As we’ve reported previously, the 2007 MINI design was being largely shaped by the new European pedestrian impact regulations recently put in place. However we thought a closer look at the subject might be helpful in understanding what the MINI design team were up against in designing the R56.
For a topic like this, an expert opinion was clearly in order. Luckily we just happen to know one of the best. Long time MotoringFile reader and MINI owner Eric Kennedy knows all about the auto-relate injuries. He’s a military and auto safety researcher at Virginia Tech, who is currently working on projects that determine the human tolerance to impact loading (i.e. car crashes), and evaluating occupant protection systems. To say that he’s qualified would be an understatement.
R56 Design Impacts Pedestrians
As I think people are now well aware, the latest R56 MINI is designed to meet (or exceed) the European Enhanced Vehicle Committee (EEVC) pedestrian safety standards. At present, there are two required tests for the European Union’s pedestrian regulation: a bumper impact to a simulated adult lower leg, as well as an impact of a simulated child’s head to the hood, both of which are repeatedly conducted at various locations along the car’s front end. Starting in 2010, two additional tests will be phased in to the regulation: a simulated adult upper leg to the leading edge of the hood, as well as a simulated adult head strike to the hood.
All of this pedestrian testing would seamlessly pass by the unwary consumer, if only it didn’t have such a pronounced effect on the styling of cars. We’re (slowly) approaching the eve of the introduction of the R56 in the US and with each review, it seems quite a bit of the attention is focused on the car’s newly styled front end. Part of the MINI’s charm, its personality, is based upon its style, the look, the original wheels-at-the-corners and tight sheet metal concept that Alex Issigonis penned nearly 50 years ago. For a MINI to be a Mini, and of course to us as MINI enthusiasts, the shape can’t change. The proportions need to stay the same, for they are so integral into what sets the MINI apart from all the other cars on the road. I’m sure this put MINI in quite a difficult situation, as they explored design concepts for the R56, trying to provide space for pedestrian protection while retaining the “MINI†look.
Before we all run off and condemn the European safety regulations, I think it becomes useful to look at the pedestrian injury problem in a bit more depth. I’m sure there will be people that land on both sides of the fence about the safety regulations, but for either argument, it is necessary to know the statistics that drove this type of pedestrian protection regulation.
In Europe, there are roughly 40,000 traffic related fatalities per year. Perhaps surprisingly, this is the same number as killed in the United States every year in traffic accidents. But, in the United States, pedestrians account for only about 10% of our traffic fatalities, approximately 4000 pedestrian fatalities per year. If you compare that number to Europe, the latest numbers I have seen put the pedestrian fatality numbers at about 8000 people per year. The percentage varies wildly from country to country, with pedestrian fatalities in the UK approaching 25% of all traffic fatalities and falling to less than 10% in the Netherlands. Incidentally, if you look beyond Europe, the percentage of pedestrian fatalities in Japan is about 25% of all traffic fatalities and this number is over 40% in developing and densely populated countries such as Thailand. As a rule of thumb, for each fatality, there are 10 or more people hospitalized with serious injuries, so in Europe alone, there are over 80,000 pedestrians seriously injured by automobiles each year.
It is with those numbers that the European community has penned the pedestrian crash test regulations. The ultimate goal is a reduction of approximately half of all pedestrian fatalities suffered in the European Union. According to current estimates, with two of the four pedestrian crash tests in place, if all cars in Europe were to meet the current pedestrian crash test standards, about 2000 lives and approximately 20,000 serious injuries would be saved each year.
So how are auto manufacturers meeting these requirements? Well, currently, there are two main design concepts. In order to prevent fatal head-strikes on the hood, automakers are forced to create some crush space between the hood and the engine block. There are basically two ways the safety community has been looking into this: 1) active hoods and 2) passive hoods. The active hood would actually deploy the hood away from the engine in the event of a pedestrian impact, allowing for more flexibility in vehicle styling and a sleeker hood line. It is currently installed in the European Honda Legend, the Citroen C6, and the Jaguar XK. I have heard estimates from a reliable source that active hood systems add about $500 to the price of a new car, which is substantially more expensive than similar pyrotechnic safety devices such as airbag modules (around $20). This is mostly due to difficulties with the deployment sensors (detecting pedestrian impacts is much more difficult than detecting a frontal crash), the fact that these systems need to survive while being exposed to the elements, and of course the lack of market penetration for this new technology.
Mostly because of the cost and complexity with the active hood system, the passive hood is what nearly all European cars are currently going with in their current designs. The passive system, simply put, permanently designs a dead-zone between the hood and the internals of the engine compartment. Of course, this is the culprit for the high hood line of the MINI’s new front end.
So it seems the inflated hood line may be here to stay, at least for the short term. But, if you consider what the new design accomplishes in terms of packaging both safety and styling, the accomplishments of MINI’s engineers are pretty impressive. While it is true that the MINI’s new nose may not have the charm of the R50/R53’s well-proportioned lines, I think we have to be appreciative of the fact that the latest MINI can retain so much of the flavor of the Mini’s and MINI’s of the past, while continuing to keep up with the increasingly stringent safety regulations.
And finally, just in case you’re wondering. The European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP), which is different than the EEVC, has been conducting crash tests for assessing pedestrian safety since 1997. In 2002, the R50/R53 MINI was rated for pedestrian impacts with one out of a possible four stars, the lowest possible rating. That rating was an unwelcome blemish to an otherwise strong crash test record for the outgoing model.
For information on how these pedestrian tests are conducted, see the EuroNCAP test procedures or protocol (Note: although a separate entity, the EuroNCAP uses the EEVC’s test methods, for each of the four different pedestrian tests).
Written by Eric Kennedy
Excellent read, particularly the parts about the active hood.
Go Hokies!! 🙂
I hope Eric can offer more comments on R56 engineering once he gets his hands on one. Go Hokies! 🙂
Nice, although I knew most of it already, I did pick up a few small bits and bobs here and there (I’m actually surprised the number of pedestrian casualties is so low here in the Netherlands, while the streets are pretty crowded; maybe it’s because a big percentage of traffic is bicycles and they don’t count for these numbers).
One small error:
<blockquote>Alex Issigonis</blockquote>
Though it <i>is</i> short for Alexander, the usual abreviation is “Alec”.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Issigonis" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Issigonis</a>
<blockquote>Go Hokies!! :)</blockquote>
Well put! 🙂
Much thanks to Gabe for posting this. I hope this helps vindicate the pedestrian regs somewhat, as they have been given a pretty bad rap for messing with a lot of beautiful cars. I think the new R56 looks pretty great, all things considered.
Excellant, Gabe. Thanks for the information. Great job digging it up and posting it.
However depressing it is to have “Big Brother” designing our cars.
<blockquote>I’m actually surprised the number of pedestrian casualties is so low here in the Netherlands, while the streets are pretty crowded; maybe it’s because a big percentage of traffic is bicycles and they don’t count for these numbers</blockquote>
I double-checked my sources to be sure, but most pedestrian numbers include cyclists as well. In the US, cyclists are somewhere around 10%-15% of the pedestrian fatalities. I’m not sure what percentage it is in Europe, but I would assume higher, probably much higher.
Thanks for the research and post Kennnedy – I’ve been wondering what was the story behind these regs. As Americans, I suppose we can take great pride in knowing that as a country, we’ve drastically lowered pedestrian injuries and fatalities by keeping ourselves off our feet and streets, safely ensconced in stylish, shiney metal crumple zones.
Nice article, Eric. Thanks for bringing some clarity to the issue, Gabe. That said, I still think it’s a drag what these regulations are doing to car design, particularly a small car like the MINI.
“Thanks for the research and post Kennnedy – I’ve been wondering what was the story behind these regs. As Americans, I suppose we can take great pride in knowing that as a country, we’ve drastically lowered pedestrian injuries and fatalities by keeping ourselves off our feet and streets, safely ensconced in stylish, shiney metal crumple zones.”
Yes, and we can also take pride in having become a country with almost no “real” daily human interaction whatsoever.
I live part of the year in Italy and part in the US, and when I’m in the US, i definetely feel like I’m losing an essential part of living, that of enjoying a good walk outside.
I’ve heard that in some countries, like the Netherlands, pedestrian accidents are low precisely because of the high amount of traffic. Drivers are more acutely aware of the danger of pedestrians and are less likely to go tearing through city and back roads. I know I drive a lot more carefully when passing street cafes and playgrounds than on the highway. In fact, there are organizations proposing removing lines and traffic signs from US roads because they give drivers a false sense of security that they are driving properly.
One of the best-written articles on this site.
Some people around here might be willing to pay $500 extra for an active hood if it meant keeping the original design.
Of course by 2020, the European Enhanced Vehicle Committee (EEVC) will require the Active Pedestrian Plucking System (APPS). The APPS will sense an impending pedestrian crash and deploy a mechanical arm which will pluck the pedestrian off the ground, move the person to the side of the vehicle, and gently rest the person on the ground after sensing which side of the vehicle it is safe to do so.
It is estimated that the APPS will add only another 3.25 inches to the front overhang of the MINI, but could be ordered in chrome or with checkers.
My experiences in Europe.
As a pedestrian, especially in France, Espana, Italy & Greece, it seemed to be some sort of a macho game between peds and autos in most cities I visited. Of course high density and small streets have a lot to do with some of what I saw but I did see what seemed to be a general lack of caution when crossing streets and a general lack of respect for traffic laws by motorists.
Take a taxi in Athens for a thrill ride!
Can’t count the times we were nearly run over by more than a few of the famous Motorini (Vespas) in Rome, Forenza and other cities in Italy while walking on the sidewalks near traffic signals on more than one occasion.
I have a daughter that lives in Hilversum, Holland. My wife and I are constantly amazed at the amount of bicycles and the age span of the riders from 5-80 and the seeming trust between autos and bicycles. There seems to be an unwritten or maybe it is written law that bikes have the right of way there. My daughter tells me it’s getting less safe for bicyclist, at least in Hilversum, in recent years. She feels it’s the influx of low pay workers from North Africa and eastern block countries that have different driving styles and a different historic conscience than the Dutch.
I don’t know how the Germans fared but it seemed like one of the better driving cultures.
Just my thoughts on what I have observed while visiting Europe. We (USA) do have our problems with road rage and less and less civility on the road and it’s getting worse.
Chad I ,didn’t find the caution you speak of in Holland, not at all. I observed many many, what I would call, close calls there but it didn’t seem to phase anyone. My bike ridding there was very uneasy.
James, that’s funny! APPS, Funny!
I would also wonder if the added room between the hood and the engine would actually lessen the damage done in light-to-moderate non-pedestrian impacts. Say you hit a patch of ice and nail a tree at 15-20 mph. Maybe the added crumple space between the hood and the engine could keep some of that damage off the tender and more expensive engine components.
<blockquote>Some people around here might be willing to pay $500 extra for an active hood if it meant keeping the original design</blockquote>
I would have too. As this becomes a more mainstream technology, the prices will go down and more and more cars will use it… and the designers will be happy, and the safety advocates will be satisfied, and the cars will look “right” again. Except for those new APPSs, that someone saw suggested on a website about MINIs 🙂
<blockquote>I would also wonder if the added room between the hood and the engine would actually lessen the damage done in light-to-moderate non-pedestrian impacts</blockquote>
I wouldn’t expect that it would be an appreciable difference, although certainly having more room to deflect will help to dissipate energy (that’s why it works to reduce pedestrian injuries). But there’s pretty big difference in the energy of a collision between a car vs. pedestrian and the energy of a collision between a car vs. another car or fixed object. In terms of a pedestrian collision the difference may be noticeable while in an actual crash the difference may be negligible.
speaking of numb……
For some reason, I dont like the idea of telling my grandchildren about how I remember when a car could kill you.
For some reason, I actually prefer a certain amount of risk in things.
and for some crazy reason….I actually don’t expect to get run over by a car and only recieve a concussion
You know its sort of like a plane crash….You dont want to be in one, you try to avoid it, but if it happens you just don’t expect to live through the experience
Bottom line…..I think it is just another case of namby pamby legislators with nothing better to do…I mean they can’t just get into office and say ….”eh, the country seems to be getting along ok…nothing for me to do here”
long live the R53…..the one with the REAL scoop!
<blockquote>Bottom line…..I think it is just another case of namby pamby legislators with nothing better to do</blockquote>
It all seems like false cause to me. Has there been any sort of investigation or follow-through as to determining the actual underlying causes of pedestrian impacts – cross walk signals, blind corners, traffic light timing, blindness, etc. Rather than ask, “How can we lessen the impact of a car striking a pedestrian?” why not first ask, “Why are pedestrians getting hit by cars at all?” It seems to me that addressing those root causes would be more effective in actually preventing deaths than redesigning the noses of vehicles. Most places – here in the states at least – when trains are hitting cars at a particular intersection, crossing barriers are usually installed – rather than strapping mattresses to the fronts of locomotives. In most cases, the car getting hit by the train is being driven by someone who made the very stupid decision to try to beat the train across the tracks. It sounds cold, but I wonder if the majority of pedestrian impact fatalities are likewise more an issue “natural selection” than car design.
<blockquote>I wonder if the majority of pedestrian impact fatalities are likewise more an issue “natural selection†than car design</blockquote>
I’ll answer because I have the numbers sitting right in front of me, but the numbers from the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) say that 32% of killed pedestrians have a BAC over 0.08. However, from the other side, of drivers that struck and killed pedestrians, 18% had alcohol involvement (Personally, I think this goes to show you can legislate and warn of the dangers of drunk driving with far more effectiveness than you can against drunk walking).
Other numbers… 75% of the fatalities were NOT at intersections, 40% were on roads without crosswalks.
Obviously there’s a lot of personal accountability in all of this, and I completely agree. On the technical side, though, advances in technology have helped cut the fatality rate in automobile accidents by over 1/3 in the past 35 years. I think the EU is hoping to make similiar improvements in this problem starting now, and the technology is only a portion of the solution. Remember, too, this isn’t US legislation (yet?).
Excellent overview! Nothing more to say – Eric says it all. Best posting for the year.
BCNU,
Rob in Dago
Here you go for your viewing pleasure:
driving in Naples:
<a href="http://www.lifeinitaly.com/video/driving-in-italy.asp" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.lifeinitaly.com/video/driving-in-italy.asp</a>
Italy vs. Europe:
<a href="http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/italy.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/italy.html</a>
I agree…very interesting read. In a way I lament that Mini/MINI enthusiasts often come off as so small-minded (I’m not saying we really are) that we cannot imagine “our” car changing, or that it should not change…at all…ever!! When it comes to MINIs, I think it helps to remember Mini’s solid utilitarian roots. In light of this, changes made to meet real-world requirement (any…safety or otherwise) are easier to take in stride. “Correct” Mini/MINI style is a very subjective thing. In any case, imagine…MINI could have wound up embracing the early “Spiritual” concept!!! I know…scary!!!
This is a way for the lawmakers to give people the impression that they are “doing something” about the problem. It’s kind of like the way that the police crack down on speeders all the time, even though speed is not the cause of most accidents. Perception is more important than truth. If alcohol is involved in half of all traffic fatalities, as many stats seem to indicate, then why not work on getting the drunks off the roads? I once asked a policeman buddy of mine why they didn’t just set up spot checks near large drinking holes, and he said the judges would throw out those cases because that is considered “entrapment’. It’s much easier to issue useless speeding tickets, and it’s easier to put the blame on the car manufactuers rather than on the stupid bastards that drive or walk while drunk. Everyone wants “rights” but no one wants “responsibility”. Having said all that, I still think the new MINI looks pretty good, even with the restyled front end.
didn’t paul mcartneys exwife lose a piece of her leg by a passing motorcycle in UK/europe?
too many regs if you ask me. its amazing we made it to the 21st century….
>Yes, and we can also take pride in having become a country with almost no “real†daily human interaction whatsoever.
Completely agree with you. It’s sad how we’ve taken the human interaction out of daily life. I actually consider myself lucky to have 45 minutes of walk time in my daily commute.
Eric,
Thanks for an excellent article that answered a lot of my questions about this legislation. One question that I have is does this also apply to light trucks sold in the U.S.? I’m constantly amazed by the high bumper height and rigidly mounted brush gaurds that are allowed on trucks and SUVs sold here in America.
<blockquote>For some reason, I actually prefer a certain amount of risk in things.
and for some crazy reason….I actually don’t expect to get run over by a car and only recieve a concussion
You know its sort of like a plane crash….You dont want to be in one, you try to avoid it, but if it happens you just don’t expect to live through the experience
Bottom line…..I think it is just another case of namby pamby legislators with nothing better to do…</blockquote><blockquote>
My cousin was killed in a Mini. My aunt was killed in a road accident. My sister’s friend was killed in a Mini. My friend’s son killed someone when he was racing on the highway as a teenager.
Your car already has countless safety devices, many that you may be unaware of, mostly put there by those legislators whose motives you doubt. The accident rate (per mile) in all countries has been coming down logarithmically for decades, in part because of safety improvements to roads and vehicles. Next we need much better driver controls as well. This will not be popular either, but drunks and cellphone users kill people.
When you are older you will realize why the safety regulations are there and what they accomplish.</blockquote>
<blockquote>One question that I have is does this also apply to light trucks sold in the U.S.?</blockquote>
Actually, it doesn’t apply to any vehicles in the US at all (at present). Essentially, we are inheriting the “pedestrian” designs because it is legislated in the European market. As for how it would be phased in, if the US were to adopt such standards, I am not exactly sure. Often times, the legislation affects passenger cars first, then light trucks. However, light trucks are clearly more dangerous to pedestrians, by a factor of 2-3 times, so who knows?
<blockquote>I’m constantly amazed by the high bumper height and rigidly mounted brush gaurds that are allowed on trucks and SUVs sold here in America.</blockquote>
Yeah, I still don’t get the brush guards unless you’re on the Rubicon trail.
From what I understand, the cow-catch was another option. We’re very lucky Mini didn’t go this route.
I’m planning to put a steel plate under my hood just to negate the crush zone.
I really don’t see what the big problem is… just scrape ’em off and keep motoring!! 🙂
Big Jerk,
You’re a real BIG JERK. How can you say such horrible things?
I hope you wind up squished in the grill of a Hummer!
this was very interesting and useful article! i would still maintain, however, that bmw’s goal of reducing manufacturing costs (stated by the company five years ago, “… to cut costs without affecting percieved quality…”), has been the springboard for the r56 redesign. integrating european safety standards was a timely “cover” for some awful work and damage to the beauty of the r50/53 design.
I’m generally opposed to legislating this particular kind of pedestrian safety into cars, even though traffic safety has been an avocation of mine for more than 35 years. As one reply so cogently pointed out, this is addressing the symptoms, not the cause. Clearly, if pedestrian fatalities are so low in some European countries and in the USA, but high in other European countries, changing the cars is not going to help much. Moreover, raising the hood on cars is shooting ourselves in the foot with respect to fuel economy, since doing so will also raise the drag coefficient and possibly the frontal area.
Yes, it’s true that traffic fatalities have continuously dropped over the years in most countries worldwide (but not “logarithmically” as one response said), and most of that is a result of safer cars and safer roads. But we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns on technology. We really need to go after the “wet-ware” between the seat and the steering wheel; the qualify of drivers needs to be greatly improved. All it takes is the political gumption to do it.
Why not just have free eye exams for pedestrians, issue corrective glasses for those in need. Then they will see the car coming and wait for it’s passing before crossing. This will save many more lives than any crumple zone. OMG politicians will pass any lame legislation to justify their existance on payroll.
Anyone happen to remember a movie by the name of “Death race 2000”?
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Race_2000" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Race_2000</a>
The story goes that in the year 2000 (25 years in the future at the time) a transcontinental race is held where points are awarded for killing pedestrians. The point system appears to be as follows:
Male adult: 20
Male teenager: 40
Male infant/toddler: 70
Female (any age): 10 more than men in any age bracket
Senior citizen (regardless of gender): 100
But seriously, why are the pedestrian fatalities higher in Europe? Well, as a long time resident of England (born and raised) I feel I might be able to shed a little light on the topic.
First – Europeans, unlike Americans, still have use of their lower extremities and use them to get around. This appears to have the beneficial side effect of reducing morbid obesity, a primary reason why Americans no longer have use of their power extremities (yes, a very circular argument indeed)
Second – Jaywalking? Say what?! Never heard of that. What’s it mean?? You mean to say I can’t cross the road anywhere I please, even when the footpath is separated from the road by metal railings? Nonsense! Well, you get the picture – Europeans cross the road wherever they damned well please – after all, pedestrians were here long before the automobile. Frankly – someone should bring back the “red flag act” (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act</a>)
Third – When I get behind the wheel of my car I own the road! If you think every Englishman’s house is his castle . . . Well that goes double for cars. When it comes to cars, every Englishman, Frenchman and Italian’s car is his battle tank – and the German’s – well let’s not go there.
Only the Dutch seem to fail to comply with these European stereotypes – and look where that’s got them!
Well, there you have it,
Harrumph