ANCAP is a waste of time

[b0son]

Originally Posted by arm79

The car is not actually safer than it was before, but people think it is because it has meaningless additional aids.

Agree. A car could be 3 stars with aids, but the aids largely only help YOU prevent a self-inflicted crash. What about getting caught up in someone else's, where the aids can't help? It's a 2 star car again.

[Itsme]

Who really follows ANCAP? If I like the car then I buy it regardless of rating.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

Maybe time to rename it.

Consumer Reassurance (Automotive) Program

Is that like CANSTAR home appliance award.

[prktkljokr]

I drive a Smart car to work every day, I get "aren't you scared you will be hit by a truck", I just reply with, "I'm sure it would not matter what I drive if I was hit by a truck".

Safety ratings are for people who need that fake security blanket to feel better about their choice of car.

Its not the car that is safe, its the driver, people still die in "safe cars".

Ancap ratings are a unreal world rating, car tested for a perfect side impact at 60kph, well what if I accidently pull out in a 110 zone, what if the other driver was doing 130, what if the other driver is in a truck, side rollover test at 60, what if I hit a culvert and end for end my car at 90, Ancap can not simulate real world accidents so it is pretty much just worthless results, the chance that you have a accident and it goes down exactly as it has been tested?, you are playing Lotto.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by prktkljokr

I drive a Smart car to work every day, I get "aren't you scared you will be hit by a truck", I just reply with, "I'm sure it would not matter what I drive if I was hit by a truck".

Safety ratings are for people who need that fake security blanket to feel better about their choice of car.

Its not the car that is safe, its the driver, people still die in "safe cars".

I get that driving old cabover trucks but at least I'll go out in style.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by prktkljokr

Its not the car that is safe, its the driver, people still die in "safe cars".
.

Not quite true. Cars are safer. What would have once been a fatality in many cases is now a serious injury or less.

If people die in safe cars then they most certainly would have died in an older car.

Years of human existence has proven we are not capable of major behavioural change. Therefore safety technology in cars is absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by prktkljokr

Ancap ratings are a unreal world rating, car tested for a perfect side impact at 60kph, well what if I accidently pull out in a 110 zone, what if the other driver was doing 130, what if the other driver is in a truck, side rollover test at 60, what if I hit a culvert and end for end my car at 90, Ancap can not simulate real world accidents so it is pretty much just worthless results, the chance that you have a accident and it goes down exactly as it has been tested?, you are playing Lotto.

You haven't read the fine print on ANCAP or any testing organisation obviously. The ratings only apply to the same class of vehicle. If you have a crash with a larger vehicle the laws of physics still apply. You can't change physics.

[prktkljokr]

Originally Posted by prydey

Not quite true. Cars are safer. What would have once been a fatality in many cases is now a serious injury or less.

If people die in safe cars then they most certainly would have died in an older car.

Years of human existence has proven we are not capable of major behavioural change. Therefore safety technology in cars is absolutely necessary.

I have been in the crash scene in 1 way or another since I was 15, many years as a repairer and many as a tow truck driver, I have seen the results of safe cars with non safe drivers, I have seen more than my fare share of innocent dead people who might have thought the car they were in was safe.

It does not make a scrap of difference in the real world when we have unsafe drivers mixing it with people doing the right thing, Ancap is for the perfect world we don't live in.

Originally Posted by prydey

You haven't read the fine print on ANCAP or any testing organisation obviously. The ratings only apply to the same class of vehicle. If you have a crash with a larger vehicle the laws of physics still apply. You can't change physics.

How many people would read the fine print?, most would buy a car because Ancap says its safe, even the dealers will rattle off the safety rating when you buy one.

So pretty much in their own admission they are saying that the testing is flawed, we don't all drive the same class of vehicle so the testing is a waste of time.

[prktkljokr]

In 1 way I can see the merit of testing as we get a better understanding of what happens in a crash and we build cars to be safer, but to say this car is the best as it has a 5 star rating is flawed, mostly because it is not tested to all of the scenarios it may encounter once its released to the consumer, whom we all know can look after or run it into the ground, Ancap cannot test for all the real world scenarios that particular model will encounter in its life cycle, therefore it is just a bunch of data and should not be rated to the safeness of a particular vehicle.

[Top_Ghia]

Some of these driver assistance technologies are very poorly implemented. It’s pretty common to get complaints of cars suddenly jamming the brakes on while traveling at 100 km/h.
Lane keep is also far from perfect. It’s just not consistent enough to be called a safety system. Obviously it’s early days and the systems are improving but they need to be smarter and more adaptive.
Ford now uses Lane Centering on vehicles equipped with adaptive cruise control. But to me it hugs the center line far to much. I prefer to drive in the middle or left side of the lane so end up in a constant tug of war with it. Loosen your grip and let it steer and it tells you to put your hands back on the wheel.
Make up your mind Ford. Either let me drive where I want or do it yourself. I’m not interested in a collaboration.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by prktkljokr

I drive a Smart car to work every day, I get "aren't you scared you will be hit by a truck", I just reply with, "I'm sure it would not matter what I drive if I was hit by a truck".

Safety ratings are for people who need that fake security blanket to feel better about their choice of car.

Its not the car that is safe, its the driver, people still die in "safe cars".

Ancap ratings are a unreal world rating, car tested for a perfect side impact at 60kph, well what if I accidently pull out in a 110 zone, what if the other driver was doing 130, what if the other driver is in a truck, side rollover test at 60, what if I hit a culvert and end for end my car at 90, Ancap can not simulate real world accidents so it is pretty much just worthless results, the chance that you have a accident and it goes down exactly as it has been tested?, you are playing Lotto.

In 2011 I t-boned a TF Rodeo at around 90km/h in my first LV Focus, hit the passenger side B-pillar of the Rodeo and bent the ****er like a banana, thing was toasted and my Focus was completely rooted too.

We both survived, I walked out of it with superficial burns from the airbags, temporary deafness and some nasty bruising from the seatbelts, though if he had a passenger they'd have been pushing up daisies for sure. I reckon if that sort of accident happened today and I was in my VSII Caprice I'd probably be the one in the ground, those things fold up like a pancake if you just look at them.

Was his fault, I should see if I can find his apology letter the court made him send to me

You're spot on, depends on how the accident plays out to the result,

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

Some of these driver assistance technologies are very poorly implemented. It’s pretty common to get complaints of cars suddenly jamming the brakes on while traveling at 100 km/h.
Lane keep is also far from perfect. It’s just not consistent enough to be called a safety system. Obviously it’s early days and the systems are improving but they need to be smarter and more adaptive.
Ford now uses Lane Centering on vehicles equipped with adaptive cruise control. But to me it hugs the center line far to much. I prefer to drive in the middle or left side of the lane so end up in a constant tug of war with it. Loosen your grip and let it steer and it tells you to put your hands back on the wheel.
Make up your mind Ford. Either let me drive where I want or do it yourself. I’m not interested in a collaboration.

Was in mates Volvo yesterday and it got on the brakes big time because it picked up a car in the turning lane turning left as we were coming up behind it and it decided to jam on the brakes to prevent an accident that wasn't even on the cards.

[roKWiz]

[Top_Ghia]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

In 2011 I t-boned a TF Rodeo at around 90km/h in my first LV Focus, hit the passenger side B-pillar of the Rodeo and bent the ****er like a banana, thing was toasted and my Focus was completely rooted too.

We both survived, I walked out of it with superficial burns from the airbags, temporary deafness and some nasty bruising from the seatbelts, though if he had a passenger they'd have been pushing up daisies for sure. I reckon if that sort of accident happened today and I was in my VSII Caprice I'd probably be the one in the ground, those things fold up like a pancake if you just look at them.

Was his fault, I should see if I can find his apology letter the court made him send to me

You're spot on, depends on how the accident plays out to the result,



Was in mates Volvo yesterday and it got on the brakes big time because it picked up a car in the turning lane turning left as we were coming up behind it and it decided to jam on the brakes to prevent an accident that wasn't even on the cards.

This is happening all the time across many different brands. These “safety” systems are unregulated and being rushed to market to meet these bogus ancap ratings.
There’s very little evidence they help reduce accidents or the road toll. There’s even evidence starting to come out that may indicate accidents are increasing.

[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.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by arm79

This is where personal opinions diverge.

All I see these advanced aids doing is taking up the slack for lazy drivers not doing the basics right. Then these same lazy drivers become even lazier because they rely on imperfect technology to backstop their laziness.

I'd love to know the statistics from insurance companies with claims that "the blind spot monitor didn't say there was anything there" or "the car didn't automatically brake when it was supposed to". There are a couple of vids on our favourite dash cam site where the offending rear ender argues with the victim that "there is no way I hit you because my car has automatic braking".

But that aside I also don't believe, which is what I referring to before, that driver aids should be considered as part of the safety score of the vehicle. They should be reported as a separate metric.

I refer back to the current model Mustang which scored 2 stars in its initial test, which grew to 3 start when Ford made blind spot monitoring and lane departure warnings standard. BUT!!! That didn't fix the fact the occupants of both front seats could faceplant the dash through the airbag in an accident.

Ford gamed the system here, ANCAP fell for it and any credibility of their tests went into the bin. The car is not actually safer than it was before, but people think it is because it has meaningless additional aids.



Thats similar to what this bloody Corolla did to me at 110km/h.

Cruising down a highway south of Perth someone pulled onto the highway ahead of me. They gunned it to get some speed up, but he was way in front. Its the kind of basic encounter you get every day. One where you, which I did, look into the right lane, saw nothing, blinker on and start to merge. Well halfway across the line the ****er slammed on the brakes, hard, (Impressive brakes though) and dropped me to 60. Leaving me stranded across 2 lanes. I swung back into the left, the poor L-plater behind me must have **** a brick and slammed on the brakes and swung into the right lane almost collecting the car that was moving to overtake him.

There was absolutely no risk of an accident. My merge was completely safe. Had to pull over to work out how to turn off that bull**** radar cruise control then. Have to consider the irony of a super "safe" 5 star vehicle with advanced driver aids actively causing an accident.

It's one of these things that reminds me of an old person saying "I'm a safe driver. In all my years of driving I've never had an accident". But you think "yeah, but I wonder how many you've left in your wake".

Wouldn't that be a great lawsuit if the aids caused an accident!

[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.

[russellw]

I've done an update for the numbers we gathered in 2013.

Back in 1989 when serious injury statistics were first kept, there were 254.97 injuries per 100k of population and that represented 15.31 injuries for each death.

By 2000, that was 151.44 injuries per 100k of population and 15.92 injuries per death.
By 2010, that was 148.76 injuries per 100k of population and 23.99 injuries per death.
In 2021, that was 153.80 injuries per 100k of population and 35.18 injuries per death.

Thus, we made big gains between 1989 and 2000 in the injury rate per 100k of population but it's been fairly static across a range from 140-155 for the last two decades.
Conversely, the ratio of injuries to deaths has headed in the other direction and has more than doubled in the 33 years under review.

That probably needs to be viewed alongside fatalities per 100k or population over the same period and perhaps beyond. Way back when these stats were first kept almost 100 years ago (1925), the fatality rate was 11.7861 / 100k and that rate peaked at 22.1323 in 1940 before starting to fall (likely because the young men were away at war) before ramping up again in the 1950's to peak again at 30.3663 in 1970. That steadily declined from then on to drop back below 20 in 1983; below 10 by 1997 and mostly below 5 since 2014 and it was 4.5898 in 2022.
Even if we took that rate back a decade when it was 9.5, that would more than double the road fatality numbers we recorded in 2022 from 1194 to 2471 so perhaps the additional 7,000 injuries in that same time from is a good trade-off.

The full article can be found HERE

[prktkljokr]

Naughty Toyota
https://www.drive.com.au/news/toyota...ests-overseas/

Wonder how many others were polished into a favourable outcome?

[MITCHAY]

Of all the things I consider when buying a car, ANCAP doesn't even rate. Don't give a flying ****

[Trendseeker]

https://www.drive.com.au/news/ancap-...medium=partner

Independent safety ratings for some of Australia's top-selling new models stripped of its safety rating today

“Independent safety ratings for some of Australia's top-selling new models – from the Mazda CX-5 to the single-cab Toyota LandCruiser 70 Series – have run out of road.

Another batch of Australia's top-selling new cars – many with five-star scores, such as the Mazda CX-5 and Toyota LandCruiser 70 Series single-cab – have lost their safety ratings from today.

All are expected to remain on sale – as they still meet less stringent government motor-vehicle safety regulations – but the lack of five-star ratings for many of the vehicles may rule-out examples built from today from use in fleets which require top crash-test scores.

Among the 30 vehicles which lose their safety ratings from 1 January 2024 are the Audi Q5, BMW X3, Mazda CX-5, Ford Mustang, Kia Picanto, Toyota LandCruiser 70 Series single-cab chassis, Volkswagen T-Roc and Volvo XC60.

It is the second batch of new vehicles to be stripped of their Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) ratings after the oldest safety scores – for models tested as long ago as 2008 – expired after 31 December 2022.

Safety ratings will now be valid for six calendar years – plus the year in which the vehicle was tested – to make it easier for consumers to compare vehicles tested under the latest ANCAP criteria, and those tested under previous, less strict protocols.

Before the expiry dates were introduced, car manufacturers could continue to advertise five-star safety ratings from more than a decade ago – alongside newly-introduced vehicles tested to the latest and most stringent criteria.

There are no known changes to the safety equipment of vehicles which are stripped of their safety ratings from today – most of which were crash-tested in 2017, with a handful rated in 2016 – compared to examples built last year.

However examples manufactured from 1 January 2024 will be marked by ANCAP as 'unrated' – even if they are identical to those built on 31 December 2022, when its crash-test score was valid.

Top-selling models such as the Toyota HiLux, Ford Ranger, Isuzu D-Max, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4 and Tesla Model Y are not affected for now, as their safety ratings are more recent.

Among the hardest hit by the expired safety scores are set to be fleets, as vehicles built and delivered after 1 January 2024 which have just lost their five-star safety ratings – as mandated by many businesses – may not be allowed on worksites, whereas those produced and delivered before the end of 2023 may continue to be permitted.

Car manufacturers can submit their vehicles to be re-tested by ANCAP and have the six-year expiry reset – but they will be subjected to the latest test criteria, which are far more stringent than those in place in 2016 or 2017.

Vehicles which have not received safety upgrades since their original ANCAP score was issued are unlikely to match their previous performance in crash tests.

Drive is aware of only one car maker considering submitting an ageing vehicle to be re-tested, Kia and its pint-sized Picanto – as reported in June 2023 – as an updated model with more safety equipment is now on sale. However it is yet to be confirmed if it will proceed with the re-testing.

Most of the 30 models affected – such as the Ford Mustang, Skoda Kodiaq, Toyota C-HR and Subaru Impreza – are nearing the end of their life cycles, and are due to be replaced by all-new vehicles within the next 12 months.

Other impacted vehicles such as the Kia Stinger, Jeep Cherokee and Mazda CX-9 have already been discontinued – with no new model on the horizon – and ended production well before 31 December 2023.

Unless they are re-tested to the latest criteria – or a new model arrives – a further 32 vehicles are due to lose their ANCAP safety ratings from 1 January 2025, including popular models such as the MG ZS, Hyundai i30 hatch, Suzuki Jimny and Toyota Corolla.”