It comes to the c
No two accidents are alike, so crash rating comparisons can be hit or miss
test can possibly hope to predict the safety of any given vehicle for all possible scenarios,’’ Malkoutzis says.
Thus, it is critical that we have a range of data sourced through different methodologies to inform improvements to our vehicle design and engineering, and to help customers choose the vehicle most suitable to their purpose.’’ On that basis,
looks at the strengths— and weaknesses — of the respective safety ratings. MUARC Monash’s annual Used Car Safety Ratings reflect physics and represent vehicle safety in the real world. Bigger cars are safer than smaller cars; newer vehicles are safer than old ones.
But the database of more than 5 million police-reported crashes focuses on driver safety rather than that of all occupants and is then
weighted’’ for variables such as driver age and gender. The report also notes: Ratings are not estimated for vehicle models where there are less than 20 injured drivers and/or less than 100 involved drivers in the Australasian crash data, as the resulting ratings estimates from smaller quantities of data than this are considered too statistically unreliable’’.
The other issue is social engineering— an inherent component of the Monash results. The report gives the previously provided outright
crashworthiness’’ rating of the vehicle alongside a rating of its aggressivity’’ in term of injury to other road users.
UCSR results now combine those two ratings when determining the safe pick’’ vehicles. It’s a laudable sentiment but it’s also a policy that restricts informed choice — most people buying a car would prefer to know both factors, simply on the basis that for any two safe pick’’ vehicles, one may be marginally better at preserving the life of the car buyer while the other may be fractionally kinder to other parties. Guess which one I’d put my kids in.
As such, the report is as much about regulating buying behaviour as it is about
The Australian New Car Assessment Program subjects vehicles to an internationally recognised set of crashes: frontal offset, side impact, pole and pedestrian— yet in many cases, the results don’t equate to the UCSR results. MUARC remodelled the ANCAP data and found variances of 55-65 per cent because ANCAP protocols still do not reflect all-important real world crash configurations and injury outcomes to key body regions’’.
One reason for this is ANCAP’s ratings are relative to the class, not absolute. A five-star small car won’t provide the same protection as a five-star large car. If everything else is equal, bigger is better.
ANCAP notes: It is not appropriate to compare ratings across vehicle categories, particularly if there is a large weight difference. The reason is that in car-to-car crashes, the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage (du the physics of the crash). Similarly, a higher ride h might be an advantage in to-car crash.
However in single veh crashes, such as with soli objects, the weight might longer be an advantage.’
Seeing stars: Side-impact testing for EuroNCAP