New Euro-NCAP Rules: Yet Another Nail in the SUV's Coffin

Martin Schwoerer
by Martin Schwoerer

What is a safe car? A car that prevents a crash, a car that protects the car's passengers, or something else? Safety testing groups around the world have their own, varying definitions. Euro-NCAP (the European benchmarking organization, or New Car Assessment Program), has decided it needs a new standard which will integrate several safety factors. I spoke with Cordelia Wilson of Euro-NCAP: "Consumers have told us they find the present system of star ratings which differentiates according to adult passenger crash protection, child passenger protection and pedestrian protection, confusing. A modern SUV will often get five stars at adult protection and one star at pedestrian protection, but how good is it in sum? So starting in 2009, we intend to introduce a fairer, clearer system which rates overall safety performance". Will car makers continue to advertise with excellent results in selected areas, but conveniently forget to mention when they score dismal results in others? "We won't use stars anymore. Instead, you can expect a percentage rating which will integrate adult safety, child safety, pedestrian protection, and 'safety assist', meaning electronic devices such as ESP". SUV makers are said to be horrified, since while perceived safety is a strong SUV selling point, they are normally lousy at pedestrian protection. Let me guess: Honda is happy about these changes in the benchmarking rules, while BMW and Land Rover are having a fit? "You said that, not me".

Martin Schwoerer
Martin Schwoerer

More by Martin Schwoerer

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 25 comments
  • Martin Schwoerer Martin Schwoerer on Aug 29, 2008

    Mark MacInnis: this news item is about benchmarking, not about regulation. It's about giving consumers information so that they can make a rational decision. So in this case I can agree with you 100% that the market should decide. Nobody is saying you should buy a less protective vehicle for your family. There is no trade-off, unless you want to drive an Abrams tank. Looking at the Euro-NCAP charts and statistics, you see that the only cars that do better-than-miserable on pedestrian protection are those that are excellent in passenger protection. The future is bright; the Luddites were wrong.

  • Mark MacInnis Mark MacInnis on Aug 29, 2008

    Martin Schwoerer and SunnyvaleCA Respect your opinions. My right to disagree, in part. Go back and reread AKM's posting. He is the one alleging that all who by SUV's do so out of selfishness and disregard for pedestrian safety. To that, I take exception. Rational markets presume that customers, given choices, will make rational decisions in their own best economic self-interest. I would presume the application of this would be a market of three hypothetical vehicles were available and in all respects save three (cost, passenger safety (ps) and pedestrian safety factor (psf)) equivalent. Posit one vehicle as +1 (favorable) in cost and -1 in psf and +1 ps. Second vehicle, -1 (higher) in cost, but +1 psf and +1 ps. The third vehicle is -1 (again, higher) in cost, but -1 in ps but +1 in psf. A "rational' consumer would most likely purchase vehicle 1....least cost and higher passenger safety will be his most importion criteria. An altruist may decide to incur the additional cost for vehicle 2....but that is his right of free choice in a free market. Vehicle three is clearly a less than rational choice, other things being equal. Clearly, vehicle purchase decisions are not as simple as the above illustration; many other factors influence the decision, compared vehicle choices are seldom equal in other respects. My points are simply these: 1. AKM made a blantant and arbitrary blanket generalization about his perception of SUV buyers and their apparent-to-him lack of concern for the safety of others in our society. And two, let the consumer and the market decide in an educated, rational fashion sans the interference of government mandate and condescending, elitist, snobbery (if the shoe fits, AKM.) Buy the way Mssr. Schwoerer. As a free-market capitalist, one can hardly be termed a "Luddite" Luddites abhor change. I simply abhor change that doesn't occur naturally as part of market adjustments. Call me laissez-faire, but don't call me a Luddite....or late to dinner either, for that matter. Ultimately, I contend that the degree of safety and level of attention paid to the task at hand by both drivers and pedestrians is of far more import to overall pedestrian safety than whatever vehicle choice I make. One last thing: Sunnyvale: I grok your comments on headlight hight...agree it can be an annoying distraction. Ummmm. What is the connection to the original line of discussion....PEDESTRIAN safety?

  • Hal Hal on Aug 30, 2008

    "Rational markets presume that customers, given choices, will make rational decisions in their own best economic self-interest" But we are talking about the car market. If people made rational choices based on economic self interest the vehicle mix on our roads would look very different. I know many Americans are opposed to regulation that restricts personal freedom in favor of the common good on philisophical grounds but most Europeans evidently aren't. "I contend that the degree of safety and level of attention paid to the task at hand by both drivers and pedestrians is of far more import to overall pedestrian safety than whatever vehicle choice I make." You are correct but these regulations aren't designed to prevent accidents but to make the accidents that do occur more survivable.

  • Lynn Ellsworth Lynn Ellsworth on Aug 30, 2008
    Really, this whole era of PC, freedom-hating liberalism and litigious vehicle-hating is getting out of hand. No, we liberals don't hate vehicles. We don't want our vehicles to take over our lives or put us in wheelchairs (now that would be taking away someone's freedom). Liberal: 1. favoring progress or reform, 2. free from prejudice, tolerant, 3. characterized by generosity. "Random House Webster's Dictionary".
Next