NHTSA Wants Crash Safety Rating To No Longer Be Tied To Only Crash Tests

Federal regulators today proposed overhauling the government’s five-star vehicle safety ratings to add scores for crash avoidance technology and pedestrian protection and to incorporate a new test that measures performance in a frontal offset crash.

The new system, which would allow vehicles to be scored in half-star increments for the first time, would be used on cars and trucks starting with the 2019 model year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it plans to collect public comments and issue a final decision by the end of 2016.

“NHTSA’s 5-Star Safety Ratings have set the bar on safety since it began in 1978, and today we are raising that bar,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. “The changes provide more and better information to new-vehicle shoppers that will help accelerate the technology innovations that save lives.”

TheSteve - 12/8/2015 7:47:38 PM

+2 Boost

My preference: Give me pure crash numbers.

You can have *separate* "incident avoidance" numbers. I'd hate to end up with a car that had a 4 Star rating because it does really well at (what lab tests rate as) "avoiding accidents", but does rather poorly if you are actually involve in one, such as when the incident is initiated by someone else, and your active avoidance systems are rendered useless.

MDarringer - 12/8/2015 9:12:08 PM

+1 Boost

The discredited NHTSA is trying to create a context for its own relevance. Like the IIHS, its testing procedures are not strictly scientific, so allowing it to create some voodoo mongrel that is even more incomprehensible, is idiocy.

I say crash vehicles into a wall at 35mph and duplicate copy at 70mph and publish the pictures. Done.

To talk about that other moronic and useless government tumor--the EPA--put the car on rollers and do steady state mpg numbers at 25mph, 45mph, and 70mph. Done.

Privatize both functions and kill the NHTSA, the EPA and their cronyism bureaucracy.

TheSteve - 12/9/2015 12:45:27 AM

+1 Boost

MDarringer: You're reference to "voodoo" is right on the money!

Vehicles crash into other vehicles and into stationary barriers, like overpass walls. Crash test authorities do asinine things like creating reverse-G sleds that accelerate *backwards* quickly, and which are alleged to "simulate" the sudden forward deceleration experienced in a front-end collision.

Sadly, many of these lab "collision tests" don't realistically represent real-world conditions, and they're about as useful as in-lab emission tests are at determining a vehicle's true emissions when driven in the real world.

Thought for the day: In theory, there's no difference between practice and theory, but in practice, there's a big difference between practice and theory.

W124E320 - 12/9/2015 3:17:30 PM

0 Boost

Before long the Fed Gubment will make cars cost so much no one can afford them and folks will still die in crashes. Can you build a car, make it go to speed, crash it and walk away unharmed... I suggest not. The Gubment needs to just stop. Matt, once again, has the answer. Slice the bureaucratic insanity and tell the morons to go get real jobs...

TomM - 12/10/2015 8:01:58 PM

+1 Boost

TO MDarringer

I think one problem you failed to mention is that these "Accident avoidance" systems are largely expensive options or offered only on high end models or more expensive cars.

In what was largely crash testing - the price of the car may have affected the crash tests some - but the manufacturers have been working to reduce weight on their larger cars - so it was not a clear - pay your money to get the result. In the case of the accident avoidance systems - it now is CLEAR that they want to separate the Everyday Drivers from the higher priced points - making all car more expensive - to what point. With the loss of the American Middle class - they cannot afford these more expensive cars anymore