Car Safety

[daan]

Already posted on previous page, straight off uk gov website.

Where? Don't see any links.

And what about the small crash test dummies that don't exist?

 

[Scaff]

What exactly does the government “5 Star Crash Rating” mean? You won’t believe the answer!! If you’re in an accident, these ratings may not help you.

Almost every car company proudly displays their “5 Star Safety Crash Rating”, each manufacturer boasting their cars are safer than the others. But what does it all mean to you? How do they determine safety and how do they come up with a star program? Does a vehicle with a less than 5 star rating really mean it’s not safe to drive?

Let me begin to explain what they are all talking about. The ratings are determined by crash dummies, wired with sensors, placed in vehicles front and rear seats, and crashed into barriers to simulate an accident. But before we get into the particulars, let’s first understand the parameters.


1. The tests are conducted at speeds of 35 to 38.5 mph. Wait a minute.....35-38.5 mph? Who drives 35-38.5 mph. when the rest of the world is traveling at 45-75 mph? The government safety ratings do not cover anything over 38.5 mph. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety raises the bar though...they test at 40mph; a full 1 1⁄2 mile per hour faster...zoom, zoom.

2. Crash dummies only simulate full size adults, not teens, not children, not infants. Aren’t teenagers, children and infants passengers too? Why don’t they count in the ‘rating’ system?The crash dummies are wearing seat belts in all cases, front and rear seats...(everyone in vehicles always wears their seat belts, don’t they?).

3. The crash dummies are wired to measure injuries to head, neck, chest, pelvis, legs and feet, but all these findings are not included in the rating. The ratings only measure head and chest injuries for frontal crashes and head injuries only for side crashes (evidently, other injuries are not serious enough to count in a government study).

4. Impact assumptions are for similar vehicles, differing no more than 250 lbs. This means if you are driving a small, full size or luxury car and you hit an SUV or a minivan...the rating doesn’t count (and it certainly doesn’t count if you happen to hit a tractor trailer...those crashes might change the star ratings).

5. Finally, the rating is only referring to injuries that require immediate hospitalization or are life-threatening.

All taken from here.....

http://theautoworld.blogspot.com/2007/07/star.html

...a US website,talking about US safety tests. Not EuroNCAP.

The next time you are less than straight about your sources is the last time you will post here.


Scaff

 

[Speedster502]

But what does it all mean to you?

Actually for a matter of fact, my family take EuroNCAP very seriously. Infact since TopGear did a piece on showing cars which had been involved in a accident and had been tested on EuroNCAP. It touched me and my family, since then for our past 3 cars we've checked the NCAP result before buying. The NCAP rating became even more serious after we experienced a crash in 2002, from then on NCAP has been one of the vital decisions with cars. Our past 2 cars have both been 5* cars.

It makes a difference, I'd prefer to be in a car that I know will do its upmost to protect me rather than a car which will crumple on impact and probably cause serious damage.

Anyway, thats my two cents.

 

[Greycap]

Safety is necessary, excess safety is pointless.

What on earth is excess safety? It goes right in the same class with too fast computers and too cheap fuel, the class of things that don't exist. If I'll be involved in an accident I'll surely as hell want my car to be so safe that I'll see the next morning too. Partly because of this I drive a Volvo and not some Japanese econobox from the late eighties. It may not save me but it'll still give me far better chances than the econobox.

 

[buickgnx88]

Yes safety is necessary. Uber-complicated control systems aren't (here's looking at you BMW!)

 

[Joey D]

Yes safety is necessary. Uber-complicated control systems aren't (here's looking at you BMW!)

If they work why not have them? Sure the track enthusiast will suffer, but honestly out of the thousands upon thousands upon tens of thousands of car sold, how many actually see a track?

My car had traction control, stability control, anti-lock brakes, something that I see as hill assist, and tire pressure monitoring systems. It works just fine and my car's not any worse for having it, although it probably isn't 100% necessary.

 

[Venari]

Speaking as an automotive engineer, I am quite offended by the implication in this thread that I might be personally involved in some sort of conspiracy to deliberately reduce the efficiency or somehow 'cost out' a safety feature.

There is no conspiracy. Car companies spend a lot of money on researching ways to make cars safer by design, and organisations like EuroNCAP are provided with funding from other sources to provide an 'audit' function and feedback further information to car manufacturers by crash testing to do the same thing - keep you safer in the event of a crash.

If you want to be safe in a car - don't go anywhere in it, sit in it inside your garage and wall yourself in.

One car is always going to be slightly better than another. NCAP tests continually change according to risks highlighted from available data. It is highly likely that any accident you may have heard about where the outcome bore no relation to the EuroNCAP rating for the car means that the crash was freak or at the very least, highly creative. Personally, I feel that if you're in a road car rolled at 60mph, you're lucky not to be dead - that is an extreme accident.

 

[forza2.0]

All taken from here.....

http://theautoworld.blogspot.com/2007/07/star.html

...a US website,talking about US safety tests. Not EuroNCAP.

The next time you are less than straight about your sources is the last time you will post here.


Scaff

hold up I was just posting a article about car safety tests not being all that. I never said that was my source for what I already posted and quoted straight off the uk gov website, or even had anything to do with ncap. we might be debating about ncap at the moment but this thread as a whole concerns world car safety.

Personally, I feel that if you're in a road car rolled at 60mph, you're lucky not to be dead - that is an extreme accident.

There are 4 ibizas that I know of that have been rolled at speed and in all of them the occupants came out pretty much unhurt, just a odd cut and bruise. Infact one of the accidents was shown on TV by traffic police.

Actually for a matter of fact, my family take EuroNCAP very seriously. Infact since TopGear did a piece on showing cars which had been involved in a accident and had been tested on EuroNCAP. It touched me and my family, since then for our past 3 cars we've checked the NCAP result before buying. The NCAP rating became even more serious after we experienced a crash in 2002, from then on NCAP has been one of the vital decisions with cars. Our past 2 cars have both been 5* cars.

It makes a difference, I'd prefer to be in a car that I know will do its upmost to protect me rather than a car which will crumple on impact and probably cause serious damage.

Anyway, thats my two cents.

So what cars did you end up buying? NCAP isnt the be and end all in car safety but I suppose as a consumer its the best info you can go off. Personally NCAP can keep their ratings. If I wanted to buy a ultra safe car it would be a A8, S-class or S80, cannot go wrong with those.

I find it funny though how renault build uber safe cars yet bits and bobs fall off here and there, and you get those lovely rattles.

 

[buickgnx88]

Haha perhaps I should have been more specific, I meant systems like the iDrive that put all of the controls into the Nav system and are complex as hell, yet oh so unnecessary.

 

[Famine]

There are 4 ibizas that I know of that have been rolled at speed and in all of them the occupants came out pretty much unhurt, just a odd cut and bruise. Infact one of the accidents was shown on TV by traffic police.

That'd rather suggest that the passive safety is rather good, but the active safety is appalling.

 

[Scaff]

hold up I was just posting a article about car safety tests not being all that. I never said that was my source for what I already posted and quoted straight off the uk gov website, or even had anything to do with ncap. we might be debating about ncap at the moment but this thread as a whole concerns world car safety.

In the middle of an ongoing discussing about EuroNCAP and its validity, a validity that you are questioning you posted that piece.

You didn't place it in quotes, nor did you cite that it was not pary of the discussion. In fact you didn't add any of your own words to it at all.

Given the discussion was directly about EuroNCAP may I ask what the hell you did think we would consider it to be in regard to? I would suggest that you simply found it and posted it in the belief that it supported your argument, you didn't however look very closely at it and that point came back to bite you.

However lets take a closer look at these

1. The tests are conducted at speeds of 35 to 38.5 mph. Wait a minute.....35-38.5 mph? Who drives 35-38.5 mph. when the rest of the world is traveling at 45-75 mph? The government safety ratings do not cover anything over 38.5 mph. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety raises the bar though...they test at 40mph; a full 1 1⁄2 mile per hour faster...zoom, zoom.
Rather misleading of the author here who is implying that no attempt to slow a car is ever made prior to impact. Quite incorrect as well, most accidents occur after the vehicle(s) involved have attempted to slow to some degree, with that in mind the speed a crash test is carried out at would be lower than the average road speed. Its also worth nothing that EuroNCAP front offset tests are carried out at higher speeds than this.

2. Crash dummies only simulate full size adults, not teens, not children, not infants. Aren’t teenagers, children and infants passengers too? Why don’t they count in the ‘rating’ system?The crash dummies are wearing seat belts in all cases, front and rear seats...(everyone in vehicles always wears their seat belts, don’t they?).
Well lets be honest this has already been destroyed in a very pictorial manner, of course crash test dummies of all age and both gender tyoes exist and are used.

3. The crash dummies are wired to measure injuries to head, neck, chest, pelvis, legs and feet, but all these findings are not included in the rating. The ratings only measure head and chest injuries for frontal crashes and head injuries only for side crashes (evidently, other injuries are not serious enough to count in a government study).
Well certainly in the EuroNCAP tests all areas of damage are measured, both for those inside the car, those in child seats and those who may be hit by the car.

4. Impact assumptions are for similar vehicles, differing no more than 250 lbs. This means if you are driving a small, full size or luxury car and you hit an SUV or a minivan...the rating doesn’t count (and it certainly doesn’t count if you happen to hit a tractor trailer...those crashes might change the star ratings).
True, but no battery of tests is ever going to be able to cover every possiable situation. Which is why crash tests are carried out to a set standard for cars of the same class, allowing those comparing cars of a similar type (as most buyers do) to see which is the safer in the most common form of accidents.

5. Finally, the rating is only referring to injuries that require immediate hospitalization or are life-threatening.
Once again not true for EuroNCAP, which quite clearly includes injuries to all occupants and pedestrians across a range of injury types.

Now on a more serious note, your ongoing habit (now across two accounts) of posting opinion and speculation as fact, note citing sources and at times borderline misleading posts will end. Right now. You have recieved more than enough warnings in the past (again across two accounts) and will not be given another one. So the ultimate choice now rests with you, either think before you post and if your are posting something as fact then make sure you can provide a source to back that up or you will be leaving.

There are 4 ibizas that I know of that have been rolled at speed and in all of them the occupants came out pretty much unhurt, just a odd cut and bruise. Infact one of the accidents was shown on TV by traffic police.

Again how exactly does this now, by default, make it the most common type of accident that occurs.

EuroNCAP test to what can be proven to be the most common types of accidents that occur. As any form of design and engineering is by it very nature a matter of compromise I personally have no issue with manufacturers and testing bodies trying to make sure I'm safe in the type of accident I am statistically likely to be involved in.

So what cars did you end up buying? NCAP isnt the be and end all in car safety but I suppose as a consumer its the best info you can go off. Personally NCAP can keep their ratings. If I wanted to buy a ultra safe car it would be a A8, S-class or S80, cannot go wrong with those.

And how exactly do you know those cars to be among the safest in there class?

Can you lay hands on tests to show that they are safe in the type of accident you have claimed to be common, a roll over?

I find it funny though how renault build uber safe cars yet bits and bobs fall off here and there, and you get those lovely rattles.

Relevance in any way?

I've know that Volvos are safe cars, funny how they can't design one that actually is enjoyable eto drive, oh wait that has bugger all to do with the topic at hand.

Fit and finish has no bearing on safety at all.


Scaff

 

[forza2.0]

In the middle of an ongoing discussing about EuroNCAP and its validity, a validity that you are questioning you posted that piece.

You didn't place it in quotes, nor did you cite that it was not pary of the discussion. In fact you didn't add any of your own words to it at all.

Given the discussion was directly about EuroNCAP may I ask what the hell you did think we would consider it to be in regard to? I would suggest that you simply found it and posted it in the belief that it supported your argument, you didn't however look very closely at it and that point came back to bite you.

You are assuming I was trying to hide something. Seriously, I read it before I posted it, I wasnt trying to pass it off as anything about ncap.

Again how exactly does this now, by default, make it the most common type of accident that occurs.

Who said it was the most common?

EuroNCAP test to what can be proven to be the most common types of accidents that occur. As any form of design and engineering is by it very nature a matter of compromise I personally have no issue with manufacturers and testing bodies trying to make sure I'm safe in the type of accident I am statistically likely to be involved in.

Young people are probably most liekly to be statistically in a different type of accident. Infact the majority of accidents by a young driver happens without the input of another vehicle.

And how exactly do you know those cars to be among the safest in there class?

S-class has been a pioneer in safety since day one. Has gotten the worlds safest car tage. S80 also recieved the tag of one of the worlds safest cars when first released. The audi A8 was said to be statistically safer in a accident than the likes of the s-class in a independant study.

Relevance in any way?

I've know that Volvos are safe cars, funny how they can't design one that actually is enjoyable eto drive, oh wait that has bugger all to do with the topic at hand.

Volvo do have fun to drive cars.

Fit and finish has no bearing on safety at all.

Yes it does, safety features are no good if they fall off or fail, and renault do have their fair share of electrical gremlins. I also refer you back to the 500 Q7 crash. The airbag in the 500 tore. Poor fit and finish on a important component.

 

[Famine]

Who said it was the most common?

"This impact is intended to represent the most frequent type of road crash, resulting in serious or fatal injury. It simulates one car having a frontal impact with another car of similar mass ... Accident research has shown that this impact speed covers a significant proportion of serious and fatal accidents."

EuroNCAP documentation. I posted it earlier.

Young people are probably most liekly to be statistically in a different type of accident. Infact the majority of accidents by a young driver happens without the input of another vehicle.

My crash was single-vehicle only. But no injuries occured, so would not count towards accident type analysis.

Notably you've still failed to provide a single piece of evidence linking EuroNCAP funding with any vehicle manufacturer.

 

[Jondot]

Has gotten the worlds safest car tage. S80 also recieved the tag of one of the worlds safest cars when first released.

Who gave either of them those 'tag's? I don't recall the S80 ever being hailed as the world's safest car. I don't recall it ever being hailed as anything, to be honest.

Evidence?

The audi A8 was said to be statistically safer in a accident than the likes of the s-class in a independant study.

Again, any evidence? How can you possibly criticize the likes of EuroNCAP for not being accurate when for all we know you're plucking information out of nowhere? Irony alert!

 

[forza2.0]

Who gave either of them those 'tag's? I don't recall the S80 ever being hailed as the world's safest car. I don't recall it ever being hailed as anything, to be honest.

google words: safe s80 world

 

[Jondot]

google words: safe s80 world

Oh that's helpful, thanks.

http://www.google.com/search?q=safe s80 world&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Any of that give your claim any backing? Mmmmno.


Oh, but I did find this:

http://www.autoworld.com/apps/news/FullStory.asp?id=445

Safest car in the world according to... EuroNCAP! Oooh, now there's a dilema, eh?

 

[Famine]

google words: safe s80 world

Bwahahahaha.

One second you're railing against a scientific test because you think that it claims to be something it doesn't, the next you're recommending that as evidence for vehicle crash testing..?

I really hope you didn't put that up with a shred of sincerity.

 

[buickgnx88]

Well I guess the S80 doubles as a handy safe!

 

[forza2.0]

Bwahahahaha.

One second you're railing against a scientific test because you think that it claims to be something it doesn't, the next you're recommending that as evidence for vehicle crash testing..?

I really hope you didn't put that up with a shred of sincerity.

well if you insist on taking it out of context. sure why not

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s8...-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=J7F&sa=2

 

[Famine]

well if you insist on taking it out of context. sure why not

Taking what out of context? That you don't know what EuroNCAP does or what the results mean, or that you think "Google it" is a satisfactory evidenciary equivalent of valid laboratory testing?

Also, you know not to double post. Don't do it again.

 

[Scaff]

You are assuming I was trying to hide something. Seriously, I read it before I posted it, I wasnt trying to pass it off as anything about ncap.

That does not change the fact that you did not enclose it in quote tags, did not link to the source or actually add any of your own words to give it context.

Given that it was in the middle of a discussion on EuroNCAP I am fairly certain if I took a straw poll of members they would see it as part of that discussion.

You do however appear to be totally overlooking a rather major point here.

Do not post like that again or you will be banned. End of story, you have had warnings about your postings over two accounts now, you will not get warned again.

S-class has been a pioneer in safety since day one. Has gotten the worlds safest car tage. S80 also recieved the tag of one of the worlds safest cars when first released. The audi A8 was said to be statistically safer in a accident than the likes of the s-class in a independant study.

Oh good one, mind if I come back to this in a moment.

Volvo do have fun to drive cars.

Driven the entire model range have you?

I have.

Yes it does, safety features are no good if they fall off or fail, and renault do have their fair share of electrical gremlins. I also refer you back to the 500 Q7 crash. The airbag in the 500 tore. Poor fit and finish on a important component.

Fit and finish issues do not relate to safety equipment, a loose rattleing bit of trim does not mean that an airbag is going to fail to deploy. You are making a bloody massive leap here.

However you started this one, so allow me.

Remember you said this...

The audi A8 was said to be statistically safer in a accident than the likes of the s-class in a independant study

...and I said I would come back to it.

Reference : R/2006/159
Manufacturer Ref :
Make: AUDI
Model : A8
Launch Date : 25/10/2006
Numbers Involved : 1543
Build Start Date : 01/12/2002
Build End Date : 01/05/2005
Recall Details
Concern : AIR BAG MAY NOT DEPLOY IN AN IMPACT
Description : It may be possible that the driver's airbag may not inflate in an optimum manner during a collision.
Remedial Action : Recalled vehicles will have the driver's airbag replaced.
Vehicle Id : WAUZZZ4E#5N000101 to WAUZZZ4E#5N017208
WAUZZZ4E#4N000101 to WAUZZZ4E#4N026468
WAUZZZ4E#3N000101 to WAUZZZ4E#3N009895

Source - http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/apps/re...084BC3974C9DBF802571DA0026E916&freeText=Blank

Oh dear me, the car that has been independently rated as safer (something you still have not provided a source for) would appear have 1,500+ cars that had a recall in which the air-bag may fail to deploy in an accident.

or how about those uber safe S80s with incorrectly torqued seatbelt mounting points.

Reference : R/2001/039
Manufacturer Ref : R81021/22
Make: VOLVO CAR
Model : S80 and New V70
Launch Date : 02/04/2001
Numbers Involved : 410
Build Start Date : 01/01/2001
Build End Date :
Recall Details
Concern : REAR SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE CONCERN
Description : Left and right hand rear outer seat belt bottom fixing bolts may have been incorrectly torqued.
Remedial Action : Recall affected vehicle, check and tighten the seat belt fixing bolts to the correct torque where necessary.
Vehicle Id : 182870 to 187747 (S80)
80477 to 89926 (New V70)
15208 to 18829 New V70 XC)

Source - http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/apps/re...2010F61851A96380256BB9002694BA&freeText=Blank

And as for the S-Class, well a while back they had a huge number of cars in which the air-bag could just go off if it was too humid.

Reference : R/2000/142
Manufacturer Ref : 1844
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model : E Class, SL, S Class, C Class
Launch Date : 08/05/2001
Numbers Involved : 7041
Build Start Date : 01/09/1995
Build End Date : 31/12/1996
Recall Details
Concern : UNINTENTIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF AIR BAG
Description : Exposure to high humidity conditions may result in corrosion that can cause the drivers front air bag to deploy unintentionally.
Remedial Action : Recall affected vehicles and replace air bag.
Vehicle Id : Various

Source - http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/apps/re...0572317E5A476F80256BB900268A08&freeText=Blank


You see you can do this with any car, so I strongly advise you that the next time you want to play 'I know about the motor industry' you keep in mind that quite a few of us here work in that industry and 'bull****' detectors work just fine here.


Scaff

 

[Duke]

Look VW's are not safe in a crash.

Look! Another stupid useless airbag! Airbags are dumb.

 

[V1P3R]

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

A couple of hours after I woke up I realised why you guys all reacted so severely to the whole my fault accident thing. Again you took my post out of context, as I had already been talking with Joey in this very thread that humans make mistakes. I meant that I won't be driving recklessly on the road causing an accident, obviously all humans are prone to mistakes. I won't be the one weaving through traffic, speeding, pulling out in front of others even though they're too close, hence I won't cause an accident by bad driving. I might cause an accident by an unfortunate series of events/human error.
Again, you should read all my posts in the thread before attacking me.

 

[V1P3R]

dOOd, just give up already... lol

 

[Famine]

Again you took my post out of context...

I won't cause an accident by bad driving. I might cause an accident by an unfortunate series of events/human error.

Again, you should read all my posts in the thread before attacking me.

How is it out of context and everyone else's fault for not reading when people react to what you've actually typed? We aren't psychic. We can only respond to what you've actually said. What you actually said was "I sure as hell know it's not going to be my fault when it does happen."


Also, for the umptieth time, people are not attacking you. They're questioning your opinions. As I said earlier, they are different things:

You need to learn that questioning what you say and questioning your character are two wholly different things. This is how people like Duke, Danoff, Touring Mars, Swift and I can debate topics on which we don't necessarily agree and remain friends at the end.

 

[Scaff]

A couple of hours after I woke up I realised why you guys all reacted so severely to the whole my fault accident thing. Again you took my post out of context, as I had already been talking with Joey in this very thread that humans make mistakes. I meant that I won't be driving recklessly on the road causing an accident, obviously all humans are prone to mistakes. I won't be the one weaving through traffic, speeding, pulling out in front of others even though they're too close, hence I won't cause an accident by bad driving. I might cause an accident by an unfortunate series of events/human error.
Again, you should read all my posts in the thread before attacking me.

Sorry but we did not take you out of context at all, you said (and I quote directly)...

I know accidents are bound to happen, they say every Aussie has an average of 5 in their lifetime. But I sure as hell know it's not going to be my fault when it does happen, and if I die then so be it. I'm not afraid of death, and I'd rather be dead then be a paraplegic because an airbag saved me from death.

...you say here quite clearly that you know accidents will happen and passingly acknowledge that the odds mean you will get one during your lifetime. You then quite clearly and categorically state that...

But I sure as hell know it's not going to be my fault when it does happen

...so no I don't think that anyone has taken what you have said out of context at all.

Now if that is not what you were trying to say that is a different matter, we have not taken it out of context, you have miss-spoken.

What you said is both clear and unambiguous, any accident you are involved in will not be your fault. Backtracking here will do nothing more than make you look foolish, would it not be better to actually acknowledge that is not what you either were trying to say or meant to say?


Scaff

 

[V1P3R]

In all honesty I think maybe you just need to be hit and that will set you straight in what we are trying to pound into your head...

 

[Famine]

In all honesty I think maybe you just need to be hit and that will set you straight in what we are trying to pound into your head...

You're skirting dangerously close to the edge here. No more.

 

[V1P3R]

: shrugs: It's honestly what I'm sure I'd hear from someone if I had that attitude about driving. oh well.

I can't remember where I heard it, but it's kinda like that quote... "sometimes to learn how to shoot you have to get shot". I think that's how it went.