|
|
The ANCAP Review After 10 years, what next? The Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) has been operating for 10 years. Initially it was scorned by vehicle manufacturers but in recent times with an increasing number of vehicles achieving 4 and 5 star crash test results, some manufacturers and distributors are actually using the ANCAP results to promote vehicle sales. During the past decade there has been a dramatic improvement in vehicle safety which has been the purpose independent crash testing. Those improvements lead to the question of what next for ANCAP?
ANCAP - A short history
Since 1993 the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) has been crash testing passenger cars and publishing results to provide new vehicle buyers, when making a purchasing decision, with independent advice on occupant protection. Over the period the program has been operating there have been significant improvements in occupant protection provided by some passenger cars while other models have shown smaller improvements.
Since the introduction of ANCAP, consumer crash testing has expanded in the US, through the IIHS conducting offset frontal tests and the US NHTSA adding side impact tests to their program of continuing full frontal crash tests. Consumer crash testing has also been introduced in Japan. The Japanese NCAP includes information on primary safety features including braking performance.
In 1999 ANCAP harmonised with Euro NCAP. Euro NCAP conducts offset frontal tests, side impact tests and pedestrian impact tests. Harmonisation with Euro NCAP meant a deletion of the full frontal crash test and the addition of a side impact crash test to the ECE standard. Deletion of the full frontal test was appropriate due to the introduction of ADR 69 (full frontal test at 48 km/hr) to all passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in the late 1990’s.
The offset frontal test conducted by Euro NCAP, a 40 % offset frontal crash into a deformable barrier at 64 km/hr has been conducted by ANCAP since 1995. The Australian Design Rules has the same test, except at a lower speed of 60 km/hr. This test simulates colliding with another vehicle.
The Euro NCAP side impact test, which is the same as the regulatory test, comprises running a 950kg trolley with a deformable barrier into the driver’s side of the test vehicle at 50 km/hr. The 950 kg trolley simulates being struck in the side by a representative European vehicle.
A pole test is also available as an optional test to be conducted at the manufacturer’s expense if the vehicle performs well in the side impact test and is fitted with head protecting side airbags. The test vehicle is run sideways into a rigid steel pole, lined up with the driver’s head, at 29 km/hr.
Pedestrian impact testing is also carried out to provide an estimate of the injuries sustained by a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 40km/h.
Since harmonisation with Euro NCAP, results for 23 additional vehicles (as outlined in Table 1.) have been published in Australia and New Zealand. This represents a saving in excess of $2.5 million making the joint relationship with Euro NCAP of real value.
Table 1 Number of Results published by ANCAP since Harmonisation with Euro NCAP
Analysis has shown that, on average, the occupant protection in new passenger cars has improved since the introduction of ANCAP testing in 1993. There have been improvements across all classes of vehicles tested and ANCAP results now have HICs of less than 500. This is due to ANCAP, dynamic test ADRs and also manufacturers’ own in-house standards.
However, this does not take in account the wide variations of occupant protection offered by different models within each category or the volumes of each model sold.
From the high proportions of poor performing vehicles from the early test series we are now seeing many four star cars. Large family cars now consistently achieve at least three star results and the next large car update is likely to be comprised mainly of four-star vehicles.
Improvements in small car results have been less pronounced and delayed. But the small cars being tested now by Euro NCAP are consistently achieving four star safety results.
The most recent ANCAP crash test program, Compact 4WDs, released in December 2002 (with an update in March 2003) showed a very high proportion of 4 star results Table 2). One vehicle, the top of the range Subaru Forester, received the first 5 star result for a vehicle tested by ANCAP. The Forester joins the Renault Laguna, Renault Megane, Mercedes C Class, Mercedes E Class and Saab 9-3 as cars that have achieved 5 stars from Euro NCAP.
Table 2 Compact 4WD Results Released in Dec 02 (incl. Mar 03 update)
The Future for ANCAP
These trends indicate that four and five stars will eventually be the standard using the current protocols. ANCAP crash test ratings will then cease to be relevant if they remain in their current form. If the majority of vehicles start to achieve four and five star results ANCAP may no longer be providing a useful consumer comparison and ANCAP will no longer fulfill its mission to ‘facilitate improvements in motor vehicle occupant protection’.
While it has been identified that ANCAP still has a role to play in encouraging improvements in vehicle safety an objective measure of satisfactory fleet performance should be used to determine when it is appropriate implement new strategies.
There is a danger of incorporating new test procedures on an ad-hoc ‘good idea’ basis.
There is a danger of incorporating new test procedures on an ad-hoc ‘good idea’ basis. This approach does not offer the highest likelihood of fulfilling the mission. And it is important that a systematic process for assessing options is used.
There is a range of options for modifying the current test procedures (and/or updating the scope of the consumer information program). The following is not an exhaustive list but identifies the major options.
Option 1. Introduce rollover tests for 4WDs
There has been considerable discussion of the need for a rollover test over the last couple of years. Major international conferences such as the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 2001 conference held in Amsterdam and the International Journal of Crashworthiness 2002 conference held in Melbourne included many papers on rollover crashes and proposals for rollover crash tests.
There are at least the following options for rollover tests:
Option 2. Pole Test for vehicles where side impact test is irrelevant
The current side impact test is not relevant to high vehicles (essentially where the top of the seat cushion is more than 700 mm above the ground) such as 4WDs and commercial utilities. This option is to use the pole test, currently used by Euro NCAP for a 5th star, to assess the side impact protection.
Option 3. Increase severity for side impact test
The current side impact test does not result in a significant range of results for the vehicles tested. To increase the severity of the side impact test, and increase the potential for a greater range of test results, ANCAP could increase the speed of the test to 55km/h, i.e. the same test speed as Japan NCAP. This test would still be irrelevant for high vehicles. The pole test would be needed to meet the aim of increasing the severity of the side impact test for these vehicles.
Option 4. Include active safety
Including an assessment of active safety features will mean a major change in mission of ANCAP changing from a program aimed at improving occupant protection to more of an overall “vehicle safety program”.
Option 5. In-vehicle ITS
ANCAP could consider including an assessment of in-vehicle ITS to promote the use of new and emerging vehicle technologies that will benefit vehicle occupants in both pre and post crash aspects, such as crash avoidance and crash notification.
new and emerging vehicle technologies that will benefit vehicle occupants in both pre and post crash aspects, such as crash avoidance and crash notification.
However, similar to active safety ANCAP would need to develop robust objective assessment and rating criteria.
Option 6. Vehicle Accessories
ANCAP could expand through an assessment of vehicle features (not necessarily ITS) that contribute to safety, e.g. speed warning, fit of child seat, voluntary fitting of ABS / traction control. Euro NCAP are going in this direction with the introduction of additional points for a seat belt warning system.
When considering the options available for ANCAP the major issues that need to be considered are costs and implications of moving too close to a subjective “safe vehicle” program. The current budget limitations will need to be considered, as it is doubtful if ANCAP could attract many additional stakeholders who have sufficient funds to allow a dramatic escalation of ANCAP finances.
The implications of a "safe vehicle" program need to be considered
If ANCAP adopted an approach that moves to a “safe vehicle” program the implications for both state governments and motoring clubs need to be considered separately as there may be different impacts. This type of program may be seen as state governments promoting one product over another based on a subjective assessment. While it may seem to be “doubling up” by some of the auto clubs whose motoring magazine already provide some of this information via road tests articles.
Conclusion
ANCAP has played a significant role in the improvement of occupant protection levels offered by Australian passenger cars with a significant proportion of vehicles now achieving four star safety results. Soon a stage will be reached where the fleet performance is sufficiently high so as to reduce the ability to distinguish levels of safety. At this stage ANCAP needs to be ready to implement new methods to assess vehicle safety and continue to encourage improvements in vehicle safety.
There are a range of options for updating ANCAP procedures including modifications to existing as well as new crash tests. A strategic process that identifies the extent of the safety issue being addressed and the ability of the testing method to address the issue must be used when comparing the options.
|