Safety rankings rankle Volvo
VOLVO is unhappy. The results of the latest used-car safety rankings came out last week, and the safety-first Swedish brand did not do as well as expected.
It was solid, not spectacular, despite some top-ranked results in earlier years.
So it questioned the results of the survey, by the highly respected Monash University Accident Research Centre.
And, I have to admit, Volvo has genuine reasons to complain.
‘‘If the Buyers Guide table is actually a representation of those vehicles that have recorded at least 20 serious injuries per 100 accidents, shouldn’t we be questioning those carmakers who have a higher representation?’’ asks Laurissa Mirabelli of Volvo Cars Australia. ‘‘Perhaps Volvo’s lack of representation is actually a good thing.’’
She also questions how the Volvo results were compiled.
‘‘First, we’re not sure how Volvos produced in the ’80s can ‘outperform’ those produced in the ’90s, which came equipped with extra passive safety systems.
‘‘Second, questions seem to surround the grouping of certain models. It appears the models have been combined to help meet the quota of ‘20 serious injuries per 100 accidents per model’, yet each model introduced different safety technology at different stages.’’
The bottom line for Volvo is it does not believe the results give a true picture of its safety.
‘‘Volvo prides itself on its commitment to real-world safety . . . which has been a key feature of the Volvo brand for more than 80 years — well before it became a fashionable marketing tool,’’ Mirabelli says.