ANCAP is a waste of time

[naddis01]

The other day I was reading an article about how the Mahindra Scorpio has recently received a zero star rating from ANCAP,
which is only the second car ever to receive zero stars. However it received a 5 star rating from global NCAP last year. Then the following article popped up yesterday and I feel it hits the nail on the head. So it begs the question, is ANCAP a waste of time and Government funding....?

https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion...omes-to-safety

OPINION
ANCAP has lost relevance when it comes to safety
In a world where cost of living is out of control, taxpayer-funded bodies like ANCAP are making it unreasonably expensive to buy a new car today.

Alborz Fallah

14 December 2023, 1:04pm


If you have been a long time reader of CarExpert and CarAdvice prior, you may know that we have to date relied on ANCAP to provide us with a safety assessment when it comes to evaluating a vehicle’s suitability for the general public.

Going into 2024 this will no longer be a priority, as we look at safety more holistically with an eye for what actually matters to the car buying public.

Why are we doing this? Over the years the organisation has changed from being about the promotion of road safety to what it has become today; another taxpayer funded office more interested in headlines and sensationalism to continue its funding than actually informing the average Australian if their new vehicle is safe.

A great example of this is the way it conducts itself with media. Every time our staff has been invited to witness a crash test, it has always been when the primary motive was to show a poor rating.

The manufacturers are usually unaware media will be in attendance, and the media are also often unaware which car will be crash tested. And each time one of these crashes happened, the result was never good.


Often ANCAP already knew what the outcome would be based on international crash test results, and the car would be niche – the only way to get a shock and awe reaction from all involved.

The ANCAP system may technically have five stars, but it has become a basic yes or no system where a vehicle that receives five stars is a yes… while anything below that is basically a fail, and is lambasted for its safety credentials.

There’s also no actual testing of safety systems on public roads. A lot of the active safety systems fitted to five-star cars are appallingly bad to use in real life, but are required for maximum ratings.

This is a different approach to that of organisations like Euro NCAP (ENCAP). The majority of ANCAP’s testing data comes from ENCAP, it simply rewords its results to sensationalise the failings of cars that receive four or fewer stars.

The average Australian believes a four-star ANCAP rated car is unsafe, which is simply untrue in the majority of cases.

To give you an example of a four-star car, the Hyundai Venue received four stars despite getting 91 per cent in adult occupant protection and 81 per cent for child occupant protection. They’re the scores given to a car based on the protection offered in an actual crash – that is, the structural integrity of the vehicle.


It didn’t get the maximum five star rating because it fell short of an ANCAP technicality. One of the reasons it didn’t get five stars was Australia’s lack of support for ISOFIX child seats without top-tether, which are ratified as being a far better option in Europe and North America (but ANCAP and Australian Design Rules know better, right?).

ADVERTISEMENTCONTENT RESUMES ON SCROLL
LEARN MORE
On the other hand, the Alfa Romeo Tonale got 84 per cent for adult occupant protection and 87 per cent for child occupant protection and earned five stars because it ticked the boxes for active safety. Makes sense, right?

If you explained that to an average buyer and said one car has better adult protection in an actual crash but is rated four, while the other is five despite falling short of the score for physical protection for adults, do you think they would say the system is fair?

Do you think they will understand that their four-star rated Venue is actually safer for adult protection if they actually have a crash than something potentially rated five stars?

Ignoring ANCAP for one moment, in Europe safety testing is done in a manner that manufacturers are not shamed for having a four-star car.


Notice the Euro NCAP stickers here
Frankly, a four-star car like the Venue is a much safer choice than a much older car, but ANCAP’s action in shaming carmakers for not offering every active safety system money can buy, in every car they have, stops brands bringing more affordable, safe cars to our market.

This has the opposite of the intended effect, because instead of bringing new affordable, safe cars to our market, manufacturers have fit more kit, and charge customers more to make sure they hit the five-star rating requirement – or face the media assassination that ANCAP attempts.

That means plenty of buyers will simply pick an older vehicle that suits their budget.

Some of these older vehicles wear a five-star safety rating which is now horrendously out of date, but ANCAP does little to educate buyers about the difference between a Mitsubishi ASX which was last tested in 2014 and got five stars, and the Venue which is four stars from 2019 but safer in a crash), as the requirements for a five-star rating were significantly more stringent.

If you asked the average person to tell you which car was safer based on ANCAP’s assessment, it would most certainly be the ASX. That’s why the system is broken, and why ANCAP has in many respects become irrelevant.


The other aspect of testing ANCAP doesn’t tell you about is how good these active safety systems it demands actually are.

So much of the technology that ANCAP has forced manufacturers to embed in modern cars, just to tick a box, are so poorly tested and implemented that most drivers are forced to turn them off each time the car starts. Tell us again how that makes cars safer?

As a clearer example of ANCAP’s failings, lets look its more recent test of the Mahindra Scorpio, which earned an incredible zero stars out of five this week.

ANCAP said of the Scorpio in its official statement this week:

“This is a stark reminder that not all cars offer the same level of safety – even when they’re brand new models.”


“Market competition is healthy and encouraged, however there is also a well-established expectation from Australian and New Zealand private consumers and fleet buyers that new cars entering our market offer the best levels of safety.”

Now compare this to the Global NCAP, which rated the same car as having five of a possible five stars less than a year ago. The boss of GNCAP, Alejandro Furas, said after the crash test in December 2022:

“Global NCAP congratulates Mahindra on its continuing commitment to safety, achieving five stars for adult occupant protection under our new, more demanding crash test protocols.”

Watch the Mahindra Scorpio’s crash test here and tell us if that is a vehicle that deserves zero stars.

We are talking about a car that scored 29.25 out of 34 for adult protection (86 per cent) at Global NACP, now being rated by ANCAP as basically a complete no-go. This is categorically illogical and wrong.


This video explains why the moving barrier test is woefully underdone

In fact the Scorpio is so strong it smashed right through the poorly engineered 1400kg moving crash barrier ANCAP uses, instead of the rigid fixed barrier used by Global NCAP.

The passenger cabin stayed perfectly intact, yet it was marked down because of the damage it did to the moving crash barrier – something that’s mean to simulate a 1400kg vehicle (because there’s lots of 1400kg vehicles on sale in the top 10 in Australia).

Yes, Mahindra was penalised for its structure not protecting the object it hit… despite keeping the occupant cabin intact.

In fact eight points – or 20 per cent of its adult occupant score – was deducted because of how much damage it did to the moving barrier. Further points were deducted for things like the seatbelt being too strong for rear seat occupants.

Yet ironically, it achieved an 80 per cent rating for child occupants who sit in the second row.


The only reason ANCAP uses a 1400kg barrier is because it shamelessly aligns itself with European crash body Euro NCAP, where smaller cars similar in size to this barrier are more common.

This is what happens when an organisation is desperate to justify its existence, sensationalising crash results without context. Furthermore, ANCAP brought journalists to this test (including CarExpert, we aren’t expecting to attend any more), where it has all but set up a manufacturer to fail, and wants media coverage to soak up the publicity about why it exists and how it’s keeping Australians safe.

Even without crashing a single car, ANCAP knew the Scorpio would get zero stars (because as per the 2023 crash test rule changes a vehicle without any of the required safety aids scores zero stars).

But for some bizarre reason, it felt the need to waste taxpayer money by buying a number of these vehicles anonymously and flying journalists to Sydney to witness a car that only ever had the chance to be zero stars crashed.

By giving safe cars like the Scorpio a zero star rating, all ANCAP does is make it harder for the average Australian to attain an actual safe car, rather than one which the organisation deems has ticked all of its boxes.


This will apply to cars like the MG 5 and the upcoming new MG 3, which will will undoubtedly be safe in a crash, but won’t pander to ANCAP’s box-ticking exercise.

The Mahindra Scorpio is the perfect example of a vehicle that brings affordable safety to the masses, but doesn’t jump through all the hoops required.

Don’t get us wrong – it can do with autonomous emergency braking and some other tech (and it’s getting those) – but does it deserve a zero? Absolutely not. Where it matters, in the actual ‘crashing’, the Scorpio is very safe.

Nowhere in ANCAP’s zero out of five rating is that put into context.

If you want to know which car we would rather be in come an actual crash, we would pick a Scorpio over a tiny light car like the Kia Picanto which ANCAP awarded four stars in 2017 or a Suzuki Swift, which got a five-star rating that same year. You should too.

ANCAP’s attitude of five or nothing has devalued the organisation of any relevance when it comes to the average Australian.

If you are buying a new car, don’t be fooled by simply looking at a star system on offer. This attempt to simplify safety has lost touch with reality.

[Franco Cozzo]

Yes, now do the TAC next

Wipe off five......billion dollars from our bull**** scam.

[Citroënbender]

ANCAP does a perfect job. I maintain, Australians collectively like to feel a little bit afraid and think the government is there to protect them. This body ticks such boxes beautifully.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Yes, now do the TAC next

Wipe off five......billion dollars from our bull**** scam.

I think they're worse than ancap.

What's with the ads on tv where they try to make out like the person minding their own business is partially to blame. Someone pulls out of a side street without looking and somehow it's the other guys fault as well??

The blind focus on speed is bordering on negligence.

[simon varley]

sounds like sour grapes to me.

[arm79]

Originally Posted by naddis01

OPINION
ANCAP has lost relevance when it comes to safety

Not an opinion, but fact.

Only have to look as far as the Mustang that went from 2 star to 3 star by including lane departure and blindspot warning as standard fitment.

Once upon a time it was about how well it protected occupants. Not about how many useless electronic aids for lazy drivers it come as standard with.

It main problem is not departing from this ridiculous 5 star system limitation. Should be moved to more stars, or stars in a category, or points out of 100...

[prydey]

While I agree that ANCAP should be scrapped, I don't agree with the notion that passive safety isn't important. Equally important and arguably more important.

If you can prevent the crash happening in the first place that is far safer than how the car performs in a crash.

[GT1533]

Originally Posted by prydey

If you can prevent the crash happening in the first place that is far safer than how the car performs in a crash.

Absolutely right!

The fact that our top selling vehicles take 15 metres (three car lengths) longer to stop from 100kph than my 10 year old Falcon is a disgrace.

The fact that this is not included in NCAP safety ratings is a joke.


.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by GT1533

Absolutely right!

The fact that our top selling vehicles take 15 metres (three car lengths) longer to stop from 100kph than my 10 year old Falcon is a disgrace.

The fact that this is not included in NCAP safety ratings is a joke.


.

Underrated comment. We've gone backwards in many ways, the top sellers are full chassis with mostly live axles... in 2023! Nice tall bluff front ends for the pedestrians, too. And diesels for the lungs.

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

Underrated comment. We've gone backwards in many ways, the top sellers are full chassis with mostly live axles... in 2023! Nice tall bluff front ends for the pedestrians, too. And diesels for the lungs.

Our 2023 family cars use an outmoded rear braking technology that the Ford Falcon stopped offering in 1986. Sad.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by 383hq

Regarding the statistics, Good numbers/analysis, but I am surprised at the fatalities per 100m km - not sure how the guru's work out how many km a year I, (or others) travel.

Go and read one of the ABS Summary of Vehicle Use reports and you'll find out how they do it but it's basically collated from data in those States that collect annual mileage data (like NSW) and a survey sampling of 18-20k vehicle users across a range of vehicle types and then a lot of maths to come up with a 95th percentile number. It actually doesn't matter, per se, whether the number is accurate becasue I'm using it to calculate a statistical rate and the methodology has been consistent since it was first developed which allows me to compare years or decades against each other.

[Trevor 57]

Remember, all these safety features are there to protects drivers and passengers from idiots, whether those idiots are themselves or idiots in other cars

it takes the whole 'risk management' approach, a bit like OHS. You can't fix the people so you do your best to try to stop the equipment from hurting them

And as a whole this approach has worked exceptionally well. The road toll in 1970 in Victoria only was 1078, the best year we have had 2018 with 218 (I think) people dead as a result of road crashes. The police will take credit for enforcement, there is much more enforcement now than back then, and it has contributed to a lower road toll. The roads are better now than back then, some might argue this, but freeways have done a lot to reduce head-ons. But the single biggest contributor to the lower road toll has been vehicle desgin - full stop

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

But the single biggest contributor to the lower road toll has been vehicle desgin - full stop

Agree.

Not sure if there is a statistic for it but I'd be curious to know if serious injuries/hospitalisation has increased as fatalities decrease. I would assume this to be the case. The number of accidents happening is unlikely to be less. People are surviving crashes that once would have killed them.

Failure to acknowledge improvements to vehicle safety in the reduction of fatalities is all about protecting revenue stream and justifying draconian policing.

[Cav]

The real problem as I see it is in the overpriced car rental industry forcing people into less crash worthy smaller cars fitted with mandatory 'safety tech' that issues a warning when it detects something or other.

Rather than being a safety item, these things distract a driver immensely.

I'm talking about lane following, lane keeper assist, check rear seats, rear cross traffic alert, door exit warning, forward car moving alert, fart alert, and on it goes.

Bring back the AU I say

[mad2]

Originally Posted by Cav

The real problem as I see it is in the overpriced car rental industry forcing people into less crash worthy smaller cars fitted with mandatory 'safety tech' that issues a warning when it detects something or other.

Rather than being a safety item, these things distract a driver immensely.

I'm talking about lane following, lane keeper assist, check rear seats, rear cross traffic alert, door exit warning, forward car moving alert, fart alert, and on it goes.

Bring back the AU I say

that should read Cav..

Bring back the Mighty AU I say

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Cav

The real problem as I see it is in the overpriced car rental industry forcing people into less crash worthy smaller cars fitted with mandatory 'safety tech' that issues a warning when it detects something or other.

Rather than being a safety item, these things distract a driver immensely.

I'm talking about lane following, lane keeper assist, check rear seats, rear cross traffic alert, door exit warning, forward car moving alert, fart alert, and on it goes.

Bring back the AU I say

I agree, the old man's I30N has all this stuff and its the first thing he turns off is AEB and all the forward collision stuff and the crap where it wants to wrestle control from you like lane keep assist, the only one leaves on is blind spot monitoring and even then its a bit potato because if you're turning right at a roundabout from the outside lane and someone is turning right at a roundabout from the inside lane next to you it goes off its head.

With all this bull**** where the car drives itself, just remove the steering wheel already.

[fiestaz]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I agree, the old man's I30N has all this stuff and its the first thing he turns off is AEB and all the forward collision stuff and the crap where it wants to wrestle control from you like lane keep assist, the only one leaves on is blind spot monitoring and even then its a bit potato because if you're turning right at a roundabout from the outside lane and someone is turning right at a roundabout from the inside lane next to you it goes off its head.

With all this bull**** where the car drives itself, just remove the steering wheel already.

Do we really trust cars yet to drive themselves? They don’t do the assistance thing very well yet.

[Trevor 57]

With the collapse of the local car manufacturing you will see us move slowly away from our own 'standards' and move to Euro 'Standards'.

[russellw]

I did do some analysis of the road statistics ten years back - it's probably in the Tech portal somewhere still but basically that article looked at the metrics rather than the raw numbers. To summarise:
- fatalities per 100M kilometres travelled had dropped from 4.43 in 1970 to 0.51 in 2013 with the biggest decrease drop being the decade air bags became widely available.
- fatalities per 100k registered vehicles had also dropped from 22.95 in 1925 to 1.18 in 2000 and to 0.70 in 2013.
- fatalities per 100k population dropped from 24.17 in 1979 to 5.17 in 2013 although it had peaked at over 30 in the late 1960's.

However, and this is the point I want to make, the figures for serious injuries showed a different trend:
- In 1989, the National serious injury rate was 254.9 per 100k of population (although the States varied substantially) which was 15.3 injuries for every death.
- that raw rate declined up until 2000 when it was 151.44 per 100k of population but it was still 15.9 injuries per death.
- by 2013 that rate was back up to 163.04 but more significantly it was now 28.2 injuries per death.
- In the year 2000 (the lowest point for this data) 26,661 people were seriously injured in road accidents but in 2013 this number had climbed to 37,638 so while 438 less people have been killed in 2013 compared to 2000 (a 25.2% decrease), 10,977 more people have been seriously injured for a 41.2% increase.

I expect if I update this data for the decade since (might be an Xmas break project), I'd find the trends had continued with the overall fatality rate dropping but the serious injury rate increasing.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by russellw

I did do some analysis of the road statistics ten years back - it's probably in the Tech portal somewhere still but basically that article looked at the metrics rather than the raw numbers. To summarise:
- fatalities per 100M kilometres travelled had dropped from 4.43 in 1970 to 0.51 in 2013 with the biggest decrease drop being the decade air bags became widely available.
- fatalities per 100k registered vehicles had also dropped from 22.95 in 1925 to 1.18 in 2000 and to 0.70 in 2013.
- fatalities per 100k population dropped from 24.17 in 1979 to 5.17 in 2013 although it had peaked at over 30 in the late 1960's.

However, and this is the point I want to make, the figures for serious injuries showed a different trend:
- In 1989, the National serious injury rate was 254.9 per 100k of population (although the States varied substantially) which was 15.3 injuries for every death.
- that raw rate declined up until 2000 when it was 151.44 per 100k of population but it was still 15.9 injuries per death.
- by 2013 that rate was back up to 163.04 but more significantly it was now 28.2 injuries per death.
- In the year 2000 (the lowest point for this data) 26,661 people were seriously injured in road accidents but in 2013 this number had climbed to 37,638 so while 438 less people have been killed in 2013 compared to 2000 (a 25.2% decrease), 10,977 more people have been seriously injured for a 41.2% increase.

I expect if I update this data for the decade since (might be an Xmas break project), I'd find the trends had continued with the overall fatality rate dropping but the serious injury rate increasing.

Great analysis. I too would expect that trend to continue, with serious injury contrasting the fatality trend.

I would expect the number of crashes/yr would also be trending upward even if solely due to increase in population and vehicles on the road.

Unfortunately, due to the way statistics are used by authorities the manufacturers will never get the credit. I believe speed gets put down as a contributing factor at most crashes. That isn't really the issue. It's how the statistics are interpreted by policy makers where it gets muddy.

Like the old saying, 3 types of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[roKWiz]

You could also interpret those figures as modern drivers relying to heavily on technology in their vehicles, even though said technology is helping them survive a serious accident.

[cosworthfreak]

It’s worth noting that ANCAP vs NCAP isn’t necessarily a direct comparison.

*From drivinginsights

NCAP is a governmental rating system which differs across the world. Originally formed in the US, the NCAP has European, Australian, Chinese and Latin American versions.

The program was designed to create a transparent ranking system, which as a result pressured car manufacturers to produce safer vehicles. While 5-star ratings appear to be standard for new cars, it’s not always the case, with the Australian NCAP (ANCAP) advising customers to accept nothing less than the highest rating.

The Global NCAP organisation details in its mission statement that it wishes to provide a platform for different NCAPs to share information and best practices, as well as continuing their cooperation. However, with some new Australian vehicles, it’s important to know if a car’s NCAP rating is a local (ANCAP) or European rating.

The key difference between them is that the EuroNCAP enforces stricter conditions for pedestrian protection, while the ANCAP’s scoring system is tougher on vehicle occupant protection.

To achieve the highest ANCAP rating, cars must perform optimally across a range of tests, including a frontal crash, side impact, pedestrian, a pole crash and whiplash tests. According to ANCAP, the organisation has been constantly raising the bar for safety ratings to ensure manufacturers continue to improve car safety.

This has been demonstrated globally in the shift from passive safety technology like airbags and seatbelts designed to respond to an incident, to what has been called “active collision avoidance technologies” such reversing cameras and sensors to alert drivers of nearby pedestrians and cars.

[prydey]

What I would like to have happened is active and passive safety ranked separately.

How a car behaves in a crash is still what most people think of when they think ANCAP.

The ability to 'boost' the rating by adding passive safety features is misleading.

Passive safety is important and you could argue, more important, but it should be rated in its own right, with the passive systems tested, just like the active systems are.

That way buyers get a much clearer picture.

It's clear that there is no standard when it comes to how the systems are implemented and calibrated. My only experience is with our ford escape and I've never felt I need to turn anything off. Sounds like other manufacturers have systems that are more obvious??

If the inclusion of these systems can get you an extra star then they should be tested to a standard. Just having them shouldn't be enough.

[danzvtil]

I think half of the problem is cars are structurally as strong as they will ever be, it’s a known science. But in a world where continuous improvement is expected, authorities focus on the granular. Car A has AEB that detects pedestrians-PASS.
The same car with AEB that doesn’t is a FAIL. It doesn’t tell the truth about the whole safety of the vehicle.

[383hq]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

I think half of the problem is cars are structurally as strong as they will ever be, it’s a known science. But in a world where continuous improvement is expected, authorities focus on the granular. Car A has AEB that detects pedestrians-PASS.
The same car with AEB that doesn’t is a FAIL. It doesn’t tell the truth about the whole safety of the vehicle.

You mean like adding criteria that 99.9% will never need for an additional star rating?

Typical example of new ANCAP requirements include auto unlocking of all doors for at least 10 minutes after a car is submerged...

I'm not making this up. If manufacturers choose to add these features, we all pay for the one person who ends up driving into flood waters etc initially, and through increased insurance premiums.

Regarding the statistics, Good numbers/analysis, but I am surprised at the fatalities per 100m km - not sure how the guru's work out how many km a year I, (or others) travel.

Perhaps it was a proxy from fuel sold or from some "average" number from insurance companies/ trucker log books?

If I had to guess I would have thought that fewer serious injuries & fatalities would belong to the seat belt/ abs decades, as it's typically easier to reduce a (much) larger number, then a small number.

I'm also not sure there is a "clean" measure to show causation - ie how different variables contribute such as urban spread (longer distances travelled / more time in car / intersections& stop lights/ greater populations / more aggressive driver behaviors /potential poorer roads / better vehicular/road side safety / vehicular suicides etc. So it'll only ever be used for political purposes - funding policing etc.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by 383hq

auto unlocking of all doors for at least 10 minutes after a car is submerged...

I can imagine thieves finding the sensor and applying water to it, then driving off.

[arm79]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

I think half of the problem is cars are structurally as strong as they will ever be, it’s a known science.

I don't think that is entirely the case.

Ford proved they could run a BF or FG into a brick wall at 108 or 118kim/h (I can't remember which one) and the passenger compartment would stay intact, the occupants survive unharmed and all 4 doors could be opened.

Whereas the required speed for a pass in this type of crash is 56km/h.

I think cars are as structurally as strong as the accountants and RRP will allow them to be and they don't explore much past that... Because there is no need to explore past that. If there was, companies would be crowing about it.

Now the focus is to make lazy drivers even lazier.

Originally Posted by danzvtil

But in a world where continuous improvement is expected, authorities focus on the granular. Car A has AEB that detects pedestrians-PASS.
The same car with AEB that doesn’t is a FAIL. It doesn’t tell the truth about the whole safety of the vehicle.

Which is what I wrote above in another post. The results are skewed because of some ideology that electronic aids make a car safer.

Personally I think things like radar cruise control and AEB are an abomination and should be banned. These features in a Corolla almost conspired me to cause a major pileup in a 110km/h zone once. Car thought it was smarter than I was.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by arm79

Which is what I wrote above in another post. The results are skewed because of some ideology that electronic aids make a car safer.

there's two aspects to crash safety. If you do have a crash - make it as safe as possible. Equally important - reduce the likelihood of crashing. That's the pillar that the advanced driver aids are tackling

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by simon varley

there's two aspects to crash safety. If you do have a crash - make it as safe as possible. Equally important - reduce the likelihood of crashing. That's the pillar that the advanced driver aids are tackling

I agree with what you are saying, however, many of these driver aids are very poorly executed but because that box is ticked with ANCAP, 5 stars. Without that box ticked and the associated 5 stars, the car is ridiculed and made out to be unsafe.

I can give you a few examples just in the last week where I've had the brakes slam on for no reason.
First driving along the street and approach a single parked car on the left. My vehicle sees and slams on the brakes then just carries on like nothing happened. Meanwhile the car behind me thinks I've just brake checked them for no reason.
Second backing out of my driveway. The car sees the fence and freaks out. Slams the on brakes hard enough to leave 2 small skid marks on the concrete. I was only going steady and was in the middle of the driveway. That's the first and only time it's ever done it.
Thirdly, anytime someone up ahead is turning right into a driveway the car slams it's brakes on like we are going to hit them. Even if they are already out of the lane.

All this in a vehicle that has well calibrated systems. I'd hate to be driving in something that was poorly calibrated.

If ANCAP are serious about vehicles having these systems they need to tested for their suitability not just ticking a box to say they have them and here is your 5 stars.

[Citroënbender]

Maybe time to rename it.

Consumer Reassurance (Automotive) Program