<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Passenger car-induced lateral aerodynamic loads on cyclists during overtaking</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1760512</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Lateral loads on cyclist dummies exerted by an overtaking station wagon were acquired in a field measurement campaign. The cyclists were represented by full-size person dummies of an adult and a child on various bike types. Overtaking maneuvers with different vehicle speeds (40–100 ​km/h) and overtaking distances (0.5–2.0 ​m) were performed. Overall, the load time series reveal distinct phases with the lateral load acting to push a cyclist away in a pressure phase, followed by the lateral load acting to pull a cyclist towards the vehicle in a suction phase. The two phases are demarcated by a short transition period in which the load quickly flips over from a pressure peak to a suction peak. The peak-to-peak magnitude (flip over load) was found to increase with increasing cyclist lateral area, vehicle speed, and decreasing overtaking distance. The duration of the transition period (flip over duration) was found to decrease with increasing vehicle speed and decreasing overtaking distance. For the flip over load and duration, functional relationships based on the three aforementioned variables/parameters could be derived. Furthermore, the flip over load rate (ratio of flip over load and duration) is introduced and suggested as an informative measure for cyclist safety.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:28:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1760512</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dynamic Response of Vehicle Roof Structure and ATD Neck Loading During Dolly Rollover Tests</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1431290</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The debate surrounding roof deformation and occupant injury potential has existed in the automotive community for over 30 years. In analysis of real-world rollovers, assessment of roof deformation and occupant compartment space starts with the post-accident roof position. Dynamic movement of the roof structure during a rollover sequence is generally acknowledged but quantification of the dynamic roof displacement has been limited. Previous assessment of dynamic roof deformation has been generally limited to review of the video footage from staged rollover events.              Rollover testing for the evaluation of injury potential has typically been studied utilizing instrumented test dummies, on-board and off-board cameras, and measurements of residual crush. This study introduces an analysis of previously undocumented real-time data to be considered in the evaluation of the roof structure's dynamic behavior during a rollover event. A series of dolly rollover tests (Forester Test Series) were conducted on both concrete and compacted dirt surfaces. The test vehicles, 2003 Subaru Foresters, had a roof strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) of 4.8 (     Summers, 2005     ), among the highest of all vehicles NHTSA has tested to date. The vehicles were instrumented with accelerometers and angular rate sensors to measure the vehicle kinematics and dynamics. The vehicles were also instrumented at the A- and B-pillars with strain gages, accelerometers, and string potentiometers to document the dynamic loading and motion of the pillars at the roof rail junctions. High-speed and real-time video cameras visually documented vehicle motions and roof deformation. The third test in the Forester Test Series, conducted on a dirt surface, included Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) in the front seating positions to assess the interactions of the ATDs within the occupant space. This paper presents innovative techniques and data analysis that include the dynamic measurement of roof displacement, acceleration, and strain using polar plots and video synchronized with data.          ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 15:45:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1431290</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Performance of an Automotive Under-Body Diffuser Applied to a Sedan and a Wagon Vehicle</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1433008</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Reducing resistance forces all over the vehicle is the most sustainable way to reduce fuel consumption. Aerodynamic drag is the dominating resistance force at highway speeds, and the power required to overcome this force increases by the power three of speed. The exterior body and especially the under-body and rear-end geometry of a passenger car are significant contributors to the overall aerodynamic drag. To reduce the aerodynamic drag it is of great importance to have a good pressure recovery at the rear. Since pressure drag is the dominating aerodynamic drag force for a passenger vehicle, the drag force will be a measure of the difference between the pressure in front and at the rear. There is high stagnation pressure at the front which requires a base pressure as high as possible. The pressure will recover from the sides by a taper angle, from the top by the rear wind screen, and from the bottom, by a diffuser. It is not necessarily the case that an optimized lower part of the rear end for a wagon-type car has the same performance as for a sedan or hatch-back car. This study focused on the function of an under-body diffuser applied to a sedan and wagon car. The diffuser geometry was chosen from a feasibility stand-point of a production vehicle such as a passenger car. The fluid dynamic function and theory of the automotive under-body diffuser working as a drag reduction device is discussed. The flow physics of the under-body and the wake was analyzed to understand the diffuser behaviour in its application to lift and drag forces on a vehicle in ground proximity. This work is mainly a numerical analysis that uses the traditional CFD approach from the automotive industry. Results from this study show a potential to reduce aerodynamic drag of the sedan car approximately 10%, and the wagon car by 2-3 %. The possible gain was much bigger for the sedan vehicle and the optimum occurs at a higher diffuser angle. This was most likely due to the fact that the sedan car in its original shape produced more lift force than the wagon, a wagon usually produces very little lift or even down-force. Lift forces were also reduced with the use of under-body covers with diffuser. The down-force increased, or lift force decreased, linearly with increased diffuser angle, and the trend was the same for both sedan and wagon rear ends. Flow analysis of the wake showed the importance of how the wake is balanced.       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:41:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1433008</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comparison of Differences in Insurance Costs for Passenger Cars, Station Wagons, Passenger Vans, Pickups, and Utility Vehicles on the Basis of Damage Susceptibility</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1315881</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This booklet, published annually, compares differences in insurance costs for different makes and models of passenger cars, station wagons, passenger vans, pickups, and utility vehicles on the basis of damage susceptibility. It does not, however, indicate a vehicle's relative safety for occupants. The information was taken from data compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in its December 2013 Insurance Collision Report, and reflects the collision loss experience of passenger cars, station wagons, passenger vans, pickups, and utility vehicles sold in the United States in terms of the average loss payment per insured vehicle year for model years 2011-2013.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:44:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1315881</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Relative Collision Insurance Cost Information Booklet (2009): Comparison of Differences in Insurance Costs For Passenger Cars, Station Wagons/Passenger Vans, Pickups, and Sport Utility Vehicles on the Basis of Damage Susceptibility</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/894404</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has provided the information in this booklet in compliance with Federal law as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of new vehicles. The booklet compares differences in insurance costs for different makes and models of passenger cars, utility vehicles, light trucks, and vans on the basis of damage susceptibility for the vehicle. However, it does not indicate a vehicle's relative safety for occupants.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:11:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/894404</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Solutions for Enhancing Remote Sensing High Emitter Vehicle Screening Procedures</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/801140</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Remote Sensing Devices (RSDs) are used as supplementary tools to identify high emitting vehicles (HEVs) in order to help achieve the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, tailpipe emissions in grams cannot be directly measured using remote sensing (RS) systems because they utilize a concentration-based technique. Consequently, converting emission measurements from concentration to mass is needed. The research presented here combines the carbon balance equation with fuel consumption estimates to make this conversion. In estimating vehicle fuel consumption rates, the VT-Micro model and a Vehicle Specific Power (VSP)-based model (the PERE model) are considered and compared. The results of the comparison demonstrate that both of the VT-Micro and PERE models provide reliable fuel consumption estimates (R2 of 90% and higher for a 1993 Honda Accord with a 2.4L engine). The study clearly demonstrates that the proposed procedure works well in converting concentration measurements to mass emissions and can be applicable in the screening of HEVs and normal emitting vehicles for several vehicle types such as sedans, station wagons, full-size vans, mini vans, pickup trucks, and SUVs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:11:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/801140</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Vehicle Class Recognition of Street-Parking Vehicles from Side-View Range Images</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/772913</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes a novel method for recognizing the classes of street-parking vehicles. We have already developed the following two systems: one is vehicle recognition system based on local-feature configuration, and the other is detecting street-paring vehicles from side-view range images. In this paper, we combine these two systems to develop a new system with which we can not only count the number of street-parking vehicles but also recognize their class of vehicle type such as sedan, wagon, mini-van or so. We have confirmed that our classification algorithm is still robust on range images, performing outdoor experiments. Our system can recognize four vehicle classes of sedan, wagon, mini-van and hatchback from outdoor range images with accuracy of about 80%.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:56:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/772913</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Show Me: A Different Kind of Coordination</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/756298</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article describes how, in the western Missouri’s town of Lamar, community transportation is run out of the police department with a bus and a station wagon.  The system is called the Truman Area Transportation System and it is considered to be one of the State’s - and the Nation’s finest examples of innovative coordination and resourcefulness in community-based transportation.  The town’s police chief also heads up the transportation system and his secretary is the Office Coordinator.  Add five drivers and a decade of experience and this small town delivers an average of 100 rides a day.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:34:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/756298</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN INSURANCE COSTS FOR PASSENGER CARS, STATION WAGONS/PASSENGER VANS, PICKUPS AND UTILITY VEHICLES ON THE BASIS OF DAMAGE SUSCEPTIBILITY - FEBRUARY 2005</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/755094</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This booklet, published annually, compares differences in insurance costs for different makes and models of passenger cars, station wagons/passenger vans, pickups, and utility vehicles on the basis of damage susceptibility.  It does not, however, indicate a vehicle's relative safety.  The information was taken from data compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in its December 2004 Insurance Collision Report, and reflects the collision loss experience of passenger cars, utility vehicles, light trucks, and vans sold in the United States in terms of the average loss payment per insured vehicle year for model years 2002-2004.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/755094</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN INSURANCE COSTS FOR PASSENGER CARS, STATION WAGONS/PASSENGER VANS, PICKUPS, AND UTILITY VEHICLES ON THE BASIS OF DAMAGE SUSCEPTIBILITY - FEBRUARY 2003</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/731168</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This booklet, published annually, compares differences in insurance costs for different makes and models of passenger cars, station wagons/passenger vans, pickups, and utility vehicles on the basis of damage susceptibility.  It does not indicate a vehicle's relative safety, however.  The information was taken from data compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in its December 2002 Insurance Collision Report, and reflects the collision loss experience of passenger cars, utility vehicles, light trucks, and vans sold in the United States in terms of the average loss payment per insured vehicle year for model years 2000-2002.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/731168</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ANOTHER INTERESTING INSTALLMENT OF "CAR WARS"</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/710807</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This annual report discusses trends in the size and dimensions of vehicles and how they affect parking operations. Along with the well- known trend to larger-than-car vehicles with SUVs and light trucks is a bolt upward in the sales of sport wagons, whose sales doubled from 2000 to 2001. They seem to be taking sales away from the larger models. Small cars are holding steady, while a true "mini " car (Class 5 using Automotive News' rankings) has yet to come to the U.S. market. The new MiniCooper is short, but too wide to qualify. Also absent from the U.S. market are the single-person commuting vehicles gaining in Europe. The largest of the small car classes are the most popular in terms of sales. In terms of parking spaces, most drivers don't know their vehicle's dimensions, so rules are hard to enforce. After major adjustments for parking place geometric tables in 2000 for the Ford Expedition, no immediate changes are expected this year.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2002 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/710807</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MODEL YEAR 2002 FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/691480</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Fuel Economy Guide is published by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new vehicle.  The Guide lists estimates of miles per gallon (mpg) for each vehicle available for the new model year.  The Guide is intended to help consumers compare the fuel economy of similarly sized cars, light duty trucks and special purpose vehicles.  The contents of this year's guide are as follows:  Why Buy a Fuel-Efficient Vehicle; Model Year 2002 Fuel Economy Leaders; Fuel Economy Estimates; Why Your Fuel Economy Can Vary; Why Some Vehicles Are Not in This Guide; There Are Two Fuel Economy Estimates for Each Vehicle; Vehicle Classes Used in This Guide; www.fueleconomy.gov; Gas Guzzler Tax; Tips for Improving Fuel Economy; How Fuel Economy Affects Climate Change; How Fuel Economy Affects Our National Energy Security; Hybrid-Electric Vehicles; Fuel Economy and Your Annual Fuel Costs; Annual Fuel Costs; 2002 Model Year Vehicles; Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles; Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Propane) Vehicles; Diesel Vehicles; Electric Vehicles; Ethanol Flexible-Fuel Vehicles; and Index to the 2002 Fuel Economy Guide.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/691480</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>INJURY SEVERITY IN MULTIVEHICLE REAR-END CRASHES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/692579</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Rear-end crashes constitute a substantial portion of the total crashes in the United States.  They are also amenable to reduction through emerging intelligent transportation systems technologies such as crash warning systems.  A specific objective was to analyze the effect of information and vehicle technology on injury severity in rear-end crashes, while controlling for the effects of driver, vehicle, and roadway factors.  The study is based on real-life data from the Highway Safety Information System for North Carolina access-controlled roadways.  The results show that in two-vehicle crashes the leading driver is more severely injured, whereas in three-vehicle crashes the driver in the middle is more severely injured.  To analyze injury severity on the KABCO scale, three separate ordered probit models were estimated for Drivers 1 (leading), 2 (striking), and 3 (striking, in a three-vehicle crash).  A vehicle age variable was used in the model specification to capture the effect of vehicle age and to serve as a proxy for safety improvements, in particular the center high-mounted stoplight (CHMSL).  The modeling results show that being in a newer vehicle protects the driver in rear-end collisions.  Similarly, being in a newer vehicle protects Driver 2.  Interestingly, striking a newer Vehicle 1 can reduce the chance of both Driver 2 and Driver 3 injuries, partly as a result of CHMSL on Vehicle 1.  Also examined is whether drivers of vans, pickup trucks, and station wagon cars/trucks sustain less-severe injuries because of their larger vehicle mass or more-severe injuries because of their information-blocking effect.  The results show that technological improvements have a quantifiable beneficial effect on safety.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/692579</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE MULTIVEHICLE REAR-END CRASHES: ANALYSIS OF CRASH PROPAGATION AND INJURY SEVERITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/636163</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this study is to examine the effect of information and other factors on rear-end crash propagation and the propensity of driver injury in such crashes.  The implications of the findings for developing early warning systems are also explored.  The study examines the effect of Center High Mounted Stoplight (CHMSL) and transparency or opaqueness of leading vehicles (in a platoon of vehicles) while controlling for driver, vehicle and roadway/environmental factors.  The literature has found a link between the presence of CHMSL and a 4% to 8% reduction in rear-end crashes. Real-life crash and inventory data on two-vehicle and three-vehicle rear-end crashes are analyzed.  Only passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks and station wagons (trucks and cars) involved in rear-end crashes are considered.  The analysis indicates that there is no statistical evidence to link the presence of CHMSL with lower crash propagation.  That is, CHMSL are not necessarily more effective in rear-end crashes involving three-vehicles compared with two-vehicles.  However, it was found that passenger cars are less likely to be struck (in position 1) than to strike.  Vans, pickup trucks and station wagons are more likely to strike (in positions 2 or 3).  This is consistent with the hypothesis that drivers may respond to information from two or more vehicles ahead.  The results on injury severity in rear-end crashes show that in a two-vehicle crash, the leading driver is more likely to be injured, whereas, in a three-vehicle crash, the driver in the middle is likely to be more severely injured.  Furthermore, as rear-end crashes propagate from two-vehicles to three-vehicles the last driver is relatively less severely injured.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/636163</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN INSURANCE COSTS FOR PASSENGER CARS, STATION WAGONS/PASSENGER VANS, PICKUPS AND UTILITY VEHICLES ON THE BASIS OF DAMAGE SUSCEPTIBILITY - FEBRUARY 2000</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/654755</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This booklet, published annually, compares differences in insurance costs for different makes and models of passenger cars, station wagons/passenger vans, pickups, and utility vehicles on the basis of damage susceptibility.  It does not indicate a vehicle's relative safety, however.  The information was taken from data compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in its December 1999 Insurance Collision Report, and reflects the collision loss experience of passenger cars, utility vehicles, light trucks, and vans sold in the United States in terms of the average loss payment per insured vehicle year for model years 1997-1999.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/654755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>