How Effective?

Rear underrun

Rear impacts to the HGV constitute 14.3% of all car/HGV impacts and 18.3% of fatal car/HGV impacts. The vast majority of these are likely to be frontal impacts for the cars involved, although some could involve cars sliding sideways or even rear-end-on into the HGV (Minton & Robinson. 2010).

Minton and Robinson (2010) found through an analysis of accident statistics, that 84% of cases still underran vehicles where RUP was fitted, suggesting that the current designs are not suitable for preventing underrun in all current accident circumstances.

(Minton & Robinson, 2010)

Front underrun

EC Directive 2000/40/EC, effective since August 2003, introduced a requirement for all HGVs registered after this date to be fitted with rigid front underrun protection (FUP). Chislett, and Robinson (2010) state that evidence available suggests this has not resulted in a reduction in the severity of car occupant casualties in collision with the front of HGVs, though it is not known whether this is because of inadequate data or a genuine lack of effect.

(Chislett and Robinson, 2010)

Side underrun

There is conflicting evidence of the effects of sideguards on accidents where pedal cyclists collide with an HGV which is turning left. Most evidence suggests that there will be little, if any, effect. However an analysis of exempt vehicles suggests that sideguards have a significant effect both on reducing the frequency of such collisions and on reducing the severity of injuries sustained when these collisions do occur. Which analysis is correct cannot be proven with the data available to this study.

(Cookson and Knight, 2010)

Subsequent analysis by TRL has shown that sideguards are a positive safety feature and are being mandated.

(TRL 2014)


  • Date Added: 03 Apr 2012, 08:20 AM
  • Last Update: 30 Jan 2017, 02:42 PM