
Originally Posted by
inside
What do you suggest instead? Each manufacturer do their own testing? There's so many variables in crashes that you can not realistically expect a manufacturer to cover them all. What we have is controlled testing in a controlled environment done by a third party who has no vested interest if your car is 3 or 5 stars. From this testing you can gain a basic understanding of how a vehicle will perform in a crash by seeing how the vehicle crumples and in some cases how it reacts to side impacts. Certainly not perfect but what other options do you have? You need it to be standardised for comparisons but then in life there's no such thing as a standard crash.
I am not suggesting that the testing be replaced, what I am suggesting is that buyers should not just take the results at face value. One area that receives very little publicity is the analysis of real world accidents. Some manufacturers do use this information, but there is no pressure on them to do anything except improve the test results.
And talking about analysing real world accidents, the statistics analysed by Monash university show that the crash tests are only very tenuously related the actual number of people killed or injured per 100,000 kilometres in the real world. This seems to be because other factors (primarily the type of driver that chooses that type of car) are more important. As an example, relevant to this forum, the Subaru WRX kills far more people per 100,000km than does the Landrover Defender, despite having far superior crash test results and safety features. I think that a moment's reflection will make it obvious why this is the case, and it is not because it is a small car versus the a large car - it is because it goes a lot faster than the Defender, and hence is likely to be bought or stolen by the sort of driver who wants to go a lot faster; it would not even occur to them to consider a Defender!
John
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Bookmarks