ANCAP Safety Garbage!

Originally posted by jeremycbrowne ↑

I wrote the following eminently sensible question to ANCAP, the alleged car safety people.

"Why don’t you cover visibility in your ratings? In modern cars the windows are getting smaller, the sills are getting higher and the rear window is becoming little more than a peephole. If you can’t see everything around you, then you clearly have an unsafe car."

In response, Maddison Lambert from ANCAAP responded with,

"Hey Jeremy, Thank you for your email. The How Safe Is Your Car website displays ANCAP and Used Car Safety Ratings. ANCAP star ratings indicate the level of safety a vehicle provides for occupants and pedestrians in the event of a crash, as well as its ability — through technology — to avoid or minimise the effects of a crash. The visibility of each vehicle is therefore not covered in ANCAP ratings. The Used Car Safety Ratings are determined through the independent analysis of real-world crash statistics. They provide an indication of the relative protection from death or serious injury provided to the driver of the vehicle in a crash. Whilst visibility isn’t explicitly called out in the UCSR’s the structure and design of a vehicle are considered in determining the crash avoidance rating; if the visibility provided by a vehicle was consistently poor resulting in crashes where the driver was significantly injured this would likely be reflected in the vehicles crash avoidance rating.

To which i naturally responded with,

"What is the point of any ‘safety’ rating if it ignores the most fundamental aspect of actual vehicle safety, ie, visibility? If you cannot see around you then obviously your chances of being involved in a crash are greatly increased. Clearly, a vehicle’s structural strength is only relevant if you are hit. Are you really endorsing technology as a fix to stop accidents? Why learn to drive if technology will save the day? How long will it be before we are totally reliant on computers to prevent accidents? ( And what about hackers taking control of your vehicle?) Tell me, if you hit someone with a reversing camera and the camera is faulty who is responsible? Apparently not the driver.Nor do you have anything to say about pedestrian responsibility to avoid accidents. If a drunk idiot steps out in front of your car, according to your stats that vehicle is less safe in that scenario. Why isn’t it the drunks fault? Autonomous braking? If you don’t know when to stop your car then clearly you shouldn’t have a licence. How long will it be before you demand all cars with a safety rating that you deem poor be banned?"

If our' ANCAP 'safety experts' think that car visibility can only be addressed by technology then they don't care about car safety at all.

Expand

Adding to the lack of visibility in many modern cars ie Holden Cruze is a very wide A pillar ( the pillar that goes between the windscreen and the front door)
The A pillar is so wide that it makes it difficult to see pedestrians as they can often be in the blind spot the A pillar creates .

And also modern cars especially SUVs have high bonnets that do not slope which increases the seriousness of an injury to pedestrians and cyclists .

There are some European manufactures (VW) that take pedestrian safety into account when they design cars and have crushable bonnets (hoods) but most seem ambivalent as you infer ANCAP has a narrow focus on driver survivability which does not take into account pedestrians or cyclist survivability as third parties