"How Safe Is Your Car" C4 last night

Atlantic Dawn

Anyone watch "How Safe Is Your Car" on Channel 4 last night, very interesting look at car safety testing. Apparently the Euro NCAP tests are only done on left hand drive test vehicles and not right hand as used in Ireland/UK/Cyprus/Malta. Where similar tests were carried out on right hand drive vehicles the driver safety was less as cars have been structurally designed around passing the NCAP tests for left hand drive models.

It's repeated again Friday 2.55am.

ba_barabus

Rhd/Lhd thing is rubbish to begin with. A quick search of euro ncap test videos on YouTube will prove that. Can't link it but searched Auris Euro ncap test and the car is rhd.

BrianD3

Sounds interesting - although it's not true that EuroNCAP only tests LHD vehicles. Most are tested in LHD but not all.

Eg of RHD - 2009 Avensis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQLRam6IKBA

The general point about RHD vs LHD stands though.

Also, the IIHS in the US have recently done some small overlap tests on the passenger side of LHD vehicles instead of the usual drivers side. All cars were assymetric to an extent and this is unavoidable - but it was apparent from the testing that some manufacturers (eg Toyota, Nissan) have incorporated specific structures in the drivers side but not the passenger side to improve small overlap performance.

The Hyundai Tucson did very well in the drivers side testing and only slightly worse in the passenger side testing so it was the best car overall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72caLypmKCA

D_BEAR

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/64393-001

Cantona's Collars

They did make a great point in using the American testing system which doesn't just crash 100% head on but crashes the drivers and passengers sides to replicate real crashes where drivers will try to avoid collisions,they found the damage done was more likely to lead to a fatality or life changing injury.

ba_barabus

zerks wrote: »

They did make a great point in using the American testing system which doesn't just crash 100% head on but crashes the drivers and passengers sides to replicate real crashes where drivers will try to avoid collisions,they found the damage done was more likely to lead to a fatality or life changing injury.

I'm surprised that hasn't become a feature if euroncap. The results can be pretty shocking.

D_BEAR

NCAP tests do include a 40% overlap test against a deformable barrier to simulate a head on crash at 50km/h.
http://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/adult-occupant-protection/offset-deformable-barrier/

Video of polo being tested https://youtu.be/USas_poHSSI?t=19s

ba_barabus

D_BEAR wrote: »

NCAP tests do include a 40% overlap test against a deformable barrier to simulate a head on crash at 50km/h.
http://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/adult-occupant-protection/offset-deformable-barrier/

Video of polo being tested https://youtu.be/USas_poHSSI?t=19s

They're referring to the small overlap crash test

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

CiniO

What NCAP testing doesn't include and doesn't tell us, is how much weight affects crash results with other vehicles.

According to those test some particular light car might be safer than a big heavy car, but in real life it's the occupants of the big heavy car will end up much better off than a tiny light one (when they crash with each other), even if tests suggest otherwise.

skywanderer

CiniO wrote: »

What NCAP testing doesn't include and doesn't tell us, is how much weight affects crash results with other vehicles.

According to those test some particular light car might be safer than a big heavy car, but in real life it's the occupants of the big heavy car will end up much better off than a tiny light one (when they crash with each other), even if tests suggest otherwise.

Its basic physics insn't it, if a Nissan Micra ploughs into BMW or Volvo then invariably the Micra occupants will come off far worse. Similarly alot of Lorry drivers walk away from fatal crashes when a car collides with a Lorry.

CiniO

skywanderer wrote: »

Its basic physics insn't it, if a Nissan Micra ploughs into BMW or Volvo then invariably the Micra occupants will come off far worse. Similarly alot of Lorry drivers walk away from fatal crashes when a car collides with a Lorry.

I agree it is indeed basic physics, but problem is that majority of society don't have an idea about basic physics...


If people NCAP test telling them that nissan micra receives the same amount of stars as navara in crash tests, then they this cars are equally safe, and no point in going for bigger one...

coylemj

skywanderer wrote: »

Its basic physics insn't it, if a Nissan Micra ploughs into BMW or Volvo then invariably the Micra occupants will come off far worse. Similarly alot of Lorry drivers walk away from fatal crashes when a car collides with a Lorry.

+1 in the NCAP tests the Micra smashes into an immovable barrier but in real life it's likely to hit a bigger car head on and, having less kinetic energy, will be pushed back in an instant resulting in massive deceleration which will cause catastrophic internal injuries to the occupants. Crumple zones and air bags can't do much for you in those circumstances.

CiniO

coylemj wrote: »

+1 in the NCAP tests the Micra smashes into an immovable barrier but in real life it's likely to hit a bigger car head on and, having less kinetic energy, will be pushed back in an instant resulting in massive deceleration which will cause catastrophic internal injuries to the occupants. Crumple zones and air bags can't do much for you in those circumstances.

Quick example to visualise.
If 1 tonne micra crashes head on to 2 tonne jeep, (both cars travelling at 50km/h), then micra is going to end up similar to crashing into the wall at 66km/h, while jeep is going to end up similar to crashing into wall at 33km/h.

Kinetic energy to loose during crash at 66km/h is 4 times as much as during crash at 33km/h.

kirving

Some manufactures have been known to engineer cars just to do well in the NCAP. I believe the likes of Volvo, and others take a more honest view of the situation and try to make the cars safer in all circumstances.

Then, you have others who remove safety equipment for cheaper markets:

http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/138580/vw-polo-and-ford-fiesta-fail-india-crash-tests

Special Circumstances

Yeah I think the dirty and complex real world lies somewhere in the middle ground. Sure, the majority of scenarios will favour a heavier car but there's a lot of variables.

Ded_Zebra

LIGHTNING wrote: »

That's not even close to being correct. A car isn't one solid piece of metal so you cant negate all the various collapsible structures, varying strength metals and other energy reducing devices that are used to help a passenger survive a crash. If you were talking about two non-elastic (like snooker balls) objects hitting each other I would agree with you but not cars.

Other thing to remember that a 1000kg Micra hitting a wall (which in our case I am going to considered as a immovable object) has to significantly less amount of kinetic energy than the much heavier jeep. That is to say the car has to do less to make sure you the passenger survives the crash. I'd rather be in a crash in a modern supermini that a much heavier car from say the 80/90's.

We are also negating the best way to survive a crash is to avoid one. Generally speaking a lighter car will stop quicker and can change direction easier (momentum). A Micra will also have a lower COG and will be less of a rollover danger. There are so many factors to take into consideration that you cannot reduce it down to a basic "Heavier is better" statement.

Nothing to ad to this really. Just thought it was a great post and a "thanks" wasn't going to be enough to recognise it.


My personal problem with the NCAP testing is that it is only testing passive safety and not active safety. At least as far as I'm aware but I haven't followed NCAP testing at all in recent years.

Volvo used to be famous for this, they made cars with excellent passive safety but the handling was so bad that a crash was inevitable

To my eyes an Alfa 156 is a very safe car as it is nimble, agile and communicative. This lets you know when you are getting close to the limit and up to the limit, and beyond to a certain extent, it behaves in a predictable and relatively controllable way allowing you to get out of harms way and reduce your risk. However (from memory) the pre-facelift 156 only got a 2 star NCAP rating.