«National Research Conseil national Council Canada de recherches Canada Centre for Surface Centre de technologie des Transportation Technology ...»
Figure 8: Example of bodywork that fulfills the sideguard regulation requirements ...............11 Figure 9: Sideguards installed on a Canadian operated tanker trailer
Figure 10: Close-up of a sideguard installed on a Canadian operated tanker trailer..................12 Figure 11: Fatalities in the opponent party in truck accidents (2001) 
Figure 12: Scenarios for collisions involving trucks and fatally and severely injured VRUs .16 Figure 13: Vehicle types involved in collisions which resulted in bicyclist fatalities, 1996-2000 
Figure 14: Accident caused by large trucks, Japan, 2005 
Figure 15: City of Toronto fleet collision data, 2001-2005 
Figure 16 - Canadian Motor Vehicle Fatalities, 2002-2006, all motor vehicles 
Figure 17: Summary of bicyclist casualties, UK, 1980-1982 and 1990-1992 
Figure 18: Bicyclist injury distribution from specific collisions, UK, 1980-1982 and 1990-1992 
Figure 19: HGV models equipped with rail type (left) and smooth (right) sideguards ..........29 Figure 20: Future vehicle design for improved VRU safety 
Figure 21: Various drag coefficients
Figure 22: Examples of aerodynamic add on devices
Figure 23: Example of belly fairing
Figure 24: Example of gap fairing mounted to van semi-trailer
Figure 25: Examples of boat tails
Figure 26: Example of rear underride guard
Figure 27: Example of rigid, gapped, flush fairing
Figure 28: Example of rigid, continuous, flush fairing/side guard
Figure 29: Example of low rider fairing
Figure 30: Example of complete aero package
Figure 31: Breakdown of distance traveled by truck type
Figure 32: Fuel consumption by type of vehicle
Figure 33: Example of gap in combination vehicles
LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Annual number of bicycle fatalities by country, 1997-2006 
Table 2: Annual number of pedestrian fatalities by country, 1997-2006 
Table 3: Bicyclist casualties, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 4: Pedestrian casualties, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 5: Bicyclist casualties in bicycle-heavy vehicle urban collisions, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 6: Bicyclist casualties in bicycle-heavy vehicle urban collisions by roadway configuration, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 7: Bicyclist casualties in bicycle - heavy vehicle urban collisions by heavy vehicle type,.19 Table 8: Bicyclist casualties in bicycle - heavy vehicle urban collisions by heavy vehicle manoeuvre, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 9: Bicyclist casualties in bicycle - heavy vehicle urban collisions by first impact location on heavy vehicle, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 10: Pedestrian casualties in pedestrian heavy vehicle urban collisions,
Table 11: Pedestrian casualties in pedestrian - heavy vehicle urban collisions by roadway configuration, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 12: Pedestrian casualties in pedestrian - heavy vehicle urban collisions by heavy vehicle type, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 13: Pedestrian casualties in pedestrian - heavy vehicle urban collisions by heavy vehicle manoeuvre, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 14: Pedestrian casualties in pedestrian - heavy vehicle urban collisions by first impact location on heavy vehicle, Canada, 2004-2006 
Table 15: Bicyclists and pedestrians killed in urban collisions with heavy vehicles, Canada, 2004-2006
Table 16: US fatalities, heavy truck-VRU collisions, 2005-2007
Table 17: Average bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities, all motor vehicles, selected data.............31 Table 18: Cost of rigid side guards for heavy commercial vehicles and articulated heavy commercial vehicles
Table 19: Distribution of power consumption at various speeds
Table 20: Vehicle classifications
Table 21: Estimates of number of vehicles in scope for Canada by vehicle body type..............48 Table 22: Estimates of vehicle-km by vehicle class, type of fuel and body type
Table 23: Estimates of fuel consumed by vehicle class, type of fuel and body type
Table 24: Vehicle-kilometers driven by type of vehicle
Table 25: Estimated fuel savings
Table 26: Average service life for various types of equipment
Table 27: Results from operation Air Brake in Ontario
Jon Sigurdson of Bison Transport provided information regarding their fleet of test vehicles;
Ray Strelic of Advance Engineering Products Ltd. provided information regarding side guard protection on Canadian tanker trailers; and Two representatives from the Australian and Japanese governments who provided information relating to their regulations and experiences with side guards.
The efforts of all these people, and those not specifically mentioned here, are very much appreciated.
The purpose of this study is to understand the state of heavy vehicle side guards in Europe, Australia and Japan and to better understand how side guards would affect Canadian heavy vehicle operators and protect vulnerable road users (VRU). It is also of interest to understand the environmental effects of installing side guards on vehicles.
Vehicle side guards (also referred to as lateral protective and side underrun protection devices) are intended to provide protection to vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as pedestrians and cyclists, and in some instances motorcyclists, against the risk of falling under the sides of the vehicle and being caught under the wheels. Side guards have been legislated on certain motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers in various countries in the EU and Japan.
Additionally, certain flush side fairings (also known as side skirts) may provide environmental benefit through improved fuel efficiency over a range of operating points, based on the reduction of aerodynamic drag on certain types of vehicles Transport Canada wished to undertake an investigative study of the feasibility of requiring protective side guards on large trucks and trailers operated in urban Canadian environments and also to understand any environmental benefits of flush side fairings.
2 METHODOLOGY NRC-CSTT performed a background investigation and data collection exercise on side guard use in Europe, Japan, Australia and North America. A multi-faceted approach was used, employing a thorough web-based search and review of publicly available information.
The background investigation and data collection exercise was conducted with three specific
to produce a synopsis of present side guard regulation and use in order to identify any safety related issues;
to understand vehicle and operator considerations and any environmental effects; and to determine how side guard use is evolving in order to produce a forward-looking image of the future of side guard use in Canada.
During the data collection exercise, emphasis was placed on a number of factors, which
crash data/statistics involving heavy trucks and pedestrians/cyclists;
the technical and physical characteristics of side guards that might affect fitment to vehicles;
and other safety issues, such as passive and active collision avoidance systems.
The data was then reviewed and combined with testimonials and experiences from operators who have used the devices to formulate a list of challenges and requirements that may be faced if side guards were implemented in Canada either as a voluntary measure or as a regulation. In addition to safety related aspects, the aerodynamic effects of flush mount side guards were also considered.
National Research Council Canada Centre for Surface Transportation Technology CSTT-HVC-TR-158
3 JURISDICTIONAL REVIEWA jurisdictional study was conducted through web-based literature review. The review focused on the European Union (EU) and Japan, where side underrun protection device regulations have been adopted for over 15 years. Information was also gathered from Australia who has considered introducing such regulations. Collision and statistical transportation data from Canada and the United States were also considered.
The purpose of the review was to determine:
The current usage of side guards types of devices used (including material types, design, attachment mechanisms) and the types of vehicles on which they are used;
Reported effectiveness of side guards including collision statistics, where available;
Lessons learned from jurisdictions that have legislated the use of these devices; and The effectiveness of low side skirts on city buses in the prevention of side underride.
3.1 Current Regulations
Side underrun protection device (SUPD) regulations currently exist in EU member countries and Japan. While the main purpose of the SUPD regulations is clearly stated , the technical requirements differ slightly among different countries. The current regulations, along with specific requirements for each jurisdiction, are presented in the following sections.
3.1.1 European Union 126.96.36.199 Legislative framework In the EU, directives represent legislative acts that have an obligatory character for the member countries. The directives require member countries to achieve certain results without imposing the means through which these results should be achieved.
EU regulations are determined based on international consultations by the United Nations (UN) Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). These ECE regulations contain mainly technical requirements and are often adopted by the EU directives.
Council Directive 89/297/EEC, adopted on April 13, 1989, defines the legal framework for lateral protection (side guards) for certain motor vehicles and their trailers .
ECE Regulation No. 73 defines the uniform provisions concerning the approval of goods vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers with regard to their lateral protection .
The directive s text clearly defines the purpose for adopting such an act: vehicle of categories N2, N3, O3 and O4 shall be so constructed and/or equipped as to offer, when a complete entity, effective protection to unprotected road users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists) against the risk of falling under the sides of the vehicle and being caught under the wheels .
188.8.131.52 Applicability and Technical Requirements
The original Council Directive 89/297 applied to the following classes of vehicles:
Vehicles for the carriage of goods: N2 (trucks with a gross vehicle weight [GVW] between
3.5 and 12 tonnes) and N3 (trucks with a GVW over 12 tonnes); and O3 (trailers with a GVW between 3.5 and 10 tonnes) and O4 (trailers with a GVW over 10 tonnes).
The Directive did not apply to:
tractors for semi-trailers;
trailers specially designed and constructed for the carriage of very long loads of indivisible length, such as timber, steel bars, etc.; and vehicles designed and constructed for special purposes where it is not possible, for practical reasons, to fit such lateral protection.
It should be noted that Regulation No. 73 was amended in 2008 (E/ECE/324,
E/ECE/TRANS/505, Rev.1/Add.72/Amend.1) to read:
This Regulation applies to complete vehicles of categories N2, N3, O3 and O4 with regard to
the lateral protection. It does not apply to:
(a) tractors for semi-trailers;
(b) vehicles designed and constructed for special purposes where it is not possible, for practical reasons, to fit such lateral protection.
Therefore trailers specially designed and constructed for the carriage of very long loads of indivisible length are now required to comply with Regulation No. 73.
The technical requirements are identified in Regulation No. 73 and include dimensions (e.g. the guard cannot be more than 550 mm above the ground), shapes, testing conditions, attachment methods and certain exceptions. The side guards can consist of a flat panel or of one or more side rails. If rails are used, the spacing is defined for different categories of vehicles. The side guards shall be essentially rigid and be able to withstand a horizontal static force of load of 1 kN applied at any point along the guard. Figure 1 shows a few requirements of the regulation.
The regulation addresses uncommon types of vehicles, such as extendible trailers, tankvehicles, vehicles equipped with extendible legs or anchorage points for roll-on/roll-off transport and specifies a different set of requirements for each of these types. In addition, the regulation mentions that if the sides of the vehicle are so designed and/or equipped that by their shape and characteristics the component parts together meet the requirements of paragraph 7, they may be regarded as replacing the sideguards .
Each EU member country can impose further exemptions for vehicles which do not have to comply with side guard regulations. For example, UK regulations provide exemptions for approximately 20% of its heavy vehicles, including side and end tipping vehicles and trailers, naval, military and airforce vehicles, refuse trucks and vehicles designed solely for street cleansing .
Australia does not have a regulation for SUPDs on heavy vehicles. The Australian Government has examined the case for regulating Underrun Protection (UP) on heavy vehicles through the Australian Design Rules (ADRs). It was proposed that an ADR be developed that adopts the international standard UNECE R 93 for front underrun protection devices (FUPD) for rigid and articulated heavy vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) greater than 7.5 tonnes. A Regulation Impact Statement was issued in 2007  for public comment, and a regulation is expected to be in place this year and come into effect by late 2010.