HC Deb 13 November 2001 vol 374 cc611-3W
Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the results were of the European new car assessment pedestrian tests based on EEVC Working Group 10 tests. [13419]

Mr. Jamieson

Since the European new car assessment programme was established in 1997, three cars have obtained a three-star rating for pedestrian protection using tests based on the EEVC WG10 proposals; 65 have obtained two stars and 14 have obtained one star.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will publish the advice available to him from the Transport Research Laboratory on the effects of Phase One of the draft negotiated agreement on pedestrian protection of comparative(a) the bumper test on disabling knee injuries, (b) the head impact test and the proportion of the bonnet area untested or unprotected, (c) the absence of a bonnet leading edge test and femur or pelvic fractures and (d) the influence on car design and effective protection for pedestrians; [13392]

(2) if he will outline the scientific research concerning the 21 degree knee bending angle in the Phase 1 leg protection tests in the draft negotiated pedestrian protection agreement; and if he will publish the Transport Research Laboratory's opinion on the consequences for injury generation. [13391]

Mr. Jamieson

TRL has given only informal advice to my Department on these issues, other than its letter formally responding to our recent consultation exercise on pedestrian protection. A summary of this, and other responses received. has been placed in the House Library. Copies of the full responses can be seen at the DTLR Library. Our understanding of TRL's views, both formal and informal, are as follows:

Bumper test: It is likely that, for some struck pedestrians, the proposed 21 degree bending angle for phase one might encourage technical designs that would cause permanent disabling injuries rather than injuries that will heal without disablement. The TRL view is that, because the whole package, including phase two, will result in considerable overall benefits, the opportunity to have pedestrian protection on vehicles should not be put at risk over this issue.

Head impact test: In the Negotiated Agreement two thirds of the bonnet area would have to meet a HIC limit of 1000; the head protection level normally associated with occupant protection. The other one third could have a HIC limit of 2000. This carries a higher risk of injury. However, it is likely that a combination of manufacturers aiming for better standards in production, and the impossibility of designing a bonnet in practice that has a step change such that it only just met the higher level over the whole one third, means that the average level in that zone would probably be midway between a HIC of 1000 and a HIC of 2000.

In phase one, the adult area will be tested with a child headform. Despite this, the additional protection would still be of benefits to adults in many accidents. However, in some adult accidents the bonnet will be too soft, with a risk of pushing it down on to immovable underlying components.

Bonnet leading edge test: There has been a long term trend towards more streamlined vehicles which has helped reduce femur and pelvic injuries, and this is the lowest priority of the EEVC tests. However, there is a possibility that manufacturers may raise or stiffen the bonnet leading edge to help gain better performance in the legform test; this would increase the risk of femur and pelvis injuries. The current inclusion of the test with performance targets in phase one of the negotiated agreement would allow such a trend to be monitored if it were to occur.

The influence of car design: The effect of the long term change in style towards more streamlined shapes is mentioned above. Also, in TRL's view, designing the bonnet area that is likely to be hit by the adult head using the phase one headform will not help the development of design solutions to meet the adult head requirements of phase two.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if active pedestrian protection measures offered by car manufacturers are compatible with each of the choices of passive measures under consideration by COREPER and the Council of Ministers. [13387]

Mr. Jamieson

Active protection measures are intended to help reduce the likelihood of accidents whereas secondary safety measures reduce the consequences. There is no fundamental incompatibility; indeed, both approaches contribute to improvements in road safety today.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in what year the experimental safety vehicle of the Transport Research Laboratory demonstrated the feasibility of meeting the EEVC Working Group 10 pedestrian sub-system test requirements; and who funded this research. [13388]

Mr. Jamieson

The experimental safety vehicle, a Metro with modifications funded by the Department, was shown at a conference in 1985. However, this car was produced before Working Group 10 existed, and its effectiveness was tested using child and adult pedestrian dummies rather than the WG 10 sub-system tests.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in what year in-depth pedestrian accident research work started at the Transport Research Laboratory in contributing to the research EEVC pedestrian protection work; and who funded this research. [13389]

Mr. Jamieson

The Transport Research Laboratory has been contributing to the European pedestrian protection considerations since the 1970s. This early work was funded by the Department of Transport.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government first proposed to the European Commission that a directive on safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists should be introduced. [13418]

Mr. Jamieson

Formal requests to make car fronts safer for pedestrians were made in 1991 through the UK's involvement in the EEVC.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the ability of the European car industry to achieve working group 17 pedestrian tests requirements at an early date. [13421]

Mr. Jamieson

We have not made a specific assessment of this. However, it is clear that industry continues to see difficulty in meeting the full EEVC criteria as a universal requirement for cars at an early date.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the pedestrian fatality reduction potential of the Phase I tests in the draft negotiated agreement as a percentage of the potential in the EEVC Working Group 17; and what assessment he has made of the ability of the draft negotiated agreement to meet the level of protection in the harmonisation process required by the Treaty of European Union. [13390]

Mr. Jamieson

It is estimated that Phase 1 would deliver a benefit of around 25 per cent. for fatal injuries and 60 per cent. for serious injuries, relative to the Phase 2 levels associated with the EEVC WG 17 requirements. The negotiated agreement is likely to start delivering two years earlier than a directive. which would itself be likely to be phased.

Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions how it is intended that the car industry will work to agreed longer-term targets for pedestrian protection if Phase 2 of the draft negotiated agreement is not specified with Phase 1. [13420]

Mr. Jamieson

Phase 1 and Phase 2 are both specified in the negotiated agreement.

I am satisfied that the technical requirements of the first phase will be operated in a flexible manner, which will allow manufacturers to deliver cars in Phase 1 which incorporate techniques more appropriate for meeting the Phase 2 levels. This will address one of the concerns raised by TRL and others about the headform test in Phase 1.