EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 17.5.2018 SWD(2018) 190 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/… and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 {COM(2018) 286 final}

{SEC(2018) 270 final}

{SWD(2018) 191 final}



Table of Contents List of abbreviations and glossary of terms 1. Introduction: Political and legal context 1.1. Political context 1.2. Legal context 1.2.1. Vehicle safety legislation under the type-approval framework 1.3. Adapting the legislation to vehicle safety developments 1.4. Contribution of vehicle safety legislation to road safety in general 2. What is the problem and why is it a problem? 2.1. Traffic accidents in the EU and their effects 2.2. Transformation of main safety problem into vehicle level problems 2.3. Slow market uptake of new safety features in the vehicle fleet 2.4. Competitiveness and innovation 2.5. Efficiency of measures introduced so far 2.6. Market description 2.7. Outdated safety exemptions for SUVs, MPVs, vans and the like 2.8. Contribution to the reduction of the regulatory burden on companies 2.9. Main problem drivers and consequences 3. Why should the EU act?

4. What should be achieved? 5. What are the various options to achieve the objectives? 5.1. Measures to completely avoid accidents, to reduce the overall severity of accidents or to mitigate the outcome of injuries in accidents between vehicles or vehicles and obstacles 5.1.1. Frontal impact occurrences 5.1.2. Side impact occurrences 5.1.3. Rear impact occurrences 5.2. Measures to completely avoid accidents, to reduce the overall severity of accidents or to mitigate the outcome of injuries that result from impacts between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists 5.2.1. Pedestrian and cyclist protection when hit by front-of-vehicle 5.2.2. Pedestrian and cyclist protection when hit by side-of-vehicle 5.2.3. Pedestrian and cyclist protection when hit by rear-of-vehicle 5.3. Policy option “Baseline” 5.4. Policy options “Regulatory approach” to prevent road accidents or to mitigate the outcome of accidents 5.4.1. Design of options and timeframe for implementation 5.4.2. Policy option 1: Generalisation of mature and widely available safety features 5.4.3. Policy option 2: Introducing widely available and less commonly available safety features as standard equipment 5.4.4. Policy option 3: Introduction of a full set of safety features boosting innovation 5.5. Options discarded at an early stage 5.5.1. Policy option “Self-regulation” 6. What are the impacts of the different policy options and who will be affected? 6.1. Social impact

6.2. Environmental impact 6.3. Economic impact 6.3.1. Costs 6.3.2. Benefits 6.3.3. Impact of additional safety measures on vehicle prices and sales prices 6.3.4. Competitiveness and drivers of innovation 7. How do the options compare? 7.1. Effectiveness 7.1.1. Effectiveness in achieving the general objective 7.1.2. Effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives 7.2. Efficiency and proportionality 7.3. Coherence 8. The preferred option 9. How would actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? Annex 1 – Procedural information 1.1. Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 1.2. Organisation and timing 1.3. Consultation of the RSB 1.4. Evidence, sources and quality Annex 2 – Stakeholder consultation

2.1. General stakeholder consultations 2.2. Public consultation Annex 3 – Who is affected by the initiative and how 3.1. Practical implications of the initiative 3.2. Summary of costs and benefits 3.3. Detailed discussion on road safety problem drivers 3.3.1. Slow market uptake of new safety features in the vehicle fleet 3.3.2. Outdated safety exemptions for SUVs, MPVs, vans and the like Annex 4 – Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment. 4.1. Description of analytical models used 4.1.1. PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model 4.1.2. TRL model 4.1.3. COWI model 4.1.4. PRIMES-TREMOVE, TRL and COWI models role in the impact assessment 4.2. Baseline scenario 4.2.1. Scenario design, consultation process and quality assurance 4.2.2. Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario 4.2.3. Summary of main results of the Baseline scenario 4.2.4. Baseline scenario – sensitivity analysis Annex 4.0 Cost-effectiveness analysis of Policy Options for the mandatory implementation of different sets of vehicle safety measures – Review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations

Annex 4.1 Executive summary Annex 4.2 Introduction and objectives Annex 4.3 Policy options and baseline scenario Annex 4.4 Methodology and input parameters Annex 4.4.1 Overview: Calculation model structure Annex 4.4.2 Evaluation period Annex 4.4.3 Casualty baseline Annex 4.4.4 Vehicle fleet size Annex 4.4.5 Fleet dispersion of safety measures Annex 4.4.6 Target population estimates Annex 4.4.7 Safety measure effectiveness Annex 4.4.8 Avoidance of double-counting of casualties prevented Annex 4.4.9 Monetisation of casualties prevented Annex 4.4.10 Safety measure costs Annex 4.4.11 Impact of additional safety measures on vehicle prices and sales numbers Annex 4.4.12 Discounting of costs and benefits Annex 4.4.13 Inflation of monetary values Annex 4.4.14 Sensitivity analysis Annex 4.4.15 Data sources and stakeholder validation Annex 4.4.16 Limitations

Annex 4.5 Results Annex 4.5.1 Cost-effectiveness of policy options Annex 4.5.2 Casualties prevented by policy options Annex 4.6 Conclusions Annex 4.7 Bibliography Annex 4.8 Appendices of input values Annex 4.8.1 General road casualty trend Annex 4.8.2 Layers of proposed and existing safety measures Annex 4.8.3 Vehicle fleet size Annex 4.8.4 Fleet dispersion of safety measures Annex 4.8.5 Target population descriptions for accident data extracts Annex 4.8.6 Effectiveness Annex 4.8.7 Costs Annex 4.9 Appendices of results Annex 4.9.1 Casualty baseline Annex 4.9.2 Monetary benefits and costs Annex 4.9.3 Casualties prevented Annex 4.9.4 Sensitivity analysis Annex 5 – Flow chart for vehicle groups with focus on the road accident victim’s perspective Annex 6 – In depth information on various aspects in the main document

1. Vehicle safety legislation – General Safety Regulation 2. Vehicle safety legislation – Pedestrian Safety Regulation 3. Impact of additional safety measures on vehicle prices and sales prices 4. Impact of advanced safety measures on driver perception and behaviour Annex 7 – European Parliament resolution on Commission Report Annex 8 – Member States’ declaration on road safety Annex 9 – Car industry (ACEA) – extract of position paper and priority list Annex 10 – Market analysis Annex 11 – Cooperative, connected and automated mobility (CCAM) Annex 12 – List of terms and abbreviations used in the Annexes List of abbreviations and glossary of terms Term/abbreviation Explanation ACEA European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association AEB Autonomous Emergency Braking AEB-PCD Autonomous emergency braking for pedestrians and cyclists AEB-VEH Autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead ALC Alcohol interlock installation facilitation BCR Benefit-to-Cost Ratio CARE database Community Road Accident Database CARS 21 The Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century High Level Group on the competitiveness and sustainable growth of the automotive industry in the EU with representatives of the EU Member States, EU institutions, automotive industry, Trade Unions, NGO, users and the Commission. C-ITS Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems CLEPA European Association of Automotive Suppliers C-ROADS Platform The C-Roads Platform is a joint initiative of European Member States and road operators for testing and implementing C-ITS services in light of cross-border harmonisation and interoperability. DDR-ADR Distraction recognition DDR-DAD Drowsiness and attention detection DG Directorate-General EDR Event (accident) Data Recorder ESC Electronic Stability Control ESS Emergency Stop Signal EU European Union Euro NCAP European New Car Assessment Programme is a voluntary European car safety performance assessment program backed by the European Commission and several European governments, as well as by motoring and consumer organisations. Euro NCAP publishes safety reports on new cars, awarding ‘star ratings’ based on the performance of the vehicles in a variety of crash tests, including front, side and pole impacts, and impacts with pedestrians. The top rating is five stars. FFW-137 Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test FFW-THO Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test with advanced measuring dummy and lower appropriate injury criteria thresholds to encourage adaptive restraints GSR General Safety Regulation HDV Heavy Duty Vehicles HED-MGI Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrian and cyclist protection (to include the windscreen area) ISA Intelligent Speed Assistance ISA-VOL Intelligent Speed Assistance (through non-intrusive haptic feedback) ISO International Organisation for Standardisation LDV Light Duty Vehicles LDW Lane Departure Warning LKA-ELK Lane Keeping Assist (emergency lane keeping system that intervenes only in case of an imminent threat such as leaving the road, or leaving the lane with oncoming traffic) MPV Multi Purpose Vehicle NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PO Policy Option PSI Pole Side Impact Occupant Protection PSR Pedestrian Safety Regulation REV Reversing Camera or Detection System R&D Research and Development SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SMEs Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises SUV Sport Utility Vehicle T&E European Federation for Transport and Environment TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TNO Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TPM / TPMS Tyre pressure monitoring (system) TRL Formerly the UK Government's Transport Research Laboratory subsequently transformed into a private company in 1996 UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe VIS-DET Vulnerable road user detection and warning on front and side of vehicle VIS-DIV Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position



1.Introduction: Political and legal context 1.1.Political context Road safety is a pan-European issue that is addressed through an integrated approach on EU, national, regional and local level. Policies are traditionally structured around three pillars: road users (drivers, pedestrians and cyclists), vehicles and infrastructure. The coordination of actions and measures adopted by the different authorities in the various domains (e.g. traffic rules enforcement, health care, education, improvement of infrastructure, vehicle type-approval and roadworthiness inspections) calls for strategic planning. Road safety policy is best defined and implemented under an overarching strategy that addresses all these aspects. Moreover, road safety stakeholders: road user associations, vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, infrastructure managers, fleet operators and other organisations should play an active role in ensuring road safety. The remarkable progress achieved in the past decades is the result of measures taken in these three areas. Today however, as the reduction of road casualties is stagnating, it is even more evident that further progress can only be achieved by continued improvement across the various domains, including that of vehicle safety. For that reason, the present initiative to significantly improve vehicle safety performance has to be viewed in close relation with several other initiatives. Reflections on whether and how the relevant policy areas should be amended should be seen as part of the preparation of an EU road safety policy framework for the period 2020 – 2030 (to be proposed as part of the Third Mobility Package in May 2018). Progress in the reduction of road fatalities and serious injuries on EU roads has stalled in recent years, and a revised framework better adapted to this challenge and to the changes in mobility resulting from societal trends (e.g. more cyclists and pedestrians, an aging society) and technological developments is necessary. The complex situation calls for a dynamic policy adjustment that addresses the major challenges in a consistent and effective way across the entire spectrum of road safety policies. The framework should follow the Safe System approach. This approach is based on the principles that human beings can and will continue to make mistakes and that it is a shared responsibility for actors at all levels to ensure that road crashes do not lead to serious or fatal injuries. In a safe system approach, the safety of all parts of the system must be improved; roads and roadsides, speeds, vehicles and road use so that if one part of the system fails, other parts will still protect the people involved. In addition to enhancing vehicle safety features, the foreseen amendment of two directives on road infrastructure safety management and on minimum safety requirements for tunnels also aim at contributing to the reduction of the number of fatalities and injuries on EU roads. Thus, the named initiatives do not only share a common horizon (in form of the baseline), but they also interlink as the vehicle technology needs to rely on infrastructure in order to be operational (e.g. visible road markings to support lane keeping assistance technologies). On the other hand, the overall vehicle and infrastructure safety framework needs to take into account developments in connected and automated driving, which are advancing at high speed. Therefore, the present exercise is closely linked to Commission's Strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) and in particular to the upcoming proposal for a strategy for Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility. In order to become future-proof, vehicles not only have to be ready for the new technological developments in the infrastructure, but they will also have to take the lead and pave the way towards fully automated driving. For this reason, mandating advanced safety features for vehicles is seen as the right step in this direction.

Then there is a third ongoing initiative to update legislation on qualification and periodic training of drivers by raising the standards for new professional drivers and continuously updating their skills, including their awareness of road safety risks and the ways to reduce them. Proper training and education of drivers is particularly valid and important in the light of new vehicle safety features becoming available in motor-vehicles. Thus, the present initiative is fully in line with the Council conclusions based on the Valletta Declaration, in which transport ministers reconfirmed their commitment to improving road safety and notably called upon the Commission to enhance the protection of road users, and in particular vulnerable road users, by ensuring the deployment of new safety features for vehicles. Lastly, the proposal corresponds to the call made by the EP Committee on Transport and Tourism in its own initiative report for resolute and determined action to be taken by the Commission in the field of vehicle safety. It is observed that approximately 95% of all accidents are due to human error, nearly half of road fatalities involve vulnerable road users and fatalities among this group are decreasing much slower than those of other road users. Therefore, EP calls on the Commission to mandate cost-effective driver assistance systems significantly promoting safety, which have attained market maturity, and to consider additional passive safety measures to mitigate severe injurious effects of accidents. This standpoint has also been voiced throughout numerous Parliamentary questions during the past years. 1.2.Legal context Directive 2007/46/EC sets out harmonised safety and environmental requirements that motor vehicles have to comply with before being placed on the internal market, thus facilitating the free movement of vehicles and ensuring equal health and safety standards across the EU. It provides a framework under which a multitude of separate regulatory acts with specific technical requirements for the different types of vehicles are operating. The type-approval framework is in the process of being revised. In December 2017, the European Parliament and the Council reached an agreement on the proposal for a Regulation on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles adopted by the Commission in January 2016. 1.Vehicle safety legislation under the type-approval framework In the context of the type-approval framework, the vehicle safety legislation consists of the two following regulations: The General Safety Regulation (GSR): General vehicle safety is regulated through a single act, namely Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 as adopted by the co-legislator, covering a large number of safety measures. The main objectives of the GSR were adding new technologies and safety features to vehicles as standard equipment and simplification. The Pedestrian Safety Regulation (PSR): Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 aims to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users involved in a collision with a vehicle. It requires cars, vans and other light commercial vehicles to be fitted with energy absorbing bonnets and front bumpers, to cushion the head and legs of a pedestrian. It further requires manufacturers to fit so-called ‘brake assist systems’ into their vehicles, for more efficient panic stops, shaving-off valuable fractions of the speed of impact as well as centimetres of stopping distance. 1.3.Adapting the legislation to vehicle safety developments Both under the GSR and PSR the Commission has to report to the European Parliament and Council on the monitoring of technical developments in the field of enhanced passive safety requirements, and the consideration and possible inclusion within the Regulations, of new and enhanced safety features as well as enhanced active safety technologies. To fulfil the obligations, the Commission Report “Saving Lives: Boosting Car Safety in the EU”, was adopted on 12 December 2016, outlining the possible ways forward to improve vehicle safety in the EU. These are captured in this initiative. 1.4.Contribution of vehicle safety legislation to road safety in general Road safety in the EU has improved significantly over the past decades, thanks to strong and effective action taken at the EU, national and local levels to address vehicle safety, user behaviour, and infrastructure, as part of the EU policy on road safety. In 2003, the Commission adopted its third European action programme for road safety, which aimed to halve the number of road deaths by saving 25 000 lives until 2010. While the initial target was not quite met by the end of 2010, it was decided to continue with a target of halving the overall number of road deaths in the EU by 2020, starting from a new baseline in 2010 from approximately 31 000 to 15 000 in 2020. Measures have been taken as part of an integrated approach. The measures taken in the framework of passive vehicle safety overall, e.g. introduction of frontal and side crash legislation, presented a medium advancement, considering that their implementation depended on the vehicles renewal rate where the total fleet was expected to be completely renewed after about a 14-year-cycle. The ex post analysis further concluded that between 2001 and 2007, vehicle occupants’ safety had been increasing remarkably. In general, both the effectiveness and the efficiency of passive vehicle safety improvements had proven to be positive, where generally the technologies themselves were not considered as hugely expensive, but were observed to be having a great impact on injury and fatality reduction. Clear examples of such effective safety regulations are the provisions for passenger car frontal and side crash safety that were phased in between 1998 and 2003 which, in the meantime, were integrated within the GSR for simplification and legislative harmonisation purposes. Also, for protecting pedestrians and other vulnerable road users such as cyclists, a set of comprehensive vehicle safety requirements had been introduced and phased in for normal passenger cars from 2005 to 2013, eventually as part of the current PSR. When comparing the EU situation in 2014 to that of 2005 as regards the total number of fatalities, analysis shows a 33% reduction of pedestrian and 30% reduction of cyclist fatalities respectively over the entire period. Road collisions are often multifactorial, with various driver, infrastructure and vehicle factors contributing to their causation. Addressing any of the causation factors of a specific collision bears a certain chance to prevent it or mitigate the resulting consequences. It should therefore be acknowledged that the effects of additional in-vehicle safety systems and infrastructure improvements will, to a certain extent, affect the same population of road traffic collisions. In how far the cases where the two sets of measures are effective overlap, i.e. being successful at preventing a targeted collision, is very complex to quantify in detail. Namely, scope and effectiveness vehicle safety measures are relatively closely defined, designed to avoid collisions by compensating for mistakes or non-compliant behaviours of human drivers. However, the resulting collision types are likely involve interaction with the road infrastructure, for instance run-off road or head-on collisions following unintentional lane departures due to inattention or excessive speed. A proportion of these accidents could also be addressed by rumble strips or roadside barriers if they were laid down and placed on the full road network. There are however also collisions with an assumed low level of infrastructure interaction, such as rear collisions or vehicle to pedestrian or cyclist collision due to a distracted driver. The effectiveness values for in-vehicle safety measures are typically in the order of 20% to 40% of the targeted collisions. The effectiveness for the passive safety measures will be lower and predominantly act through mitigation of consequences rather than collision prevention.

The scope of the road infrastructure and tunnel safety initiative is defined at a higher level, focusing on audits (of new roads), inspections, black spot identification (of existing roads) and minimum safety standards for tunnels, which leaves the decision on suitable technical countermeasures open for the specific roads covered. While radical changes of the road infrastructure design could have the potential to ‘undermine’ vehicle safety cost-effectiveness evaluation, the measures expected from the road infrastructure and tunnel safety initiative are not believed to fall in this category, because, for instance, separation of carriageways using central barriers could physically prevent front-to-front collisions resulting from lane departures, but is unlikely to be viable for most of the single lane road network. The initiatives are aimed rather to lift a greater part of the road infrastructure to an appropriate safety level that is achieved on better performing roads already. Therefore, the vehicle safety effectiveness studies as conducted remain valid. Furthermore, certain in-vehicle systems rely on a well-maintained road-infrastructure: Lane keeping systems require well-maintained lane markings, and speed assistance systems rely on speed limit signs in a good state of repair for camera detection. The road infrastructure and vehicle safety initiatives will therefore also complement each other in certain areas and enable in-vehicle systems to realise their full safety potential. Figure 1 demonstrates the respective number of fatalities, injuries, serious injuries and accidents, over time. It is easy to note that the reduction rate of accidents is running in parallel with the reduction rate for slight and severe injuries, but that that the one for road fatalities is more pronounced and performing better. This may be linked to current vehicle safety evolution, but given the nature of the combined road safety actions and the insufficient availability of EU wide in depth accident data, it has so far been proven impossible to attribute a clear quantified reduction rate to mandatory vehicle safety legislation. In context of the above, it should also be noted that apart from demanding EU vehicle safety legislation, vehicle manufacturers have been further encouraged to make vehicles even more safe and to fit state-of-the-art advanced safety technologies through consumer new car assessment and rating programmes, notably that carried out by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) that launched its activities in December 1996. The resulting positive effects are also taken into account as part of the baseline scenario based on the EU Reference scenario 2016 covering the entire transport system, within this Impact Assessment. With increasing levels of vehicle automation being a priority for car manufacturers, accurate, robust, durable and affordable sensor technologies are becoming widely available. These are necessary to detect the environment around the vehicle fully and also to facilitate the determination of a safe passage through traffic scenarios. Fitting such sensors and data processing technology to vehicles will continue contributing to safety improvements, especially regarding vulnerable road users, and even to the reduction of congestion and the ensuing pollution, given that 15% of all congestion in Europe is due to accidents. The beneficial effect of connectivity is achieved by various ways like messages transmitted via smart phones, navigator devices as well as Internet of Things applications. The concept of Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) communication is however not yet mature enough for widespread incorporation in vehicles. Despite this, it may be considered to ask the co-legislator for a mandate to ensure standardisation, as requested by the industry, to better facilitate e.g. multi-brand platooning. The ex post evaluation of the road safety action programme, published in December 2009, already concluded that the development of measures related to the active safety of vehicles (primarily those having accident avoidance capability) presented a good state of advancement, but that they would play a considerable role for safety in the medium or long term rather than the short term. Accident avoidance measures can help in further reducing the number of road accidents by assisting the driver and providing a remedy for human errors, which is by far the main cause of road traffic accidents. 2.What is the problem and why is it a problem? 1.5.Traffic accidents in the EU and their effects Until 2009, transport accidents were the leading cause of death in the EU, but this is no longer the case. The number of road fatalities has come down considerably during the last 15 years, namely with an approximate 54% reduction from 54 900 in 2001 to 25 300 in 2017 according to the statistical EU accident data. However, traffic accidents still affect hundreds of thousands of families and lead to huge economic costs each year, not only due to the loss of lives, but also due to persons sustaining serious injuries in road accidents. The social cost due to road casualties (i.e. rehabilitation, healthcare, death, material damages, among others) is estimated to be at least in the order of € 100 billion per yearand as such, the problem of road safety remains an urgent one. The main problem to tackle at this instance is the persistent high number of accidents that in turn leads to a high number of fatalities and a high number of severe injuries. The solutions to address the main problem should either avoid and lower the number of accidents or lower the severity of un-avoided accidents to lower the number of fatalities and severe injuries. Strong annual reductions of road fatalities were observed, for example considering the total reduction in each of the Member States from 2005 to 2014, with the highest rate reduction per million inhabitants occurring in Spain (65%) and Lithuania (65%) followed by Czech (61%) and lowest rate reduction in Romania (26%), followed by Bulgaria (29%) and Germany (35%). However, the overall reduction appears to have stagnated since 2013. This is clearly visible in the plateau that has developed from 2013 to 2017 (last available annual data). Whereas some Member States are still making considerable progress every year, some others are even recording increases in fatalities. The causes are diverse, including structural factors (e.g. urbanisation, a growing number of cyclists and pedestrians, an ageing population, fewer resources for enforcement, road maintenance and vehicles following the economic crisis) and behavioural factors (e.g. distraction by electronic devices, speeding; alcohol). The lack of detailed data makes a precise analysis difficult. It is however clear that much of the low hanging fruits for policy making at national and EU level have been picked and that it is unlikely that the EU objective of a 50% reduction in road fatalities between 2010 and 2020 will be reached. A paradigm shift is needed towards a framework based on results that addresses the major challenges in an effective and flexible way across the entire spectrum of road safety policies. Such a framework will be proposed for the period 2020 – 2030 as part of the third Mobility Package and will follow the Safe System approach. New and safe vehicles, meeting the latest EU requirements adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in 2009 and becoming mandatory for almost all vehicles since 2014, are sold on the EU market today and dispersing into the fleet, replacing older and unsafer vehicles. However, we also know that increasing traffic volumes will lead to a mounting number of road incidents potentially leading to more collisions and casualties. We now also become aware that an increasing safety level in the vehicle fleet, resulting from the vehicle safety measures introduced in the previous years, is required simply to achieve the status quo. Without the previous measures, the fatality and severe injury rates could even be expected to rise. Those effective vehicle safety measures however as introduced in the past and that are still dispersing into the fleet, e.g. stability control, are integrated into the baseline scenario for future years and indeed seen to avoid casualties, but not to the extent necessary to considerably overcompensate the increase in traffic volumes. Hence, further action is now needed. According to the Safe System approach , death and serious injury in road collisions are not an inevitable price to be paid for mobility. While collisions will continue to occur, death and serious injury are largely preventable. The Safe System seeks to better accommodate human errors, which are often simple errors of perception or judgment by otherwise compliant users, whilst also dealing with misbehaviour. It is a shared responsibility of actors at all levels and from all relevant sectors to ensure that road crashes do not lead to serious or fatal injuries. Better vehicle construction, improved road infrastructure, lower speeds for example all have the capacity to reduce the impact of accidents, and addressing one factor alone will not be enough. The aim is to create several layers of protection so that when one element fails, others will compensate for it. For example, if a drowsy driver veers from his lane, vehicle technology can alert him or gently correct the vehicle's trajectory. Rumble strips provide another warning. Should the vehicle nevertheless leave the road, a "forgiving roadside" without dangerous obstacles or with energy absorbing roadside barriers can prevent serious consequences. Finally, crash absorbing vehicle design, along with seatbelts and airbags, protect vehicle occupants. The Safe System approach is being adopted increasingly in EU Member States, regions and cities. It is recommended globally by the World Health Organisation . Working towards the EU’s strategic objectives to halve the number of road deaths by 2020 compared to 2010 and to move close to zero deaths by 2050 ("Vision Zero" approach) requires a wide range of measures. Experts agree that contributions towards these targets will have to come from all areas of road safety policy. Measures addressing speed, drink-driving and vehicle safety, and – to a slightly lesser extent – measures addressing road infrastructure, protective equipment (seatbelts, child restraints) and post-crash care, are generally regarded as having the highest potential impact. Vehicle and infrastructure safety are being addressed in the present proposals. Further complementary actions will be assessed in the future, subject to separate impact assessments. According to the main statistical findings provided and analysed by Eurostat, the number of road traffic fatalities in the various countries and regions depends on both structural differences (size of the country/region; composition, density and quality of the road network, characteristics of the population) and socio-economic differences (characteristics of the vehicle stock, transit and tourist traffic, behavioural aspects, etc.).

The trends in fatality rates vary significantly throughout the entire EU. For the period 2014-2015, 16 Member States reported rising casualty figures (e.g. Belgium (4%), France (2%), Germany (3%), Czech Republic (7%), Austria (10%) and Cyprus (27%). A decrease was observed in 10 Member States (e.g. Poland (-8%), Ireland (-15%), Estonia (-15%) and Luxembourg (-9%). Causes and sources of traffic accidents have been subject to extensive investigation during many years. There are several in-depth international studies on traffic crashes that have identified significant causes and severity factors. Infrastructure, e.g. road layout such as hills, bends or narrow lanes and road environment such as slippery roads due to the weather conditions, contribute to the causes factors. On the other hand, road user factors, such as inadequate restraint systems or improper use play a dominant role in severity factors. In contrast, vehicle factors (e.g. due to malfunction, worn parts, non-compliance) contribute only a relatively small portion to accident severity factors (road user factors 63%, road factors 33% and vehicle factors 4%). The traditional vehicle safety performance, not to be confused with vehicle factors, has been consistently addressed through previous measures introduced in EU legislation. Of these, the passive safety measures consist of improving car designs and construction to protect the occupants in a crash. This is done by physically strengthening the vehicle chassis, structure and bodywork as well as the designs of e.g. seats, steering column and energy absorbing elements. More recently, the active safety measures that have been introduced are those that deploy once an accident is already occurring, e.g. airbags and safety belt tensioners. An area however that so far has not really been fully addressed is that of accident avoidance measures (with the noted exception of new stability control systems that are mandatory for all new vehicles since November 2014 and is identified as a major influence on the baseline scenario). Avoidance systems have the capability of indeed preventing an accident from happening altogether and the initiative covered by this Impact Assessment has a particular focus on deploying such measures alongside other conventional passive and active safety measures. Some of the sources of accidents with great impact on accident severity factors are thus ideal candidates to address by means of new and advanced safety measures. For this purpose this was assessed in the context of the Commission’s reporting to European Parliament and the Council as referred to in section 1.3 above. One has to think along the lines of forward looking detection systems that can spot safety issues before the human driver can see them, in a way addressing infrastructure shortcomings. It should be noted that these sources differ across EU countries, thus avoidance measures enhance the overall safety effect throughout the EU. Another area that can be addressed concerns population diversity throughout a regional population. This is done by improving (e.g. softening and optimising) in-vehicle restraint systems for better protecting physically sensitive elderly drivers with reduced bone density and frailty due to their age, as well as protecting small female occupants, as the smaller the person, the fewer crash forces the body can tolerate. This addresses the road user factors and in particular the inadequate restraint systems mentioned above. It has further been suggested by stakeholders that the increasing number of older persons lead to an increase of reversing accidents in which an older pedestrian is hit, as the elderly have less agility to get out of the way of impending danger. It could also be argued that drivers of age may have longer reaction times and that they would benefit from autonomous safety systems. However concerning the latter there is insufficient data available that would help to precisely quantify both problem and benefit. Another possible problem driver that is often mentioned by stakeholders and Member States, but for which only limited EU wide evidence exists, is that of driver inattention because of distraction through the use of smartphones while driving. Distraction can be addressed by new technologies in motor-vehicles. In a recent publication on a targeted questionnaire in the Netherlands, up to 39% of car drivers indicated using a mobile phone behind the wheel for a task other than hand-held or hands-free calling. The overall average mobile phone use while driving was admitted by 42% of respondents, where the age group 25 to 34 topped the range at 79%. Of the respondents, 37% conceded doing this on a frequent basis. Along the same lines on driver inattention, driver fatigue and drowsiness should be mentioned, as it is estimated that this is a major factor in a large proportion of road crashes, in the 10% to 20% range. Therefore, in order to reach the current EU strategic target of halving the number of road deaths from approximately 31 000 in 2010 to 15 000 in 2020, as stated in the Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011 – 2020, or rather the updated targets that are to be set beyond this date, additional efforts are needed. Despite the big improvement made in the past, road fatalities are still persistent in European countries. As explained above, a large part of those are driven by human error factors. Therefore, in order to complement our past initiatives and contribute to a further reduction of fatalities, our focus should be on introducing new safety measures, especially those ones tackling human error factors, something that has not been the centre of attention before, to help boost road safety. 1.6.Transformation of main safety problem into vehicle level problems In this section the description of specific road safety problem is ultimately provided from the perspective of persons that are injured or killed in traffic accidents involving vehicles. However, with reference to Annex 5, no less than 96 accident scenarios have been reviewed and subsequently rated in terms of feasibility and occurrence rate while taking into account EU accident data analysis. Account was taken of vehicle to vehicle accident as well as vehicle to person accident scenarios. A further rating was then applied based on assessment of risk, specifically concerning the persons in and around the vehicle involved in the accident, in order to identify the target priorities. Given the scope of the legislative framework that has been considered, the vehicle classes could be crudely grouped into two main distinctions: Light Duty Vehicles (LDV) and Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) as illustrated in Figure 3 . Light Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty Vehicles

A further distinction was made in relation to the category of vulnerable road users, namely pedestrians and cyclists. Although moped and motorcycle riders are also often referred to as vulnerable road users, and e.g. the users of self-balancing machines, they are not explicitly included as such for the purpose of this Impact Assessment, although improved protection will to a certain extent also benefit them. This is however not quantified, because there is a considerable variation in the Member States in the distribution of e.g. moped and motorcycle fatalities by area and road type, diverging practises of helmet use, and the most frequently recorded specific critical event for riders is surplus speed that is described as speed that is too high for the conditions or manoeuvre being carried out, very much in contrast to pedestrians and cyclists. Also, motorcycle riders tend to be disconnected from the vehicle in case of an accident. Although this group should clearly be taken into account wherever practicable, specific measures to address their safety were deemed more appropriate outside of the regulatory framework impacted by this specific initiative. Other possible improvements could for instance be achieved through road infrastructure risk management, by encouraging the application of roadside barriers that are especially designed to better protect riders sliding over the ground and impacting them. The EU accident data, as well as by the additional preparatory analysis carried out specifically in support of this Impact Assessment, finally supported that the accident scenarios as mentioned below, most commonly involving LDV and HDV with the identified primary and secondary risks to be addressed by the initiative: ·Frontal impacts and the protection of occupants resulting in about 63% (8650/yr) of all occupant fatalities in LDV and HDV, as well as a need for fire and electric shock prevention after a crash occurrence; ·Side impacts and protection of occupants resulting in about 17% (2325/yr) of all occupant fatalities in LDV and HDV, as well as a need for fire and electric shock prevention after a crash occurrence; ·Rear impacts and protection of occupants resulting in about 5% (725/yr) of all occupant fatalities in LDV and HDV, as well as a need for fire and electric shock prevention after a crash occurrence. and

·Pedestrian and cyclist protection hit by the front-side of a vehicle, resulting in about 78% (5250/yr) of all pedestrian and cyclist fatalities hit by LDV and HDV; ·Pedestrian and cyclist protection hit by the side of a vehicle, resulting in about 8% (575/yr) of all pedestrian and cyclist fatalities hit by LDV and HDV; ·Pedestrian and cyclist protection hit by the rear-side of a vehicle, resulting in about 11% (750/yr) of all pedestrian and cyclist fatalities hit by LDV and HDV. As the protection of persons is central to the reduction of road casualties, this aspect should be the focus of attention in the context of actions that are analysed within this Impact Assessment. 1.7.Slow market uptake of new safety features in the vehicle fleet The rapid development of accident avoidance technologies in the past years has resulted in the availability of a panoply of driver assistance features (e.g. autonomous emergency braking, lane keeping assist, reversing camera) that have a great potential to improve road safety, by either avoiding collisions altogether or reducing impact speed and thus the victims’ injury levels. In parallel, improved active safety features (e.g. window airbags, deployable bonnet, safety belt pre-tensioners and load limiters) as well as passive safety features (e.g. energy absorbing windscreens, larger windows on trucks) also play an important role to further reducing the number of fatalities or injuries in collisions that will inevitably still occur. The voluntary market uptake of new vehicle safety features however has shown to be rather slow, as typically, mainly larger luxury cars did benefit from these new features. Passive safety measures beyond those that are imposed and that are not primarily directed at protecting the occupants (i.e. pedestrian safety) are rarely incorporated in motor-vehicles on a voluntary basis. 1.8.Competitiveness and innovation It is envisioned that the current road safety problems can help to stimulate innovation for safer cars and technologies. As mentioned above, innovation on safety features has been limited to certain market segments so benefits are not optimal across the board. However, any introduction of new legislative measures shall not harm competiveness of car manufacturers and suppliers nor penalise their capacity to innovate.. 1.9.Efficiency of measures introduced so far Given the very recent timeframe in which the latest safety measures have become mandatory, or in some cases still have to, the dispersion of fully compliant vehicles within the EU fleet is not yet achieved and will take up to 2025. This issue is the direct consequence of the choice of the co-legislators in 2009 to have long transitional arrangements for the implementation of the measures. Given, these very long transitional arrangements, a comprehensive evaluation of all the measures adopted so far could not be completed. 1.10.Market description The evolution of fatalities depends on a large number of factors, such as economic development (GDP/capita), mobility level (number of vehicle kilometres driven) or exposure, vehicle safety technologies, driver trainings or behaviour or road infrastructure. At the same time, the impact of safety measures will depend on the improvements of vehicle technology and gradual penetration of the safety measures into stock of all vehicles. Even though we do not have granular data to approximate the current state of safety measures penetration in the car fleet, we can approximate it by the fleet renewal rates and the age of the car. When observing an historical evolution of road accidents, we note that most European countries present similar accident trends which differ on the timing, depending mostly on the economic situation of countries (figure A10.1 Annex 10). After a peak there is a high decrease on the number of accidents, followed by a stabilisation of the trend, with a lower decline rate of accidents. Western European countries experienced a high reduction of road accidents during the 60’s and 70’s, while Southern European countries did not experience a sharp decrease until some years later. Eastern countries experienced a big decline much more recently, around 2007, with some countries still being in this transition phase. During the past decades, the number of vehicles per inhabitant has increased, but we observe different regional tendencies. The number of passenger cars per thousand inhabitants has gradually increased in all Europe since 1990 (figure A10.2 Annex 10). The steep growth in Eastern European countries contrasts with a moderate increase in Western Europe and Central Europe. By 2015, the number cars/thousand inhabitants in South European countries was similar to Central European Member States, while Eastern countries are quickly catching-up and approximating to similar figures to those in Western countries. On the other side, we observe big differences in vehicle fleet composition between Member States. Even though most of the measures proposed in this Impact Assessment have already attained a certain level of maturity in the market, its integration in different EU countries might remain heterogeneous. From 2007, we observe renewal rates of passenger cars to decrease in all Europe, with especially remarkable falls in South and Western Europe (Figure A10.3 Annex 10). Central European Member States were less affected than other regions, and kept a quite stable renewal rate from 2004 to 2015. From 2013 onwards, most Member States changed the tendency and started experiencing a faster renewal rate on passenger cars. Nowadays, Central Europe and Western Europe are the regions with faster renewal rates, while South Europe and Eastern Europe are slowly recovering. These differences are confirmed when observing the age of the current car fleet in different countries (Figure A10.4 Annex 10). Member States such as UK, Germany and France have more than half of their fleet composed of relatively new vehicles: 19% of their fleet is not older than 5 years, with less than 15% of cars being older than 10 years. On the other hand, other Member States, such as Poland, Hungary or Spain still present relatively old car fleets, with more than half of the fleet older than 10 years, and in some cases, even a notorious share of cars older than 20 years (Poland 32 %, and Latvia 22%). 1.11.Outdated safety exemptions for SUVs, MPVs, vans and the like Currently, heavy passenger cars (e.g. family van, SUV, MPV) and all light commercial vehicles (e.g. cargo delivery van, pick-up) are fully exempted from the frontal crash testing as introduced in 1996. At that time the exemptions were introduced based on either a very low market availability of such vehicles or the notion that utility vehicles would have severe difficulties to comply due to their size and mass. It was further suggested that compliance with the legislation would make larger and heavy cars stiffer at the front, and that this would create a specific problem for small non-compliant older cars in collisions with newer compliant heavy cars (i.e. compatibility mismatch). However, this issue has become increasingly obsolete over time, given that a high percentage of small cars in the fleet now meet the frontal impact off-set crash requirements.

The absence of frontal crash testing requirements for light commercial vehicles as a whole, based on the notion of size and mass as with SUVs, presents the situation that workers that are required to drive light commercial vehicles to carry out their duties cannot rely on a harmonised minimum level of frontal crash protection. The actual safety level depends fully on the vehicle purchase choice made by their employers and even that safety performance is not subject to a guaranteed level. In practise, the actual safety level may vary significantly between two vehicles that appear to be completely identical in terms of looks, but that differ on a technical level. Some equipment may be fitted, but their performance can be erratic, given that there is no control mechanism due to the nature of the exemptions in the current legislation. Vehicles that do not have a seating position under just 70 cm above ground level are in turn fully exempted from the side impact crash test. Also in this case it notably includes those passenger cars that can be characterised as SUVs as well as delivery type vans. The exemption was based on a lower risk of bodily injury of occupants, due to the ‘high’ seating position. In principle this reasoning is still valid, but the regulations contain other safety criteria covering spontaneous door opening in a crash or all doors being jammed shut after a crash, which are then also neglected, putting occupants of these vehicles at a risk. Rear impact crash testing has been exempted altogether for all vehicle categories although the relevant test specifications and requirements have existed on UNECE level that apply in the EU since its accession in 1997. Its current application in the EU is mandatory, but with a specific exemption concerning the rear crash test. When motor-vehicles are exempted from these type of crash tests, the post-crash protection against electric shock and fire risks can also not be guaranteed. In the light of the success of SUVs in the marketplace, up from only 3% in 1996 to 14% market penetration in 2016 and the increasing sales figures for light commercial vehicles with the market addressing urban mobility solutions the justification for these exemptions has to be reconsidered. In addition, the accelerated shift towards zero-emission mobility with electric vehicles and their heavy and high capacity batteries also plead for re-examination of these exemptions as battery powered vehicles need to offer adequate protection against electric shock and vehicle fire after a crash. It should be recognised that e.g. consumer testing points to certain manufacturers that may very well design and construct vehicles based on due diligence. However, given this very unclear situation, it has also proven to be impossible to quantify this specific problem. Hence the safest way forward would be to scrutinise the old justifications with a view to lift these exemptions, to ascertain that they cannot have an unintended negative effect on the already precarious status quo. 1.12.Contribution to the reduction of the regulatory burden on companies The initiative has a REFIT dimension, but is not expected to have a significant impact on the regulatory burden for manufacturers or national governments. Vehicle type-approval is already covered by the existing vehicle legislative framework (Framework Directive 2007/46/EC) and the inclusion of any new safety measures is to be integrated within that framework. Although the relevant vehicle testing and certification procedures can be performed within the existing type-approval infrastructure available in the Member States, additional testing and certification cost will be applicable. These costs are however insignificant in relation to the overall cost of the development of a new vehicle model (typically ranging from several hundred millions to several billions euros). The original GSR introduced a range of vehicle safety measures, but also aimed to achieve simplification based on the CARS21 High Level Group recommendations by replacing 38 EC Directives with equivalent and world-wide harmonised UNECE regulations. The proposed new vehicle safety measures covered by this initiative should also adhere to this principle and where detailed technical testing provisions do not yet exist, they should clearly be developed on UNECE level. In the same vein, several EU Regulations that currently implement the GSR will be repealed and replaced by equivalent UNECE regulations that have in the meantime been introduced. Because of the transparent stakeholder engagement and frequent reporting in EU Working Groups and UNECE Working Parties, there has been significant interest by other Contracting Parties to engage on UNECE level. For instance, work to develop safety standards has already started on Lane Keeping provisions, Autonomous Emergency Breaking for cars and for pedestrians and cyclist detection on the front and to the side of trucks cabs, as well as for a direct vision standard for heavy duty vehicles by countries including Japan, Russia and Canada. The proposed initiative will consolidate in one legal act and repeal the three currently applicable co-decision regulations, namely the General Safety Regulation, the Pedestrian Safety Regulation and the Hydrogen Safety Regulation, as they share specific similarities that will result in simplification of this EU legislation. In particular, a further 15 individual implementing measures of the three main acts will be repealed and replaced, on the one hand with UNECE Regulations that have been adopted in the meantime, and on the other hand with one delegated act and one implementing act. The proposed action is future proof. The envisioned measures are to be put in place on a ‘technology neutral’ basis. The overall vehicle safety measures covered by this initiative will further adhere to the established and industry welcomed principle of preferred development on UNECE level for reasons of world-wide harmonisation. It is also highly preferential in terms of its potential for efficient adaptation of vehicle safety rules to technical progress. It means that on the one side manufacturers can innovate to meet their own safety performance objectives, without dictating the technical approach, but also that the Commission as regulator can efficiently address technical progress and urgent safety needs through more simple integration within the EU legislative framework. Finally, thanks to the technology neutral approach, manufacturers will be enabled to exceed the minimum requirements with deployment of new innovations. This is in particular important given the transition to more autonomous functions in vehicles, vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication. The room that is going to be provided for innovation allows for various options that can benefit the further development of connected and automated transport, e.g. use of advanced sensors and/or cameras for road sensing. 1.13.Main problem drivers and consequences Out of scope: ·Road infrastructure (e.g. signs, lane markings, motor-ways, tunnels) ·Driver training

·Level of enforcement ·Mobility mix options (e.g. car-pooling) ·Mobility restrictions (e.g. low emissions zones) ·Cooperative, connected and automated mobility (CCAM) 3.Why should the EU act? The Legislative Framework for type-approval of vehicles in general is based on Article 114 of the TFEU and contributes to the implementation of the internal market for goods. Vehicle safety requirements are already harmonised at the EU level, which not only prevents fragmentation of the internal market, but also ensures equal health and safety standards across the EU as well as offering advantages of economies of scale: products can be made for the whole European market, instead of being customised to obtain national approval for every single Member State. If actions to address road safety problems were to be taken individually by Member States at national level by imposing additional specific performance requirements, there would be a particular risk of creating obstacles to the free movement of motor vehicles. This risk has clearly been demonstrated in the discussions about the more strict requirements concerning the positioning or repositioning of the steering-wheel of new or previously registered vehicles designed for left-side traffic in order to be used on public roads of Member States with right-side traffic. Another example, demonstrating this risk is linked to local or regional level prohibition of vehicle circulation, for instance inside of certain cities or city sections that would require more stringent safety equipment on vehicles than required by EU legislation. In some cases this is limited to public procurement methods, for instance by the city of Copenhagen with guidelines for procurement of garbage collecting services, requiring that the garbage trucks used should be designed to maximise the safety of surrounding vulnerable road users, e.g. with glass doors for increasing the driver's field of vision. It is however also known that the city of London is working on actually banning EU compliant vehicles from city areas if they do not fulfil specific additional safety criteria. For this purpose, the mayor of London is currently already finalising a set of comprehensive rules on a direct vision standard for trucks, hence there is clear added value to take action at EU level. Furthermore, given the lack of rapid uptake of new vehicle safety features, as outlined in section 2.2 above, and the fact that the typical fitment rates are still well below what could be considered an effective and appropriate proportion of new vehicles, these matters should rather be considered for EU legislative action. In addition, making available, on a large scale, motor-vehicles with raised sophistication will also have consequences concerning several aspects related to vehicle drivers as well as the infrastructure. Notably these could include incorporating knowledge and awareness of new technologies in driver training programs as well as optimisation of road markings and traffic signs for the increasing automation functions depending on that type or road infrastructure input. As such, it is again underlined how important the integrated approach remains. 4.What should be achieved? The general objective of the proposed initiative is to contribute to a further reduction of the number of traffic accident fatalities and severe injuries. The problem definition has pointed to two specific objectives to address the general objective in terms of physical protection of persons: ·Occupants of vehicles involved in collisions need to be protected. ·Pedestrians and cyclists struck by a vehicle need to be protected. A range of underlying problems have also been identified. The slow market uptake of new features and abolishing of outdated vehicle safety exemptions can be addressed when measures indeed focus on upgrading EU vehicle safety with concrete vehicle safety measures and new features. Competitiveness and innovation are general issues that need to be taken on board regardless of the proposed solution. The lack of data on the efficiency of measures that have been adopted in the past cannot be addressed for those measures per se, but to promote a workable solution for new measures that are presently under consideration. As previously outlined, the legislative framework addressing vehicle safety consists of on the one hand the GSR and on the other the PSR that are thus subject of this Impact Assessment. Reduction of traffic casualties can be achieved through the introduction of new vehicle safety measure implementing legislation, adopting existing implementing legislation available e.g. on UNECE level to which the EU is a Contracting Party, or by adapting existing mandatory legislation in the context of the specific objective.

5.What are the various options to achieve the objectives? The main problem to tackle has been identified as the persistent high number of accidents that in turn leads to a high number of fatalities and a high number of severe injuries. The solutions mentioned below try to address the main problem by either completely avoiding and lower the number of accidents or by lowering the severity of un-avoided accidents to lower the number of fatalities and severe injuries. The different measures listed below have been selected on the basis of the Commission's study ''Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the fields of Vehicle Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users" , that initially analysed over 50 possible vehicle safety measures. The initial list of potential measures was brought forward by the Commission, but the stakeholders added possible measures for analysis in the course of the frequent consultations that took place. For reasons of transparency this process and the suggestions contributed by the various stakeholders were fully documented in the respective study. All suggested measures were in a first step assessed on the basis of feasibility and expected cost-effectiveness. In a second step a reduced list of around 20 measures was based on the results of the initial assessment and it was looked at whether the potential measures were available through existing, robust or otherwise feasible technologies and whether such technologies would be affordable. For all measures that were assessed positively, the individual costs and benefits were assessed. This was also done for the effectiveness of measures. These assessments were based on literature studies or input provided by stakeholders in the course of the consultations. Subsequently, in the context of a targeted stakeholder workshop event, all data was explicitly shared with all stakeholders on ‘fact sheets’ for each individual measure. Stakeholders were then asked to agree with this data or to provide updated figures and data sources if they did not agree. By this the stakeholders eventually endorsed all input data that was to be used for the purpose of this Impact Assessment, i.e. the vehicle manufacturers, supplier industry, safety advocacy and environmental groups, as regards the costs and effectiveness of the range of safety measures. In the final stage the stakeholders however insisted that the assessment of the benefits and costs for multiple grouped measures would be assessed in a combined fashion, and not on individual basis, for each vehicle category. Indeed, some of the proposed measures were targeting the same accident type and thus had a mutual influence/interaction on the level of their effectiveness. E.g. autonomous braking avoiding a collision vis-à-vis improved restraint systems in case of crashing – if the collision is avoided, the improved restraint system is effectively of no use, however, no measure is 100% effective, so there is still a significant merit to improve the restrain systems although its specific effectiveness figure needed to be adjusted downward. Some features also use a common technology (e.g. forward looking camera for autonomous braking, lane keeping and intelligent speed assistance) and their grouping would save cost. On this basis, the cost and benefit analysis of the measures was adapted accordingly. It should be mentioned as a concrete example, that the safety measure of “small overlap crash test” that was one of the 20 short-listed measures was potentially cost-effective as a standalone measure, but with the simultaneous introduction of “lane keeping” technology and through independent accidentology data provided on behalf of the vehicle industry, the occurrence of such small overlap accidents would be starkly reduced and the residual effectiveness would no longer weigh up to the cost for structural improvements to the vehicles. 1.14.Measures to completely avoid accidents, to reduce the overall severity of accidents or to mitigate the outcome of injuries in accidents between vehicles or vehicles and obstacles 2.Frontal impact occurrences New advanced safety features: Several of the possible measures addressing frontal impacts revolve around an active intervention by vehicle systems or a general aim to either avoid the frontal impact altogether or to mitigate accident outcome in terms of occupant injury levels. Other measures have the potential to reduce the overall risk of a frontal impact collision or to aid in terms of measurement of the effectiveness of vehicle safety systems. Autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead is a new vehicle safety measure for LDV, but is already mandatory for HDV. It combines sensing of the environment ahead of the vehicle with the automatic activation of the brakes (without driver input) in order to completely stop the vehicle before the collision occurs or to reduce the impact speed, the latter also still having great beneficial effect on injury risk. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead Alcohol interlock installation facilitation is a new vehicle safety measure that is expected to lead to more vehicles being equipped with an alcohol interlock device, either on a voluntary basis, due to a national policy for categories of (professional) drivers or as a result of a national (recidivist) fitting program, and that thus reduces the risk of collision occurrence. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of alcohol interlock installation facilitation Drowsiness and attention detection is a new vehicle safety measure that detects driver inattention through system analysis over a given timeframe of erratic driving and steering input, either due to fatigue or due to some activity that competes for a driver’s visual attention. Upon detection of driver inattention, the driver receives a warning to resume normal attentive driving, or to take a rest, leading to a reduction of the risk of a collision. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of drowsiness and attention detection Distraction recognition is a further new vehicle safety measure that also detects driver inattention, but that goes a step further by recognising the situation for which the key shared feature is the actual absence of visual attention on the driving task, again either due to fatigue or due to some activity that competes for a driver’s visual attention. Upon more or less instant detection of driver inattention, the driver receives a warning to resume normal attentive driving, leading to a reduction of the risk of frontal collision.

·Action to be considered: mandatory application of drowsiness recognition Emergency stop signal is a new vehicle safety measure that consists of a rapid flashing of the brake lamp when full brakes are applied. This system is designed to address front-to-rear accidents. Drivers following a hard-braking vehicle are instantly aware that the vehicle in front is braking with a high retardation so that they can take appropriate action. It helps drivers to avoid late recognition of the hard-braking situation that might prevent a collision or reduce the resulting impact speed. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of emergency stop signal Intelligent speed assistance is a new vehicle safety measure that works with the driver to provide non-intrusive haptic feedback, preferably through the accelerator pedal that could be overridden by the driver, to promote the adoption of a (slightly) reduced speed in accordance with the maximum permissible speed limit. Speed limit information would be provided through a combination of optical recognition of maximum speed signs as well as up-to-date detailed map data or real-time over-the-air type data. The link between speed in excess and increased severity and frequency of accidents has long been established. This measure is expected to reduce the risk of collision occurrence, but also the resulting impact speed in those collisions that will not be prevented. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of intelligent speed assistance Lane keeping assist is a new vehicle safety measure that either keeps the vehicle in its driving lane by correcting driver steering input where appropriate. In a first step the measure recognises that the vehicle is about to leave or no longer follow the appropriate lane, but then only actively intervenes to keep within the lane in the particular case where also an imminent threat such as leaving the road, or leaving the lane when a collision with other traffic or road obstacles is about to occur. This vehicle safety measure therefore reduces the risk of frontal collision occurrence through its avoidance potential. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of (emergency) lane keeping assist Tyre pressure monitoring system is a new vehicle safety measure for all vehicle categories except passenger cars for which it is already mandatory. The system reports situations of a critically underinflated tyre to the driver. Underinflated tyres can lead to poor vehicle handling and increased stopping distances, and can result in catastrophic tyre failure, and subsequent loss of control of the vehicle, due to increased stress and heat build-up in the tyre. This vehicle safety measure therefore reduces the risk of collisions through its avoidance potential. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of tyre pressure monitoring system Event (accident) data recorder is a new vehicle safety measure for LDV that stores a range of vehicle status data over a specific timeframe (short duration in conventional vehicles, long duration in vehicles with highly automated functions) before, during and after a crash, usually triggered by airbag deployment. It should facilitate a standardised form of interrogation and should store critical crash-related information such as vehicle speed, state of restraint systems, detection and monitoring systems, light signalling devices and driver direct control input parameters (e.g. steering wheel angle, accelerator pedal, brake force), as well as the level of activation and influence of accident avoidance systems, and further relevant vehicle data at the time of the collision, without linking it to any data facilitating the identification of a vehicle other than its make, type, variant and version and specific fitted optional equipment. Although studies show a range of reductions in accidents when fitted, the addition of this device would actually make the effectiveness of most of the above vehicle safety systems measurable, i.e. a key element of setting objectives. The relevant data for the purpose of in depth accident analysis should be made available in a considerably more accurate, consistent and barrier-free way. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of event (accident) data recorder Extension of existing measures: Occupants protection in frontal crashes is currently regulated in the EU through a frontal impact off-set crash test that was introduced within the EU in 1996, subsequently harmonised on UNECE level and amended several times to account for technical progress. The relevant vehicle safety measure is UNECE regulation No 94. As described in section 2.4, heavy passenger cars and all light commercial vehicles are fully exempted from the frontal crash testing (as introduced in 1996), based on low market availability, difficulties to comply and potential compatibility mismatch that may have been applicable at the time. Presently, the exemption of these vehicles is no longer justified or desirable. ·Action to be considered: add heavy passenger vehicles (e.g. SUVs) and all light commercial vehicles to the scope of the mandatory frontal off-set crash tests Further benefits are foreseen in the field of occupant protection in frontal crashes when a new type of crash test is added to the above that focuses starkly on improving restraint systems (i.e. airbag and safety-belt combinations) to encourage adaptive restraints protecting a broader demography of occupants (e.g. small females and elderly) than the current test achieves. The test protocol already exists on UNECE level, but the specific objective would further benefit from a specific revision to enhance that protocol. The relevant vehicle safety measure is UNECE regulation No 137 ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of full overlap frontal crash that focusses on restraint system (i.e. safety belt and airbag system) performance. Finally, a note for information. Safety belt reminder system for the front seats in all motor-vehicles and also on the rear seats in passenger cars and vans have in an early stage of the preparatory work also been identified as a cost-effective safety measure. This was also the case for improved rear underrun protection device on trucks, removal of exemptions for lateral protection devices on Special Purpose trucks, as well as fire prevention measures on buses. These matters have in the meantime all been adequately addressed in the context of technological progress in the respective UNECE regulations and will thus become obligatory in accordance with the transitional provisions in those regulations. 3.Side impact occurrences This is currently regulated in the EU through a side impact crash test that was introduced in 1996 on EU level, that was subsequently harmonised on UNECE level, and that has been amended several times to account for technical progress. The relevant vehicle safety measure is UNECE regulation No 95.

As described in section 2.3, certain vehicles with ‘high’ seating positions are currently exempted from the side crash testing as introduced in 1996, that causes other safety criteria that are normally also checked in this test to be omitted as well. In line with the clarification provided for frontal impact off-set crash, the exemption of these vehicles is no longer justified or desirable. ·Action to be considered: add vehicles with a high seating position (e.g. SUVs and vans) to the scope of the mandatory side impact crash tests Additional benefits are foreseen in the field of occupant protection in side impact crashes when a new type of side impact crash test is added to the above that focuses on a vehicle side collision with a rigid narrow pole (i.e. pole side impact when skidding off the road) to demand a much better protection in the head strike area of the occupants with interior parts of the vehicle (e.g. side curtain airbag protection). The vehicle safety measure already exists, namely in the form of UNECE regulation No 135 ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of pole side impact crash test Review of further new vehicle safety measures and opportunities having a significant potential to address side impacts: ·Autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead ·Alcohol interlock installation facilitation ·Drowsiness and attention detection ·Distraction recognition ·Intelligent speed assistance ·Tyre pressure monitoring system ·Event (accident) data recorder 4.Rear impact occurrences There are no measures currently at our disposal that should be amended to reach this specific sub-objective, nor are there proposed new vehicle safety measures that are specifically and exclusively geared towards it. The only existing legislation that regulates rear impacts revolves around head restraint performance in UNECE regulation No 17 to mitigate the effects on occupants in terms of whiplash protection. However, this regulation is subject to adaptations to technical progress in the context of ongoing regulatory work under UNECE and the beneficial effects thereof are therefore incorporated into the baseline scenario in which no specific additional EU regulatory actions are taken. On the other hand, UNECE regulation No 34 on fire risks, fuel tanks and rear impact protection, applies on an obligatory basis in the EU. Again, this legislation suffers from the fact that specific exemptions apply which has the detrimental effect that those vehicles are not tested in terms of post-crash protection against fire risks. It is also explicitly necessary to accelerate the work on including protection against electric shock in the regulation, as has been done for all other vehicle crash legislation on UNECE level, as that is currently not yet the case for this regulation. This is particularly important given that (hybrid) electric vehicle propulsion battery packs are often located in the rear luggage compartment section of conventional vehicles. ·Action to be considered: add the mandatory application for rear impact testing and also address post-crash electric safety Review of further new vehicle safety measures and opportunities having a significant potential to address rear impacts: ·Autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead ·Alcohol interlock installation facilitation ·Drowsiness and attention detection

·Distraction recognition ·Emergency stop signal ·Intelligent speed assistance ·Tyre pressure monitoring system ·Event (accident) data recorder 1.15.Measures to completely avoid accidents, to reduce the overall severity of accidents or to mitigate the outcome of injuries that result from impacts between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists 5.Pedestrian and cyclist protection when hit by front-of-vehicle This specific aspect is currently regulated for LDV through Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, along with its implementing measures. More recently these requirements have been harmonised on UNECE level, with some adaptation to technical progress, under UNECE regulation No 127. The EU legislation, and rather preferably also the UNECE legislation in order to facilitate future simplification, should be revised to enlarge the current head impact zone as supported by EU accident data, to achieve that the risk of severe head injuries of pedestrians and cyclists is reduced by means of improved energy absorbing measures integrated in a bigger overall head contact zone, notably including the front windscreen area between the A-pillars. ·Action to be considered: adding head impact area covering the windscreen area of motor-vehicles This Impact Assessment also reviews possible new vehicle safety measures addressing front-of-vehicle collisions with vulnerable road users. Several of these measures revolve around an active intervention by vehicle systems or a general aim to either avoid collisions with vulnerable road users altogether or to mitigate accident outcome in terms of vulnerable road user injury levels. Other measures have the potential to reduce the overall risk of a collision. Autonomous emergency braking for pedestrians and cyclists is a new vehicle safety measure that combines sensing of vulnerable road users ahead of the vehicle with the automatic activation of the brakes (without driver input) in order to completely stop the vehicle before the collision occurs or to reduce the impact speed. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of autonomous emergency braking for pedestrians and cyclists It is noted that while autonomous emergency braking (for vehicles ahead) is already compulsory on buses and trucks, the relevant implementing legislation should be adapted to technical progress by adding pedestrian and cyclist detection capability as well. Vulnerable road user detection and warning on front (and side) of vehicle is a new vehicle safety measure that uses sensing detection or camera monitor solutions to specifically draw the attention of the driver if necessary and to clearly indicate the presence and the location of a vulnerable road user in or about to be in the vehicle path where a collision is likely to occur if the driver does not take any countermeasures. According to EU accident data, the system should in particular indicate the presence of a pedestrian, and to some extent cyclists, either visible or invisible to the driver when crossing the motor-vehicle relatively close to its front edge when the vehicle is about to take-off, for instance for a truck stopped at a zebra crossing. This measure is aimed to avoid collisions with persons, but without active intervention by the system itself. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of vulnerable road user detection and warning on front (and side) of vehicle Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position is a new vehicle safety measure geared towards enlarging the field of vision of drivers in bus and truck cabs. Assuming that the driver is aware of the presence of a vulnerable road user in front of the vehicle, or his or her attention has been drawn to that fact, the effectiveness relies on the direct visual confirmation by the driver that can take the appropriate counter measures to avoid a collision with the person. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position In line with section 5.1.1. the following are further new vehicle safety measures for review that also has a significant potential to completely avoid front-of-vehicle collisions with a pedestrian or cyclist or to mitigate injury outcome. Other measures have the potential to reduce the overall risk of a front-of-vehicle collision with a vulnerable road user or to help measure advanced safety system effectiveness: ·Alcohol interlock installation facilitation

·Drowsiness and attention detection ·Distraction recognition ·Intelligent speed assistance ·Lane keeping assist ·Event (accident) data recorder 6.Pedestrian and cyclist protection when hit by side-of-vehicle There are no measures currently at our disposal that should be amended to reach this specific sub-objective. Review of possible new vehicle safety measures addressing side-of-vehicle collisions with vulnerable road users: Vulnerable road user detection and warning on (front and) side of vehicle is a new vehicle safety measure, as described in chapter 5.2. EU accident data in this case supports that cyclists, and to some extent pedestrians, should be detected at the side of the vehicle when it is making a turn towards the driver’s far-side and a collision is about to occur, for instance a cyclist riding along the side of a truck in the blind spot. This measure is aimed to avoid collisions with persons, but without active intervention by the system itself. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of vulnerable road user detection and warning on (front and) side of vehicle Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position is a new vehicle safety measure, as described in chapter 5.2. for the presence of a vulnerable road user on the side of the vehicle, or his or her attention has been drawn to that fact, the effectiveness relies on the direct visual confirmation by the driver that can take the appropriate counter measures to avoid a collision with the person. ·Action to be considered: mandatory application of vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position Review of further new vehicle safety measures and opportunities having a significant potential to address side-of-vehicle collisions with vulnerable road users: ·Alcohol interlock installation facilitation ·Drowsiness and attention detection ·Distraction recognition ·Intelligent speed assistance 7.Pedestrian and cyclist protection when hit by rear-of-vehicle There are no measures currently at our disposal that should be amended to reach this specific sub-objective. Review of possible new vehicle safety measures addressing rear-of-vehicle collisions with vulnerable road users:

Reversing camera or detection system is a new vehicle safety measure that uses camera monitor or sensing systems that should increase the view of drivers or otherwise warn them of persons behind reversing vehicles. Particularly vulnerable in this context are short, crouching or slow moving people, such as the elderly and children. The system should in particular indicate presence of a vulnerable road user, either (indirectly) visible or invisible to the driver when reversing, but without active intervention by the system itself. Review of further new vehicle safety measures and opportunities having a significant potential to address rear-of-vehicle collisions with vulnerable road users: ·Alcohol interlock installation facilitation ·Event (accident) data recorder 1.16.Policy option “Baseline” This is the option whereby the EU would not undertake any new action. In line with the standards of the Commission, it is assumed that no actions other than those already initiated would take place, including the adaptation to technical progress of measures currently in force, as is common practise today. The baseline scenario also takes into account the dispersed voluntary uptake of available safety technologies by vehicle manufacturers, for instance with the aim to obtain favourable reviews and ratings in new car assessment programs such as Euro NCAP. It is understood that the baseline scenario provides for a wide range between pessimistic and optimistic outlooks. In this initiative however, we have adopted a conservative approach by selecting the medium effectiveness in assuming that the other sectors, for different political reasons, will take initiatives to improve road safety at local, national and Union level where this could be applicable. 1.17.Policy options “Regulatory approach” to prevent road accidents or to mitigate the outcome of accidents Based on the preparatory work carried out to support the Report on “Saving lives: Boosting Car Safety in the EU”, and in particular the consideration of the initial and subsequent in depth cost-benefit indicators, a comprehensive list of proposed vehicle safety measures is considered for implementation ( Table 1 ). The elimination of exemptions that currently exist for front, side and rear impact should be considered as well. Note that trailers and semi-trailers of categories O3 and O4 are to be considered as part of the overall motor-vehicle combination according to EU accident data and that no further distinction is made. Measure Description Applicable vehicle categories Passenger cars Light commercial vehicles Buses Trucks and trailers AEB-VEH Autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead M1 N1 AEB-PCD Autonomous emergency braking for pedestrians and cyclists M1 N1 ALC Alcohol interlock installation facilitation M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 DDR-DAD Drowsiness and attention detection M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 DDR-ADR Distraction recognition M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 EDR Event (accident) data recorder M1 N1 ESS Emergency stop signal M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 FFW-137 Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test M1 N1 FFW-THO Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test with advanced measuring dummy and lower appropriate injury criteria thresholds to encourage adaptive restraints M1 N1 HED-MGI Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrian and cyclist protection (to include the windscreen area) M1 N1 ISA-VOL Intelligent speed assistance (through non-intrusive haptic feedback) M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 LKA-ELK Lane keeping assist (emergency lane keeping system that intervenes only in case of an imminent threat such as leaving the road, or leaving the lane with oncoming traffic) M1 N1 PSI Pole side impact occupant protection M1 N1 REV Reversing camera or detection system M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 TPM Tyre pressure monitoring system N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 VIS-DET Vulnerable road user detection and warning on front and side of vehicle M2 & M3 N2 & N3 VIS-DIV Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position M2 & M3 N2 & N3 The cost-effectiveness analysis also specifically takes into account existing mandatory measures and, in particular those that are still dispersing into the fleet. These will continue to contribute to casualty reductions in the real world in the future and, thus, effectively reduce the target populations for some of the proposed measures (see Table 2 ). Measure Description Applicable vehicle categories Passenger cars Light commercial vehicles Buses Trucks and trailers AEB-VEH Autonomous emergency braking for vehicles M2 & M3 N2 & N3 ESC Electronic stability control M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 LDW Lane departure warning M2 & M3 N2 & N3 TPM Tyre pressure monitoring system M1 Three policy options to be taken into consideration for the cost-benefit analysis have been defined. These policy options reflect a specific selection of new safety measures to be implemented for a given vehicle category on a mandatory basis, as established for all vehicle categories. The options are distinguished primarily by the level of ambition. They are separated on the following basis: −First, by containing a set of state-of-the art measures that that can already be found on 5% to 90% of all new cars sold today depending on the technology and the vehicle category; −Second, by, in addition, containing safety measures that are somewhat less frequently fitted to current vehicle models and that may require a longer development lead-time for the other vehicle models to be also enabled; and

−Third, by considering the above plus maximising the overall casualty savings spread over all vehicle categories, while also promoting innovation in terms of vehicle safety solutions designed to address driver behaviour in terms of modern-day distraction sources and lack of effort or inability to continuously check vehicle state or the surroundings. 8.Design of options and timeframe for implementation The options distinguish in terms of ambition as well as efforts needed and technological readiness of safety features. The first option can be quickly and easily implemented by manufacturers. The second option requires more R&D effort and engineering solutions for a robust integration. The third option needs considerably more R&D effort and innovation. In order to calculate the cost-benefits, the envisioned mandatory introduction date of each separate measure has been taken into account. These dates have a significant influence on the short and long term effectiveness. They have however been selected purely taking into account in particular the readiness of potential technical solutions in the marketplace, according to broad stakeholder input. Further such input was provided specifically linked to the anticipated relative burden to the vehicle industry and in particular the effort that is needed to further optimise the technical solutions as indicated by manufacturers and suppliers. For example, some technologies that have been chosen by manufacturers and suppliers to address a given safety issue, as recognised in the stakeholder dialogue, can benefit from a more robust performance for which more field-data and real-world experience is necessary. A longer lead-time will provide manufacturers appropriate additional time to achieve that. This also allows them to investigate potential alternative solutions if that would be more appropriate. The dates that have finally been selected are fully in line with the agreed CARS21 principles as endorsed and promoted by the Commission. This has in particular also been a clear and firm request by the vehicle manufacturers in the context of the consultations and in their various position papers. Finally, in the context of the UNECE ‘Revised 1958 Agreement’, the dates are set to the 1st of September of a given year aligning with general implementation dates following the agreed principle for UNECE regulations. This avoids the situation for manufacturers to introduce so-called ‘running changes’ in the production process but rather to anticipate on several vehicle changes in one single model year update, as is the industry practise. The mandatory introduction dates are grouped into three main timeframes, where new vehicle types (i.e. entirely new vehicle models introduced on the EU market) will have to comply with the new requirements at a first stage, followed by all vehicles sold on the EU market, in particular those that were introduced on the market before the ‘new vehicle type’ date, at a second stage: •From 1 September 2021 to 1 September 2023: This timeframe is applicable to the bulk of possible new vehicle safety features (in total 13 features), which represent ‘add-on’ solutions that are already available on vehicles in the marketplace and will become standard equipment for all vehicles. •From 1 September 2023 to 1 September 2025: This timeframe concerns 3 features, for which still a significant effort of further development and evaluation is needed beyond the start date of the first timeframe in order to ensure that technical solutions can deliver the expected effectiveness. •From 1 September 2025: This longer timeframe is provided only for 1 feature, namely the improved direct vision from driver's position for HDVs, which will require significant investment, re-design and changes of the cabins. The mandatory compliance date for new vehicle types remains open to avoid disproportionate and not cost-effective phase-out complications for vehicle manufacturers. 9.Policy option 1: Generalisation of mature and widely available safety features State-of-the-art and widely available package of safety measure solutions that are not yet mandatory in the EU and their fitment varies from around 5 to 90% on newly sold vehicles at present (see Table 3 ) as well as the elimination of the exemptions linked to SUVs and vans. Measure Description Applicable vehicle categories Passenger cars Light commercial vehicles Buses Trucks and trailers M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 AEB-VEH Autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead 9/2021 9/2021 AEB-PCD Autonomous emergency braking for pedestrians and cyclists - - ALC Alcohol interlock installation facilitation 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 DDR-DAD Drowsiness and attention detection - - - - DDR-ADR Distraction recognition - - - - EDR Event (accident) data recorder 9/2021 9/2021 ESS Emergency stop signal 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 FFW-137 Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test 9/2021 - FFW-THO Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test with advanced measuring dummy and lower appropriate injury criteria thresholds to encourage adaptive restraints - - HED-MGI Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrian and cyclist protection (to include the windscreen area) - - ISA-VOL Intelligent speed assistance (through non-intrusive haptic feedback) - - - - LKA-ELK Lane keeping assist (emergency lane keeping system that intervenes only in case of an imminent threat such as leaving the road, or leaving the lane with oncoming traffic) 9/2021 9/2021 PSI Pole side impact occupant protection 9/2021 - REV Reversing camera or detection system - - - - TPM Tyre pressure monitoring system - - - VIS-DET Vulnerable road user detection and warning on front and side of vehicle - - VIS-DIV Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position - - Benefit-to-cost ratio 2.95 1.78 4.64 0.56 Total cost per vehicle € 201 € 131 € 6 € 6 Fatalities prevented 13 785 852 2 0 Severe injuries prevented 63 493 4 074 33 47 Slight injuries prevented 276 815 11 208 113 157 10.Policy option 2: Introducing widely available and less commonly available safety features as standard equipment In addition to PO1, this option includes features that are currently also available and fitted to the vehicle fleet, but which are less common and need more time to fully mature for all vehicle categories and market segments. It also contains measures ensuring driver attention to the driving task and with an overall view on cost effectiveness (see Table 4 ). Measure Description Applicable vehicle categories Passenger cars Light commercial vehicles Buses Trucks and trailers M1 N1 M2 & M3 N2 & N3 AEB-VEH Autonomous emergency braking for driving and still-standing vehicles ahead 9/2021 9/2021 AEB-PCD Autonomous emergency braking for pedestrians and cyclists 9/2023 9/2023 ALC Alcohol interlock installation facilitation 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 DDR-DAD Drowsiness and attention detection 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 DDR-ADR Distraction recognition - - - - EDR Event (accident) data recorder 9/2021 9/2021 ESS Emergency stop signal 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 9/2021 FFW-137 Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test 9/2021 - FFW-THO Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test with advanced measuring dummy and lower appropriate injury criteria thresholds to encourage adaptive restraints 9/2021 - HED-MGI Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrian and cyclist protection (to include the windscreen area) 9/2023 9/2023 ISA-VOL Intelligent speed assistance (through non-intrusive haptic feedback) 9/2021 - 9/2021 9/2021 LKA-ELK Lane keeping assist (emergency lane keeping system that intervenes only in case of an imminent threat such as leaving the road, or leaving the lane with oncoming traffic) 9/2021 9/2021 PSI Pole side impact occupant protection 9/2021 - REV Reversing camera or detection system - - - - TPM Tyre pressure monitoring system - - - VIS-DET Vulnerable road user detection and warning on front and side of vehicle 9/2021 9/2021 VIS-DIV Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from driver’s position 9/2025 9/2025 Benefit-to-cost ratio 2.14 1.35 3.11 1.52 Total cost per vehicle € 360 € 206 € 607 € 607 Fatalities prevented 20 081 1 005 207 1 658 Severe injuries prevented 107 913 5 068 2 064 3 888 Slight injuries prevented 389 756 15 536 6 421 9 849 11.Policy option 3: Introduction of a full set of safety features boosting innovation

As PO2, plus additional safety