Testing of Production Prototypes of a self-protective Headband for Car Occupants

This publication is the third in a series of reports for the ATSB in which we have detailed the development of a protective headband for car occupants. In CR193, we documented the results of tests made to determine the energy absorbing characteristics of several candidate materials. CR205 reported further investigations of possible production grade materials and discussed aspects of the design that would determine the general form of the headband in a consumer version of the product.

This report details the results of tests made on the headband, which may be compared with the requirements of the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201. That standard requires a certain level of head protection for the occupants of the vehicle from the upper interior of the car. The standard stipulates that a free motion headform be launched against the interior components of the car at a speed of up to 24 km/h. The requirement in these tests is that a modified value of the Head Injury Criterion, HIC(d), be less than 1000. The nature of the test required by FMVSS 201 provides a method by which the effectiveness of the headband may be assessed.

In this study, prototype headbands were fabricated according to a design developed in CR205. The energy absorbing element was machined from a solid block of expanded polypropylene and sandwiched between a styrene outer shell and a cloth liner. These prototypes were designed to be dimensionally and materially similar to a future consumer version of the product (should such a version arise).

The aim of the testing was to choose structures that would behave similarly to structures found in the interior of a car. The test structure was designed so that the impact stiffness could be varied. The structure was such that a straightforward execution of the test procedure (without the headband) produced HIC(d) results that ranged from a pass (717), to a moderate fail (1623). The tests were then repeated with a headband attached to the headform so that a comparison of impacts with and without the headband could be made.

Two grades of EPP were evaluated in this study; a 50 g/l density foam and a 70 g/l density foam. The tests showed that headbands manufactured from either grade of EPP provided substantial protection with the most severe impact producing a HIC(d) value of 601 (compared to 1623 for the bare headform in the same test). Further analysis of the dynamic crush characteristics of the headband showed that the 70 g/l EPP was a more efficient energy absorber than the lower density material. This was also reflected in lower HIC(d) values in tests that used the 70 g/l foam. The headband provided protection by limiting peak loads and absorbing significant amounts of energy.

In frontal impacts, the headband would provided significant head protection for car occupants. This would be particularly beneficial for the occupants of older vehicles. Parts of Australia have a median vehicle age around 10 years. That implies that, on current trends, it will take 10 years before a new vehicle safety feature, introduced today, will be present in half the car fleet in this country. The headband may provide the drivers of older cars some of the benefits of new safety features immediately. We expect that there would also be benefits for the occupants of newer cars, as the headband would provide protection from striking objects that are not protected by padding or airbags.

Road attitudes towards speed of car enforcement

A clear majority of people (56%) agreed that there is too much of a focus on speed in television commercials for new cars. Community support for this view was unusually emphatic, with 41% of people indicating that they agreed strongly with the proposition. By contrast, only 17% of respondents said they disagreed strongly.

This pattern of response was consistent across States and types of location, but did vary somewhat by sex and age. The belief that speed is over-emphasised was more prevalent among females (61%, compared with 51% of males) and people aged 40 years or over (69%, compared with 43% of younger people).

Overall, 40% of the community supported an increase in the number of speed cameras, 42% supported an increase in speed limit enforcement and 23% supported an increase in the severity of speeding penalties. Relatively few people favoured a reduction in any of these items.

Residents from NSW were more supportive of increases in speed cameras (48%), speed limit enforcement (46%) and penalties (27%) than were residents from the other four States. People from South Australia and Western Australia were least likely to support increases in speed cameras (26% and 31% respectively) and speed limit enforcement (31% and 38%). This finding is perhaps not surprising for Western Australian residents, given that they were much more likely to have been booked for speeding than drivers elsewhere (30% versus the national average of 19%).

Potential Benefits and expenses of Speed Changes on Rural Roads

The objective of the project was to explore the potential economic costs and benefits of changes to speed limits on rural roads in Australia. Net costs and benefits were estimated over a range of mean travel speeds (80 to 130 km/h) for the following road classes:

• freeway standard rural roads (dual carriageway roads with grade-separated intersections and a design speed of 130 km/h, usually designed as such when originally constructed


• other divided rural roads (not of freeway standard)


• two-lane undivided rural roads (two illustrative ‘road stereotypes’ with different crash rates).


Specific objectives were to explore a number of scenarios, such as:


• increasing limits on high standard roads with a low crash rate (per vehicle-kilometre) from 110 to 130 km/h (or intermediate speeds)


• increasing limits on high standard roads with a low crash rate from 110 to 130 km/h subject to a variable speed limit system that would reduce speeds under adverse conditions such as poor light, bad weather or dense traffic (‘VSL option’)


• decreasing limits on lower standard rural roads with higher crash rates.
  

Assessing the level of safety provided by the Snell B95 standard for bicycle helmets

Changes have been made to the Trade Practices Act intended to legalise the sale in Australia of bicycle helmets meeting the American Snell B95 Standard. These changes have been made as part of the regular review of the mandatory consumer product safety standard for pedal cyclists under the Trade Practices Act 1974 as the current regulation, which was based on AS 2063.2- 1990 and had become outdated, Department of the Treasury (1999). The State and Territory road authorities have not accepted the changes. Specifically, the road authorities have expressed concern regarding two areas:

• The lack of a quality assurance process for Snell-certified helmets on the Australian market; and,


• Whether the technical differences between the Snell B95 and AS/NZS2063 standards reflect significant differences in the level of safety provided by helmets to these two standards.
  

The aim of this project was to assess whether the differences between the technical requirements and quality assurance approaches used by the Snell B95 and AS/NZS 2063:1996 standards for bicycle helmets are likely to result in significant differences in the level of safety provided to the user. This was done by:

• Reviewing existing studies of bicycle helmet effectiveness;


• Testing representative samples of helmets to both standards; and,


• Considering the role of the quality assurance regime within the manufacturing process, and the need for some form of external quality assurance process conducted by independent testing laboratories.
  

The Snell Memorial Foundation is a not-for profit organization, which tests and certifies various kinds of helmets for use in specific activities. Snell uses a two-part process consisting of:

Certification Testing – The manufacturer submits sample helmets to Snell, which are subjected to the testing required by the Standard at a Snell laboratory. The helmet receives certification when these tests are completed successfully.

Random Sample Testing – The Foundation acquires samples directly from consumer sources such as retail outlets. The helmets are inspected and tested in the Snell laboratory to the requirements of the Snell standard.

In the USA the CPSC Regulation for Bicycle Helmets became law in 1998. The manufacturer or importer self certifies the helmet to the Regulation. As part of the certification the manufacturer is required to keep full records for three years of a 'reasonable test program' in support of the certification and these must be available on call.

For a helmet to be certified to the AS/NZS 2036-1996 standard, it must pass the following set of requirements:

• Manufacturers Quality Plan audit by SAI-Global.


• Type Testing of samples of the production helmets by an accredited laboratory to the requirements of the standard. From this point the design of the helmet is frozen, any changes require a re-certification.


• Batch Release Testing, as production precedes each batch of the product is kept under bond and are not released for sale until a specified number of samples are tested.
  

The effectiveness of the bicycle helmet quality system currently in use in Australia is demonstrated by only one public recall of bicycle helmets (in 1998) occurring in the last five years, of a relatively small number of helmets. In the USA in the same time span 8 public recalls of a total of 331,900 helmets have been made. Recalls are relatively ineffective for maintaining safety of personal equipment, as it is difficult to get the publicity to the user effectively. The Snell Memorial Foundation has never successfully initiated and completed a recall against its range of voluntary standards.

How many standard drinks to help stay under 0.05 whil driving?

Men

• First hour - 2 drinks


• Every hour after that - 1 drink

Women

• First hour - 1 drink


• Every hour after that - 1 drink

Road Deaths Australia, Monthly Bulletin; May 2008

Road Deaths Australia is a monthly bulletin presenting the latest fatal road crash data as well as recent historical comparisons. It is produced using monthly data supplied by the eight states and territories.

• There was a total of 109 road deaths in May 2008.
  - this is a 19.3 per cent decrease from the May 2007 figure.


• There have been 582 road deaths in 2008 to the end of May.
  - this is an 13.8 per cent decrease from the same 5 month period in 2007.

Some transport buses and activities

The subsidy is available for eligible school buses to fit lap/sash seatbelts and perform any other associated engineering work including wheelchair restraint systems. All work is required to meet the national vehicle standards under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 and/or state/territory vehicle modification requirements as applicable.

An eligible bus is a newly manufactured or existing school bus in the operators fleet. It does not include a bus recognised as a coach bus. The bus must be approved by a state/territory government for, and currently used or earmarked for, a contracted state/territory school bus route defined as rural and regional. A newly manufactured school bus must be fitted with integrated seats and lap/sash seatbelts that meet Australian Design Rule (ADR) ADR 68 Occupant Protection in Buses, and be registered with a relevant state/territory transport authority. An existing bus must be intended for retro-fitment of lap/sash seatbelts, and be approved by the state/territory government transport authority. Used buses that are purchased with seatbelts already fitted are not eligible.

Any contracts to purchase buses or undertake retro-fit work must have been entered into after 19 September 2007 to be eligible.

The subsidies will not be available for a bus where the cost of fitting or retro-fitting seatbelts has been met from an existing state/territory program. However, where a state/territory program for seatbelts funds a portion of the total cost of the installation of the belts, an operator may apply for a subsidy for the remaining portion of the cost, including associated engineering work, up to a limit of $25,000.

Collision with terrain - 7 kms north-north-west of Hornsby, New South Wales, VH-NBP, Bell 206B

On 1 March 2008, at about 1300 Eastern Daylight-saving Time the pilot of a Bell Helicopter 206B Jetranger III was flying over a property on a private flight with four passengers. Witnesses reported seeing the helicopter flying over the property at about 100 ft above ground level. At the completion of one pass, the helicopter was observed by witnesses on the ground to bank steeply to the left, roll out and descend into surrounding trees. The helicopter impacted the trees and was seriously damaged. One of the occupants was discovered outside the helicopter and all sustained serious injuries.

Examination of the wreckage did not indicate any mechanical defects that would have affected the safe operation of the helicopter.

About transport Law and Report

I am proud that Missouri is on the forefront of efforts to eliminate racial profiling, which has been defined as the inappropriate use of race when making a decision to stop, search, cite or arrest a person. To the extent that racial profiling occurs, it is an outdated practice that is not consistent with good police work, and it is a practice that is hurtful to a large portion of our population.

Racial profiling is not a visible problem to most white Americans; thus, there has been a tendency by the majority to ignore or dismiss these concerns expressed by African Americans and other people of color. Yet a national poll shows that 77 percent of African Americans believe racial profiling is pervasive. When law-abiding citizens -- including ministers, lawyers, teachers, students and even off-duty police officers -- believe they have been stopped simply because of their race, it focuses attention on a problem that we must address if we are to grow together as a community.

I commend the Missouri legislature for its efforts to address this issue, and I commend Missouri's law enforcement officers, who -- almost without exception -- have made an incredible good-faith effort to comply with this new law. Law enforcement, including the Office of the Attorney General, has undertaken this new challenge without additional funding and for the most part without a blueprint of how to proceed. Missouri is one of only 10 states -- including California, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington -- with legislation that mandates data collection on this issue. Even the federal government and the Department of Justice are only now considering such efforts.

The acceptance and implementation of this law has been greatly aided by the good counsel and advice of the 18-member Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Racial Profiling. The committee is composed of law enforcement leaders, minority community leaders and interested citizens.1 The committee has demonstrated that people of good will, despite differing affiliations and views on an issue, can find common ground and learn from one another. I look forward to my continued work with them as we analyze the data presented and consider what steps lie ahead in the process.

Finally, it is important to remember that the vast majority of law enforcement works hard to do the right thing every day under challenging conditions and for little pay. The law enforcement leaders with whom I have worked have been eager and willing to implement this new law in an effort to ensure that good information is provided. Some agencies have gone the additional mile to gather even more data than required by law to ensure better service to their communities and better analysis of their data.

Peace officers in Missouri have been professional and responsible as they work to meet the considerable challenges of being one of the first states in the nation to implement a law of this nature. With their actions they have demonstrated an earnest desire to build trust in all communities and to provide equal justice under the law.

Transport Organisational setup

Secretariat Level:

The Transport Department is headed by the Minister of Transport who is of the Cabinet Rank. At the administrative level in the Secretariat, the Department is headed by the Commissioner & Secretary who is from the I.A.S. Cadre and assisted by the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Officer on Special Duty and Financial Adviser with a contingent staffs of the Meghalaya Secretariat Service.

Directorate Level:

The Directorate is headed by the Commissioner of Transport who is either from I.A.S. or State Civil Services Cadre who is also the ex-officio secretary State Transport Authority. The Commissioner of Transport is assisted by the Joint Commissioner of Transport, Deputy Commissioner of Transport, Finance and Account Officer, State Pool Officer and District Transport Officer (Enforcement). The DTO ( Enforcement ) who is in charge of the Enforcement Wing is also attached to the Head Office.

District Level:

At the District level, there are seven districts offices and each office is headed by the District Transport Officer (D.T.O.) who is also the ex-officio secretary Regional Transport Authority. Both the powers and functions of the D.T.O. and Secretary R.T.A. are combined in one person.

Freight Railroads Operating in the United States

Freight railroad transports are critical to the economic well-being and global competitiveness of the United States. They move 42 percent of our nation's freight (measured in ton-miles) - everything from lumber to vegetables, coal to orange juice, grain to automobiles, and chemicals to scrap iron - and connect businesses with each other across the country and with markets overseas. They also contribute billions of dollars each year to the economy through investments, wages, purchases, and taxes.

There were 554 common carrier freight railroads operating in the United States in 2002, classified into five groups.
Class I Railroads

* The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSD.
* CSX Transportation (CSX).
* Grand Trunk Corporation, which consists of the U.S. operations of Canadian National (CN), including the former Grand Trunk Western (GTW), Illinois Central (IC), and Wisconsin Central.
* Kansas City Southern (KCS).
* Norfolk Southern (NS).
* The former Soo Line (800), owned by Canadian Pacific (CP).
* Union Pacific (UP).

Class I railroads are those with operating revenue of at least $272 million in 2002. Class I carriers comprise only 1 percent of the number of U.S. freight railroads, but they account for 70 percent of the industry's mileage operated, 89 percent of its employees, and 92 percent of its freight revenue. Class I carriers typically operate in many different states and concentrate largely (though not exclusively) on long-haul, high-density intercity traffic lanes. There are seven Class I railroads ranging in size from just over 3,000 to more than 33,000 miles operated and from 2,600 to more than 46,000 employees

Guide to Hiring Bus Companies

• the bus company's current USDOT safety rating, if issued, and the date of the company's last compliance review (on-site inspection by motor carrier safety authorities);

• whether the company is authorized to transport passengers for hire;

• whether the company has current insurance in force;

• the company's record of regulatory violations and roadside out-of-service violations, with a comparison to national averages; and

• the company's highway crash history.

• Does the driver have a current commercial driver's license (CDL) with a passenger endorsement?

Safety Belt Enforcement Programs

• Occupant Protection Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (sTEPs) involve periods of highly visible safety belt law enforcement combined with extensive media support. These programs are a proven method to rapidly change motorists' safety belt use behavior. Successful Occupant Protection sTEPs have been documented in Canada, Europe, and the United States.

• Highly visible enforcement of safety belt laws is a core strategy to increase safety belt use. States and communities have greater success in achieving increased safety belt use when there is strong enforcement of the law, along with effective media support.27 This strong enforcement of safety belt laws sends the message that the State takes safety belt use laws seriously. Ultimately, this leads to greater compliance.

• The Click It or Ticket (CIOT) model has been enormously successful in increasing safety belt use at the community, State, and regional level. This nationwide initiative, a partnership involving NHTSA, the Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign, and hundreds of law enforcement agencies, increased national belt use by four percentage points in 2003.28 Safety belt use increased again in 2004, reaching an all-time high of 80 percent.

Supervise practice driving

Take an active role in helping your teenager learn how to drive. Plan a series of practice sessions in a wide variety of situations, including night driving. Give beginners time to work up to challenges like driving in heavy traffic or on the freeway. Supervised practice should be spread over at least six months and continue even after a teenager graduates from a learner’s permit to a restricted or full license. Remember that you’re a role model. New drivers learn a lot by example, so practice safe driving. Teens with crashes and violations often have parents with poor driving records.

Guide to Hiring Bus Companies

• the bus company's current USDOT safety rating, if issued, and the date of the company's last compliance review (on-site inspection by motor carrier safety authorities);

• whether the company is authorized to transport passengers for hire;

• whether the company has current insurance in force;

• the company's record of regulatory violations and roadside out-of-service violations, with a comparison to national averages; and

• the company's highway crash history.

• Does the driver have a current commercial driver's license (CDL) with a passenger endorsement?

Check wheels and rims

• Any wheel contacts unrelated vehicle components at any point through its full range of travel;

• Spiders have cracks across a spoke, hub or web area;

• Wheels are not compatible with hubs;

• Valve protection lugs are missing.

Teens Are At Risk

• Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teens in the United States.

• In 2003, 5,240 teens were killed in passenger-vehicle crashes, and 458,000 teens were injured.

• Sixty-three percent of the fatally injured 16-to-20-year-old passenger vehicle occupants were unrestrained, compared to 55 percent for adults 21 or older.

• 2003, the fatality rate (per 100,000 population) in motor vehicle crashes for 16-to-20-year-olds was more than twice the rate than for all other ages combined (25.7 versus 11.4 respectively).

• From 1997 to 2003, the fatality rate (per 100,000 population) in motor vehicle crashes for 16-to-20-year-olds was approximately seven times the rate for 8-to-15-year-olds.

• Drivers are less likely to use restraints when they have been drinking. In 2003, 65 percent of the young drivers (15 to 20 years old) of passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes who had been drinking were unrestrained. Of the young drivers who had been drinking and were killed in crashes, 74 percent were unrestrained.

• 2003, a teen died in a traffic crash an average of once every hour on weekends (weekends are defined as 6 p.m. Friday through 5:59 a.m. Monday) and nearly once every two hours during the week.

Check lights and reflectors

• Any rear light other than a reversing light is installed or damaged to the extent that white light shows to the front or rear of the vehicle;

• Any amber clearance light or front turn signal is damaged so that it shows white light (except vehicles prior 7/73);

• The number plate light is not directing light onto the surface of the rear number plate;

• Any optional light or reflector interferes with the effective operation of any compulsory light or reflector;

• Any light has a tinted cover over it that affects its intended operation;

• There is any other type of opaque cover over a headlight which cannot be readily removed;

• Any light does not comply with the requirements as specified in the Federal Office of Road Safety Vehicle Standards Bulletin No.9.

Visually inspect direct filled internally mounted containers

• the passenger compartment of the vehicle is not sealed from the container space;

• the container space vent(s) is obstructed;

• the container space vent outlet is less than 250mm from the exhaust system;

• wiring is not insulated or secured at intervals of not more than 600mm.

Check tow bar

• The towbar is not securely mounted or is bent or cracked;

• Any mounting bolts, fasteners or weld beads have advanced corrosion or cracks;

• Where ADR 62 applies the tow bar and towing ring does not display the manufacturer’s name/trademark, the gross mass rating and the make and model of the vehicle/s for which it is designed;

• Where any part of the tow bar is removable, the bolts, studs, nuts etc fastening those parts do not have a locking device such as a U-clip, split pin, spring washer or nylon lock nut.