Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact pp 171–208Cite as

The Influence of Vehicle Design on Pedestrian and Cyclist Injuries

  • Chapter

  • 1585 Accesses

Part of the book series: Solid Mechanics and Its Applications ((SMIA,volume 166))

Despite a popular view that pedestrian and cyclist safety cannot be significantly improved due to the mass and stiffness disparity between unprotected humans and mo-torised vehicles [1, 2], researchers have known since the 1970s that vehicle design has a significant effect on the severity and distribution of pedestrian injuries arising from vehicle impact [3–7]. Since then, hundreds of articles have addressed this topic. In contrast, there has been far less focus on the influence of vehicle design on cyclist injuries and although it is possible that there are some conflicting requirements for cyclist safety compared to pedestrian safety [8], the more general consensus is that pedestrian friendly measures on car fronts will also reduce injuries to cyclists [9]. In this chapter the focus is therefore on the influence of vehicle shape on pedestrian injuries but, where cyclist specific research findings are available, references to cyclists are made. The most established findings on vehicle design are presented with frequent reference to the injury data (Chapter 2), the impact kinematics (Chapter 3), injury criteria (Chapter 5), and the fundamental impact theory (Chapter 7) and modelling methods from the literaure (Chapter 8) are used to demonstrate research findings. The chapter concludes with a description of the current state-of-the-art of pedestrian protection as assessed using the pedestrian subsystem impactors (Chapter 6).

Real-world vehicle pedestrian accidents range from large trucks striking young children to compact city cars striking large adults, and assessment of vehicle design for pedestrian safety must take account of this variability. This will be done by defining the principal vehicle related geometric parameters (bumper and bonnet leading edge height etc) relative to the height of critical anatomical landmarks (knee, hip, etc.) for a standing pedestrian.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Crandall, J., Bhalla, K., and Madeley, N., Designing road vehicles for pedestrian protection. British Medical Journal 324, 1145–1148, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wakefield, H.. Systematic automobile design for pedestrian injury prevention. In Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 193–218, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ashton, S. and Mackay, G., Car design for pedestrian injury minimisation. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, Paris, pp. 630–640, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashton, S., Factors associated with pelvic and knee injuries in pedestrians struck by the front of cars. In SAE Conference, Detroit, pp. 863–900, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher, A. and Hall, R., The influence of car frontal design on pedestrian accident trauma. Accident Analysis and Prevention 4, 47–58, 1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pritz, H., Hassler, C., Herridge, J., and Weis, E.J., Experimental study of pedestrian injury minimisation through vehicle design. In Society of Automotive Engineers, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ashton, S., Factors associated with pelvic and knee injuries in pedestrians struck by the front of cars. In Society of Automotive Engineers, Illinois, SAE Paper No. 811026, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kampen, L., Cost benefit study concerning car front impact requirements to increase the crash safety of pedestrians and cyclists. SWOV, The Netherlands, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. UNECE, Pedestrian protection in Europe, the potential of car design and impact testing. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mizuno, Y., Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety working group activities — Proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection offered by passenger cars. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, Washington, ESV Paper No. 05-0138-O, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liu, X., Yang, J., and Lovsund, P., A study of influences of vehicle speed and front structure on pedestrian impact responses using mathematical models. Traffic Injury Prevention 3, 31–42, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Snedeker, J., Walz, F., Muser, M., and Lanz, C., Assessing femur and pelvis injury risk in current pedestrian collisions: Comparison of full-bodied PMTO impacts, and a human body finite element model. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-103, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pheasant, S. and Haslegrave, C., Bodyspace — Anthropmetry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work. Taylor and Francis, London, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Otte, D., Injury mechanism and crash kinematics of cyclists in accidents — An analysis of real accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 892425, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stuertz, G. and Suren, E., Kinematics of real pedestrian and two wheel rider accidents and special aspects of the pedestrian accident. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 1–23, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ashton, S. and Mackay, G., Benefits from changes in vehicle exterior design: Field accident and experimental work in Europe. In Society of Atomotive Engineers, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ashton, S., Pedder, J., and Mackay, G., Pedestrian head injuries. In AAAM, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 237–244, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Svoboda, J. and Cizek, V., Pedestrian-vehicle collision: Vehicle design analysis. In Society for Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2003-01-0896, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. MacLaughlin, T. and Kessler, J., Pedestrian head impact against the Central hood of motor vehicles –Test procedure and results. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 902315, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mizuno, K. and Kajzer, J., Head injuries in vehicle pedestrian impact. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2000-01-0157, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ballesteros, M., Dischinger, P., and Langenberg, P., Pedestrian injuries and vehicle type in Maryland, 1995–1999. Accident Analysis and Prevention 36(1), 73–81, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Simms, C. and Wood, D., Pedestrian risk from cars and sport utility vehicles — A comparative analytical study. IMechE Journal of Automobile Engineering 220, 1085–1100, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mizuno, K. and Kajzer, J., Compatibility problems in frontal, side, single car collisions and car to pedestrian accidents in Japan. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31(4), 381–391, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lefler, D.E. and Gabler, H.C., The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention 36(2), 295–304, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martinez, L., Guerra, L., Ferichola, G., Garcia, A., and Yang, J., Stiffness corridors of the European fleet for pedestrian simulation. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0267, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kalliske, I. and Friesen, F., Improvements to pedestrian protection as exemplified on a standard sized car. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 283, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McClean, A., Pedestrian Friendly Vehicle Front Structures: A Review of the Research Literature. Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Konosu, A., Takahiro, I., and Tanahashi, M., Development of the pedestrian lower extremity protection car using a biofidelic flexible pedestrian legform impactor. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0106, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bacon, D. and Wilson, M., Bumper characteristics for improved pedestrian safety. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 760812, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stuertz, G., Suren, E., Gotzen, L., Behrens, S., and Richter, K., Biomechanics of real child pedestrian accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 760814, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bunketorp, O., Romanus, B., Hansson, T., Aldman, B., Thorngren, L., and Eppinger, R., Experimental study of a compliant bumper system. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 831623, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Aldman, B., Thorngren, L., Bunketorp, O., and Romanus, B., An experimental model for the study of the lower leg in car pedestrian impacts. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 180–193, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stcherbarcheff, G., Tarriere, C., P., D., Fayon, A., Got, C., and Patel, A., Simulation of collisions between pedestrians and vehicles using adult and child dummies. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 751167, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Harris, J., Research and development towards improved protection for pedestrian struck by cars. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ishikawa, H., Kajzer, J., Ono, K., and Sakurai, M., Simulation of car impact to pedestrian lower extremity: influence of different car front shapes and dummy parameters on test results. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 1–12, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Aldman, B., Lundell, B., Thorngren, L., Bunketorp, O., and Romanus, B., Physical simulation of human leg bumper impacts. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 180–193, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cesari, D., Interaction between human leg and car bumper in pedestrian tests. In IRCOBI Conference, Germany, pp. 259–269, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lawrence, G., The influence of car shape on pedestrian impact energies and its application to subsystem tests. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 1253–1265, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yang, J., Lovsund, P., Cavallero, C., and Bonnoit, J., A human body 3-D mathematical model for simulation of car-pedestrian impacts. Journal of Crash Prevention and Injury Control2(2), 131–149, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wood, D., Impact and movement of pedestrians in frontal collisions with vehicles. Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D, Automobile Engineering 202, 101–110, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schneider, H. and Beier, G., Experiment and accent: comparison of dummy test results and real pedestrian accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 741177, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ishikawa, H., Yamazaki, K., and Sasaki, A., Current situation of pedestrian accidents and research into pedestrian protection in Japan. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 281–291, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Longhitano, D., Ivarsson, J., Henary, B., and Crandall, J., Torso injury trends for pedestrians struck by cars and LTVs. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0411, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Matsui, Y., Evaluation of pedestrian subsystem test method using legform and upper legform impactors for assessment of high bumper of vehicle aggressiveness. Traffic Injury Prevention 5, 76–86, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Matsui, Y., Effects of vehicle bumper height and impact velocity on type of lower extremity injury in vehicle pedestrian accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37, 633–640, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kajzer, J., Schroeder, G., Ishikawa, H., Matsui, Y., and Bosch, U., Shearing and bending effects at the knee joint at low speed lateral loading. In SAE Transactions, SAE Paper No. 1997-01-0712, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kajzer, J., Ishikawa, H., Schroeder, G., Matsui, Y., and Bosch, U., Shear and bending effects at the knee joint at high speed lateral loading. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 973326, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Matsui, Y., Schroeder, G., and Bosch, U., Injury pattern and response of human thigh under lateral loading simulating car-pedestrian impact. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2004-01-1603, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Edwards and Green, Analysis of the Interrelationship of pedestrian leg and pelvis injuries. In IRCOBI Conference, Bron, pp. 355–369, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Janssen, E. and Wismans, J., Evaluation of vehicle cyclist impacts through dummy and human cadaver tests. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 815–820, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Maki, T., Kajzer, J., Mizuno, K., and Sekine, Y., Comparative analysis of vehicle-bicyclist and vehicle-pedestrian accidents in Japan. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35(6), 927–940, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ishikawa, H., Kajzer, J., Ono, K., and Sakurai, M., Simulation of car impact to pedestrian lower extremity: Influence of different car-front shapes and dummy parameters on test results. Accident Analysis and Prevention 26(2), 231–242, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kajzer, J. and Schroeder, G., Examination of different bumper system using Hybrid II, RSPD subsystem and cadavers. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 922519, pp. 119–127, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schuster, P., Current trends in bumper design for pedestrian impact. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2006-01-0464, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schuster, P. and Staines, B., Determination of bumper styling and engineering parameters to reduce pedestrian leg injuries. In Society of Automotive Engineers, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  56. Groesch, L. and Heiss, W., Bumper configurations for conflicting requirements: existing performance versus pedestrian protection. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 1266–1273, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Otte, D. and Haasper, C., Technical parameters and mechanisms for the injury risk of the knee joint or vulnerable Road users impacted by cars and road traffic accidents. In IRCOBI Conference, Prague, pp. 281–298, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pinecki, C. and Zeitouni, R., Technical solutions for enhancing the pedestrian protection. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0307, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kuwahara, S., Hosokawa, T., Okada, K., and Mizuno, K., Finite element analysis of pedestrian lower extremity injuries in car-to-pedestrian impacts. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2007-01-0755, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pipkorn, B., Fredriksson, R., and Olsson, J., Bumper bag for SUV to passenger vehicle compatibility and pedestrian protection. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0056, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kajzer, J., The biomechanics of knee injuries. PhD Thesis, Chalmers Technical University, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Mackay, G., Mechanisms of injury and biomechanics: Vehicle design and crash performance. World Journal of Surgery 16, 420–427, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bosma, F., Gaalman, H., and Souren, W., Closure and trim design for pedestrian impact. In Experimental Safety Vehicles, ESV Paper No. 322, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  64. ETSC, Priorities for EU motor vehicle safety design —Pedestrian safety. European Traffic Safety Council, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hardy, B., Lawrence, G., Carroll, J., Donaldson, W., Visvikis, C., and Peel, D., A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. Transport Research Laboratory, Great Britain, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Wanke, T., Thompson, G., and Kerkeling, C., Pedestrian measures for the Opel Zafira II. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0237, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lawrence, G., Rodmell, C., and Osborne, A., Assessment and test procedures for bull bars. Transport Research Laboratory, TRL 460, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zellmer, H. and Friedel, B., Potential risk for a vulnerable Road users from crash bar equipped off-road vehicles. In Society of Automotive Engineers, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Mizuno, K., Yonezawa, H., and Kajzer, J., Pedestrian headform impact tests for various vehicle locations. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 278, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Anderson, R., van den Berg, A., Ponte, G., Streeter, L., and McClean, A., Performance of bullbars in the pedestrian impact tests. The University of Adelaide, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Danner, M., Langwieder, K., and Wachter, W., Injuries to pedestrians in real accidents and their relation to collision and car characteristics. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 791008, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Fildes, B., Gabler, H.C., Otte, D., Linder, A., and Sparke, L., Pedestrian impact priorities using real-world crash data and Harm. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 167–177, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ashton, S., Some factors influencing the injuries sustained by child pedestrians struck by the fronts of cars. In Society Automotive Engineers, pp. 353–380, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mackay, G., The other road users. In American Association for Automotive Medicine, Minneapolis, pp. 327–345, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  75. McClean, A., Car shape and pedestrian injury. In Symposium on Road Safety, Department of Transportation, Canberra, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Matsui, Y., Ishikawa, H., and Sasaki, A., Pedestrian injuries induced by the bonnet leading edge in current car-pedestrian accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 1999-01-0713, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Otte, D., Influence of the fronthood length for the safety of pedestrians in car accidents and demands to the safety of small vehicles. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 942232, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kramer, M., Pedestrian vehicle accident simulation through dummy tests. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 751165, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pritz, H. and Pereira, J., Pedestrian hip impact simulator development and hood edge location consideration on injury severity. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 831627, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Niederer, P. and Schlumpf, M.R., Influence of vehicle front geometry on impacted pedestrian kinematics. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 841663, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ashton, S., Factors associated with pelvic and knee injuries in pedestrians struck by the front of cars. In SAE Conference, Detroit, pp. 863–900, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Roudsari, B., Mock, C., and Kaufmann, R., An evaluation of the association between vehicle type and the source and severity of pedestrian injuries. Traffic Injury Prevention 6, 185–192, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Lucchini, E. and Weissner, R., Influence of bumper adjustment on the kinematics of an impacted pedestrian. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 172–182, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ashton, S. and Mackay, G., A review of real-world studies of pedestrian injury. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer Verkehrsmedizin, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Matsui, Y., Wittek, A., and Tanahashi, M., Pedestrian kinematics due to impact by various passenger cars using full-scale dummy. Journal of Vehicle Safety Research 1(1–3), 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Mackay, G., Injury to pedestrians. Report to Committee on Pedestrian Safety, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Huibers, J. and Janssen, E., Experimental and mathematical car bicycle collision simulations. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 881726, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ashton, S., A preliminary assessment of the potential for pedestrian injury reduction through vehicle design. In Society of Automotive Engineers, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ivarsson, J., Crandall, J., Burke, C., Stadter, G., Grabowski, J., Fahkry, S., Fredriksson, R., and Nentwich, M., Pedestrian head impact — What determines the likelihood and wraparound distance? In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0373, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Serre, T., Masson, C., Perrin, C., Chalandon, S., Llari, M., Cavallero, C., and Cesari, D., Real accidents involving vulnerable road users: In-depth investigation, numerical simulation and experimental reconstitution with PMHS. Journal of Crashworthiness 12(3), 227–234, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Lawrence, G., Hardy, B., Caroll, J., Donaldson, W., Visvikis, C., and Peel, D., A study on the feasibility of measures relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users — Final report. Transport Research Laboratory, UPR/VE/045/06, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Yao, J., Yang, J., and Otte, D., Head injuries in child pedestrian accidents — In-depth case analysis and reconstructions. Traffic Injury Prevention 8, 94–100, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Higuchi, K. and Akiyama, A., The effect of vehicle structure's characteristics on pedestrian behaviour. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 323–329, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Liu, X. and Yang, J., Effects of vehicle impact velocity and front-end structure on the dynamic response was a child pedestrians. In IRCOB Conference, Munich, pp. 19–30, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Liu, X. and Yang, J., Effects of vehicle impact velocity and front-end structure on dynamic responses of child pedestrians. Traffic Injury Prevention 4, 337–344, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Fredriksson, R., Flink, E., Bostrom, O., and Backman, K., Injury mitigation in SUV-to-pedestrian impacts. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0380, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Schwarz, D., Bachem, H., and Opbroek, E., Comparison of steel and aluminium hood with same design in view of pedestrian head impact. In Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2004-01-1605, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Kessler, J., Development of countermeasures to reduce pedestrian head injury. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 784–796, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Pritz, H., Experimental investigation of pedestrian head impact on hoods and fenders of production vehicles. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 830055, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Kerkeling, C., Schaefer, J., and Thompson, G., Structural hood and hinge concepts for pedestrian protection. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0304, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Kessler, J. and Monk, M., NHTSA pedestrian head injury mitigation research program –Status report. In Experiment Safety Vehicles Conference, pp. 1226–1236, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Mordaka, J., Kleiven, S., van Schijndel-de Nooij, M., de Lange, R., Guerra-Casanova, L., Carter, E., and van Holst, H., The importance of rotational kinematics in pedestrian head to windshield impacts. In IRCOBI Conference, Maastricht, pp. 83–92, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Maki, T., Asai, T., and Kajzer, J., The behaviour of bicyclists in accidents with cars. Japanese Society of Automotive Engineers 21, 357–363, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Mizuno, K., Aiba, T., and Kajzer, J., Influences of vehicle from shape on injuries in vehicle-pedestrian impact. In Japanese Society of Automotive Engineers, pp. 55–60, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Mallory, A., Stammen, J., and Meyerson, S., Pedestrian GTR testing of current vehicles. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 07-0313, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Gaegauf, M., Kaeser, R., Meyer, E., and Reif, G., Design of a pedestrian compatible car front. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 205–219, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Fredriksson, R., Haland, Y., and Yang, J., Evaluation of a new pedestrian head injury protection system for the sensor in the bumper and lifting of the bonnets rear part. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 131, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Maki, T., Asai, T., and Kajzer, J., Development of future pedestrian protection technologies. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 165, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Krenn, M., Mlekusch, B., Wilfling, C., Dobida, F., and Deutscher, E., Development and evaluation of a kinematic hood for pedestrian protection. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 2003-01-0897, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Nagatomi, K., Hanayama, K., Ishizaki, T., Sasaki, A., and Matsuda, K. Development and full-scale dummy tests of a pop-up hood system for pedestrian protection. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0113, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Kalliske, I., Kuehn, M., Otte, D., Heinrich, T., and Schindler, V., Fahrzeugseitige Massnah-men zum Schutz des Kopfes eines Fussgaengers — Eine ganzheitliche Betrachtung. In Innov-ativer Insassen- und Partnerschutz — Fahrzeugsicherheit, 2010, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  112. Kuehn, M., Froeming, R., and Schindler, V., Assessment of vehicle related pedestrian safety. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper no. 05-0044, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Fredriksson, R., Bostrom, O., Zhang, L., and Yang, Y., Influence of pop up hood systems on brain injuries for vulnerable road users. In IRCOBI Conference, Madrid, pp. 253–264, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Otte, D., Design and structure of the windscreen as part of injury reduction for car occupants, pedestrians and bicycles. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 942231, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Okamoto, Y. and Kikuchi, Y., A study of pedestrian head injury evaluation method. In IR-COBI Conference, pp. 265–278, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Green, J., A technical evaluation of the EEVC proposal on pedestrian protection test methodology. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 98-S10-O-04, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  117. EEVC, EEVC Working Group 17 report improved test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars. EEVC, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2009). The Influence of Vehicle Design on Pedestrian and Cyclist Injuries. In: Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact. Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, vol 166. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2743-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2743-6_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2742-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2743-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation