] Percentage 200 4.0 Number of vehicles sold(x1000) 100 2.0

0 0.0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year

Figure 2.5 Dutch sales data year 1998 – 2004 for the total vehicle sales and the sales per vehicle class SUV and MPV. On the left y-axis the number of sold vehicle x1000 and the right y-axis the percentage of SUV and MPV sales as percentage of the total passenger vehicle sales.

The percentage of SUVs sold is increasing since 1998, however the last two years there is a stable number of sold SUVs, 3.5 and 3.6%. The MPV sales have the same trend the last two years, 17.0% for both years.

1.2.2 US In the US there has been a tradition of recording vehicle types as LTV, SUV, etc. which allows their sales and other statistics to be tracked easily. Figure 2.6 shows the market share of SUVs and LTVs in the US over a 20 year period. Figure 1 clearly demonstrates the significant increase in LTV sales in the US approaching 50% in recent years. Recent media reports at the time of preparing this report indicate that

15 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

SUV sales are not increasing in 2005 and are dropping slightly, partly due to high oil prices.

Figure 2.6 Market Share for LTVs in the US [NHTSA/compat, 2003]

1.3 Issues reported world wide regarding SUVs and MPVs safety

1.3.1 Introduction Sport Utility Vehicles, or SUVs, represent a growing segment of the automotive market that has significantly increased since the 1990’s. Currently SUVs represent about 50% of new vehicle sales in the US. Because of the current classification system for vehicle registrations in Europe, it is not as easy to identify SUVs in current European sales figures. Moreover, other databases like police accident reports are also not configured to easily identify SUV activities in Europe. The rapid expansion of this vehicle segment and the limited ability to monitor its influence in European traffic requires further investigation.

The growing market share of these vehicles in the US has created a variety of issues. In addition to the known increases in fuel consumption and emissions from these vehicles, significant safety issues have been observed. In particular crash compatibility issues between SUVs passenger vehicles and vulnerable road users, as well as the higher rollover risk for SUVs are under investigation. These trends are obvious in the US accident research and provide justification for similar analyses for the EU.

In addition to the safety and emissions problems associated with SUVs, lobby groups are organising campaigns to limit or ban SUVs from cities or city centres. This can be brought about by setting more stringent rules (taxes, access permits, etc) to these types of vehicles.

16 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

The world wide SUV issues will be analysed to position subsequent SUV research for Europe. The majority of this analysis is derived from the US market because of the significant number of investigations initiated by NHTSA. Besides this, Japan also has a growing problem with the SUVs, because of the small size of the other cars. Surveys of the lobby groups attempting to prohibit SUV in cities will be conducted to also investigate the social aspects of SUVs on European society.

The first step in understanding the influence of SUVs on European traffic is first develop a definition of SUVs based on physical attributes of the vehicle. Subsequently, the sales of these vehicles can be investigated to understand the size of this segment of the vehicle fleet.

Classification A sport utility vehicle (SUV) or off-roader is a vehicle that combines the load-hauling and passenger-carrying capacity of a large station wagon or minivan with features designed for off-road driving. SUVs are derived from light truck platforms, but have developed to have the general shape of a station wagon. Typical to a light truck platform, SUVs have a taller setup than a station wagon due to the more upright seating stance and a suspension designed for giving ground clearance for off-road driving. In higher-end models, four wheel drive (often called All Wheel Drive –AWD) is available, unlike the majority of automobiles in which only the front or rear wheels provide power. The design tends to be heavier and higher wind resistance leads to a need for larger engines. Many SUVs have large V-6 or V-8 engines. In countries where fuel is more expensive, buyers often opt for diesel engines, which are more fuel efficient (and diesel fuel itself is often much cheaper).

There are two general trends among SUVs - real off-roaders, usually utility vehicles with a truck chassis and “crossovers” with a monocoque chassis. Crossovers are essentially a standard station wagon with a heavier suspension and higher ground clearance. Their off-road capability is often compromised by a low ground clearance.

Other vehicle types that are often associated with SUVs are the Light Truck and Van (LTV) which encompasses pick-up trucks, and vans, and minivans, as well as MPV – Multi Purpose Vehicles. All of these vehicles share the characteristics of being taller, heavier, and offering a more upright seating position than standard passenger cars.

1.3.2 Safety issues w.r.t. to (own) vehicle

Single Vehicle Collisions The recent problems with rollover fatalities in LTVs are interrelated with the performance of LTVs in run-off-road crashes. Rollovers and compatibility issues of LTV/SUVs in conjunction to impacts with guardrails were studied by the National Center for Crash Analysis (NCAC 2004). In addition to the increased of rollover due to the higher centre of gravity for LTVs there are also issues raised by the higher frame structures of these vehicles relative to passenger cars. Recent changes to roadside hardware test procedures are under review in the US to monitor the performance of SUVs in guardrail impacts.

17 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Electronic Stability Control [NHTSA/ESC, 2004] NHTSA is in the process of statistically evaluating the effectiveness of ESC in reducing single vehicle crashes in various domestic and imported cars and SUVs. At this point the agency has analyzed data from model years 1997 to 2002, in make models where ESC was introduced in those years. The agency is also looking at single- and multi-vehicle crash rates per 100,000 registration years to ensure that any reduction in single vehicle crashes is not offset by an increase (if any) in multi-vehicle crashes. Approach The study at this point consists of a series of analyses of crash data from currently available State and FARS databases. Crash data from calendar years 1997 to 2002 from 5 States (Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Utah) were used in the analyses because these are the States that consistently have a high percentage of Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) information in their data files. The effectiveness of ESC in reducing fatal single vehicle crashes was also evaluated by analyzing FARS data from calendar years 1997 to 2003. The analysis compares specific make/models of passenger cars and SUVs with ESC versus earlier versions of the same make/models, using multi-vehicle crash involvements as a control group. Vehicles with ESC as optional equipment were not included in the analysis because we could not determine which vehicles had ESC and which did not.

[NHTSA/ESC, 2004] Presentation on the effects of ESC systems as comparison between passenger cars and SUVs.

[NHTSA/ESC, 2005] ESC research is a top priority for NHTSA, and a cooperative testing effort between NHTSA and industry is proposed. Test data from industry-evaluated vehicles is requested. – Data will help determine the most efficient maneuver capable of determining whether a vehicle is equipped with an ESC – Used to improve the robustness of its spinout model – Will help assess lateral displacement capability of ESC equipped vehicles

Rollover The high center of gravity of SUVs makes them more prone to rollover accidents (especially in emergency maneuvers) than lower vehicles. Consumer Reports has found a few SUVs unacceptable in recent years due to their rollover risk. In the US, rollovers have been identified as significant safety issue, because a rollover crash is far more likely to result in fatalities than a non-rollover. Although only 3 percent of all passenger vehicles involved in crashes in 2000 experienced rollover, 20 percent of passengers vehicles involved in fatal crashes rolled. In particular, SUV, MPV and other Light Trucks are over-represented in rollover accidents [ROLLOVER, 2003]

Rollovers, as a single event are rare events in Europe, accounting for about 5% of all accident cases in the UK CCIS database and 4% of the cases in the German GIDAS database. Fay found that rollovers occur more frequently as a part of more complex accidents sequences involving multiple impacts, 14% of the UK crashes in the CCIS database and 12% of the GIDAS dataset. In most of these multiple impact cases, the

18 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 first event in the sequence in an impact rather a rollover, e.g. 58 percent in the UK CCIS database. This is similar to the proportion found by Hurley. She showed that 48 percent of the rollover accidents occur after an initial impact. Furthermore, she showed that fatalities within rollover account for 21 percent of all fatalities (CCIS, 1991 through March 2001). Kirk found that in the STATS 19 data, 15% of all cars that have a fatal occupant have a element of rollover. Despite the use of different databases of different types from different countries, most of the published work in Europe reaches similar conclusions. [ROLLOVER, 2003]

[NHTSA/Rollover, 2004] Phase VIII research report. See also earlier phases. The work presented in this report focused on testing the dynamic rollover resistance of 14 new vehicles using the maneuvers and procedures developed by NHTSA during previous phases of its Light Vehicle Rollover Research Program. Results from seven sport utility vehicles (SUVs), four pick-ups, and three passenger cars are presented. The vehicles were selected on the basis of their inclusion in the 2004 New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Three vehicles were equipped with an electronic stability control system (ESC). If the vehicle was equipped with ESC, all tests were performed with the system enabled. Of the 14 vehicles discussed in this report, two produced two-wheel lift: the Ford Sport Trac 4x2 and the Toyota Tacoma 4x4. Two- wheel lift was observed during Fishhook tests performed with Nominal and Multi- Passenger configurations for the Tacoma 4x4. Only tests performed with the Multi- Passenger load produced two-wheel lift with the Sport Trac 4x2. Note that only the Fishhook test in the heavy multi-passenger load configuration is used by the NCAP rating system. Use of the Fishhook’s supplemental test procedures worked well for the vehicles discussed in this report. In the case of the Toyota Tacoma 4x4 in the light Nominal load configuration, Supplemental Procedure Part #1 tests performed with new tires validated the two-wheel lift that occurred during a Default Procedure test series. A reduction of handwheel angle magnitude (i.e., changing äss = 6.5 to äss = 5.5) did not increase tip-up propensity. Of the Phase VIII vehicles discussed in this study, every vehicle that produced two-wheel lift did so when äss = 6.5. As a result of the tests performed in Phase VIII, the 2004 Ford Sport Trac 4x2 and the 2004 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 received NCAP rollover ratings based on a “tip-up” in the dynamic test component of NCAP’s statistical model of rollover risk.

Inertia database, Static Stability Factor [NHTSA/SSF, 1999] This paper is primarily a printed listing of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Light Vehicle Inertial Parameter database. This database contains measured vehicle inertial parameters from SAE Paper 930897. “Measured vehicle inertial parameters” – NHTSA’s database through September 1992. As well as parameters obtained NHTSA since 1992. The proceeding paper contained 414 entries. This paper contains 82 new entries for a total of 496. The majority of the entries contain complete vehicle inertial parameters. Some of the entries contain tilt table results only and some of the entries contain both inertia and tilt table results. This paper provides a brief discussion of the accuracy of inertial measurements. Also included are selected graphs of quantities listed in the database for some of the 1998 model year vehicles tested.

[NHTSA/Inertia, 2004] NHTSA created a Inertia database of all (almost) vehicle occurring in the US.

19 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Safety regulations SUVs do not have to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. The double standard exists due to arcane federal rules classifying SUVs as light trucks. Less rigid rules mean occupants of SUVs are not protected by the side-impact crash safety standards or strength requirements for bumpers required on standard passenger cars. It is desirable that SUVs be included in side impact protection and bumper strength criteria, the group can see no reason why they should not be so included.

1.3.3 Safety issues w.r.t to other road partners

Aggressiveness [Alliance, 2005] For decades, the light vehicle category consisted primarily of automobiles. The growing popularity over the past 10 years of light trucks, vans, and utility vehicles (LTVs), all weighing 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or less, has changed the marketplace as well as the safety picture. LTV sales have soared to almost eight million units sold in 2002 – 49 percent of new passenger vehicle sales. In 2003, the number of registered LTVs in the United States exceeded 85 million units or approximately 37 percent of registered motor vehicles in the U.S. The majority of LTVs are used as private passenger vehicles and the number of miles logged in them increased 26 percent between 1995 and 2000, and 70 percent between 1990 and 2000. Beyond the growth in sheer numbers of vehicles, LTVs also have increased in size, the curb weight gaining on average about 300 pounds from 2000 to 2004, whereas passenger cars gained approximately 110 pounds during the same period. NHTSA is continuing research to identify vehicle characteristics that affect compatibility and evaluate their effects in real world crash performance. Several compatibility performance metrics have been developed and are being evaluated against real world crash experience and staged vehicle crash testing. Evaluation of compatibility performance measures is using sophisticated computer models to assess the impact of vehicle changes on fleetwide safety performance. The fleet studies are focused on evaluating the impact of changes made to the entire fleet (i.e., both LTVs and cars) on safety. In addition to NHTSA's initiatives, vehicle manufacturers have committed to a set of voluntary standards for enhanced vehicle- to-vehicle crash compatibility. NHTSA is closely monitoring these voluntary efforts and future research developments from industry participants.

Front to front compatibility working group commitments The TWG held its first meeting on March 10, 2003 and agreed on the following: • A short-term initial step in addressing further improvements in front-to-front crash compatibility between two colliding vehicles is through better alignment and geometric matching of the vehicle crash structures. • A barrier face load cell configuration with a 125mm x 125mm load cell array is appropriate to make the determination of the height and distribution of force of an impacting vehicle into the barrier face. • The TWG agreed to review the use of a deformable face on the barrier for testing with NHTSA in order to ascertain the agency's willingness to include the

20 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

deformable member as part of future (revised) FMVSS 208 barrier test procedures. • The TWG agreed that achieving better alignment and engagement between the front-end structures of the impacting vehicles is the necessary first step towards improving compatibility. It was also agreed that manufacturers should begin designing light trucks so their PEAS (Rail or frame) overlap a proportion of the zone established by NHTSA in its bumper standard (49 CFR 581) for passenger cars. This zone of impact resistance for passenger car bumpers is the area between 16 and 20 inches off the ground. By ensuring that light trucks have a significant portion of their front energyabsorbing structures in this zone, these structures are more likely to engage (instead of over- or under-riding) the PEAS of passenger cars in ahead-on crash.

Phase I: Enhancing geometric alignment of front energyabsorbing structures The TWG developed the following Phase I requirements which were announced on December 3, 2003 as a first step towards improving geometrical compatibility: Participating manufacturers will begin designing light trucks in accordance with one of the following two geometric alignment alternatives, with the light truck at unloaded vehicle weight (as defined in 49 CFR 571.3):

OPTION 1: The light truck's primary frontal energyabsorbing structure shall overlap at least 50 percent of the Part 581 zone AND at least 50 percent of the light truck's primary frontal energy-absorbing structure shall overlap the Part 581 zone (if the primary frontal energy-absorbing structure of the light truck is greater than 8 inches tall, engagement with the entire Part 581 zone is required), OR, OPTION 2: If a light truck does not meet the criteria of Option 1, there must be a secondary energyabsorbing structure, connected to the primary structure, whose lower edge shall be no higher than the bottom of the Part 581 bumper zone. This secondary structure shall withstand a load of at least 100 KNewtons exerted by a loading device, as described in the attached Appendix A, before this loading device travels 400 mm as measured from a vertical plane at the forward-most point of the significant structure of the vehicle. If a light truck has crash compatibility devices that deploy in high-severity frontal crashes with another vehicle, all measurements shall be made with these devises in their deployed state. Not later than September 1, 2009, 100 percent of each participating manufacturer’s new light truck production intended for sale in the United States and Canada will be designed in accordance with either geometric alignment Option 1 or Option 2.

Applicability All light truck vehicles with a GVWR up to 10,000 pounds, except, low production volume vehicles, vehicles over 8,500 pounds GVWR with functional criteria which preclude them from meeting the performance criteria, (e.g., postal vehicles, military vehicles, service vehicles used by public and private utilities, vehicles specifically designed primarily for off-road use, and incomplete vehicles), and other vehicles that a manufacturer determines cannot meet the performance criteria without severely compromising their practicality or functionality.

21 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 2.7 Typical front rail geometry and definition of Part 581 zone for voluntary standard.

Product Information Beginning November 3, 2003, and on each September 1 thereafter, through September 1, 2009 (i.e., November 3, 2003; September 1, 2004; September 1, 2005; September 5, 2006; September 3, 2007; September 1, 2008; and September 1, 2009), participating manufacturers will publicly disclose at least annually, the vehicle nameplates [models] for the upcoming model year that have been engineered according to the front-to-front and front-to-side performance criteria, and provide a ‘good faith’ estimate of the percentages of the manufacturer’s total production for the upcoming model year that are engineered in accordance with the front-to-front performance criteria, respectively.

[NHTSA/ aggress, 2000] Objective: Quantify the aggressivity of LTVs – SUVs, MPVs and pick-up trucks – in collisions with cars. Determine the effects of selected characteristics of LTVs (and as baseline also those of cars) in collisions with cars on the car driver’s fatality risk. Studies were vehicle weight, the height of the centre force, and static and dynamic front stiffness, as measured in crash tests. To calculate fatality risks, fatalities counts from FARS and involvement estimates from NASS GES for the years 1991-1997 were combined. Because some vehicle information is systematically missing in NASS GES, the data bases had to be made statistically compatible. Comparing vehicle make/models: Each vehicle make/model has practically the same parameters, but make/model can differ in important features other than the parameters used. This can confound the effects of the studied parameters used. Therefore, for make/model with sufficient case numbers, the driver fatality risks in the car they collided with were calculated. These risks were analysed in relation to the vehicle parameter. For SUVs, a model for aggressivity containing vehicle weight and the height of the centre of force was developed fitted the data well. Stiffness alone also gave a good fit, however, with the Isuzu Trooper as a far outlier. Reviewing the correlations between the vehicle parameters showed that the effects of all parameters could not be separated with the available data. For pick-up trucks, only a relation with weight appeared. Up to about 3000 lbs of weight, the aggressivity increased, at higher weights it increased only little, if at all.

22 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

For the van models with sufficient case numbers, differences in aggressivity were too small to allow an analysis. Conclusions: Strong differences in aggressivity were found between cars, and vans or pick-up trucks, but little between these two classes. The aggressivity of SUVs was higher than that of the two LTV types. The vehicle parameters used in this study did not suffice to explain the differences between the vehicle types though they appeared to have effects in SUVs. More vehicle parameters, or modifications of those used, need to be studied to explain the largest part of the aggressivity of LTVs.

Construction Safety is one common point of criticism. The majority of modern automobiles are constructed by a method called unit-body construction, whereby a steel body shell absorbs the impacts of collisions in crumple zones. Many SUVs, on the other hand, are constructed in the traditional manner of light trucks: body-on-frame, which when negligently designed can provide a comparatively lower level of safety. However, some SUVs have designs based on unit-body construction: the Ford Escape, Lexus RX 330 (Motor Trend), RX 400h, Mazda Tribute, and Acura MDX are some examples.

Crash incompatibility In multiple vehicle accidents it are those in ordinary cars who pay for SUV use. In a recent Australian study it was found that in a head on collision between a SUV and a conventional passenger car, the passenger car occupants were to 12.8 times more likely to be killed than the SUV occupant [4]. The ratio for side-on collisions was so high that reliable figures could not be drawn from the sample size of a few hundred fatal accidents. In a comprehensive report by the NHTSA three reasons were identified for the excessive danger of SUVs to other cars. They were increased mass, increased stiffness, and increased height [NHTSA/LTV, 1998]. The increased height results in increased likelihood of the 4WD riding up over the other vehicle, and especially over any side door reinforcing [IIHS, 2003]. The increased stiffness is claimed to be for off road driving. It is also because many SUVs, from the really big ones right down to the Suzuki Vitara, are built on truck chassis, with body on frame construction, and two beams rather than monocoque construction used for cars. Even the monocoque SUV frames are designed to be more rigid than conventional passenger car frames.

Pedestrian Abstract [Lefler/Pedestrian, 2002] In the United States, passenger vehicles are shifting from a fleet populated primarily by cars to a fleet dominated by light trucks and vans (LTVs). Because light trucks are heavier, stiffer, and geometrically more blunt than passenger cars, they pose a dramatically different type of threat to pedestrians. This paper investigates the effect of striking vehicle type on pedestrian fatalities and injuries. The analysis incorporates three major sources of data, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the General Estimates System (GES), and the Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS). The paper presents and compares pedestrian impact risk factors for sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, vans, and cars as developed from analyses of US accident

23 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 statistics. Pedestrians are found to have a two to three times greater likelihood of dying when struck by an LTV than when struck by a car. Examination of pedestrian injury distributions reveals that, given an impact speed, the probability of serious head and thoracic injury is substantially greater when the striking vehicle is an LTV rather than a car.

Low speed pedestrian collisions While any car can kill a pedestrian at 40km/h 4WDs have a habit of killing at much lower speeds. 4WDs and light commercial vehicles accounted for approximately 30% of vehicles on Australian roads in 1998, but accounted for almost two thirds of child pedestrian fatalities [MJA, 2000]. This is an extraordinary fourfold increase on a per vehicle basis, many caused by parents running down their own kids in driveways. It has been suggested that this may be due to poor visibility due to objects (e.g. spare tyres) in the rear window, and increased height [ATSB, 2000]. Data in the US, for all pedestrians is similar, with two times the deaths per accident when SUVs and 'pickups' were involved [AAP, 2002]. Most SUVs sold here have shockingly poor pedestrian crash ratings. The number of pedestrians killed as a result of bull bars in Australia each year has not been accurately determined. Experimental studies suggest that the effect on pedestrians and cyclists of adding bull bars is similar to doubling the speed of the vehicle [ATSB/Bull, 2000]. There are now soft plastic bull bars which in some cases may have some safety benefits for pedestrians, but most bullbars are still made from aluminium or steel. Bullbars are designed for animal strikes, in vehicle to vehicle collisions they reduce the safety of both parties. It is illegal in NZ to fit a bull bar to a passenger car unless it is approved and crash tested by the manufacturer. From October 2003 this also applies to 4WD's.

1.3.4 Environmental and psychological safety issues

SUV Owners [Plaut, 2004]: Abstract: There has been a sharp increase in the share of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks in the US vehicle fleet. The characteristics of SUV and light-truck commuters are analysed using the journey-to-work data from the American Housing Survey, and these are compared with car commuters. It is seen that SUV-truck commuters have slightly higher salaries but lower household incomes than car commuters, although they are more likely to hold college degrees and to own a home, especially a single home. Logit analysis is used to explore the impact of explanatory variables on the likelihood of commuting via SUV or light truck, as compared with ordinary cars. The likelihood rises with income but declines with the value of the house and the total number of motor vehicles owned by the household. It is also affected by a host of other socioeconomic, housing, location and neighbourhood features. The environmental effects of SUV and light truck commuting are discussed. Conclusion:

24 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

This paper has addressed the questions of who the commuters in SUVs and light trucks are, comparing them with car commuters, and what factors affect the likelihood of commuting via these vehicles. Several things indicate that the environmental impact of SUV commuting is more complex than often represented. SUV commuters tend to live in households with a smaller number of vehicles than households of commuters by car. This implies that while each SUV vehicle may contribute to urban pollution more so than an individual car being used for commuting, the emission contribution of households of SUV commuters may not be more than households of car commuters. Most of the literature on mobile-source emissions addresses pollution per vehicle rather than pollution per household; the two are quite different things. Accordingly, raising vehicle taxes to deter SUVs for environmental concerns, for example, may be a dubious policy if SUV household contribution to pollution is less than often believed. Taxing SUVs might increase the size of the ﬂeets of cars, if households purchase two or more non-SUVs for each SUV purchase deterred. In addition, commuters by SUV and small truck are considerably less likely to live in the central city and secondary urban areas within the MSA, and so less likely to contribute to pollution there, other things equal. Even if some of those living outside the MSA do commute to jobs inside urban areas, considerable parts of their commute trips are outside urban areas. Hence, even if they emit more pollution per mile travelled, they are likely to be doing so in large part in rural areas.

Safety Misperception SUV safety concerns are compounded by a perception among some consumers that SUVs are more safe for their drivers than standard autos; this perception is generally incorrect, although SUVs might provide more safety in a few situations. According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers (as cited in Gladwell, 2004), many consumers feel safer in SUVs simply because their ride height makes "[their passengers] higher and dominate and look down [sic]. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful notion". This and the massive size and weight of SUVs may lead to consumers' false perception of safety (Gladwell, 2004). [1] (http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html)

In 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released figures showing that drivers of SUVs were 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars. [2] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/business/17auto.html?ex=1250481600 &en=ab39f99261bb8c6e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) These figures may be confounded by variables other than the vehicles' inherent safety, for example the documented tendency for SUVs to be driven more recklessly (most sensationally perhaps, the 1996 finding that SUV drivers are more likely to drive drunk [3] (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LTV/)). SUV drivers are also statistically less likely to wear their seatbelts. [4] (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ cars/problems/studies/LTV/) The tendency to drive SUVs recklessly may be linked back to the perception that they provide superior driver protection.

Excluding SUV from cities Abandon of SUVs from various cities, London, Paris and Nijmegen, The Netherlands, California. [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/] The reasons often associated with the ban of SUVs are because they are polluters, they are space-occupiers, they are dangerous for pedestrians and other road users.

25 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing that just one in eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car off-road, and six in 10 never take it out of town.

1.4 Conclusions

SUVs represent about 50% of new vehicle sales in the US. The growing market share of these vehicles has created a variety of safety issues: The SUV sales in Europe are between 4 and 6%, depending on the available dataset used to determine the numbers. Although this is an order of magnitude lower than the US, the market share of SUVs has doubled since 1995. This means that the safety issues for SUV and LTVs in Europe is becoming more important.

Safety Issues w.r.t. to own vehicle • SUVs are classified as Light Truck Vehicles, consequently they do not have comply to the same, more stringent safety standards as passenger cars. • SUVs are more prone to rollover accidents (especially in emergency maneuvers) than passenger cars. Electronic Stability Control systems (ESC) are being developed to lower this risk. In the US, rollover is initiated primarily by single vehicle events and after first impact. This latter case dominates rollover events in Europe, where single vehicle rollover events are rare. • Rollovers have a higher fatality risk than frontal, side or rear impacts. • Single vehicle collisions are more severe events for SUVs due to their higher structures that may not interact with roadside safety equipment and their increased risk of rollovers.

Safety Issues w.r.t. to other road partners • SUVs are less crash compatible with passenger cars, due to increased height, increased stiffness and increased weight. • There is an increased injury and fatality risk for pedestrians in low speed pedestrian collisions with SUVs compared with passenger cars, due to increased height, presence of bull bars and particular SUV front and bonnet hood (leading edge) shape.

Environmental and psychological safety issues • Bans of SUV in various cities in Europe, Japan and US, are under discussion because they are regarded as being polluters, space-occupiers, and dangerous to pedestrians and other road users. • SUV safety concerns are compounded by a perception among some consumers that SUVs are more safe for their drivers than standard autos. For this reason, the tendency to drive SUVs recklessly may be linked back to the perception that they provide superior driver protection.

In general, SUVs have demonstrated safety and environmental issues in other parts of the world. It is important to further monitor the influence of SUVs on traffic safety and vehicle emissions. This is not practical in current European databases because of the lack of an objective definition of SUVs and a consistent reporting system in sales and police databases. Future monitoring of SUV issues will require modifications to existing reporting practices in Europe.

26 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2 National statistics

2.1 Approach

National statistics from each participating country (UK, D, NL, S, F) will be analysed for the rates of involvement of SUVs during 2003 and the injury outcome associated with this.

The categories required for comparison with SUVs were illustrated in the bid documents as: Mini; Light; Compact; Medium; Heavy; MPVs; SUVs. The increase in numbers of SUVs appears to be due to the changing market in terms of what people wish to drive. Accordingly, it is reasonable to adopt a categorisation of vehicles based on existing broad market sections so that comments may be placed in the context of the fleet as it tends towards or away from any existing categories. It is proposed that we use the definitions in the table below when analysing each national database.

These mass groups are based on the models tested by EuroNCAP. The boundaries are chosen so that the categories correspond approximately to models that have been placed in the Supermini, Small, Large and Executive NCAP groups. Clearly there will be some incorrect categorisation, but this is minimised by having the bands as few and wide as shown.

Table 2.1 Category On BASt’s And has mass And has mass And is a SUV list greater than or less than or passenger car equal to equal to SUV Yes No lower limit No upper limit Yes MPV Yes No lower limit No upper limit Yes Mini No No lower limit 1050kg Yes Light No 1051kg 1250kg Yes Medium No 1251kg 1450kg Yes Heavy No 1451kg No upper limit Yes

Interpret mass to mean kerb weight.

Note that the SUV category is exclusive from the other categories – so no SUVs occur in the other groups.

It is recognised that the SUV category will itself be associated with a higher average mass than the whole fleet, and even if their possible aggressivity is explained to some degree by this factor it still remains that the scope of this work is to examine the importance of this group in the accident statistics. Accordingly, the following sections list the required minimum output from each national database. It is anticipated that within each centre’s allocation of funds further analysis based on the scope of the particular dataset will be done to complement this minimum requirement.

27 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2.2 Detailed requirements

The UK data is taken from the years 1998-2002. Serious injury is judged to be any injury requiring hospitalisation, any injury involving a fracture, any internal injury, or any “serious” laceration. These decisions are made at the scene by a police officer. Fatal injuries are those resulting in death within 30 days of the accident date.

The Swedish data is taken from the years 2003-2004. It does not distinguish between rollover and non-rollover accidents. Seriously injured is according to the police. The instruction to the police is as follows: Seriously injured person is a person who is injured through fracture, contusion, serious cut, concussion or internal injury. A serious injury is any injury which is expected to lead to admission to hospital. Fatal injuries are those resulting in death within 30 days of the accident date. The Swedish data is incapable of determining if a collision actually occurred, where data is given it is for the primary traffic elements. If there was a collision it was between these elements.

The Dutch data is taken from the years 2001 – 2003. Any collision in the Dutch data is between the primary traffic elements, that is those two vehicles which initially collided, rather than any others involved in a multi-vehicle collision.

The German data is taken from the years 1999-2003. It does not distinguish between rollover and non rollover accidents.

The data below is presented in two tables per accident type the first for the percentage of fatal and serious injured accidents over the total of registered accidents (Fatal, serious and slightly injured) and the second for Fatal over fatal and serious injured accidents. Note that the different datasets of the countries can not be used to compare and draw conclusions over the countries. The datasets of the countries can only be used per country.

2.3 Data analyses

The numbers are presented in the following order: - All single vehicle accidents - Single vehicle accidents with and without rollover - Accidents with vulnerable road users - Severity comparison

2.3.1 Single vehicle accidents

Table 2.2 Single vehicle accidents, percentage of fatal and serious injured over fatal, serious and slightly injured Percentage Fatal+Serious/Total N = fatal + SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total serious UK 19 18 20 21 20 21 20 13484 Sweden 20 16 25 23 23 20 22 1737 Holland 42 39 45 46 51 40 45 807 Germany 34 35 34 34 36 36 36 63630

28 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Table 2.3 Single vehicle accidents, percentage of fatal over fatal and serious injured Percentage fatal/fatal+serious SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total N = fatal UK 9 10 10 11 15 11 11 1488 Sweden 0 0 12 12 12 14 12 213 Holland 13 5 7 16 6 8 9 72 Germany 9 10 5 7 9 11 10 6270

2.3.2 Rollover accidents The rollover accidents are analysed with the UK and Dutch dataset, as the Dutch dataset is small the figures are not significant.

Table 2.4 Comparison of single vehicle accidents involving overturning Percentage of Single vehicle accidents involving overturning N = Rollover SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total cases UK 20 18 21 22 24 22 21 4094 Holland 67 42 48 37 17 38 44 67 The following tables show the percentage of fatalities, seriously and slightly injured accidents with and without rollover in single vehicle accidents.

Table 2.5 Single vehicle accident without overturning, percentage fatal and serious over fatal, serious and slightly injured Percentage Fatal+Serious/Total N = Fatal + SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total serious UK 18 18 20 20 19 20 20 9390 Holland 34 39 45 46 53 41 45 740

Table 2.6 Single vehicle accident without overturning, percentage fatal over fatal and serious injured Percentage fatal/fatal+serious SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total N = Fatal UK 7 10 10 11 14 11 11 1000 Holland 20 6 7 15 6 7 9 66

Table 2.7 Single vehicle accident with overturning, percentage fatal and serious over fatal, serious and slightly injured Percentage Fatal+Serious/Total N = Fatal + SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total serious UK 20 18 21 22 24 22 21 4094 Holland 67 42 48 37 17 38 44 67

Table 2.8 Single vehicle accident with overturning, percentage fatal over fatal and serious injured Percentage fatal/fatal+serious SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total N = Fatal UK 10 13 10 13 15 11 12 488 Holland 0 0 8 20 0 17 9 6

29 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2.3.3 Pedestrian and other vulnerable road users To compare the severity of injury of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users who were struck by the different vehicle categories: Table 2.9 Percentage of fatal and serious injured accidents with pedestrians over fatal, serious and slightly injured Percentage Fatal+Serious/Total N = fatal + SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total serious UK 25 22 24 24 23 24 23 28495 Sweden 45 44 29 30 27 28 29 457 Holland 44 43 43 41 44 40 42 1294 Germany 35 33 35 37 36 33 34 35533

Table 2.10 Percentage of fatal accidents with pedestrians, percentage fatal over fatal and serious injured Percentage fatal/fatal+serious SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total N = fatal UK 9 7 8 8 8 11 8 2321 Sweden 0 11 7 12 16 17 14 65 Holland 8 12 10 10 11 16 11 143 Germany 7 6 6 5 6 6 6 2173

Table 2.11 Percentage of fatal and serious injured accidents with cyclists over fatal, serious and slightly injured Percentage Fatal+Serious/Total N = fatal + SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total serious UK 16 13 12 14 14 12 13 1548 Sweden 13 25 19 19 19 18 19 362 Holland 27 28 29 32 29 33 30 3663 Germany 21 19 19 20 19 17 18 32004

Table 2.12 Percentage of fatal accidents with cyclists over fatal and serious injured Percentage fatal/fatal+serious N = fatal SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total UK 77 449125 78 Sweden 50 6 7 4 7 8 7 25 Holland 15 4 6 6 8 12 7 255 Germany 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 1110

Table 2.12 Percentage of fatal and serious injured accidents with mopeds over fatal, serious and slightly injured Percentage Fatal+Serious/Total N = fatal + SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total serious UK 29 10 16 16 17 20 16 183 Sweden 27 14 19 22 20 19 20 219 Holland 37 33 27 29 29 33 29 2988 Germany 31 25 22 23 24 23 23 10513

30 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Table 2.13 Percentage of fatal accidents with mopeds over fatal and serious injured Percentage fatal/fatal+serious n=fatal SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total UK 14 0 2 1 0 20 2 4 Sweden 0 0 5 5 3 5 4 9 Holland 6 3 3 4 4 5 3 103 Germany 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 275

Table 2.14 Percentage of serious and fatal accidents with motorcyclist over fatal, serious and slightly injured Percentage Fatal+Serious/Total N = fatal + SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total serious UK 27 25 24 24 23 33 24 2597 Sweden 40 42 35 33 36 34 35 259 Holland 60 42 40 40 43 42 41 1117 Germany 38 31 28 28 29 29 29 25334

Table 2.15 Percentage of fatal accidents with motorcyclist over fatal and serious injured Percentage fatal/fatal+serious SUV MPV Mini Light Medium Heavy Total N = fatal UK 88 587137 192 Sweden 0 0 7 19 11 12 12 31 Holland 12 11 9 7 11 15 10 109 Germany 10 6 5 4 5 6 6 1413

2.3.4 Severity comparison To compare the severity of the outcome in two passenger cars that hit each other: In this table, the number of accidents reported will be split just by the difference in outcome – not the actual severity. That is, an accident in which there was a fatality in a light car that collided with an SUV containing a serious injury would be counted as equivalent to one in which there was a slight injury in a light car that collided with an SUV containing no injured people Table 2.16 Severity comparison Severity Comparison: SUV MPV Mini Light MediumHeavy Unknown All UK SUV Lower 0 4 36 39 6 1 54 140 Equal 4 18 170 220 60 2 273 747 Higher 0 4 11 20 8 0 48 91 MPV Lower 4 0 64 63 8 0 68 207 Equal 18 36 466 568 119 19 505 1731 Higher 4 30 25 56 18 3 69 205 Sweden SUV Lower 0 1 3 6 10 11 31 Equal 0 018811 28 Higher 01116 9 MPV Lower 0 15 41 40 28 124 Equal 0 0 14 31 46 42 133 Higher 4 1 8 20 34 43 110 Holland SUV Lower 0 110412 2341

31 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Equal 0 5 25 15 11 5 69 130 Higher 0 15025 1427 MPV Lower 1 3 45 12 7 7 20 95 Equal 5 24 122 80 36 44 42 353 Higher 1 3 15 12 7 12 6 56 Germany SUV Lower 0 129 59 703 1393 2769 5053 Equal 13 100 12 210 540 1520 2392 Higher 57 114 9 107 374 1307 1966

2.4 Conclusions

Initial conclusions:

SUV are at a greater risk of overturning in single vehicles collisions compared to other classes. The Dutch and UK data sets support this conclusion, though they record significantly different levels of rollover accidents (Table 3.10). The German and Swedish data did not distinguish between rollover and non rollover accidents, and so did not contribute to this conclusion.

The Dutch data suggests that SUV occupants are at lower risk of serious or fatal injury in single vehicle accidents without overturning. The UK data do not show the same effect, which may be down to national differences between the accident populations.

All the national datasets show that SUV occupants appear to be at no greater or lesser risk of suffering serious injury in all single vehicle accidents combined (Table 3.4).

SUVs tend to be causing higher injury levels than other vehicle classes in collisions with two wheeled motor vehicles, both motorcycles and mopeds. This conclusion is supported by the Dutch, German and Swedish data. The different datasets can not be used to identify the different levels of the effect. The UK data does not support this conclusion.

Dutch, German, and UK data suggest that SUVs offer no more severe injury outcomes to pedestrians than other classes of car. The Swedish data strongly disagrees, suggesting a much higher injury severity for pedestrians hit by SUVs.

We believe a detailed look at SUV pedestrian interaction would be useful. Several factors such as impact speed and pedestrian age can have a large influence on injury outcome, and if it is found that SUVs tend to have more accidents at slow speeds with child pedestrians, it may emerge that the apparent average performance of SUVs in terms of protecting pedestrian impact partners may not reflect their true performance, when compared to other classes in similar collision conditions.

Similarly an analysis of two wheeled motor vehicle collisions with SUVs would be desirable, intending to determine why SUVs seem to offer such severe collisions to these vehicles. An interaction between the roof rail of the SUV and the two wheeled

32 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 motor vehicle rider’s head has been suggested, but more work could confirm or deny this.

In the comparison of severity between SUV/MPVs and collision partners, the German data shows that SUVs suffer lower severity than collision partners (Table 3.9). The German data also shows that SUVs suffered lower severity when compared to any other class individually. The data from the other three partners strongly support this conclusion. The Dutch and Swedish data show similar conclusions, with less data points, and the UK data supports the main conclusion, but the weights of the collision partner are for the most part unknown, which prevents conclusions on SUV performance vs individual weight classes being drawn.

33 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3 Conclusions

3.1 SUV and MPV definition

Based on the off-road definition a suitable definition for SUV is found. This definition is based on geometrical requirements and that the vehicle is a M1-class vehicle. The definition of a MPV is found on one geometrical requirement, height > 1600 mm and is a M1 class vehicle and is not a SUV. In addition a database analysis of about 20,000 car make and models has been compiled. It came out, that the height of a car is a good predictor. A height of 1600 mm proofed to be useful for distinguishing SUVs and MPVs from salon, hatchback, convertibles and cabrio cars. The height limit of 1600 mm excludes cars which, are capable of off-road operations, but are generally not considered to be a SUV. Based on the above mentioned definitions a list of SUVs and MPVs is created to be used for selecting the accidents in the national statistics.

3.2 Sales numbers

Using the total sales figures from Europe, the first analysis is a trend in the general increase of SUVs in the last few years. Since no specific SUV or LTV category is available, the Four Wheel Drive (4WD) share of new passenger car registrations is used to approximate SUV sales. The average for the EU in 2003 was 6% with Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain having less 4WD sales than the EU average and Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Sweden, and the UK having more than the EU average. It is important to note that the countries under the EU average represent about 21% of the EU15 4WD sales and the remaining countries represent 79% of the sales. In a detailed search of 47 vehicle models classified as SUVs, the share of new vehicles sales in 2003 was 4.6%. This value is somewhat lower than the 6%. The Dutch sales figures are analysed in detail based on the list of SUVs and MPVs. The percentage of SUV sales is increasing since 1998, however the last two years there is a stable number of SUVs sales, 3.5 and 3.6%. The MPV sales have the same trend the last two years, 17.0% for both years.

3.3 Safety issues reported world wide

Several research is performed last decades to LTV (including SUVs and MPVs) safety issues, mainly in the USA. This research includes rollover, pedestrian, self- protection and aggressivity to other road users. Most recent is the commitment of the US car industry stated in the Alliance proposal that all LTVs will have an energyabsorbing structure in the interaction zone, zone 581 of the bumper requirement, to solve the large incompatible situation between LTV and passenger cars.

3.4 National statistics

SUV are at a greater risk of overturning in single vehicles collisions compared to other classes. The Dutch and UK data sets support this conclusion, though they

34 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 record significantly different levels of rollover accidents (Table 3-10). The German and Swedish data did not distinguish between rollover and non rollover accidents, and so did not contribute to this conclusion.

All the national datasets show that SUV occupants appear to be at no greater or lesser risk of suffering serious injury in all single vehicle accidents combined (Table 3-4).

SUVs tend to be more aggressive that other vehicle classes in collisions with two wheeled motor vehicles, both motorcycles and mopeds. This conclusion is supported by the Dutch, German and Swedish data, though again, the different datasets suggest different levels of effect. The UK data does not support this conclusion.

In the comparison of severity between SUV/MPVs and collision partners, the German data shows that SUVs suffer lower severity than collision partners (Table 3-9). The German data also shows that SUVs suffered lower severity when compared to any other class individually. The data from the other three partners strongly support this conclusion. The Dutch and Swedish data show similar conclusions, with less data points, and the UK data supports the main conclusion, but the weights of the collision partner are for the most part unknown, which prevents conclusions on SUV performance vs individual weight classes being drawn.

35 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

4 References [AAP, 2002] "Pedestrian injuries and vehicle type in Maryland 1995- 1999", Accident analysis and prevention Vol. 36, pp. 73- 81, 2002 [Alliance, 2005] Saeed Barbat, Ford Motor Company, ‘Status of enhanced front-to-front vehicle compatibility technical working group research and commitments’ United States, 19th ESV conference Paper Number 05-463 [ATSB,2000] "Driveways and Deaths, a study of young children in Australia as a result of low-speed motor vehicle impacts", Road safety report CR 208, Aust. Trans. Safety Bureau [ATSB/Bull, 2000] "Bull bars and road trauma", Road safety report CR 200 Aust. Trans. Safety Bureau Dec. 2000 [CFR] http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/ cfr/title49/index.html [Encycl, 2005] http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/SUV [EWG] http://europa.eu.int/cgi- bin/eurlex/udl.pl?REQUEST=SeekDeliver&LANGUAGE=e n&SERVICE=eurlex&COLLECTION=oj&DOCID=2002l01 8p00010115, USA, Feb. 1998 [IIHS, 2003] "Status report: Incompatibility of vehicles in crashes", IIHS vol. 38, April 2003 [Lefler/Pedestrian, 2002] Devon E. Lefler, The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028 1701, USA, 2002 [MJA, 2000] Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 173, 21 Aug 2000, pp. 192-195 [NCAC, 2004] A. Eskandarian, G. Bahouth, K. Digges, D. Godrick, M. Bronstad, NCHRP Web Document 61 (Project 22-15): Contractor’s Final Report Improving the Compatibility of Vehicles and Roadside Safety Hardware Prepared for: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., February 2004 [NCHRP] Eskandarian,A., Bahouth, G., Digges, K., Godrick, D., Bronstad, M., "Improving the Compatibility of Vehicles and Roadside Safety", Hardware, NCHRP Web Document 61 (Project 22-15): Contractor’s Final Report, February 2004. [NHTSA/ aggress, 2000] Hans C. Joksch, Vehicle design versus aggressivity, NHTSA April 2000 [NHTSA/compat, 2003] NHTSA’S RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY Stephen M. Summers,William T. Hollowell, Aloke Prasad, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USA, Paper #307, 18th ESV 2003 [NHTSA/ESC, 2004] Garrick J. Forkenbrock , NHTSA’s Handling and ESC 2004 Research Program: An Update, December 3 , 2004, NHTSA VRTC

36 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

[NHTSA/ESC, 2004] Jennifer N. Dang, Preliminary results analyzing the effectiveness of electronic stability control (ESC) systems, NHTSA September 2004, www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790.htm l. [NHTSA/ESC, 2005] Garrick J. Forkenbrock, NHTSA’s 2005 ESC Research Program: A Cooperative Effort, January , 2005, NHTSA VRTC [NHTSA/LTV, 1998] "Overview of vehicle compatibility/LTV issues", National Highway Transport Safety Authority [NHTSA/Rollover, 2004] Garrick J. Forkenbrock, A Demonstration of the Dynamic Tests Developed for NHTSA’s NCAP Rollover Rating System Phase VIII of NHTSA’s Light Vehicle Rollover Research Program, NHTSA, August 2004 [NHTSA/SSF, 1999] Garry J. Heydinger, Measured Vehicle inertial parameters – NHTSA’s data through November 1998, SAE-paper 1999-01-1336 , NHTSA 1999 [Plaut, 2004] Pnina O. Plaut, The uses and users of SUVs and light trucks in commuting, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel, 2004 [Rollover, 2003] Raimundo Sferco, Paul Fay and Sabina Asic, Comparison of US and European Rollover Data, EC-Rollover project, WP1, May 2003.

37 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

IMPROVER SP1 Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles and Road Equipment

WP 1.2 Report

In-Depth accident analysis

Impact on road safety due to the increasing of sports utility and multipurpose vehicles

38 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

1 Abstract The aim of the In-Depth analysis of SUV accidents is to find evidence of whether SUVs are especially dangerous to other road users, and also to find out if SUV drivers are generally more safe and better protected by their cars.

39 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2 German database GIDAS

2.1 Method and Database

The German analysis is based on the In-Depth Accident database GIDAS (German In-Depth Accident Study), which is driven by a consortium of BAST (Federal Highway Research Institute) and FAT (German Association for Research on Automobile- Technique). Two research teams consisting of physicians and technicians collects information on personal injury accidents using a statistical random sample procedure. For this purpose, all traffic accidents occurring are reported continuously by the police and fire department stations active in Greater Hanover and Greater Dresden to the research teams stationed at the Surgical Accident Clinic of the Medical University of Hanover and the Technical University of Dresden, from which the teams select accidents according to a defined random procedure and documents these accidents in a comprehensive research catalogue. A detailed description of the investigation methodology can be found elsewhere (e.g. http://www.gidas.org). Annually, approximately 2,000 traffic accidents are recorded in this way and the information stored in a database. In order to avoid distortions in the data structure of the accidents, recorded by the teams, the data are weighed annually through comparison with the officially recorded accident structure. This ensures that the present accident data are regarded as representative for the investigation area of the cities and administrative districts of Hanover and Dresden. Statements on the nation- wide situation are possible only for accident characteristics which are relatively independent of regional influences. Since collisions processes are generally dependent on technical background conditions and the resulting injuries often affected by these conditions, the investigations can be used for most of the aspects of passive safety.

The geographical distribution of the investigation areas correlate well to that of the Federal Republic of Germany as a whole. In both, approximately 90 % of the area can be regarded as rural and 10 % urban, so that it can be assumed that the distribution between inside and outside built-up areas is similar. The accidents are recorded by each team daily with alternating shift times so that a uniform distribution between day and night and between the different days of the week is ensured. The technical documentation on the traffic accidents includes measurements, photographic and descriptive documentation on vehicle damage, contact points for occupants and external road users as well as indications present at the accident site such as brake and skid marks including final positions of the vehicles and persons.

The medical documentation includes a description of each individual injury according to type, locality and severity. X-rays and physician’s reports are analyzed retrospectively.

Use is made of the usual classification systems for describing the severity of a patient’s accident such as AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale), ISS (Injury Severity Score) and PTS (Polytrauma Score). Documentation is accomplished under observance of the existing guidelines for medical confidentiality and the regulations for protection of data and personal rights.

40 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Each accident is analyzed in detail and the motions of the vehicles and occupants reconstructed. Collisions and vehicle speed are calculated from the marks and vehicle deformations using mathematical procedures from the field of impact mechanics and scientific data given, for example EES (Equivalent Energy Speed), Delta-v (velocity change resulting from the collision) and VDI (Vehicle Deformation Index).

2.2 Scope of the Data

For the present study, evaluations were made of accidents from the last 6 years from 1999 to 2004. During this period, a total of 4,999 accidents with passenger car participation - 65 (1.3%) with SUV participation - were documented by the teams. 7,144 cars have been recorded in those accidents, 65 ( 0.9%) of them have been classified as SUV - type vehicles. Due to the small amount of available SUV accident cases no case selection criteria are put on the data. Instead each of the 65 accidents with SUVs participation was looked at in detail.

Accident Type non SUV - type vehicle SUV - type vehicle Car to Car 34% 51% Car to Truck 6% 5% Car to Motorcycle 10% 6% Car to Cycle 18% 14% Car to Pedestrian 13% 5% Single Car Accidents 18% 18% Others 1% 2% Total 100% 100% Table 1.1 Accident Type of SUVs and non SUV – type vehicles

Table 1.1 shows the distribution of accident type of SUV and non SUV - type of vehicles. Both distributions are quite similar. There is a higher share of pedestrian accidents for non SUV – type cars. However this could partly be explained by the higher percentage of urban accidents (72 %) within the non SUV – type category, compared to a percentage of 60 % in the SUV – type vehicle category.

2.3 SUV Single Car Accidents

ROLLOVER non SUV - type vehicle SUV - type vehicle no rollover 96% 85% rollover 4% 15% Total 100% 100% Table 1.2 Rollover Accidents of SUVs and non SUV vehicles

SUV – type vehicles show a largely greater share of accidents with rollovers. This can be seen from Table 1.2. The risk of having a rollover with a SUV is therefore nearly four times higher as compared to a non SUV – type of vehicle. This problem is related to the higher centre of gravity SUVs which leads to a greater instability along the longitudinal axis of the car. In addition, SUV – type vehicles are often used for transportation of trailers. Due to the high motorization and mass of

41 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

SUVs, they are ideally suited for this purpose. On the other hand, driving with trailers can more easily lead to instable driving situations, including skidding which in the case of SUVs is often followed by a rollover. In fact 38% of all accident involved SUVs with trailer turned over, while just 14% of non SUV-type vehicles with trailer rolled over during the accident.

Figure 1.1: SUV with Caravan: Accident Figure 1.2: SUV with Caravan; Scene (Vcoll = 55 kph, [speed at time of Deformation of the SUV turnover]) Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show a typical example of a rollover of a SUV-caravan team. The accident happened during night time (11:30 pm). The driver got onto a curb in a construction site. Her evasive movement initiated an oscillation of the team, which led to the rollover of both vehicles. Clearly, a lack of physical and mental abilities of the driver due to the time of the accident could have contributed to the cause of the accident. However, this case shows the tendency of SUVs to rollover in difficult driving situations. The occupants got bruises to the upper extremities and a neck distortion (all AIS1).

Figure 2.1: SUV with trailer; Accident Figure 2.2: SUV with trailer; Accident scene scene (Vcoll < 30 kph, [speed at time of turnover])

42 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 2.3: SUV with trailer; Deformation Figure 2.4: SUV and trailer; Interior of the of the SUV SUV A similar situation, this time on a motorway, led to the accident shown in Figures 2.1 to 2.4. Hard breaking followed by an evasive movement because of congestion in front of the car, led to an instable situation, resulting in a rollover of the trailer causing the turnover over the car. The occupants got bruises and cuts to the upper and lower extremities (AIS1) and most severe a commotio (AIS2).

Figure 3.1: SUV rollover; Accident scene Figure 3.2: SUV rollover; Deformation of (Vcoll = 50 kph, [speed at time of the SUV turnover]) Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show a single car rollover, where an SUV lost control on a federal road, left the road, hit a fence and turned over the fence. The driver got minor contusions to the hand and a minor neck injury (all AIS1). This accident shows that there might be a compatibility problem between road furniture and SUVs, which is also covered by WP 1.3 of the IMPROVER project.

No rollover accidents from the database caused fatal injuries to the car occupants, provided that all occupants were belted and as long as the car did not hit any obstacles during its turn. However, due to the deformation of the roof and the reduced amount of survival space head injuries are most common. In addition injuries to the extremities are seen quite often. While the torso and abdomen are fixed by the seatbelt, the extremities move in any direction during the turn and are clearly at high risk for lacerations and bruises.

43 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

TRAILER USE non SUV - type vehicle SUV - type vehicle no trailer 99% 88% trailer 1% 12% Total 100% 100% Table 1.3 Accidents of Cars with trailers

2.4 SUV to Pedestrian Accidents

SUVs show a lower percentage of pedestrian accidents than non SUV – type vehicles. This is explained by a higher share of accidents in rural areas for SUVs, as shown in Table 1.4.

SITE OF ACCIDENT non SUV - type vehicle SUV - type vehicle rural 28% 40% urban 72% 60% Total 100% 100% Table 1.4 Site of Accidents for SUVs and non SUV vehicles

Because of the low number of SUV to Pedestrian Accidents in the database it is difficult to get any sound results. It is however obvious from our cases that the frontal design of SUVs is in general problematic in pedestrian accidents. Pedestrians are quite likely to get head injuries. Especially children are at risk. A typical example is shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.4.

Figure 4.1: SUV to Pedestrian; SUV front Figure 4.2: Head contusion, AIS 1

Figure 4.3: SUV to Pedestrian; SUV front Figure 4.4: SUV to Pedestrian; Accident Scene

44 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

The accident happened in summertime during daylight in a residential zone with speed limit, 30 kph. The child got off a bus, stopping at the bus stop shown in Figure 4.4. The child crossed the road in front of the bus, so that the SUV driver which overtook the bus on the left hand side noticed the child very late. The collision speed was 30 kph. The child got a head contusion (AIS1).

2.5 SUV to Passenger Car Accidents

Mismatch of frontal energy absorbing structures (also termed as “Incompatibility”) is a general concern when dealing with SUV to car accidents. This structural mismatch does lead to underrun and overrun accidents. If such accidents happen in the high speed collision range, they lead to serious and fatal injuries because none of the energy absorbing structures are involved and thus the energy is directly transferred to the occupant’s compartment. This is in general accompanied by large intrusions. Most of the accidents in the database happened in the low speed collision range. Thus the structural mismatch can be seen, however it is most often and fortunately not accompanied by serious injuries.

Examples of structural mismatch are shown in Figures 5.1 to 8.2.

Figure 5.1: SUV to Car side impact; SUV Figure 5.2: SUV to Car side impact; the front car was caught under the front bumper of the SUV, which is shown in Figure 5.1.

45 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 6.1: SUV to Car frontal impact; Figure 6.2: SUV to Car frontal impact; the SUV front cars front has been overrun by the SUVs front, shown in Figure 6.1

In the case shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 a Vauxhall Frontera did not give way to a VW Passat. The Passat (vcoll = 48 kph) was caught under the front bumper of the Frontera (vcoll = 29 kph). The driver of the Frontera remained uninjured, while the driver of the Passat sustained bruises and a whiplash injury. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 indicate a similar accident, this time showing a Citroen ZX which was caught under the front of a Chrysler Cherokee. This accident has not been fully reconstructed at the time this report was written. However, both accidents show that the high frontal structure of SUVs tend to override non SUV – type car structures, which results in bad geometrical interaction and high loads on the compartment of the non SUV –type vehicle.

Figure 7.1: SUV to Car side impact; SUV Figure 7.2: SUV to Car side impact; the front cars side structure (sill) has been overrun by the SUVs front;

The accident case pictured by Figures 7.1 and 7.2 show a side impact of a Golf II with a Daihatsu Feroza. On a wet road the Golf started skidding after a right turn, left the lane and was hit in the front passenger side by a Daihatsu Feroza (vcoll = 55 kph). Although the driver of the Golf was sat on the non struck side, he got serious abdominal and thorax injuries (AIS unknown). The driver of the SUV got bruises and a neck distortion.

46 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

The pictures show an override of the sill and considerable intrusion into the passenger compartment. The override of the sill structure in side impacts will lead to even more serious injuries if the occupant is placed on the struck side. Figures 8.1 and 8.4 show an example, where a VW Polo was hit in the side by a Landrover Defender. The driver of the Polo received several serious injuries, sustaining multiple rip fractures (AIS3), fracture of the clavicula (AIS2) and fracture of the pubic bone (AIS2).

Figure 8.1: SUV to Car side impact; car Figure 8.2: SUV to Car side impact; car struck side struck side

Figure 8.3: SUV to Car side impact; SUV Figure 8.4: SUV to Car side impact; SUV front front (detail)

47 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2.6 SUV to Truck Accidents

While the higher front structure and center of gravity of SUVs is dangerous to other road users and can also lead to a higher risk of turning over it shows some benefits in car to truck accidents. This can be seen from the Figures 9.1 and 9.2, which show a front to front collision (closing speed 70 kph) between a truck and a SUV. Due to the higher front structure of the SUV an underrun under the trucks front was avoided and the driver of the SUV remained uninjured. A similar impact situation leads to serious consequences for non SUV – type vehicles, as demonstrated by Figures 10.1 and 10.2. (closing speed 68 kph).

Figure 9.1: SUV to Truck Accident; Truck Figure 9.2: SUV to Truck Accident; SUV front front

Figure 10.1: Non-SUV to Truck Accident; Figure 10.2: Non-SUV to Truck Accident; Truck front the frontal structure of the car was overrun, accompanied by large occupant compartment intrusion

48 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2.7 Conclusions

The results of the GIDAS data analysis are:

- SUVs have a higher risk for turnover accidents. The risk is about four times higher compared to non SUV – type vehicles. Upper and lower extremities as well as the head of the driver are at risk.

- SUVs are often used for the transportation of goods and trailers. This can lead to unstable driving situations and thus increasing the risk of turnovers in the event of an accident.

- SUVs can be especially dangerous in accidents with pedestrians. Due to the steep front structure of SUVs the risk for head injuries for a pedestrian is high.

- SUVs are incompatible in accidents with other cars. The geometrical and stiffness differences between SUV and non SUV –type vehicles result in low or sometimes no structural interaction of the energy absorbing structures. High deformations to the compartment and thus to the survival space of the SUV opponent is the consequence.

- SUVs show better protection for their occupants in truck accidents. Higher front structures lead to a lower risk for underruns.

2.8 Recommendations

It is interesting to observe that SUVs offer greater protection in truck impacts, their high structure reducing the risk of underrunning the truck, and so increasing the protection offered to the occupants. On the other hand SUVs were observed to suffer a particularly high rollover rate (four times higher than for non SUV cars), a fact which is confounded by the fact that SUVs are noted to be frequently used to tow caravans and trailers.

It is important to note that the number of SUVs in the fleet is still very small and it is difficult to get a sufficient high number of SUV In-Depth cases to get sound statistical results. Instead the single case analysis performed illustrates potential trends and therefore it would be important to confirm these trends in a later study. However this study is in line with other international studies which already stated the high risk of rollover accidents for SUVs. This result is confirmed by the German part of the analysis.

It is recommended that this type of study should be repeated in the future to check the effect of the increasing number of SUVs in the car fleet. The actual accident figures (at least for Germany) show a share of about 1% of SUVs. This is in contradiction to the actual annual sales numbers where SUVs have about a 4% share. The very new SUV models are therefore not sufficiently represented in this In Depth Analysis. However, it seems - at least from the German data - that the new type SUVs are more often driven in residential areas.

49 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

It is recommended to observe this trend very carefully.

Furthermore it has to be said, that the number of SUVs in the fleet is still very small and it is difficult to get a sufficient high number of SUV In-Depth cases to get sound statistical results. Instead the single case analysis show trends and therefore it would be important to confirm this trends in a later study. However this study is in line with other international studies which already stated the high risk of rollover accidents for SUVs. This result is confirmed by the German part of the analysis.

50 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3 UK database CCIS

3.1 Background

SUVs are growing in number as a percentage of the vehicle fleet. As such, the potential compatibility problems between SUVs and other members of the vehicle fleet become a more serious issue. In this section a number of case studies are taken and examined, with an eye to comparing the crash performance of SUVs and Cars, in as many common impact configurations as possible.

3.2 Method - Selection of Cases

Where possible, the following accident configurations were found, obeying the characteristics listed. As a limited sample of cases is availible, it was not always possible to find a suggested configuration, however, as many useful case studies as could be found are presented here, although they may fall slightly outside the ideal critieria.

3.3 Car/SUV compatibility:

We examined three different types of accident, in each case looking at all possible configurations of car v car, SUV v car, and SUV v SUV.

In all cases the accident should be between 2 vehicles only. No crashes with more than 2 vehicles are included, unless corresponding 2 vehicle accidents were not availible.

3.3.1 Head to Head The most interesting cases in this category are expected between 32 and 80kph combined closing speed, but it may be necessary to look outside this envelope.

The overlap should be between 20 and 100% of the vehicles frontal structure. Less overlap than this presents huge problems for structural interaction and compatibility in a collision, and this is likely to mask any interesting effects.

CDC code for both vehicles should be 11F 12F or 1F, to ensure a collision sufficiently close to head on to be relevant for this investigation. CDC codes are measured on a clock face, so this specifies frontal impacts within +- 30 degrees of head on.

3.3.2 Side Impact As well as car v car and SUV v SUV we will include both car v SUV and SUV v car, that is cases where an SUV is the target vehicle and a car is the bullet, and vice versa.

51 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

The bullet vehicle should be travelling at between 16 and 48 kph when it hits the target vehicle. Again, it may not be possible to meet this criteria exactly, but this is likely to be where the most interesting accidents are found.

The CDC code for the bullet vehicle should be 11F 12F or 1F

The CDC code for the target vehicle should be 2R, 3R, 4R, 8L, 9L, or 10L. This allows the same variation in angle for side crashes, for impacts on either side of the target vehicle. Care must be taken to avoid direct comparisons of injury outcomes between struck side and non-struck side occupants.

The impact should overlap the passenger compartment of the target vehicle in some way. In other words the 4th digit of the CDC code for the target vehicle should be P Y Z or D. This allows effects of sill overriding and the integrity of the survival space to be observed.

3.3.3 Rear Impact The closing speed should be between 16 and 48kph. In effect this may mean that one vehicle may be stationary, and the bullet would be travelling at between 16 and 48 kph. The overlap should be between 20 and 100%.

The CDC code for the bullet vehicle should be 11F, 12F or 1F.

The CDC code for the target vehicle should be 5R, 6R or 7R.

It is worth noting that the speed envelopes are guidelines intended to provide the most interesting accident results. At speeds lower or higher than this outcomes will tend to depend less on compatibility issues, and move towards being universally trivial or severe, respectively. These speed guidelines may need to be ignored if sufficient accidents are not found within these boundaries.

The CDC criteria should be treated as rigid, as outside these envelopes accidents do not fall into the configurations of accident we are attempting to analyse.

3.3.4 Car/SUV rollover: We will examine both vehicle type’s performance in single vehicle rollover accidents. In these cases the only criteria should be that the rollover event was the most severe event suffered by the vehicle and occupants. For example if a vehicle rolls one quarter turn after hitting a tree at 140kph it is not valid to include it in this analysis as a rollover case. It may occur that there is too small a data set for single vehicle rollover accidents only, in which case we will also use accidents where the rollover was the most severe event in a two car collision.

3.3.5 Car/Motorcycle; SUV/Motorcycle accidents We will attempt to investigate the different occurrences of SUV/motorcycle and Car/motorcycle crashes.

52 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

We will select crashes that were 2 vehicle collisions. No 3 or greater vehicle accidents are allowed. We will look for accidents in which a motorcycle has collided with a car or an SUV. The accidents will be split into 2 geometries, one where the motorcycle collides with the front of the car/SUV, and one where the motorcycle collides with another part of the car/SUV. These can be found from damage to the car. The first category will be characterised by CDC codes of xxF, and the second category by CDC codes of xxR xxL or xxB.

3.4 In depth Study Results

3.4.1 SUV vs Car, Front to Front Mercedes ML320 vs Citroen Saxo Delta V was unrecorded for this crash.

The driver of the Mercedes was travelling down a hill, and failed to give way at a traffic calming measure. The Mercedes collided front on to a Citroen Saxo and has been spun around by the impact, coming to rest next to the Mercedes. The driver of the Saxo spent 54 days in hospital following the collision, suffering from multiple AIS2 fractures, to her ribs and wrist, and a dislocated hip, as well as an AIS 3 lung contusion. Damage Details: Saxo:

The Saxo has suffered significant crush, and it is evident that the driver’s survival space has been compromised by intrusion. The damage profile of the Saxo suggests that it has underrun the Mercedes during the accident, further damaging it’s ability to absorb the energy in the collision without endangering the occupants.

Mercedes:

53 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

The Mercedes has suffered much less crush than the Saxo. Again, there is significant evidence of over running, suggesting that in this case the energy absorbing structures of the vehicles failed to interact well. Both of the Saxo’s longitudinals have absorbed energy in the accident, as has the offside longitudinal of the Mercedes. This suggests that the frontal stiffness of the SUV is much higher than that of the Saxo, and that this is the cause of the inequality of crush between the two vehicles. Case Conclusions: This case does suggest a geometrical compatibility problem between the vehicles, and there is also good evidence of a stiffness incompatibility from the share of crush that each vehicle experienced. There is also a weight inequality issue, most easily seen by the final resting positions of the vehicles – the Saxo was forced backwards out of the collision. The injury causation is not recorded in this case, however given the greatly compromised survival space it is reasonably to suggest that intrusion was the major injury cause.

3.4.2 SUV vs SUV, Front to Front No accident was found in the in-depth database where an SUV collided head on with another SUV. This accident configuration could therefore not be investigated in depth.

3.4.3 Car vs Car, Front to Front Citroen Xantia vs Rover Metro Delta V was unrecorded for this crash. However, given the configuration of the crash and the road it occurred on, it is likely that this crash had a greater closing speed than the SUV vs car crash detailed above.

The injuries in this case were not recorded, however, the accident was reported as severe, which entails a stay in hospital for at least one of the occupants.

The Xantia and Metro were travelling along the road in opposite directions, when the Xantia crossed into the oncoming lane, and collided with the Metro. The cars came to their approximate rest positions, however emergency services removed an occupant from the Metro, causing some of the damage to the offside of the Metro. Damage Details Metro

54 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

The Metro has suffered similar damage to the Saxo in the SUV to Car frontal impact, although the overlap in this case is slightly less than for the Saxo. Only the OS longitudinal was directly contacted, the NS longitudinal was barely involved in energy absorbtion. The OS front wheel has strutted to the sill, and the sill has failed, severely compromising the survival space. The missing doors and some of the bending of the frame can be attributed to emergency services. There is evidence of under riding the other vehicle.

Xantia The Xantia has suffered less damage than the Metro. Again only one Longitudinal, has been directly loaded, and the other wasn’t greatly involved in enegy absorbtion. The passenger survival space in the Xantia has remained intact, damage remaining forward of the bulkhead. Again, there is some evidence of over riding here. The greater damage to the Metro seems to be due to a stiffness inequality between the two vehicles, causing the less stiff Metro to absorb more energy in the collision, and resulting in the damage to the Metro being more severe.

Case Conclusions Again, geometrical compatibility was not good, and ideally the NS energy absorbing structures would have had more involvement in the accident. There is a smaller problem with weight variation than in the SUV vs car case, though from the scene photograph it appears that the Metro was thrown further by the collision. The main cause of the severity of damage to the Metro appears to be the varying stiffness of the two vehicles. The stiffness incompatibility appears to be less than in the SUV vs car frontal case. It is interesting to note that despite a more severe impact in terms of velocity change, the damage to the Saxo and the Metro is very similar. It is likely that replacing the SUV with a Xantia in the first accident would have resulted in a less severe outcome.

55 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3.4.4 SUV vs Car, Front to Side Although no occurances of SUV vs car impacts fitting the criteria for selection were found in the detailed databases, it was possible to find an accident with a Renault Scenic hitting an Audi for comparison. Renault Scenic vs Audi The delta v for the Scenic was 49kph, and for the Audi 51kph. The closing speed in this accident was 100kph. The Audi was approaching a crossroads, intending to continue onwards. The Scenic was approaching the same crossroads, and also intending to continue onwards. Neither vehicle slowed, and the Scenic hit the NS of the Audi.

Damage Details: Audi

The Audi has suffered extensive damage, with serious reduction in survival space for the occupants. The sill has been overrideen, which has contributed to the level of intrusion experienced. The roof was removed post accident by emergency services. Scenic

The Scenic has suffered roughly even damage across the front (overlap in this accident was 100%). Both longitudinals were involved in energy absorbtion during this accident. An important point to note is that the Scenic is an MPV, and has a frontal structure observed to be lower than most SUVs.

56 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Case Conclusions: In this case there is a geometrical compatibility problem. The stiff structure (sill) on the side of the Audi has not been engaged fully, and this has increased the intrusion experienced by the Audi. If the Scenic had been an SUV, with a higher frontal structure, this problem would have been exacerbated. This case was a fatal accident, while severe front-side impacts are not easily survivable, factors can be indentified that made survival less likely than if the bullet vehicle had been a standard passenger car. The fatal occupant in this case was the Front Side Passenger of the Audi, who was on the struck side of the vehicle.

3.4.5 Car vs SUV, Front to Side Mercedes CLK200 vs Range Rover The delta v was not recorded in this accident. The Range Rover and Mercedes were both traveling in the same direction, when the Range Rover slowed down and steered to the left. The Mercedes began an overtaking manouvre. The Range Rover began a turn into a driveway to the right, and the Mercedes collided with the offside of the Range Rover. Both cars were involved in other, minor collision events during the accident, leaving the road to the right hand side, demolishing a wall, and finishing with the Range Rover shunting the back of the Mercedes. However, the initial impact was the most severe, and is the one considered in this analysis. This was a non-injury accident. Damage Details Range Rover The damage to the Range Rover was not severe, due in part to the relatively low speed of the crash. There is some damage to the sill, and the dooris slightly bowed, however most of the damage is cosmetic. There is no sill overrun, and no significant damage has occurred above the level of the drivers seat. The sill has been directly contacted, which is a good sign for compatability. It is likely that even had the speed involved in this crash been higher, there would have been a good chance for the driver of the Range Rover to escape uninjured.

57 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Mercedes

The Mercedes suffered little damage in the impact, neither longitudinal is recorded as being directly loaded. The crash severity was not high enough to affect the integrity of the Mercedes.

Case Conclusion

In this case a good degree of compatibility was observed. Although the crash was at low speed it is likely that even had it been higher the case would have remained, at worst, a slight injury case. The possibility of supported intrusion contacting the driver’s head or torso is remote in this accident configuration.

3.4.6 SUV vs SUV, Front to Side An accident in this configuration was not found in the in depth database, and so analysis of this accident configuration was not possible.

3.4.7 Car vs Car, Front to Side VW Polo vs Ford Ka Delta V is unrecorded for this accident. The Ford Ka was waiting at a junction and the VW shown on the left of the picture. The VW Polo was traveling from the left side of the Ford Ka, when it was glanced by another car, and veered into the junction mouth, where it impacted the side of the Ford Ka. As the front to side impact was the most severe event, it is suitable for analysis here. Damage Details

58 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

It is important to note that the contact damage to the OS front wing of the Polo was caused by the earlier collision in this accident, rather than by the impact with the Ford Ka. This photograph gives a good sense of the alignment of the vehicles in the accident. The Polo suffered little damage to the front, no damage is recorded to energy absobing structures. Ford Ka

The Ford Ka has suffered some door buckling and denting, although given the low velocity that the collision occured at the passenger survival space has not been compromised. The direct contact damage can be seen as high as the driver’s low torso level, which would be expected to have more serious consequences in a higher severity accident. The sill has not been overridden. Case Conclusions The damage to both vehicles was light. Both drivers escaped from the accident with few injuries. The driver of the Polo suffered some AIS1 injuries, including mild whiplash symptons and seatbelt bruising. The driver of the Ford KA, who was on the struck side of the vehicle, suffered from bruises to her head, and to her elbow, probably caused by impact with the side of the car. Compared with the Car vs SUV accident, above, the damage and injury outcomes appear similar. It is important to note that in a more severe crash, the damage to the Ka would have caused supported intrusion at a torso level, which would have increased the chance of serious injury. This would not happen in the car vs SUV case, because of the vehicle geometries, however it is possible that an increased level of pelvic injuries would be observed. The converse of this is the SUV vs car case, where it might be expected that supported intrusion could occur at the head level of the driver in the target vehicle.

59 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3.4.8 Front to Rear Impact Car vs SUV Vauxhall Astra vs Honda CRV The Astra began this event travelling forwards at approximately 25mph, and ended it at approximately 15mph. The CRV was travelling at about 20mph before the impact, and left it at about 25mph.

The accident took place on a motorway, following a merge. The Honda was travelling at approximately 30mph in lane 3 of 3 in slow moving traffic. The Astra had previously joined the motorway at speed [75-80mph]. The Astra manoeuvred into lane 3 but failed to fully take account of the traffic that had started to slow. It collided with the rear of the Honda.

Damage Details Honda

The Honda suffered little damage, the main body of the car appears untouched, with the impact being absorbed by the spare wheel carrier on the back of the vehicle. Astra

the Astra is also not severely damaged by the collision. The spare wheel of the Honda appears to have lined up with the centre front of the Astra. There is some crushing to the upper bonnet structure of the Astra, and little damage to the bumper area. This damage lines up well with the exhaust pipe in the picture of the Honda. Case Conclusions The Astra driver was uninjured in the collision, the Honda driver suffered from mild whiplash. The crash was at a low relative speed, and it is not suprising that no severe injury occurred. Regarding geometrical compatibility we can see that the spare wheel has bypassed the main structure in the Astra’s bonnet, and had the collision been at a greater speed it appears unlikely that this structure would have engaged with the main vehicle body of the Honda, given the location of the exhaust pipe damage on the front of the Astra.

60 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3.4.9 SUV vs Car Shogun vs Vectra No Delta V was calculated for this collision There are no cases of two vehicle SUV to car shunts in the database. However, a case was found offering a good substitute. In this case a Vectra shunts into the back of a queue of traffic. After it comes to a halt, a Shogun stops behind it, but is then shunted forwards into the Vectra by traffic behind it. Although the multi-vehicle nature of this crash means injury comparisons are not valid, it does provide a configuration approximately fitting the selection criteria.

Damage Details Vectra

The Vectra has suffered severe damage to the rear of the car from the impact with the Shogun. It is apparent from the door frame distortion visible in the left hand photograph that the survival space has been compromised, and the frame has buckled. The door had limited operation following the accident. There is some overrunning of stiff structure at the base of the car, the boot has overridden the boot sill, though it is not clear this has seriously harmed the crashworthiness of the car. Shogun The Shogun is not seriously damaged by the incident. There is some crumpling of the front, although it is minor, and the energy absorbing structures in the front of the Shogun are not recorded as having been loaded. The engagement between the vehicles was almost full width.

Case Conclusions:

The Shogun has suffered little damage in the accident. It is worth noting that damage and distortion to the passenger area of the Vectra has occurred despite litt damage occurring to the crumple zone on the front of the Shogun. This suggests that in a more severe accident the Vectra occupant’s survival space would be further compromised some time before the availible crumple space on the front of the Shogun was fully used. This would reduce the overall survivability of the incident. Injury outcomes are not valid for comparison in this case, due to the nature of the multi-vehicle accident.

3.4.10 SUV vs Motorcycle Toyota RAV 4 vs Moped

61 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

It was not possible to calculate delta V for this accident. The RAV 4 pulled out at a roundabout, failing to see the moped which had right of way. The moped collided with the side of the RAV4. the rider escaped with multiple abrasions, contusions and lacerations; and a neck strain injury. These were all AIS 1 injuries. Damage Details:

The Moped appears to have taken very little damage in the incident, as has the car. This was a low speed collision. The contacts on the bonnet visible in the picture are recorded as being caused by the rider of the motorcycle, the paint removal on the side is likely to have been caused by the moped itself.

Case Conclusions: There is no reason to suggest that this accident was more severe than a similar accident with a car-motorcycle interaction would have been. The configuration of the crash suggests that in either case the motorcyclist would have been thrown across the bonnet. The greater height of the SUV may affect the accident outcome had the motorcyclist hit further back, in line with the passenger compartment. SUV vs Pedestrian No cases of this accident configuration were found in the database.

3.5 Conclusions

• In the in-depth data, some evidence was found for compatibility issues between cars and SUVs. • Geometrical Compatibility: There was, in general, little evidence of geometrical incompatibility, although it is important to note the limited sample these cases were drawn from. There were some cases that suggested, in more or less severe crashes, geometrical compatibility could have played a part in deciding the severity of the outcome in injury terms. In general it is felt that the high ride position of the occupants in an SUV protects them from supported intrusion contact to the head or torso, and increases safety in side struck vehicles especially. Conversely, the high structural height of SUVs

62 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

increases the likelihood of such contact in side struck cars when the SUV is the bullet vehicle. Some evidence of overriding of the sill was found in side struck accidents. • Stiffness incompatibility: From the evidence observed in these cases, it appears that stiffness incompatiblity is the most damaging to the overall survivability of the accident. There were several cases where almost complete or complete crush of the crumple zone at the front of a vehicle was observed when in collision with an SUV, and the SUV was observed to have little crush. The vehicle was, in this case, absorbing a greater share of the energy involved in the collision, which increases the risk to the occupants. • Some cases were observed where the passenger cell in the car had begun to fail before the crumple zone of the SUV had crushed by 50%. Failure of the passenger cell has implications for intrusion and compromise of the survival space. In these accidents it would usually be preferably for both cars to use all the crumple space before one experiences failure of the passenger cell. • Mass Incompatibility: A weight incompatibility problem was observed in some accidents. The acceleration pulse experienced by occupants of a lighter vehicles is necessarily more severe than that experienced by a heavier one. The impact of this on accident outcome can not be observed from these cases, rather an in depth study of injury causation mechanism in such crashes would be needed, to compare acceleration injuries with contact injuries. However, acceleration injuries, if present, would be exaggerated in the lighter vehicle.

3.6 Recommendations

• To properly observe the effects of mass incompatibility on crash injury outcome, a further study would be required. It seems likely, however, that reducing weight inequality in the fleet is desirable. • Both geometrical incompatibility and stiffness/mass incompatibility appear to be a in the accidents observed here. It is interesting to note geometrical incompatibility in at least one car-car accident. • Stiffness incompatibility is damaging to accident outcome in several of the accidents with SUV involvement. It is suggested that ensuring SUV stiffness in the energy absorbing structure is significantly less than the stiffness of the passenger cell in ordinary cars would start to address the more serious stiffness incompatibility cases. However, care must be taken to take increased acceleration based injury into account, and not to compromise the safety of the SUV occupants.

63 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

IMPROVER SP1 Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles and Road Equipment

WP 1.3 Report

Structural analysis

Impact on road safety due to the increasing of sports utility and multipurpose vehicles

64 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

1 Analysis of SUV compatibility problem The physical characteristics of SUVs are further analysed in the following sections. Activities in the previous sections (WP 1.1 and 1.2) focused on information available in accident statistics and detailed accident analyses. The objectives of this section are to review ongoing European research projects to identify the differences between the SUVs and the other road users in terms of mass, structure and stiffness as well as review current test protocols for road equipment. The relevance of changing SUV & MPV sales on road safety will be assessed from the safety characteristics identified in this section. Safety characteristics for SUVs are addressed in the following tasks associated with this workpackage:

1.1 Measurement of structural parameters

Geometrical properties of the vehicle fleet have been previously investigated in the VC-Compat project. For compatibility good interaction between structural components is essential. A first indication of the interaction is obtained from geometrical data of main members. In the VC-Compat project a database was created containing information of the best selling EU passenger cars. For the purpose of the current project this database was extended with top selling SUVs.

1.2 Fleet studies

A fleet systems model developed under the VC-Compat project will be applied to analyse the SUV compatibility problem. Numerical simulations of crashes between vehicles of different classes will be performed to obtain information on injuries. Simulations will be performed for different crash parameters (speed, angle, etc.).

1.3 Road restraint systems

Road restraint system test requirements in EN-1317 will be reviewed in terms of test vehicle specifications.

65 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2 Measurement of structural parameters

2.1 Introduction

In the 5th framework project [VC-COMPAT] a database was created with geometrical measurements of the main vehicle structures. From accident analysis and crash testing these structures are identified as the main structures involved in frontal and side impacts. Within the VC-COMPAT project, this database was used to study current car-to-car geometric mismatch with a focus on compatibility. The cars selected for this database represent each car category in Europe and the 55 cars represent approximate 60% of the European sales in the year 2003.

In table 2.1 the European sales number for each mass category of the MPVs and SUVs are given. The SUVs are representative of 5% of the European sales volume in 2003 and MPV are representative of 13%.

Table 2.1 European sales number for the each size of MPV and SUV 2002 2003 2002 2003 Sales % Sales % Sales % Sales % number total number total number total number total SUV fleet fleet MPV fleet fleet Small 140,861 0.85 145,750 0.90 Small 238,509 1.45 272,375 1.68 Midsize 509,727 3.09 620,032 3.82 Midsize 1,905,953 11.56 1,930,622 11.88 Large 2 0.00 1 0.00 Large 173 0.00 1,656 0.01 TOTAL 650,590 3.95 765,783 4.71 TOTAL 2,144,635 13.01 2,204,653 13.57

To complement the VC-Compat database which had a limited number of SUV and MPVs, a number of new vehicles were selected for measurement to provide more complete information on the relationships between passenger cars and SUVs.

2.2 Method

This section describes the measurement methodology in four steps: - The selection of the SUVs and MPVs for measurement - The measurements performed on the selected cars - Integration of the results into the existing database - Analysis of the structural database

2.2.1 Selection of cars

In the VC-COMPAT project, 5 SUV and 9 MPV have been measured following the protocol “3D_measurment protocol V2.3”, [VC-Compat]. Ten different SUVs and MPVs were selected for measurement to the VC-Compat protocol. The selection of these vehicles was based on the following criteria: • Best sales volume for MPV and SUV • Vehicles from different mass/size category : small / Midsize / Large • Sales volume >0,1% of the total fleet

66 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

In Table 2-2 the selected cars are given, note that the cars displayed in italics were already measured within the VC-COMPAT project. Furthermore, the sales volume of Large SUV and MPV was too low to include in the current study. Nissan Almera Small Tino Small Toyota RAV4 MPV Opel Agila SUV Suzuki Jimny Renault Scenic Nissan Xtrail Citroën Picasso Land Rover Freelander Opel Zafira BMW X5 Renault Kangoo Mercedes M-Class Midsize Citroen Berlingo Midsize Hyundai Santa Fe MPV Opel Meriva SUV Mitsubishi Pajero Renault Espace Volkswagen Touareg VW Sharan Honda CRV Citroën C8 Volvo XC90 VW Touran Range Rover Table 2-2 Selected cars in the structural database (note: cars in Italic are already measured in VC-COMPAT).

The completed list with ten SUVs and ten MPVs measured represent (by sales volumes) 59% and 76%, respectively.

Table 2-3 Sales representative for MPV and SUV. Selected cars - % for the vehicle class Year 2003 MPV SUV Small 64.4 82.8 Midsize 77.5 52.8 Large 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 75.8 58.6

2.2.2 Measurement and integration of the geometric parameters Three MPVs and seven SUVs were measured. The geometric parameters measured are defined in the 3D measurement protocol of the VC-COMPAT project and over 60 points are recorded. The ten additional measured vehicle were added to the pre- existing list. The database containing the data points can be requested from UTAC for research projects.

2.2.3 Analysis of the geometrical database The aim in this study is to determine the present SUV and MPV geometric incompatibility issue. Selected geometric features of cars, SUVs, and MPVs are compared to identify mismatches in the crashworthy structures.

67 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2.3 Results

It is universally accepted that structural interaction, frontal force levels, and passenger compartment strength are important issues in vehicle crash compatibility. Structural interaction is seen as a prerequisite because the main concern after the impact has begun is to ensure that the load paths work as intended in order to absorb energy. To achieve this, it is essential to distribute the initial impact load across the entire contact surface. To ensure that crash loads are efficiently supported in the vehicle, it is important to have several load paths and to create a front face spreading out the loads over a large surface.

Car to car tests have demonstrated that structural parts playing a role for good structural interaction are the longitudinals and crossbeam, engine subframe and, for side impact, the floor sills.

The following data presents the positions of these main structural parts for the SUV and MPV fleet, and can be compared to the mean position of the corresponding structures within the car fleet. gives an overview of all the SUVs and MPVs measured, with their mass and Centre of Gravity (CoG).

68 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Table 2-4 Measured MPVs and SUVs, including mass and Centre of Gravity (CoG) in z- direction Position of CoG in Z axis Mass (kg) (Height from the ground in mm) Small 1 Nissan Almera Tino 1477 628 MPV 2 Opel Agila 1243 655 Midsize 3 Renault Scenic 1592 593 MPV 4 Citroën Picasso 1578 602 5 Opel Zafira 1687 624 6 Renault Kangoo 1288 640 7 Citroen Berlingo 1508 655 8 Opel Meriva 1587 621 9 Renault Espace 2263 691 10 VW Sharan 1948 689 11 Citroën C8 1923 711 12 VW Touran 1768 650 Small 13 Toyota RAV4 1682 655 SUV 14 Suzuki Jimny 1341 686 Midsize 15 Nissan Xtrail 1761 666 SUV 16 Land Rover Freelander 1827 647 17 BMW X5 2381 737 18 Mercedes M-Class 2444 708 19 Hyundai Santa Fe 2003 666 20 Mitsubishi Pajero 2312 717 21 VW Touareg 2603 705 22 Honda CRV 1678 672 23 Volvo XC90 2058 - 24 Range Rover 2329 753

The average mass and position of CoG from ground is given in Table 2-5. The mass difference from between passenger cars and SUVs is 1.4, where that for the MPVs is 1.1. Furthermore, the trend is similar for the position of the Centre of Gravity. The SUV is the highest and it is positioned 100mm higher than for passenger cars while MPVs are in between the SUV and passenger car values.

Table 2-5 Average mass and CoG for the passenger cars, SUVs and MPVs Car fleet MPV fleet SUV fleet Mass (kg) 1376 kg 1592 kg 1968 kg Position CoG (heigt from ground in mm) 574 mm 631 mm 683 mm

The position of the cross beam member is given in Figure 2-1 where the dashed lines give the average cross beam measurements of the passenger cars.

• Position of crossbeam

69 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Mean position for Crossbeam the car fleet Position from the ground MPV SUV 700

650

600

550

500

450

400

Height from ground (mm) 350

300 123456789101112131415161718192021222324 Vehicle n° top bottom Figure 2-1 Position of crossbeam, bars and the dashed lines the average passenger car crossbeam

Table 2-6 Mean crossbeam position, weighted mean height from ground and the weighted delta ( height of te beam it selfs). Crossbeam Car fleet MPV fleet SUV fleet Weighted mean height (mm) 463 463 503 Weighted delta (mm) 97 96 100

The position of the bumper is aligned with the legal bumper requirements and this does not imply that the bumper is aligned with crossbeams and lower rails. Bumper measurements are a subjective measure and interesting only for low speed impacts, pedestrian safety, and other vulnerable road users. In high speed impacts the combination of lower rail and crossbeam are the important structures which interact with the opponent vehicle.

In most cases the crossbeam and lowers rails are aligned in height, so those measurements should be analysed together. There are examples where there is a large misalignment that could introduce a bending moment during the crush. This bending moment will lead to an incompatible crash interaction.

Concerning the position of the crossbeam, the differences between MPV and passenger cars are small in both the sample variance and average values. This is due to the fact that most MPVs are based on passenger car platforms. As seen in Table 2-6, the variation in the SUV crossbeam position is significant and the difference in the mean values for the car fleet and SUV fleet is 40mm.

In Figure 2-2 the position of the lower rails is shown. The lower rails, also known as longitudinals, are the main crash structure in the front end of the car. As for the cross beam, the position of lower rails for the MPV fleet is in line with passenger cars

70 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 whereas for the SUV fleet the lower rails are higher than for passenger cars and MPVs.

Lower rails Mean position for the car fleet Position from the ground

MPV SUV 700

650

600

550

500

450

400

Height from ground (mm) 350

300 123456789101112131415161718192021222324 Vehicle n° top bottom Figure 2-2 Position of lower rails, blue bars and the dashed lines the average passenger cars measurements..

Lower rails Car fleet MPV fleet SUV fleet Weighted Mean height (mm) 462 482 532 Weighted delta (mm) 99 96 119

Table 2-7 Mean position of lower rails.

The variation in the positions is important for the SUV fleet even if 40% of the SUV measured in this study have a static alignment of lowers rails with passenger cars. A static alignment is considered if there is more than 50% overlap between the lower rails of of the vehicles under review.

The position of the floor sills is given in Figure 2-3. The position of side sills for all categories of cars are below the position of lower rails that indicate a clear incompatibility for side impact situations.

The positions of side sills for MPV are clearly in line with ones of passenger car since they usually share the same platform. However SUVs are positioned higher and in some case more aligned with lower rails of passenger cars. This position is clearly caused by the different approach angle specified for a SUV.

71 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Mean position for Floor sills the car fleet Position from the ground

MPV SUV 600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200 Height from ground (mm) 150

100 123456789101112131415161718192021222324 Vehicle n° top bottom Figure 2-3 Position of floor sills.

Floor sills Car fleet MPV fleet SUV fleet Weighted Mean height (mm) 250 254 357 Weighted delta (mm) 148 140 144

Table 2-8 Mean position of floor sills. Vehicles are fitted with long or short subframe, but only long subframe plays a major role in front to front compatibility. There are no objective parameters that specify a long subframe. The current analysis considers only subframes positioned less than 550mm from the front bumper as a long subframe. This is a subjective limit based only on observations made during crash tests.

Figure 2-4 shows the vertical position of the subframes measured for SUV and MPVs. We can see that the mean position of the SUV fleet is not aligned with the car fleet whereas for MPVs is more similar with passenger cars.

For frontal impacts, it is important for the subframe to engage the wheel of the crash partner to ensure a strong load path through to the side sill. Thus, the most important measure is to look for its position behind the front bumper (Figure 2-5) and the height from the ground. In side impacts, the subframe needs to engage the side sill of the opposite car but not be positioned too far rearward of the frontal rails. Otherwise the frontal rails will penetrate into the occupant compartment before the subframe engages the significant structure of the sills.

72 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Subframe Mean position for Position from the ground the car fleet MPV SUV 400

350

300

250

200

150 Height from ground (mm)

100 123456789101112131415161718192021222324 Vehicle n° top bottom Figure 2-4 Subframe position from ground.

Subframe - Position from front bumper

Long subframe <550 mm from front bumper Short subframe 400

350

300

250

200

Height from ground (mm) ground from Height 150

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance from front bumper (mm)

Figure 2-5 Subframe position from front bumper vs position from the ground.

Subframe Car fleet MPV fleet SUV fleet (Long subframe: <550mm from front bumper) Weighted Mean height (mm) 212 231 294

Table 2-9 Mean distance from subframe to ground.

73 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

2.4 Conclusion

This study shows that the positions of the main crashworthy structures for MPVs are generally in line with corresponding structures for passenger’s cars. This can be due to the MPV designs sharing the same platforms as passenger cars. For SUVs it is obvious do not have the same type of platforms. The positions of the main structures vary much more and tend to be higher than the other two vehicle types addressed. For most of the SUV designs measures, there is static mismatch with the average passenger car.

Some research, like VC-COMPAT project, have shown that static alignment is only a start for better interaction. Dynamic tests showed that static alignment is not enough to ensure good structural interaction and thereby activation of the main load paths. Without good structural interaction, the crash structures cannot absorb energy and increase the risk of injury to the vehicle occupants.

74 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3 Fleet Analysis of SUV Safety

3.1 Mass independent approach Fleet systems analysis

Modifications on the injury and fatality rates may be expected when there are changes to the vehicle fleet composition. The influence of vehicle mass distribution on injury and fatality rates was investigated earlier by Buzeman et al. (1998). This analysis approach was reapplied to check if the change in the mass and vehicle type distribution due to the increasing number of SUV’s can involve an increase of the fatality and injury risks, affecting to the road safety.

This approach assumes that the risk for an accident for a particular vehicle is independent of the mass of the vehicle. Therefore the probability curve for accidents is the same that of the mass distribution of the fleet. Buzeman et al used the probability of accidents for each impact speed presented by Evans (1994). This approach was calibrated to Swedish statistics and provided a reasonable accuracy for a baseline calculation. The results presented herein are based on the German data collected by BASt and represents a significant portion of the accidents for Europe.

The model builds on the idealized conservation of linear momentum approximation for frontal crashes. In this approach, the velocity change of the vehicle are expressed by the ratios of their mass and their relative closing velocity prior to impact:

M ∆V = V 2 1 imp M + M 1 2 (1) M 1 ∆V2 = Vimp M 1 + M 2

The velocity change of the vehicle during a crash is often used to predict injury. Based on previous research, the risk for serious and fatal injuries can be extracted from accident data and are shown. To investigate the effect of the incompatible geometry between SUVs and passenger cars the same injury and fatality risk curves can be modified have been used. When the crash is between two the different vehicles types (SUV and passenger car), the risk curves for passengers of the small cars are multiplied by 1.4 and 4.5. Summers (1999) shows that the driver’s fatality ratio for a frontal collision SUV-to-car is 1:4.5, while the injury ratio given by Austin (2005) for the driver is 1:1,4. What this mean is that when a collision of the type described above happens, the car driver’s risk of resulting killed is 4,5 times the SUV’s driver’s, and the risk of resulting seriously injured is 1,4 times than that for the SUV driver.

Using the hypothetical situation that the fleet in 2008 is exactly the same composition as the sales figures, two conditions can be explored: 1) SUVs can be considered as a heavy passenger car 2) SUVs are geometrically different and create more severe loading on the impact partner

75 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

The first condition explores the case where only mass effects due to a shift from passenger cars to more SUVs in the vehicle fleet. In the second condition US compatibility research was used to modify the injury risk curves for collision partners with SUVs. 1,2

1 1,2

0,8 1

SUV 0,8

0,6IR SUV Car Car 0,6FR 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2

0 0 0 102030405060708090100 0 102030405060708090100 Change of Speed (Km/h) Change of speed (Km/h) a) b) Figure 3-1: : Risk curves for occupant injuries a)-serious injuries & b) fatal injuries

The simulation results are presented in Table 3-1. The baseline column indicates what the model would predict for the present fleet conditions. For reference, the 2003 serious injury and fatality rates are 92.7/100,000 and 8.5/100,000 accident for Germany (the source of the impact speed distribution. The model slightly under- predicts the number of serious injuries and over estimates the number of fatalities. However the model is in the right order of magnitude for these estimates and should be a reasonable tool for evaluating the influence of SUVs on fleet safety.

Table 3-1: Fleet Model Results

Predicted Baseline Mass Mass + Geometry 2003 2008 2008 The predicted Severe Injuried per 100000 11.5101 11.3566 11.5879 registered vehicles are: The predicted Fatalities per 100000 7.3418 6.9332 7.5604 registered vehicles are:

It can be observed that the changes in the injury values are quite small. This can be accounted for by the small representation of SUVs in the fleet (about 8%) for the 2008 predictions. Even when the incompatibility effects are included, a very small increase is observed. It is important to observe the geometry effects are greater than the mass effects. Only using the mass affects for the SUVs resulted in a small decrease in casualties. However the inclusion of geometry counteracted this drop and then added a further increase in the casualty rates. This underlines the necessity to ensure that SUV geometry must not become more incompatible than currently observed in the US [Summers].

76 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

To clarify the decrease in casualties when the mass of the fleet increases, one can refer to Buzeman et al. (1998). In their investigated a uniform increase in the mass of the fleet, it was observed that there were slight decreases in both the fatalities and the injuries. Enlarging the average mass 10%, the result was 0,5% less injured and 1,7% less fatalities. The decrease of the risks when raising the mass can be explained as a result of taking away part of the lighter vehicles as well as slightly reducing the average mass ratio which reduces the expected velocity changes (see equation 1) for the fleet. It was demonstrated that to take away the lightest vehicles caused a decreasing tendency on the risks.

3.2 Conclusions

With the results obtained from the simulations, it can be deduced that if the approach of Buzeman et al. (1998) is used, the variation on the safety produced by the increase of the number of SUVs, according to the mass of the vehicles will be almost negligible, as there is hardly any variation on the expected figures of fatalities and some severe injured less than the ones of the baseline.

The analysis highlights that the incompatibility of SUVs in frontal impacts with passenger cars is more important to monitor than the mass. This is fortunate as it is easier to implement geometrical requirements for motor vehicles than regulating the mass. This approach has already been applied to the US market through the Alliance of Automobile manufacturers [Alliance].

3.3 Geometrical approach Fleet systems analysis

3.3.1 Objectives A vehicle systems model developed at TNO Automotive was applied to analyse the SUV compatibility problem. Numerical simulations of collisions between vehicles of different classes were performed to obtain information on:

• The factors leading to unbalanced structural interaction, • The crash mechanisms involved with these structures, • And the injury mechanics that occur in typical SUV involved accidents,

Simulations were performed for different crash parameters (speed, angle, etc.). Simulation results were scaled to a fleet level using sales numbers, statistical accident information and in-depth data from work package 1.1 and 1.2. In addition, the influence of the front-end stiffness values and profiles were investigated using generic vehicle models. Stiffness values were derived from available crash test data and the geometrical measurements.

The relation between work package 1.3.3 (Fleet Studies) and the other work package is visually presented in Figure 3-2.

77 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 3-2 Relation of work package 1.3.3 (Fleet Studies) with other work packages

3.3.2 Approach Detailed insight into the compatibility issues of SUVs is needed to identify the differences between SUVs and other road users in terms of mass, structure and stiffness and its implication on road side infrastructural requirements, current test protocol applicability and fleet compatibility in general. A vehicle systems model developed at TNO Automotive was applied to analyse the SUV compatibility problem. This is an iterative process, which is graphically depicted in Figure 3-3.

1. For the evaluation of the SUV issue, accident data results are first scaled to a fleet level using sales numbers, statistical accident information and in- depth data from work packages 1.1 and 1.2. Next, this fleet level accident data results are translated into scenarios that are representative for the whole fleet. In addition the influence of the front-end stiffness values and profiles will be investigated using generic vehicle models. Stiffness values will be derived from the available crash test data and the geometrical measurements. 2. Then, numerical simulations of crashes between an SUV and vehicles of different classes will be performed to obtain information on injuries. 3. Finally, the defined weight factors will ideally be implemented for the selected cases in the numerical vehicle fleet in order to correlate the numeric outcome with the real world accident database. However, considering the amount of time and the current inventory status of the project, this task will be one step to far to perform in detail.

78 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 3-3 Pictorial description of work

Scenario Definition

Determine Accident Analysis Weighting In the current comparison of the numerical simulations it is found that the cases should be weighted for their occurrence in the real life cases. The weight factors will be defined using sales numbers, statistical accident information and in-depth data from work packages 1.1 and 1.2. The defined weight factors will be implemented for the selected cases in the considered databases.

One of the possibilities to quantify the corresponding level of risk could be by making use of the following formula:

I(x) ISS(x) Px = ⋅ , (1) I tot ISS max Where • Px = normalized risk level of scenario x • I(x) = incident of scenario x • Itot = total number incidents of all scenarios • ISS(x) = averaged ISS score for scenario x • ISSmax = maximum ISS score (75)

The incident ratio (I(x) / Itot) consists of the elaboration of sales numbers, statistical accident information and in-depth data. The injury severity ratio (ISS(x) / ISSmax) consists of statistical accident information and possibly in-depth data and can be closely linked to the outcome of the numeric studies. However, note that the incident ratio relies on the assumption that the real world database is normally distributed, which evidently is not entirely valid.

The computation of the incident ratio will be based on global indicators. It is proposed to define the incident per vehicle class, I(x), as follows:

79 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

#Crashes of type SUV - Vehicle Class (x) I(x) = , (2) # Vehicles in Vehicle Class (x) where x indicates the type of vehicle class. The ISS level (or MAIS level if ISS is not available) that is representative for the type of collision can be derived from the databases.

Scenario Set-up

A short-term initial step in addressing further improvements in front-to-front crash compatibility between two colliding vehicles is through better alignment and geometric matching of the vehicle crash structures. There are three different options:

1. Geometric matching of the Primary Energy Absorbing Structure (PEAS), 2. Enhancement of the Primary Energy Absorbing Structure by supplemental of a Secondary Energy Absorbing Structure fixed to it (EPEAS), 3. Addition of a Secondary Energy Absorbing Structure (SEAS).

Table 3-2 Three options for improvement of SUV compatibility; vertical alignment (left), enhanced load path (mid) and additional load path (right).

PEAS EPEAS SEAS

The focus of this study will be on the first two options: Geometric matching of the Primary Energy Absorbing Structure (PEAS) and an enhancement of the Primary Energy Absorbing Structure (EPEAS). The first option can have an influence on the design process of future SUVs. The latter option can be applied to both future SUV development and modification of existing SUVs on the road.

It is proposed for the scenario definition to have at least two car-to-car scenarios covered that represent respectively the US NCAP full overlap condition and the Euro NCAP 40% overlap condition, see Table 3.3. The US NCAP frontal crash is conducted with complete overlap against a rigid barrier at a crash speed of 56 km/h. The Euro NCAP frontal crash is conducted with 40% overlap at the higher crash speed of 64 km/h, in accordance with the EC Directive 96/79/EC. Whereas in the IMPROVER project the compatibility issue is evaluated, the barriers used in the NCAP tests are replaced by the bullet vehicle from the LTV vehicle class, being the SUV. The target vehicles is represented by the compact vehicle class, which has potential danger of under run in crashing that involve SUVs. Other scenarios following from the statistical accident information and the in-depth studies can be added to the scenario definition.

80 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Table 3-3 Frontal impact test conditions Legislation FMVSS 208 Euro NCAP Impact Angle Frontal (0°) Frontal (0°) Velocity 56 km/h 64 km/h Overlap 100% 40% Bullet vehicle SUV SUV Target Compact Passenger Compact Passenger vehicles Car car Dummies 2 Hybrid IIIs 2 Hybrid IIIs Head, Neck, Chest, Head, Neck, Chest, Criteria Abdomen, Pelvis, Abdomen, Pelvis, Lower Extremities Lower Extremities

Information concerning the spread in overlap, speed and impact angle should be available from the results in WP1 and WP2.

Reference fleet

The SUV has to be updated with respect to the generic ride height, stiffness characteristics. Then a simulation study has to be done in order to determine the influence of speed and overlap variation in both protocols of the fleet collided with the (current) average SUV.

Fleet with Enhanced LTVs

Adaptation of the SUV with sub-frame, shear connection points. These enhanced vehicle models are then tested again under the same conditions as the reference fleet.

It is proposed to vary each variable in the following way for option:

• Enhancement of the PEAS by addition of extra structure linked to the PEAS on varying levels of stiffness, e.g. [very high – high – average – low – very low].

3.3.3 Methodology

Pre-processing

The SUV model has to be updated in order to: • Geometrically match the SUV to the target vehicle. • Add an Energy Absorbing to the PEAS of the current SUV

The ADVISER and the TNO Automotive Scenario Builder will be used to set-up the numeric studies.

Solving

81 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

These numeric studies will be run on a multiple server system and will require MADYMO.

Post-processing Selection of the injury criteria, vehicle signals, compartment collapse, intrusion, et cetera will be done from the MADYMO output, using MATLAB and HYPERWORKS.

Translation to Real World The number of vehicle classes is limited and also the number of different vehicle models per class is low, at most 1 or 2 per class. As such, weight factors of injury results from simulations for comparison with the databases are required to cover the limitation in vehicle spread per class.

The weighted injuries have to be compared to the corresponding weighted real world injuries retrieved from the accident data in order to map and quantify the improvements of the measures taken to improve SUV compatibility in the real world.

One of the possibilities to quantify the corresponding level of risk could be by making use of the following formula:

 I(x)   ISS(x)  P = F ⋅  ⋅  ,  I   ISS   tot  SIM  max  SIM

I(x) Where F ⋅ the weighted incident ratio and F the weight factor that compensates I tot for the limited number of vehicle classes and variety within the vehicle classes. At this moment, no methodologies exist to directly translate the scores from the simulation into equivalent real world accident data. For this reason it is assumed that the incident ratio equals the incident ratio as found in task 1 and F is considered to be one. Hence, the risk level will be determined by only the injury severity ratio:

I(x)  ISS(x)  P = 1⋅ ⋅  . I  ISS  tot  max  SIM

For this reason, in this project the main stress is on comparison of the injury outcome. A final step in quantifying the improvements of the measures taken to improve SUV compatibility in the real world would be to compare the real world risk level (P) to the risk level as predicted from the reference fleet. The difference between the risk level of the reference fleet and the enhanced fleet will be a measure for the level of improvement and can be applied for cost benefit analysis.

∆P = Penhanced − Pref .

Since the solving of this issue is not evident and will require a well-thought methodology set up, the execution of this translation of virtual data with the data from the real world will mainly depend on the amount of time left at the end of the project.

82 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

3.3.4 Results The MADYMO SUV bullet vehicle was updated with an Enhanced Primary Energy Absorbing Structure (EPEAS). This was elaborated by adding a second, but smaller bumper more inward with respect to the front of the SUV. The position in height of this additional structure was chosen on base of current SUV design. Furthermore, contact definitions between the target vehicle and the renewed SUV bullet vehicle were updated.

In order to evaluate the concept of the EPEAS, the enhanced SUV model was tested with and without EPEAS against a compact passenger car (CPC) that had a tendency to be overrun by large vehicles (SUV, MPV, et cetera). Two scenarios were compared:

• Front-to-front collision, 100% overlap at 50 km\h with both vehicles, • Front-to-front collision, 40% overlap at 50 km\h with both vehicles.

In both scenarios the EPEAS equipped SUV had a considerable improved collision interaction with the CP. The SUV tendency to overrun the CP was effectively removed with the enhancement of the crumbling structure. Especially in the 40% overlap scenario the EPEAS proved to reduce the intrusion extensively. However, the global deformation of both vehicles has reduced due to the improvement of the contact interaction. Consequently, both cars come to a full stop slightly earlier in time. This leads to a small increase in injury level predicted by the EPEAS concept model, see Table 3-4.

A variation study was performed in order to evaluate the robustness of the model and investigate the effects of variation of design parameters in the EPEAS design on crash interaction, compatibility and injury mitigation. The best results of all variations were taken and combined into the best EPEAS model.

It was found that the best setup for full overlap was:

• Medium longitudinal stiffness, • Medium EPEAS bending stiffness w.r.t itself, • High EPEAS bending stiffness w.r.t the structure.

Whereas the best setup for 40% overlap was found to be:

• Medium longitudinal stiffness, • High EPEAS bending stiffness w.r.t itself, • High EPEAS bending stiffness w.r.t the structure.

The SUV with adapted EPEAS showed to have a slightly improved collision interaction with the CP in comparison with the concept EPEAS and a much better collision interaction compared to the base model. The compartment model stays almost fully intact. Small improvements can be made to the connection between the upper load path, which is barely addressed in this specific case, and the lower load path to ensure full crash interaction of the vehicle. Due to variation of the design parameters the all injuries,

83 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 except head injuries, of all target drivers were effectively reduced, without loosing the advantage of the improved crash interaction. The results are presented in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 Injury results from the Baseline model, the un-tuned model with EPEAS and the best tuned EPEAS model. Head3ms HIC36 NIJ C3ms CD VC CTI Pelvis3ms FFC ≤ 80 g ≤ 1000 [-] ≤ 1.0 [-] ≤ 60 g ≤ 50mm ≤ 1.0 ms-1 ≤ 2.0 [-] ≤ 130 g ≤ 10 kN

Target Driver, 100 % Overlap BASE 49.7 461.8 0.29 49.5 51.88 0.50 1.09 78.9 3.12 EPEAS 59.7 660.4 0.34 52.8 53.20 0.47 1.14 88.7 3.46 BEST* 54.1 512.7 0.29 44.4 50.30 0.32 1.02 64.2 2.02

Target Driver, 40% Overlap BASE 32.6 174.0 0,25 33.6 43.6 0.44 0.82 55.8 2.37 EPEAS 46.8 397.3 0,25 40.9 46.9 0.47 0.94 59.8 2.31 BEST* 35.2 243.3 0,19 32.8 41.4 0.20 0.79 43.7 1.96

* The “best” model combines the best individual settings of all EPEAS parameters

The performance improvement can also be assessed from the overall injury risk prediction that nowadays often is used. This injury prediction is a modified form of the Injury Severity Score (ISS). In this approach, injury risk functions are used to convert injury values into AIS levels, which subsequently may be transformed into an overall injury risk using, for example the Injury Severity Scale. Predictions of the Femur forces, most severe of HIC36 and Nij, and the most severe of the Chest Deflection, Chest 3ms and the Combined Thoracic Injury (CTI) criterion computed from the dummy models are then compared against their injury risk curves to obtain the Abbreviated Injury Scores (AIS). Results for the target and bullet driver are presented in respectively Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5.

84 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 3-4 Computed values of the ISS and AIS of HIC36, NIJ, Chest 3ms, CTI, Chest deflection and FFC for the target driver at 100% overlap (left) and 40% overlap (right).

Figure 3-5 Computed values of the ISS and AIS of HIC36, NIJ, Chest 3ms, CTI, Chest deflection and FFC for the bullet driver at 100% overlap (left) and 40% overlap (right).

3.3.5 Conclusions

The mere addition of a secondary structure (EPEAS) below the bumper of an SUV will not results in more safe situations for the passenger car. In contrary it results even in a worse situation. However, by balancing the secondary structure with respect to the primary structure, the EPEAS can be made effective.

85 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

It was shown that the Enhanced Primary Energy Absorbing Structure (EPEAS) was effectively included in the SUV model. A medium longitudinal stiffness, medium-to- high EPEAS bending stiffness w.r.t itself and high EPEAS bending stiffness w.r.t the structure, was determined to be the best setup for the design parameters of the EPEAS. The set up showed that by inclusion and balancing of the EPEAS:

• the tendency of the SUV vehicle to overrun passenger cars was effectively removed, • the crash interaction between bullet and target vehicle in both 100% and 40% overlap situations was highly improved, • the compartment remains intact , • overall injuries to the target driver were reduced in all cases, • Overall injuries to the bullet driver were reduced in case of full overlap, but were slightly increased, although far within limits, in case of 40% overlap.

3.3.6 Recommendations

It is shown that the EPEAS is effective in reducing injuries in the passenger. It is therefore recommended to investigate the technical implementation of such systems in both current and modern SUVs. Research is necessary to explore the feasibility and level of ease of implementation. With regards to this, it is strongly recommended to develop a methodology that addresses the EPEAS technology implementation.

86 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

4 SUVs and the Standards EN1317 and EN12767

4.1 Introduction

The EU legislation EN1317-1 (Road restraint systems – Part 1: Terminology and general criteria for test methods) and 12767 (Passive safety of support structures for road equipment – Requirements and test methods) define test vehicle characteristics for the Europe-wide performance standard for road safety hardware like guardrails, crash cushions, and deformable lighting poles. The impact tests are designed to simulate a crash of a passenger car or heavy vehicle into different structures. Although the standard represents only provides a performance baseline for comparison of different safety equipment, it attempts to represent reasonable real world collisions though the impact speed, impact angle, and test vehicle specifications. To ensure a suitable (conservative) assessment of the safety performance, more severe crash conditions are specified in the standard than are encountered in the real world data.

Standard EN1317-1 identifies several test vehicles and it is the three passenger cars (masses 825, 1300, and 1500 kg) that are relevant in this analysis. The test vehicle in EN12767 is identical to the 825 kg vehicle in EN 1317-1.

The EN1317 European standard on road equipment establishes certain vehicle specifications for the impact tests.

87 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Table 4-1: Vehicle specifications at EN1317

4.2 Evaluation Criteria

There are three essential types of test evaluation applies in these standards: • Post-crash Vehicle Motions • Occupant Injury Risk • Structural performance

These criteria are further specified in the standards. In terms of Occupant Injury Risk, the lightest test vehicle is the most relevant vehicle type since it will experience the most violent crash dynamics and thereby produce more severe occupant loadings. Further discussion of the light vehicle is not required in the following analysis.

The structural performance and vehicle redirection/post-crash dynamics are influenced by the geometry and mass of the vehicle. The heavier vehicles will produce larger crash loads on the roadside structure and the higher center of gravity

88 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 vehicles will introduce rollover moments when roadside structures have contact areas below the vehicles center of gravity. It is these issues that SUV vehicles will introduce to the European fleet.

An analysis of single vehicle crashes in the US [NCHRP] indicate that the Light Truck and Van (LTV) and SUV vehicles shows that these heavier and higher vehicles are over represented in fatal rollover crashes. Since rollover should not occur in these types of legislated crash tests, it is important to consider the relevance of the problem. Particular findings shows that SUV were more likely to rollover than light trucks and that the heavier mass and higher stiffness of SUVs tended to produce more deformation in hardware items and caused the vehicles to come into contact with objects placed behind the protective device.

Relevance of Test Vehicle Characteristics

The definition of the SUV/MPV developed in Task 1.1 specified the overall height along with some tire-bumper geometery. Using the overall height and mass distribution of SUVs the representation of the EN1317 test vehicles to new car sales is presented in. It is evident that the passenger car classification specified in EN1317 represents about 50% of new vehicle sales and less than 2% of new SUV sales. One must recognize that there are heavy truck test vehicles for certain safety devices in EN1317. However, safety equipment can be designed and tested only for passenger vehicles.

A further analysis of older SUV characteristics was conducted by Chalmers. As an additional criteria, one can use the center of gravity (CoG) location of the vehicle to discriminate between SUV/MPV and passenger cars. In this analysis vehicles with CoGs above 0.58m. Test vehicle specifications in EN1317 list the highest height for the centre of gravity 0,53 m, thereby excluding any SUV

Table 4-2: Percentage of vehicles in baseline that are represented by EN1317 MASS SUVs PASSENGER CARS 900 kg 0.0% 3.3% 1300 kg 0.32% 19.37% 1500 kg 0.88% 28.18% TOTAL 1.20% 50.85%

As a prediction of the possible vehicle fleet based on 2008 sales expectations, Table 4-3 shows the representation of test vehicles.

Table 4-3: Percentage of vehicles in expected fleet (2008 sales expectations) represented by EN1317 MASS SUVs PASSENGER CARS 900 kg 0.0% 3.0% 1300 kg 0.56% 19.07% 1500 kg 1.12% 27.88% TOTAL 1.68% 47.25%

89 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

4.3 Conclusions

The current test vehicles employed to test roadside safety equipment is shown to poorly represent the SUV in the current and predicted vehicle fleet. Even without changes in the current sales and registration levels of SUVs (relative to passenger cars), SUVs are not represented by their mass or geometric properties in the current test standards. US studies have indicated a higher risk of rollover or undesired deformation of the safety device when SUVs collided with roadside structures.

90 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

5 Conclusions The physical parameters for the SUV and MPV vehicles sold in Europe were studied in different ways. A structural survey was used to determine the geometric characterstics of vehicles, a risk based safety model was used to identify the changes in fatality and injury data, and numerical modelling was used to identify design alternatives for the SUVs. All three approaches indicates that there are safety risks associated with SUVs but it was not clear how much MPVs affect the global safety picture.

The structural survey indicates that there SUVs are more likely to not interact well with passenger cars than an MPV. The SUVs had a large variation in the position of the main crash structures and this leads to a greater risk of poor structural interaction.

From the misalignment of SUV and passenger car structures a risk analysis of the increased sales of SUV was investigated. Using the observed injury risk relationships measured in the US, a statistical model for frontal crashes was used to observe the changes of traffic casualties based on the mass influence of SUVs and the combined effects of mass and structural interaction. The study showed that the structural interaction properties are stronger than the influence of mass. A small increase in fatalities and severe injuries is predicted if the future vehicle fleet has a larger share (8%) of SUVs than the current values (4%).

Further investigation of the structural interaction of SUVs and passenger cars was conducted using different design options. This analysis indicated that a simple geometric interaction was not sufficient for reducing road casualties. The incorporation of a suitable, compatible SUV front requires both a stiffness matching as well as geometric matching of vehicle fronts.

The combined results form these three analyses indicates that the current type of SUV is not compatible with European passenger cars. Increased sales of the SUVs identified in this study will result in increased injuries in the European road network. Although it is not easy to predict, the 2002 sales levels (4%) can be expected to double by 2008 reaching about 8%. If current SUV designs do not change, we can expect a small – but observable – increase in injuries associated with accidents involving SUVs.

It is important to recognize that the predicted increases in traffic casualties can be avoided with the introduction of compatibility based safety requirements. These requirements can be particularly of relevance for SUVs since the data presented here shows that they are more of a safety risk than MPVs or other passenger cars.

Recommendations for the promoting better compatibility between SUVs and passenger cars are similar to those already proposed by the Automobile Manufacturers Alliance. Their multi-step approach requires that geometric variations are minimised so that crashworthy structures can interact. Subsequently the structural properties must be harmonised to avoid overly stiff vehicles. These requirements can be achieved through the implementation of compatibility test

91 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 procedures that measure both structural interaction potential of a vehicle while also providing force level information.

92 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

6 References [www.autoalliance.org] Safety Commitment Press Release 2004/04/05 [VC-Compat 2003] Improvement of Vehicle Crash Compatibility through the development of Crash Test Procedures Compatibility, Growth Project GRD2-2001-50083 [NCHRP] Eskandarian,A., Bahouth, G., Digges, K., Godrick, D., Bronstad, M., "Improving the Compatibility of Vehicles and Roadside Safety", Hardware, NCHRP Web Document 61 (Project 22-15): Contractor’s Final Report, February 2004.

93 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

IMPROVER SP1 Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles and Road Equipment

WP 1.4 Report

Environmental issues

Impact on road safety due to the increasing of sports utility and multipurpose vehicles

94 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

1 Environmental performance of SUVs and MPVs

1.1 Objective

Besides the safety aspects for SUVs and MPVs there is concern about the issue that SUVs and MPVs might have a poorer environmental performance than other cars because they show an increased vehicle weight and frontal area raising the engine load during acceleration and high speed driving. This might be the cause both for rising fuel consumption and emission of pollutants. It is the aim of this workpackage to determine the fuel consumption (CO2-emissions) and the exhaust gas emissions of SUVs and MPVs in comparison with those of other cars. With regard to the exhaust gas emissions the focus will be on the limited components HC (hydrocarbons), NOx (nitrogen oxides), CO (carbon monoxide) and PM (particulate matter in the case of cars with diesel engines).

1.2 Methodology

Inquiries showed that there is no literature about the environmental performance of SUVs and MPVs available. Besides this car manufacturers also do not have comprehensive data about this issue. For these reasons statistical data of the type approval authority of Germany are the basis for the calculations and estimations carried out within this study. All vehicles of category M1 have to fulfil the limits of the type approval procedure given in the directive 70/220/EEC. So type approval data for exhaust gas emissions have the advantage to be valid all about Europe and they allow to compare between different vehicle segments since the driving cycle behind it (NEDC = New European Driving Cycle) is the same for all vehicles. Within the calculation the following definitions will be used to distinguish between different vehicle subcategories: • The total car park is divided into segments. • A segment is divided into car types like “Golf”, “Astra” etc. • A car type is divided into models like “Golf 4”, “Golf 5” etc., diesel or gasoline engine. • Each model consists of vehicle types like “Golf, 1.8 l”, “Golf, 2.0 l”, “Golf Variant”, “Golf 4Motion” etc. In Germany the type approval authority provides lists with stock figures for all vehicle types. Besides this for each vehicle type lists of type approval values for emissions of pollutants and for CO2 (fuel consumption) are available. But the different lists are not linked. Within the scope of the present study the German type approval authority linked the data for pollutants and CO2 with the data for stock for each vehicle type to produce a combined dataset which could be used for further evaluation. This was done for all selected car types. The selection started with a list of first registration numbers for all car types referring to the key date December 31st, 2004. This list is split up into the following ten segments:

• minis • small vehicles • lower medium class

95 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

• medium class • upper medium class • premium class • SUV • cabrio and roadster • MPV • transporter (small goods vehicles) so that the interesting groups SUVs and MPVs are already separated. Out of this list the most important and accordingly best selling car types per segment were selected. The selection criteria was a registration share of more than 3 % within the segment. The choices of SUVs and MPVs for environmental issues correspond to a large extend to the list of SUVs and MPVs established for the safety issues implicating that the ranking of best selling SUVs and MPVs in Germany complies to the European ranking for 2004. The above mentioned dataset for emission and stock of each selected vehicle type of the ten segments then was used to calculate the mean emissions per segment in g/km. The averages were weighted with stock since a distribution of the average mileage of the segments was not available. Since the stock list and the emission lists of the German type approval authority unfortunately refer to different dates a small amount of vehicles is not included in the intersection of the linked lists. To further reduce the amount of data and to eliminate vehicles which will leave the car fleet soon only the actual models and previous models were taken into account.

1.3 Results

In the following sections the results for the stock weighted emissions per vehicle segment are presented for the five components CO, HC, NOx, PM and CO2. Data of more than 6,8 Mio. vehicles (see tables 1.4.1 and 1.4.3) enter into the calculation. Values for vehicles with diesel and gasoline engines are displayed separately. With the restraints given above the figures are valid for Germany but they can serve as an estimation of the European conditions since type approval values do not depend on the country and the German car park is not far from the European average with regard to SUV. Of course there will be slight differences for other countries due to different stock distributions.

1.3.1 Limited emissions of diesel vehicles For each segment of diesel vehicles the average and stock weighted emissions of limited components are shown in table 1.4.1. For diesel vehicles there is no separate value for HC since type approval assesses HC and NOx as a sum.

96 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

For comparison the limits for diesel vehicles of category M1 below 2,5 t are given in table 1.4.2 for Euro 3 and Euro 4 (98/69/EC).

exhaust gas component segment number of (diesel): CO [g/km] NOx[g/km] HC+NOx PM [g/km] vehicles in [g/km] calculation mini 0.184 0.376 0.401 0.028 27,294 small 0.211 0.369 0.395 0.025 176,833 lower medium 0.159 0.334 0.360 0.029 854,315 medium 0.157 0.365 0.393 0.030 691,604 upper medium 0.128 0.329 0.356 0.028 285,726 premium 0.129 0.341 0.367 0.028 17,468 SUVs 0.237 0.535 0.573 0.051 134,889 cabrio and 0.229 0.277 0.311 0.024 7,631 roadster MPVs 0.187 0.331 0.357 0.029 263,366 transporter 0.253 0.615 0.670 0.065 197,315 Sum: 2,656,441 Table 1.4.1: Average stock weighted type approval emissions for diesel vehicles.

limits for diesel vehicles of category M1

CO [g/km] NOx[g/km] HC+NOx PM [g/km] [g/km] 0.64 0.50 0.56 0.05 Euro 3 Euro 4 0.50 0.25 0.30 0.025 Table 1.4.2: Limits for diesel vehicles of category M1 below 2,5 t for Euro 3 and Euro 4 according to directive (98/69/EC).

For CO all vehicles are far below the Euro 4 limit although Euro 3 vehicles are part of the calculation to some extent. HC also usually is not a problematic component for diesel vehicles. For NOx, HC+NOx and PM most of the values lie between the Euro 3 and 4 limits. Especially the transporters show higher emissions (even above the Euro 3 limits). This can be due to the fact that it is possible to homologate transporters as vehicles of class N1 for which higher limit values apply. SUVs show a similar behaviour as the transporters. A fraction of the SUV segment calculated in this study is also homologated as class N1 vehicles. To assess SUVs as segment it should be compared with a similar vehicle segment with regard to engine power and displacement. This is fulfilled best by premium class vehicles. The average emissions of SUVs are nearly twice as high as for the premium class. MPVs do not show a poorer environmental performance than the other vehicle segments.

97 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

1.3.2 Limited emissions of gasoline vehicles In table 1.4.3 the average and stock weighted emissions are presented for each segment of gasoline vehicles. Particulate matter is not a limited component for spark ignition engines. The limit values for gasoline vehicles of category M1 below 2,5 t are given in table 1.4.4 for Euro 3 and Euro 4 (98/69/EC).

exhaust gas component segment number of (gasoline): CO [g/km] HC [g/km] NOx [g/km] vehicles in calculation mini 0.391 0.051 0.024 257,765 small 0.409 0.058 0.033 1,068,072 lower medium 0.356 0.061 0.041 1,371,332 medium 0.428 0.056 0.032 762,126 upper medium 0.376 0.048 0.027 111,954 premium 0.428 0.062 0.031 46,963 SUVs 0.501 0.060 0.030 49,476 cabrio and 0.517 0.062 0.041 221,055 roadster MPVs 0.533 0.058 0.029 346,448 transporter 0.797 0.088 0.045 6,921 Sum: 4,242,112

Table 1.4.3: Average stock weighted type approval emissions for gasoline vehicles.

limits for gasoline vehicles of category M1

CO [g/km] HC [g/km] NOx [g/km]

Euro 3 2.3 0.2 0.15 Euro 4 1.0 0.1 0.08 Table 1.4.4: Limits for gasoline vehicles of category M1 below 2,5 t for Euro 3 and Euro 4 according to directive (98/69/EC).

Each segment of the gasoline vehicles shows emissions lower than the Euro 4 limits for all components (CO, HC and NOx). SUVs have about the same level of emissions as premium class vehicles. Also MPVs do not show noticable behaviour.

1.3.3 CO2 emissions of diesel vehicles

Table 1.4.5 provides the CO2 emissions for each segment of diesel cars. Besides the emissions for the whole driving cycle the values are differentiated between the urban

98 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 and the extra urban part of the driving cycle. The fuel consumption in l/100km, which is proportional to the CO2 emissions, is given in addition to illustrate the figures.

CO2 emissions [g/km] fuel consumption [l/100km] segment number of (diesel): vehicles in calculation urban extra Sum urban extra Sum urban urban mini 131.4 90.6 105.7 4.92 3.39 3.95 27,294 small 162.6 105.6 126.7 6.06 3.95 4.72 176,833 lower 192.6 120.4 146.1 7.19 4.49 5.45 854,315 medium medium 230.1 136.6 170.3 8.60 5.09 6.35 691,604 upper 270.3 155.8 197.4 10.13 5.83 7.39 285,720 medium premium 347.0 187.5 245.3 12.94 6.97 9.13 17,468 SUVs 308.2 196.7 237.2 11.60 7.39 8.91 134,889 cabr. + 244.3 149.4 183.2 9.11 5.55 6.82 7,631 roadst. MPVs 216.7 141.8 168.6 8.06 5.27 6.27 263,366 transporter 271.2 184.6 216.0 10.14 6.90 8.08 197,315 Sum: 2,656,435

Table 1.4.5: Average stock weighted type approval CO2 emissions / fuel consumption for diesel vehicles. For SUVs and premium class vehicles the CO2 emissions are nearly the same. This is not amazing since these vehicles often share the same engines or show nearly the same power or displacement. Compared with vehicles of lower weight and lower frontal area SUVs show of course higher fuel consumption. But even transporters have slightly lower fuel consumption than SUVs although they are built for goods transport purposes. On the other hand one has to take into consideration that transporters have different gear ratios. In contrast to SUVs the fuel consumption of the MPVs is on the average. It is comparable with the fuel consumption of the medium class vehicles.

1.3.4 CO2 emissions of gasoline vehicles

In table 1.4.3 the average and stock weighted emissions of CO2 are presented for each segment of gasoline vehicles. Fuel consumption is displayed, too. As in the case of diesel vehicles SUV show similar emissions as the premium class cars. For both segments the absolute values are far above the aspired target of 140 g/km for both diesel and gasoline vehicles. Again transporters have lower CO2 emissions than SUVs. MPVs have average fuel consumption.

99 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

CO2 emissions [g/km] fuel consumption [l/100km] segment number of (gasoline): vehicles in calculation urban extra Sum urban extra Sum urban urban mini 184.3 114.4 139.0 7.69 4.76 5.82 257,755 small 200.1 124.1 152.4 8.43 5.24 6.39 1,068,069 lower 234.4 137.3 172.8 9.82 5.74 7.22 1,371,329 medium medium 276.7 151.9 197.6 11.53 6.32 8.22 762,111 upper 331.4 175.1 232.3 13.85 7.31 9.71 111,951 medium premium 422.2 209.6 287.9 17.67 8.74 11.99 46,888 SUVs 374.4 216.7 274.8 15.64 9.02 11.46 49,476 cabr. + 278.6 154.4 199.8 11.71 6.44 8.35 221,055 roadst. MPVs 258.0 152.1 191.1 10.78 6.35 7.98 353,122 transporter 319.2 194.3 240.0 13.31 8.09 10.00 6,921 Sum: 4,248,677

Table 1.4.6: Average stock weighted type approval CO2 emissions / fuel consumption for gasoline vehicles.

1.3.5 Consumer organisation The consumer organisations in Europe are dealing with the subject of fuel consuming vehicles, amongst them, the Dutch organisation “De consumenten bond”. This organization introduced some years ago an energy label for all electronic equipment in the house environment and in January 2001 this label is also introduced to passenger vehicles. Fuel efficient vehicles use less fuel and exhaust less polluting components and less CO2. The CO2 is one of the most important gases causing green house effects and in particular the CO2 exhaust of passenger cars is in total 10% of the total CO2 exhaust.

This energy label indicated the fuel efficiency of the passenger car and accordingly the CO2-exhaust. The labels indicate the level of efficiency from A to G, where A is the best and G the worst. The fuel efficiency is indicated on the label in three different ways: - in liter per 100 km - in km per liter - and fuel costs per 50,000 km The CO2 exhaust is given in grams per km. An example of the table is given in the following figure.

100 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

Figure 1.1 Energy efficiency label for passenger cars

1.4 Conclusion

The environmental performance of SUVs and MPVs was assessed by evaluating type approval data of best selling vehicles in Germany. The determination of emissions per km for each vehicle segment was done by weighting the emissions of single vehicle types with stock data. For limited emissions (CO, HC, NOx and PM) the results show raised values only for diesel engines of the segments SUVs and transporters (the latter being rather light goods vehicles than cars). Diesel SUVs showed nearly twice as much emissions as premium class vehicles, where emissions are NOx and PM. MPVs did not show a poorer environmental performance than the other vehicle segments in respect to emissions. In fact MPVs have the benefit to be able to carry more passengers than other car types. Gasoline SUVs and MPVs did not show any noticeable difference to other vehicle segments. With regard to CO2 emissions and accordingly fuel consumption SUV and premium class cars show increased values. This result is not astonishing since these vehicle segments show higher vehicle masses, engine power and displacement. However, SUVs (like transporters) also have a higher pay load so that - depending on the use like for agriculture, forestry or similar purposes - higher fuel consumption can be justified if used as an all-terrain vehicle. Energy efficiency labels support the customer in his decision to buy an energy efficient car.

101 IMPROVER Final Report: Subproject 1 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022

1.5 Recommendations

Based on the results of the evaluation of type approval and stock data given above it is difficult to derive unassailable recommendations. Nevertheless the following topics might be helpful for further actions with regard to the environmental performance of SUVs, MPVs or other special vehicle categories. For gasoline SUVs and MPVs no actions can be recommended with regard to the limited emissions since their emissions do not exceed those of other vehicle segments. With regard to fuel consumption ACEA has given the self commitment to reduce CO2 emissions of first car registrations (including SUVs and MPVs) to 140 g/km by 2008. An increasing number of vehicles with higher fuel consumption would make it more difficult to achieve the aim. It should be awaited if this target will be reached. After that an updating of the ACEA reduction goal should be taken into account. Feasible technical measures to reduce CO2 should be encouraged. With regard to diesel engines and their NOx and PM emission the reduction of the type approval limits should be updated by the European Commission. To cover all SUVs not only the limits for vehicles of class M1 but also for N1 should be included. The permissibility to homologate SUVs as N1-vehicles should be scrutinised. It is expected that taxes proportional to emission standards or CO2 have a positive impact on the development of the emissions and fuel consumption of the vehicle fleet. For MPVs no measures should be undertaken since they do not show elevated emissions compared with other vehicle segments. All measures aiming at a renewal of the vehicle fleet can be recommended if older high emitting vehicles are eliminated from the car fleet.

1.6 Literature

[Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt1] Neuzulassungen von Personenkraftwagen nach Segmen- ten und Modellreihen Statistische Mitteilungen des Kraftfahrt-Bundesamtes Reihe 1, Dezember 2004

[Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt2] Kraftstoffverbrauchs- und Emissions-Typprüfwerte von Kraftfahrzeugen mit allgemeiner Betriebserlaubnis oder EG-Typgenehmigung

[Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt3] Reihe 2: Fahrzeugbestand, Bestand an Personenkraft- wagen und Nutzfahrzeugen Statistische Mitteilungen des Kraftfahrt-Bundesamtes Sonderheft 4 zur Reihe 2

102