High safety ratings for small cars mean little in real world accidents.

[stevz]

http://www.news.com.au/national/ligh...-1226446197372

Light city cars' high ANCAP ratings do not protect in real world crashes
August 09, 2012


LIGHT city cars with high official safety ratings are under-achievers in real-world crashes, according to the latest survey.

While most new light cars score four or a maximum five stars in the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), they are disadvantaged by their weight when crashing into bigger and heavier vehicles, RACQ safety spokesman Steve Spalding said yesterday.

He was commenting on the 20th annual Used Car Safety Ratings of 313 cars in 5.8 million crashes in Australia and New Zealand. It is compiled by Monash University's Accident Research Centre with support from state auto clubs and transport departments.

"Drivers can be about 10 times more likely to die or be seriously injured in a crash driving a used car with a poor safety record compared with a top performer,'' Mr Spalding said.

The survey found the safest vehicle for occupants and other road users was the BMW X5 SUV (2001-2008), while the most dangerous was the early 1980s Daihatsu HiJet which was 11.5 times worse than the X5.

NRMA vehicle safety expert Jack Haley said 29 vehicles scored their Safe Pick rating of which 19 were small, medium or large cars, most manufactured since 2001, demonstrating the advances in affordable safe vehicles. There were only 19 safe picks last year and none in the first survey.

However, Mr Spalding pointed out that light cars were the worst performers in the survey, despite many having good ANCAP scores.

"Often light cars' scores don't correlate with how they perform in ANCAP,'' he said.

"The Hyundai Getz is a good example. It's a four-star ANCAP performer, but gets one star in the real world. Also, the Yaris gets five stars, but we only give it three.

"The problem is the ANCAP crash test doesn't take into account weight. The heavier car will always come off better in a crash.

"In the real world, crashes happen at different angles with different circumstances. ANCAP only does offset front and side impact tests.''

The research rated cars not only on the protection they provide the driver but also the level of risk they present to other road users in a collision. Those that scored highly on both counts were labelled Safe Picks.

Mr Spalding suggested buyers should not just look at ANCAP, but also the Used Car Safety Ratings.

"While the top Safe Pick is a prestige vehicle, motorists can be assured there are Safe Picks in almost every class of vehicle covering a broad price range,'' he said.

"Alarmingly, the research shows that while novice drivers have the highest crash risk they often drive the least safe vehicles.

"By choosing safer vehicles, novice drivers could reduce their road trauma statistics by 60 to 80 per cent.''

NSW Centre for Road Safety general manager Margaret Prendergast said newer models provide drivers with better protection from injury in a crash than older ones.

"Motorists will see from the list that some of the most affordable used cars are the safest,'' she said.

Mercedes-Benz and Volvo barely rated in the top choices, despite being acknowledged as global vehicle safety leaders.

The spokesmen for the companies attribute that to the fact the active and passive safety systems in these vehicles means they don't crash as often.

Even BMW, whose 2001-08 X5 large SUV earned a mention as the safest vehicle overall, is bemused by the fact the newer - and safer - model introduced in 2009 didn't earn a mention.

BMW spokesman Piers Scott said the result vindicated BMW's safety-led research and development but questioned the applicability of the MUARC findings in terms of determining the best car to buy based on safety.

"The absence from the list of the newer model X5, which by all accounts is considerably safer, raises questions over how crash-worthiness has been assessed in this study".

Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce executive director David Purchase also noted the report didn't take into account the roadworthiness of the vehicles involved in the crashes.

"Even modern vehicles with five-star (ANCAP) safety ratings, including ABS and ESC, need ongoing maintenance and regular servicing to operate at their best," he said.

"Something as simple as a worn tyre makes a vehicle unsafe whatever its age."

[MAGPIE]

From the same survey...

SAFE PICKS

Small cars

Honda Civic 2006-10

Peugeot 307. 2001-09

Volkswagen Golf/Bora 1999-2004

Volkswagen Golf/Jetta 2004-10

Volvo S40/V40 1997-2004

Medium cars

Audi A4 2001-08

BMW 3 series E90/E91/E92/E93 2005-10

BMW 5 series E39 1996-2003

Honda Accord 2003-07

Mazda 6 2002-07

Mercedes Benz C-Class W203 2000-07

Saab 9000 1986-97
Saab 900/9-3 1994-2002

Subaru Liberty/Legacy/Outback 2003-09

Volkswagen Passat 1998-2006

Large cars

Ford Falcon FG 2008-10

Mercedes Benz E-Class W210 1996-2002

Mitsubishi 380. 2005-08

Toyota Aurion 2006-10

Light cars

Mazda 2 2007-10

Commercial vehicles (utes)

Mitsubishi Triton ML/MN 2006-10

Commercial vehicles (vans)

Ford Transit 2001-07

Compact four-wheel-drives Honda CR-V 2002-06

Subaru Forester 2002-08

Medium four-wheel-drives

Ford Territory SX/SY 2004-10

Holden Captiva CG 2006-10

Mitsubishi Pajero NM/NP/NS 2000-06

Large four-wheel-drives

BMW X5 2001-08

Ford Explorer 2001-05

[Franco Cozzo]

Seemed to work pretty good for me:





Doesn't matter how big your car is or how many stars she gets on the ol' safety rating when you hit an immovable object like a tree, you're going to come off second best.

I reckon thats why me and the other guy come out of this alright, even if our cars where completely rooted, the way I hit him his car just got pushed out of the way, wasn't much resistance there.

On a completely different point, why is the passenger airbag so big?

[mik]

the passenger air bag has to travel further.
i would always rather a big car than small car, don`t care how many stars a small car has !

[Road_Warrior]

The volumetric area the passenger airbag has to occupy is much greater because the passenger doesnt have a steering wheel or dashboard in front of them. Consequently, the passenger airbag has to be that size to prevent the passenger's head contacting the crash pad in a frontal collision.

[turbodewd]

I raised this very issue about 3-4 wks ago when I visited the ANCAP website. One of their tests includes the simulated crash of the vehicle into one of a similar size/weight. What a joke!

With the huge increase in SUVs and pickups on our roads the Corolla and Focus cant claim a 5star rating just like a Falcon.

AND a Falcon is far less likely to roll than a Kluger!

Falcons, Aurions are safest one would think.

AND a little Smart car or Yaris can be flung into other lanes of traffic, or off bridges/down embankments.

[zilo]

The longer the bonnet the safer the car.

You can decellerate in 1 metre or half a metre.

Forces on the body crudely double if you stop in half the time.

Real world example...

At 60km/h into a brick wall a Yaris=17g's (1 metre bonnet length)
At 60km/h into a brick wall a Falcon=10g's (1.5 metre bonnet length)

Roughly speaking of course.....

[Werd.]

I can't even find crash ratings for my DD.
but I can say the AU falcon was very smooth when I crashed it, hardly felt a thing even though the noise drew a crowd.

[smoo]

Darwinism at its best, as someone who does many highway kays on bike, truck and car I can't really recall the last econo car I've seen driven with an ounce of common sense. This obviously filters through to their car purchase decision, especially when kids are involved. But if it gives people the warm and fuzzies driving a 5 star car then good on them, I'd take an old $5000 E38 7 series or W140 S Class everytime.

[2011G6E]

Holy crap...that photo in the article! The Falcon looks like a "open the door, get out and walk away" proposition, but the little driving school car looks like a "have the door cut off, and get carried away (quickly) on a stretcher" accident...

Airbags, crumple zones, seat belt pretensioners..none of it means squat when the little equation of "difference in size and mass" comes into play...the big car will always beat the smaller one in just about any accident...

There was a study some years back that said a solid impact with a "solid immoveable object" (bridge pilon, big tree, etc) at 80kph or greater was "basically unsurviveable". Oh sure...sometimes you get the odd case of some miraculous escape from a 100kph crash into trees or a truck...but air bags or not, the human body wasn't made to take such a sudden decelleration and high G load in such a crash.
Nearly always you'll end up nicely brown bread.
There's also the study into, of all things, pushbike helmets that had some interesting results. It seemed to show that people in general, but young people and kids in particular, seemed to be taking more risks in traffic since helmet laws came in. It was a psychological thing that people thought they were now "completely safe" because they were wearing a few ounces of foam on their head...all the adverts told them so. There was even one place overseas (can't recall the country) that repealed helmet laws and the rate of bicycle accidents actually went down.

If you read the comments by people who are actively for manditory wearing of pushbike helmets, they always, always only talk about "head injuries"...if I am toddling along on my pushbike and get hit by a car, I think head injuries will be the least of my worries, or at least just one of the myriad injuries I would end up with.
Same in cars...people assume airbags and a 5 star rating make a car "automatically 100% safe". Sure they do...

Same with cars I would suspect...how often have you seen someone carving up traffic in some tinny little ecomobile like they were a semi trailer, thinking they were invincible because it's got 5 stars, and just look at all the airbags I have!
In their mind, it takes all the responsibility off them...if they have a crash, they simply [i]have[/i[ to come out OK....don't they...?

[purnong]

Here's a link to the actual data for real world crashes and how they compare to the ANCAP ratings
The actual vehicle ratings are towards the bottom of the document, A couple of things I picked was that the FG falcon was one of the safest cars on the road and the WB Statesman was amongst the worst as was the Ford Bronco

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc313.pdf

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Holy crap...that photo in the article! The Falcon looks like a "open the door, get out and walk away" proposition, but the little driving school car looks like a "have the door cut off, and get carried away (quickly) on a stretcher" accident...

Pic proves nothing...

One car T-boned another...

[prydey]

ancap ratings are only to be compared against cars of similar mass and similar category. it says so somewhere on their own website. i know i've read it there before. this has always been the case.

the confusion comes from the manufacturers, with all of them claiming '5 star safety' without telling the full story.

it would be almost impossible for ancap to test in any other way. it would require testing that was extremely extensive and would take forever to cover all variables. the way they do it now, all cars are tested the same and the ratings are comparable across each segment.

Originally Posted by Benny D

this is why i cringe every time i see one of them smart "fortwo" cars.. theres no crumble zone...

some viewing pleasure for you. they perform much better than you'd think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Holy crap...that photo in the article! The Falcon looks like a "open the door, get out and walk away" proposition

This is what sold me on owning a falcon. We had an AUII cab crashed pretty much just like the picture, same scenario (other driver ran a red light) and it literally was a walk-away proposition for the driver and his passengers. I couldn't believe that it would bend the k-frame/crossmember, move the wheels in their arches and just generally munt everything forward of the firewall - but - you could open the doors and walk away. No movement of the dash or anything inside!

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Holy crap...that photo in the article! The Falcon looks like a "open the door, get out and walk away" proposition, but the little driving school car looks like a "have the door cut off, and get carried away (quickly) on a stretcher" accident...

The car being T-Boned is will almost always come off second best. If the little driving school car hit the falcon in the front door the falcon would not offer much resistance either as there is NO crumple zone.

Not much to do with size in the article's example picture

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The car being T-Boned is will almost always come off second best. If the little driving school car hit the falcon in the front door the falcon would not offer much resistance either as there is NO crumple zone.

Not much to do with size in the article's example picture

at least to score 5 stars the cars have to perform to a certain level in the pole test. so yes, no crumple zones but new cars do have some side impact protection.

[Road_Warrior]

People are failing to realise the devil is in the detail with these 'star' ratings issued by ANCAP and EuroNCAP and the NHTSA. Take the time to read the reports that accompany the ratings, they explain quite a bit.

Take the SYII Territory for example. Structurally, a very robust car that can hold up well in a collision and provide good protection for its passengers. But it wasnt awarded 5 stars until Ford added a seatbelt warning chime for backseat passengers and a damper plate under the steering column to provide more protection for the driver's knees. When you see the rating in the context of the fact it is already coming off a robust base to begin with, the rating system seems silly.

Holden had the same issue with the VE Commodore at launch, they were adamant it would ace ANCAP and designed and produced a very robust structure straight out of the box, but it was held back based on points because of a passive seatbelt reminder. The FG was 5 stars straight out of the box because they were aware of what they would need based on the points system.

So is the testing regime flawed? I think so. Reliance on electronic aids (whether passive or active) won't save you in a crash if the vehicle you are driving has a body structure design that is flawed.

[Benny D]

this is why i cringe every time i see one of them smart "fortwo" cars.. theres no crumble zone...

[stang65]

i found the article and have posted the link in the other thread.
i will post it here as well as it seems to be more viewed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/bre...-1226446110866

Aussie cars score well in safety ratings

From: AAP
August 08, 2012 4:32PM



FOUR Australian-built cars have been listed as safe picks in the latest used-car safety ratings released by the nation's motoring clubs.
Herald Sun Digital Pass

The local cars getting the top gong are the Ford Territory, the FG Falcon, the Toyota Aurion and the Mitsubishi 380.

The ratings indicate how well each vehicle protects drivers from death or serious injury in a crash, with five stars awarded for the best performers.

Five-star vehicles are also named as safe picks if they cause less serious injury to other road users in an accident, including pedestrians and cyclists.

The ratings cover 197 vehicles from light cars to commercial vehicles manufactured between 1996 and 2011.

Royal Automobile Association (RAA) spokesman Mark Borlace said the ratings were helpful for motorists looking to buy a safe car, because the analysis was based on real crashes.

"The safe-pick rating identifies the best vehicles which not only protect the driver in crashes, but also minimise injury to other road users including pedestrians and cyclists," Mr Borlace said.

But while 90 cars were rated as excellent or good, 22 were considered poor and 48 very poor.

Among the worst in the family car category were the Hyundai Sonata built between 1989 and 1997 and the Mitsubishi Magna built from 1989 to 2003.

In the popular small-car category the safe picks included the Honda Civic, the Peugeot 307, the Volkswagen Golf and the Volvo S40.

Among the lowest rated small cars were the Daewoo Lanos, the Hyundai Accent, the Proton Wira and the Toyota Paseo.

The ratings were calculated by the Monash University Accident Research Centre which analysed the injury outcomes of more than 5.8 million vehicle crashes and 1.3 million injured road users between 1987 and 2010.

[stang65]

I think we should be proud of our Falcon and Terry.
Very under rated cars.

[deesun]

I can see only 1 Holden v 4 Fords but in this weeks Drivel, Carsguide or Smithys **** column the heading will be Holden Captiva scores as one of the safest used cars around.

[Franco Cozzo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecd...eature=related

Small recent car vs old big car

[stevz]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecd...eature=related

Small recent car vs old big car

Now they should do that test again with a 5 star small car vs a 5 star large car

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by stevz

Now they should do that test again with a 5 star small car vs a 5 star large car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVF1Wr7GLQ

Looks like most of us have already forgotten this test. The little Fiat 500 has a 5-star rating, but look how well it holds up against an Audi SUV.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by TC200six

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVF1Wr7GLQ

Looks like most of us have already forgotten this test. The little Fiat 500 has a 5-star rating, but look how well it holds up against an Audi SUV.

I don't think it holds up very well at all, and imo it isn't deserving of a 5 star rating.
Look at 0:20, the Audi driver's head is properly cushioned by the airbag and is nowhere near making contact with the steering wheel. There is minimal movement of the dash and steering column and the occupants' movement appears to be stable and controlled.
In the Fiat on the other hand, it appears the driver makes contact with the side of the airbag instead of the middle of it, resulting in the driver's head striking the steering wheel and dashboard through the airbag. At 0:47, the drivers body,head and neck appear to be twisted sideways. There is significant A-pillar deformation and dashboard intrusion in the Fiat, both of which are not present in the Audi.
IMO, if that was a real life collision, the Audi driver would walk away, while the Fiat driver would be seriously injured at best.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by stevz

I don't think it holds up very well at all, and imo it isn't deserving of a 5 star rating.

clearly you don't understand the theory behind the ratings. they can't be compared across different segments. ask ancap, they'll tell you the same thing.

smash a 5 star large car into a mack or kenworth. its all about mass.

if you are going to buy a small car, a 5 star one will perform better than a 3 or 4 star small car. if you want to buy a large car, a 5 star one will perform better etc etc.

not a difficult concept.

one thing i would like to see added to the manufacturer sticker is a disclaimer with words to that effect. it is often the manufacturer who is guilty of misleading the public. the general public are led to believe 5 star is 5 star, regardless of mass.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecd...eature=related

Small recent car vs old big car

There is only 300kg between those cars. Obviously the advances in safety have overcome that weight difference. I wonder what would happen between a large and small car from the same era. I don't think it would be the same result.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecd...eature=related

Small recent car vs old big car

yeah...Front wheel drive car versus rear wheel drive car and a very selective offset collision to pass by the side of the volvo engine.

Also that video is known to be a lie, that model Volvo is a 740 with 940 badges, a fake.

(940 had airbags and Side impact protection system and was significantly safer than a 740.)

We bought one for our 18 year old and it has already saved injury.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Ugg

yeah...Front wheel drive car versus rear wheel drive car and a very selective offset collision to pass by the side of the volvo engine.

Also that video is known to be a lie, that model Volvo is a 740 with 940 badges, a fake.

(940 had airbags and Side impact protection system and was significantly safer than a 740.)

We bought one for our 18 year old and it has already saved injury.

And the badges effect safety now?

The video clearly shows that the smaller car is just as safe (if not safer) then the larger car. Obviously, its not a video comparing airbags, but the damaged sustained on impact.



And quite frankly, the way the dash and steering wheel gets propelled gets rocketed into the Volvo drivers face is alarming, Airbag or no airbag, he would be quite sore.....

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Nikked

The video clearly shows that the smaller car is just as safe (if not safer) then the larger car. Obviously, its not a video comparing airbags, but the damaged sustained on impact.
....

Best to not confuse panel damage with occupant injury outcomes.

Considering the test was stacked against it the Volvo did very,very well.

My money would be on the Volvo, it's occupants would have broken legs, but the Renault passengers would have as many external injuries and probably be dying from internal injuries from the massive G force when their little car spun violently.