EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.12.2016 SWD(2016) 431 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Saving Lives: Boosting Car Safety in the EU

Reporting on the monitoring and assessment of advanced vehicle safety features, their cost effectiveness and feasibility for the review of the regulations on general vehicle safety and on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users

{COM(2016) 787 final}



Contents 1.Introduction 2.Key issues to be addressed in the review of the regulations 3.Candidate Measures for Consideration for Implementation in the General Safety and Pedestrian Regulations 3.1.Main items for all relevant vehicle categories 3.1.1.Automatic Emergency Braking 3.1.2.Emergency Braking Display (Stop Signal) 3.1.3.Intelligent Speed Adaptation 3.1.4.Lane Keep Assistance 3.1.5.Driver Drowiness or Distraction Monitoring 3.1.6.Safety belt reminders 3.1.7.Frontal Crashes 3.1.8.Side Crashes 3.1.9.Rear Crashes 3.1.10.Alcohol Interlock Devices 3.1.11.Crash Event Data Recorder 3.1.12.Tyre Pressure Monitoring 3.2.Trucks and Buses 3.2.1.Front-end Design and Direct Vision

3.2.2.Truck Rear Underrun Protection 3.2.3.Truck Lateral Protection 3.2.4.Fire Safety for Buses 3.3.Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety 3.3.1.Pedestrian and Cyclist Detection 3.3.2.Head Impact on A-Pillars and Front Windscreen 3.3.3.Reversing (Backing up) Detection 4.Bunching of Technologies 5.Further Studies in the Field of Vehicle Safety 5.1.Frontal crashes 5.2.Side crashes 5.3.Roll-over accidents 5.4.Rear crashes 6.Conclusions ANNEX 1: List of proposed measures by introduction date ANNEX 2: Full list of potential measures as established for the feasibility and cost-benefit study (published in March 2015) A2.1.Active safety A2.2.Car occupant and pedestrian safety A2.3.Crashworthiness, HGV Safety and Fuel Systems A2.4.Driver Interface, Distraction and Intelligent Transport Systems

ANNEX 3: For candidate measures, summary of feasibility and cost benefit assessment reported initially



1.Introduction A traditional approach to analyse road safety is to identify a specific issue and to research mitigation actions. The European Parliament and Council however have given the Commission clear instructions on another way forward to review of the existing safety regulations: assessing the inclusion of further new safety features and proposal of new measures on the basis of the results of monitoring linked to the safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. This is indeed the work that is being undertaken by the Commission and rather than to identify specific issues and work from there, the Commission has been reviewing a suite of unregulated measures that can be proposed in a package, with potential to provide effective incremental but significant improvements addressing a range of vehicle safety related areas. In this context, Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and Council, amended by Commission Regulation (EU) Nos 407/2011, 523/2012, 2015/166 and 2016/1004 (the ‘General Safety Regulation’) governs the type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor-vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units. The Regulation lists the individual measures that apply on a compulsory basis and the vehicle categories to which each measure applies. To date, a number of amendments have been made to the General Safety Regulation including mandating: Electrical safety Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems on cars, vans, trucks and buses Fitment of tyre pressure monitoring systems on cars Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) and Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) for trucks and buses Gear shift indicators on cars Rolling resistance limits, noise emission limits and wet grip performance of tyres Driver seat-belt reminder on cars ISOFIX child restraint anchorages on cars Cab strength crash protection of vans and trucks A large number of UNECE Regulations replacing repealed Directives In addition, Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users (the ‘Pedestrian Safety Regulation’) replaced Directive 2003/102/EC with modified and more advanced provisions, adapted to the technical progress. This includes passive safety requirements to mitigate the risk of critical injury in case of a collision between a vehicle and a person.

The General Safety Regulation Article 17 requires that the Commission reports to the European Parliament every three years with proposals for amendment to the Regulation or other relevant Community legislation regarding the inclusion of further new safety features that meet the CARS 2020 and the Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020 criteria. Commission monitoring reports to the European Parliament are also required, as appropriate, by the Pedestrian Safety Regulation Article 12. As part of these requirements, a report was produced on behalf of the Commission by the Transport Research Laboratory TRL of the UK (Hynd et al, 2015) concerning an overview of the feasibility and cost-benefit assessment of a wide range of possible measures for inclusion in EU legislation as regards an update of the General Safety and Pedestrian Regulations. The main outputs of the report were indicative cost-benefits provided in order to differentiate those measures that would be very likely (gren light), moderately likely (yellow light) or very unlikely (red light) to provide a benefit consistent with the cost of implementation. The report also provided advice on the necessity and feasibility of making mandatory the ‘upper legform to bonnet leading edge test’ and the ‘adult headform to windscreen test’ that were both carried out by car producers as part of the mandatory monitoring program encompassed in the pedestrian safety legislation. Using the results from this report and where appropriate, revised and updated information and insights in terms of the benefit and feasibilty of specific measures, further work has been performed to select candidate measures for consideration for implementation in the General Safety and Pedestrian Regulations. This Commission Staff Working Document lists those candidate measures, their technical feasibility and legislative feasibility/readiness and potential target dates for implementation. It also summarises the further work required for their possible implementation in the General Safety and Pedestrian Regulations. Studies to perform this work are currently underway and it is planned to use the output of these studies to update the list of candidate measures upon completion of these studies. 2.Key issues to be addressed in the review of the regulations The study on the Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the fields of Vehicle Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users2 in the frame of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations was published in March 2015. The report provides an overview of feasibility and cost-benefit assessment of a wide range of candidate measures for possible inclusion in the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations. The outputs of the report were indicative cost-benefits provided in order to differentiate those measures that are very likely, moderately likely or very unlikely to provide a benefit consistent with the cost of implementation. The information was compiled and provided with the aim to enable prioritisation of possible future measures and was debated intensively with the stakeholders and authorities of Member States and international partners. Thus, in the initial phase of this exercise, a selection of 55 of the most promising areas of interest were established and assessed. In the present phase, the potential regulatory measures that have shown to yield an acceptable cost benefit as well good feasibility for implementation, 19 measures are now proposed to be debated in view of the review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations. In some cases, the measures are complementary to existing rules. An example is seat belt reminder that is already mandatory on the driver seat of passenger cars, but this will be expanded to all occupant seats in cars and light commercial vehicles , as well as to all front seats in trucks and buses. Tyre pressure monitoring is currently required on passenger cars only, but will be expanded to all motor-vehicles and heavy trailers. In other cases an identified measure is split in multiple facets to facilitate a pragmatic implementation timeline. When regarding the case for Automatic emergency braking (AEB), this measure is proposed in four steps: In the first step, AEB that has sensing capability of moving vehicles ahead that are slowing down is introduced, followed by systems that can also sense stationary ones. The third implementation step actually falls under the pedestrian safety measure, but is based on exactly the same technology, namely AEB with pedestrian detection capability. The final step is foreseen for AEB systems that can also detect an imminent collision with a cyclist. Annex 1 to this Commission Staff Working Document provides a comprehensive overview of all measures and implementation steps that are divided by certain technological capabilities and applicability for specific vehicle categories. It should further be mentioned that in some specific cases updated information concerning cost evidence could be obtained and applied towards the improved assessment of the relevant proposed measures. Namely, in the initial phase it was highlighted that further analysis would be needed to obtain a clear view on the cost-effectiveness of a few given measures that have been reviewed in isolation. Such further analysis has indeed been carried out for the purpose of providing an updated overview of the anticipated cost-effectivenss in this Commission Staff Working Document. When certain individual safety features, yet using common hardware components, are bundled, this also reflects such commonality in the eventual cost price, with a positive cost-benefit effect. In any event, the cumulative cost of introducing technologies will be carefully assessed as part of a new in depth cost-benefit study, that will in turn form the basis for the overall impact assessment. To obtain highly credible information on technology costs, it is envisioned that a detailed cost teardown is performed where appropriate. In this context it is important that a thorough overview can be provided on the costs that might be passed on to the end consumer, in relation to the safety features that will need to be added to future vehicles as a result of the revised General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations, as well as on the economic feasibility and how this may subsequently affect the competitiveness of the automotive industry. As part of the preparatory process, the Commission will involve stakeholders and ask citizens for their feedback on the considered new vehicle safety rules. For this purpose, the Commission will prepare an inception impact assessment. The feedback that will be provided can then be taken into account for the further development of the policy proposal. The Commission considers that, to limit the enforcement costs for the industry and in line with the better regulation principles, the requirements will need to be implemented with due lead-time and concentrated in a few implementation dates. The Commission considers that the target date for already mature and generally available technologies to become mandatory might be set to 2020 for new types of vehicles and to 2022 for new vehicles. For less developed technologies, the target date might be 2022 and 2024 respectively, with a few exceptions of longer term objectives in some specific areas. 3.Candidate Measures for Consideration for Implementation in the General Safety and Pedestrian Regulations 3.1.Main items for all relevant vehicle categories 3.1.1.Automatic Emergency Braking Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) combines sensing of the environment ahead of the vehicle with the automatic activation of the brakes (without driver input) in order to mitigate or avoid an accident. The level of automatic braking varies, but may be up to full ABS braking capability.

From 1st November 2015, the General Safety Regulation has required the fitment of Advanced Emergency Braking Systems to new vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3. EU Regulation No. 347/2012 specifies technical requirements and test procedures for these systems. The systems shall detect the possibility of a collision with a preceding vehicle, warn the driver by a combination of optical, acoustic or haptic signals and, if the driver takes no action, automatically apply the vehicle’s brakes. Two performance levels are specified with the more stringent level becoming mandatory from 1st November 2016 for new types and 1st November 2018 for all new vehicles. Note that only the more stringent level contains test pass/fail values for vehicles of categories M2 and N2≤ 8 tonnes, so there are no requirements for these vehicles before 1st November 2016. First generation AEB for passenger cars (M1) are capable of automatically mitigating the severity of two-vehicle, front to rear shunt accidents (on straight roads and curves dependent on sensor line of sight and environment ‘clutter’) as well as some collisions with fixed objects and motorcycles. These systems are becoming more and more common, notably through Euro NCAP encouragement for systems that can detect slow moving or even stopped vehicles ahead. This is also the case for systems that have the capability to detect pedestrians and bicyclists, although these systems are currently still less common, but increasingly available on a number of car models. In the context of the review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations, an introduction timeline should be considered that allows for a phase in of the detection capabilities and mandatory introduction on passenger cars (M1) and vans (N1). oMake mandatory for M1 and N1 vehicles (that are derived from M1) o01/09/2020 moving obstacle detection for new EU approved types o01/09/2022 stationary obstacle detection for new EU approved types oPlus 2-year period for all new vehicles sold in the EU oAll N1 vehicles 2-year offset to the above dates Technical feasibility: AEB are in production on a number of current pssenger cars, typically at the top-end of the market but increasingly also on standard vehicles. For passenger cars (M1), AEB are optional equipment on approximately 20-50% of 2013 vehicle models and are fitted as standard to an increasing share of vehicles. Legislation feasibility/readiness: Validated test procedures for AEB for M1 vehicles have been developed and implemented by Euro NCAP and could be used as a basis for future legislation. EU Regulation No. 347/2012 specifies the technical requirements and test procedures for advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS) for M2/M3 and N2/N3 category vehicles that detect the possibility of a collision with a preceding vehicle, warn the driver by a combination of optical, acoustic or haptic signals and, if the driver takes no action, automatically apply the vehicle’s brakes. The Regulation specifies requirements on the system operation and specifies two test procedures to check the performance of the system; one with the vehicle approaching a moving target and one with the vehicle approaching a stationary target. The Regulation specifies two “Levels” of limit values on the timing of the warnings and on the vehicle speed reduction to be achieved in each of these tests, with the “Level 2” requirements being more stringent. To allow time for the development of suitable systems for lighter vehicles, vehicles with hydraulic braking systems and vehicles with mechanical rear suspension systems, the “Level 1” limits are only applied to M3 Category vehicles, N2 Category vehicles with a GVW greater than 8,000 kg and N3 Category vehicles that are equipped with pneumatic or air/hydraulic braking systems and with pneumatic rear axle suspension systems. The fitment of advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS) meeting the “Level 1” performance requirements has been mandatory for all new vehicles from 1st November 2013 and for new types of vehicle and from 1st November 2015. The fitment of advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS) meeting the “Level 2” performance requirements becomes mandatory from 1st November 2016 for new types of vehicle and 1st November 2018 for all new vehicles. The “Level 2” performance requirements include requirements N2 vehicles with a GVW less than 8000 kg and N3 Category vehicles that are equipped with pneumatic or air/hydraulic braking systems and with pneumatic rear axle suspension systems. The benefit of fitting AEB to M1 vehicles in terms of casualties saved has been estimated to be far higher than for M2/M3 and N2/N3 vehicles (Grover 2008). Even so, the break even cost per vehicle (i.e. the cost per vehicle for a benefit to cost ratio of 1) was estimated to be far higher for M1 vehicles because there are far more vehicles of this category in the vehicle fleet. However, costs for these systems are reducing (current consumer costs for AEB are as low as £200 (Ford, VW)), so it is likely that the benefit to cost ratio of fitment of AEB to M1 vehicles will have a benefit to cost ratio greater than one. This is even more likely to be the case for ‘city’ AEB systems that help prevent the frequent low speed collisons and the associated whiplash injuries and relatively minor vehicle damage. For consideration for implemenation in the GSR further work is required to: confirm benefit to cost ratio. 3.1.2.Emergency Braking Display (Stop Signal) The emergency braking display, or emergency stop signal, consists of a rapid flashing of the brake lamp when full brakes are applied. This technology is already optionally available on motor vehicles and has proven to be very effective. Drivers following the hard-braking vehicle are instantly aware that the vehicle in front is braking with a high retardation so that they can take appropriate action. This relatively simple but effective technology can thus help drivers to avoid late recognition the hard-braking situation and avoid subsequent accidents that could result. This system is designed to address front-to-rear accidents. This system is primarily effective on highways and provides better quality information to following drivers so that rear shunt accidents can be avoided or mitigated.

The rationale behind Emergency Braking Display (EBD) is to decrease the time required to detect an emergency brake by the following driver, thereby avoiding or mitigating the effect of rear-end collisions. A road user who is temporarily not looking at the road, for instance when inspecting in-vehicle equipment, will notice through peripheral vision a flashing light more readily than the activation of ‘normal’ braking lamps. The emergency braking display, or emergency stop signal, consists of a rapid flashing of the brake lamp or hazard warning lights when full brakes (e.g. > 6m/s2 for cars) are applied. Drivers following the hard-braking vehicle are more quickly aware that the vehicle in front is braking with a high retardation so that they can take appropriate action. It is proposed: Make emergency braking display mandatory for all M and N vehicles 01/09/2020 for new types 01/09/2022 for all new vehicles Some studies have shown that flashing the amber hazard lights are a more effective emergency signal; Li at al. (2014) found a 0.11s (10%) improvement in brake response time for flashing hazard lights compared with flashing red brake lights. Studies consistently find that the frequency is important and most effective at 4Hz, although a lower frequency (3 Hz or less) is less likely to trigger photosensitive epilepsy (PSE). However, limiting the duration of the flashing will also limit trigger of PSE, if photic simulation is limited to 2 sec or less PSE hardly occurs. Technical feasibility: Emergency braking display (EBD) systems are currently fitted as standard to some cars, e.g. some Mercedes vehicles are fitted with EBD which flash the stop lamps and some VW group vehicles are fitted with EBD which flash the amber hazard warning lamps. For best performance, EBD requires LED lights because this source provides a better fast response. Legislation feasibility/readiness: UN Regulation 48 contains specification for the lamps providing the optional emergency stop signal (EBD) to flash at 4Hz (+/- 1Hz) for LED and 4Hz (+0Hz/-1Hz) for incandescent sources when a passenger car decelerates at greater than 6 m/s2 or a truck or bus decelerates at greater than 4 m/s2. Benefit is predicted to be significant; on the basis of data on German traffic accidents, EBD has been estimated to affect 25% of rear-end crashes in moving traffic and 15% in stationary traffic resulting in a 14% reduction in these crashes. These estimates were based on the assumption of an EBD penetration rate of 70% of the German passenger vehicle fleet (Gail et al., 2001). No information is available on costs, but they are likely to be low as it mainly concerns adaptation of the stop lamp activation software. Therefore, the benefit to cost ratio is likely to be equal or greater than 1. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: confirm benefit to cost ratio and decide if either system (flash stop lamps or flash hazard warning lamps) or just one (one study showed flash hazard warning lamps more effective) should be mandated. 3.1.3.Intelligent Speed Adaptation Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) describes a range of technologies which are designed to aid drivers in observing the appropriate speed for the road environment. Speed is still the main factor linked to road accident deaths and severe injuries. Every day motorists are taking incredible chances by not adapting the driving speed to the traffic situation and road infrastructure. The link between excessive speed and increased severity/frequency of accidents has long been established (e.g. Finch et al., 1994; Taylor et al., 2000; Taylor et al. 2002). These studies broadly conclude, across all road types, that a 1 km/h decrease in mean speed would reduce the number of road collisions by 3%. As well as the having an influence on the frequency of collisions, speed also affects injury severity since collision energy is proportional to the square of velocity, and in an accident this means that the subsequent injury risk also increases more rapidly at greater speed. A potential solution for this problem is the introduction of mandatory intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) systems, consisting of a range of technologies which are designed to aid drivers in observing the appropriate speed for the road environment. These systems which warn the driver when the speed limit is exceeded, or prevent the driver from doing so, provide a very effective strategy for reducing accidents and injury severity. The three main forms of ISA are: Advisory - alert the driver to when their speed is too great;

Voluntary - the driver chooses whether the system can restrict their vehicle speed and/or the speed it is restricted to; and Mandatory - the driver’s speed selection is physically limited by the ISA system. The magnitude of casualty savings depends on the type of system used and depends on the type of system used. Estimates vary between studies, however, many studies are in broad agreement with the estimates that purely advisory systems offer around 8.4% accident savings whereas mandatory systems offer up to 30% reduction. However, we need to be weary of the possibility that when requiring very intrusive speed adaptation systems, this may lead to much less public support and poor user acceptance. For this reason, a pragmatic phased introduction of the measure should be reviewed. In any case the system should always be easily overridden by the driver when necessary, e.g. when overtaking. We further suggest that it should be a system based on providing effective haptic feedback, for instance by gently pushing the pedal back to signal the vehicle is driving too fast and speed needs to be reduced. Also, consideration needs to be given to requirements for accurate recognition of speed limits. Current technology based on sign recognition Need to work on infrastructure requirements (i.e. integrated approach) oInitial technology based on best-effort recognition and map-data oCould consider to develop harmonised speed limit beacons (or other ITS solutions, t.b.d.) Make mandatory for all M and N vehicles o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 for all new vehicles Technological feasibility: Many current vehicles are fitted with voluntary speed limiting systems which can be set by the driver to ensure compliance with a particular speed threshold. However, the speed limiter is set by the driver and is not linked to any digital map of speed limit information. ISA systems require an accurate knowledge of speed limits, either from a digital map with satellite navigation to locate the vehicle to the speed limit, or a series of local beacons (in traffic signs or other roadside furniture) and/or traffic sign recognition. As the cost of technologies have decreased, GPS-based systems have emerged as the preferred solution, mostly due to their superior flexibility, the potential to integrate ISA into a package of wider “intelligent vehicle” technologies, and avoiding the need to set up a costly network of national beacons. Legislation feasibility/readiness: The Safety Assist protocol of Euro NCAP assesses and rewards ISA systems. This addresses functional aspects regarding the speed limitation and warning function but does not perform a performance assessment of, for example, the reliability of the speed limit detection. The greatest benefits were predcited to be delivered for mandatory systems, save 20% of injury accidents and 37% of fatal accidents Carsten and Tate (2005)11. Systems which could respond to current network and weather conditions were predicted to deliver greater benefits, a reduction of 36% in injury accidents and 59% in fatal accidents. Other benefits also come from improved fuel economy. No benefit studies were found for fitment of ISA to large vehicles (N2/N3 and M2/M3), although a study on the effectiveness of Directive 2002/85/EC (the Speed Limitation Directive) found a positive impact on safety; accident reductions of 9% for fatal accidents on motorways with HCVs involved, 4% of serious injuries, and 3% of injury accidents were estimated (Transport and Mobility Leuven, 2013). A cost-benefit analysis of ISA was performed by Carsten and Tate (2005) which produced ratios of 7.9 to 15.4 depending on the type of ISA system considered; mandatory ISA yield the greatest benefit to cost ratios. Other studies have also found benefit to cost ratios in excess of one and consistently show that the benefits substantially outweigh the costs of ISA implementation. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: confirm implementation strategy, including methods for recognition of appropriate speed limit.

consider technology bunching, e.g. camera for sign recognition could also be used for ‘Lane keeping assistance’ and possibly AEB camera based systems as well, thus reducing costs. confirm benefit to cost ratio. 3.1.4.Lane Keep Assistance Current Lane keep Assistance (LKA) systems help the driver to stay in their lane. They function at speeds typically from 65 km/h and work by monitoring the position of the vehicle with respect to the lane boundary, typically via a camera mounted behind the windscreen sited behind the rear view mirror. When the vehicle drifts out of the lane the LKA gently guides the vehicle back into the lane by the application of a torque to the steering wheel or one-sided braking. LKA can take corrective action only if the lane marking is being approached very gradually: more rapid departures cannot be corrected. Future enhanced LKA systems have been developed which will be able to steer the vehicle around normal bends on highways, i.e. roads where the traffic in each direction is separated and users such as pedestrains and cyclists are not permitted. However, currently these systems are not permitted by Regulation 79, although work is ongoing in Geneva to change this. In brief, current LKA systems can help avoid accidents in which a vehicle leaves the lane unintentionally, usually because of driver distraction or fatigue, that can result in head-on collisions with oncoming vehicles, involve impacts with roadside furniture or side-swipe of the vehicle that is travelling in the same direction in an adjacent lane. Fitment of Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) to M2/M3 and N2/N3 vehicles is mandatory from 2013 for new types and 2015 for new vehicles. LDWS warn the driver if the vehicle leaves its lane unintentionally, howver they do not guide the vehicle back into the lane. Make current Lane Keeping Assistance (LKA) mandatory for M1 and N1 vehicles (derived from M1) o01/09/2020 for new types o01/09/2022 for all new vehicles oAll N1 vehicles 2-year offset to the above dates Technological feasibility: LKS are in production and offered by many of the major vehicle manufacturers, ususally offered as an optional extra typically packaged with other related systems, e.g. Lane Departure Warning (LDW), traffic sign recognition, driver alert and auto high beam. Legislation feasibility/readiness: ISO standard 17387 contains technical requirements that could potentially be used as a base for legislation. Benefits of fitment of LKA for M1/N1 vehicles in the EU are estimated to be up to 3,500 fatalities and 17,000 serious injuries (Visvikis 2008). Benefit to cost ratios of 1.6 to 2.1 have been estimated by Cowi(2006) and of 0.25 to 2.12 by Robinson et al. (2011) for Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) for M1/N1 vehicles. Because LKA systems are more effective than LDWS, cost benefit ratios are likely to be greater than one and closer to the higher ratios predicted by Robinson et al. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: consider technology bunching, e.g. camera could also be used for sign recognition in ISA systems and possibly AEB camera based systems as well, thus reducing costs. confirm benefit to cost ratio. 3.1.5.Driver Drowiness or Distraction Monitoring Distraction and drowsiness are both considered types of driver inattention for which the key shared feature is the absence of visual attention on the driving task, either due to fatigue or due to some activity that competes for a driver’s visual attention. The current estimate for the impact of road user distraction on accidents in the EU is that it is a contributory factor in around 10-30% of road accidents. Statistics relating to the proportion of road accidents attributable to driver fatigue vary between country and reporting body, but reports of it being a contributing factor in approximately 20% of accidents are common. Furthermore, there is even general agreement in the research community that any percentages based on crash data underestimate the true magnitude of the problem, since the evidence for distraction or fatigue involvement in crashes is often based on subjective criteria that exclude other factors rather than identifying definite involvement of fatigue or distraction.

Adding new technology to vehicles that can correct driver mistakes because of lack of observance will make cars a lot safer, but caution will be needed because a category of drivers may become dependent on these systems for reasons that are not linked to driving, for instance because of in-vehicle social media access with interactive screens. A wide range of technologies may be used to identify distraction or drowsiness in drivers in order to minimise related accidents. Systems may employ physiological monitoring, physical monitoring or behavioural indices and patterns. The review of the General Safety Regulation should consider the introduction of technology neutral solutions that could help address this increasingly common threat to road safety . Technology neutral, testing protocol to be determined, but with several phases linked to the improving sophistication of the detection systems Make mandatory for all M and N vehicles Application dates recommended to be coupled with Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Keeping Assist if possible. Technological feasibility: Systems to detect driver drowsiness and in some cases, driver distraction typically use camera-based systems directed at the driver for eye, face and head feature detection. The next most common type of system is based on vehicle control measures (typically the primary controls such as steering, braking and acceleration). Camera-based systems are more likely to be available as aftermarket options, whereas systems that utilise data on vehicle control inputs are more often found as original equipment on vehicles. There are also other systems that can detect driver inattention using physiological measures such as heart and brain wave feature detection. These systems are generally more invasive and thus are used more for research purposes. Systems for monitoring driver drowsiness and distraction are available now as both aftermarket and original equipment in vehicles. There are a multitude of systems using cameras and vehicle control measures in both types of market. However, an effective system will likely need to consist of a combination of systems because of the limitations of individual systems, e.g. camera based systems that monitor percentage of eyelid closure (PERCLOS) are limited by factors such as ambient light and use of sunglasses or prescription lenses. Legislation readiness: The wide range of systems available have adopted very different approaches to monitor driver drowiness and distraction. This makes standardisation of devices and protocols difficult to achieve. Further work required to determine how to define and test effectiveness of distraction/drowsiness monitoring systems and to define what action the system should take if inattention is detected. The expected benefit of using systems to monitor for driver drowsiness and distraction is a reduction in the substantial number of collisions where these issues are a causal factor. In contrast, a possible dis-benefit is that drivers may regard the system as a ‘safety net’ that enables them to drive for longer when tired, and may discourage taking regular breaks or maintaining a healthy cycle of rest and wakefulness. Costs for these systems vary substantially with a lower end of around €100 and upper end €10,000. Therefore benefit to cost ratio likely to be greater than one, because of substantial potential benefit and assuming system can be developed for reasonable cost. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Develop a technology neutral assessment protocol with several phases to improve the effectiveness of the detection systems. oPossibly, Euro NCAP could help with this, by introduction of assessment of systems to detect drowiness and distraction within their rating. Confirm cost benefit analysis 3.1.6.Safety belt reminders Since November 2014, safety belt reminders are mandatory on the driver seat of passenger cars through the General Safety Regulation. However, it is important to consider mandating safety belt reminders to also address the casualty problem associated with non-seat belt use on the other seats in passenger cars, as well as on the front seats of all trucks and buses. Safety belt reminder systems detect the presence of occupants on front and rear seating positions and monitor their belt status. In order to encourage seat belt use, an audible and/ or visual warning is issued if occupants are not wearing a seat belt. It is widely recognised that the safety belt is one of the most important and effective vehicle safety features and studies have shown that the risk of fatal injury can be reduced by 60% by using a seat belt. Seat belts in the front of the vehicle are designed to, usually in conjunction with a frontal airbag, minimise injury by arresting the occupant before any hard structures are contacted. Those in the rear of the vehicle provide the same function but also prevent injurious interaction with the driver and front seat passenger.

Despite mandatory safety belt wearing legislation in the EU, the benefit provided by the safety belt has not been fully realised yet because a proportion of occupants do not wear their seat belt. For example, the seat belt wearing rate for front seat occupants in Italy and Croatia was only 64% and 65% respectively. For rear seat passengers, the seat belt wearing rate was significantly lower with just 10% and 30% respectively in these two Member States. Research has further shown that even in countries with high seat belt usage rates, the potential benefit from improved wearing rates is significant because a large portion of those killed as car occupants were indeed unrestrained. Seat belt reminder systems therefore have the potential to further prevent fatalities or mitigate injuries by increasing the safety belt wearing rates across the EU. Make mandatory for all front and rear seats of M1 and N1 vehicles Make mandatory for all front seats of N2, N3, M2 and M3 vehicles o01/09/2020 for new types o01/09/2022 for all new vehicles It should be noted that Euro NCAP has rewarded SBRs on driver’s seat since 2002 and all seat positions since 2009. This has been effective at encouraging SBRs to be fitted in advance of regulation: In 2013, the percentages of vehicles tested by Euro NCAP equipped with SBR were 100% on driver’s seat, 95% on passenger’s seat and 77% on rear seats. However, it must be remembered that Euro NCAP is voluntary, and changes in reward scheme may result in changes to the approach of vehicle manufacturers to future SBR fitment, hence the need for regulatory action. Technological feasibility: SBRs are mandatory for the driver’s seat in passenger cars (M1) and standard equipment for other seating positions in many passenger cars. No technological barriers for other vehicle types, but for passenger seats in buses and coaches (M2, M3) adaptations of the warning strategy would be needed. Legislation feasibility/readiness: Legislative text for the driver’s seat of M1 vehicles exists in UNECE Regulation No 16. The Euro NCAP test protocol sets out well established and generally accepted requirements for front and rear M1 seating positions. Benefit to cost ratios greater than one have been estimated for fitment of SBR to M1 front seat passengers and all M2/M3 and N2/N3 vehicle seating positions. However, for M1 rear seated passengers benefit to cost ratio was estimated to be slightly less than one assuming a cost of €4 per rear seat. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Confirm cost benefit analysis Consider legislation for M1 second and other rear row seats on the basis of safety equality. 3.1.7.Frontal Crashes Frontal impact crash protection is currently successfully legislated through the General Safety Regulation. It is however generally agreed that one of the next major steps to improve frontal impact legislation and help worldwide harmonisation is to introduce an integrated set of test procedures containing both a full width and an offset test. A full width test is required to provide a high deceleration pulse to control the occupant’s deceleration and check that the car’s restraint system provides sufficient protection (‘softness’) at high deceleration levels. An offset test is required to load one side of the car to check compartment integrity. An important step under consideration for the medium to longer term includes an significant improvement of protection for the full range of occupants, in particular for vulnerable older occupants, small female occupants, children and rear seated occupants in general. This could be addressed by using a full width crash test in combination with the new generation THOR crash dummies. Two further steps would be to address occupant protection in case of small overlap collisions, as well as that of partner protection when two vehicles collide head-on, also known as crash compatibility. The Commission is currently finalising a study on the assessment of intended and unintended consequences of vehicle adaptations to meet advanced frontal crash test provisions, in order to provide for a clear way forward in terms of a comprehensive set of regulatory measures addressing the outlined issues. Currently off-set impact UNECE R94 is performed for only M1 < 2,500kg maximum mass

Expand scope to include all M1 and N1 o01/09/2022 new types o01/09/2024 all new vehicles Addition of full-width crash test UNECE R137 for M1 and N1 o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Addition of small-overlap crash test for M1 o01/09/2022 new types o01/09/2024 all new vehicles Technological feasibility: Expand scope of Reg 94 Euro NCAP have assessed the frontal crash performance of a selection of vans (usually the passenger carrying versions) and pickups using a 64 km/h ODB test. Note that the Reg 94 test has a speed of 56 km/h. The good performance observed in these tests clearly show that both heavy M1 as well as these N1 vehicles have the possibility to meet the requirements of Reg 94. The expansion of the scope is particularly important to further assess the vehicle’s fuel system integrity, protection against electrical shock (in case of electric vehicles) and door latch resistance, as these are also assessed as part of the test. Addition of Reg 137 full width test Regulation 137 test speed is 50 km/h which is lower than the 56 km/h for US FMVSS 208. The basic set up consists of a 50th percentile Hybrid III male in the driver’s seat and a 5th percentile Hybrid III female in the front passenger position. Both dummies must meet a Thorax Compression Criterion (ThCC) of 42 mm, compared with the current US chest compression of 62 mm for the 50th Hybrid III and 52 mm for the 5th Hybrid III albeit at the higher speed. By 2020, the companion 01 series of amendments would increase the ThCC stringency to 34 mm for the 5th female ATD. The fact that WP.29 have adopted Regulation 137 illustrates that it is technically feasible to meet its requirements. Addition of small overlap test The technical feasibility of protection against longitudinal small-overlap collisions is clearly demonstrated by the response of car manufacturers to the new IIHS small overlap test procedure. Legislation feasibility/readiness: Expand scope of Reg 94 IIHS in the US have used the Regulation 94 test (albeit at a higher test speed of 64 km/h) to assess vehicles with a gross vehicle mass in excess of 2,500 kg, thus demonstrating that the test is suitable for assessment of vehicles with a higher mass.

Despite the fact that they are involved in similar types of accidents, in the past EEVC recommended that the scope of Regulation 94 should not be expanded to include heavier vehicles (> 2,500 kg & < 3,500 kg) because this may increase their stiffness and hence encourage them to become more aggressive. However, the introduction of a full width test should counteract this because if the vehicle is made too stiff then it will be unable to meet the requirements of Regulation 137. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Perform cost benefit analysis Addition of Regulation 137 full width test The Regulation 137 full width test is suitable for regulatory application. However, an EC study that is currently being finalised indicates that the benefits that it may deliver may not be significant because most current vehicles woud meet the requirements without modification. To deliver benefit the following changes are recommended: Introduction of the THOR dummy (which is more biofidelic for thorax injuries) into the test, note that currently Hybrid III dummies are specified. Changes to enforce the introduction of adaptive restraint systems, in particular to improve protection of older persons (against thorax injuries) in lower speed impacts. With regard to restraint system adaptations (seat belt and airbags), a variety of solutions exist already for the detection of and tuning for occupants of different sizes. However, fully adaptive restraint systems remain near-to-market and further research is needed to determine how adaptable these systems can be made to accident severity and how reliable information can be obtained about the severity of the accident about to occur. One potential route is to use information from pre-crash / accident avoidance systems. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Complete development of proposals to improve effectivenesss of Regulation 137 as noted above. Perform cost benefit analysis Note that to counteract the possible disbenefit of expanding the scope of Regulation 94, the introdcution of a full width test, i.e. Regulation 137, is recommended. Addition of small overlap test The small overlap test used by the IIHS in the USA since 2012 would be suitable for regulatory application. No benefit estimates found for US or Europe. However, benefits could be significant because although target population is not that large, effectiveness may be high because countermeasures likely to reduce high cost head (improved airbag coverage to mitigate effect of head impact in A pillar region) and lower extremity injuries (improved passenger compartment integrity). Therefore benefit to cost ratio could likely be greater than one. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: • Perform cost benefit analysis 3.1.8.Side Crashes Side impact still remains an issue on EU roads. Between 29 and 38% of all car crash fatalities are in side collisions where 60% are seated at the struck side and 40% at the non-stuck side. In particular, the ratio of fatalities on the non-struck side is very significant and could be influenced by occupant-to-occupant interaction. It should be noted however that more research regarding these vehicle occupant deaths is needed before any introduction of targeting measures could be considered. To reduce the number of casualties in side impacts, EEVC (WG13 and 21) performed cost benefit analysis for a number of options. One option was to introduce an updated mobile deformable barrier, representing a larger and heavier car impacting into the side of the struck vehicle. Another was to introduce a pole side impact test. Also the combination of these was considered, however, it was concluded that the combination of these measures would cause a combination of costs without yielding any significant benefit over the improvement as achieved by only the mandatory introduction of the pole side impact test. Therefore, this stand-alone option should be considered for the review of the General Safety Regulation at this stage with consideration of measures to protect non-struck side occupants in the longer term. There is currently an exemption for vehicles with high seating positions (e.g. SUVs) because little dummy injury recorded because the barrier impacts low down below the height of the seated dummy and thus the test is not worthwhile from the point of view of occupant injury. However, fuel system integrity, protection against electrical shock and door opening are also assessed as part of the test. To assess these factors it is proposed that the exemption is removed. Note that the test for currently exempted vehicles could be performed without dummies to reduce cost.

Currently only side impact UNECE R95 is performed which consists of a mobile barrier test which represents being impacted by another vehicle Expand scope to include all M1 and N1, i.e. remove current exemption. o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Addition of pole impact crash test UNECE R135. o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Addition of far-side occupant protection oTest protocol needs to be established 01/09/2022 new types 01/09/2024 all new vehicles Technological feasibility: Addition of Pole impact test (Regulation 135) Vehicles perform well in the current Euro NCAP pole test, which is similar to the Regulation 135 one, which demonstrates clearly that current vehicles can meet the proposed test requirements. Addition of far-side occupant protection There now seems to be a sufficient technology base so that far-side protection can be evaluated and rated by side impact testing. A front centre side airbag has recently been introduced in three top range crossover SUVs. Legislation feasibility/readiness: Addition of Pole impact test The Regulation 135 pole impact test is suitable for regulatory application. An EEVC study. indicated that the benefit to cost ratio of implementing a pole test may be less than one. However, it should be noted that the costs estimated in this study were thought to be too high by some stakeholders and this study did not consider potential extra benefits related to the mitigation of ejection (partial) in rollover accidents that curtain aitrbags with adequate coverage could offer. For this reason it is proposed that an additional requirement for an assessment of the window curtain airbag coverage is added to the Regulation 135 for implementation in the EU. This requirement could be based on the Euro NCAP one, which assesses the inflated airbag position with respect to a zone defined by the seating and head positions of 5th percentile female and 95th percentile male dummies.Note that an exemption could be given for vehicles for which fitment of a curtain bag is not practical, e.g. convertibles. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to:

Develop airbag coverage requirement and associated exemptions needed. Repeat cost benefit analysis with consideration of ejection mitigation benefits. Addition of far-side occupant protection There are currently no requirements to fit far-side impact protection systems in vehicles, and consumer rating programmes such as Euro NCAP do not have a test that covers this scenario. From a review of the literature its was estimated that in Europe by fitment of far-side occupant protection it could be possible that up to 670 fatalities and up to 4,600 seriously injured casualties may be prevented annually, with a monetary value of €1.2 to €1.9 billion. Component cost with installation was estimated to be about $200, so the annual cost to equip each new car each year was calcualted to be about €1.8 billion. This gives a beenfit to cost ratio in the range of 0.6 to 1.1, but likely to be greater than one because cost estiamte thought to be high. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Develop assessment protocol. (Note that Euro NCAP plan to introduce assessment of far-side occupant protection, so will need to develop protocol to enable this). Perform cost benefit analysis. 3.1.9.Rear Crashes A rear-end collision is defined as a crash in which the front of one vehicle collides with the rear of another vehicle and it has been reported that 19% of all passenger cars involved in an accident have at least one rear impact. One of the most detailed sources of fatality rates from vehicle fire data was collected by the Swedish Transport Administration between 1998 and 2008. In-depth data was recorded from fatal crashes involving passenger cars, SUVs, vans and minibuses. Viklund et al. (2013) summarised the findings of the study relevant to vehicle fires. In total, 181 fire related deaths caused by 133 separate road crashes were recorded nationally, which accounted for 5% of all road fatalities that occurred during this period. Fire and smoke were ruled as the primary cause of death in 55 cases. The source of the fire was not identified for 61 of the 133 cases. However, of the remaining 72 cases, 16 fires were found to originate from the fuel tank. Two fuel tank fires were found to be caused by rear end impacts. Rear impact testing is not mandatory in the EU, but it has been regulated in the USA and Japan for many years, notably linked to fire-related deaths. Therfore it may be expected that many vehicles on the EU roads currently already comply with one or both countries’ standards. Modifying the EU legislation to include a compulsory rear impact test would aid the process of harmonising vehicle regulations. For this purpose, it is recommended that the rear impact test in UNECE R34 is made mandatory for the EU (with an exemptions to reduce cost). Also R34 should be updated to include post crash electrical safety as in Regulations 94 and 95 for the rear impact test. A mandatory rear impact test could be deemed much less relevant if the fuel tank is not located near the rear of the vehicle, notably behind the rear axle. We should however also not forget that post-crash electric safety should also be assessed as a part of the rear impact test when high voltage parts of electrically propelled vehicles are located at their rear. These conditions should therefore be incorporated in the existing regulation that can then be introduced on a mandatory basis as part of the review of the General Safety Regulation. Currently no rear impact test is required to be performed to comply within the EU legislation Modify UNECE R34 (revision 3) to add assessment of post crash electrical safety for rear impact test as in Regulations 94 and 95. Make rear impact crash test in UNECE R34 mandatory, i.e. accede to R34 revision 3. oMake mandatory for M1 and N1 vehicles oAdd exemption for vehicles which do not have fuel storage, fuel supply lines and/or high voltage components located near rear axle. 01/09/2020 new types 01/09/2022 all new vehicles Technological feasibility:

There are no principal concerns regarding techncial feasiblity. Vehicles sold in the USA currently have to comply with the FMVSS 301 rear-impact test. Japan also requires a rear impact test and has recently acceded to UNECE Regulation No 34. It is not known how many manufacturers volunteer to carry out the optional UNECE Regulation No 34 assessment on their vehicles. Legislation feasibility/readiness: UNECE Regulation 34 revision 3 contains a mandatory rear impact test. However, it does not include assessment of post crash electrical safety which needs to be added so that consistent with Regulations 94 and 95. More detailed analysis is needed to quantify benefits and costs to enable cost benefit analysis to be performed. However, it hsould be noted that at present theer is only mandatory testing for fuel tanks at a component level, so it is likely that the realtively good performance in the field is due to manufacturer good practice. Ideally, this critical safety issue should be formalised in a more appropriate manner. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Add assessment of post crash electrical safety for rear impact test in Regulation 34 as in Regulations 94 and 95. Develop exemption for vehicles which do not have fuel storage, fuel supply lines and/or high voltage components located near rear axle. Identify further cost and benefit information and perform cost benefit analysis 3.1.10.Alcohol Interlock Devices Alcohol interlock devices require a vehicle operator to provide a breath sample or use a finger touch sensor and prevent the vehicle ignition from operating if alcohol above a pre-defined threshold is detected. Application of alcohol interlock devices is intended to reduce collision risk by restricting the opportunity for drivers to operate vehicles when under the influence of alcohol. Despite lower alcohol limits, increased enforcement and awareness campaigns, drink-driving is still a major safety problem. Drink-driving accounts for 20-28% of all road accidents, deaths and injuries on European roads. The vast majority of the accidents in which drink-driving is involved, namely 75%, is caused by a small group of offenders thought to be around 1% of the driving population. For this reason, it is difficult to justify mandatory installation of these devices from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. However, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation CENELEC has been working on the development of a standardisation scheme as regards the connection interface for motor-vehicles. This initiative concerns a mandatory and standard format of highly detailed electrical connection information to be provided in standardised format by the vehicle manufacturers to authorised installers, as part of vehicle type-approval provisions, and it has received broad support by stakeholders. The relevant CENELEC standard is expected to become available in the short term and this will greatly help to facilitate easier fitment of alcohol interlocks to future vehicles. It has been devloped in cooperation with the Commission, device manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers, so it is tailor-made for incorporation into EU legislation. Clearly, the focus of the review of the General Safety Regulation should be on this aspect. Make provisions of CEN Standard 504536-7 (device interface) mandatory for all M and N vehicles o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles. Technological feasibility: Alcohol interlocks exist on the market and can be retrofitted to vehicles, for example those of drunk-driving offenders. Breath-based interlocks have been in use since the 1970s; transdermal (touch-based) solutions were developed recently. Legislation feasibility/readiness: The CENELEC standard 50436 (expected to become available in the short term) can provide the basis to ensure compatibility between interlock and vehicle ignition system to avoid vehicle designs that do not allow installation of alcohol interlocks. Ecorys (2014) estimated the casualty reduction figures for alcohol interlocks deployed across four groups based on 2010 fatality statistics and estimated benefit-cost ratios. The ratios estimated were greater than one for the offender (1.0 -2.8) and goods vehicle (1.4) groups. However they were less than one for the buses and coaches (0.3) and all passenger car groups (0.8 – 1.3).

For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Perform cost benefit analysis for mandatory implementation of CENELEC standard 50436. 3.1.11.Crash Event Data Recorder Event data recorders record a range of vehicle data over a short timeframe before, during and after a triggering, usually by the deployment of an airbag, caused by a vehicle crash. It contains critical crash related information such as vehicle speed, state of restraints and braking system as well as other relevant vehicle data at the time of the accident. In a recent study, it was concluded that event data recorders appeared to largely fitted to passenger cars and vans already, so additional costs resulting from legislative action were deemed negligible. There was evidence found on the effect of device fitment on driving behaviour for commercial fleets. If similar effects would apply to private fleets, or if the effect on safety would be greater than predicted by the estimates for commercial fleets, this would have very large benefits associated with monetised casualty savings. Some other important potential benefits could not be monetised, namely improved accident data leading to enhancements in safety and benefits relating to access to justice. However, it was however that these could represent very significant benefits as well. As cost-effectiveness appear to be supported, in addition to the benefits that significantly aid future road safety analysis in general, the review of the General Safety Regulation should strongly consider the introduction of this mandatory feature. Technology widely available oConsider harmonisation with US Part 563 prescriptions Cost-effective measure for accident investigation and road safety research Make mandatory for M1 and N1 vehicles o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Technological feasibility: EDR technology is already fitted to most passenger cars and car-derived vans in the USA and Europe, which clearly demonstrates technical feasibility. However, in Europe, access to the data is deliberately blocked in many cases. For heavy vehicles, the fitment of EDRs appears feasible, but is not yet widespread because the airbag and accident detection system fitment rate is low. Legislation feasibility/readiness: For light vehicles, compliance with EDR standards has recently become mandatory in the USA, if EDR is indeed fitted, where CFR 49 Part 563 defines minimum performance requirements and structure of and access to the data. These minimum requirements on data could be duplicated in Europe or manufacturers could be required to make available the method of access so that any provider could make a vehicle or brand specific suitable tool (i.e. open access). Real benefits identified, although difficult to monetise. A recent study for EC DG MOVE estimated benefit to cost ratio for fitment of EDR M1 vehicles 0 to 5.7, central estimate 0.1 N1 vehicles 0 to 6.6, central estimate 1.0 M2/M3 vehicles 0 to 4, central estimate 2

N2/N3 vehicles 0 to 4.6, central estimate 2.3 However, most new M1 and N1 European vehicles have EDR functionality although it is currently not accessible in most, so most of the cost has already been spent. Therefore, benefit to cost ratio for the M1/N1 category of vehicles should be greater than one if approach is taken to legislate minimum performance requirements and structure of and access to the data as the US CFR 49 Part 563 or require manufacturers to make available the method of access to the EDR installed so that any provider could make a suitable tool to access it (i.e. open access). For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Perform cost benefit analysis 3.1.12.Tyre Pressure Monitoring Severe tyre under-inflation contributes to accident causation. A pressure deviation of more than 15% generally results in noticeable change of tyre properties which affects the wear rate of the tyre and the braking and handling performance of the vehicle. The increased heat generation due to tyre under-inflation reduces the maximum lateral tyre force, creating a further safety risk. Proper tyre pressure also reduces rolling resistance and thus saves fuel and reduces CO2 emissions. Tyre pressure monitoring has therefore been mandatory for all new passenger cars sold since 2014. A recent study on tyre safety in general supported an update of the relevant provisions of the existing regulation that is currently part of the General Safety Regulation, in order to avoid regulatory loopholes and to improve its effectiveness in terms of vehicle safety. Light and heavy commercial vehicles as well as buses are currently not subject to tyre pressure monitoring requirements even though such systems could potentially contribute to improved vehicle safety and reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions as well. The review of current products and their suppliers concluded that tyre pressure monitoring for application in vans, trucks and buses is technically and economically mature at this stage. Based on various studies, speed related accidents are found to account for almost 20% of heavy duty vehicle accidents. In accidents that involve deaths or severe injuries of truck occupants this share is in the range of 7.5 to 10%. A reduction in the number of speed and tyre related accidents due to proper tyre pressure conditioning should be expected and it is estimated that properly maintaining the tyre inflation pressure can reduce the number of speed and tyre related accidents by 4% to 20%, and thus the total number of accidents by 0.8% up to 4%, which is still significant. Adding mandatory tyre pressure monitoring on vans, trucks, buses and heavy trailers should therefore be considered to further improve road safety. Make TPM mandatory for all M and N vehicles and O3 and O4 trailers o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Technological feasibility: Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS) report real-time tyre-pressure information to the driver of the vehicle, either via a gauge, a pictogram display, or a simple low-pressure warning light. TPMS can be divided into two different types — direct (dTPMS) and indirect (iTPMS). TPMS are provided both at an OEM (factory) level as well as an aftermarket solution.Indirect TPMS do not use physical pressure sensors but estimate air pressures by monitoring individual wheel rotational speeds and other signals available outside of the tyre itself. First generation iTPMS systems utilize the effect that an under-inflated tyre has a slightly smaller diameter (and hence higher angular velocity) than a correctly inflated one. Second generation iTPMS can also detect simultaneous under-inflation in up to all four tyres using spectrum analysis of rotation speeds of individual wheels. The spectrum analysis is based on the principle that certain eigenforms and frequencies of the tyre/wheel assembly are highly sensitive to the inflation pressure. These oscillations can hence be monitored through advanced signal processing of the wheel speed signals. Current iTPMS consist of software modules being integrated into the ABS/ESC units. Direct TPMS employ pressure sensors on each tyre, either internal or external. The sensors physically measure the tyre pressure in each tyre and report it to the vehicle’s instrument cluster or a corresponding monitor. Some units measure and alert temperatures of the tyre as well. These systems can identify under-inflation in any combination, be it one tyre or all, simultaneously. Although the systems vary in transmitting options, many dTPMS products (both OEM and aftermarket solutions) can display real time tyre pressures at each location monitored whether the vehicle is moving or parked. A study for EC DG Clima which reviewed current products and their suppliers concluded that tyre pressure monitoring for application in vans, trucks and buses is technically and economically mature at this stage. Ideally TPMS: Should be capable of detecting over a wide range of road and environmental conditions Should not be possible to deactivate For M1/N1 should detect a pressure of less than 1.5 bar or detect incorrect set/reset attempt Should cover any tyre of approved size, including after-market (different brand) replacement tyres oOn this basis UNECE Regulation 64, Annex 5, clause 1.4.6 “…vehicle shall be tested with the tyres installed on the vehicle according to the vehicle manufacturer’s recommendation…” should be deleted. Legislation feasibility/readiness:

UNECE Regulation 64 contains the relevant prescriptions that can serve as a basis for the inclusion of other vehicle categories, provided that shortcomings in the regulatory text, noted above, are addressed. The benefits for fitment of TPMS to for light commercial and heavy duty vehicles can be divided into two parts; Reduction in number of accidents Reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions The study for EC DG Clima32 investigated benefits and costs for for mandatory fitment of TPMS for light commercial and heavy duty vehicles in the EU. It was estimated that properly maintaining the tyre inflation pressure can reduce the number of speed and tyre related accidents by 4% to 20%, and thus the total number of accidents by 0.8% up to 4%, which is still significant. This equates to a societal cost reduction of 11 to 58 M€ per year. It was also estimated that for OEM fitted TPMS (which mandatory fitment would deliver) and even with a 50% response to tyre pressure warnings TPMS would be cost effective with a payback time of generally 3.5 years or less and associated benefit of CO2 reductions, with negative abatement costs. For these estimations an oil price of $100 a barrel was assumed. The largest benefit to cost ratios were for the long haul truck and trailer, regional trucks and service / delivery vans. For these vehicle categories TPMS was cost effective for all scenarios considered which included an assumption of 50% lower fuel savings and using current costs for TPMS. The smallest benefit to cost ratio was for municipal buses. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Confirm cost benefit analysis 3.2.Trucks and Buses 3.2.1.Front-end Design and Direct Vision For reasons related to efficient use of available space, mainly due to limitation of truck and trailer dimensions when driving within the EU, truck drivers are seated high on top of the engine since many decades. This high seating position is highly detrimental for the direct vision capability of the driver, especially concerning what happens in the vicinity of the truck’s front end. Whilst representing only 3% of vehicles on EU roads, trucks have been involved in a disproportionate number of collisions, namely over 15%, killing more than 4000 people in 2009. As regards other vulnerable road users, trucks are also disproportionately involved in fatal collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. For the abovementioned reasons, and taking into account that the current ‘brick’ shaped cabins have the least aerodynamic shape, the Commission proposed to grant derogations to the maximum Weights and Dimensions as laid down in Directive 96/53/EC. The Commission proposal, which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 6 May 2015 under Directive (EU) 2015/719, provides the possibility, subject to certain conditions, to extend the length of cabs and thus to provide manufacturers with more space to design safer and cleaner trucks. It has been suggested that either better mirrors and detection systems or simply the addition of side windows in the lower portion of truck cab doors could be required to improve the situation, but the effectiveness of such short-term measures may not be sufficient. It has however been suggested that a comprehensive improvement of direct vision of truck drivers has the potential to greatly contribute to much improved safety for vulnerable pedestrians and bicyclists. This hypothesis is supported through knowledge about the current strict passenger car forward and side vision requirements that virtually eliminate any of such issues related to the non-visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Hence, it would be logical to aim for similar comprehensive direct vision requirements for all motor-vehicle categories, with due lead-time for introduction. Modified truck cabs can furthermore be made much more aerodynamic than conventional cabs are today and this translates into great benefits in terms of fuel consumption and CO2. Directive (EU) 2015/719 provides the possibility to extend cabs provided that conditions related to improved aerodynalics and visibility, reduced damage or injury to other road users in cases of collisions as well as safety and comfort for drivers are taken into account. For reasons related to efficient use of available space, mainly due to limitation of truck and trailer dimensions when driving within the EU, for many decades trucks have been designed such that the drivers are seated high on top of the engine. This high seating position is highly detrimental for the direct vision capability of the driver, especially concerning what happens in the vicinity of the truck’s front end. Whilst representing only 3% of vehicles on EU roads, trucks have been involved in a disproportionate number of collisions, namely over 15%, killing more than 4,000 people in 2009. As regards other vulnerable road users, trucks are also disproportionately involved in fatal collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. It has been suggested that either better mirrors and detection systems or simply the addition of side windows in the lower portion of truck cab doors could be required to improve the situation, but the effectiveness of such short-term measures may not be sufficient. It has however been clearly suggested that a comprehensive improvement of direct vision of truck drivers has the potential to greatly contribute to much improved safety for vulnerable pedestrians and bicyclists. This hypothesis is supported though our knowledge about the current strict passenger car forward and side vision requirements that virtually eliminate any of such issues related to the non-visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Hence, it would be logical to aim for similar comprehensive direct vision requirements for all motor-vehicle categories, especially if this can be supported from a cost-effectiveness standpoint underpinning this aspect of the General Safety Regulation review process. Focus on direct vision requirements to reduce blind spots to improve safety for VRUs such as pedestrians and cyclists oFacilitate through Masses and Dimensions Directive (EU) 2015/719 oOnce improved safety requirements for longer cabs have been developed, consideration can be given to whether it is appropriate to apply them to vehicles which do not benefit from the length extension as mentioned in Directive (EU) 2015/719. In the short term deploy camera or detection systems to reduce blind spots

oFor this action the link to Directive (EU) 2015/719 should be further investigated oThis action is envisaged as a complimentary measure only to improved direct vision action above in the long-term Make mandatory for M2, M3, N2 and N3 vehicles o01/09/2020 new types – Camera and Detection (no length advantage) o01/09/2022 all new vehicles – Camera and Detection (no length advantage) o01/09/2028 new types – Direct Vision (length advantage, encouraging vehicle manufacturers to bring to market earlier) oNo new vehicles date foreseen due to impact on overall truck cab designs Technological feasibility: The suggested improvements are technically feasible but would need to be developed and implemented by the vehicle manufacturers in the course of a cab re-design because they constitute major design changes. However, much progress has been made. Some designs with much improved direct vision are already in production such as the Mercedes-Benz Econic. This low-entry vehicle has a particularly large windscreen area and improved glazed areas to the side. Unfortunately, the design leads to certain limitations (engine size is limited because of packaging problems; no hydraulic cab support), which limits its use to regional services and doesn’t allow use in long-haul traffic. Legislation feasibility/readiness: A mandatory direct vision standard for HGVs could potentially be developed with limited effort and could deliver high benefits. Previous research to inform the legislative process is available. There is broad agreement among experts that improved direct vision would be effective in preventing casualties. It is predicted that improved direct vision could reduce the number of VRU fatalities by up to 553 per year in the EU2. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Develop direct vision standard for HGVs Perform cost benefit analysis 3.2.2.Truck Rear Underrun Protection Accident data and crash tests have shown that rear under-run protection devices as currently required by legislation appear to be inadequate for collisions of modern passenger cars into the rear end of a truck or trailer, in particular at speeds exceeding 50 km/h. For better performance, improvements in the strength of these devices and better vertical geometric alignment with the main structures of M1 vehicles are needed. The relevant legislation is currently undergoing a parallel update that is supported by this review process of the General Safety Regulation. Work under UNECE is well advanced 03 Series of amendments to UNECE R58 proposed o01/09/2020 new types

o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Technological feasibility: Technically, it is feasible to increase the strength of a rear-underrun protection device and decrease its ground clearance. However, practically this involves issues such as the effect of lowering the ground clearance on departure angles and the influence of this on the vehicle’s operability (related to cost-benefit rather than feasibility). Legislation feasibility/readiness: A proposal to amend UNECE Regulation No 58 (Rev 3) is being considered in Geneva (changing test loads and ground clearance) currently. Introduction of an additional load condition of 100 kN applied simultaneously to three points, as suggested by Smith et al. (2008), might be necessary to ensure adequate strength of device. For fitment of a device with adequate strength, Smith et al. (2008) estimated a benefit for the EU of between 43 and 93 fatalities and 694 and 2,063 serious injuries prevented per year. This equated to a beenfit to cost ratio of 0.6 to 14.8 using best cost estimates. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Check load conditions proposed for Regulation 58 rev 3 are adequate. Confirm cost benefit analysis. 3.2.3.Truck Lateral Protection Heavy goods vehicles and their trailers are presently required to be fitted with structures to reduce the open space ahead of the rear axle(s) to provide protection to pedestrians and cyclists in collision with the side of such vehicles, reducing the likelihood of them being run over. However, the current legislative text allows for broad exemptions to fitting these structures, therefore action has now been taken on the relevant UNECE level to improve this situation, that is supported by this review process of the General Safety Regulation. Work under UNECE is ongoing 02 Series of amendments to UNECE R73 o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Technological feasibility: The exemptions are primarily based on feasibility for certain types and uses of vehicle. Before removing the exemptions, some formal consideration should be given to the feasibility of meeting the functional requirements for vehicles with the addition of side guards. For example, some off-road activities could be completed with side guards, whilst other off-road activities may be impossible without ground clearance which prevents the fitment of side guards. Legislation feasibility/readiness: No barriers regarding legislative feasibility. However, it is recommended in addition to consider amendments to existing side-guard requirements in order to make their designs more effective. Potential annual monetary benefits were estimated to range from €7.8M to €20.3M2 by Hynd et al (2015). Also, this study estimated a beenfit to cost ratio, for fitting the currently exempt N2 and N3 vehicles with lateral protection, would lie in the range from 0.06 to 1.37.

In summary, benefit to cost ratio likely to be less than one for vehicles that genuinely need either an exemption or adjustable side guards. However, the classification of these vehicles should be improved, so that the vehicles that do not genuinely need an exemption are identified better and for these vehicles the benefit to cost ratio is likely to be greater than one. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Develop performance requirements for side guards Confirm cost benefit analysis 3.2.4.Fire Safety for Buses Bus safety legislation is regulated on EU level through the implementation of relevant UNECE regulations. The situation for bus fire safety has been under review which is now leading to a foreseen mandatory introduction of automatic fire extinguishers in certain classes of buses through amendments to UNECE Regulation 107. In addition, in response to fire incidents with CNG powered buses, an amendment to UNECE Regulation 110 has been proposed. The proposal is to regulate the direction of discharging the pressure relief devices of the CNG containers based on existing provisions within Regulation (EU) No. 79/2009 on hydrogen vehicles. These developments are being supported by this review process of the General Safety Regulation which is underway in parallel. CNG: 02 Series of Amendments to UNECE R110 o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Fire suppression: 07 Series of amendments to UNECE R107 o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles Technological feasibility: CNG fire requirements Experts believe that the changes brought into force by an amended version of UN Regulation 110 would be technically feasible since they are based on provisions within Regulation (EC) No. 79/2009 on hydrogen vehicles, which use similar technologies to store and vent hydrogen. Fire suppression Automatic fire extinguishing systems for vehicles are commercially available as off-the-shelf items and are therefore technically feasible. The systems are available with several extinguishing agents which no longer damage the ozone layer. Legislation feasibility/readiness: CNG fire requirements Proposals for amendments to the relevant UNECE Regulations are available. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to:

Perform cost benefit analysis Fire suppression No standard type-approval test procedures for fire extinguishing systems exist yet, but the road administrations from Sweden and Norway have carried out research and proposed amendments to UNECE regulation No 107. These amendments were prepared to introduce fire suppression systems for buses and coaches upon detection of fire in the engine and/or heater compartment. Fire suppression systems have been required by insurers in some countries and have proved effective. More analysis is required to identify benefits and calculate the benefit to cost ratio for implementation. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Perform cost benefit analysis 3.3.Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety 3.3.1.Pedestrian and Cyclist Detection This item is closely linked to Section 3.1.1. on Automatic Emergency Braking, because pedestrian and cyclist detection are the third and fourth steps in addition to the first step in which the system detects a slow moving obstacle ahead, as well as the second step in which it detects a stationary vehicle. Especially children act on impulse and are mostly not capable of assessing and detecting dangerous situations, frequently running in front of driving cars in urban areas. Therefore, these detection capabilities should be considered to improve the safety situation of such vulnerable road users that are hit by cars, by either reducing significantly the impact speed or by avoiding a collision altogether. Pedestrians comprise over 21% of EU27 fatalities and in 2011 there were over 6,500 pedestrian fatalities in Europe (EC, 2013). In the same period, there were over 2,000 cyclist fatalities, comprising over 8% of all EU27 fatalities (EC, 2013). The majority of pedestrian and cyclist casualties occur in urban areas and over 80% result from collisions with motor vehicles (cars, lorries, and buses). Therefore, these detection capabilities should be integrated in the review of the Pedestrian Safety Regulation to improve the safety situation of such vulnerable road users that are hit by cars, by either reducing significantly the impact speed or by avoiding a collision altogether. Make mandatory for M1 and N1 vehicles (that are derived from M1) Coupled with AEB application o01/09/2024 pedestrian detection for new types o01/09/2026 cyclist detection for new types Plus 2-year period for all new vehicles All N1 vehicles 2-year off-set to the above dates Technological feasibility: Pedestrian detection systems are currently offered as an option by approximately 5% of M1 manufacturers. Volvo are the only manufacturer to offer a cyclist AEB system (since 2013); some other AEB systems may detect cyclists, but they are not specifically designed to do so. Legislation feasibility/readiness:

Test procedures for pedestrian AEB have been developed by the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. Since January 2016, Euro NCAP assesses the performance of pedestrian AEB for three crossing scenarios. These are: an adult runs from the driver’s side of the vehicle; an adult walks from the passenger’s side (two tests are done for this scenario); and a child runs from between parked cars on the passenger’s side. To date, test protocols for cyclist AEB do not exist but some initial development work has been performed in the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. The AsPeCSS project performed a benefit analysis for pedestrian AEB and estimated that current AEB systems could reduce fatal pedestrian casualties by 2.9-6.2%, serious casualties by 4.2-4.4% and slight casualties by 2.2-4.4%. This gives a break even cost per car of about €80, indicating that current AEB systems implemented in a stand-alone manner are not likely to have a benefit to cost ratio greater than one. However, their performance is expected to improve, the AsPeCSS project estimated that this could increase the break-even cost up to around €280. Clearly, if the benefit of cyclist AEB was also added in and these systems were bunched with other systems, which also use cameras such as Lane Keep Assist, the system as a whole would likely have a benefit to cost ratio far greater than one. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Complete development of test protocols for cyclist AEB Confirm cost benefit analysis 3.3.2.Head Impact on A-Pillars and Front Windscreen Despite an introduction of automatic braking in the context of pedestrian and cyclist safety, some collisions will still be unavoidable because of certain specific factors or limitations. In this context it is noted that currently the windscreen and A-pillars are exempted from testing in terms of head impacts on these structures, whereas it is generally known that impacts frequently occur. The idea to use airbags to protect the A-pillar and possibly the upper windscreen frame has existed for more than a decade. Whilst the centre of the windscreen may be relatively safe when hit by the head of a pedestrian, the glass towards the edge of the screen may not break at the same load. This has been confirmed from the monitoring data that has been gathered as part of the current legislation and this reporting. Also, at the base of the windscreen, it is likely that the head of a vulnerable road user would penetrate the glass sufficiently to contact the dashboard fascia underneath. The windscreen frame itself is very stiff to persons, because it is an important load-bearing part of the vehicle’s structure. Therefore impacts to the windscreen frame and around the edge of the windscreen can be considered to represent significant gaps in the protection assessed by the current legislation and this should therefore be taken into serious consideration for the review of the Pedestrian Safety Regulation. Extend the adult head impact zone Make mandatory for M1 and N1 vehicles (that are derived from M1) Coupled with AEB application May consider introduction of reduced impact speeds with AEB pedestrian and cyclist detection (for windscreen and cyclist detection (for windscreen and A-pillar testing only) o01/09/2024 new types o01/09/2026 all new vehicles oAll N1 vehicles 2-year off-set to the above dates When the legislation for pedestrian protection was implemented the head to windscreen tests were included for monitoring purposes only, based on concerns from the automotive industry that the centre of the windscreen was ‘safe’ and not within the control of the vehicle manufacturer. Has sufficient technological progress been made to make these tests feasible for mandating? Technological feasibility: In general, the vehicle manufacturer can only alter effective properties of the windscreen by changing the overall design, for example, the curvature and angle of the screen. However, for impacts to the central region of the windscreen it might be that the variation of performance of the windscreen material can be controlled more closely, and give safety improvements, via arrangements between vehicle manufacturer and glass supplier. Pedestrian airbags (and pop-up bonnet) are now technically feasible, but are not yet adopted widely throughout the fleet.

AEB systems have the potential to avoid or reduce the speed in pedestrian impacts and hence mitigate the head impact. Legislation feasibility/readiness: The requirements and test procedures exist, but are currently applied for monitoring purposes only, i.e. not mandatory. Before the current headform is transferred to the windscreen for regulatory use, it is strongly suggested that the appropriateness of using the current Head Protection Criterion (HPC) with a headform, in such conditions, is demonstrated. The GSR review estimated that the potential benefit for head-to-windscreen contacts is up to 500 fatalities and 11,000 serious injuries (~ €3 billion) in M1 vehicles2. The benefit to cost ratio of passive headform protection measures was estimated to lie in the range from less than 0.25 to 1. However, as mentioned above, for impacts to the central area of the windscreen, it may be possible to control the performance of the windscreen via arrangements between vehicle manufacturer and glass supplier. Therefore further research could be useful to isolate the relationship between variations in the windscreen fabrication process and HIC. Once that relationship is understood better, then the monitoring tests (to the central region of the windscreen) could become feasible and would likely have a benefit to cost ratio greater than one. For active counter-measures, Edwards et al (2015) has indicated that even with AEB for pedestrians protection of the A-pillars using airbags would still offer substantial benefits. On this basis, it is recomemnded that an integrated approach is adopted for the way forward. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Perform further research to: oUnderstand if possible to control the performance of the windscreen central area oDetermine appropriateness (biofidelity) of current haedform for windscreen impact oInvestigate potential integrated solutions using AEB. Perform cost benefit analysis 3.3.3.Reversing (Backing up) Detection Reversing detection systems are those that increase the view of drivers or otherwise warn them of persons or obstacles behind reversing vehicles. Particularly vulnerable in this context are short, crouching and slow moving people, such as the elderly and children. There is an increasing concern about accidents involving young children being run over by reversing slow moving vehicles while playing in private driveways. In these circumstances, there is a possibility that these young children are too short to be seen, and so detections systems could be employed to warn the driver of such children in the path of the reversing vehicle. The USA has recently mandated reversing cameras as a technical solution to the above mentioned problem. Whereas in the context of the revision of the General Safety Regulation we should strive for technology neutral safety solutions, we could also consider harmonising with the relevant amended FMVSS No 111 which requires one of the accepted solutions that may be developed and deployed to prevent this type of potentially fatal accidents. Investigate trend with more commonplace SUVs Reversing camera and/or acoustic warning, t.b.d. oPossible to consider the new US FMVSS 111 requirements designed to protect small children Make mandatory for all M and N, as well as O3 and O4 vehicles o01/09/2020 new types o01/09/2022 all new vehicles

Technological feasibility: Ultrasonic, radar, and camera systems all exist on the market. Ultrasonic (parking sensors) are widely equipped to current vehicles but are not specifically designed for the detection of pedestrians. Camera and radar systems are available as optional systems on some models. Legislation feasibility/readiness: Although the US FMVSS 211 standard specifies a camera system, a performance requirement (which is non-technology specific) would be preferable. A minimum viewable area and quality of view could be defined. An assessment of national statistics in Europe would be required to take into account the situations causing the majority of casualties. For an assessment method to be developed the distance between the pedestrian and vehicle before reversing started may be needed as would the driving direction (i.e. turning); this is highly unlikely to be recorded with a statistical significance in any of the main accident databases. It should be noted that NHTSA originally took the same view (Public Law 110–189, 110th Congress), but concluded that the only option currently able to fulfil all requirements was a rear view camera including specific requirements on luminance of the screen, image size, image response time, and system start up time etc. Based on UK data, the GSR review2 estimated that the benefit to cost ratio for mandatory fitment of pedestrian detection (camera system) to prevent pedestrian run over would likely be in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 depending on the cost of the system. However, if the benefit of prevention of damage only accidents is also included, the benefit to cost ratio rises to be in the range 1.5 to 7.5. Furthermore FMVSS 211 will be mandatory from May 2018 so system costs are likely to reduce, thus increasing the benefit to cost ratios. For consideration for implementation in the GSR further work is required to: Decide approach for implementation, i.e. implementation regulation for camera based systems (following US approach) or implement perfromance based generic approach Perform cost benefit analysis. 4.Bunching of Technologies Some of the candidate measures listed above could utilise the same systems. Therefore, if these measures are considered as a package, the cost of the systems common to them would be spread amongst the individual measures and hence improve the BCR of the package as a whole compared to that of individual measures. Manufacturers already use this approach to reduce costs for measures supplied as options or standard fit, for example Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) is often packaged with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) because ACC can use the same camera / radar that is used for AEB. System sharing between the measures listed that should be considered includes: Driver distraction and drowiness (DDR), Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and Lane Keeping Assistance System (LKA) oCamera based systems with a driver view can be used to monitor a range of eye, face and head features for multiple purposes including drowsiness and distraction. Such systems can be expanded to have a forward facing camera (e.g. to monitor lane deviation and provide alerts, to record collisions, to monitor headway). oSystems based on vehicle control measures can monitor drowsiness by utilising existing vehicle sensors for steering, braking, acceleration and metrics derived from these inputs. This is why such systems are favoured by automotive manufacturers. oSystems can also utilise existing safety features of vehicles, such as lane keeping devices, to identify whether drivers appear distracted or drowsy according to the consistency with which they remain in a lane, the number of deviations and the rate of correction. oSystems can integrate with other vehicle telematics to transfer information about driver state and the number of alerts (e.g. to a fleet operator). oSome camera based products can utilise the cameras and hardware in mobile phones to provide drowsiness monitoring without the acquisition of additional hardware dedicated to this purpose. 5.Further Studies in the Field of Vehicle Safety

In light of regulatory actions in other regions of the world, notably that of the USA and Japan, the Commission deems it appropriate to outline further steps to be taken to initiate studies on the effects of specific accident types occurring in the EU to obtain an up-to-date overview and to identify countermeasures that may need to be taken. These accidents concern frontal crashes, side crashes, roll-over accidents and rear crashes, notably with a focus on the effects due to the proliferation of SUVs with higher centres of gravity, higher masses and aggressive front-end design, linked to injuries to diverse and vulnerable occupants as well as to vehicle fires resulting from crashes. 5.1.Frontal crashes High speed oblique frontal impacts, causing occupants to striking vehicle interior parts due to ‘striking in a glancing blow’ or entirely ‘missing’ the frontal airbags; Lower speed frontal impacts and its effect on vulnerable occupants, such as the elderly, small females and children, with the aim to promote adaptive restraint systems; The effects of proliferation of SUVs with higher masses colliding with passenger cars; Car fires resulting from frontal crashes; and Frontal impacts in general and its effect on passengers seated in the rear, also to promote adaptive restraints for those seating positions. 5.2.Side crashes The effects of proliferation of SUVs with higher masses colliding with passenger cars; and Side crashes in general and its effect on passengers seated in the rear, including vulnerable occupants. 5.3.Roll-over accidents The effects of proliferation of SUVs with higher centres of gravity and tendency to roll-over, causing (partial) ejection of occupants. 5.4.Rear crashes Assessment of rear impacts, with partial or full overlap; and Car fires resulting from rear impacts. 6.Conclusions The Commission has undertaken an elaborate assessment of a range of existing and mature safety technologies for passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have great safety potential in terms of improving passive safety and mitigating crash consequences as well as active crash avoidance potential, with a particular focus on the protection of vulnerable road users. Furthermore, to bridge the safety performance gap between different regions as well as vehicle segments and categories, the listed enhanced safety provisions are indeed proposed for light to heavy vehicles across the board to ensure that those involved in an accident benefit of the technical progress in road and vehicle safety. It is noted that in order to ensure competitiveness of the automotive sector, it is of high importance that the issue of technology neutrality on specific solutions is respected. Finally, technical progress in terms of advanced vehicle safety does not stop here. For this reason the European Union should be committed to continuous monitoring and to further analysis as well as to other relevant actions to improve this important work.





ANNEX 1: List of proposed measures by introduction date 1 September 2020 New vehicle type-approvals New vehicle registrations Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Moving Obstacle Detection oM1 and N1 (derived from M1) Emergency Braking Display Intelligent Speed Adaptation Lane Keep Assistance oM1 and N1 (derived from M1) Driver Drowiness and Distraction Monitoring oM1, N1 (derived from M1), M2, M3, N2 and N3 Safety Belt Reminders Frontal Crash Full Width Test oM1 and N1 Side Crash elimination of exemptions oM1 and N1 Side Crash Pole Side Impact oM1 and N1 Rear Crash Test oM1 and N1 Alcohol Interlock Devices interface Crash Event Data Recorder oM1 and N1 Tyre Pressure Monitoring oM, N, O3 and O4 Truck and Bus Front End Cameras and Detection oM