NHTSA To Factor In Agility Into Crash Ratings – Does This Mean Vehicles With Athletic Abilities Will Top The List?

A crash test, if conducted properly, is great because it answers the question: Should you be in a collision of this type, how will the vehicle perform?

Crash avoidance tests, also known as "agility" tests, are not so clear cut as they require the driver to:
(a) perceive the risk in sufficient time
(b) accurately and quickly assess other factors, such road conditions, available traction, peripheral obstacles, etc
(c) know the proper response and have sufficient training to make the right decision quickly enough
(d) have quick enough reflexes to physically execute the appropriate response quickly enough (sufficient practice and "muscle memory")
(e) have the skills to carry out the avoidance maneuver successfully

As you might notice, although the machinery might have enhanced potential for accident avoidance, the driver might not have what it takes to leverage the available potential and translate it into REAL accident avoidance. We see this in real life with today's performance motorcycles, whose brakes are powerful enough to perform a "stoppie", yet most riders ride right into an incident for failure of (a) knowing and being adept at countersteering, (b) feeling comfortable enough about really leaning the bike over without fear of a lowside, and/or (c) applying both front and rear brakes hard enough in the right proportions to stop the bike in time, or at least to slow it sufficiently to minimize or negate injury due to impact. In laymen's terms: The machine had all sorts of avoidance capabilities that the rider did not use.

We also see the same in today's cars and other four wheelers: If we repeat the same scenario and put a highly skilled, alert, on-the-ball driver in control, we find that many accidents can be avoided, and it's not the vehicle's "collision avoidance tech" that made the difference. It's the driver!

My opinion is by all means, add the additional collision avoidance tech, but:
(a) Keep the "ratings" separate rather than blending them into a single crash test number.
(b) As a driver of a vehicle with such tech, foster driving habits as though the tech were not there. That way, should you ever need it, you will not have negated its potential benefits through your driving style (e.g., increased speed, following closer, being less attentive and alert, etc.)

TheSteve: Great resume, however, for those with good skills and quick reflexes...a nimble car will be a great advantage in crash avoidance.

Your argument is one that's often used in the motorcycle community against ABS on bikes. It's usually paired with "I can stop a bike faster without ABS and with."

In actual tests, with professional and highly skilled riders, they concluded that it's true, but only in very specific circumstances that include ALL of the following conditions:
1. Operator is highly skilled and well practiced
2. Operator is highly alert, knowing he's going to be tested, and anticipating the test
3. Operator has accurately assessed the vehicle, road conditions, risk, evasive maneuver, etc.
4. Operator is on a high-traction surface whose traction properties do not vary
5. Operator is allowed multiple attempts to hone the optimum numbers (e.g., get a feel for the specific tires on the specific surface, and multiple opportunities to refine their maneuver to get the best numbers).

Under these conditions, yes, a rider without ABS can stop a bike faster than the identical bike with ABS. If one of these conditions is removed, then the ABS-equipped bike wins.

The same applies to your assertion about a driver avoiding a crash in a four wheeler. You're right, providing that all 5 conditions are met. Unfortunately, in the real world, the universe NEVER allows a driver to have all 5 conditions in place, especially #5, which allows the driver multiple passes to get the best numbers. In the real world, incidents usually take the driver by surprise, there's a moment of inattention or fatigue, the driver reacts too slowly or does the wrong thing, and so on. Real life sucks compared to the perfect theoretical scenario.

So yea, accident avoidance tech is a often good idea, but you can't guarantee that it'll be used to the best of its potential, or even at all. That's why I feel is a good idea NOT to combine crash avoidance scores with crash scores. They're two very different things.

The NHTSA is trying desperately to appear it has a clue.

Makes no sense. A vehicle's ability to protect its passengers in the event of a crash should be evaluated on worst-case scenarios. There are too many variables that can impact the end-result of a potential or actual crash, namely human reaction and skill.
At the same time, in many cases, drivers of "more athletic" cars tend to drive with a bit more enthusiasm and are a big cause of accidents. Paul Rodas and Paul Walker were in an incredibly "athletic" car.

Indeed. The driver behind the wheel is the key to safety. Perhaps we should have better driver training. I go once a year for the sake of keeping up my skills. At the track, my goal is to be fast. On public streets, I drive like a grandma. I obey speed limits on surface streets and on the freeway I'll exceed by 5mph, but I get passed.

cidflekken.....the Carrera GT is in a completely different class than most athletic cars. It's in the same class as the Dodge Viper and Shelby Cobra - Cars You Only Drive in a Straight Line on a Dry and Sunny Day.

Oh, okay. So that's why Porsche promo'd the car on a racetrack and gave it over 1.0 lateral g. You actually reinforce my exact point. It's based on driver skill and ability (and common sense) which determines the end result. There are tons of Porsche GT's being driven that have not crashed because of the skills of the driver. How many dolts have crashed Lambos because they don't know how to drive them? These cars have the highest level of ability ("athleticism"), but if you don't know how to use it, what good is it?

When the factory test driver as well as race pros say the Carrera GT is scary as hell, chances are it's probably not a car you want to abuse.

Rodas and Walker are dead not because of the Porsche, but because that idiot Rodas was driving in excess of 100mph on a street marked 35mph.

Rodas killed Walker through irresponsibility.

I think you are reading too much into the term "crash-avoidance". Today crash-avoidance systems are auto braking systems that work to either take the driver input out of the picture or to react faster than the driver can. Some detect stopped or slower moving objects, others using vision systems can identify pedestrians crossing in front of vehicle. I would imagine identifying larger animals and people on cycles would also make sense. Electronic Stability control is something else and likely would be hard to put through a reproducible test other than a skid pad test.