Looking at the cars being marked up by EuroNCAP recently it occurs to me that their results are becoming increasingly meaningless.
Just about every new car on the market is getting 5 stars these days. This devalues the whole thing -- there must be differences between the best and the worst on the market?
|
I agree, mainly because NCAP appear to ignore visibility - surely a vital safety aspect of any car design.
Whatever one may think of the styling of, for example, the new Honda Civic, the Renault Megane and the SEAT Leon (some like them, some don't), the blind spot at the back is big enough to make it easy to reverse into a child without ever seeing him/her.
There are other designs with huge wide A-pillars creating another blind spot at the front. Maybe this is for structural safety, but personally I don't think other sorts of safety should be ignored.
|
I believe NCAP is reviewing it as there is a mention in this week's Auto Express that the new Fiat 500 received 5 stars and would most probably get 6 stars under the new system?
Incidentally the new Renault Twingo got 4 and a Renault spokesman is quoted as saying that the car was built to a budget and for it to be built to 5* standards would cost substantially more.
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
So they're rewriting the system to give everyone more stars. Bit like GCSE and A level.
Pretty soon cars will be claiming to be so safe that they will bring you back to life after you're dead.
|
The EuroNCAP programme has been a great success by any standards, and a safety revolution has been achieved for pennies (in motor industry economics). The fact that so many cars now score 5-stars is a tribute to the work that EuroNCAP have undertaken. Through to the 1980's it was said in the motor industry that 'safety doesn't sell' - NCAP changed that. Because safety has improved greatly the system now needs 'recalibrating' - which is fair enough in my view.
I know some people will knock EuroNCAP (presumably because of the 'Euro' part in the name) but don't underestimate its impact...!
|
Surely all they have to do is remove the ceiling of 5 stars?
Then makers would want to be the first to reach new star levels.
The ratings would creep on and on with advances in design.
|
|
They should do the crash tests at higher speeds.
|
>>They should do the crash tests at higher speeds.
I couldn't disagree more. At some point, we need to decide that a reasonable compromise has been reached - preferably before the stage where we are all riding about in cars built like nuclear material transport flasks!
The main safety critical component which has recieved virtually no development is the driver. Here, some changes that would incentivise people to undertake some form of advanced training and assessment would acheive more without making vehicles any more numb, inert, and difficult to see out of.
Number_Cruncher
|
|
|
|
The fact that so many cars now score 5-stars is a tribute to the work that EuroNCAP have undertaken.
I agree. The NCAP rating is a big selling point for family cars, and it would be a foolhardy manufacturer who launched a key model in this sector without "designing in" a 5 star NCAP performance. It's clear that the cars are increasingly being built to suit the test requirements rather than any danger of the requrements being changed to suit the cars.
This is a good thing if we can be sure the testing criteria being valid. It's no different to educational exams or the driving test - the most successful way is to present candidates who are geared to pass the test above all else. As long as the test is some indication of competence or ability in the real world, the process makes a valuable contribution. It is when the test itself is out of touch or irrelevant that you run into problems.
I chose a 5 star NCAP rated vehicle to carry my family not because it guarantees anything, but because I know that whatever happens, I have done the best I can based on the information available to me. It is not a substitute for good driving or vigilance.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
|
|
|
Pretty soon cars will be claiming to be so safe that they will bring you back to life after you're dead.
No, that's the domain of soft drinks companies:
The 'Come Alive With P****!' slogan was interpreted in China as 'P**** Brings Your Ancestors Back From the Dead.'
|
|
|
|
|
I agree mainly because NCAP appear to ignore visibility - surely a vital safety aspect of any car design. Whatever one may think of the styling of for example the new Honda Civic the Renault Megane and the SEAT Leon (some like them some don't) the blind spot at the back is big enough to make it easy to reverse into a child without ever seeing him/her.
Agreed on that. The 12-year-old Volvo 940 I was driving yesterday I felt was far safer than my Volvo S80 (which has more modern safety tech), simply in that unlike the S80, you could see exactly where you were reversing, and actually *see* the back driver side of the car. The wing mirrors were larger, less curvy and attractive, but with better visibility allowing me to see vehicles in blind spots that I wouldn't see in the S80's mirrors.
Plus when it came to looking around, the 940 has oceans of glass on both side with an easy unrestricted view behind, whereas if I look in the S80, seats, B-pillars, etc. all seem to badly obstruct the view.
If everyone drove a car with that kind of view of the road, accidents *would* be averted and lives would be saved.
|
|
I hired a Zafira over the summer and was astounded how thick the A pillars were. Wide enough to lose a whole car approaching at the 'wrong' angle.
|
A few years ago, What Car mag did tested a number of cars for visibility. To the best of my ability, they have not done so recently - so it seems that visibility is falling down the list of priorities.
I would have thought that it would not be difficult for NCAP to introduce a visibility score, in parallel to the scores for occupant protection and pedestrian protection.
|
I am amazed to see how many modern cars actually demand spatial skill [because of their bulbous design] rather than driving skill.
I love to drive cars where I can see bonnet from driver's seat :)
|
|
off thread and will no doubt be zapped...but.......get rid of speed cameras and the plethora of signage you get nowadays.......then people might actually concentrate on the hazards around them, rather than where the next camera may or may not be or drive on autopilot 'because you can'........in other words think for themselves and formulate their own risk assessments
|
|
The C-Max is particually bad for A-pillar and B-pillar obscuration. I have missed seeing cars approaching because when I looked they were hidden behind the A-pillar. Now I always look twice, and have to lean forward to make sure there's no hidden cars before I pull out.
|
On a Police Camera Action program tonight long feature on NCAP and its F1 roots. Apparently it came about as a direct result of Senna and ratzenbergers deaths, championed by Max Moseley.
A lot of it is done with expensive dummies now but apparently the dummies are based on tests made with real human dead bodies that have been donated for research!
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
|
|
|
" Wide enough to lose a whole car "
Not to mention a bike! I was amazed to discover that Honda's new Civic has the same problem - does their car division not know they make bikes, too?
I'm afraid that NCAP just ensures that cars are being made to have nice safe accidents in...
|
|
|
|
|
|
