January 2001
Comfort For Bikers From Soft Fronts?
It will not have escaped the attention of readers that the European Union seldom has difficulty in legislating on subjects that affect us, writes John Chatterton-Ross, while the reverse seems to be the case on car safety. For twenty-two years the EU has funded research that we have been paying for, on how to improve and incorporate safety features on the front of cars. Principally, this is in the interests of pedestrians and cyclists, but not surprisingly motorcyclists are never mentioned in connection with the potential benefits of improving this aspect of automotive design. Only when reminded of the existence of motorcyclists – as Trevor Magner has frequently done at PACTS Vehicle Design Working Party meetings – will those broaching the subject belatedly consider our concerns.
Over the years numerous test dummies have suffered virtual “injury” and “death” after being flung at the front of cars. It started with primitive, aluminium honeycomb dummies and progressed to the “super dummies” of today. These are equipped with frangible bones and sophisticated internal sensors to measure everything that happens to them. There are even dummies that simulate particular parts of the human anatomy, such as heads and limbs. Vehicle fronts are frequently designed to minimise damage to legs, which is where the initial impact usually occurs in front-end collisions. The next priority is to ensure that engine parts are not too close to the bonnet in areas where an adult or child’s head might make contact during a collision. However, contact points for the head will vary according to the size of the victim.
Because of the crowded engine bays in today’s cars, manufacturers are concerned at the volume of space they must leave to absorb impacts. Achieving this by the use of higher bonnets may alter collision characteristics and produce some unfortunate design side effects. Either the depth of windscreens will be reduced limiting driver visibility or roof heights will be raised with a commensurate increase in wind resistance and fuel consumption. There are other factors, of course, and interesting papers on the subject are available on the website of the European Transport Safety Council – www.etsc.be
A softer approach to protection?
Pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist protection is one aspect of the New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP) where the crash test performance of different models is monitored. Unfortunately, most tests are concerned with the protection of the cars’ occupants from front and side impacts while the consequences of a collision with vulnerable road users is something of an afterthought. “Soft” fronts designed to crumple in a collision may help to reduce the effect of accidents with motorcyclists. Side impact protection, shielding drivers in junction accidents where the motorcyclist collides with the car, are certainly not as beneficial. Sidebars directly under door skins are not conducive to absorbing the impact of a rider’s limbs or body. It also appears that the preoccupation of protecting car occupants has led to primary safety (preventing accidents from happening in the first place) being sacrificed to secondary safety, which is limiting the effects of accidents when they occur. An example of this is the increased thickness of windscreen pillars – by using padding – to reduce the effect of “head strikes”. These can obviously obscure vulnerable road users, like motorcyclists. If protecting car occupants’ heads is of such concern, then perhaps they should wear helmets too!
The development of pedestrian protection has been in progress in the EU since 1989 when the European Experimental Vehicle Committee commenced pedestrian impact testing. More recently legislation has been expected, but I learned from a recent radio interview with Mark Watts, a British MEP and spokesman for the Commission, that a limited “voluntary agreement” is thought sufficient, following the intervention of EU Commissioner for Industry, Mr Liikannen.
Mark Watts commented that the latest proposal is for another general hearing. After twenty-two years of research this was rather feeble. Interestingly, shortly after writing this, the BMF was approached by a car industry expert working in this field who feels that legislation might be to our disadvantage as riders. We have received an invitation to the research laboratory of the car company in question and will report back after our visit in January.
Published with the January 2001 issue of Motorcycle Rider
For further information, telephone 01442 396355 or write to:
The British Motorcyclists Federation, 14 -16 Briton Street, Leicester, LE3 0AA.
Telephone: 0116 284 5380 Fax: 0116 284 5381
BMF Riderspace: http://www.bmf.co.uk E-mail: campaigns@bmf.co.uk
