Quality Criteria for the Safety Assessment of Cars Based on Real-World Crashes

Conflicting Ratings and Enhanced Consumer Information

Report of Sub-Task 4.2

CEA/EC SARAC II

QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE SAFETY ASSESSM OF CARS BASED ON REAL-WORLD CRASH

Funded by the European Commissi

Directorate General TR

SARAC II

Quality Criteria for the Safety Assessment of Cars based on Real-World Crashes

Project Number: SARAC_2_215

REPORT of Sub-Task 4.2

Conflicting Ratings and Enhanced Consumer Information

Brian Fildes, Anthony Clark and Jim Langford

Monash University Accident Research Centre Melbourne, Australia

November 2005 CEA/EC SARAC II

QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE SAFETY ASSESSM OF CARS BASED ON REAL-WORLD CRASH

Funded by the European Commissi

Directorate General TR

International Project Management

Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) Prof. Dr. Klaus Langwieder SARAC Members

European Commission (EC) Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) DG TREN 26 Boulevard Haussmann 28 Rue Demot FR-75009 Paris B-1040 Brussels Monash University Helsinki University of Technology Accident Research Centre (MUARC) Laboratory of Transportation Engineering Building 70, P.O. Box 2100 Clayton, 3800 Victoria, Australia FIN-02015 HUT, Finland BMW Group Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen Centro Zaragoza Vehicle Safety (BASt) Instituto de Investigación Sobre D-80788 München Brüderstraße 53 Reparación de Vehiculos, S.A. D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach Carretera Nacional 232, km 273 E-50690 Pedrola (Zaragoza) DaimlerChrysler AG Department for Transport FIA Foundation for the Automobile D-71059 Sindelfingen Zone 1/29a Great Minister House and Society 76 Marsham Street 8 Place de la Concorde London, SW1P 4DR United Kingdom Paris 75008 France Ministry of Transport and Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre FOLKSAM Insurance Group Communications of Finland (VALT) Research/Traffic Safety P.O. Box 31 Bulevardi 28, S-106 60 Stockholm FIN 0023 Helsinki FIN-00120 Helsinki German Insurance Association (GDV) Honda Motor Europe Safety Data Analysis (SDA) German Insurance Institute for Traffic Wijngaardveld 1 Automotive Safety Office (ASO) Engineering 9300 Aalst Belgium Köln-Merkenich / Spessartstraße Friedrichstrasse 191, D-10117 Berlin D-50725 Köln Insurance Institute for Highway ITARDA IVT Heilbronn Safety (IIHS) & Institute for Traffic Accident Research Institut für Verkehrs- und Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) and Data Analysis Tourismusforschung e. V. 1005 N. Glebe Road Kojimachi Tokyu Bldg. 6-6 Kojimachi, Kreuzäckerstr. 15 Arlington, VA 22201 USA Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 102-0083 Japan D-74081 Heilbronn Japanese Automobile Research Laboratory of Accidentology, Loughborough University Institute (JARI) Biomechanics and Human Behaviour Vehicle Safety Research Centre 2530 Karima, Tsukuba PSA Peugeot-Citroën/ Holywell Building Loughborough Ibaraki 305-0822, Japan (LAB) Leicestershire LE 11 3 UZ UK 132 Rue des Suisses 92000 Nanterre (France) National Organisation for Automotive Swedish Road Administration (SRA) Technische Universität Safety and Victims Aid (NASVA) Röda Vägen Braunschweig 6-1-25, Kojimachi Chiyoda-Ku, S-78187 Borlange Institut für Mathematische Stochastik Tokyo, 102-0083, Japan Pockelsstr. 14 D-38106 Braunschweig Verband der Automobilindustie (VDA) Volkswagen AG Westendstr. 61 1777 Unfallforschung D-60325 Frankfurt/Main D-38436 Wolfsburg

CEA/EC SARAC II

QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE SAFETY ASSESSM OF CARS BASED ON REAL-WORLD CRASH

Funded by the European Commissi

Directorate General TR

Document Retrieval Information

Report No. Date Pages SARAC_2_215 November 2005 28

Title and Subtitle Conflicting ratings and enhanced consumer information

Author(s) Fildes B., Clarke A. and Langford J.

Performing Organisation Monash University Accident Research Centre Building 70, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 3800 Australia

Sub-Task Participants Pilot Brian Fildes Monash University Accident Research Centre Sub Contractors Timo Ernvall Helsinki University of Technology Jens-Peter Kreiß TU Braunschweig Max Cameron Monash University Accident Research Centre Advisors Robert Zobel Volkswagen Brian O’Neill IIHS Paul Fay Ford Anders Kullgren Folksam Insurance Thomas Hummel GDV Matthew Bollington Dept. Transport, UK

Abstract

This report set out to briefly review anomalies in ratings across one prospective and two retrospective systems to examine the extent of variable information provided to consumers by these different systems. The findings showed overall good concordance between systems, although these were a number of instances where ratings differed across these systems. A second task was to outline a computer-based web system to readily provide safety information for consumers as well as software to assist new vehicle buyers in their choice of a new vehicle with an emphasis on its crashworthiness and crash avoidance characteristics. Such a system is described here and it is recommended that resources be provided to develop and introduce this system and maintain its accuracy and usefulness for safety choice and promotion within Europe.

Keywords: VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, SAFETY, RESEARCH, CRASH ANALYSIS

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of CEA, GDV or any of the participants of the SARAC committee.

CEA/EC SARAC II

QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE SAFETY ASSESSM OF CARS BASED ON REAL-WORLD CRASH

Funded by the European Commissi

Directorate General TR

Acknowledgements

The authors are especially grateful to the assistance provided by members of the SARAC committee for their valuable contributions in the provision of additional materials and review comments during the preparation of this report.

With regard to the Website development, the authors wish to thank David Logan for his valuable input in the development of the system, David Ng for his technical support and for providing Java code framework for search functions, and Clay Douglas for his support and advice throughout the design of the website itself.

We are thankful to Joanne Tziotis for her assistance with the material used on the non-concordance of rating systems.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2 NON-CONCORDANCE OF RATING SYSTEMS...... 4 2.1 RATING SYSTEMS ...... 5 2.1.1 The “Which” Secondary Safety Rating System ...... 5 2.1.2 The AutoPlus Safety Rating System ...... 7 2.2 SUMMARY...... 7 3 ENHANCED CONSUMER INFORMATION...... 9 3.1 CONCEPTUAL VEHICLE SAFETY INFORMATION WEBSITE ...... 9 3.1.1 Research Objective ...... 10 3.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRINCIPLES ...... 10 3.3 MENU STRUCTURE...... 11 3.3.1 Introduction ...... 11 3.3.2 High Level Menu Structure ...... 11 3.3.3 Mid Level Site Structure...... 12 3.3.4 Low Level Site Structure...... 13 3.4 PAGE LAYOUT ...... 14 3.4.1 Introduction ...... 14 3.4.2 Partitioning of Information...... 14 3.4.3 Search Function...... 15 3.4.4 Colours...... 15 3.4.5 Sub-Menu Software ...... 16 3.5 SAFETY INFORMATION...... 17 3.5.1 Introduction ...... 17 3.5.2 Content ...... 17 3.6 VEHICLE CRASH PERFORMANCE INFORMATION ...... 18 3.6.1 Introduction ...... 18 3.6.2 User Interface ...... 18 3.6.3 Database...... 21 3.6.4 Content ...... 21 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 22 4.1 DEGREE OF NON-CONCORDANCE...... 22 4.2 ENHANCED CONSUMER INFORMATION...... 23 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 23 5 REFERENCES ...... 25

CEA/EC SARAC II Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The objectives of this SARAC Subtask were to identify the risk of confusing consumers over non- concordance of safety information and how safety rating information could be enhanced.

The first task compared the safety ratings produced for a range of modern vehicles using two different safety-rating systems, one using visual inspection techniques and the other, insurance crash data, with crash test results generated through the EuroNCAP test program.

While there were a number of anomalies in the ratings using these various systems, overall, there was a high degree of consistency too in their results. Minimising these inconsistencies is important for ensuring that consumers embrace safety ratings as an integral part of buying a new vehicle. Such an initiative will help promote vehicle safety more widely in the community and ensure that the current push for manufacturers to provide ever-increasing safer new vehicles continues.

The second task undertaken in this Subtask was to outline a computer-based internet website of relevant information with a user-friendly interface to provide ready access to up-to-date information of the benefits and limitations of new safety technology on new cars and SUVs. In addition, the website was intended to provide a search engine, capable of selecting particular makes and models of new cars and SUVs that match an individual’s safety and particular purchase criteria.

Such a system was outlined in Chapter 3 of this report. It contained 3 sections: 1) access to existing prospective and retrospective ratings of vehicles, 2) access to a range of safety feature information to inform motorists on how these systems work, and their potential to reduce injuries and/or crashes, and 3) an interactive system to enable purchasers to specify various vehicle-related features of importance to them when choosing a new vehicle. The program would then list all suitable production vehicles that meet their criteria, thereby helping to streamline their buying decision and at the same time promote safety as an integral part of that decision.

Recommendations

It was recommended that steps be taken to further develop the web-based system outlined in this report and make it accessible to all new vehicle buyers in Europe. To ensure it continues to provide the latest information on safety and other relevant new car features, it will require an ongoing commitment to regularly update the information available. Given the diversity of safety features as standard and optional equipment in new vehicles, it may need to take account of what country the system is directed at. In this regard, a small pilot program would be a useful first step in its development.

1 CEA/EC SARAC II Executive Summary

2

CEA/EC SARAC II Introduction

1 Introduction

The objectives of Subtask 4.2 were to identify the risk of confusing consumers over non- concordance of safety information and ways in which safety rating information could be enhanced. Two separate tasks were undertaken during the course of this research, namely:

• An examination of the extent of different ratings across and within 2 or 3 prospective and retrospective systems (an analysis of the extent of non-concordance of safety ratings between prospective and retrospective rating systems in Europe); and

• A limited review of www systems and opportunities for providing enhanced consumer information.

Anomalies in the assessment of the safety of passenger vehicles across the various rating systems have the potential to confuse car buyers and downgrade the value of these systems generally. A previous SARAC report (Fildes, Fitzharris and Langwieder 2001) briefly examined anomalies in ratings across one prospective and retrospective system in Europe to illustrate the extent of variability in the ratings these different systems. This work needs to be extended in terms of potential differences across systems and ways to address them. Chapter 2 will attempt to address this issue.

Without access to detailed scientific information, consumers have little knowledge or appreciation of the advantages and benefits of new safety technology (eg: ESP, Brake Assist, ISA). One option to address this is to establish a website of relevant information with a user-friendly interface to provide ready access to up-to-date information of the benefits and limitations of new safety technology on new cars and SUVs. In addition, the website could provide a search mechanism capable of selecting particular makes and models of new cars and SUVs that match an individual’s particular purchase criteria. Chapter 3 outlines such a model for consideration for implementing in Europe.

3 CEA/EC SARAC II Non-Concordance of Rating Systems

2 Non-Concordance of Rating Systems

The earlier SARAC 1 report on amalgamating real-world and crash test ratings by Fildes, Fitzharris and Langwieder (2001) raised the issue of the potential for conflict of information from multiple vehicle rating systems. They noted that people trained in public relations and education stress the need for simple format and clear presentations when dealing with the general public if we expect them to understand and subsequently respond to our messages appropriately. They claimed it is easy to create confusion in the way people understand and interpret these findings and stress that simple and meaningful should override other scientific considerations. They argued that it is critical not to confuse the target audience or they will simply ignore the information being presented.

To illustrate the potential for conflicting information, Fildes et al (2001) compared the safety ratings for five vehicles rated by the used car crashworthiness system at MUARC and from earlier ANCAP crash test ratings in Australia and these results are presented in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Comparison of real world crashworthiness classification and NCAP classification

Comparison Vehicle Real world Category NCAP Injury Evaluation2 NCAP Overall Evaluation2 Classification1

Vehicle A – large Significantly better than Poor (injury only); frontal Not available average only

Vehicle B – large Better than average Poor (OPT Driver Marginal (OPT Driver tested) Airbag tested) Poor (no airbag tested) Poor (no airbag tested) Frontal and Offset Frontal and Offset

Vehicle C – large Better than average Not available Not available

Vehicle D – medium Better than average Not available Not available

Vehicle E – small Average Poor Marginal (No airbag) Frontal and Offset

1. CW Categories: Significantly better than average; Better than average; Average; Worse than average, Significantly worse than average 2. NCAP categories: Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Poor: Representation has since moved to the star system

These results showed little overlap between the NCAP evaluations and real world crash ratings. This was true of both the injury NCAP component and the overall NCAP rating. They pointed out that this comparison was not very extensive but one that a consumer is likely to come across when purchasing a vehicle if presented with both sources of information.

The comparison shown in Table 2.1 was not very comprehensive; it involved only three vehicle in fact and the comparison was confounded as both systems use different classification labels. The authors argued of the need to examine the non-concordance more extensively in any future research in this area.

4 CEA/EC SARAC II Non-Concordance of Rating Systems

2.1 Rating Systems

The analyses of real world crash data (retrospective ratings) and experimental controlled crash testing of vehicles (prospective ratings) both aim to provide consumers with information on the relative safety of individual passenger vehicles. While it can be argued that prospective tests compare new vehicle performance and retrospective tests compare used vehicle performance, consumers use this information more widely when deciding on the purchase of a new car. Indeed, as major structural changes in passenger car designs are relatively rare, this practice is not generally too problematic.

The small indicative study reported by Fildes et al (2001) compared the ratings of vehicles across the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) with similar findings published by MUARC’s Used Car Safety Ratings. While little correspondence was found between the ratings for the 3 models compared, it would be useful to examine this effect more comprehensively using other rating systems.

2.1.1 The “Which” Secondary Safety Rating System The Which? magazine was first published in the UK in 1957 by a charity UK Consumers' Association. They produce 100s of reports annually on everything from audiovisual equipment to cars... from computers to domestic appliances... from food issues to legal advice... from travel to personal finance. Their objective is to provide objective information to allow consumers to make informed and confident choices in a fair consumer world.

In March 2003, they published the Car Safety League Table listing the crashworthiness of a range of European vehicles including super-minis, medium and large cars and MPVs using the Secondary Safety Rating System, first developed by Gloyns and Rattenbury (1988). Using this system, a team of experts assess new cars in the fleet using up to 57 safety features for each vehicle they inspect. It is understood that they assign a crashworthiness score for each vehicle, based on its potential to protect its occupants using essentially a visual inspection and published data on feature effectiveness.

These results were then compared with corresponding EuroNCAP star ratings for the same vehicle. The EuroNCAP star rating for each vehicle is based upon its crash performance using crash test dummies in an offset frontal and side impact collision, and currently varies from zero (poor) to 5-stars (excellent) performance.

Table 2.2 shows the results for these two rating assessments for the same make and model vehicles.

5 CEA/EC SARAC II Non-Concordance of Rating Systems

Table 2.2: Comparison of “Which” Secondary Safety Rating System with EuroNCAP

Which Which SuperMinis Star Rating Medium Cars Star Rating Rating Rating 1.6 10 VW Beetle 2.0 10.5 Ford Fiesta 1.4 9.5 VW Bora 1.9D 10.5 Ford Fabia 1.4 9.5 1.8 10 VW Polo 1.2 9.5 1.6 10 1.2 9 VW Golf 1.6 10 Seat Ibiza 1.4 9 Stilo 1.6 10 VW Lupo 1.4 9 Audi A3 1.6 9.5 Citroen C3 1.4 8.5 Peugeot 307 1.6 9.5 Mini Cooper 1.6 8.5 Renault Megane 1.6* 9.5 Yaris 1.0 8.5 Toyota Corolla 1.6 9.5 Honda Jazz 1.4 8.5 Alfa Romeo 147 1.6 9.5 Fiat Punto 1.9dsi 8 Seat Leon 1.6 9.5 Corsa 1.0 8 Subaru Impreza 2.0 9.5 Seat Arosa 1.4 8 Liana 1.6 9.5 1.3 8 Mecedes A-Class 1.4 9 Vauxhall Aglia 1.0 8 Almera 1.6 9 Peugeot 206 1.1 7.5 1.6 9 Ford Ka 1.3 7.5 Toyota Prius 1.5# 9 Rover 25 1.6 7.5 Audi A2 1.4 8.5 1.0 7 Citroen Xsara 1.8 8.5 Peugeot 106 1.1 6.5 Hyundai Accent 1.3 8.5 Citroen Saxo 1.1 6 Neon 2.0 8.5 Suzuki Alto 1.0 4 323 1.3 8 Rover 45 1.4 8 Rio 1.3 7.5 Proton Wira 1.5 6.5 Which Which Large Star Rating MPVs Star Rating Rating Rating Volvo S60 2.0 12.5 Toyota Avensis Verso 2.0 11 Saab 9.3 2.0# 12.5 Honda Stream 1.7 10.5 Jaguar X-type 3.0 11.5 Nissan Almera Tino 1.8 10.5 2.0 11.5 Chrysler PT Cruiser 2.0 10.5 Mercedes C-Class 2.0 11 Peugeot 307 SW 1.6 10.5 1.6 11 Toyota Corolla Verso 1.8 10 Audi A4 2.0 11 Renault Scenic 1.6 9.5 1.8 11 1.8 9.5 IS200 2.0 11 Hyundai Matrix 1.6 9.5 BMW 3 Series 1.9 10.5 Toyota Yaris Verso 1.3 9.5 1.8 10.5 Citroen Picasso 1.6 9 Honda Accord 2.0 10.5 1.6 9 Nissan Primera 1.8 10.5 Fiat Doblo 1.2 9 1.8 10.5 Fiat Multipla 1.6 8.5 Skoda Superb 1.8 10.5 Mitsubishi Space Star 1.3 8.5 Citroen C5 1.8 10 Skoda Octavia 1.8 10 VW Passat 2.0 10 Peugeot 406 2.0D 10 Toyota Avensis 2.3 10 Mazda 6 2.3 10 Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 9.5 1.8 9 Fiat Marea 2.0 9 Mitsubishi Carisma 1.8 8.5 Daewoo Nubira 2.0 8

6 CEA/EC SARAC II Non-Concordance of Rating Systems

While not wanting to comment on the validity and robustness of these two rating systems, it is clear hopefully that they do give different directions about the inherent safety of many of these vehicles. It should be pointed out that there was a general trend that a vehicle that rated highly in one system tended to rate highly in the other which is encouraging. However, there were also a number of exceptions to this suggesting that these information sources do provide a degree of non-concordance and therefore the possibility to confuse consumers. Of course, many of these differences can be explained in scientific terms but consumers can often overlook these technical subtitles.

2.1.2 The AutoPlus Safety Rating System In 2003, the AutoPlus Magazine also published ratings attributing the safety of a number of European makes and models based on an analysis of 7 years of crash-related Macif French insurance data covering 5 million insured persons (Autoplus 2003). They claimed that these figures were based on crashes involving material damage and body injuries and were a true reflection of occupant protection. However, it is not clear from this publication the degree to which these ratings were adjusted for a range of exposure measures.

Table 2.3 shows these findings, along with corresponding EuroNCAP ratings for the same vehicles as shown in the previous analysis. Again, there was a general trend that safe vehicles in one system tended to be safe in the other too. However, the degree of this correspondence is somewhat questionable and overlooks the fact that consumers are generally interested in only a single or a few vehicles where statistical robustness is less important.

2.2 Summary

These results show that vehicles that rated as safe in one of these retrospective systems were generally rated as safe in EuroNCAP results. There were some inconsistencies in some of the vehicle ratings across both retrospective systems. No claims are made about the statistical significance of these findings as this exercise was only intended to show the extent of differences between both types of systems. Moreover, it is unclear the degree to which either of these systems control for extraneous influences such as crash speed, occupant differences and injury severity, hence the reliability of their findings.

7 CEA/EC SARAC II Non-Concordance of Rating Systems

Table 2.3: Comparison of AutoPlus Safety Ratings with EuroNCAP

AutoPlus AutoPlus Mini Cars Star Rating Compacts Star Rating Rating Rating

Toyota Yaris 43.6 Peugeot 307 36.1 Peugeot 206 44.4 Audi A3 40.8 Fiat Punto II (2000+) 44.9 Opel Astra (1999+) 41.2 (2001+) 47.6 Honda Civic (1991-2001) 46 Citroen Saxo 49.1 Ford Focus 47.1 Nissan Micra (1993-2002) 49.7 Citroen Xsara & Picasso 47.4 VW Polo (1995-2001) 52.2 Renault Megane & Scenic 52.4 54.8 VW Golf & Bora 54 Renault Clio II (1999+) 57.8 Fiat Bravo & Brava 54.6 Ford Fiesta (1996-2002) 59.7 Citroen Berlingo/Peugeot Partner 55 Peugeot 106 60.5 Citroen ZX 55.9 Opel Corsa (1993-2000) 63.4 (2) 58.9 Seat Ibiza (1993-1999) 63.8 Rover 200 & 25 62.1 Punto I (1994-1999) 66.7 Toyota Corolla (1991-2001) 63 Renault Clio I (1991-1998) 67.4 Peugeot 306 65.9 VW Lupo/Seat Arosa (1) 67.4 Opel Astra (1991-1998) 66.5 Peugeot 205 69.3 VW Golf (1992-1997) & Ventro 69.1 Fiat Uno 72.4 & Orion 70.8 Ford Fiesta (1991-1995) 72.5 Peugeot 309 76.1 Renault Supercinq 74.6 Renault 19 77.9 AutoPlus AutoPlus Family Star Rating MPVs Star Rating Rating Rating

Citroen C5 21.3 Peugeot 607 23.2 Renault Laguna II (2001+) 26.9 Volvo S70 & V70 38.6 Volvo S40 & V40 30.4 Audi A6 (1998+) 41.5 Alfa Romeo 156 37 (1997-2002) 47.9 Citroen Evasion/Fiat Ulysse/ Ford Mondeo II (2001+) 38.7 49.2 Peugeot 806 VW Passat (1998+) 43.4 Mercedes E-Class (1996-2002) 53.8 /Seat Alhambra/ Toyota Carina 46 54.1 VW Sharan Audi A4 (1995-2001) 47 BMW 500 (1996+) 55 Ford Mondeo (1993-2000) 47.8 55.9 Peugeot 406 48.5 Opel Zafira 56.5 Mercedes C-Class (1993-2000) 51.3 Renault Espace (1990-1996) 57.8 Opel Vectra (1996+) 53.2 Fiat Multipia 58.6 Skoda Octavia (1996+) 53.8 Chrysler Voyager (1996-2001) 59.8 Peugeot 405 54.4 Renault Laguna I (1994-2000) 55.6 BMW 300 series (1999+) 62 Citroen Xantia 63.1 Opel Vectra (1991-1995) 71.3 VW Passat (1991-1997) 77.1 Renault 21 77.7 From Best to Worst: Serious Body Injury Rates per 1000 Accidents

8 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

3 Enhanced Consumer Information

Consumers regularly call safety organisations seeking information about which car is the safest. A number of consumers have reported difficulties knowing what safety features are available in cars and their relative merits. The provision of vehicle safety information using the World-Wide-Web is rapidly developing in a number of countries. An opportunity exists to provide enhanced safety information to consumers using the electronic media. One model for providing detailed information on vehicle safety features and their benefits is outlined below for consideration.

3.1 Conceptual Vehicle Safety Information Website

Consumers regularly call safety organisations around the world seeking information about which car is the safest and what the benefits are for the range of safety features offered by car manufacturers in today’s models. Many consumers have reported difficulty understanding what these safety features offer in the way of improved safety and the relative merits of one feature over another.

Various data are available on the benefits of safety features in cars and the way in which this technology works in reducing crashes or injuries. These data have proved useful in informing consumers and thereby aiding their decisions on whether to spend the extra money required on the purchase price when these features are optional fittings.

Consumers are often confused in choosing which car best suits their needs, given the plethora of information available and the enormity of the task confronting many new car buyers. In addition, they often have an inherent distrust of the information given to them by dealers in terms of its reliability and accuracy. Independent sources of information and means of simplifying this would be of considerable benefit to consumers when faced with the decision of which car they should buy.

The provision of vehicle safety information using the World-Wide-Web is rapidly developing in a number of countries and is gaining in popularity among the community. Hence, an opportunity exists to provide enhanced safety information to consumers using the electronic media.

Moreover, through the use of selection routines, it is possible to provide consumers with a hierarchical choice model to simplify their decision process about car purchase. In setting such a system up, it is also a means of ensuring that safety is a predominant criteria in their choice of car.

9 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

3.1.1 Research Objective The objective of this SARAC Subtask is to examine the feasibility of establishing a website of relevant information with a user-friendly interface to provide ready access to up-to-date information of the benefits and limitations of new safety technology on new cars and SUVs. In addition, the website should provide a search mechanism capable of selecting particular makes and models of new cars and SUVs that match an individual’s particular purchase criteria.

3.2 Site Description and Principles

The SARAC Conceptual Website was constructed to raise awareness among consumers with regards to automotive safety. This is to be achieved through providing consumers with information regarding the safety performance of new and used vehicles. As a complementary task to the afore mentioned task, is to provide information on what safety features vehicles contain, how they work, and the effectiveness of the system.

Other supporting information to be provided is information about the SARAC group, as well as information regarding testing procedures used to evaluate vehicles. All of this information must be presented in an easily understood and accessible manner, such that the average consumer can understand the material presented. The first phase of this is to develop an intuitive menu structure that allows rapid and easy menu navigation of the site. It is recommended that in doing this, menu titles and categories must be carefully worded to avoid using safety jargon, instead using more commonly understood phrase.

Due to the conceptual nature of the SARAC SafeCar website, it must highlighted that while some ergonomic principles have been taken into consideration, it has by no means been thoroughly designed to all website design principles. Therefore, it is highly recommend that future development should take into consideration as many ergonomic design principles as possible. This is particularly important with the bulk of information to be presented on this site, as easily navigable pages and menu structures are critical to successful presentation of material.

With such menu structures in mind, the web page was developed with the following concepts in mind:

• No single page should leave the user trapped, i.e. no blind links

• High-level menus should be present on all pages

• Menu and information location should be consistent across the website

10 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

• Pages should not have distracting animations to detract from important information.

• Where possible, provide the user with high-level information, before having to make more detailed menu selections.

• Progressively add more detailed information as you travel down the menu tree.

• Use graphics to support and highlight text where possible.

• Use as little text as possible

• Remove all unnecessary jargon

• Make the pages as easily navigable as possible

• Design the page to a resolution such that it not required by the majority of users to scroll sideways to view all information (750 pixels was chosen in this case)

• Limit information such that the users do not require excessive scrolling down to view all materials.

While the concept web pages do not necessarily adhere to all the above-mentioned guidelines, they should be taken into consideration for the consumer available version. For example, the bulk of the text content provided, has not been edited for general consumption, instead this content represents a means of displaying what information on the topic could be displayed on each page. Likewise menu headings have not been optimised for usability, and in most cases will require significant rewording to make them understandable for the community. Generally though, the page layout, page formatting, menu interaction and site structure self-imposed guidelines were followed as closely as possible during the web structure design stage.

3.3 Menu Structure

3.3.1 Introduction With the complex amount of information to be presented on this website, it was decided that the only way of satisfactorily navigating the website would be through a structured menu system. It was considered prudent to keep the numbers of menu levels as minimal as possible though, as users can become ‘lost’ deep within menu structures. With this in mind the menu structure described in this section was develop through a number of iterations to increase usability and decrease visual clutter.

3.3.2 High Level Menu Structure Using brainstorming techniques it was possible to map the proposed content and it’s location within the site. This was done by assessing the functions that the web page was to achieve

11 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

and conceptually design a menu structure that would allow easy navigation throughout the web site. From this concept map, it was possible to resolve the top layer menu structure, based on the needs of the menu beneath.

To aid usability it was considered advantageous to have this high level menu structure as a consistent feature on every page to allow easily return to high level menu locations. Included within this menu were buttons that would allow the user rapid access to locations such as the homepage, frequently asked questions or information about the SARAC group. As a result the menu structure shown in Figure 3-1 was generated after considering a number of combinations.

Figure 3-1. High-level menu structure bar to be included on every page.

With the menu structure shown in Figure 3-1, it was decided to create two main entry points into the website, such that one menu entry point (vehicle comparison) contains the vehicle search function while the other (vehicle safety features) provides safety systems information. Obviously both menu titles will need refining, with the intention that the average user can intuitively understand what each menu heading contains.

3.3.3 Mid Level Site Structure With the top-level menu structure finalised, it was then possible to refine the website structure below. Within the Vehicle Comparison thread, it was possible to divide the search functions into two categories. The first search function interface (see Section 3.6.2) will allow the user to search for information regarding a specific vehicle, or class of vehicles. The second search function will allow the user to search for vehicles based on what safety features they contain.

The Vehicle Safety Feature thread will allow access to vehicle safety systems information and the systems effectiveness. It was foreseen that a large number of pages would be required to display all the necessary information, thus a logical menu structure was needed. The safety systems to be presented were categorised as to the type of safety system that they represented; i.e. Passive, Active, User Interface, Vehicle Compatibility or Post Impact systems. The mid-level structure is displayed in Figure 3-2.

A description of the type of information that each mid-level category contains, was included on the main entry point “Vehicle Safety Features” as a means of providing a guide to the user (Figure 3-3). While having to explain menu categories is not ideal, it was used as a means of dividing the vast amounts of information into more acceptable chunks.

12 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

Figure 3-2: Diagram showing mid-level menu structure, with main menu header bar.

Figure 3-3: Category descriptors on the Vehicle Safety Features page.

3.3.4 Low Level Site Structure

The large amounts of information provided in the Vehicle Safety Features Categories again required further sub-categorisation of information within the lower menu structure. Within this low level menu, information about the topic selected would be presented to the user (Figure 3-4). While this seems a complex way of accessing information, the menu software used (see Section 3.4.5) allowed intuitive rapid access to information for the user. The information

13 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

pages within the concept website were developed as static web pages, although the pages could be drawn dynamically from a database for the public available site.

Figure 3-4: Lower level menu structure and relationship to mid-level menu.

3.4 Page layout

3.4.1 Introduction A well thought out page layout is critical to reduce visual clutter on web page. This is important in concisely presenting information that the reader can more effectively absorb without getting distracted. The use of colours and partitioning of information can effect the interaction of the website, and make users more likely to absorb more information, or alternatively leave the site. The SARAC Concept Website page layout was designed using common web page formatting to aid familiarity for the user.

3.4.2 Partitioning of Information A page template was developed for the conceptual site, as a facilitator to having consistent looking pages. Each page was divided into four main regions; the header bar, main menu, sub menu and output regions (Figure 4-1). The majority of high-level interaction with the site occurs through the menus located in the main menu and sub-menu areas, with information for menu selections being presented in the output regions. Sub-set choices can then be made in the output page, such as cross-linking to other sections of the site for more

14 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

information. It was considered that using this page division technique should be familiar with most common use on the web.

Figure 3-5: Shows a web page divided into regions for information delivery and user interaction.

3.4.3 Search Function A search function, while not included on the concept page, should be included to allow rapid search for items of interest within the web site. This search function would ideally be located in the main menu bar for ease of user access. It is suggested that the search feature could use a drop down approach so as not to require compaction of the main menu bar. Another benefit that the drop down function will aid is that of reducing the visual clutter of the page (Figure 3-6).

Figure 3-6: Main menu bar displaying how the drop down search feature could be incorporated.

3.4.4 Colours Colours were chosen carefully as a means of dividing information and sections. The website is to provide consumer information on a serious topic, and therefore the colours selected should reflect this. Subdued colours including black and dark blue was selected as the

15 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

prominent colours on the web page. Colours were also contrasted to generate visual separation between various regions within the page layout.

For where large volumes of test were located, black text on white backgrounds was selected to give maximum contrast. As black on white is commonly used for most educational content, it was felt that this would help to reduce the readers eyestrain. Headings colours were chosen as contrasting colours to the main body of the text, while still providing a large degree of readability as seen in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7: Use of colours to divide interaction regions on each web page.

3.4.5 Sub-Menu Software The sub-menu was generated using software by PVII called Pop Menu Magic (www.projectseven.com). This software was used to automatically write the Java code required to generate the interactive menu required for the sub-menu. Pop Menu Magic integrates seamlessly with the web site development software; Macromedia Dreamweaver, and is highly recommended for its ease of use.

Pop Menu Magic offers two main types of menu structures, a horizontal or vertical menu structure, with the vertical menu structure being chosen to fit within the desired page layout. As seen in Figure 3-8, the menu starts off as a high level menu selection point, followed by a second menu which expands to contain individual pages of information. At the higher menu level, seen on the left in Figure 3-8, a means of returning to the previous page was included to reduce the chance of a user being trapped in lower menus. In the case displayed in Figure 3-8, the return function is to the Vehicle Safety Features page in bold on top of the menu structure.

16 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

Figure 3-8: Shows the Pop Menu Magic menu structure in compacted and expanded format

3.5 Safety Information

3.5.1 Introduction Having developed the menu and page layouts for the website it is now time to turn attention to the information to be presented to the user. The information to be presented must be easily digestible by the user and allow rapid scanning for items of interest. As the website presented in this report is a concept only, the information presented is not sufficiently edited for release to the public. The following section describes how the information should be presented and the content to be included.

3.5.2 Content The safety content information to be presented should be formulated in such a way that it can be easily understood by the public. It was intended that the information presented would contain the following on each safety feature:

• Outline on how the safety system works

• System availability

• Effectiveness of the system on injury reduction

It is important that each section remains as jargon free as possible to allow the public to understand how each safety system is of a benefit to the public. Following this, the text should also remain as concise and direct as possible, as the majority of people using the web, tend to skim read for information of importance rather than read large chunks of text.

It was expected that each safety feature description would also contain a link that would allow a rapid search for vehicles that contain the feature described (Figure 3-9). In this way a consumer can read about a feature that they would find desirable in a car, then link that

17 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

feature to a vehicle. Where available it was considered good practice to include a diagram or graphic to illustrate important information on the safety features design.

Figure 3-9: Safety information page showing link to vehicle search feature.

3.6 Vehicle Crash Performance Information

3.6.1 Introduction A major focus of the SARAC Conceptual Website is to provide the general population with information regarding real-world used car crash ratings. This is to be provided through a database that the user can search to find information regarding a vehicle of interest. The following section describes the design and development of a proposed search interface and return of the information to the user.

3.6.2 User Interface The vehicle search function has two separate entry points for the user as seen in

Figure 3-10. The first access point allows searches for a user defined vehicle brand or model. In this way, the user can find information on the safety feature that a specific vehicle contains, the real-world crash and NCAP test results for that vehicle. The second access point is to search for vehicles, based on a single or combination of safety features that they would find desirable in a vehicle. Other bounding criteria, such as vehicle type and engine size are also included as a means of greater specifying a type of vehicle that the consumer

18 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

may be interested in. Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12 show the search criteria for each entry point. It should be noted that a single field entered should return a list of results, such that the user can enter as little or as much information as desired to search upon.

Figure 3-10: Shows the two entry point for the website search function.

Figure 3-11: Shows the selection criteria for the safety feature search function

19 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

Figure 3-12: Shows the selection criteria for the vehicle search function.

The information is then returned in a summary sheet of the vehicle and it’s crash performance as well as general vehicle information as seen in Figure 3-13. The user can then select the vehicle to reveal detailed information about the vehicle, including model specific safety features in the vehicle, as well as performance and other detailed vehicle specifications (Figure 3-14).

Figure 3-13: Displays the summary sheet for each vehicle that fits the user defined search criteria.

20 CEA/EC SARAC II Enhanced Consumer Information

Figure 3-14: An example of the detailed information provided for each vehicle.

3.6.3 Database To efficiently access vehicle information and allow rapid searches, it is highly recommended that a database be used to store vehicle information. This will allow rapid inclusion of information and new vehicles with little or no additional modifications required for search web pages. Using static pages to provide this search function would be difficult and very inefficient way to access the required information for such large data sets. For this concept web page, static web pages were used as a means of providing a rapid solution for demonstration purposes with the search function provided returning pre-sorted data sets.

3.6.4 Content The information for the database, particularly for safety features on older vehicle can be sketchy, and will require significant research to find useful safety based information. While it easy to obtain data for vehicle specifications from the web, typically the only safety features that are mentioned are those relating to . Less obvious features such as pretensioners and load limiters are frequently not mentioned in general database specifications found online. It will thus probably be necessary to contact manufacturers to acquire vehicle safety specifications, if a complete database is to be constructed.

21 CEA/EC SARAC II Discussion and Recommendations

4 Discussion and Recommendations

This report set out to identify consumers understanding of safety and to address ways in which safety rating information could be enhanced. Two tasks were undertaken during the course of this research. First, to examine the extent of non-concordance of safety ratings between prospective and retrospective rating systems in Europe; and second, to review World-Wide-Web systems and opportunities for providing enhanced consumer information. The results from these two exercises will be discussed separately.

4.1 Degree of Non-Concordance

As noted earlier in this report, anomalies in the assessment of the safety of passenger vehicles across the various rating systems could have the potential to confuse car buyers and downgrade the value of these systems generally. A previous SARAC report (Fildes, Fitzharris and Langwieder 2001) briefly examined anomalies in ratings across one prospective and retrospective system in Europe to illustrate the extent of variability in the ratings these different systems. This work was extended in terms of potential differences across systems and ways to address them.

When results from the “Which” Secondary Rating System published in the UK and the Netherlands and those of the same vehicles in EuroNCAP showed a degree of variation in the ratings of some vehicles. In general, though, these variations were relatively minor as there was a fairly strong trend that a vehicle that rated highly in one system, also rated highly in the other. Similarly, the findings from the AutoPlus retrospective Safety Ratings with the prospective EuroNCAP ratings similarly showed a degree of consistency albeit of more variation than the “Which” Secondary Rating System results.

No claims were made about the statistical significance of these findings. This exercise was only intended to show the extent of differences between ratings from both types of systems. It was also unclear from the descriptions of both these retrospective systems the degree to which they were able to control for extraneous influences such as crash speed, differences in the age or sex of the occupants, and the level of injury severity. Without such control, it is not possible to judge their robustness compared with other systems examined in the SARAC research program (refer to Subtask reports 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2). Moreover, the correlation between EuroNCAP and European retrospective rating systems reported by Newstead, Delaney, Cameron and Watson (2006) with good control over some of the extraneous factors at best only showed a moderate correlation between the two rating systems. This leaves open the question of how these non-concordances might influence potential new car buyers.

22 CEA/EC SARAC II Discussion and Recommendations

4.2 Enhanced Consumer Information

Without access to detailed scientific information, consumers have little knowledge or appreciation of the advantages and benefits of new safety technology (eg: ESP, Brake Assist, ISA). One option explored here was to address this by establishing a website of relevant information with a user-friendly interface to provide ready access to up-to-date information of the benefits and limitations of new safety technology on new cars and SUVs. In addition, the website could provide a search mechanism capable of selecting particular makes and models of new cars and SUVs that match an individual’s particular purchase criteria.

Such a system was outlined in Chapter 3 of this report. It contained 3 sections: 1) access to existing prospective and retrospective ratings of vehicles, 2) access to a range of safety feature information to inform motorists on how these systems work, and their potential to reduce injuries and/or crashes, and 3) an interactive system to enable them to specify various aspects of importance to them in the choice of a new car, and then allow the program to list all suitable production vehicles that meet their criteria.

While some existing web-based systems do provide some of these features to assist new car buyers, what is proposed here is a comprehensive website with a strong focus on safety and tools to promote and assist new car buyers place a greater emphasis on safety when buying a new vehicle. Such a system does not appear to currently exist from the research carried out in this Subtask.

4.3 Recommendations

The major finding from this research effort relates to the need to ensure buyers have access to tools to simplify purchasing decisions and help promote the advantages of buying the best safe vehicle within their means.

• The EU should as a matter of high priority establish a web-based internet system promoting safety information and software to assist new car buyers in their purchasing decisions of new cars. The system outlined in Chapter 3 should be developed and promoted within Europe.

• Such a rating system will require an ongoing commitment to regularly update the information available and monitoring what safety features are available as standard and optional equipment in new vehicles in European countries.

• In this regard, a small pilot program would be a useful first step in its development.

Obviously, there is a continuing need to ensure that safety rating systems to the best of their abilities do not present conflicting safety rating systems as this will act to confuse motorists and potentially turn them away from valuing and using such systems. This would have a

23 CEA/EC SARAC II Discussion and Recommendations

negative effect on safety promotion worldwide. It is not sufficient to expect motorists to read and understand the fine print behind such systems as many of the caveats require quite a high level and sophisticated understanding of statistics.

• The EU should initiate further research to investigate how the comparisons between retrospective and prospective ratings in Europe could be improved.

24 CEA/EC SARAC II References

5 References

AutoPlus (2003). Safety ratings based on retrospective analysis of Macif French insurance data, March 2003, Website: www.autoplus.fr Fildes, Fitzharris and Langwieder (2001). Aspects of amalgamating real-world accident data with crash test ratings, Report S2-4_06f, CEA/EC SARAC, Quality Criteria for the Safety Assessment of Cars Based on Real-World Crashes, Paris. Gloyns and Rattenbury 1990. The PVII InfoBase, Website: www.projectseven.com, accessed 8/07/05 Which ? Magazine (2003). European Secondary Safety Rating System Which? Care Safety League Table – March 2003; Website www.which.co.uk Newstead, Delaney, Cameron & Watson (2006).

25 Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) Commission of the European Communities (EC)

International Project Management Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) Prof. Dr. Klaus Langwieder

Australia Japan Monash University Accident Research Centre National Organisation for Automotive Safety Belgium and Victims Aid (NASVA) Honda Motor Europe Institute for Traffic Accident Research and Data Analysis France (ITARDA) FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) Laboratory of Accidentology, Biomechanics Spain and Human Behaviour, Centro Zaragoza, Instituto de Investigación Sobre PSA Peugeot, Citroen, Renault Reparación de Vehiculos Finland Sweden Helsinki University of Technology Swedish Road Administration (SRA) Ministry of Transport and Communication of Finland Folksam Insurance Group Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre (VALT) United Kingdom Germany Department for Transport Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt) Loughborough University (VSRC) German Insurance Association (GDV) USA Institute for Applied Transport and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Tourisme Research (IVT) Technische Universität Braunschweig BMW Group DaimlerChrysler AG Ford Motor Company Volkswagen AG Verband der Automobil Industrie (VDA)