« PUBLIC CITIZEN WANTS VOLVO ROOF-TEST DOCS UNSEALED | Main | FMCSA DRIVER RULE RAPPED BY COURT »
December 14, 2005
NEW CAR SAFETY RATINGS PUBLISHED, ANALYZED, DEBATED
Methods for rating new-car safety, and the results of those methods, have been making recent news. On the heels of announcements by NHTSA and IIHS of recent crash test results (see earlier stories in the Current Developments archive), IIHS has announced ten winners of its new “Top Safety Pick” award for 2006 models. The choices are made on the basis of the group’s highly publicized crash tests. Spread across three size categories, they are, in the “large” category, the Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego, its twin, and the Audi A6; in the “midsize” category, the Saab 9-3, Subaru Legacy, Audi A3, Audi A4, Chevrolet Malibu, VW Passat and VW Jetta, and in the “small” category, the Honda Civic. The full results are HERE. But meanwhile, in a detailed press release, Volvo challenged the usefulness of what it called the “one crash test” approach to rating vehicle safety performance.
“Designing vehicles with Real World safety is Volvo's methodology and priority. Excelling in one particular nation's governmental or third party tests is not. In third-party tests, such as the recent American IIHS Top Safety Pick Awards, or the NHSTA Crash Tests, vehicles are ranked based on the performance of front, side, and rear crashes. These rankings are based on results from one test vehicle, at one impact speed, and one angle of impact. While any form of testing can be a positive step, safety is a MUCH more complex subject than just one single crash test.”
Volvo compared its “holistic” approach to safety to a decathlon: “A decathlon athlete must perform well in different 10 events to win first prize. While that means they are not 'world class’ in one particular category, it also means they are the BEST all-around athlete. That is how Volvo views the field of safety. While each government and third party test will only address one type of impact, at one speed, in one event, Volvo considers the consequences of real world factors.”
Elsewhere on the ratings scene:
--Forbes has published a listing that it calls “The Least-Safe Cars of 2006.” The listing is based on IIHS test results. “Most cars in NHTSA's crash tests achieve ratings of three stars or higher on tests in which five stars is the top rating, but the IIHS does not hesitate to hand out ratings of "poor" when cars merit them. NHTSA gives out the occasional sub-three-star rating, but a three-star rating tends to be as low as it goes.”
--In “Making Sense of Safety Ratings,” the Chicago Sun-Times cites both IIHS and NHTSA crash tests results as useful sources of information, but notes some confusion:
“…no car makes both lists. Why is that? The government hasn't yet tested most of the cars that won awards from the IIHS -- just two of them, in fact. And the IIHS hasn't rated the Hyundai Sonata or any 2006 SUVs. The Honda Civic, which won a gold award from the IIHS, received four out of five stars in the government's rollover test. Results of government crash tests haven't been released. The VW Passat, which won a silver award from the IIHS, received four of five stars in the government crash tests and four stars in its rollover test. The Honda Odyssey minivan, which received five stars in the government's crash tests, failed to win an award from the IIHS because it didn't score well in the institute's rear-impact test, a test the government does not conduct. In fact, no minivan won an award from the group.”
--In its January issue, Consumers Digest (not to be confused with Consumer Reports) will criticize NHTSA and IIHS ratings, according to a press release put out by the publication.
“NHTSA is criticized for an out-of-date scheme in conducting its frontal-crash test program. IIHS is chided for being more concerned with testing vehicles to evaluate for potential for insurance claims rather than overall crashworthiness. Other methodology concerns include an inability to compare results of one vehicle to those of another in a different size/weight class; side-impact testing on NHTSA's part that isn't designed to evaluate injury to a car occupant's head; NHTSA's dependence on vehicle dimensions rather than actual test-driving performance to compute rollover ratings. Neither group's ratings consider how well a given vehicle can help motorists stop, steer or otherwise maintain control to avoid getting into accidents in the first place.”
Posted by MVHAP at December 14, 2005 06:48 PM