Chapter 6 Vehicle Design

The third term of reference required the Committee to consider countermeasures used in Victoria, Australia and other comparable overseas jurisdictions with the aim of reducing the number and severity of pedestrian crashes. Vehicle design was one issue the Committee was required to consider.

Vehicle Design Standards are a Federal Government responsibility. Under the Commonwealth Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989, all vehicles must comply with Australian Design Rules (ADRs) before a vehicle can be released onto the market.²⁵² The ADRs are managed by the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) and the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC).²⁵³

Victorian authorities cannot change vehicle design standards but the Committee can make recommendations about those standards. Therefore, the Committee examined vehicle design in light of research conducted both locally and overseas to ascertain what measures are available to protect pedestrians. The Committee also examined bullbars and school bus safety.

Research by FORS in 1996 found that 84% of pedestrians are struck by the front of the vehicle and in 94% of cases a pedestrian is thrown over or to the side of the vehicle on impact.²⁵⁴

A report by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide, for FORS in 1996 states:

Contrary to popular belief, pedestrians are run under by a striking car, rather than run over. This means that the shape and energy-absorbing properties of the bumper and the upper surface of the front of the car are the direct cause of injury to the legs and head of the pedestrian. In general, injuries resulting from being thrown to the road after being struck by a car are not as severe as the injuries due to the impact with the car itself.255

The Committee found that approximately two-thirds of pedestrian deaths are from head injuries.²⁵⁶ In discussions with FORS, the Committee heard that the shape of the front of the vehicle determines how a struck pedestrian lands on the bonnet and the type of injuries they may sustain.²⁵⁷

Tests in Europe have shown that:

... under-bonnet structures (such as strut towers and engine parts) are a critical factor in the severity of head impacts.258

Clearly then, injuries and disabilities could be reduced by designing pedestrian-friendly vehicles and incorporating them in the design standards.

Currently there are no ADRs covering pedestrian safety, with the exception of ADR 42.9 which refers to the shape and function of internal or external attachments. These rules however do not regulate the shape and stiffness of the front of the vehicle.²⁵⁹

Frontal Impact Protection

Improvements to the fronts of passenger vehicles, with the aim of reducing pedestrian injuries, are technically feasible. Research in the UK suggests that:

... better car design would result in a reduction of 7 per cent in fatalities and 21 per cent in seriously injured casualties in the European Community.260

The European Experimental Vehicle Committee (EEVC) has developed a draft standard for pedestrian impact performance in relation to the bumper, bonnet leading edge and bonnet top surface.²⁶¹ The aim of the standard is to reduce the injury severity to the pedestrian by making the front and bonnet of the vehicle more energy absorbing.

Australia is participating in the work of the EEVC as part of the International Harmonised Research Agenda. FORS believes that by incorporating established international best practises and harmonising standards the Australian automotive industry will be able to export its vehicles to overseas markets with fewer restraints.²⁶²

Where international standards do not exist Australia, along with countries such as Japan and the United States, work together on common, long-term strategic aims to develop globally harmonised standards.²⁶³

The Australian research on frontal impact protection for pedestrians is being conducted for FORS by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide. In discussions with FORS the Committee found that the tests involve assessing the front structure of passenger vehicles to ascertain how friendly or otherwise it is to various parts of the human body, particularly the head.²⁶⁴

Given the small size of the vehicle market in Australia and the aim to export more vehicles - while more imported vehicles are continuing to enter the country - the Committee considers it sensible that all vehicles meet the same world-wide standards.

Removing discrepancies between the Australian Design Rules and those overseas not only benefits Australian road users but saves exporters between 5% - 10% in costs when entering overseas markets for the first time, as their vehicles will not need to be tested to ensure compliance with overseas standards.²⁶⁵

The proposed regulations are currently before the European Parliament. Differences in a number of cost-benefit analyses resulted in a delay of regulations being processed. Three major research institutes, one each in England, Germany and Denmark have all conducted studies in this area and determined:

... a benefit-cost ratio of between 4.3:1 to 7.5:1, that is a greater benefit than cost. The industry study conducted by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) shows a ratio of 57:1, or a much greater cost than benefit.266

Honda Japan are trying to reduce injury severity by making the bonnet and front pillars more energy absorbing. The new design features will be standard on the next generation of Japanese cars and because of the high turnover of their car fleet, it is estimated that the benefits of the new design will be evidenced by lower pedestrian and cyclist crashes by 2002.²⁶⁷

The Committee considers the work of the EEVC to be vitally important in reducing pedestrian injury severity. The recommendations emanating from the research being conducted at Adelaide University should be adopted as an ADR.

The Committee recommends that VicRoads encourage the research conducted by FORS and the NRTC to develop ADRs and design standards that will help to reduce the injury severity of pedestrians.

A bull bar is designed to protect the vehicle from impact if it collides with an animal. Most bull bars are made from either aluminium or steel.

A FORS publication in 1996 regarding pedestrian fatalities in Australia stated that of all pedestrian fatalities:

• 64% were struck by cars
• 14% were struck by vans, utilities and four-wheel-drives.²⁶⁸

Four-wheel-drives and most vans and utilities have a bull bar attached at the front of the vehicle and in recent times there has been an increase in demand for bull bars.

However it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which bull bars are involved in pedestrian crashes or indeed if they are the cause of death in pedestrian fatalities. The same FORS publication states:

Bull bars were involved in 12 per cent of fatal pedestrian crashes. However, the proportion of missing data for this variable is 55 per cent of the total cases. It is probable that bull bars are involved in up to 20 per cent of pedestrian fatalities.269

While bull bars were not identified as the cause of death, but rather as "involved" in crashes, the Committee pondered whether the outcome would have been different if a bull bar was not fitted to the vehicle and whether the research on frontal injury protection includes higher, more rigid four-wheel-drives?

VicRoads in their submission quote research conducted on the trajectory of the pedestrian after being struck by a vehicle and the relativity to injuries the pedestrian will suffer as a result. The research shows:

... it is better to be `run under' rather than be `run over'. The front of a modern passenger car is designed to optimise the trajectory and to provide soft impact areas to minimise head and upper and lower leg injuries. The fitting of a bullbar usually presents smaller, more rigid contact surfaces and can substantially influence injuries to a struck pedestrian.270

The 1996 NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit report states:

When fitted to a 4wd the upper bars are at about head height for some children and pelvis/upper leg height or higher for an adult pedestrian. 271

Therefore, a young child of about 122cm in height, if struck by a vehicle with a bull bar is likely to suffer head injuries. While extensive tests have not been conducted regarding adults and bull bars, an adult struck by a bull bar will have their centre of gravity altered which would cause the pedestrian to "fold hard around the bar" compared to being thrown onto the bonnet.²⁷²

Studies conducted in England on a four-wheel-drive showed that:

... although tests on the vehicle with and without a crash bar fitted both resulted in an unacceptably high risk of injury to a pedestrian, it would be feasible to modify the vehicle so as to bring this risk within the acceptable range.273

Professor A. J. McLean; Director, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit informed the Committee of a new type of bull bar that his unit had been testing on behalf of the manufacturer. These bull bars are made from polyethylene. The tests compared the new bull bar with aluminium and steel bars and the effect it would have when striking a child about 122cm in height.

The results showed that the polyethylene bar "performed better than the other bull-bars".²⁷⁴

The Committee is of the view that considerably more work needs to be conducted with regard to bull bars, but is encouraged to see that safer alternatives appear to exist. There should be more rigorous testing of this type of bull bar and if it is as safe as preliminary tests suggest it should be widely promoted as a preferred product.

Research presented to the Committee found that travelling on a school bus is much safer than travelling in a car. A child travelling to school by car is seven times more likely to be killed or injured than when travelling on a bus.²⁷⁵

However, crashes involving children tend to occur outside and around school buses. In their submission VicRoads informed the Committee that in 1997 four Victorian school children were killed after alighting from a bus.²⁷⁶ While this was an unusual occurrence when compared to the previous five years where there were no fatalities, fourteen children had been injured in the same five year period.²⁷⁷

The most common types of crashes involving children and school buses are:

• A child darting out in front of the bus and colliding with either the bus or vehicle attempting to overtake the bus, or
  
• A child darting out onto the road from behind the bus and colliding with vehicle passing or following the bus.²⁷⁸

Most bus related crashes occur in outer metropolitan, rural or regional Victorian centres where:

... bus travel is a common means of transport to school, and where other road traffic can be infrequent and speeds can be very high.279

The Transport (Passenger Vehicle) Regulations 1994 specify that when an omnibus is used for the purpose of picking up or setting down children, the omnibus is required to have a hazard warning device that is activated when the omnibus is stationary. These warning devices are flashing lights at the front and rear of the bus.²⁸⁰

Signs are also required to indicate the vehicle is a school bus when used solely for the carriage of school students.²⁸¹

The Committee examined what is occurring elsewhere to determine whether measures used in Victoria are appropriate.

In their submission, The Association of School Councils in Victoria (ASCV) identified what is occurring in the United States, where considerable measures have been put in place to help reduce the incidence of child crashes around buses. ²⁸²

Countermeasures include:

• Accident prone bus stops are identified and monitored. Parents travel on buses to assess danger areas
  
• Buses are fitted with "pop-out" stop signs and red flashing lights that operate when the bus is stopped
  
• School buses are painted a glossy yellow to assist in their visibility
  
• Some states require traffic to stop when a stationary bus has its red lights flashing
  
• There are designated areas, marked by painted lines on the footpath, which are waiting areas. Children are taught to wait inside this area until the bus has left
  
• Pop-out "boom gates" are also in use in some states.²⁸³

The ASCV also reported on New South Wales trialing "boom gates" on twenty buses in Newcastle. During the trial the buses were fitted with illuminated signs and drivers slowed to 40 km/h near school premises. ²⁸⁴

Aside from the New South Wales trial, the Committee found variances exist between the states.

Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia require school buses to have flashing lights – activated when the bus is stopped – though the Queensland lights are different from the other two states. In Tasmania drivers are obliged to slow to 40 km/h when the lights are flashing.²⁸⁵

South Australia are considering the use of flashing lights. Vehicles passing school buses at bus stops are required to slow to 25 km/h.²⁸⁶

The NRTC has developed voluntary Australian Vehicles Standard for lights and signage for use on school buses. The Committee is of the view that this standard should be the hazard warning device that is required under the Transport Regulations.

The Committee was pleased to learn that the 1999 Victorian State Budget has allocated $14.5m for school bus safety improvements over the next four years. Improvements include installing flashing lights, emergency two-way communication equipment and first aid training and kits for all school bus drivers.²⁸⁷

The Committee considers that children and carers need to be educated about the dangers of crossing the road while the bus is still stationary.

Young children are more vulnerable in the afternoon when they are tired after a long day at school. Carers collecting children from bus stops should be made aware of this and taught to pick up the children from the bus stop itself, not asking them to cross the road to where they have parked the car and are waiting.

A driver's line of sight is diminished by a large bus and a child darting across from behind or in front of the bus cannot be seen. Drivers too should be educated to slow down and take more care around stationary buses.

Bus stops should be located in safe places, particularly in rural areas. Where possible the bus stops should be off the main carriageway in an area similar to a rest stop. This would allow parents/carers to park off the highway and collect the children in a safer environment.

The Committee considers that if these measures were implemented the problem of children being struck around school buses would be reduced.

The Committee considers that any work in vehicle design which aims to reduce the injury severity to pedestrians is vitally important. To this end the work of the EEVC and Adelaide University should be monitored. The recommendations emanating from the research being conducted at Adelaide University should be adopted as an ADR.

Bull bars appear to be a very dangerous appendage to vehicles, however considerably more work needs to be conducted with regards to bull bars to ascertain their level of involvement in crashes.

The Committee is encouraged to see that Australians manufacturers are producing alternative bull bars to replace the more rigid and dangerous aluminium and steel bars. Comprehensive rigorous testing of this type of bull bar should be conducted and if found to be as safe as preliminary tests suggest it should be widely promoted as a preferred product.

The issue of children's safety around buses is an emotional one. Nonetheless, the Committee considers that a few simple measures can be implemented to lessen the problem.

The NRTC has developed a standard for lights and signage for use on school buses. These measures will assist drivers to be more aware of school buses and drive more appropriately.

Young children are more vulnerable in the afternoon when they are tired after a long day at school. Carers collecting the children from the bus stop should be made aware of this and be more vigilant when collecting the child from the bus stop. They need to be educated to pick up children from the bus stop itself and not expect children to cross the road to where they have parked their car.

A driver's line of sight is diminished by a large bus and a child darting across from behind or in front of the bus cannot be seen. Drivers should also be educated to slow down and take more care around stationary school buses.

Bus stops should be located in safe places, particularly in rural areas. Where possible the bus stops should be off the main carriageway in an area similar to a rest stop. This would allow parents/carers to park off the highway and collect the children in a safer environment.

The Committee considers that if these measures are implemented, the problem of children being struck around school buses would be diminished.

Recommendations

19.	That VicRoads encourages research conducted by the Federal Office of Road Safety and the National Road Transport Commission to develop Australian Design Rules and design standards that will help to reduce injury severity to pedestrians.
20.	That research be conducted on bull bars to ascertain their level of involvement in pedestrian crashes.
21.	That children, carers and bus drivers be educated in safer behaviour around school buses.

 

Last update January 11, 2002
Copyright & Disclaimer | Privacy