Michael Case RACV Michael Griffiths Jack Haley Michael Paine Became
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EVOLUTION OF AUSTRALIAN NCAP RESULTS PRESENTATION Michael Case RACV Michael Griffiths Road Safety Solutions Jack Haley NRMA Ltd Michael Paine Vehicle Design & Research Australia Paper Number 98-Sl l-0-04 ABSTRACT The first two series of ANCAP results were presented using head and chest injury criteria, with This paper traces the evolution of the methods a human figure colour-coded included to indicate of presentation of Australian NCAP (ANCAP) injury levels. The detailed dummy measurements results to consumers. were included in the back of the information brochure and this convention has been retained to ANCAP commenced in 1992 and has now tested the present (ANCAP [I] & [2] ). over 60 vehicle models. The first two series of results in 1993 and 1994 were presented with an The frrst two ANCAP public brochures included emphasis on NCAP criteria such as HIC and chest both the results and the full technical report on each deflection measurements, with a colour-coded vehicle test. The third publication was separated human figure included to indicate injury levels. into a mini-brochure for consumersand a detailed The detailed dummy measurements were included report for technicians (ANCAP [3] &[4]). in the back of the information brochure and this convention has been retained to the present. The full injury results presentation was felt to be too technical for most consumers so for the next The concentration on NCAP injury criteria was four releases of data the primary rating system felt to be too technical for the intended general became the risk of life threatening injwy. The first audience so for the next four releases of data the three of these releases retained the colour-coded primary rating system became the risk of lif human figure (ANCAP [5-71). th?eateninginjuT (>AIS 3) calculated as per the NHTSA algorithm, although the first three of these In 1994 the US Insurance Institute for Highway releases retained the colour-coded human figure. Safety (IIHS) began conducting vehicle offset tests and publishing the results in a traditional consumer At this time the US Insurance Institute for format of Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Poor. Highway Safety (IIHS) began NCAP offset tests ANCAP focus group research revealed that the and published the results in a more traditional IIHS format was preferred by consumers and consumer format. ANCAP focus group research ANCAP adopted this format in late 1996 (ANCAP revealed that this format was preferred by general [g-13]). readers, so ANCAP adopted this consumer format as of November 1996. 2. PRESENTATION DEVELOPMENTS The Euro NCAP group began publishing its 2.1 Need for Improved Presentation offset and side impact test data in February 1997 using a star rating similar to the NHTSA system. The first 1993 release of ANCAP results only ANCAP is working with Euro NCAP and other reported the full frontal tests. The inclusion of international NCAP groups towards a c&mnon offset tests in 1994 doubled the available rating system. information, which made useful interpretation by the average motorist more difftcult. Although colour coded, the summary table of results in the 1 INTRODUCTION ANCAP small car report presented a considerable amount of information. ANCAP was introduced to provide new car buyers with useful information about the relative NHTSA consumer focus group studies found occupant protection of popular vehicles on the that consumers wanted information on crash tests in Australian market. This information influences a non-technical, easily understood form. NHTSA consumer demand and encourages manufacturers to reported that consumers could understand design safer v&icles. information expressed simply in terms of ‘risk of injury’. However, it indicated they were confused ANCAP commenced in 1992 with the fi.rII by technical data sheets and dummy output frontal test as used by the US NCAP since 1978. parameters that needed interpretation, particularly An offset test using the EEVC deformable barrier was added in 1994. 2‘ 420 where these have a logarithmic relationship to the 2.4 Application of Simplified Presentation risk of injury. Australian NCAP chose to use the 100 point risk 2.2 Simplified Presentation rating in its four wheel drive and van release. This format was published in a mini-brochure titled The on-going ‘success of ail NCAP groups relies Buyer’s Guide to Vehicle Crash Tests (ANCAP on optimising consumer understanding. This could [4]). A sample page is iliustrated in Figure 2 of the only be achieved in Australia by simplifying the Appendix. This brochure received favourable format in which ANCAP presented test results, By feedback from consumers about its “user- adopting and extending some recent US NCAP friendliness”. developments in presentation, improved levels of’ consumer comprehension were expected. 2.5 Industry Response In 1993, NHTSA began to publish NCAP The motor vehicle industry in Australia supports results expressed as star ratings. These are the intention of ANCAP in providing consumer calculated using injury risk functions which directly information on vehicle safety but has some relate measured dummy parameters to figures of life reservations about the testing process. These threatening injury risk. include allegations that there is a lack of repeatability and that the impact speeds are too One disadvantage of the NHTSA star rating high. scheme is that thle star cut-off values chosen result in discrete bands of safety performance. Vehicles 2.5.1 Repeatability with scores at either end of a performance band, if not ranked in some other way, are lumped together ANCAP has some repeat data available which is as having the one level of safety. summarised below. Tests conducted in Australia have shown good consistency of results. Table 1 US NCAP ody went as far as combining head below provides results of NCAP repeat tests for and chest dummy parameters of full frontal tests.. HIC which show that these results are repeatable ANCAP needed to combine head and chest readings within 10 percent. fdr full anJ offset frontal testing for both driver and front passenger. Table 1 - ANCAP Report Test Data Monash University Accident Research Centre Vehicle HIC Variation (MUARC) research indicates that frontal crashes Test 1 1 Test 2 % make up approximately 60 percent of the total Daihatsu Charade 960 1050 9.4 serious and fatal injury car crashes in Australia. Of Nissan Micra 820 900 9.8 all frontal crashes around one half are of the offset Mitsubishi Mirage 640 608 5.0 type. Using these data, risk of injury scores for full Ford Laser 860 871 1.3 and offset test cases were combined to establish an Ford Probe (US 724 784 8.3 overall risk score which simulates ‘real world’ results) frontal crashes. ‘This was achieved by applying the Ford Probe (US 102.5 994 3.0 same injury risk functions used by NHTSA in results) calculating its star rating scores. 2.5.2 Test speeds 2.3 The 100 Point Injury Risk Scale Only about 17 percent of fatalities and 37 Injury risk values can be directly expressed on a percent of AIS 4+ injuries occur at crash speeds up 100 point scaie. This represents the risk of life to 48 km/h (30 mph), the speed commonly used in threatening injury for a weighted combination of regulatory tests around the world, including full and offset frontal crashes based on relative real Australia. Up to the NCAP full frontal crash speed world incidence. A plot of Injury Risk scores based of 56 km/h (35 mph) the fatalities and injuries on the NCAP 4;WD results, released in 1994 is figures become 25 percent and 53 percent, and up shown in Figure: 1 of the Appendix. Scores are to the NCAP offset tests speed of 64 km/h (40 shown ranked by driver results. mph), they are 59 percent and 73 percent respectively. NCAP test speeds therefore cover far Interpretation is consistent with the test dummy more of the serious crashes experienced on-road output parameters themselves (ie higher scores mean a higher risk outcome) and with the real world than do the regulatory speeds. MUARC Crashworthiness Ratings results (MUARC 1998). Australian research shows that at the full frontal regulatory speed there is little difference in HIC between the models. Once the speed is raised the 242 1 differences become much more significant and it is off media releases, whilst achieving a short much clearer which vehicles protect their occupants term high profile, only provide communication better. span of approximately a day Or SO. Having brochures summarising the results on 2.6 Marketing Plan prominent stands in motoring organisations, and vehicle registering and driver licensing The ultimate aim of any NCAP is to provide offices. These outlets provide long term access marketing incentives for vehicle manufactures to to the test results, but consumers need to be build in state of the art/world’s best practice aware of their availability and have ready occupant protection systems, by convincing access to such offices. consumers to give buying preference to above- Conducting seminars specifically aimed at average safety performance and particularly not to vehicle fleet managers, risk managers, buy vehicles with below average crash test results. occupational health and safety officers and the vehicle insurance industry. The response to Accordingly, there is not much point in having these in Australia has been very good and the an NCAP unless:- advantage of targeting fleet managers is that the . it is easy for consumers to understand which is control of a large number of vehicle purchases the safest car for their purposes; can be effected through one contact in a large . the relative safety information is presented in a organisation. compelling manner; Establishing an intemet web site where all of . consumers can make practical use of the the test results, including short segments of information to effect their car buying decisions, video of the crash tests, can be accessed and they are motivated to do so by the way the (www.nrma.com.au) material is presented.