Car Safety

[Tornado]

I try to avoid it but given an allowed reaction time of about 2sec, I hit it at 70km/hr. Was that my fault because I didn't expect the kangaroo to jump out at that exact time, or should I drive at 10km/hr where ever I go?

I would imagine the situation to be similar to when you hit a deer. You call the cops, they make sure everyone is all right, they leave, then you go home.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

You can see them... it's a stop light intersection. BTW, you have a car following you... you sure you want to stop because they may not.

That's what brake lights are for. Unless they are tailgating which itself is going to cause an accident anyway.

 

[Famine]

I find myself behind around 2 cars a month with no functioning brake lights (usually Renaults - sorry, Scaff).

And it'd still be a 50:50 fault accident if I drove clean into the back of one.

The blind corner was a bad example

It was an excellent example - you considered it wholly reasonable until 3 people with quite lengthy licences pointed out the reason you'd be at fault. Then you realised it wasn't wholly reasonable and, I suspect, you won't be forgetting the lesson that you should always be sure you can stop in the distance you know to be clear...

A far more likely one where I live. I'm driving along a straight country road at night, and a kangaroo jumps out from the tall grass on the side of the road right in front of me. I try to avoid it but given an allowed reaction time of about 2sec, I hit it at 70km/hr. Was that my fault because I didn't expect the kangaroo to jump out at that exact time, or should I drive at 10km/hr where ever I go?

2s is sufficient time to bring a car to a complete rest from 55km/h (30mph), assuming a "Highway Code" standard 0.7g (most cars can manage 0.9g and above) and 0.5s reaction time...

The question is why you wouldn't drive more cautiously on a road you know is prone to sudden hazards?

 

[V1P3R]

As someone with only a couple of years myself, shouldn't you accelerate?

Since this is from my own real life experience I don't have a good answer... all I know my decision got me a foot away from being t-boned. I don't give a [censored] if you think I'm a bad driver or whatever, at that moment I didn't have time to think or do anything it was all instinct and luck. When I say luck, I mean that I hadn't arrived at that intersection earlier than I did and that the guy didn't have any nerves to swerve. There are a number of things that were out of my control that could've DRASTICALLY changed the outcome. Either way, the driver obviously didn't give a [censored] about going though a red, or speeding, or that there was a black car in front of him (me).

Even if you hit someone while going through a green light while they had a red light you will still be ticketed for proceeding without a clear intersection. It's dumb I know, but you are still just as much at fault as the guy blowing the light. You should slam on your brakes as the guy behind should be at a safe distance.

oh... didn't know that... nice.

That's what brake lights are for. Unless they are tailgating which itself is going to cause an accident anyway.

You say that as if it was anybody but you yet... you'd obviously do no better than anyone else. If you did above and they still hit you even if you "did the right thing" it's still an accident that you were involved in and you didn't avoid it.

I find myself behind around 2 cars a month with no functioning brake lights.

And it'd still be a 50:50 fault accident if I drove clean into the back of one.

So many times I have to keep my scenarios and strategies fresh because of unexpected things like above. There really is no replacement for experience. It's just whether you can avoid the big ones. Again, I consider myself lucky so far.

 

[Tornado]

Could we have a new thread where we go over situations like this? I actually find a lot of this discussion interesting.

 

[Famine]

oh... didn't know that... nice.

It'd be true in the UK too. People are taught that green means "go", but it actually means "Proceed if it is clear to do so".

 

[V1P3R]

I'd be up for it Tornado. We sorta do, but I couldn't find it... It's the one where people tell their stories of stupid drivers they encounter.

It'd be true in the UK too. People are taught that green means "go", but it actually means "Proceed if it is clear to do so".

Well... yeah, obviously I know that... but you don't expect someone running a red light while you're already entering the intersection. If it was me STOPPED at the intersection and I saw him running it of course I wouldn't have proceeded if it was green for me. When I was coming to the intersection it was green for me BEFORE I got to it and I was going around 35, The Speeder was going MUCH faster than I because he caught up to me at the intersection. If I would've stopped or slowed down he would've t-boned me for sure and it would've been a matter of where on my car. It would've been on the left of me which is the driver side so... yeah, I probably would've wished I did have curtain airbags at that time.

 

[Scaff]

Edit: The blind corner was a bad example, let me give you this one. A far more likely one where I live. I'm driving along a straight country road at night, and a kangaroo jumps out from the tall grass on the side of the road right in front of me. I try to avoid it but given an allowed reaction time of about 2sec, I hit it at 70km/hr. Was that my fault because I didn't expect the kangaroo to jump out at that exact time, or should I drive at 10km/hr where ever I go?

No its not a bad example at all. It was also your example, as Famine points out you seemed to be quite happy with it to start off with!

As for the second example, well on a unlit (apart from the cars own lights) country road at night and something jumps out in front of you, and you are going so fast that you can neither avoid it or stop in time. Then again, yes you are at fault.

A variant of this very situation (replace Kangaroo with an Elk - bigger and more likely to kill you) and dealing with it is a part of many Scandinavian countries driving tests.

You don't have to drive at 10km/h everywhere, but as a driver of a car you are expected to drive at a speed that is appropriate to the car, conditions, hazards (both seen and unseen) and your own ability.

That these two situations need to be explained in this way is an indicator that you are neither as safe, skilled or experienced as you like to think.

I find myself behind around 2 cars a month with no functioning brake lights (usually Renaults - sorry, Scaff).

Don't worry - I don't work directly for them anymore. It does seem to be a trend among French cars however, the number of Pug 206s you see with the high level brake light not working is equally disturbing (but not as scary as some of the other things - from most marques - I could tell you about).


Scaff

 

[Famine]

It's pretty much a failure in teaching. I mean, I don't recall anyone teaching me the difference between short white dashes and long white dashes in the middle of the road when I was learning to drive. It's one of the MOST useful things to know when driving, and it's staggering to think of all the millions of people with licences who have no idea what it means.

It really smacks the message home that a driving licence only says you have the minimum skill set required to be allowed to keep practicing on your own, with other cars around.

 

[Jim Prower]

Well, compare that to a Pilot's license. I read somewhere, (Old motor trend editorial, I think,) that such is referred to as a "License to Learn." When handed the Driver's License at the DMV, it was pointed to and he was somewhat sternly told "Next!"

I mean, yes, flying an aircraft is a mark of skill and dedication, (that third dimension adds a lot to worry about without even pushing the limits of the aircraft,) but, then again, so is proper, high-performance driving. I wish I'd saved that article...hope I still have it.

 

[Casio]

The blind corner was a bad example, let me give you this one. A far more likely one where I live. I'm driving along a straight country road at night, and a kangaroo jumps out from the tall grass on the side of the road right in front of me. I try to avoid it but given an allowed reaction time of about 2sec, I hit it at 70km/hr. Was that my fault because I didn't expect the kangaroo to jump out at that exact time, or should I drive at 10km/hr where ever I go?

It'd would be no different than driving through a busy school zone and a kid jumping out. Living in QLD, you'd know that roo's jumping out are a real possibility. Knowing that, and the fact you have no visability on either side of the road, you'd slow down. Or not drive at that time at all.

But it's probably another bad example.

I'm still waiting for your 40mph, no airbag, side impact test where occupants are tossed 20m down the road too.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It'd would be no different than driving through a busy school zone and a kid jumping out. Living in QLD, you'd know that roo's jumping out are a real possibility. Knowing that, and the fact you have no visability on either side of the road, you'd slow down. Or not drive at that time at all.

But it's probably another bad example.

I'm still waiting for your 40mph, no airbag, side impact test where occupants are tossed 20m down the road too.

It's a pretty good example actually. Most schools zones were 30mph as they were typicaly in residential areas, but now alot have 20mph zones outside them. But it's stupid, because during school in/out you couldn't physically do 30mph anyway and having a 24/7 20mph is overkill.

 

[forza2.0]

And I wouldn't bet against you because I suspect you'd pluck some random information out of the air and claim you'd won.

Seriously, aside from the fact that you're totally disregarding the industry standard crash test for no apparent reason, you just can't compare the results like that.

NCAPP is now the industry test standard? The industry isnt just europe, and ADAC seem to be doing a pretty good job of showing NCAP's shortcomings.

And if renault were so good, how come people still dont think to highly of them. Have you seen some of the pictures and outcomes of crashed clio's. Not pretty.

Regardless of whether the Q7 behaves like a saloon in a crash or not (which, until proven otherwise, we shall assume isn't the case), you can't compare car vs car crash tests like that because they're not like for like. Saying a Vectra would hit a car in an identical way to a Mondeo would be a silly assumption to make. Saying a saloon designed in 1999 will behave identically to an SUV designed 7 years later is nothing short of ridiculous.

Read it again. Im not saying a Q7 well crash like a saloon from 7 years ago, im saying the Q7 is designed to crash like a car to not completely obliterate any car it crashes into.

"In case of the Q7, you certainly have a big steel-piece on the bottom of the bumper who acts as the real bumper, so that the impact-height is not much higher than in a normal car. Don't let the height of the car abuse you, in fact most (European, modern) SUVs are quite "crash-compatible" with lower vehicles."

Cant wait what you come up with next. Oh the material I have access to

 

[ExigeEvan]

And if renault were so good, how come people still dont think to highly of them. Have you seen some of the pictures and outcomes of crashed clio's. Not pretty.

Please post them, out of genuine personal interest.

Cant wait what you come up with next. Oh the material I have access to

Any chance sourcing it?

 

[Jondot]

NCAPP is now the industry test standard? The industry isnt just europe, and ADAC seem to be doing a pretty good job of showing NCAP's shortcomings.

What on earth are you going on about? ADAC are known to use NCAP'S guidelines for crash testing.

How else do you suggest we test the safety of cars, then? Please! Enlighten me! If the EuroNCAP tests are so full of shortcomings that they should be disregarded, please kindly direct me to a different organisation that accurately and scientifically compares crash test data of nearly every car on sale in Europe today. Go on. I'll set you an example.

Find me an accurate comparison of results between a Kia Cee'd and a Ford Focus tested with a method other than EuroNCAP's and I'll give you £5. Seriously. Say I can't decide which one to buy, and I want to know which is safest. This should be interesting.

And if renault were so good, how come people still dont think to highly of them. Have you seen some of the pictures and outcomes of crashed clio's. Not pretty.

Who? On the whole, people do think highly of Renault's (recent) records of excellent safety within their cars. The motoring press has consistently praised Renault for it. And besides, what's that got to do with it? I don't particularly like Seats. One of my friends doesn't particularly like Seats. Hey look! Two persons count as people, so I guess I can now claim that "people don't think highly of Seat". I'm not going to back it up because, hey, I don't need to do I? Isn't logic great...

Really? Not pretty? You do surprise me. Are car crashes on the whole pleasing to the eye?

Read it again. Im not saying a Q7 well crash like a saloon from 7 years ago

Right, so why did you compare the two like-for-like then?

Cant wait what you come up with next. Oh the material I have access to

Yeah, I know. It's a shame we keep polluting the place you're plucking it from with CO2, really.

 

[homeforsummer]

Really? Not pretty? You do surprise me. Are car crashes on the whole pleasing to the eye?

 

[Danoff]

Was that my fault because I didn't expect the kangaroo to jump out at that exact time

You're focusing an awful lot on whether or not an accident is your fault or someone else's (or, perhaps, nobody's). Try to care a little less about whether you're legally responsible and a little more about whether or not you end up dead.

Your job behind the wheel is to try not to be involved in any accident, regardless of whose fault. I can't count the number of times I've avoided accidents that would not have been my fault - that's a major part of being a good driver. So instead of trying to blame the kangaroo, try to figure out how you can improve your odds of seeing it in time to save your own rear.

This thread started off talking about safety features. And I'd like to remind everyone that those safety features aren't just to protect you in case you're at fault, but also in case you get attacked by a kangaroo with a vendetta. So even if you could be 100% certain that you'd never be at fault in any auto accident in your life, you might still invest in a vehicle that had good crash test ratings, airbags, seat belts, and other useful safety features.

 

[forza2.0]

What on earth are you going on about? ADAC are known to use NCAP'S guidelines for crash testing.

How else do you suggest we test the safety of cars, then? Please! Enlighten me! If the EuroNCAP tests are so full of shortcomings that they should be disregarded, please kindly direct me to a different organisation that accurately and scientifically compares crash test data of nearly every car on sale in Europe today. Go on. I'll set you an example.

Find me an accurate comparison of results between a Kia Cee'd and a Ford Focus tested with a method other than EuroNCAP's and I'll give you £5. Seriously. Say I can't decide which one to buy, and I want to know which is safest. This should be interesting.




Who? On the whole, people do think highly of Renault's (recent) records of excellent safety within their cars. The motoring press has consistently praised Renault for it. And besides, what's that got to do with it? I don't particularly like Seats. One of my friends doesn't particularly like Seats. Hey look! Two persons count as people, so I guess I can now claim that "people don't think highly of Seat". I'm not going to back it up because, hey, I don't need to do I? Isn't logic great...

Really? Not pretty? You do surprise me. Are car crashes on the whole pleasing to the eye?



Right, so why did you compare the two like-for-like then?



Yeah, I know. It's a shame we keep polluting the place you're plucking it from with CO2, really.

ADAC use ncap test procedures? ADAC do comparisons to what results NCAPP has released yet they are still independant and test for different scenarios. There have been reports how Renaults crash well under ncap testing procedures, but add 10mph to the test speed and they dont fare so well anymore as in line with the competiton.

Also where do you think NCAP gets it money from? Some funding is from the government but ultimately its from auto manufacturers. Ncap is like the FSA and corgi. FSA, funded by the banks. Corgi, funded by british gas. So basically they are meant to "regulate" the people who they get their wages from. Mmmm somehow I think there will be some conspiracy theories from that. But then again you most likely know nothing about the FSA, recent actions and likewise for corgi.

And clios are known to fold when in accidents. People dont get that opinion from anywhere and car magzines cannot comment of the safety of a new vehicle as gospel as its not like they go and crash them. Go google for some crashed clio sports.

 

[Scaff]

NCAPP is now the industry test standard? The industry isnt just europe, and ADAC seem to be doing a pretty good job of showing NCAP's shortcomings.

ADAC who as it has already been pointed out take the EuroNCAP tests as a basis of the tests they conduct.

No crash testing regime can cover all situations, no one however carries out tests as widely as EuroNCAP do and while they are far from perfect they do provide a standard comparison tool to use.

And if renault were so good, how come people still dont think to highly of them. Have you seen some of the pictures and outcomes of crashed clio's. Not pretty.

Yes of course. That's why as far back as 1999 they won the Safety award from Autocar.

The Megane and Espace both topped their class in this years' Euro NCAP (New Car Assessment Programme) crash tests, and Autocar Editor Patrick Fuller also commended Renault's advertising campaign for the Megane. He said that Renault had put safety at the top of car buyers' agendas, and had 'successfully interpreted the results of its Megane and Espace crash testing programmes and raised awareness of safety among the car car-buying public'.

Source - http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=474&ref=archive

Sorry but Renault are well know in the industry and the buying public as a manufacturer that puts safety at the top of the agenda.

As for showing us pictures of crashed Clios, what exactly will that prove in any way?

I'm also yet to see any other manufacturer provide a car in which this is done....



...a human crash test.

Read it again. Im not saying a Q7 well crash like a saloon from 7 years ago, im saying the Q7 is designed to crash like a car to not completely obliterate any car it crashes into.

"In case of the Q7, you certainly have a big steel-piece on the bottom of the bumper who acts as the real bumper, so that the impact-height is not much higher than in a normal car. Don't let the height of the car abuse you, in fact most (European, modern) SUVs are quite "crash-compatible" with lower vehicles."

Cant wait what you come up with next. Oh the material I have access to

Great your saying. Do you think we could have the source that says it so that we can all share.

ADAC use ncap test procedures? ADAC do comparisons to what results NCAPP has released yet they are still independant and test for different scenarios. There have been reports how Renaults crash well under ncap testing procedures, but add 10mph to the test speed and they dont fare so well anymore as in line with the competiton.

And change the variables to something else and for all we know Audis could end up like bits of paper.

Also where do you think NCAP gets it money from? Some funding is from the government but ultimately its from auto manufacturers. Ncap is like the FSA and corgi. FSA, funded by the banks. Corgi, funded by british gas. So basically they are meant to "regulate" the people who they get their wages from. Mmmm somehow I think there will be some conspiracy theories from that. But then again you most likely know nothing about the FSA, recent actions and likewise for corgi.

Utter and complete CACK.

Euro NCAP was set up by the Transport Research Laboratory, for the UK Department of Transport. Subsequently other governments have joined the programme (France, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands and the Catalonian part of Spain). Many Consumer Groups in Europe are members through International Consumer Research and Testing. Motoring clubs are represented by membership of the FIA Foundation and by the individual membership of the German motor club ADAC. The European Commission is an observing member of Euro NCAP’s board and provides their political support.

This wide consortium of members ensures our independence. Euro NCAP itself is an International Association under Belgian law. We are independent of the industry and political control and no individual member can bias Euro NCAP towards their individual interests. Euro NCAP is totally independent of the automotive industry.

Source - http://www.euroncap.com/members.aspx

Find a source to prove that EuroNCAP is funded by manufacturers or retract the claim.

And clios are known to fold when in accidents. People dont get that opinion from anywhere and car magzines cannot comment of the safety of a new vehicle as gospel as its not like they go and crash them. Go google for some crashed clio sports.

Only valid if you can also post pictures of other makes that suffered crashes under the exact same conditions to see how they compare.

Look VW's are not safe in a crash.

Please start to think before you post.

Scaff




Thanks

Scaff

 

[forza2.0]

Euro NCAP is totally independent of the automotive industry.

Dont you think thats a bit naive? They are in no way, shape or form independant of the motor industry. It would be impossible for them to be so for so many different reasons. In many ways they h

the FSA and corgi say the exact same thing aswell anyway and its not true and going by the website I was just on, which was either the ncap one, or the british government about ncap funding, it said that ncap gets money from motoring organizations, meaning funding from car manufacturers directly and indirectly.

Also car manufacturers have input into the whole testing procedure etc anyway.

Independant? No way.

EuroNCAP was initiated by DfT and has been supported by the Swedish, Dutch, French and German Governments, the European Commission, FIA, European consumer and motoring organisations.

 

[Famine]

There have been reports how Renaults crash well under ncap testing procedures, but add 10mph to the test speed and they dont fare so well anymore as in line with the competiton.

Add in laser cannons, a pit of acid and an enraged stegosaurus and, suddenly, the Clio becomes a deathtrap...

Seriously now. What are you droning on about this time?

EuroNCAP state that they only simulate the most common type of frontal impact where injuries are sustained to occupants - head-on with 40% offset at 40mph, to simulate a typical single-carriageway two vehicle crash where avoiding action is taken. The barrier the vehicles hit are designed to be of similar mass (and point mass) to the typical vehicle in class. The test is designed to tell you how vehicles in one class compare to one another.

The reason bigger vehicles score more poorly? It's because they object they're hitting - and themselves - are bigger and heavier. They have to dissipate more energy than small car to small car crashes. But the test isn't meant to compare cross-class. Why do you think EuroNCAP publish results on their site by vehicle class?

All EuroNCAP tells you is how vehicles, in the class you're looking at, perform in a typical single carriageway, injury-causing crash compared to other vehicles in that class. If you've misunderstood that as "5 star FIAT 500 is better in any crash than 4-star Audi Q7", that's your problem and not an issue with EuroNCAP.


I love the implication that manufacturers engineer their cars for EuroNCAP. Tell me how you'd purposely build a car so that it'd hold together fine, structurally, in a 40% offset 40mph collision with the same car, but would fold like bogpaper in a 50mph crash with a marmoset.

 

[forza2.0]

they can calculate how much force will be exerted against their latest precious design, and therefore engineer it to perform best at said force.

So basically ncap is crap and doesnt hold much weight. All the crashes I have seen that are worthy talking about usually ends up with the car gaining air and rolling multiple of times, or just simple smacking something hard at 50+ mph.

Oh and I was in a mini cooper s that crashed into a kerb and a stationary vehicle at 40 mph and we were fine. So I would happily be a human crash test dummy. Sorry but not impressed renault.

 

[Scaff]

Dont you think thats a bit naive? They are in no way, shape or form independant of the motor industry. It would be impossible for them to be so for so many different reasons. In many ways they h

the FSA and corgi say the exact same thing aswell anyway and its not true and going by the website I was just one, which was either the ncap one, or the british government about ncap funding, it said that ncap gets money from motoring organizations, meaning funding from car manufacturers directly and indirectly.

Also car manufacturers have input into the whole testing procedure etc anyway.

Independant? No way.

I didn't ask for your opinion on it, I asked you to prove your claim.

Anyone can make a claim.

Audi are secretly owned by the Freemasons. There we go, I can't prove it, but because I say so it must be true.

Motoring organisations means the likes of the AA, RAC, Thatcham and the equivalents in various other countries.

I've worked directly for motor manufacturers and am quite confident that they do not indirectly fund EuroNCAP. Direct funding would need to legally be declared and as such would be obvious (and easy for you to prove).

As for manufacturers being involved in the tests, well of course they are. They do build the bloody cars in the first place, so no big surprise that they may want to know how well the car did and if they could do better by redesigning certain elements of the car. Oh look as a result we end up with safer cars to buy, how terrible.

As I said, you have made the claim, as such the burden of proof rests with you.

Either prove your claim or I will treat it as nothing more that opinion presented as fact (while your at it proof for the FSA claim would be great - my cousin works for a Bank - he loved that one).

Scaff

 

[Famine]

they can calculate how much force will be exerted against their latest precious design, and therefore engineer it to perform best at said force.

Easy as that, eh?

Oh and I was in a mini cooper s that crashed into a kerb and a stationary vehicle at 40 mph and we were fine. So I would happily be a human crash test dummy. Sorry but not impressed renault.

That's hitting a static object at 40mph. The NCAP test is designed to mimic two vehicles crashing head-on while both are travelling at 30mph (60mph closing speed - 50% increase in speed compared to your MINI crash). The barrier is designed to crumple to imitate this.

So basically ncap is crap and doesnt hold much weight. All the crashes I have seen that are worthy talking about usually ends up with the car gaining air and rolling multiple of times, or just simple smacking something hard at 50+ mph.

Well thanks for your input. Sadly, you're not the body responsible for collecting the data from the 25000+ injuries resulting from car crashes in the UK alone each year, whether they're "worthy talking about" or not. EuroNCAP's frontal impact test is designed to recreate the most common form of accident where injuries to vehicle occupants occur. Your data is, of course, meaningless.

 

[forza2.0]

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.

 

[daan]

2. Crash dummies only simulate full size adults, not teens, not children, not infants. Aren’t teenagers, children and infants passengers too?

I must be seeing things.

And we're still waiting on that source.

 

[forza2.0]

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

 

[buickgnx88]

Aw how adorable, it's the entire Crash Test Family posing for their Christmas portrait!

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

I see no actual link on the last page. If you mean the quote with "Motoring organisations", I don't think that is the same thing as manufacturers.

 

[Famine]

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.

"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." - and in fact it simulates both vehicles moving at 30mph.

It's stated in all their documentation. If you misunderstand it, it's a flaw in your understanding, not the test.

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?).

"Readings taken from dummies are used to assess protection given to adult front occupants."

It's stated in all their documentation. If you misunderstand it, it's a flaw in your understanding, not the test.

Are they supposed to test for all variations of vehicle occupancy? Dogs not wearing harnesses? 13 year old female front seat passenger applying make-up?

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).

If that's true, why do these dummies have impact data from limbs?

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).

"It simulates one car having a frontal impact with another car of similar mass"

It's stated in all their documentation. If you misunderstand it, it's a flaw in your understanding, not the test.

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

Which really begs the question why, again in these dummies, they have 5 different ratings for the protection afforded to parts of the body. Would they not just discount green and yellow ratings altogether, because they didn't require hospitalisation?

The problem here is that you don't understand (despite my explaining it several times) that EuroNCAP simulates the typical vehicle-vehicle crash where injuries to occupants are sustained, and the results are only valid within the class because the target is of typical mass and point mass for that class, which is why they publish the results in classes.

EuroNCAP is not an all-encompassing "This is how safe your car really is" test, but they clearly state throughout that they aren't. For some reason you want to believe that they are.

We haven't forgotten that you've yet to prove how EuroNCAP is funded by car manufacturers. And remember your last account got into hot water for making up things and stating them as facts and, as with the previous post, failing to reference your sources.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

4. Impact assumptions are for similar vehicles

I think I've read this somewhere, but I don't know where...