Comparison of frontal crash compatibility metrics between battery-electric and internal-combustion-engine passenger vehicles

References

• Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 2003. Enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility: commitment for continued progress by leading automakers. Washington (DC): Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.
   Google Scholar
• Baker BC, Nolan JM, O'Neill B, Genetos AP. 2008. Crash compatibility between cars and light trucks: benefits of lowering front-end energy-absorbing structure in SUVs and pickups. Accid Anal Prev. 40(1):116–125. PMID: 18215539. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.04.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmunds. 2023a. Audi e-tron vehicle specs & features. https://www.edmunds.com/audi/e-tron/2023/features-specs/.
   Google Scholar
• Edmunds. 2023b. Nissan Armada vehicle specs & features. https://www.edmunds.com/nissan/armada/2022/features-specs/.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards M, Cuerden R, Davies H. 2007. Current Status of the Full Width Deformable Barrier Test. In Proceedings of the 20^th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 2007 June 18–21; Lyon, France. Washington (DC): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Paper No. 0088.
   Google Scholar
• Highway Loss Data Institute. 2022. Electric vehicle trends. Arlington (VA): Highway Loss Data Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Kane M. 2023. US: All-electric car sales surged in January 2023 - 7% market share. Miami (FL): InsideEVs. https://insideevs.com/news/657660/us-electric-car-sales-january2023/
   Google Scholar
• Lund AK, Chapline JF. 1999. Potential strategies for improving crash compatibility in the U.S. vehicle fleet. SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-0066. Warrendale (PA): SAE International. https://doi.org/10.4271/1999-01-0066
   Google Scholar
• Meyerson SL, Nolan JM. 2001. Effects of geometry and stiffness on the frontal compatibility of utility vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 2001 June 4–7; Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Washington (DC): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Monfort S, Nolan J. 2019. Trends in aggressivity and driver risk for cars, SUVs, and pickups: Vehicle incompatibility from 1986 to 2016. Traffic Inj Prev. 20(sup1):S92–S96. PMID: 31381434. doi:10.1080/15389588.2019.1632442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ossiander EM, Koepsell TD, McKnight B. 2014. Crash fatality and vehicle incompatibility in collisions between cars and light trucks or vans. Inj Prev. 20(6):373–379. PMID: 24835235. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2013-041146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel S, Smith D, Prasad A, Mohan P. 2007. NHTSA’s recent vehicle crash test program on compatibility in front-to-front impacts. In Proceedings of the 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 2007 June 18–21; Lyon, France. Washington (DC): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Paper No. 0231.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad P, Smorgonsky L. 1995. Comparative evaluation of various frontal impact test procedures. SAE Technical Paper 950646. Warrendale (PA): SAE International. doi:10.4271/950646.
   Google Scholar
• SAE International. 2014. Surface vehicle recommended practice: instrumentation for Impact Test - Part 1 - Electronic Instrumentation. Warrendale (PA): SAE Standard J211/(1). p. 1–31. doi:10.4271/J211/1_201403.
   Google Scholar
• Summers SM, Hollowell WT, Prasad A. 2003. NHTSA’s research program for vehicle compatibility. In Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 2002 May 19–22; Nagoya, Japan. Washington (DC): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Paper No. 307.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson J, Rockwell T, Beuse N, Summers L, Summers S, Park B. 2003. Evaluation of stiffness from the US New Car Assessment Program. In Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 2002 May 19–22; Nagoya, Japan. Washington (DC): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Paper No. 527.
   Google Scholar
• Teoh E, Nolan J. 2012. Is passenger vehicle incompatibility still a problem? Traffic Inj Prev. 13(6):585–591. PMID: 23137089. doi:10.1080/15389588.2012.676222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiacek C, Nagabhushana V, Rockwell T, Summers S, Zhao L, Collins L. 2015. Evaluation of frontal crash stiffness measures from the U.S. New Car Assessment Program. In Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 2015 June 8–11; Gothenburg, Sweden. Washington (DC): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Paper No. 257.
   Google Scholar
• Yonezawa H, Mizuno K, Hirasawa T, Kanoshima H, Ichikawa H, Yamada S, Koga H, Yamaguchi A, Arai Y, Kikuchi A. 2009. Summary of Activities of the Compatibility Working Group. In Proceedings of the 21^st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 2009 June 15-18; Stuttgart, Germany. Paper No. 0203.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler F, Knoechelmann F. 1999. The influence of frontal crash test speeds on the compatibility of passenger cars in real-world accidents. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Real World Crash Injury Research. Vol. 3(4). Leicestershire, England: Cooperative Crash Injury Study (CCIS) Consortium. p. 1–11.
   Google Scholar