Vehicle Safety
Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program Gao ID: GAO-05-370 April 29, 2005In 2003, 42,643 people were killed and more than 2.8 million people were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Efforts to reduce fatalities on the nation's roadways include the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program. Under this program, NHTSA conducts vehicle crash and rollover tests to encourage manufacturers to make safety improvements to new vehicles and provide the public with information on the relative safety of vehicles. GAO examined (1) how NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program crash tests vehicles, rates their safety, and reports the results to the public; (2) how NHTSA's program compares to other programs that crash test vehicles and report results to the public; and (3) the impact of the program and opportunities to enhance its effectiveness.
NHTSA conducts three types of tests in the New Car Assessment Program--full frontal and angled side crash tests and a rollover test. Each year, NHTSA tests new vehicles that are expected to have high sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have improved safety equipment. Based on test results, vehicles receive ratings from one to five stars, with five stars being the best, to indicate the vehicles' relative crashworthiness and which are less likely to roll over. NHTSA makes ratings available to the public on the Internet and through a brochure. Other publications, such as Consumer Reports, use NHTSA's test results in their safety assessments. GAO identified four other programs--the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's program and the New Car Assessment Programs in Australia, Europe, and Japan--that crash test vehicles and report the results to the public. They share the goals of encouraging manufacturers to improve vehicle safety and providing safety information to consumers. These programs conduct different types of frontal and side crash tests, and some perform other tests, such as pedestrian tests, that are not conducted under the U.S. program. Only the U.S. program conducts a rollover test. The other programs measure test results differently and include more potential injuries to occupants in ratings. They also reported their test results differently, with all summarizing at least some of the scores or combining them into an overall crashworthiness rating to make comparisons easier. NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing information to consumers. However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to change to maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has been eroded by the growing number of larger pickups, minivans, and sport utility vehicles in the vehicle fleet since the program began. In addition, NCAP scores have increased to the point where there is little difference in vehicle ratings. As a result, the program provides little incentive for manufacturers to further improve safety, and consumers can see few differences among new vehicles. Opportunities to enhance the program include developing approaches to better measure the interaction of large and small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help prevent crashes, and using different injury measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information provided to consumers.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-370, Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-370
entitled 'Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New
Car Assessment Program' which was released on April 29, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
April 2005:
Vehicle Safety:
Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-370]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-370, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2003, 42,643 people were killed and more than 2.8 million people
were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Efforts to reduce fatalities on
the nation‘s roadways include the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration‘s (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program. Under this
program, NHTSA conducts vehicle crash and rollover tests to encourage
manufacturers to make safety improvements to new vehicles and provide
the public with information on the relative safety of vehicles. GAO
examined (1) how NHTSA‘s New Car Assessment Program crash tests
vehicles, rates their safety, and reports the results to the public;
(2) how NHTSA‘s program compares to other programs that crash test
vehicles and report results to the public; and (3) the impact of the
program and opportunities to enhance its effectiveness.
What GAO Found:
NHTSA conducts three types of tests in the New Car Assessment
Program”full frontal and angled side crash tests and a rollover test.
Each year, NHTSA tests new vehicles that are expected to have high
sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have
improved safety equipment. Based on test results, vehicles receive
ratings from one to five stars, with five stars being the best, to
indicate the vehicles‘ relative crashworthiness and which are less
likely to roll over. NHTSA makes ratings available to the public on the
Internet and through a brochure. Other publications, such as Consumer
Reports, use NHTSA‘s test results in their safety assessments.
Examples of NHTSA‘s New Car Assessment Program Tests
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
GAO identified four other programs”the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety‘s program and the New Car Assessment Programs in Australia,
Europe, and Japan”that crash test vehicles and report the results to
the public. They share the goals of encouraging manufacturers to
improve vehicle safety and providing safety information to consumers.
These programs conduct different types of frontal and side crash tests,
and some perform other tests, such as pedestrian tests, that are not
conducted under the U.S. program. Only the U.S. program conducts a
rollover test. The other programs measure test results differently and
include more potential injuries to occupants in ratings. They also
reported their test results differently, with all summarizing at least
some of the scores or combining them into an overall crashworthiness
rating to make comparisons easier.
NHTSA‘s New Car Assessment Program has been successful in encouraging
manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing information to
consumers. However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need
to change to maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current
tests has been eroded by the growing number of larger pickups,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles in the vehicle fleet since the
program began. In addition, NCAP scores have increased to the point
where there is little difference in vehicle ratings. As a result, the
program provides little incentive for manufacturers to further improve
safety, and consumers can see few differences among new vehicles.
Opportunities to enhance the program include developing approaches to
better measure the interaction of large and small vehicles and occupant
protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help prevent crashes,
and using different injury measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA
also has opportunities to enhance the presentation and timeliness of
the information provided to consumers.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that NHTSA examine the direction of the New Car
Assessment Program to ensure that it maintains its relevance in
improving vehicle safety, including identifying tests that best address
the fatalities occurring on the nation‘s roads. GAO also recommends
that NHTSA enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information
provided to the public. NHTSA generally agreed with GAO‘s findings.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-370].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact JayEtta Hecker at (202)
512-2834 or [Hyperlink, heckerj@gao.gov].
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the Results
to the Public:
U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating,
Reporting, and Government Involvement:
NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are Needed
to Maintain Its Relevance:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings:
Appendix III: Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating:
Appendix IV: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:
Appendix V: Australian New Car Assessment Program:
Appendix VI: European New Car Assessment Programme:
Appendix VII: Japan New Car Assessment Program:
Appendix VIII: Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted:
Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS):
Table 3: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star Ratings:
Table 4: Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test:
Table 5: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating:
Table 6: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria:
Table 7: Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System:
Table 8: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings:
Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star Ratings:
Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test:
Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Three Types of Tests--Frontal, Side, and Rollover--Conducted
by NCAP:
Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
Tests:
Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP:
Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:
Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:
Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP:
Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious
Injury to the Head and Chest:
Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious
Injury to the Chest:
Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness:
Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of Rollover:
Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on
NHTSA's Web Site:
Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a
Passenger Vehicle as They Appear on NHTSA's Web Site:
Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing Programs:
Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test:
Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test:
Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs' Side Test (left)
and the Insurance Institute Side Test (right):
Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier:
Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test:
Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test:
Figure 20: Child Restraint Test:
Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal
Test and Driver in Side Test:
Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
NCAP Tests:
Figure 23: Frequency of Four-and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
Crash Tests in 2004:
Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of Different
Type and Weight:
Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the Side of
a Small Vehicle:
Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance Institute Test
with the SUV-like Barrier:
Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle Structures:
Figure 28: Example of Australia's NCAP Safety Rating Information:
Figure 29: Example of Japan's NCAP Safety Rating Information:
Figure 30: Example of NHTSA's Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck with
Bar Chart Showing How the Vehicle Performed within Its Class:
Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash Vehicles:
Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and
Accelerometers:
Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC:
Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G:
Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for
Frontal Crashes:
Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve:
Figure 37: Static Stability Factor of a Passenger Vehicle Compared with
an SUV:
Figure 38: Programmable Steering Controller:
Figure 39: Diagram of the Dynamic Test, Showing Steering Parameters:
Figure 40: Sensors to Detect Wheel-lift:
Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover Ratings:
Figure 42: Guidelines for Rating Occupant Compartment Intrusion
Measured in Centimeters:
Figure 43: Insurance Institute Rating of a Mid-size Passenger Car:
Figure 44: Insurance Institute Crash Ratings Provided to Public in its
Status Report Publication:
Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size
Passenger Car:
Figure 46: Australian NCAP July 2004 Crash Test Update Brochure:
Figure 47: European NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger Car:
Figure 48: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal
Test, and Driver in Side Test:
Figure 49: Test Vehicle Undergoing Brake Tests Under Dry and Wet
Conditions:
Figure 50: Pedestrian Head Impact Test and Target Area:
Figure 51: Japan NCAP Rating of a 2003 Mid-sized Passenger Car:
Figure 52: Example of Japan NCAP Detailed Full Frontal Data Available
for a 2003 Test:
Figure 53: Key to Japan NCAP's Door Openability Ratings:
Figure 54: Key to Japan NCAP's Rescueability Ratings:
Abbreviations:
AAAM: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine:
ADAC: General German Automobile Association (Allegmeiner Deutscher
Automobil-Club e V):
AIS: Abbreviated Injury Scale:
c.g.: center of gravity:
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
ESC: Electronic Stability Control:
Euro NCAP: European New Car Assessment Programme:
HIC: Head Injury Criterion:
kg: kilogram:
km/h: kilometers per hour:
mm: millimeter:
mph: miles per hour:
NASVA: National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims' Aid:
NBC: National Broadcasting Company:
NCAP: New Car Assessment Program:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
SID: side-impact dummy:
SUV: sport utility vehicle:
SSF: Static Stability Factor:
TREAD Act: Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation Act:
TSRE AB: Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB:
TTI: Thoracic Trauma Index
Letter:
April 29, 2005:
The Honorable Christopher Bond:
Chairman:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joe Knollenberg:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the
United States. Yet for all its advantages, deaths and injuries
resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for
all persons from 3 through 33 years old. In 2003, 42,643 people were
killed and more than 2.8 million people were injured in motor vehicle
crashes. Frontal crashes caused the largest portion of occupant deaths
(about 41 percent), followed by rollovers and side impact crashes (30
percent and 22 percent, respectively). In addition to the loss of life,
motor vehicle crashes have a high economic cost, which the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated at over $230
billion in 2000, the most recent year for which cost estimates were
available.[Footnote 1]
Efforts to reduce fatality rates in motor vehicle crashes have resulted
in some improvement. The fatality rate per 100 million miles of travel
in 2003 was at a historic low of 1.48, down from 1.75 per 100 million
miles of travel in 1993. The Department of Transportation (DOT)
attributes this change to several factors, including increased safety
belt use, reduction of alcohol-related deaths, and vehicle safety
programs, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP), both run by NHTSA. Under NCAP, which
began in 1978, NHTSA conducts frontal and side crash tests and rollover
tests of new cars, light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV)
and reports the results to the public. The specific goals of the
program are to encourage market forces that prompt vehicle
manufacturers to make safety improvements to new vehicles and provide
the public with objective information on the relative safety
performance of vehicles.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are regulations that establish
minimum performance levels that manufacturers must self-certify to in
order to sell vehicles in the United States. Under the safety
standards, NHTSA requires vehicles to pass a number of performance
tests to ensure that the minimum safety level is met. The NCAP frontal
and side crash tests are based on two of the crash tests carried out
under the safety standards. However, the NCAP tests are conducted at 5
miles per hour faster so that the differentiation between vehicles
becomes more apparent. When considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA
generally follows the rulemaking process, which includes seeking
informal comments on proposed changes before they become effective.
The Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the Department
of Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 (S. 1589)
directed us to conduct a study of the New Car Assessment Program. This
report examines (1) how NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program tests
vehicles, rates their safety, and reports the results to the public;
(2) how NCAP compares to other programs that test vehicles and report
results to the public; and (3) the impact NCAP has had and the
opportunities that exist to enhance its effectiveness.
To understand NHTSA's basis for testing and rating vehicles, we
reviewed laws, regulations, and program documentation. We also
conducted interviews with NHTSA officials, crash test contractors,
vehicle manufacturers, trade associations, public interest groups, and
independent researchers. We observed various vehicle crash tests and
documented how the results were converted into star ratings. To
document how NHTSA reports the results to the public, we consulted
NHTSA officials, the Internet, and other vehicle safety information
sources, such as Consumer Reports. To compare NHTSA's program with
other crash test and rating programs, domestic and foreign, we
interviewed officials of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and
the New Car Assessment Programs of Australia, Europe, and
Japan.[Footnote 2] We also interviewed vehicle safety experts and
officials of foreign government entities, foreign vehicle
manufacturers, and foreign consumer magazines such as Which?. To
identify the impact of NCAP and opportunities for improvement, we
analyzed changes in NCAP scores over time and obtained views from
experts in the auto and insurance industries, public interest groups,
and academia. We determined that NCAP data were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report. In addition, we analyzed how other
organizations tested vehicles, rated the crash tests, and reported
their results to the public to identify practices from other programs
that may have potential application to the U.S. program. We conducted
our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Under NCAP, NHTSA conducts three types of tests on vehicles--a full
frontal crash test, a side crash test, and a rollover test, as shown in
figure 1.[Footnote 3]
Figure 1: Three Types of Tests--Frontal, Side, and Rollover--Conducted
by NCAP:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Each year, NHTSA tests a number of new vehicles that are predicted to
have high sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes,
or have improved safety equipment. This practice is designed to ensure
that NHTSA rates vehicles that consumers are buying. NHTSA develops
five separate ratings based on the three tests and assigns one to five
stars to indicate which vehicles are more crashworthy in frontal and
side crashes and which vehicles are less likely to roll over. NCAP
ratings, designed to help consumers decide which vehicle to purchase,
are available to the public on the Internet and through the NHTSA
Buying a Safer Car brochure. NCAP crash results are also incorporated
in different vehicle safety ratings developed by others, such as
Consumer Reports and The Car Book, both of which get more extensive
distribution than direct NHTSA reporting.
We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report
the results to the public--the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's
program and NCAP programs in Australia, Europe, and Japan. Like the
U.S. NCAP, all these programs shared similar goals--providing relative
safety information to consumers and encouraging manufacturers to
improve vehicle safety. The three foreign NCAPs conduct different types
of frontal and side crash tests and conduct pedestrian and child
restraint systems tests that are not conducted under the U.S. program.
The Insurance Institute also conducts different frontal and side crash
tests than NHTSA's NCAP. Only the U.S. program conducts a rollover
test. Each vehicle testing program also measures test results
differently than the United States For example, in addition to the data
provided by the crash test dummies in the vehicles, inspectors in other
programs examine vehicles after crash tests to determine if there was
intrusion into the passenger compartment or other abnormalities and
adjust the test score accordingly. These other programs also report
their testing results to the public in a different manner. While the
U.S. NCAP reports results for each crash dummy by their seating
locations in the crash test, all of the other programs summarize at
least some of the scores or combined them into an overall
crashworthiness rating in an effort to make it easier for the public to
understand the results.
NCAP has contributed to making vehicles safer, but the program is at a
crossroads where it will need to change in order to maintain its
relevance. As shown in figure 2, vehicle safety as measured by NHTSA
star ratings has improved since the program began.
Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
Tests:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each
model year.
[End of figure]
The usefulness of the current tests has been eroded by changes in the
vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program began. Today there
are many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs than existed 27 years
ago, and this has created new safety hazards from the incompatibility
between large and small vehicles and rollover crashes, which are not
fully addressed by current NCAP tests. In addition, because most
vehicles now receive four-or five-star ratings, NCAP tests provide
little incentive for automakers to continue to improve vehicle safety
and little differentiation among vehicle ratings for consumers. Lastly,
NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and side crash tests in the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will make current NCAP tests less
meaningful. For example, NHTSA is increasing the speed of the frontal
safety standards to the same speed as the NCAP test, eliminating the
difference between the frontal NCAP and safety standard tests.
Opportunities to enhance the program include developing approaches to
better measure the effects of crashes between large and small vehicles
and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help
prevent crashes from occurring, and using different measures to rate
the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the
timeliness of the tests and the presentation of the information
provided to consumers.
We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to
ensure that NCAP maintains its relevance in improving vehicle safety
and to enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information
provided to the public. We received oral comments from NHTSA on a draft
of this report. In general, NHTSA agreed with the report's findings. We
are also making a version of this report available at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov], which includes video clips of crash tests that are
conducted by NHTSA and others.
Background:
Motor vehicle crashes are complex events resulting from several
factors, including driver behavior, the driving environment, and the
vehicle.[Footnote 4] Vehicle design can affect safety through
crashworthiness--that is, by providing occupants protection during a
crash--and through crash avoidance--that is, by helping the driver to
avoid a crash or recover from a driving error. Vehicle characteristics
such as size, weight, and the type of restraint system affect
crashworthiness because they play a large role in determining the
likelihood and extent of occupant injury from a crash. Vehicle
characteristics such as vehicle stability and braking performance are
examples of crash avoidance features in that they aid the driver in
preventing a crash from occurring.
The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was established in response to a
requirement in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of
1972 to provide consumers with a measure of the relative
crashworthiness of passenger vehicles.[Footnote 5] NCAP's goals are to
improve occupant safety by providing market incentives for vehicle
manufacturers to voluntarily design vehicles with improved
crashworthiness and provide independent safety information to aid
consumers in making comparative vehicle purchase decisions. NHTSA has
pursued these goals by conducting frontal and side crash tests and a
rollover test, assigning star ratings, and reporting the results to the
public.[Footnote 6] In fiscal year 2004, NCAP conducted 85 crash tests
and 36 rollover tests, with a budget of $7.7 million.[Footnote 7]
NHTSA also administers the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards.[Footnote 8] All motor vehicles sold in the United States for
use on the nation's highways must meet minimum safety requirements as
required by the standards. The standards prescribe a minimum
performance level for crashworthiness that vehicles must meet in a
number of different crash tests. Auto manufacturers self-certify that
their vehicles meet these minimum standards. To test compliance with
some of these standards, NHTSA conducts 30 miles per hour (mph) frontal
impact tests and 33.5 mph side impact tests for belted
occupants.[Footnote 9]
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards tests serve as a foundation
for NCAP testing. The test protocols for NCAP's frontal and side crash
tests are the same as the safety standards, except that the NCAP tests
are conducted at 5 mph faster. NHTSA's policy, although not required by
law, has been to make changes to the safety standards before
considering changes to NCAP. When considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA
generally follows the informal rulemaking process, which includes
seeking comments on proposed changes.
NCAP provides consumers with information regarding the crashworthiness
of new cars beyond the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards with which all vehicles sold in the United States must
comply. There are no minimum performance levels for the NCAP tests.
NHTSA tests as many vehicles as possible under NCAP to provide
consumers with sufficient independent information to make vehicle
comparisons. In contrast, NHTSA relies on auto manufacturers to self-
certify compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and
only conducts a limited number of tests to ensure manufacturer
compliance.[Footnote 10]
NHTSA conducted the first NCAP crash tests in 1978 on model year 1979
vehicles, measuring only the crashworthiness of passenger cars in
frontal crashes. Since then, there have been a number of vehicle tests
added to NCAP, as shown in figure 3. For model year 1983, NHTSA
expanded NCAP to include light trucks, vans, and SUVs. In 1996, NHTSA
first began the side-impact NCAP test for model year 1997 vehicles.
NHTSA expanded the side-impact NCAP test to include light trucks, vans,
and SUVs for model year 1999. NHTSA began to rate vehicles for their
rollover risk beginning with the 2001 model year. NHTSA initially rated
the risk of vehicle rollover by measuring the top-heaviness of a
vehicle and comparing this measurement to the top-heaviness of vehicles
involved in single-vehicle crashes, as reflected in crash data. As
required by the November 2000 Transportation, Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, NHTSA began dynamic
rollover testing on model year 2004 vehicles to supplement the
measurement of a vehicle's top-heaviness in determining a vehicle's
rollover risk.[Footnote 11]
Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Indicates vehicle model year.
[B] NHTSA has not always used the star rating system to communicate a
vehicle's crashworthiness as measured by NCAP. Previously, NHTSA
published the numerical injury scores indicating the likelihood of
head, chest, and upper leg injuries to the vehicle occupants. NHTSA
devised the star rating system after the Senate and Conference
Appropriations Reports for fiscal year 1992 requested that NHTSA
improve methods of informing consumers of the comparative safety of
passenger vehicles as measured by NCAP.
[End of figure]
NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the Results
to the Public:
NHTSA conducts three types of tests in NCAP: a full frontal crash test,
an angled side crash test, and a rollover test.[Footnote 12] NCAP
ratings, designed to aid consumers in deciding which vehicle to
purchase, are available to the public on the Internet and through
NHTSA's Buying a Safer Car brochure. NCAP crash results are also used
in developing vehicle safety ratings by other organizations, such as
Consumer Reports and The Car Book.
NCAP Conducts Three Tests--Full Frontal, Side, and Rollover:
Every year NHTSA tests new vehicles that are predicted to have high
sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have
improved safety equipment. NHTSA purchases vehicles--the base model
with standard equipment--for frontal and side crash tests directly from
dealerships across the country, just as the consumer would. The
vehicles are provided to five contractors that conduct the crash tests.
NCAP crash-test ratings only apply to belted occupants, as the crash
test dummies used in NCAP tests are secured with the vehicle's safety
belts. According to NHTSA officials, NCAP crash-test ratings are
available on about 85 percent of the new vehicles sold because ratings
for some models that have had no significant safety or structural
changes are carried over from year to year. For the rollover tests,
which are nondestructive, NHTSA leases new vehicles, which are tested
at one contractor location. Rollover risk ratings are available for
about 75 percent of new vehicles sold, according to NHTSA officials.
Full Frontal Crash Test:
The full frontal crash test is the equivalent of two identical
vehicles, both traveling at 35 mph, crashing into each other head-
on.[Footnote 13] The test vehicle is attached to a cable and towed
along a track at 35 mph so that the entire front end of the vehicle
engages a fixed rigid barrier, as shown in figure 4. This type of crash
test produces high level occupant deceleration, making this test
demanding of the vehicle's restraint system.
Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of a full frontal crash test
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 35 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/
media/video/d05370v1.mpg]:
Because the full frontal crash test is equivalent to two identical
vehicles moving toward each other at 35 mph, the crash test results can
only be compared to other vehicles in the same class and with a weight
that is plus or minus 250 pounds of the test vehicle. The test
protocols for the full frontal NCAP test are the same as the full
frontal belted test in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, with
the exception of the test speed--the NCAP test is conducted at 35 mph,
5 mph faster than the standard test.[Footnote 14]
Angled Side Crash Test:
The angled side crash test simulates an intersection collision in which
one moving vehicle strikes another moving vehicle.[Footnote 15] The
test vehicle is positioned such that the driver's side forms a 63
degree angle with the test track. On the other end of the test track is
a chassis with a barrier also turned at a 63 degree angle.[Footnote 16]
The barrier is made of a deformable material to replicate the front of
another vehicle and is attached to a cable that tows it down a track
into the test vehicle at 38.5 mph. Both the barrier face and the
driver's side of the vehicle are parallel, so that the entire face of
the barrier impacts the side of the vehicle, as shown in figure 5.
Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of an angled side crash test
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 38.5 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/
media/video/d05370v2.mpg]:
Because all vehicles are hit with the same force by the same moving
barrier, test results can be compared across weight classes. The
barrier used in this test weighs approximately 3,015 pounds, and the
top of the deformable face is approximately 32 inches from the ground.
The side NCAP test is similar to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards test, with the exception that the side NCAP test is conducted
at 38.5 mph, or 5 mph faster than the safety standard test.[Footnote 17]
Rollover Test:
The dynamic rollover test simulates a driver making a high-speed
collision avoidance maneuver--steering sharply in one direction, then
sharply in the other direction--within about 1 second. NHTSA has
focused its rollover test primarily on pickups and SUVs because cars
are not susceptible to tipping up in this test. The rollover test is
actually a series of four runs, two left/right tests and two right/left
tests, at two different steering wheel angles and different speeds.
Before the test, the vehicle is loaded to represent five passengers and
a full tank of gas. During the test, the steering wheel is turned
sharply in one direction at a high speed and then turned sharply in the
opposite direction at a greater steering angle.[Footnote 18] The first
run of each test is conducted at 35 mph. Subsequent runs are conducted
at about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph and 50 mph, until the vehicle fails
or "tips up" as defined by test procedures or attains a speed of 50 mph
on the last run of each test without tipping up. Tipping up is defined
as both wheels on one side of the vehicle lifting off the ground more
than 2 inches simultaneously, which most commonly occurs during the
second turn, as exhibited in figure 6. Outriggers are attached to the
vehicle to prevent it from tipping all the way over and injuring the
test driver.
Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of a dynamic rollover test
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 48 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/
media/video/d05370v3.mpg]:
NHTSA Rates Vehicles by Assigning Up to Five Stars to Communicate the
Results of Its Tests:
NHTSA separately rates the frontal, side, and rollover tests. It
assigns one (worst) to five (best) stars to communicate the results of
the three tests to aid consumers in their vehicle purchase decisions.
Each star in the frontal and side ratings corresponds to a diminishing
probability of a potentially life-threatening injury, whereas each star
in the rollover rating corresponds to a reduced likelihood of vehicle
rollover. The rollover rating does not represent the chance of a
potentially life-threatening injury should a rollover crash occur.
Frontal and Side Crashworthiness Ratings:
Frontal and side star ratings represent the chances of a person wearing
a safety belt incurring an injury serious enough to require immediate
hospitalization or to be life threatening in the event of a crash.
Frontal star ratings indicate the combined chance of a serious head and
chest injury[Footnote 19] to the driver and right front seat passenger,
as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious
Injury to the Head and Chest:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Side star ratings indicate the chance of a serious chest injury to the
driver and the rear seat driver's side passenger, as shown in figure
8.[Footnote 20] NHTSA reports two separate star ratings for the frontal
and side crash test, according to the occupant position.
Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious
Injury to the Chest:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In the side and frontal test, NHTSA uses crash test dummies that
represent an average-sized adult male. Each dummy is secured with the
vehicle's safety belts prior to the crash test.[Footnote 21] The
dummies are affixed with instruments that measure the force of impact
experienced in different parts of the body during the crash. While only
forces to the head and chest are used to calculate the frontal star
ratings, impacts to each dummy's neck, pelvis, legs, and feet are also
measured.[Footnote 22] For the frontal rating, NHTSA calculates the
chance of serious injury to the head and chest by linking measured
forces on the dummies' heads and chests during the crash test to
information about human injury.[Footnote 23] For the side rating, NHTSA
calculates the chance of serious injury to the chest by linking
measured forces on the dummies' ribs and lower spine during the crash
test and information about human injury. Forces to the head and pelvis
are also measured but are not included in side star ratings.
Rollover Rating:
NHTSA's rollover star ratings represent the propensity of a vehicle to
roll over but do not address the probability of a severe injury in a
rollover crash. Knowing a vehicle's propensity to roll is important
because rollovers are the most deadly crashes. While totaling just over
2 percent of police reported crashes, rollovers account for almost one-
third of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. The crash avoidance
rollover rating is based primarily on the measure of a vehicle's top-
heaviness, as shown in figure 9, and, to a lesser extent, the results
of the dynamic test.[Footnote 24]
Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness:
[See PDF for image]
[A] The Static Stability Factor (SSF) is a vehicle's track width
divided by two times its center of gravity height.
[End of figure]
NHTSA uses the measure of a vehicle's top-heaviness to predict the
likelihood of a vehicle rolling over under the circumstances that occur
most often--when a vehicle leaves the roadway and the vehicle's wheels
hit a curb, soft shoulder, or other roadway object, causing it to roll
over. These "tripped" rollovers account for about 95 percent of all
rollover crashes. NHTSA's dynamic rollover test does not correspond to
these types of rollovers because it does not involve the vehicle
hitting a tripping mechanism, such as a curb or soft shoulder. As such,
NHTSA's dynamic rollover test does not affect the star rating
significantly, resulting in no more than a half-star difference in a
vehicle's rollover rating. NHTSA primarily selects top-heavy vehicles,
such as light trucks, small vans, and SUVs for the rollover
test.[Footnote 25] NHTSA assigns one to five stars to reflect the
chance of rollover, as shown in figure 10.[Footnote 26]
Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of Rollover:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
NHTSA Reports the Results to the Public Through the Internet and the
Buying a Safer Car Brochure:
NHTSA distributes NCAP safety ratings and information about a vehicle's
safety features through its Web site, press releases, and the Buying a
Safer Car brochure. NHTSA primarily relies on the Web site to educate
consumers about vehicle safety; in 2004 there were about 4.3 million
visits to the NCAP Web site. The Web site was last redesigned in August
2004 and provides information about crash test ratings from model year
1990 to the present.[Footnote 27] To view a vehicle's ratings, users
can search using parameters such as vehicle class, year, make, and
model. Once a vehicle class and year are selected, the list of vehicles
comes up with the star rating information, as shown in figure 11.
Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on
NHTSA's Web Site:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Users can get more detailed information about the vehicle's star rating
by selecting a specific vehicle, as shown in figure 12.
Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a
Passenger Vehicle as They Appear on NHTSA's Web Site:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to the Web site, NCAP's star ratings and a list of
vehicles' safety features are available in the Buying a Safer Car
brochure. The American Automobile Association primarily distributes the
brochure, and it is also available at NHTSA's regional offices, state
highway safety offices, and libraries. For vehicle model year 2004,
NHTSA published 25,000 copies of the Buying a Safer Car brochure. For
vehicle model year 2005, NHTSA published a first printing of the
brochure in December 2004. In addition, it plans to print a second
brochure in spring 2005. While the 2004 edition does not have all the
test results for model year 2005, it has a large number of carryover
vehicles from model year 2004 plus some early 2005 tests.
Other sources of vehicle safety information that use data from NCAP
crash tests include Consumer Reports and The Car Book. Consumer Reports
takes into consideration a vehicle's performance in NHTSA NCAP tests
and tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(Insurance Institute) to determine an overall crash-protection rating.
Instead of printing stars, Consumer Reports uses a circle rating
scheme. Consumer Reports publishes this crash-protection rating, as
well as individual NHTSA and Insurance Institute front and side crash
test results, in its monthly magazine, in all of its newsstand-only new-
car publications, and on its Web site. Consumer Reports magazine has
about 4 million subscribers, but representatives told us they inform in
excess of 13.5 million people monthly as a result of pass-along
readership. The Web site has an additional 1.8 million
subscribers.[Footnote 28]
Published annually, The Car Book provides consumers with a broad range
of information about new vehicles, listed alphabetically by model.
Information such as fuel economy, repair costs, and front and side
crash tests are included in the book. The Car Book takes the NCAP raw
test results and converts them into a numerical rating scheme, 10 being
best and 1 being worst. In addition to the information by vehicle
model, The Car Book also presents detailed safety information based on
the safety features of each car and the government's rollover ratings.
Since first being published privately for the 1983 vehicle model year,
The Car Book has sold over 1.5 million copies.[Footnote 29]
U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating,
Reporting, and Government Involvement:
We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report
the results to the public--the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(Insurance Institute) program in the United States and NCAP programs in
Australia, Europe, and Japan.[Footnote 30] All of the programs shared
the U.S. NCAP goals of providing manufacturers with an incentive to
produce safer vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety
information on the vehicles they plan to purchase. We found differences
in the types of tests conducted, how the crash tests were evaluated,
and how the test results were shared with the public. In addition, we
found that each program had varied levels of government and industry
involvement.
Vehicle Testing Programs Conduct Different Tests:
Each of the organizations we examined conducts a variety of frontal,
side, and other tests designed to measure various elements of vehicle
safety. Figure 13 shows the tests performed across the U.S. NCAP and
other four programs. (See appendixes II through VIII for additional
discussion on each program and the tests conducted.)
Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
AThe Insurance Institute conducts a perpendicular side-impact crash
test with a SUV-like barrier.
Frontal Crash Tests:
The five programs we examined use two crash tests to represent frontal
crashes--full frontal and offset crash tests. The U.S. and Japan NCAPs
conduct full frontal tests, which involve crashing the test vehicle's
entire front end into a solid barrier. The offset frontal test involves
crashing the test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 kilometers per hour-
-km/h) into a deformable barrier with about 40 percent of the vehicle's
overall width on the driver's side actually impacting the barrier, as
shown in figure 14. All programs, except the U.S. NCAP, conduct the
offset frontal test.
Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether
it is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the
driver is on the right side of the vehicle.
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of an offset frontal crash
test conducted by Australia NCAP at 40 mph: [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v4.mpg]:
The full frontal and offset frontal tests measure different
characteristics of vehicle crashworthiness. The full frontal test
focuses on measuring the ability of the vehicles' restraint systems to
protect the occupants. The offset frontal test assesses a vehicle's
structural integrity and its ability to manage the crash energy
generated from a crash entirely on one side of the vehicle. Officials
from the programs using the offset test told us they believe it is more
representative of real world crashes because most frontal crashes
involve vehicles hitting only a portion of their front ends.
Side Crash Tests:
Three types of side-impact tests are conducted among the programs we
examined--the angled side test, the perpendicular side test, and the
pole side test. Only the U.S. NCAP performs the angled side
test.[Footnote 31] All of the other testing programs conduct a
perpendicular side tests. This test involves crashing a moving
deformable barrier traveling at about 31 mph (50 km/h) into a
stationary vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the driver's
seating position. Figure 15 illustrates how the perpendicular test is
performed.
Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether
it is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the
driver is on the right side of the vehicle.
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of a perpendicular side
impact crash test conducted by Euro NCAP at 31 mph: [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v5.mpg]:
Other differences between the side tests were the height, shape, and
weight of the barriers and the crash dummies used. For example, the
U.S. NCAP and the three foreign programs performed their side tests
using a moving deformable barrier with a front end simulating a
passenger car, while the Insurance Institute's barrier simulates the
front end of a typical pickup truck or SUV. In addition, the Insurance
Institute barrier weighs about 3,300 pounds (1,500 kilograms--kg)
compared to 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S. barrier and 2,095
pounds (950 kg) for the Australian, European, and Japanese barriers.
Also, the Australia, Europe, Japan, and U.S. side tests used 50TH
percentile adult male dummies and the Insurance Institute used
5THpercentile adult female dummies.[Footnote 32]
Insurance Institute officials told us they found that in serious real-
world side-impact collisions, occupants' heads are often struck by
intruding vehicles, especially in the side collisions involving pickup
trucks or SUVs with high front hoods. As a result, in 2003 when they
began their side impact test, they developed the barrier to simulate
these types of vehicles, while using dummies that represented smaller
occupants. They said that the test challenges the automobile industry
to provide additional occupant protection specifically for the head
region. Figure 16 shows the difference in the size and height of the
barriers, while figure 17 shows the crash test.
Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs' Side Test (left)
and the Insurance Institute Side Test (right):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of a side-impact crash test
with an SUV-like barrier conducted by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety at 31 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/media/video/
d05370v6.mpg]:
The Australia NCAP and European NCAP (Euro NCAP) also include optional
pole side tests. The pole side test involves a side impact to a vehicle
placed on a platform and propelled at about 29 km/h (about 18 mph) into
a stationary cylindrical pole. The pole test is an optional extra test,
available at the manufacturer's cost. This option is only available if
a vehicle has head-protecting side air bags and receives the highest
score in the side-impact test. If the vehicle performs well in the pole
test, the vehicle can receive a higher overall score. Officials in
Europe said this test is important, for example, because in Germany
over half of the serious to fatal highway injuries occur when a vehicle
crashes into a pole or a tree. The test is designed to encourage auto
manufacturers to equip vehicles with head protection devices. Officials
in Australia stated they are considering replacing the perpendicular
side test with a pole side test to better test the increasing number of
SUVs on their roadways. They said that SUVs are higher off the ground
and heavier than most passenger cars. As a result, SUVs would always
score higher under the current side-impact test because the barrier
often impacts below the hip point on the dummy and would register
little injury data. The pole test will impact all vehicles, including
SUVs, the same way regardless of height and weight. NHTSA officials
told us that while they have no plans at this time to include this test
in NCAP, they plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once the
pole test requirements for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
are resolved and finalized.[Footnote 33] Figure 18 illustrates how the
pole test is performed.
Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether
it is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the
driver is on the left side of the vehicle.
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of a side pole crash test
conducted by Euro NCAP at about 18mph: [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v7.mpg]:
Other Safety Tests:
In addition to the frontal and side crash tests, other safety tests are
conducted in the various programs. These include vehicle rollover,
pedestrian protection, and child restraint tests. The U.S. NCAP is the
only program to conduct a vehicle rollover test.[Footnote 34] Officials
of the other NCAPs told us they do not conduct this test because
rollover has not been a major problem in their countries due to their
smaller-sized vehicle fleet. However, Australian NCAP officials told us
they have noted a growth in the size of their vehicle fleets, and they
will be evaluating the usefulness of adding a rollover test to their
programs.
The NCAPs in Australia, Europe, and Japan also conduct pedestrian
tests, which are used to assess the risk to pedestrians if struck by
the front of a car. The pedestrian test involves projecting adult and
child-sized dummy parts (such as heads) at specified areas of the front
of a vehicle to replicate a car-to-pedestrian collision. Officials in
these programs said they included this test because pedestrian
fatalities in some of their countries were quite high. For example, in
2003 pedestrians accounted for nearly 30 percent of the annual traffic
fatalities in Japan, 20 percent in Europe (nearly 30 percent in the
United Kingdom alone), and 14 percent in Australia. In contrast, in the
United States, approximately 5,000 pedestrians were killed in motor
vehicle crashes in 2003, accounting for 13 percent of the annual
traffic fatalities. Figure 19 illustrates how the pedestrian protection
test is performed.
Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of a pedestrian test, where a
head form is propelled into a vehicle hood, conducted by Euro NCAP:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v8.mpg]:
The NCAPs in Europe and Japan also conduct child restraint tests to
evaluate child protection, although these tests are not directly
related to crashworthiness. In Europe, two different child-size dummies
are placed in child seats of the auto manufacturer's choice during the
frontal and side crash tests, as shown in figure 20. In Japan, two
child-size dummies are placed in child seats installed in the rear
passenger seats of a test vehicle that has been stripped down to its
body frame. The test vehicle is placed on a sled and subjected to a
shock identical to the test speed used in the full frontal crash test.
Japan NCAP also separately assesses the ease of correctly using child
seats. NHTSA officials told us that the U.S. NCAP is conducting a pilot
test to determine whether or not the addition of child safety seats
into the frontal NCAP would provide meaningful consumer information.
NHTSA also provides ratings on child safety seat ease of use.
Figure 20: Child Restraint Test:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Vehicle Testing Programs Rate Safety Differently:
Each vehicle testing organization used crash dummy readings as a
principal part of its rating process.[Footnote 35] However, we found
some differences in other aspects of the organizations' rating
processes. For example, all programs except NHTSA supplement the dummy
measures with inspector observations or measurements of the post-crash
vehicles. In addition, in Europe and Australia, rating scores can be
modified depending on the existence or absence of certain safety
features. Further, each program except the Insurance Institute uses
stars to convey the test results, and some programs combine individual
ratings into summary ratings in an effort to make it easier for the
public to understand crash test results.
Organizations Use Different Body Region Measurements and Types of
Dummies to Develop Ratings:
The four organizations we reviewed used more dummy measures in
calculating a vehicle's safety rating than U.S. NCAP. The U.S. NCAP
uses head and chest crash dummy readings in frontal crashes and chest
and lower spine readings for side crashes, then converts them to a
probability for serious injury, which in turn is converted into a star
rating.[Footnote 36] NHTSA officials said they use these measures
because they are the most important indicators of serious or fatal
injury in frontal and side crashes.[Footnote 37] In addition to the
U.S. NCAP measures, the Insurance Institute uses measurements of the
neck, left leg and foot, and right leg and foot for its frontal crash
analysis and measurements of the head, neck, pelvis, and left leg for
its side crash analysis. Australia and Euro NCAP use the neck, knee,
femur, pelvis, and leg and foot for frontal tests and head, abdomen,
and pelvis for side tests. Japan uses neck, femur, and tibia
measurements for its frontal crash analysis and head, abdomen, and
pelvis measurements for its side crash analysis. The other
organizations use some of these additional measures to capture what in
some cases may not necessarily be life-threatening injuries, such as
those to the victim's legs. As discussed earlier, the U.S. NCAP
measures the impact of crashes on many of the same body regions but
does not use them to calculate safety ratings.
In addition to differences in the body areas being measured, some
programs use different dummies in their side-impact tests. For the
frontal tests, the U.S. NCAP and other organizations use dummies that
represent an average-size adult male who is 5 feet 9 inches tall and
weighs about 170 pounds. While this size dummy is used by most programs
for the side-impact tests, there are differences in the dummy types and
the instrumentation it contains.[Footnote 38] In addition, in its side-
impact tests, the Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy
(about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds). Insurance Institute
officials said they chose this dummy because there is evidence that
females are more at risk in side collisions. It hopes this test will
encourage manufacturers to install side curtain air bags that are
designed to extend low enough to protect smaller passengers. Although
NHTSA's proposed changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
would add a side-impact pole test using the average-size male and the
smaller female dummies, NHTSA officials said that at this time they
have no plans to alter the sizes or types of crash dummies they use but
plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once the pole test
requirements for the safety standards are resolved and finalized.
Using Inspector Observations to Supplement Dummy Results:
Another distinction between the U.S. program and other programs is the
use of observations to modify test results. All programs except the
U.S. NCAP observe or measure changes to various parts of the occupant
compartment after the frontal crash test to identify potential safety
concerns. For example, the Euro NCAP measures the intrusion of the
steering column and lower leg area into the occupant compartment. Euro
NCAP officials noted that while an intrusion may not have affected the
dummy in the test, the potential for serious injury to vehicle
occupants in real-world crashes causes them to lower the safety rating.
Japan's NCAP also measures intrusion into the passenger compartment,
but rather than relying on observation, Japan has established fixed
measures that if exceeded will result in a lower score in a particular
area.
The U.S. NCAP does not use observations to modify test scores.
According to a NHTSA official, these observations add subjectivity to
the rating assessments and are not based on criteria that can be
repeated and substantiated. Many of the automobile manufacturers we
contacted stated that using observations adds a subjective element to
the test that is difficult for them to replicate. Additionally, some
pointed out that in some cases different inspectors could reach
different conclusions.
Using a Modifier System to Adjust Scores:
Another basic difference in scoring vehicles is the use of a modifier
system in Europe and Australia. This system adjusts the score generated
from the dummy injury data where injuries to occupants can be expected
to be worse than indicated by the dummy readings or the vehicle
deformation data alone. For example, a frontal test modifier might
result in points being deducted if the dummy's head hit the steering
wheel in a vehicle without an air bag.
The system in Europe and Australia also adjusts points based on the
existence or absence of various safety features on the test vehicles.
For example, a test vehicle can get extra points if it has a safety
belt reminder system that meets their NCAP specifications. Officials
said they use this approach to encourage manufactures to install new
safety features sooner than might otherwise occur.
Officials from several organizations and automobile manufacturers
operating under the Europe and Australia programs expressed concerns
that some of the modifiers might not have a direct impact on occupant
safety and could artificially increase scores. They noted, for example,
that in some countries safety belt usage exceeds 90 percent and that
giving extra points for a feature to encourage safety belt use may not
really add to safety. In addition, some automobile manufacturers
identified concerns with how items included in the modifier system are
developed and measured. They said that in some cases they have received
just 6 months notice of changes. They said that such changes can be
expensive and that they need to be notified sooner, so they have time
to make changes to comply with new measures.
Use of Stars as a Measure of Safety:
Except for the Insurance Institute, all programs used stars to convey
test results. Officials from the NCAPs noted that star ratings are well
understood by the public. For example, NHTSA officials said they used
focus groups in 1993 to examine various options to communicate crash
test results to the public, and the five-star rating was found
preferable. In addition, officials in the other programs told us they
followed the U.S. NCAP's use of star ratings. None of the programs has
plans to change its rating measures.
There have been some concerns expressed about the use of stars. For
example, a 1996 study by the National Academy of Sciences noted that
stars are inherently positive symbols and the public may not understand
the distinctions between the different levels of stars.[Footnote 39] In
addition, officials of a consumer group noted that most people would
associate the star rating with hotels and that staying in a three-star
hotel would be quite acceptable to most people. In discussing its use
of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor, the Insurance Institute said
it considered these types of qualitative measures as being clearer to
the general public.
Developing Summary Ratings:
Australia, Europe, and Japan NCAPs provide summary ratings, while the
U.S. NCAP provides only individual ratings for each seating position
that is included in the test for the frontal and side crash tests. For
example, Australia and Euro NCAPs provide overall ratings that combine
the frontal and side crash tests. Japan's NCAP combines frontal and
side crash tests to provide overall ratings for the driver and
passenger of a vehicle. Australian and European officials explained
that they believed potential vehicle purchasers can be confused by the
large amount of detail available on the test results and that
summarizing results makes the ratings more useful. They noted they make
the actual injury readings available for those interested in that level
of detail. In addition, while the Insurance Institute does not combine
individual ratings, it does identify "Best Pick-Frontal" and "Best
Pick-Side" to assist consumers. Similarly, officials with
publications like Consumer Reports and The Car Book told us they have
found it helpful to provide consumers with summarized rating
information. NHTSA officials noted that overall or summary ratings
might hide or mask deficiencies in some areas of the tests. For
example, they said that if a vehicle were to get a very high frontal
rating and a very low side rating, merging the results could give
consumers a misleading impression of the overall safety of that vehicle.
Programs Used a Variety Approaches to Inform Consumers of Safety
Results:
The crash testing programs we examined used a variety of approaches to
share safety results with the public. Across all the programs, the
Internet was the most relied-upon source for getting information to
consumers, with each organization providing details of its test
results. Safety pamphlets were used by all programs to supplement the
safety information presented on their Web sites. Some programs also
work with the news media to increase awareness of test results.
Internet Used to Convey Results:
Each organization made the results of its testing program available to
the public on the Internet. In general, the public can access the
results of individual tests, including the actual numeric dummy
readings. To help the public understand these results, each Web site
uses charts, tables, and graphics. For example, in addition to
providing star ratings, the Euro NCAP also uses color-coded dummy
injury diagrams to display how the specific body regions perform in the
frontal, side, pole, and pedestrian tests. The color-coded indicators
are: Good (Green), Adequate (Yellow), Marginal (Orange), Weak (Red),
and Poor (Brown). The color used is based on the points awarded for
that body region, as shown in figure 21.
Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal
Test and Driver in Side Test:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Publications Used to Share Test Results:
Each testing organization publishes the results of its testing
programs. The U.S. NCAP publishes the Buying a Safer Car booklet, which
provides new and carryover crash test ratings. The Insurance Institute
publishes a Status Report newsletter about 10 times a year, which
contains new crash test ratings as well as other highway safety
information. It can be obtained in hard copy through subscription, as
well as downloaded from the Insurance Institute's Web site. Australia
publishes a Crash Test Update brochure twice a year, which provides new
crash test results. According to Euro NCAP officials, Euro NCAP divides
its tests into two test phases and releases the results twice a year--
in November and June. The results are also published by What Car? (a
British car magazine), Which? Car (a magazine owned and produced by
British consumer associations), and the General German Automobile
Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer magazines in Europe also
provide crash test information. Lastly, Japan annually publishes the
Choosing a Safer Car booklet, which provides new and carryover crash
test results. The Japan NCAP also publishes summary brochures of test
results.
Working with the News Media to Share Test Results:
Like the U.S. NCAP, the Insurance Institute and the Australia and Euro
NCAPs worked with the news media to inform consumers about the results
of the vehicle safety tests. For example, each program issued press
releases to convey the results of safety research and crash tests. In
addition, the Insurance Institute has worked with television
broadcasts, such as the prime time news magazine program Dateline NBC,
to raise the public's awareness of how vehicles perform in the
program's crash tests. Insurance Institute officials grant interviews
explaining the results of the tests and use broadcast-quality film and
lighting to record the crash tests and make them available for
television broadcasts. According to Japan NCAP officials, they work
with television shows to help produce news segments that highlight
changes in test procedures and recent test results. Further, according
to Euro NCAP officials, in addition to other activities, Europe
promotes consumer education by using crashed vehicles as public
displays in prominent places in Europe during press conferences. The
events are designed to attract news media and public attention in an
attempt to increase public interest in and knowledge about car safety.
Government and Industry Involvement Varies among the Crash Testing
Programs:
The level of government and industry involvement varies among the crash
test programs. For example, the U.S. NCAP, which is operated and funded
solely by the U.S. DOT, has traditionally based its U.S. NCAP on the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as a matter of agency policy and
follows an informal rulemaking process where industry and other
interested parties can submit comments once NHTSA issues a notice of
proposed rulemaking. The Insurance Institute, which is funded by
private insurance companies, has no such process and can make an
internal decision to modify tests at any time. For example, according
to Insurance Institute officials, when they began their side-impact
tests, they developed a crash test barrier to represent the risk of
severe head injuries in side impacts by SUVs and pickups. The Insurance
Institute officials said they did not involve automobile manufacturers
in the decision-making process but informed them as well as NHTSA
before implementing the change.
The Australian NCAP was developed and is dominated mainly by private
motor clubs but includes government transportation departments in six
Australian states and territories, the New Zealand government, and
consumer groups. The national Australian government sets minimum safety
standards for vehicles but is not involved in funding or managing NCAP.
Similarly, the Euro NCAP is sponsored by the governments of Great
Britain, Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, as well as a
number of motor clubs and consumer organizations. According to Euro
NCAP officials, each sponsoring member agrees to perform or sponsor a
number of crash tests and participates in making the decisions related
to the program. In Australia and Europe, NCAP officials told us that by
not being exclusively controlled by government, they have flexibility
when modifying their programs. They said that as a result they can make
changes quicker because they do not have to follow governmental
procedures.
According to NCAP officials, the decision processes for Australia and
Europe involve the use of committees and working groups to examine
issues and make recommendations for change. The automobile industry and
public safety organizations may be involved in providing research or
opinions, but the committees are free to make decisions they believe
are appropriate. When these committees make recommendations, the full
governing body votes to accept or reject the changes. The government
partners have a vote in the process but cannot veto the result. In
Australia, according to NCAP and government officials, automobile
manufacturers were initially reluctant to engage in meaningful dialogue
with the officials of the Australia NCAP. However, more recently,
Australia NCAP officials have consulted with manufacturers prior to
making changes in the program and have received positive responses. On
the other hand, the Euro NCAP allows industry representatives to
participate in the discussions of the subgroups of its two technical
working groups--primary safety and secondary safety.[Footnote 40] Also,
the technical working groups and automobile manufacturers engage in
direct dialogue in industry liaison meetings.
According to NCAP officials, Japan's NCAP is funded by the government
but administered by an independent, government-appointed committee. The
committee includes members who are experts from automobile research
institutes, academics, journalists, and representatives of the Japanese
automobile industry and the automobile importers association. This
government/industry committee manages the program and must approve
changes submitted by program officials. The committee reaches its
decisions through consensus. Although the government ministry that
oversees the program may override the committee's decisions, this has
never occurred.
NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are Needed
to Maintain Its Relevance:
NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to produce safer
vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information.
However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to change to
maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has been
eroded by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the
program began. Today there are many more large pickups, minivans, and
SUVs than existed 27 years ago and new safety hazards have resulted
from the incompatibility between large and small vehicles and rollover
crashes, which are not fully addressed by current NCAP tests. In
addition, because most vehicles now receive four-or five-star ratings,
the NCAP tests provide little incentive for automakers to continue to
improve vehicle safety and little differentiation among vehicle ratings
for consumers. Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and side crash
tests in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will make
current NCAP tests less meaningful. Opportunities to enhance the
program include developing approaches to better measure the effects of
crashes between large and small vehicles and occupant protection in
rollovers, rating technologies that help prevent crashes from
occurring, and using different measures to rate the crash results.
NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the presentation and timeliness
of information provided to consumers.
NCAP Has Encouraged Improvement in Vehicle Safety and Provided the
Public with Vehicle Safety Information:
NCAP testing has contributed to more crashworthy passenger vehicles and
NHTSA has informed the public of test results. As shown in figure 22,
there has been a substantial increase in the average star rating of
vehicles since testing began. In 2004, tested vehicles averaged about
4.6 stars for the driver in frontal crash tests, about 4.4 stars for
the passenger in frontal crash tests, about 4.4 stars for the driver in
side crash tests, and about 4.3 stars for the rear passenger in side
crash tests.
Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
NCAP Tests:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each
model year.
[End of figure]
The improved ratings indicate that manufacturers have taken NCAP
seriously and designed and built vehicles that do well on NCAP tests.
Automakers told us that vehicle safety and NCAP test results have
become an important marketing tool. As a result, many auto
manufacturers advertise five-star ratings in government crash tests in
their television, radio, and print ads.
NHTSA has informed the public of the NCAP test results through its Web
site and by publishing a safety brochure. In addition, according to
NHTSA officials, the NCAP Web site has been redesigned in an effort to
make it more user-friendly. More importantly, NCAP crash test results
are used by popular publications that influence large segments of the
car-buying public. Both Consumer Reports and The Car Book use NCAP test
results as part of their vehicle safety ratings.
Without Change, NCAP's Relevance Will Likely Diminish:
While NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to make
safer vehicles, it will need to change to remain relevant. There have
been significant changes in the makeup of the nation's vehicle fleet, a
growing similarity of crash test ratings, and upgrades in the safety
standard tests for frontal and side crashworthiness. Without addressing
these changes, NCAP provides little incentive to manufacturers to
continue to improve safety and may provide consumers with only limited
comparative information on vehicle safety.
Since NHTSA began NCAP testing in 1979, there have been dramatic
changes in the vehicle fleet. Vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and
SUVs have transformed the fleet once dominated by passenger cars. There
are now more than 85 million pickups, minivans, and SUVs on the road,
representing about 37 percent of the vehicle fleet. The change in
vehicle fleet presents new safety challenges that NCAP's testing does
not fully address--vehicle incompatibility and rollover. The issue of
incompatibility emerges when a large vehicle such as a pickup, minivan,
or SUV crashes into a smaller, lighter vehicle because the larger
vehicle can inflict serious damage that is particularly dangerous to
the occupants of the smaller vehicle. The current NCAP frontal and side
tests do not account for vehicles of different size, weight, and
geometry crashing into one another. Significant differences in ratings
can result when tests are designed to address these vehicle
differences, as evidenced by comparing the Insurance Institute side
test results with NCAP results. The Insurance Institute, which uses a
higher SUV-like barrier, gave 27 vehicles its lowest rating (Poor) in
side-impact tests, primarily because there were no side air bags in the
vehicle. NHTSA, which uses a low barrier and, unlike the Insurance
Institute, does not include head measures in its star calculations,
gave 21 of these same 27 vehicles (77 percent) four-or five-star safety
ratings. Also, with the increase in pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the
nation's fleet, vehicle rollover has become a more important issue; in
2003, rollovers accounted for over 10,000 fatalities, or more than 30
percent of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. However, the NCAP
rollover test only measures the likelihood that a vehicle will roll
over and does not assess the safety afforded to occupants should a
rollover occur.
NCAP frontal and side crash test results have improved to a point where
there is little difference among most vehicles' ratings. In 2004,
NHTSA: provided the public with NCAP rating information for 234
vehicles.[Footnote 41] Most of these vehicle ratings were four or five
stars for drivers and passengers in frontal and side crash tests, as
shown in figure 23.
Figure 23: Frequency of Four-and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
Crash Tests in 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Note: For the driver and front passenger in the frontal test, star
ratings were available for 234 vehicles in 2004. For the driver in the
side test, star ratings were available for 210 vehicles in 2004. For
the rear passenger driver's side, in the side test, star ratings were
available for 186 vehicles in 2004.
[End of figure]
The vehicles crash tested more recently have done even better. Of the
49 frontal and 18 side crash tests conducted in 2004, over 95 percent
received a four-or five-star rating. As a result, NCAP's ability to
challenge auto manufacturers to continue improving vehicle safety has
eroded. Also, with almost all scores being about the same, consumers do
not have comparative safety information that differentiates
significantly among vehicles.
Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading the frontal and side tests under the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which make current NCAP testing less
meaningful.[Footnote 42] For frontal tests, safety standards will
require that for vehicles built after September 1, 2007, manufacturers
must certify the crashworthiness of their vehicles at 35 mph (instead
of the current 30 mph).[Footnote 43] This change will eliminate the
speed difference between the frontal NCAP and the frontal belted safety
standard tests. Because of this change, NHTSA has begun to examine
alternatives to its current frontal crash test program and hopes to
finalize any changes to the NCAP frontal test in 2006. Similarly, NHTSA
announced in May 2004 that it is proposing to add a 20 mph side pole
crash test to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This test
will use a more technically advanced average-size male dummy than is
currently used in the NCAP tests and a dummy that represents a small
female. According to NHTSA officials, the new test and advanced dummy
will enable them to confidently measure compliance with head injury
standards and challenge automakers to provide adequate head protection
to vehicle occupants in side impact crashes. However, neither this test
nor the new dummies are currently part of NCAP. NHTSA officials said
they plan to begin examining alternatives to the side crash test at the
end of 2005.
Opportunities to Enhance NCAP Testing:
NHTSA could explore several opportunities to enhance NCAP and ensure
its relevance. These opportunities include (1) addressing changes to
the vehicle fleet, particularly as it relates to vehicle
incompatibility and rollover; (2) developing approaches for NCAP to
encourage improved safety from emerging technology that helps drivers
avoid crashes; and (3) examining the various testing procedures and
measures that are available and in use by other organizations and
determining their applicability to NCAP.
Addressing the Increased Fatality Risks Created by Changes in the
Vehicle Fleet:
Vehicle Incompatibility:
When pickups, minivans, and SUVs collide with smaller passenger cars,
the mismatch of the vehicles' weight, height, and geometry are
considerable, as shown in figure 24. In terms of the weight
differences, subcompact cars may weigh as little as 1,500 pounds while
the large SUV may exceed 6,000 pounds.
Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of Different
Type and Weight:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Because of the higher ground clearance of large pickups and SUVs, their
bumpers may skip over the crash structures of passenger cars, raising
the likelihood that an occupant of the car will be killed or seriously
injured.[Footnote 44] A 2003 NHTSA study found that in frontal
collisions involving a car and a light truck or van, there were almost
four times the number of fatalities in the car than in the light truck
or van.[Footnote 45] The success of NCAP and the other testing programs
may have indirectly contributed to this problem. According to some
experts, to improve crashworthiness scores of large vehicles, vehicle
manufacturers have increased the rigidity of the structure that absorbs
and manages the substantial forces in the crash tests.[Footnote 46] As
a result, the structure of large vehicles has had to become more
substantial and stiffer than that of smaller vehicles because the
larger vehicles must absorb more energy in the crash test due to their
greater weight.
NHTSA's NCAP frontal tests could potentially be modified to measure and
rate vehicle incompatibility. Some experts, NHTSA officials, and
vehicle manufacturers told us that there are a number of approaches
being investigated that could help to address vehicle incompatibility.
For example, some researchers are examining the use of sensors in test
walls; crashing a moving deformable barrier into the front of the test
vehicles, instead of propelling the test vehicle into a solid wall; or
crashing test vehicles into a solid wall at varying speeds, depending
on the size of the vehicle, to equate the crash to hitting a
standardized vehicle. The hypothesis is that information obtained by
measuring how vehicles strike the crash test barrier could be used to
estimate the relative damage that a vehicle would cause in collisions
with another vehicle and could be used to rate the aggressiveness of
vehicles. Using a moving barrier for frontal crash tests would make
test results comparable across weight classes, as is the case with the
current side-impact rating, because all vehicles would be struck by the
same size barrier. Using variable speeds based on vehicle weight would
also allow ratings of small and large vehicles to be compared. Each of
these alternatives requires further development and testing to assess
the overall safety implications, including the potential for reducing
fatalities in passenger cars when struck by larger vehicles, the
potential for diminished occupant protection for large vehicles in
single vehicle crashes, and consideration of potential costs.[Footnote
47] Ratings based on these tests could provide manufacturers with
incentives to address incompatibilities between large and small
vehicles and provide consumers with information on the potential safety
hazards associated with vehicle incompatibility.
The problem of vehicle incompatibility is even worse in side crashes.
When a large vehicle like an SUV crashes into the side of a small
vehicle, the larger vehicle may miss the door sill of the vehicle,
causing most of the energy to be directed to the door and window areas,
as shown in figure 25. In such cases, the injuries can be exacerbated
when there is no side head protection, leaving the window as the only
barrier between the occupant's head and the impacting vehicle. Head
injuries are a major cause of fatalities in side collisions,
particularly in crashes where a single vehicle strikes a tree or
utility pole and in intersection crashes where smaller, lighter
vehicles are hit in the side by larger, heavier vehicles. NHTSA has
estimated that in serious side-impact crashes involving one or more
fatalities in 2002, nearly 60 percent of those killed suffered brain
injuries.
Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the Side of
a Small Vehicle:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
There are also possibilities for modifying the NCAP side test to help
address vehicle incompatibility. For example, NHTSA could examine the
barrier that is being used to ensure that it best represents today's
vehicles. NHTSA's current side-impact barrier is about the size and
weight of a compact car. As a result, when this barrier hits the test
vehicle, it will almost always hit the bottom sill of the door, which
is designed to manage much of the crash energy.[Footnote 48] To address
the disparity in height between passenger cars and SUVs, the Insurance
Institute uses a side-impact test barrier that is larger and higher
than NCAP's barrier, as shown in figure 26. According to Insurance
Institute officials, they designed this barrier to represent an SUV so
their test could more accurately reflect the increased risk for
occupants in smaller vehicles. They said that it has encouraged
manufacturers to install side curtain air bags. Using this higher
barrier has resulted in different scores than NHTSA's NCAP. For
example, the Insurance Institute has given 27 vehicles its lowest
rating (Poor) in side-impact tests, while NHTSA, which uses a low
barrier and does not include head measures in its star calculations,
gave 21 of these 27 vehicles (77 percent) four-or five-star safety
ratings.
Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance Institute Test
with the SUV-like Barrier:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Click the following link to watch a video of an interior view of the
side impact crash test with an SUV-like barrier conducted by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety at 31 mph: [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v9.mpg]:
Officials from a number of automobile makers told us that vehicle
compatibility is an important safety issue, and they are working to
enhance occupant protection in front and side crashes, outside of NHTSA
safety standards or NCAP testing. Several automakers voluntarily
entered into an agreement with the Insurance Institute to work
collaboratively to have all of their vehicles meet new safety criteria
that require large vehicles to match the height of the fronts of small
vehicles by September 2009, as shown in figure 27. According to
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers members, better matching of
structural components may enhance the ability to absorb crash forces,
thereby reducing occupant fatalities by an estimated 16 to 28 percent.
The agreement also specified that by September 1, 2007, at least 50
percent of these automakers' vehicles offered in the United States will
meet enhanced side-impact protection with features such as side air
bags, air curtain bags, and revised side-impact structures. By
September 2009 all vehicles of these manufacturers are to meet the new
side criteria.
In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA officials noted that in
order for 50 percent of the vehicles to meet the voluntary side
requirements by September 1, 2007, manufacturers can certify by using
either the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard pole test or
the Insurance Institutes side impact test. They noted that in September
2009, the pole test will no longer be an option and that, therefore, it
is very possible that large vehicles, such as pickups, minivans, and
SUVs, would be able to pass the test without incorporation of enhanced
side-impact features such as side air bags or curtains for the
following reasons:
* Manufacturers may not need to subject large vehicles to the pole test
by September 1, 2007, if 50 percent of its fleet is comprised of
smaller passenger cars.
* Larger vehicles will sustain a lower velocity change than smaller
vehicles when struck by the Insurance Institute barrier.
* The higher ride height of large vehicles could keep the dummy's head
from striking the top of the Insurance Institute barrier.
Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle Structures:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Occupant Protection in Rollover Crashes:
Given the changes in the vehicle fleet, fatalities due to rollover
crashes have continued to increase. Rollovers are dangerous incidents
and have a higher fatality rate than other kinds of crashes. Just over
2 percent of all police-reported crashes that occurred in 2003 were
rollovers, but they accounted for over 10,000 highway fatalities, or
more than 30 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths. All
types of vehicles can roll over. However, taller, narrower vehicles
such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs have higher centers of gravity and
thus are more susceptible to roll over if involved in a single-vehicle
crash. NHTSA reported that 61 percent of fatalities in SUVs and 45
percent of fatalities in pickups in 2002 were the results of rollover
crashes.[Footnote 49] NCAP's rollover testing does not rate the chance
of a potentially life-threatening injury should a rollover crash occur;
it only measures the risk of rollover.
Although NHTSA has not incorporated occupant protection in rollovers
into NCAP, officials said they have been examining occupant protection
in rollover crashes, focusing on reducing occupant ejection and
increasing roof strength through regulation. According to NHTSA
officials, the most deadly rollovers occur when unbelted occupants are
completely ejected from the vehicle though doors, windows, and sun
roofs and when the roof crushes into the occupant compartment, causing
serious, if not deadly, head, neck, and spinal cord injuries. NHTSA has
proposed changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that
would upgrade the door lock requirements to help prevent vehicle
occupant ejection and increase roof strength. They are also considering
other ways to prevent ejection, specifically looking at the potential
of side curtain air bags to prevent ejection through vehicle windows.
NHTSA's NCAP rollover testing could be modified to better measure and
rate the risks of serious injury associated with a rollover crash.
NHTSA officials and others said that they have not been able to develop
a repeatable crash test in which the vehicle rolls over and dummies
would be used to measure injuries. However, in the absence of such a
rollover crash test, NCAP could examine various aspects of the vehicle
which are known to affect occupant safety in rollover, such as rating
the roof strength of vehicles. For example, officials from a consumer
group told us that NHTSA could conduct dynamic tests on roof strength
and point to a 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers paper that attests
that such drop tests for roof strength are repeatable. They also said
that there has been other promising research that would measure roof
crush in dynamic tests. However, including such tests in NCAP would
require further development and funding considerations.
Incorporating Active Safety Technologies into NCAP:
NCAP also has an opportunity to begin assessing new technology that
could help prevent crashes. Vehicle manufacturers and others have been
developing and testing new active safety systems that hold promise for
reducing traffic fatalities by helping drivers avoid crashes
altogether. These active safety systems include improving vehicle
handling and braking in emergency situations, providing warning alerts
for potential collisions or straying out of roadway lanes, and
providing distance alerts when driving too close to another vehicle. A
2004 NHTSA study estimated that the incorporation of electronic
stability control systems[Footnote 50] could reduce certain crashes by
about 67 percent.[Footnote 51] Similarly, the Insurance Institute
reported that electronic stability control can reduce the risk of
involvement in single vehicle crashes by more than 50 percent.[Footnote
52] Some experts suggested that NCAP might be used to encourage and
speed the adoption of active safety systems into the vehicle fleet.
Some elements of active safety systems are included in some current
tests. While the rollover test is not designed to measure the
effectiveness of electronic stability control systems, vehicles
equipped with this technology would be expected to perform better in
the rollover test because the vehicle would be less likely to tip up.
In addition, brake tests are conducted as part of Japan's NCAP, with
the results provided as a separate safety rating. The Euro NCAP has
also established committees to identify potential active safety systems
to include in their program, as well as the testing protocols that
would be used.
While using NCAP to further test and rate active safety systems could
encourage their adoption in the marketplace, there are challenges to
overcome. According to NHTSA officials, NHTSA would first need to
identify those active safety systems that could be effective in
preventing crashes. They said this would be difficult because they
would have to determine how well a system helps drivers avoid crashes.
Also, determining the testing methodology would be challenging because
the effectiveness of some active systems could be affected by factors
such as driver behavior and the physical characteristics of the road,
such as the dampness of the pavement.
Officials from various automobile manufacturers told us that they are
developing many new active safety systems with the objective of helping
drivers avoid crashes. They pointed out that while NCAP could be used
to encourage them to market such systems, they would have concerns
regarding which systems to include in NHTSA's program and how the
system would be rated. In addition, they noted that because of
competitive forces, active safety advances could be available sooner
than NHTSA is capable of deciding to include them and developing an
acceptable approach for testing and rating them. Officials from
automakers said they are willing to share their research and work in
cooperation with NHTSA to develop tests or measurements that could help
NCAP address these issues.
Using Additional Test Measures and Different Size Dummies:
NHTSA could provide consumers with more safety information by using
additional test measures and different crash dummies. All of the other
organizations we contacted used more dummy measures to calculate
vehicles' safety ratings than U.S. NCAP used. To determine the star
ratings, NHTSA uses head and chest readings from the frontal NCAP test
and chest and lower spine readings for side-impact tests. Other
organizations use measurements that included such areas as the head,
neck, chest, leg, and foot for frontal test ratings and the head, neck,
chest, pelvis, and leg for side test ratings.[Footnote 53]
The concern with using few dummy readings is that the safety rating
might not include important safety considerations. While NHTSA uses
head and chest readings for frontal ratings and chest and lower spine
readings for the side ratings, it measures other items during crash
tests and may identify them as "Safety Concerns" on its Web site if
they exceed certain values. We identified over 140 Safety Concerns on
NHTSA's Web site since vehicle model year 1990--36 of these were for
vehicles that received four-or five-star ratings.[Footnote 54] The
Safety Concerns included high femur readings in frontal crashes, which
could mean there was a high likelihood of thigh injury; high head
acceleration readings in side crashes, which could indicate a high
likelihood of serious head trauma; and doors opening during side crash
tests, which could increase the likelihood of occupant
ejection.[Footnote 55] Having a Safety Concern noted for vehicles with
a four-or five-star rating presents conflicting information that could
be confusing to consumers.
As NHTSA makes changes to its testing program, it has the opportunity
to reexamine the size and type of dummies it uses in crashes in
addition to the body areas of the dummies being measured. At present,
NHTSA's dummies equate to an average-size adult male who is about 5
feet 9 inches tall and weighs about 170 pounds. Most of the other
organizations use this size dummy in their crash tests, and vehicle
manufacturers work to maximize the safety systems for an occupant with
these characteristics. However, not all vehicle occupants are the same
size, and optimizing the restraint system for the average male would
not necessarily be optimum for others who may be smaller, shorter,
taller, or heavier.[Footnote 56] Also, children and the elderly may
react differently to crash forces than the average-size male.
Recognizing this, the Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy
(about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds) in the driver and
rear seat of the side-impact test. Insurance Institute officials said
they made this change to encourage manufacturers to install side
curtain air bags that would extend low enough to protect the heads of
smaller passengers. In addition, in its proposed side-impact pole
standards test, NHTSA specifies using a 50tTHpercentile male and a
5tTHpercentile female to address the issue of different size drivers
and passengers.
The U.S. NCAP officials said that at this time they are waiting on the
resolution to the proposed safety standard changes that would add a
side pole test before deciding on altering the size or type of crash
dummies they use. While generating additional information on which to
base safety ratings, altering the size of the dummy in the NCAP tests
could provide challenges for automobile manufacturers because they
would have to conduct more internal tests. Officials from many vehicle
manufacturers said they must already conduct hundreds of crash tests
each year to ensure that they meet the variety of tests and dummies
used in NHTSA's standards, U.S. NCAP, and tests conducted by the other
testing organizations.[Footnote 57]
Opportunities to Enhance the Presentation and Timeliness of NCAP
Results:
NCAP has the opportunity to enhance its program by changing the way it
reports test results. Specifically, it could provide summary ratings,
present information in a comparative manner, increase public awareness,
and make results available earlier in the model year.
Providing Summary Ratings:
According to some safety experts, NHTSA could improve its program by
developing an overall safety rating rather than reporting four separate
ratings for crash tests.[Footnote 58] Consumer Reports, The Car Book,
the Insurance Institute, and all of the other NCAPs provide more
summary information for consumers than NHTSA. Further, a 1996 National
Academy of Sciences study that examined NCAP recommended that NHTSA
provide an overall rating to provide consumers with an overview of a
vehicle's safety. However, the study also recommended that NHTSA make
the detailed test results available for those consumers who wish to
examine them more fully.[Footnote 59]
NHTSA and Insurance Institute officials said they did not develop an
overall crashworthiness rating because combining ratings are
technically difficult and could obscure low ratings in one test area
that would be revealed when test results are reported separately.
Insurance Institute officials added that consumers can evaluate the
different ratings to determine those that are most applicable to their
situations. They said a person who is primarily the sole occupant of a
vehicle might not be as concerned with the passenger safety rating as
someone who routinely carries passengers.
NHTSA officials said that they will continue investigating the
feasibility of creating an overall safety rating for vehicles. However,
they said that they would like to incorporate additional elements into
such a rating. For example, they said that it is important to develop a
rating that considers more than just the frontal and side-impact test
results, such as the rollover results and vehicle compatibility, which
can have a large bearing on the overall safety of vehicles. In their
view, without the elements that address rollover and compatibility,
consumers might get the wrong impression of the relative safety of
vehicles. Officials said they have not yet developed a method to
incorporate the rollover rating into an overall rating and have not
identified measures to reflect vehicle compatibility, although they
have long recognized compatibility as an issue. They could not estimate
how long it would take to address the problem of adding the rollover
rating to a combined rating but said they would pursue developing a
summary safety rating for vehicles after they decide how to measure
vehicle compatibility.
Comparative Safety Information Could Benefit the Public:
Each testing organization uses a different presentation approach for
reporting its test results, with some providing additional information
to the public. The U.S. NCAP provides separate star ratings for the
four dummy positions in the two crash tests and the rollover test. The
only ratings the U.S. NCAP presents in a comparative manner are the
rollover ratings, which compare vehicle performance within a class of
vehicles, such as pickup trucks. In contrast, Australia's and Japan's
NCAPs provide more comparative information by supplementing their star
ratings by adding bar charts that show how well the vehicle performed
in the tests, as shown in figures 28 and 29. The Australia publication
shows that although two vehicles received three stars, one of them
performed better than the other. The Japan NCAP rating shows that the
vehicle received five stars for overall driver safety but that the
passenger score was higher than that of the driver.
Figure 28: Example of Australia's NCAP Safety Rating Information:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 29: Example of Japan's NCAP Safety Rating Information:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Similarly, Consumer Reports provides summary safety ratings for
accident avoidance and crash protection and uses a bar chart to present
its overall safety score. Consumer Reports also lists vehicles in
ranked order rather than alphabetically, provides comments to highlight
particular aspects of each vehicle's performance, and uses qualitative
descriptions--Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor--to help
inform its readers of safety results. Consumer Reports officials said
that the overall rating provides an overview of the vehicle's safety,
and the two summary categories of accident avoidance and crash
protection provide additional information that consumers may want.
NHTSA recently began using a rating system for its rollover assessment
that indicates, along with the star rating, the percentage of
likelihood that a vehicle may roll over. NHTSA's rollover information
provides an extra level of detail of vehicle performance than the
information provided for the frontal and side collision tests. The
rollover results are ranked according to performance and, as
illustrated in figure 30, show how well each vehicle performed within
the range of performance of its vehicle class, such as passenger cars,
pickups, vans, and SUVs.
Figure 30: Example of NHTSA's Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck with
Bar Chart Showing How the Vehicle Performed within Its Class:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Increasing Public Awareness of Results:
NHTSA could look to other programs for innovative ways to garner more
interest in crash test results. Like other testing organizations, NHTSA
uses the Internet, brochures, and press releases to inform the public
of NCAP ratings. However, other organizations use additional approaches
to inform the public of their program and test results. For example,
the Japan Automobile Federation creates public awareness of the program
with a portable sled in which the general public can experience a
simulated collision at 5 kilometers per hour and have a protective air
bag deploy. The Euro NCAP also stages a public display of crash
vehicles. They try to select areas where media and public interest
would be high. Recent events were held in Wenceslas Square, Prague;
Athens; and London. Figure 31 shows two events, one in London and
another in Prague.
Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash Vehicles:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
There have also been proposals to increase public awareness of NCAP
results by requiring their inclusion on new car stickers. For example,
S. 1072, a bill introduced in the 108th Congress to reauthorize funds
for federal aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit
programs, included a provision that would require automakers to include
NCAP test results on new car stickers. Officials from consumer advocate
groups told us that they support such an approach because consumers
would have information available at the time of their purchase
decisions. Officials from automakers said that there are a number of
challenges that would need to be overcome if such an approach were
taken, including scheduling tests to ensure that results are available
in time for the information to be included on new car stickers.
NCAP Ratings Could Be Available Earlier in the Car Model Year:
NHTSA could conduct vehicle tests earlier and release NCAP ratings
sooner in the model year, which would make the results more useful for
consumers. NCAP ratings are often released late in the model year,
after many of the vehicles have already been purchased. In May 2003,
long after the beginning of model year 2003, NHTSA released the results
of some model year 2002 vehicle tests. NHTSA published its Buying a
Safer Car brochure for 2004 in February 2004, about 6 months after the
vehicles were available for sale and before all of the tests were
completed for the 2004 models. To the extent that test results are
available sooner, more car buyers could have safety information to help
make their purchase decisions. For example, by the time NHTSA released
the Buying a Safer Car brochure in February 2004, according to industry
sales statistics, about 7.7 million, or over 46 percent, of new cars
and trucks had been purchased in the United States.[Footnote 60] For
model year 2005, NHTSA attempted to address the issue of getting timely
information to consumers by publishing an early edition of its Buying a
Safer Car brochure in December 2004. This publication included test
results for some 2005 models. In addition, towards of the end 2004,
NHTSA began posting the results to its Web site as soon as the quality
control process was completed. NHTSA officials plan to publish an
updated version in spring 2005, after additional testing has been
completed.
There are several factors that affect the timing of the testing and the
release of NCAP ratings. First, NHTSA obtains vehicles for NCAP testing
directly from the dealerships and leasing companies to ensure that each
vehicle is representative of that make and model. Under this approach,
testing cannot begin until after vehicles are available for purchase by
the public--the model year begins in September for many companies. In
addition, NHTSA does not receive its funding until after the fiscal
year begins on October 1ST of each year. Further, due to the number of
vehicles to be included, vehicle testing is spread out over a period of
months. As a result, testing can extend from October though April.
Until recently, NHTSA did not make ratings available to the public as
soon as the results were known but waited until all testing of a
vehicle category was finished before issuing a press release announcing
the test results. Beginning with model year 2005 tests, NHTSA began
posting the test results to its Web site after the quality control
process was complete. Press releases continue to be generated after
each batch of tests is completed. NHTSA officials said that by
releasing the results this way, consumers have comparative information
on all vehicles of one type at the same time.
One testing organization has addressed some of the timeliness issues.
Euro NCAP obtains some vehicles directly from the manufacturers prior
to distribution to dealerships. This enables them to begin testing
before the vehicles are available to the public.[Footnote 61] In
addition, the Euro NCAP divides its program into two testing and
information releases each year--one in November and one in June--to
speed the information to the public.
Conclusions:
While NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has contributed to making
safer vehicles, it is at a crossroads where it will need to change to
remain relevant. The usefulness of the current testing has been eroded
by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program
began. The growing number of large pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the
nation's vehicle fleet is creating different safety risks, particularly
with regard to the incompatibility of large and small vehicles and
vehicle rollover, which NCAP does not fully address. In addition, the
very success of the program has brought it to a point where it is not
clear that the program's goals can continue to be met. Because almost
all vehicles today receive four-and five-star frontal and side-impact
safety ratings, NCAP provides little incentive for manufacturers to
further improve the safety of their vehicles and does not provide
consumers with information that differentiates the safety of one
vehicle compared to another. Further, the planned changes to the safety
standards for frontal and side crashworthiness may make current NCAP
tests less meaningful.
While we believe there are opportunities to enhance NCAP by developing
approaches to better measure the interaction of large and small
vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that
help prevent crashes from occurring, and using different injury
measures to rate the crash results, there are challenges that must be
considered and addressed before changes can be implemented. However,
without changing its testing, NCAP provides little incentive for
manufacturers to improve vehicle safety. In addition, NHTSA will need
to enhance the timeliness of testing and presentation of the New Car
Assessment Program information. For example, by the time NHTSA finished
its testing and published the test results for model year 2004
vehicles, about 7.7 million, or over 46 percent of new vehicles had
already been purchased. To enhance the information available to
consumers, NHTSA can provide summary ratings, present information in a
comparative manner, increase public awareness, and conduct tests
earlier in the car model year. Given the substantial numbers of traffic
deaths and injuries suffered on the nation's roads each year, efforts
to improve vehicle safety seem warranted.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to
examine the future direction of the New Car Assessment Program to
maximize its value in providing an incentive for manufacturers to
improve vehicle safety and informing the public about the relative
safety of vehicles.
This examination should include:
* identifying and evaluating NCAP tests that should help prevent
fatalities on the nation's roadways, which should include developing
measures for rating vehicle incompatibility in front and side-impact
tests and occupant protection in rollover crashes;
* developing approaches to incorporate active safety systems ratings as
a part of NCAP; and:
* analyzing alternative testing methodologies and dummies to provide a
robust and accurate measure of the likelihood of serious injuries to a
wide range of vehicle occupants.
In addition, we recommend that steps be taken to provide the public
with improved NCAP safety information in a more timely manner. In doing
so it may be necessary to examine how other organizations inform the
public and develop summary ratings, whether vehicles could be obtained
more efficiently for testing, how budgeted funds are managed during the
year, and how efficiently NCAP times the crash tests conducted by its
contractors.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of the draft report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. In commenting on the report,
the Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety commented that
NHTSA was pleased that the report concluded that NCAP has been
successful in encouraging manufacturers to make safer vehicles and
providing vehicle safety information to consumers. While NHTSA
generally agreed with the report findings, including recognition that
there are opportunities to enhance NCAP, the official emphasized that
NCAP was just one of the many interrelated methods, including Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and traffic injury control programs, the
agency uses to achieve its mission of saving lives, preventing
injuries, and reducing vehicle-related crashes. The official said that
NHTSA has been consistently working to address the challenges
associated with enhancing this complex technical program while ensuring
that the testing and results reported to consumers are accurate and
reliable. The official explained that this requires NHTSA to ensure
that any changes to NCAP, or for that matter to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards, are based on sound science and careful
analysis of supporting data. The official cited a number of recent
efforts that NHTSA said demonstrate the careful and systematic approach
the agency uses when considering changes to the program. These include
pilot studies with child restraint systems to determine the feasibility
of incorporating them into NCAP, seeking public comments for revising
frontal NCAP collision testing, and working to ensure that advanced
safety technologies are publicized so that consumers can factor them
into the vehicle purchase decision-making process.
The NHTSA official also said that the agency recognizes that vehicle
rollover and compatibility issues cause a significant portion of the
fatal and serious motor vehicle occupant injuries on our nation's
highways, and NHTSA has made these areas two of its highest priorities.
In June 2003, NHTSA published initiatives for public comment to address
both of these areas. The NHTSA official said the agency is continuing
its efforts to identify effective vehicle metrics and countermeasures
to address these issues, since they are necessary in order for NCAP to
provide meaningful consumer information that can be linked to safety
improvements in the vehicle.
We recognize that NCAP is one of a number of efforts that NHTSA uses in
an attempt to reduce highway crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities.
In addition, we support NHTSA's view that changes to the NCAP program
should be based on sound science and careful analysis of supporting
data. We encourage NHTSA to take timely action to address the issues
raised in this report. NCAP has helped make vehicles safer, but there
are opportunities to improve the program and ultimately help save more
lives. The risks associated with vehicle incompatibility and rollover
and the potential benefits to be gained from active safety systems
heighten the importance of addressing these issues as promptly as
possible. In addition, analyzing alternative testing methodologies and
dummies could lead to more robust and accurate measures of the
likelihood of serious injury to a wide range of vehicle occupants.
Lastly, NHTSA has the opportunity to improve the timeliness and
presentation of the NCAP results, which could help consumers make
informed decisions when they purchase cars.
NHTSA also provided technical clarifications to our report, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. We are also making available a version of this
report that includes video clips of some of the crash tests conducted
by NHTSA and others.
If you or your staffs have any questions regarding the contents of this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [Hyperlink,
heckerj@gao.gov]. Individuals making key contributions to this report
are listed in appendix IX.
Signed by:
JayEtta Z. Hecker:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine how NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program tests vehicles,
rates their safety, and reports the results to the public, we reviewed
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: Chapter V, Part
571); the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972
(Public Law 92-513); the Transportation, Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and other documents
pertaining to NCAP regulations. We also searched NHTSA's docket and
NCAP documentation. In addition, we conducted interviews with NHTSA
officials responsible for operating the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards regulatory program and the New Car Assessment Program. We
visited and interviewed officials from the Federal Highway
Administration and the National Crash Analysis Center. During visits to
all five of the contractors that perform regulatory and NCAP crash
tests--including Karco Engineering, LLC, in Adelanto, California; MGA
Research Corporation in Burlington, Wisconsin; Medical College of
Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; General Dynamics--Advanced
Information Systems in Buffalo, New York; and the Transportation
Research Center, Inc., in East Liberty, Ohio--we interviewed officials
and engineers performing tests and observed various crash tests. We
documented the procedures for obtaining the data, how results were
recorded, and the conversion into star ratings. We determined that NCAP
data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. In
addition, we reviewed literature pertaining to vehicle safety issues
and documents published by the Transportation Research Board.
To compare NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program with other programs that
test vehicles and report vehicle safety results to the public, we
researched literature and interviewed NHTSA officials to identify three
foreign New Car Assessment Programs (in Australia, Europe, and Japan)
and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as a domestic program.
We also identified publishers of Consumer Reports and The Car Book as
organizations that used NHTSA's NCAP data to derive their own vehicle
safety ratings. We identified a program in Korea but did not include
this program in our review because it began operating in 1999 and had
not tested a significant number of vehicles.
We obtained information on these programs by reviewing their literature
and their Web sites. We also interviewed officials and visited the test
facilities of the Insurance Institute and the NCAPs in Australia,
Europe, and Japan. We visited the Insurance Institute of Highway
Safety's Vehicle Research Center and observed a crash test. We also
examined international crash test and rating programs, including the
Australia, Euro, and Japan NCAPs. For Australia's NCAP, we visited
Australia and conducted interviews with government officials associated
with the respective New Car Assessment Program and vehicle safety
policy. For Euro NCAP, we visited Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom, where we conducted interviews with the European
Commission, and the government officials associated with the respective
New Car Assessment Programs and vehicle safety policies in Germany,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For Japan's NCAP, we visited Japan and
interviewed government officials associated with the respective New Car
Assessment Program and vehicle safety policy. While in these countries,
we also interviewed auto associations, consumer advocacy groups, and
vehicle safety experts. We identified and selected these auto
associations, consumer advocacy groups, and vehicle safety experts by
reviewing studies and conference papers, talking to program officials
and other experts, and reviewing materials on Web sites. We interviewed
auto manufacturers in these countries, including BMW, Honda, Mercedes,
Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo. We reviewed New Car Assessment Program
regulations, testing protocols, and program documentation. See table 1
for a list of domestic and international organizations contacted.
To determine whether opportunities exist for NCAP to enhance its
vehicle safety testing and reporting, we obtained views from experts in
vehicle safety and the auto and insurance industries. In selecting
vehicle safety experts, we examined studies and conference papers,
considered referrals from other experts, and consulted the National
Academy of Sciences. We interviewed officials of the Association for
the Advancement of Automotive Medicine and Applied Research Associates.
We visited and interviewed automobile manufacturers in the United
States, including General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Daimler-Chrysler,
and American Honda Motor Company. We interviewed trade associations
including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association
of International Automobile Manufacturers. We interviewed consumer
advocacy groups, including Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, Advocates for Highway Safety and Auto
Safety, and the National Safety Council. We reviewed relevant research
on consumer information regarding vehicle safety from the
Transportation Research Board.
Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted:
U.S. NCAP.
Federal agencies:
Department of Transportation:
NHTSA.
Federal agencies:
Department of Transportation:
George Washington University's National Crash Analysis Center.
Federal agencies:
Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration.
Consumer Information Organizations:
Consumer Reports:
Consumer Information Organizations:
The Center for Auto Safety (The Car Book).
Crash Test Organizations:
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Automobile Manufacturers:
American Honda Motor Company.
Automobile Manufacturers:
Daimler-Chrysler Corporation.
Automobile Manufacturers:
Ford Motor Company.
Automobile Manufacturers:
General Motors Corporation.
Industry associations and experts:
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Industry associations and experts:
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
Industry associations and experts:
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Industry associations and experts:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Industry associations and experts:
Applied Research Associates.
Industry associations and experts:
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
Industry associations and experts:
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.
Industry associations and experts:
Consumers Union.
Industry associations and experts:
Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center.
Industry associations and experts:
National Safety Council.
Industry associations and experts:
Public Citizen.
Industry associations and experts:
Transportation Research Board.
Industry associations and experts:
Vehicle Certification Agency North America.
Contractors:
General Dynamics--Advanced Information Systems.
Contractors:
Karco Engineering, LLC.
Contractors:
Medical College of Wisconsin.
Contractors:
MGA Research Corporation.
Contractors:
Transportation Research Center.
Australia NCAP:
Australia Automobile Association (administrator for Australia NCAP).
Australia NCAP:
Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE magazine).
Australia NCAP:
Department of Transport and Regional Services--Vehicle Safety Standards.
Australia NCAP:
Crashlab--New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority (Australia NCAP
test facility).
Australia NCAP:
Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.
Australia NCAP:
Monash University Accident Research Center.
Australia NCAP:
National Roads and Motorists Association Motoring and Services.
Australia NCAP:
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria.
Australia NCAP:
Victoria Road and Traffic Authority.
Belgium:
European Auto Manufacturers Association.
Belgium:
European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport.
Belgium:
European Transport Safety Council.
Germany:
General German Automobile Club (ADAC).
Germany:
BMW AG.
Germany:
Daimler Chrysler AG, Mercedes-Benz Technology Center.
Germany:
Federal Ministry for Traffic, Building, and Housing.
Germany:
TÜV Automotive Group.
United Kingdom:
Automotive Safety Centre at the University of Birmingham.
United Kingdom:
Department for Transport.
United Kingdom:
Euro NCAP.
United Kingdom:
International Consumer Research and Testing (Which? magazine).
United Kingdom:
Thatcham (Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre).
United Kingdom:
Transportation Research Laboratory.
Sweden:
Swedish Road Administration.
Sweden:
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.
Sweden:
Volvo.
Japan NCAP:
Honda Research and Development Corporation.
Japan NCAP:
Japan Auto Research Institute (Japan NCAP test facility).
Japan NCAP:
Japan Automobile Federation.
Japan NCAP:
Japan Automobile Importers Association.
Japan NCAP:
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association.
Japan NCAP:
Japan Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport.
Japan NCAP:
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation.
Japan NCAP:
National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim's Aid (Japan NCAP).
Japan NCAP:
Nissan Motor Corporation.
Japan NCAP:
Toyota Motor Corporation.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings:
To rate a vehicle's crashworthiness, NHTSA combines information about
(1) the forces that would injure a human during a crash and (2) the
effects of those forces on areas of the human body. The forces that
would injure a human during a crash are measured by anthropomorphic
test devices, commonly referred to as crash test dummies, which serve
as proxies for human vehicle occupants. These dummies are fitted with
accelerometers and load sensors that measure the forces of impact on
particular areas of the body, as shown in figure 32.
Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and
Accelerometers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Because the current dummy technology has yet to replicate a human with
the same biological matter or physiology, dummies cannot exhibit
injuries following a crash as a human would. Therefore, the effects of
the forces on particular areas of the human body, as measured by the
dummies, have been developed by researchers who have gathered
information by applying varying forces to biological specimens and by
using a scale developed by the Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine (AAAM). This scale, the Abbreviated Injury Scale
(AIS), ranks injuries, from minor through currently untreatable, for
particular areas of the body and assigns a number from 1 through 6 to
each rank, as shown in table 2. The AIS is used to provide a simple
numerical method for ranking and comparing injuries by severity.
Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS):
AIS code: 1;
Description of injury: Minor.
AIS code: 2;
Description of injury: Moderate.
AIS code: 3;
Description of injury: Serious.
AIS code: 4;
Description of injury: Severe.
AIS code: 5;
Description of injury: Critical.
AIS code: 6;
Description of injury: Currently untreatable.
Source: Copyright © 2005 Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine, reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
[End of table]
AIS values in NCAP are injury probability values derived from
measurements of dummy response taken from specific characteristics
(e.g., size, shape, mass, stiffness, or energy dissipation) that
simulate corresponding human responses (e.g., acceleration, velocity,
or articulation). These dummy responses are correlated with both
experimental biomechanical research as well as with real world crash
injury investigation. Researchers have used a statistical procedure to
relate the levels of injury to the forces that caused them. This
procedure produces theoretical injury curves, which NHTSA uses as the
basis for safety ratings.
NHTSA develops crashworthiness ratings, expressed in stars, for both
frontal and side crashes. To develop the NCAP ratings for frontal
crashes, NHTSA measures forces to the head and chest. Specifically, the
injury criteria for the frontal star rating are the head, as measured
by a composite of acceleration values known as the Head Injury
Criterion (HIC), and the chest, as measured by a chest deceleration
value known as chest Gs. Each of these two measures has its own injury
risk curve that has been fixed at AIS level 4 or greater--that is, a
severe, critical, or currently untreatable injury, as shown in figures
33 and 34. Using the mathematical functions that describe each of these
injury risk curves, NHTSA transforms the HIC and chest G measures from
the frontal NCAP test into probabilities of head and chest injuries of
AIS level 4 or greater. The lower the HIC and chest G measures, the
less risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently untreatable
injury to the head and chest in a full frontal crash.
Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
To convert the probability of severe injury for particular HIC and
Chest G scores into a star rating for the frontal NCAP test, NHTSA adds
the probability of severe injury to the head and chest and then
subtracts the product, shown below in figure 35. NHTSA concluded that a
combined effect of injury to the head and chest should be used since it
is well documented that an individual who suffers multiple injuries has
a higher risk of death. NHTSA calculates the probability of severe
injury to the head and chest for both the driver and the front
passenger dummies in the frontal NCAP test.
Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for
Frontal Crashes:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
To develop the NCAP ratings for side crashes, NHTSA measures forces to
the ribs and lower spine. Specifically, the injury criteria for the
side star rating are the greater acceleration of the upper or lower
ribs and the acceleration of the lower spine. NHTSA averages these
accelerations to generate a measurement known as the Thoracic Trauma
Index (TTI). The TTI also has an injury curve that has been fixed at
the AIS level of 4 or greater, as shown in figure 36. The lower the TTI
measure, the lower the risk of receiving a severe, critical, or
currently untreatable injury to the thorax and upper abdomen in a side
crash.
Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Thoracic Trauma Index score and its associated probability of
receiving an AIS level 4 or greater injury is the sole basis for the
side NCAP star rating. NHTSA calculates probability of severe injury to
the thorax and upper abdomen for both the front and rear dummies on the
driver's side.
Using the probability of injury calculated from the frontal and side
NCAP tests, NTHSA assigns a vehicle a rating of one (the worst) to five
(the best) stars for each of the dummy occupants in each of the
crashworthiness tests. The star ratings for the frontal and side tests
correspond to the percentage chance of serious injury for each of these
tests.
The numerical boundaries between each star rating are determined by
NHTSA. The frontal NCAP star boundaries are roughly twice as large as
the side NCAP star boundaries because NHTSA uses a combined probability
of injury to generate star ratings for the frontal NCAP test and uses
only one probability of injury to generate star ratings for the side
NCAP test. In addition, the forces and associated probabilities at the
boundary between two and three stars for both the frontal and side NCAP
tests are roughly equal to the relevant force thresholds for compliance
with two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards--numbers 208 and 214,
respectively.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating:
To indicate the likelihood of a vehicle's rolling over in a single-
vehicle crash, NHTSA combines the risk of rollover in a single vehicle
crash indicated by a measure of the vehicle's top-heaviness, called the
Static Stability Factor (SSF), with the results of a dynamic rollover
test to produce a star rollover rating. The SSF is an indicator for the
most frequent type of rollover, called a "tripped rollover," which
occurs when a vehicle leaves the roadway and its wheels are tripped by
a curb, soft shoulder, or other roadway object, causing the vehicle to
roll over. About 95 percent of rollovers are tripped. Because the SSF
is an indicator of the most frequent type of rollover, it plays a
significantly larger role in a vehicle's star rating than do the
results of the dynamic rollover test. The dynamic rollover test
determines how susceptible a vehicle is to an on-road "untripped"
rollover--a type that accounts for less than 5 percent of rollovers.
Because untripped rollovers are so infrequent, the rollover test does
not affect the vehicle's star rating significantly, resulting in a
difference of no more than half a star in the rating.
Static Stability Factor:
The SSF is a calculation of a vehicle's top-heaviness, defined as one-
half of the vehicle's track width divided by the height of the center
of gravity (c.g.) A higher SSF value equates to a more stable, less top-
heavy vehicle. SSF values across all vehicle types range from around
1.0 to 1.5. Most passenger cars have values in the 1.3 to 1.5 range, as
shown in figure 37. Higher riding SUVs, pickups, and vans usually have
values in the 1.0 to 1.3 range, also shown in figure 37. Many of the
higher riding vehicles of previous model years are being redesigned to
ride lower on a wider track to improve their rollover resistance and
obtain a higher SSF rating.
Figure 37: Static Stability Factor of a Passenger Vehicle Compared with
an SUV:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
After determining the SSF, NHTSA selects certain vehicles for the
dynamic rollover test. Not all passenger cars selected for NCAP testing
undergo the dynamic test. Thus far, for most passenger cars, NHTSA has
imputed or assigned a no-tip result for the dynamic test based on the
testing of other passenger cars that are more top heavy (according to
the SSF score) but did not tip up during the dynamic test. NHTSA
periodically tests passenger cars to validate the imputed results.
Dynamic Rollover Test:
In the dynamic rollover test, a driver sits in the vehicle and conducts
the test by applying the accelerator and initiating commands for the
programmable steering controller, which actually maneuvers the
vehicles, as shown in figure 38. The general steering parameters are
270 degrees (about a three-quarters turn) for the initial turn and 540
degrees (about one and one-half turn) for the correction turn, as shown
in figure 39. Outriggers are attached to the vehicle to prevent the
vehicle from tipping all the way over.
Figure 38: Programmable Steering Controller:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 39: Diagram of the Dynamic Test, Showing Steering Parameters:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The result of the dynamic rollover test is either "tip-up" or "no tip-
up." To receive a "no tip-up" result, a vehicle must reach a speed of
50 miles per hour (mph) on four dynamic test runs--two from left to
right and two from right to left--without the inside wheels on either
side of the vehicle simultaneously lifting at least 2 inches off the
surface, and it must do this at two different steering wheel angles.
Sensors are used to detect wheel-lift, as shown in figure 40. For the
first run of each test, the speed is 35 mph, and subsequent runs are
conducted at about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph, and 50 mph, until the
vehicle tips up or attains an entrance speed of 50 mph on the last run
of each test without tipping up. The same series of tests is repeated
at a different steering wheel angle.
Figure 40: Sensors to Detect Wheel-lift:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
NHTSA first began to rate vehicles' rollover avoidance in model year
2001, using the SSF alone to determine the star rating. At that time,
NHTSA used a statistical procedure to determine how the SSF affects the
risk of rollover.[Footnote 62] Physics theory would suggest that
vehicles with a low SSF--vehicles that are more top-heavy--are more
likely to roll over than vehicles with a high SSF. NHTSA's empirical
model confirmed this theory, showing that the lower the SSF, the more
likely a vehicle is to roll over in a single-vehicle crash. For the
first 3 years that NHTSA rated rollover risk, it used a linear model
that examined accident report data at the state level. Following the
passage of the TREAD Act, which required NHTSA to include a dynamic
rollover test in NCAP, and the publication of a National Academy of
Sciences report, which recommended that NHTSA use a nonlinear model to
predict rollover risk, NHTSA altered its method of calculating rollover
risk.[Footnote 63] NHTSA now links the SSF and the risk of rollover
using a nonlinear model.[Footnote 64] In addition, NHTSA includes the
results of the dynamic test--that is, whether a vehicle tips or not--in
this new model, as shown in figure 41.
Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover Ratings:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
A vehicle's rollover rating is an estimate of its risk of rolling over
in a single-vehicle crash, not a prediction of the likelihood of a
rollover crash.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and
communications organization funded by the U.S. auto insurance industry.
The Insurance Institute has been conducting vehicle safety research
since 1969, and in 1992 it opened the Vehicle Research Center to
conduct vehicle crash tests. The Insurance Institute began crash
testing and rating vehicles for frontal collisions in 1995 and for side
collisions in 2003.[Footnote 65] The center conducts the Insurance
Institute's vehicle-related research, which includes controlled tests
of vehicles and their components using instrumented crash tests, as
well as studies of real collisions. Insurance Institute officials told
us that scrutinizing the outcomes of both controlled tests and on-the-
road crashes gives researchers--and ultimately the public--a better
idea of how and why vehicle occupants are injured in crashes. This
research, in turn, leads to vehicle designs that reduce injuries. The
Insurance Institute buys the vehicles for crash tests directly from
dealers. It also chooses vehicles for testing to represent both a range
of manufacturers and the largest portions of new car sales, in an
effort to cover as much of the marketplace as possible. The Insurance
Institute tests vehicles in categories, such as small cars, minivans,
and midsize SUVs.
Testing Conducted:
The Insurance Institute conducts two types of crash tests--an offset
frontal test and a perpendicular side test. The offset frontal test is
conducted at about 40 mph to simulate a typical head-on collision of
two vehicles. The offset frontal test evaluates the potential for
injuries caused to occupants by intrusion into the occupant
compartment. The Insurance Institute uses a frontal impact dummy,
called the 50THpercentile Hybrid III dummy, in its frontal crash tests.
This dummy represents a man of average size, 5 feet 9 inches tall and
weighing about 170 pounds. Such dummies were designed to measure the
risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, and lower extremities in a
frontal crash.
The Insurance Institute's perpendicular side test measures the impact
of a moving deformable barrier striking the driver's side of a
passenger vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a
front end shaped to simulate the typical front end of a pickup truck or
SUV. Two instrumented 5TH percentile side-impact dummies (SID-IIs),
representing small females or 12-year-old adolescents who are 5 feet
tall and weigh about 110 pounds, are positioned in the driver's seat
and in the rear seat behind the driver to measure the impact of the
vehicle crash. The SID-IIs dummies were designed to measure
acceleration of the spine and ribs plus compression of the rib cage in
a side crash.[Footnote 66] They are also equipped with unique load
cells, which measure the force of the impact applied to the dummies
during the crash.
Scoring Tests:
To evaluate a vehicle's performance in the frontal crash test and
develop an overall rating for the frontal test, the Insurance Institute
uses three types of measures: (1) structural performance, the amount
and pattern of intrusion into the occupant compartment during the
offset test; (2) injuries measured by a Hybrid III dummy positioned in
the driver's seat; and (3) dummy kinematics, or the dummy's movements
during the test, as determined through an analysis of a slow-motion
film. The structural performance assessment indicates how well the
front-end crush zone managed the crash energy and how well the safety
cage limited intrusion into the driver space. Figure 42 shows the
intrusion levels on which a vehicle's structural performance is rated.
Injury measures are used to determine the likelihood of injury to
various regions of the driver's body. The measures recorded from the
head, neck, chest, legs, and feet of the dummy indicate the level of
stress/strain on that part of the body. Thus, greater numbers mean
larger stresses and strains and a greater risk of injury. Because
significant risk of injury can result from undesirable dummy kinematics
in the absence of high injury measures, such as partial ejection from
the occupant compartment through a window, a slow-motion film is used
during the crash test. An analysis of this slow-motion film helps
evaluate the interactions of the restraint system's components--
including the safety belts, air bags, steering columns, head
restraints, and other components--to control the dummy's movement.
Figure 42: Guidelines for Rating Occupant Compartment Intrusion
Measured in Centimeters:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
A vehicle's overall frontal rating depends on the effectiveness of its
structure, or safety cage, in protecting the occupant compartment, the
risk of injury measured for an average-size male, and the effectiveness
of the restraint system in controlling occupants' movements. The
structural performance and injury assessments are the major components
of each vehicle's overall frontal rating; the dummy kinematics
(movement) contributes less to the rating.
A vehicle's side crash test performance and overall rating are based on
(1) the injury measures recorded on the two instrumented SID-IIs
dummies positioned in the driver's seat and in the rear seat behind the
driver, (2) an assessment of head-protection countermeasures, and (3)
the vehicle's structural performance during the impact. The injury
measures are used to determine the likelihood that the driver, the
passenger, or both would have sustained serious injury to various body
regions. Measures are recorded from the head, neck, chest, abdomen,
pelvis, and leg. These injury measures, especially from the head and
neck and from the torso (chest and abdomen), are the major components
of the vehicle's overall rating. To supplement head injury measures,
the movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the crash are
evaluated. High head injury measures typically are recorded when the
moving deformable barrier hits a dummy's head during impact. Moreover,
a "near miss" or a grazing contact also indicates a potential for
serious injury in a real-world crash because small differences in an
occupant's height or seating position, compared with a dummy's, could
result in a hard contact and high risk of serious head injury. The
vehicle's structural performance is based on measurements of intrusion
into the occupant compartment around the B-pillar (between the doors).
This assessment indicates how well the vehicle's side structure
resisted intrusion into the driver's and rear-seat passenger space.
Some intrusion into the occupant compartment is inevitable in serious
side crashes.
The overall side rating depends on the risk of injury measured for
small female occupants mainly to the head and neck and torso (chest and
abdomen); the effectiveness of the occupant compartment in protecting
the head; and the vehicle's structure performance during the impact.
The overall side rating for any body region, based on the injury
measures recorded on the two SID-IIs dummies, is the lowest rating
scored for any injury within that region.
Sharing Results with the Public:
The Insurance Institute's rating system provides qualitative ratings of
Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. The Insurance Institute provides
one rating for the frontal test and one rating for the side test.
Vehicle rating information is available on the Insurance Institute's
Web site, through press releases, and through television coverage.
Figure 43 shows how the Insurance Institute communicated its ratings to
consumers on the Internet. In addition to the ratings for frontal and
side crashes, the Insurance Institute provided the results of various
tests, such as those of the vehicle's structural performance and of
injuries to various body regions.
Figure 43: Insurance Institute Rating of a Mid-size Passenger Car:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 44 shows how the Insurance Institute presented its ratings to
consumers in its Status Report. The print version is available only to
subscribers, and some of the publications can be downloaded from the
Insurance Institute's Web site.
Figure 44: Insurance Institute Crash Ratings Provided to Public in its
Status Report Publication:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The names of vehicles that received the crash ratings above were
purposely removed.
[End of figure]
News magazine television shows, such as Dateline NBC, periodically use
Insurance Institute crash test results and interview representatives,
including the president or chief operating officer, as report segments
for their programs.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Australian New Car Assessment Program:
The Australian New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides information
for consumers on the safety performance of new vehicles sold in
Australia and New Zealand. The main purposes of the program are to
provide new vehicle buyers with independent advice on vehicle occupant
protection and to develop strategies for vehicle manufacturers to
increase the level of passive safety in their vehicles.[Footnote 67]
The program is funded by a consortium of the state government transport
departments of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia,
Tasmania, and Western Australia; automobile clubs through the
Australian Automobile Association and New Zealand Automobile
Association; the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand; and
the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society.[Footnote 68] The
Australia Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services
has established minimum safety standards for vehicles sold in Australia
and has conducted joint research projects with NCAP but has not
contributed to the support of the crash test program.
The Australia NCAP buys the vehicles that it crash tests directly from
dealers, as would any consumer. The program selects vehicles on the
basis of (1) actual or projected sales, to target vehicles that are
most popular; (2) vehicle model, to account for standard or deluxe
models, which may contain more expensive passive safety features such
as air bags and advanced restraint systems; (3) new and popular body
designs, to select the body design that is most popular or to allow for
direct comparisons across different makes and models; (4) market
segment, to target individual segments of the market to allow
comparisons of results; and (5) vehicle price. Using these selection
criteria, the Australia NCAP covers more than 70 percent of the new
vehicle fleet by volume. The program also uses European NCAP (Euro
NCAP) crash test results. However, the Euro NCAP results are intended
to be used as a guide only, because the structure and equipment of the
European specification model may differ materially from the model of
the same name sold in Australia or New Zealand. The Australia NCAP
tests and reports on vehicles in seven categories--small, medium, and
large passenger cars; luxury cars; four-wheel drive vehicles (SUVs);
multipurpose utility vehicles (small trucks); and sports cars.
Testing Conducted:
The Australia NCAP's testing has evolved over time. Established in
1992, the Australia NCAP was originally modeled on the U.S. program and
began rating vehicles in 1993. Initially, it conducted only a full
frontal crash test, but it added an offset frontal test in 1994. In
1999, the Australia NCAP harmonized its tests and assessment procedures
with the Euro NCAP through a memorandum of understanding. By
harmonizing, it discontinued the full frontal crash test and began
conducting the perpendicular side-impact test and pedestrian test.
Australia NCAP officials have been considering eliminating the
perpendicular side-impact test in favor of a pole test that they
believe will more accurately test vehicles of all sizes for occupant
protection.
In 2004, the Australia NCAP performed three crash tests and a
pedestrian protection test. The three crash tests include the 40
percent offset frontal, the perpendicular side-impact, and the side-
impact pole tests. The offset frontal test involves pulling a test
vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 km/h) and crashing it into an offset
deformable aluminum barrier. The deformable barrier has a crushable
aluminum honeycomb face attached to a solid barrier. The deformable
structure resembles the front-end characteristics of another vehicle.
Two instrumented 50TH percentile Hybrid III dummies (weighing about 194
pounds each) are used to collect data during the crash and are placed
in the front driver's and front passenger seats. Two child dummies,
representing a 3-year-old and a 1-1/2-year-old child, are placed in the
rear seats in appropriate restraints. While Australia NCAP does not use
the measurements from the child dummies in its crash test rating, the
dummies are included in the tests to maintain alignment with Euro NCAP
testing.
The perpendicular side-impact test involves pulling a barrier with a
deformable face at about 31 mph (50 km/h) and crashing it into a
stationary test vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the driver's
seating position. The moving deformable barrier has a mass of 2,095
pounds (950 kg) compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S.
barrier. One instrumented 50TH percentile EuroSID-II dummy (weighing
about 176 pounds) is used to collect data during the crash and is
placed in the front driver seat. As in the frontal test, to maintain
alignment with Euro NCAP's testing, the two child dummies are placed in
the rear seats in appropriate restraints.
The pole side-impact test involves propelling a vehicle placed on a
platform at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has a
diameter of about 10 inches, or about 254 millimeters (mm), and its
vertical axis is aligned with the front seat dummy's head. One
instrumented 50TH percentile EuroSID-II dummy is used to collect data
during the crash and is placed in the front driver's seat.
The pedestrian protection test evaluates the interaction of dummy parts
and the bumper, hood, and windshield area of a vehicle. Adult and child-
size dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and front
bumper of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-pedestrian
collision. The test simulates the impact of a lower leg against a
bumper, a thigh against the lower edge of the hood, and an adult and a
child head against the upper portion of the hood.
Scoring Tests:
Frontal tests in the Australia NCAP are scored on the basis of three
types of observations--dummy measurements, a vehicle's structural
performance, and a post-crash inspection of the vehicle. The injury
measurements are recorded from two Hybrid III dummies positioned in the
front driver's seat and front passenger seat. The injury assessment
evaluates four body regions: (1) head and neck; (2) chest; (3) knee,
femur, and pelvis; and (4) legs and feet. Structural performance is
based on measurements indicating the amount and pattern of intrusion
into the occupant compartment during the test. Dummy injury
measurements and vehicle deformation can be compared with predicted
values. Evidence of structural collapse can be determined by a post-
crash inspection and by viewing a high-speed video recorded from
various angles during the crash test. The post-crash inspection and
video allow trained inspectors to assess dummy kinematics, evaluate the
evidence of interior contacts, and inspect safety belts, seats, and air
bags to ensure they operated as intended.[Footnote 69] For example,
according to Australia NCAP officials, air bag performance could be
compromised by the dynamics of a crash in ways that might not be
evident from a post-crash inspection but could be revealed through
careful analysis of the video.
Each body region receives a score based on the dummy measurements, the
vehicle deformation data, and the findings of the post-crash inspection
(using modifiers). For example, excessive rearward movement of the
steering wheel could lower the head score by a point to reflect
identified risks. Other modifiers include lack of air bag stability,
steering column movement, A-pillar movement, structural integrity,
hazardous structures in the knee impact area, and brake pedal
movement.[Footnote 70]
For the side-impact and pole tests, the scores are based on injury
measurements recorded on one EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front
driver's seat. The injury assessment evaluates four body regions: the
head, ribs, abdomen, and pelvis. A post-crash inspection and high-speed
video are also used to evaluate structural collapse.
A summary star rating shows the protection level indicated by the front
and side-impact tests together. The summary score for the two tests is
based on the point scores achieved in each test. Sixteen points can be
achieved in the frontal test and 18 points in the side tests, for a
maximum of 34 points. Two of the 18 points available in the side test
come from the optional pole test, which assesses only one body region-
-the head. Each of the four body regions in the frontal test could
receive a maximum score of 4 points, for a cumulative score of 16
points. Similarly, the four body regions in the side-impact test could
receive a maximum score of 4 points, for a cumulative score of 16
points. If a vehicle has head-protecting side air bags, the
manufacturer of the vehicle has the option of accepting a side impact
pole test, through which 2 bonus points can be earned.
The offset and side-impact scores are added together to produce an
overall score with a maximum of 32 points. In addition, if a pole side
test is conducted and shows good head protection, then 2 extra points
can be earned, and up to 3 more points can be earned for having a
safety belt reminder system. The points are translated into stars, as
shown in table 3.
Table 3: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star Ratings:
Star rating: 1;
Minimum score in offset test: -;
Minimum score in side impact test: -;
Minimum combined score (including pole test): 0.5.
Star rating: 2;
Minimum score in offset test: 1.5;
Minimum score in side impact test: 1.5;
Minimum combined score (including pole test): 8.5.
Star rating: 3;
Minimum score in offset test: 4.5;
Minimum score in side impact test: 4.5;
Minimum combined score (including pole test): 16.5.
Star rating: 4;
Minimum score in offset test: 8.5;
Minimum score in side impact test: 8.5;
Minimum combined score (including pole test): 24.5.
Star rating: 5;
Minimum score in offset test: 12.5;
Minimum score in side impact test: 12.5;
Minimum combined score (including pole test): 32.5[A].
Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.
[A] To earn five stars a vehicle must achieve at least 1 point in the
optional pole test (maximum 2 points). This is an Australia NCAP
requirement.
[End of table]
If the injury score for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis is 0, then
there is a high risk of a life-threatening injury. A warning note is
added to the overall rating to highlight concern that there is a
serious risk of injury in at least one vulnerable body region. The
regions are the head or chest for the frontal impact test and the head,
chest, abdomen, or pelvis for the side-impact test.
For the pedestrian test, the scores are based on adult and child-size
dummy parts (head and lower limbs) used to assess the severity of
impact. The two different size dummy heads are tested at six areas of
the hood, and the lower limbs for an adult and child are tested at
three areas, for a total of 18 impacts tested for each vehicle. Based
on the injury measurements recorded from the dummy parts, each impact
can receive up to 2 points, and the maximum number of points that can
be received is 36, as shown in table 4.
Table 4: Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test:
Type of test: Child head;
Impact locations: 6;
Maximum: Points: 12.
Type of test: Adult head;
Impact locations: 6;
Maximum: Points: 12.
Type of test: Upper leg;
Impact locations: 3;
Maximum: Points: 6.
Type of test: Lower leg;
Impact locations: 3;
Maximum: Points: 6.
Type of test: Total;
Impact locations: 18;
Maximum: Points: 36.
Source: Euro NCAP.
[End of table]
A separate rating of one to four stars shows the level of pedestrian
protection. The score reflects the results of the 18 impacts of the
dummy parts against the specified areas of the bumper and hood. These
results are summed to provide an overall score. The pedestrian
protection star rating for a vehicle is based on the number of points
received, or a maximum of 36 points. The points are translated into
stars, as shown in table 5.
Table 5: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating:
Star rating: 0;
Points: 0.
Star rating: 1;
Points: 1-9.
Star rating: 2;
Points: 10-18.
Star rating: 3;
Points: 19-27.
Star rating: 4;
Points: 28-36.
Source: Euro NCAP.
[End of table]
Sharing Results with the Public:
The Australia NCAP's reporting of results to the public has evolved
over time. Initially, the program reported the raw test results for the
head, chest, and legs. The program also portrayed the risk of injury in
each area as high (red), medium (yellow), or low (green) and
graphically represented the risk on an outline of a human figure in
each area. When the offset frontal crash test was added in 1994, its
results were reported in the same way. Also in 1994, the program began
publishing tables comparing the results of the vehicles tested.
In 1995, the Australia NCAP began summarizing full frontal and offset
frontal head, chest, and leg test results by using bar charts to
represent the percentage of risk of a life-threatening injury to
drivers and to passengers. In 1996, the program began differentiating
between upper and lower leg injuries, reported the results separately,
and adopted the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rating scale of
Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. However, the program combined the
scores for the full frontal driver and passenger tests with the score
for the offset frontal driver test to arrive at an overall vehicle
rating. According to Australia NCAP officials, subsequent research with
focus groups supported the decision because the results indicated that
consumers wanted the safety information in a simplified, summary form.
In November 1999, to align with the Euro NCAP, the Australia NCAP first
used a five-star system to report crash test performance. This system
provided an overall rating along with a bar chart that enabled
consumers to differentiate between vehicles with different scores that
received the same number of stars.
Today, the Australia NCAP makes vehicle rating information available on
its Web site, through press releases, and through a safety brochure.
Figure 45 shows how the program communicates its overall and pedestrian
ratings to consumers on the Internet.
Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size
Passenger Car:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to Australia NCAP officials, the Australia NCAP also
publishes the Crash Test Update, a brochure that provides new crash
test results about twice a year. In addition to an overall star rating
for each type of tested vehicle, the brochure presents star ratings
with comparative bar graphs showing how well vehicles scored within the
star levels. Figure 46 shows the brochure Australia NCAP officials
provide for consumers.
Figure 46: Australian NCAP July 2004 Crash Test Update Brochure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: European New Car Assessment Programme:
The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) provides
information for consumers with an assessment of the safety performance
of some new vehicles sold in Europe. The program was established and
began rating vehicles in 1997. Its main purposes are to make
comparative safety rating information available to consumers for
vehicles in the same class and to provide incentives for manufacturers
to improve the safety of their vehicles. The program is operated and
funded by a consortium of six European governments--Catalonia, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom--and of
various motoring and consumer organizations throughout Europe,
including the General German Automobile Association (Allgemeiner
Deutscher Automobil-Club e V); German Federal Ministry for Traffic,
Building and Housing (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau-und
Wohnungswesen); United Kingdom Department for Transport; Dutch Ministry
of Transport--Public Works and Water Management; FIA (Fédération
Internationale de l'Automobile) Foundation for the Automobile and
Society; Catalonia Department of Employment and Industry (Departament
de Treball i Indústria); International Consumer Research and Testing;
French Ministry of Equipment (Ministère de l'Equipement); Swedish Road
Administration; and Thatcham. The Euro NCAP crash testing program was
modeled from the U.S. NCAP (1979) and the Australia NCAP (1992).
The decision process for Europe involves the use of technical working
groups and subgroups to examine vehicle safety issues and make
recommendations for change. Such groups are investigating the
feasibility of incorporating such safety features as braking and
handling, visibility and lighting, ergonomics, driver information, and
whiplash into Euro NCAP. The automobile industry and public safety
organizations may be involved in providing research or opinions, but
the committees are free to make decisions they believe appropriate.
Generally, decisions are made through two working groups, one for
primary safety systems and one for secondary safety systems, that
perform research and analysis. The Euro NCAP allows industry
representatives to participate in the discussions of the subgroups of
its two technical working groups. Also, the technical working groups
and automobile manufacturers engage in direct dialogue in industry
liaison meetings to address issues such as whiplash.
Each member of the Euro NCAP is required to sponsor at least one
vehicle for crash testing each year. The vehicles are normally acquired
by the Euro NCAP Secretariat by various methods, including purchasing
directly from dealers and selecting from manufacturers' production
lines. The Euro NCAP tests vehicles in categories--superminis, family
cars, executive cars, roadsters, off-roaders, and multipurpose
vehicles. The following further describes (1) the testing conducted,
(2) the methods used for developing the vehicle crash ratings, and (3)
the approaches taken to share the safety results with the public.
Testing Conducted:
The Euro NCAP performs three vehicle crash tests, a pedestrian
protection test, and a child restraint test. The three crash tests are
the 40 percent offset frontal test, the perpendicular side-impact test,
and the side-impact pole test. The frontal test involves a moving test
vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 km/h) crashing into an offset
deformable aluminum barrier where 40 percent of the vehicle's width
engages the barrier on the driver's side. The deformable barrier used
is a crushable aluminum honeycomb face attached to a solid barrier. The
deformable structure is designed to replicate the essential
characteristics of the front end of another car. Two instrumented 50TH
percentile Hybrid III dummies (each weighing about 194 pounds) are used
to collect data during the crash and are placed in the front driver's
and front passenger seats.
In the side-impact test, a moving trolley with a deformable barrier is
towed at about 31 mph (50 km/h) into a stationary test vehicle at a 90
degree angle centered on the driver seating position. This test
simulates a side-impact collision. The moving deformable barrier has a
mass of 2,095 pounds (950 kg) compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for
the U.S. barrier. The European barrier's face is smaller and much
softer than the face of the barrier used in the U.S. NCAP. However,
Euro NCAP officials said that because the barrier strikes a vehicle at
a 90 degree angle, their side-impact test is more aggressive than
NHTSA's side-impact test. One instrumented 50TH percentile EuroSID-II
dummy (weighing about 176 pounds) is used to collect data during the
crash and is placed in the front driver seat.
The pole side-impact test consists of a vehicle placed on a platform
and propelled at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has
a diameter of 10 inches (254 mm), and its vertical axis is aligned with
the front seat dummy's head. One instrumented 50TH percentile EuroSID-
II dummy is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the
front driver's seat.
The pedestrian protection test evaluates the impact of dummy parts
against the bumper, hood, and windshield areas of a vehicle. Adult and
child-size dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and
front bumper of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-
pedestrian collision. The test simulates the impact of a lower leg
against a bumper, a thigh against the lower edge of the hood, and adult
and child heads against the upper portion of the hood.
The child protection test evaluates a vehicle's ability to protect
children by assessing the performance of the vehicle's child restraint
system in front and side-impact tests. During these tests, two child-
size dummies are placed in the manufacturer's recommended child
restraints in the rear seat of a vehicle. In the frontal test, a dummy
with the weight and size of an 18-month-old child (about 24 pounds) is
placed behind the passenger, and a dummy with the weight and size of a
3-year-old child (about 33 pounds) is placed behind the driver. In the
side-impact test, the positions of the two dummies are reversed.
Scoring Tests:
The Euro NCAP bases its assessment of crashworthiness on three types of
observations made during or after a crash test: (1) dummy measurements
of forces to the body, used to assess injuries; (2) five measurements
of vehicle deformation, used to assess the vehicle's structural
performance; and (3) post-crash inspection data for six areas, which
are termed "modifiers" because problems in any one of them may result
in a penalty that modifies the vehicle's assessment score.
In the offset frontal crash test, two instrumented Hybrid III dummies
are positioned in the front driver's seat and front passenger seat to
measure injuries to four regions of the body: (1) head and neck; (2)
chest; (3) knee, femur, and pelvis; and (4) legs and feet. The five
structural measurements provide vehicle deformation data, indicating
the amount and pattern of intrusion into the occupant compartment. The
post-crash inspection provides information about air bag stability,
steering column movement, A-pillar movement, structural integrity,
hazardous structures in the knee impact area, and brake pedal movement.
The dummy measurements and the vehicle deformation data are combined to
generate a score--up to four points--for each body region. This score
may be modified by findings from the post-crash inspection.
In the side-impact and pole tests, injury measurements are recorded on
one EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front driver's seat. These
measurements provide data for assessing injuries to four body regions:
the head, ribs, abdomen (chest or thorax), and pelvis. No structural or
post-crash inspection data are gathered during these tests. Thus, the
score for each body region is based on the dummy measurements alone.
In the pedestrian test, readings taken from the adult and child-size
dummy parts (head and lower limbs) are used to assess the risk of
injury. The two different size dummy heads are tested at six different
areas of the hood, and the lower limbs are tested at three areas, for a
total of 18 impacts tested for each vehicle. Depending on the injury
measurements recorded from the dummy parts, each impact can receive up
to 2 points, and the maximum number of points that can be received is
36 points. See table 6.
Table 6: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria:
Type of test: Child head;
Impact locations: 6;
Maximum: points: 12.
Type of test: Adult head;
Impact locations: 6;
Maximum: points: 12.
Type of test: Upper leg;
Impact locations: 3;
Maximum: points: 6.
Type of test: Lower leg;
Impact locations: 3;
Maximum: points: 6.
Type of test: Total;
Impact locations: 18;
Maximum: points: 36.
Source: Euro NCAP.
[End of table]
The child protection test consists of three assessments that are based
on (1) dummy measurements and dynamic evaluations, (2) marking
requirements for child restraint systems, and (3) a vehicle-based
assessment. Points reflect the results of the three assessments. The
first assessment uses dummy measurements taken from the two child
dummies in the frontal and side tests, together with dynamic
evaluations of ejection from the child restraint system and head
contact within the vehicle. Another assessment evaluates whether the
markings on the child restraint fully comply with the test
requirements. The final assessment evaluates how easily the child
restraint system can be used inside the vehicle.
A combined star rating is used to show the protection level achieved in
the offset frontal and side impact tests together. The score for this
rating is the sum of the scores achieved in these two tests--up to 16
points for the frontal test and up to 18 points for the side test, for
a maximum of 34 points. For both tests, each of four body regions can
receive up to 4 points, for a cumulative score of 16 points per test,
and for the side test, 2 additional points can come from an optional
pole test, which assesses protection for only one body region--the
head. The pole side-impact test is an option for the manufacturer of a
vehicle that has head-protecting side air bags. Finally, up to 3 more
points can be earned for having a safety belt reminder system. The
points are translated into stars, as shown in table 7.
Table 7: Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System:
Star rating: 1;
Points: 1-8.
Star rating: 2;
Points: 9-16.
Star rating: 3;
Points: 17-24.
Star rating: 4;
Points: 25-32.
Star rating: 5;
Points: 33-40.
Source: Euro NCAP.
[End of table]
If the crash tests demonstrate a high risk of a life-threatening
injury, indicated by an injury score of 0 for the head, chest, abdomen,
or pelvis, then a warning note is added to the overall rating. Euro
NCAP uses a "struck star" to convey this warning. When the star is
struck through, it highlights concern that there is a serious risk of
injury in at least one vulnerable body region. These concerns are based
on data from the offset frontal test for the head or chest and from the
side-impact test for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis. A star cannot
be struck because of findings from post-crash inspections showing the
effects of modifiers.
Euro NCAP provides a separate rating of one to four stars to show the
level of pedestrian protection. The score for this rating sums the
results of the 18 impact tests of dummy parts propelled into the
specified areas of the bumper and hood. A vehicle can earn up to 2
points for each test, for a maximum of 36 points. The points are
translated into stars, as shown in table 8.
Table 8: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings:
Star rating: 0;
Points: 0.
Star rating: 1;
Points: 1-9.
Star rating: 2;
Points: 10-18.
Star rating: 3;
Points: 19-27.
Star rating: 4;
Points: 28-36.
Source: Euro NCAP.
[End of table]
Euro NCAP also provides a separate rating of one to five stars to show
the level of child protection. Currently, the tests on which this
rating is based can produce a maximum of 49 points, but the rating
scale allows further points to be awarded for future developments in
child protection. Table 9 shows how the points are translated into
stars.
Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star Ratings:
Star rating: 0;
Points: 0.
Star rating: 1;
Points: 1-12.
Star rating: 2;
Points: 13-24.
Star rating: 3;
Points: 25-36.
Star rating: 4;
Points: 37-48.
Star rating: 5;
Points: 49-60.
Source: Euro NCAP.
[End of table]
Sharing Results with the Public:
Vehicle rating information is available on the Euro NCAP Web site,
through press releases, and through popular consumer magazines. Figure
47 shows the ratings that the program makes available to consumers on
the Internet--a front and side-impact rating, a pedestrian protection
rating, and a child restraint protection rating. The pedestrian
protection rating is intended to encourage manufacturers to start
designing for pedestrian protection. The child restraint protection
rating is based on a vehicle's performance using the child seats
recommended by that vehicle's manufacturer. Specifically, the rating
depends on the fitting instructions for the child seats, the car's
ability to accommodate the seats safely, and the seats' performance in
front and side impact tests.
Figure 47: European NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger Car:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to star ratings, the Euro NCAP uses color-coded dummy
injury diagrams to show how specific body regions performed in the
frontal, side, and pole crash tests. The color-codes are: Good (green),
Adequate (yellow), Marginal (orange), Weak (red), and Poor (brown). The
colored injury diagrams display the risk of injury to the various body
regions, as shown in figure 48.
Figure 48: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal
Test, and Driver in Side Test:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Euro NCAP divides its testing into two phases and releases the
results twice a year, in November and June. The results are posted on
the program's Web site, issued in press releases, and published by What
Car? (a British car magazine), Which? Car (a magazine owned and
produced by British consumer associations), and the General German
Automobile Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer magazines in
Europe provide additional crash test information.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Japan New Car Assessment Program:
The National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims' Aid (NASVA)
conducts the Japan NCAP and is funded by the government through the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation. According to
NASVA officials, the Automobile Assessment Committee, made up of 12
members appointed by the ministry, oversees the program. The committee
includes four working groups, each focusing on specific areas: crash
tests, tests of active safety systems such as brakes, pedestrian tests,
and tests of child restraint systems. NASVA officials conduct research
in these areas and propose changes to the program that must be approved
by the committee. NASVA officials said that the Japan NCAP is funded
through appropriations from the Compulsory Automobile Liability
Insurance that every car owner must pay.
The Japan NCAP began testing vehicles in 1995, starting with a full
frontal collision test. The program added the side-impact test in 1999
and the offset frontal test in 2000. Vehicles are selected for testing
on the basis of sales. By 2004, the program had evaluated 79 vehicles
representing over 80 percent of those that were on the market at that
time. Ratings for 60 of these vehicles were carried over from previous
years' testing, and ratings for 19 vehicles were based on tests
performed in 2003. Testing is conducted at the Japan Auto Research
Institute under the control and supervision of NCAP officials. The
institute crash tests cars, minivans, and SUVs and performs other NCAP
tests, such as the brake and pedestrian tests. The research laboratory
has one track for conducting frontal and side-impact tests. In these
tests, either the vehicle is towed to strike the barrier, or, in side-
impact tests, the barrier is moved to strike the vehicle. In 2005, the
institute plans to open a new test facility with multiple tracks that
will enable researchers to conduct vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests at
various angles.
Testing Conducted:
The Japan NCAP performs a variety of safety tests and rates vehicles
according to the results. It conducts three types of crash tests--a
full frontal test, an offset frontal test, and a perpendicular side-
impact test. In addition, it performs a braking test, which measures
the performance of an active safety system that enables a driver to
avoid a crash. The program further assesses how easily doors are opened
and occupants are removed after a crash and how well vehicles perform
if they strike pedestrians. The program also evaluates how well child
safety seats perform.
The Japan NCAP is the only program that conducts both the full frontal
and the offset frontal crash tests. Together, the two tests assess both
the potential for injuries caused by intrusion and the effectiveness of
the vehicle's restraint system. The full frontal test is performed by
towing a vehicle to collide with a rigid barrier at 55 km/h (about 34
mph). This test simulates a head-on collision between two vehicles of
the same size traveling at the same speed. The offset frontal test
involves towing a vehicle into a deformable barrier that represents the
front end of another vehicle and simulates a head-on collision of two
vehicles traveling at 40 mph. In this test, only a portion of the front
end (40 percent) engages the barrier, and the impact on the vehicle
body is greater than the full frontal test because much of the crash
energy is distributed to one side of the vehicle. Thus, there is the
possibility of substantial vehicle deformation, which makes this test
suitable for evaluating injuries caused to occupants by intrusion into
the occupant compartment. The program uses the Hybrid III dummy that
represents a man of about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighing about 185
pounds.
The side-impact test propels a moveable deformable barrier weighing
about 2,090 pounds into the driver's and passenger's side of the
vehicle, simulating a perpendicular collision at 55 km/h (about 34
mph). The barrier is shaped like the front end of a car, and because it
is not rigid, its performance is intended to simulate a vehicle's
response in an actual collision. A EuroSID-I dummy is placed in the
driver's seat. This dummy is the same height as the Hybrid III dummy
but weighs about 20 pounds less. The EuroSID-I dummy was designed to
measure the risk of injury to the head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.
The Japan NCAP conducts a braking performance test that measures how
far a vehicle travels before it stops and how stable it is at the time
of braking when it is stopped abruptly while traveling at about 62 mph.
The braking test is a test of an active safety system because it
enables the driver to avoid a crash. The test is performed under wet
and dry road conditions for a vehicle with a driver and a weight on the
front passenger seat. To ensure consistent testing, Japan NCAP
officials said, the dry road surface temperature must be 95.0 degrees
plus or minus 18.0 degrees Fahrenheit and the wet road surface
temperature must be 80.6 degrees plus or minus 9.0 degrees Fahrenheit
because the temperature of the road surface affects the distance it
takes to stop the vehicle. Japan NCAP officials also said that all
braking tests must be performed at the same location because road
surfaces vary and surface differences could affect test results.
Professional drivers conduct the tests, and the speed of the vehicle
and force with which the drivers depress the brake pedal are monitored
electronically to ensure consistency. Three braking tests are conducted
to be sure that the result is not due to a flaw in the testing process.
Figure 49 illustrates the braking test.
Figure 49: Test Vehicle Undergoing Brake Tests Under Dry and Wet
Conditions:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition, the Japan NCAP assesses and scores the ease with which
doors can be opened and the dummies removed after a crash test. The
purpose of the accessibility assessment is to rate how easily emergency
responders can assist injured persons. The rating is based on whether
the doors can be opened with one hand, two hands, or whether tools are
needed to open the doors.
The pedestrian test measures the effect of a pedestrian being hit by a
vehicle traveling at about 22 mph if the pedestrian's head strikes part
of the hood or windshield. This test was initiated because pedestrian
fatalities represent a high percentage of total vehicle fatalities in
Japan. Dummies modeling the head of an adult or a child (head impactor)
are projected toward the car hood from a testing machine. The force
received by the head impactor is measured and then evaluated using a
head injury criterion. The test is conducted on multiple points on each
car, and the impact angles differ according to the shape of the front
part of three types of vehicles--sedan, SUV, and van. Figure 50
illustrates how the test is performed.
Figure 50: Pedestrian Head Impact Test and Target Area:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The distance between the ground and where the pedestrian's head
hits the car in crashes is called the wrap-around distance, which is
measured according to the length of that area. The location of the
impact area for adult's and children's heads is based on the data from
actual crash data.
[End of figure]
The pedestrian test is conducted on vehicles with three different body
types, as shown in table 10.
Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test:
Vehicle type: Sedan;
Definition: With the hood leading edge height less than 835 mm.
Vehicle type: SUV;
Definition: With the hood leading edge height more than 835 mm.
Vehicle type: Van;
Definition: With the hood angle more than 30 degrees.
Source: Japan NCAP, National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims'
Aid.
[End of table]
The Japan NCAP also assesses the safety performance of child seats in a
car crash and the ease of using the seats. Child seats are installed in
the rear passenger seats of a test vehicle stripped down to its body
frame. The test uses dummies to represent a 9-month-old child and a 3-
year-old child. The test vehicle is placed on a sled and subjected to a
shock identical to the test speed used in the full frontal crash test.
Scoring Tests:
The Japan NCAP measures injuries to the head, neck, chest, and upper
(femur) and lower (tibia) legs for both the full frontal and offset
frontal crash tests. Points vary by body region, from 2 points for
upper and lower leg injuries to 4 points for head, neck, or chest
injuries, according to the extent of injuries as measured by crash test
dummies. Vehicle deformation is measured after the crash test, and if
certain limits are exceeded, a point is deducted from the score for one
body area, according to where the deformation occurred. In addition,
weighting factors are assigned according to the frequency of injuries
to these body areas in vehicle crashes. The weighted points for each
body area are then combined to arrive at separate total point scores
for the driver and the passenger in full frontal and offset frontal
crash tests. The maximum score that a vehicle can achieve is 12 points
because of the way the injuries are weighted.
For the side-impact crash test, the Japan NCAP measures injuries to the
driver's head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.[Footnote 71] Four points are
assigned for each body area and then weighted according to the
incidence of injuries in this type of accident, with lesser weights
assigned to the abdomen and pelvis than to the head and chest. Again,
the maximum score that a vehicle can achieve is 12 points, because of
the way injuries to the driver are weighted.
The Japan NCAP is the only program that adjusts its test results by
weighting the injury scores according to historical crash data. NCAP
officials said they can do this because the police are well trained to
investigate every accident and provide thorough reports to the
government.
For the pedestrian test, a series of head injury scores is used to
assign injury probability levels from 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst).
The results are then combined to arrive at an overall score. According
to NCAP officials, vehicles with hoods that are more flexible and
compress upon impact can receive better scores than those that are
rigid and leave no room between the hood and the engine for the impact
to be absorbed.
Child seats are evaluated according to their performance in a collision
and their ease of use. For the collision test, overall ratings of
Excellent, Good, Normal, and Not Recommended are assigned. The ratings
are primarily based on the head and chest injury scores taken from the
dummies used in the test. Five child seat specialists assessed the ease
of installation, the ease of understanding the instructions, the
product warning labels and markings to aid in installation, the
structural design, and the ease of securing the child in the seat. For
each area, the specialists assigned points, from 5 (the best) to 1 (the
worst). The scores given by the specialists were averaged and reported
separately for each area.
Sharing Results with the Public:
Initially, the Japan NCAP used a four-letter system to rate vehicles'
crashworthiness, in which "A" reflected the highest scores for
performance and "D" reflected the lowest scores. As vehicles'
performance improved, more and more vehicles achieved an "A" rating. To
help consumers better differentiate vehicles' performance, NCAP
officials expanded the range of ratings to include AA and AAA. This
same scale was later converted to six stars. Many vehicles have
achieved a five-star rating, and some have received a six-star rating
for occupant protection. In addition to the star ratings, the Japan
NCAP reports the percentage of possible points that each vehicle
received and provides a bar chart indicating how well the vehicles
performed in these tests.
Figure 51 shows how the Japan NCAP communicates its ratings to
consumers as two overall ratings--one for the driver's seat and one for
the passenger's seat. The overall safety rating for the driver's seat
combines the results of the two frontal crash tests (full and offset)
and the side-impact test. The overall safety rating for the passenger's
seat includes the results of the full frontal and offset frontal tests.
The Japan NCAP also provides consumers with star ratings by type of
test for the driver's and passenger's seats and makes the detailed test
information available to consumers for each crash test, as shown in
figure 52. Consumers are also provided with ratings on how difficult it
was to open the door after the test (openability) and how difficult it
was to retrieve the dummy from the vehicle after the crash test
(rescueability), as shown in figure 53 and 54 respectively. Although
not shown as part of the crashworthiness rating, the ratings for the
pedestrian tests are provided, as well as the ratings for the child
restraint seats (Excellent, Good, Normal, and Not Recommended).
Furthermore, the Japan NCAP has provided consumers with comparative
information on vehicles' braking capability on wet and dry pavements.
Figure 51: Japan NCAP Rating of a 2003 Mid-sized Passenger Car:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 52: Example of Japan NCAP Detailed Full Frontal Data Available
for a 2003 Test:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 53: Key to Japan NCAP's Door Openability Ratings:
[See PDF for image]
[A] At times, a vehicle may turn sideways (roll over) after a side
impact. This test is performed to measure how well passengers are
protected when a vehicle is hit while stopped; it is not intended to
evaluate the stability of the vehicle while it is in motion.
[End of figure]
Figure 54: Key to Japan NCAP's Rescueability Ratings:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Japan NCAP publicizes ratings through the NASVA Web site and
publishes a brochure that contains summary information on vehicle
ratings. In addition to the summary ratings, detailed information for
each vehicle tested is posted on the Web site and published in a book
by NASVA every year. The Japan Automobile Federation also publishes
NCAP vehicle ratings in its magazine and posts the information on its
Web site. According to Japan NCAP officials, vehicle ratings and new
tests under the program are further publicized in television specials.
According to NASVA officials, the public response was very positive
after these specials because the number of hits to NASVA Web site
increased by 15 to 20 percent in the few days after each broadcast.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs:
Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs:
Test type: Frontal tests.
Full Frontal tests;
Description of test: The test vehicle's entire front end is crashed
into a fixed rigid barrier at 35 miles per hour (mph), which is
equivalent to a head-on collision between two similar size vehicles,
each moving at 35 mph.
Only the U.S. NCAP and Japan currently conduct this test.[A];
Assessment: Frontal tests: The test assesses the ability of vehicle
restraint systems, such as safety belts and air bags, to restrain
occupants.
The test maximizes the energy absorbed by the front of the vehicle so
that the occupant compartment is more likely to remain intact;
Considerations: Frontal tests: Test results cannot be compared between
vehicles of different weight classes.
Test type: Frontal tests:
Off-set Tests;
Description of test: The test vehicle is the equivalent of two vehicles
of the same weight crashing into each other. The vehicle is crashed
into a deformable barrier at 40 mph where approximately 40 percent of
the vehicle's width makes contact with the barrier.
Australia, Europe, Japan, and the Insurance Institute currently conduct
this test; Assessment: Frontal tests: The test assesses a vehicle's
structural integrity and its ability to manage the energy generated in
the crash entirely on the driver's side of the vehicle.
This type of crash forces a smaller area of the vehicle's structure to
absorb the energy from the crash;
Considerations: Frontal tests: Test results cannot be compared between
vehicles of different weight classes.
Test type: Side tests;
Angled Side;
Description of test: The test vehicle is struck by a moving deformable
barrier at 38.5 mph at an angle. Both the barrier and the driver's side
of the vehicle are parallel, so that the entire face of the barrier
impacts the side of the vehicle. Only the U.S. NCAP currently conducts
this test;
Assessment: Frontal tests: The test represents an intersection-type
collision. The barrier striking the test vehicle is shaped like a
passenger car and is about the size of a medium passenger car, weighing
3,015 pounds;
Considerations: Frontal tests: Test results can be compared across
vehicle weight classes because each vehicle is struck by a barrier of
the same size and weight. The test does not assess the risks of head
injury from side impacts from vehicles like SUVs and pickups.
Test type: Side tests;
Perpendicular side with medium barrier;
Description of test: Frontal tests: The test vehicle is struck by a
moving deformable barrier traveling at about 31 mph (50 km/h) at a 90
degree angle centered on the driver side seating position. Australia,
Europe, and Japan currently conduct this test.[B];
Assessment: Frontal tests: The test represents a 90 degree intersection-
type collision. The barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs 2,095
pounds (950 kg) and has a front end shaped to simulate the typical
front end of a passenger car;
Considerations: Frontal tests: Test results can be compared across
vehicle weight classes because each vehicle is struck by a barrier of
the same size and weight.
Test type: Side tests;
Perpendicular side with large barrier;
Description of test: Frontal tests: The test vehicle is struck by a
moving deformable barrier traveling at 31 mph (50 km/h) perpendicular
impact into the driver side of a passenger vehicle. The Insurance
Institute currently conducts this test;
Assessment: Frontal tests: The test represents a 90 degree intersection-
type collision. The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test
vehicle weighs about 3,300 pounds (1,500 kg), is higher than other
barriers with a front end shaped to simulate the typical front end of a
pickup or SUV;
Considerations: Frontal tests: Test results can be compared across
vehicle weight classes because each vehicle is struck by a barrier of
the same size and weight. The test was designed to encourage automakers
to provide side-impact head protection by installing air curtain bags
that extend low enough to protect smaller occupants in front and rear
seats.
Test type: Side tests;
Pole side test;
Description of test: Frontal tests: The test vehicle is placed on a
platform and propelled at 29 km/h (about 18 miles per hour) into a
stationary cylindrical pole producing a side-impact crash on the
driver's door. Australia and Europe currently conduct this test;
Assessment: Frontal tests: The test represents a side-impact collision
involving a narrow object such as a tree or pole. The diameter of the
pole is 10 inches (254 mm) and aligned with the front occupant's head;
Considerations: Frontal tests: The side-impact test is demanding on
vehicles' structures, and heavy vehicles have to cope with higher loads
than lighter vehicles.
Test type: Other tests;
Rollover tets;
Description of test: Frontal tests: The test vehicle is subjected to a
series of left/right tests and right/left tests at different speeds and
steering wheel angles.The first run of tests is conducted at 35 mph,
with each subsequent run conducted at about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph,
and 50 mph, until the vehicle "tips up" (fails) or attains a speed of
50 mph on the last run of each test without tipping up (pass). Only the
U.S. NCAP currently conducts this test;
Assessment: Frontal tests: The dynamic test represents an untripped
rollover by simulating a high-speed collision-avoidance maneuver. The
Static Stability Factor is a measurement used to determine the top-
heaviness of a vehicle, accounting for situations of potential tripped
rollovers such as when a vehicle strikes a curb;
Considerations: Frontal tests: Rollovers where the vehicle is not
tripped account for less than 5 percent of all rollover crashes.
Test type: Other tests;
Pedestrian protection test;
Description of test: Adult and child-size dummy parts (such as heads)
are projected at specified areas of a test vehicle front end to
replicate a car colliding with a pedestrian. Australia, Europe, and
Japan currently conduct this test;
Assessment: Frontal tests: The test is used to assess the risk to
pedestrians if struck by the front of a car;
Considerations: Frontal tests: This test evaluates the front end design
of vehicles and the effect on pedestrian injuries.
Test type: Other tests;
Child restraint test;
Description of test: Frontal tests: Euro NCAP tests child restraints by
placing child-size dummies in child seats during frontal and side crash
tests. The Japan NCAP test evaluates child seats by placing child-size
dummies in child seats using a test sled instead of actual collisions;
Assessment: Frontal tests: The Euro NCAP test is used to evaluate child
protection focusing on the interaction of a vehicle's child restraint
system and a child seat. The Japan NCAP test evaluates the ease of
correctly using the child seats;
Considerations: Frontal tests: The Euro NCAP test evaluates the
performance of a car seat during a front or side collision. Japan NCAP
tests child restraint systems independent of vehicle performance in a
simulated frontal crash and evaluates the ease of use.
[A] The Japan NCAP full frontal test is performed at 55 km/h (about 34
mph).
[B] The Japan NCAP perpendicular side test is performed at 55 km/h
(about 34 mph).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
JayEtta Hecker, (202) 512-2834:
Glen Trochelman, (312) 220-7729:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Vashun Cole, Michelle Dresben, Colin
Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly, Doug Manor, Terry Richardson, Beverly Ross,
Brian Sells, Jena Sinkfield, Stacey Thompson, and Frank Taliaferro made
key contributions to this report.
(544085):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Economic costs include productivity losses, property damage,
medical costs, rehabilitation costs, travel delay, legal and court
costs, emergency services, insurance administration costs, and the
costs to employers. For more information, see U.S. Department of
Transportataion National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The
Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: May
2002).
[2] The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research
and communications organization in the United States funded by the auto
insurance industry.
[3] The rollover test is nondestructive.
[4] Driver behavior involves the actions taken by or the condition of
the driver of the motor vehicle, including speeding and violating
traffic laws, as well as the effects of alcohol or drugs, inattention,
decision errors, and age. The driving environment associated with
crashes includes roadway design, roadside hazards, and road conditions.
Vehicle factors that contribute to crashes include vehicle-related
failures or design of the vehicle. For additional information on the
causes of motor vehicle crashes, see GAO, Highway Safety: Research
Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle
Crashes, GAO-03-436 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003).
[5] Crashworthiness is defined in 49 USC § 32301 as "the protection a
passenger motor vehicle gives its passengers against personal injury or
death from a motor vehicle accident." Section 49 USC § 32302,
subsection (a), requires the Secretary of Transportation to "maintain a
program for developing . . . information on passenger motor vehicles[']
. . . crashworthiness." Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to
"provide to the public information developed under subsection (a) . . .
in a simple and understandable form."
[6] NHTSA also rates the ease of use for child safety seats under NCAP,
which is not included in the scope of this report.
[7] An additional 16 vehicles were also rated for rollover based on a
calculation of their top-heaviness.
[8] The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: chapter
V, part 571) were created under section 103 of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The standards cover a broad range of
safety concerns, from windshield wipers and brakes to crashworthiness.
[9] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and No. 214, for the
frontal and side tests, respectively.
[10] Vehicle manufacturers face severe civil penalties, potentially
expensive vehicle safety recalls, and potential legal liability if
NHTSA's testing indicates that a vehicle does not comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
[11] The dynamic rollover test is a specific driving maneuver. The
Static Stability Factor is a laboratory measurement.
[12] According to NHTSA officials, they are conducting pilot studies to
determine the feasibility of conducting more tests under NCAP,
including a child seat crashworthiness sled test, rating vehicles on
how well they protect children, braking, and lighting.
[13] See appendix VIII for a diagram of the full frontal crash test
configuration.
[14] The higher speed creates more crash energy or power and inflicts
potentially more damage on the vehicle and its occupants. The increased
speed also allows differences in crashworthiness to be more readily
observed. The difference in speed is only 5 mph faster, but the total
kinetic energy released in a 35 mph crash is 36 percent greater than
that released in a 30 mph crash.
[15] See appendix VIII for a diagram of the angled side crash test
configuration.
[16] NHTSA performs the angled side test because accident data suggests
that intersection or perpendicular impacts occur with two moving
vehicles. To simulate a moving car to moving car crash, the angled or
"crabbed" side test is used. The test simulates the striking vehicle
traveling at approximately 34 mph and the test vehicle traveling at
roughly half that speed--approximately 17 mph--due to the 63/27 degree
configuration.
[17] The safety standard, No. 214, applies to both sides of the vehicle
and specifies performance requirements for vehicle occupant protection
in side crashes. NCAP side tests only apply to the driver's side of the
vehicle.
[18] Appendix III provides additional discussion of the basis for
NHTSA's rollover rating.
[19] The head and chest measurements are known as the Head Injury
Criterion (HIC) and chest deceleration value, measured in Gs.
[20] The forces on the dummy's lower spine and the greater of the
accelerations of the lower and upper ribs are used in the side NCAP
star ratings. These accelerations are averaged to produce a measurement
known as the Thoracic Trauma Index.
[21] The crash test dummies used in the frontal and side NCAP test
represent the 50TH percentile male or the average male in terms of
height and weight. The dummy used is approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall
and weighs approximately 170 pounds.
[22] If these force measurements are sufficiently high to cause serious
or life-threatening injury, they are reported separately as a safety
concern but are not included in the star rating calculation. NHTSA does
not report tibia and feet measurements as safety concerns because there
are no agency-approved metrics for these body regions. In side impact
tests, forces to the head are also measured, though they are not
included in the star rating. They are also reported separately as a
safety concern if considered high.
[23] See appendix II for more information about how dummy measures and
information about human injury are combined to develop a probability of
injury.
[24] NHTSA began rating a vehicle's risk of rollover in 2001. Rollover
ratings between 2001 and 2003 were based on the measure of a vehicle's
top-heaviness because NHTSA had determined that this was a good
indicator of rollover likelihood. In 2004, NHTSA began to conduct a
dynamic rollover test as mandated by the TREAD Act.
[25] A vehicle's Static Stability Factor ranges (SSF) from
approximately 1.00 to 1.50, with SUVs lying in the lower half and
passenger cars lying in the upper half of that range. The lower the
SSF, the more likely a rollover will occur. For rollover ratings,
vehicles are rated using a statistical risk model that incorporates
both the vehicle's SSF and its tip or no-tip result in the dynamic
test. NHTSA does not always subject passenger cars to the dynamic test.
For some passenger cars, NHTSA imputes or assigns a "no tip-up" if
other passenger cars that are more top-heavy did not tip up during the
dynamic test. NHTSA periodically puts vehicles with imputed test
results through the dynamic test to verify the no tip-up assignation.
[26] See appendix III for a more detailed description of the
development of the NCAP rollover rating.
[27] NCAP rating information for vehicles prior to model year 1990 is
archived and not available on the Web site. NCAP information for these
vehicles has been converted into star ratings and is available to
consumers upon request.
[28] Visits to the Consumer Reports Web site include those seeking
rating information on an array of consumer products, not just vehicle
safety.
[29] The Car Book was originally a government publication. It is now
produced commercially.
[30] The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research
and communications organization in the United States funded by the auto
insurance industry.
[31] As discussed earlier, the angled side test involves crashing a
3,015-pound moving deformable barrier traveling at 38.5 mph into a
standing test vehicle.
[32] The 50TH percentile adult male dummy represents an average-sized
male, and the 5TH percentile adult female dummy represents a small
female or 12-year-old child.
[33] NHTSA has proposed a regulatory revision to its Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 214, in which vehicles would have to meet
additional performance criteria of a pole side test involving a vehicle
traveling at 20 mph into a rigid pole at a 75 degree angle.
[34] As discussed earlier, NHTSA's rollover test evaluates vehicles'
rollover resistance using a Static Stability Factor calculation and a
dynamic test simulating a high-speed collision avoidance maneuver.
[35] Appendixes IV through VII provide details on each country's
approach to vehicle ratings.
[36] For the side crashes, dummy readings of the chest and lower spine
are used to compute the Thoracic Trauma Index, which is used to
determine the star rating.
[37] In the proposed change to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards side impact test, the new pole test would evaluate protection
to front seat occupants against head, thoracic, and pelvic injuries.
This would be the first time that head injury criteria would need to be
met under the side standards.
[38] For the side impact tests, the U.S. NCAP uses the SID-H3 dummy,
Australia and Euro NCAPs use the EuroSID-II dummy, and Japan's NCAP
uses the EuroSID-1.
[39] Shopping for Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety
Information, Special Report 248, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council.
[40] Primary safety includes vehicle safety features designed to help
vehicles avoid crashes. Secondary safety includes vehicle safety
features designed to help minimize the risk of injury for vehicle
occupants involved in crashes.
[41] This includes carryover vehicles and corporate twins. Carryover
vehicles are those that have been tested under NCAP in previous years
and whose design and safety rating has not changed. Corporate twins are
two vehicles that are built on the same chassis, share most of their
underhood and interior components, and have the same air bag and safety
belt interaction but are sold under different brand names.
[42] NHTSA made these changes in recognition of the need to upgrade the
level of safety in frontal crashes in the regulations and to reflect
specific fatality risks in side crashes in the regulations.
[43] The higher test speed will be phased in for increasing percentages
of vehicles over 3 years.
[44] This is called self protection and partner protection. While the
occupants of a large vehicle might be protected in a crash, occupants
of a smaller vehicle, the partner in a vehicle-to-vehicle crash, would
have less protection.
[45] Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility, NHTSA, June 2003.
[46] According to a safety expert, automobile manufacturers have
generally opted to increase the strength and stiffness of the front of
their vehicles within the original vehicle design rather than adding
additional length to the front of vehicles which could be used to
reduce the impact on the vehicle struck.
[47] According to NHTSA officials, in such tests, larger vehicles could
experience a lower change in velocity than smaller vehicles,
potentially leading manufacturers to incorporate softer structures that
would not absorb as much energy when these vehicles are in single
vehicle crashes.
[48] NHTSA officials said they are addressing this issue by proposing a
change to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that would require
a 20 mph oblique side pole test.
[49] By contrast, 22 percent of those who died in passenger cars in
2002 were killed in rollover crashes.
[50] Electronic stability control keeps the vehicle under control by
applying brakes to individual wheels when the system detects loss of
control or instability.
[51] Preliminary Results Analyzing the Effectiveness of Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) Systems, NHTSA, September 2004.
[52] Effects of Electronic Stability Control on Automotive Crash Risk,
C.M. Farmer, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2004.
[53] The U.S. NCAP uses head and chest crash dummy readings in frontal
crashes and chest and lower spine readings for side crashes because
according to NHTSA these are the most important indicators of serious
or fatal injury. The Insurance Institute uses four body regions for its
frontal crash analysis and three for its side crash analysis. Japan
uses five body regions for its frontal crash analysis and four for its
side crash analysis, while Australia and Europe use four for frontal
and two for side. The other organizations use additional measures to
capture what can be serious, although not necessarily life-threatening
injuries such as those to the victim's legs.
[54] These Safety Concerns were taken from the several thousand vehicle
ratings available on NHTSA's Web site, including carryover vehicles and
corporate twins.
[55] Data collected during NCAP tests but not used to calculate star
ratings are available on the NHTSA Web site. Other data, such as the
results of force-of-load testing, are available on the NHTSA research
Web site.
[56] Officials from vehicle manufacturers said they are developing new
restraint systems that they believe will be able to determine the
weight of the occupant and will vary the safety belt restraint and air
bag deployment to maximize the protection for different-sized occupants
during a crash.
[57] Automakers also encouraged NHTSA to work towards consistency with
other countries to lessen the burden on their testing programs. For
example, they noted that an advanced side impact dummy called "World
SID" has been developed and that it should be considered for use in
side crash tests by all side testing programs.
[58] The U.S. NCAP provides four separate star ratings for crash test
results. There are separate ratings for drivers and passengers (front
seat) in frontal crashes and separate ratings for drivers and rear
(driver side) passengers in side-impact crashes.
[59] "Shopping for Safety," Special Report 248, National Academy Press
(Washington, D.C.: 1996).
[60] Automotive News. Includes new model year passenger vehicles sales
from September 2003 though February 2004.
[61] The Euro NCAP selects the vehicles from the manufacturers randomly
by vehicle identification number.
[62] NHTSA used linear regression to determine the relationship between
a vehicle's probability of rollover per single vehicle crash and its
Static Stability Factor controlling for road use and state dummy
variables. It is important to emphasize that this relationship may only
be imputed to vehicles involved in single-vehicle crashes and not to
the vehicle fleet at large.
[63] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Rating System
for Rollover Resistance: An Assessment, TRB Special Report 265
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2002).
[64] NHTSA's new model uses logistic instead of linear regression. In
addition, NHTSA performs a log transformation of the Static Stability
Factor to increase the accuracy of the model for vehicles with low
Static Stability Factors.
[65] The Insurance Institute began evaluating head restraint geometry
in 1995, and dynamic seat/head restraint tests were added in 2004.
[66] Compression refers to the extent body regions are squeezed during
the impact and is used as an indicator of injury to internal organs.
[67] Passive safety is the term used to refer to automobile designs and
technologies that help mitigate the injury potential in vehicle crashes
(sometimes called "crashworthiness"). Passive safety comes from an
optimized vehicle structure and vehicle restraint technologies.
[68] The Australia New Car Assessment Program is supported by a
consortium of 15 members of the Australian Automobile Association. The
membership includes the National Roads and Motorists Association; the
Royal Automobile Clubs of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia,
Western Australia, and Tasmania; the Automobile Association of the
Northern Territory; the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society;
the state road and transport authorities in New South Wales, Victoria,
Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia; the New Zealand
Automobile Association; and the New Zealand Land Transport Safety
Authority.
[69] Dummy kinematics (movement) are evaluated by how well the safety
belt and air bag perform and interact with the steering column and
other vehicle parts to control movement.
[70] The A-pillar is the side support for the roof that is in the front
of the passenger compartment and the B-pillar provides side roof
support in the center of the passenger compartment just behind the
door.
[71] The side-impact crash test can also be performed on the passenger
side of the vehicle, but the rating applies to only one occupant
position.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
