a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2005 VEHICLE SAFETY

Opportunities Exist to 

Enhance NHTSA’s 

New Car Assessment 

Program

GAO-05-370
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-370.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact JayEtta Hecker 

at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-370, a report to

congressional committees 

April 2005

VEHICLE SAFETY

Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's 

New Car Assessment Program 

NHTSA conducts three types of tests in the New Car Assessment Program—

full frontal and angled side crash tests and a rollover test. Each year, NHTSA 

tests new vehicles that are expected to have high sales volume, have been 

redesigned with structural changes, or have improved safety equipment. 

Based on test results, vehicles receive ratings from one to five stars, with 

five stars being the best, to indicate the vehicles’ relative crashworthiness 

and which are less likely to roll over. NHTSA makes ratings available to the 

public on the Internet and through a brochure. Other publications, such as 

Consumer Reports, use NHTSA’s test results in their safety assessments. 

Examples of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program Tests 

GAO identified four other programs—the Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety’s program and the New Car Assessment Programs in Australia, 

Europe, and Japan—that crash test vehicles and report the results to the 

public. They share the goals of encouraging manufacturers to improve 

vehicle safety and providing safety information to consumers. These 

programs conduct different types of frontal and side crash tests, and some 

perform other tests, such as pedestrian tests, that are not conducted under 

the U.S. program. Only the U.S. program conducts a rollover test. The other 

programs measure test results differently and include more potential injuries 

to occupants in ratings. They also reported their test results differently, with 

all summarizing at least some of the scores or combining them into an 

overall crashworthiness rating to make comparisons easier. 

NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program has been successful in encouraging 

manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing information to 

consumers. However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to 

change to maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has 

been eroded by the growing number of larger pickups, minivans, and sport 

utility vehicles in the vehicle fleet since the program began. In addition, 

NCAP scores have increased to the point where there is little difference in 

vehicle ratings. As a result, the program provides little incentive for 

manufacturers to further improve safety, and consumers can see few 

differences among new vehicles. Opportunities to enhance the program 

include developing approaches to better measure the interaction of large and 

small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that 

help prevent crashes, and using different injury measures to rate the crash 

results. NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the presentation and 

timeliness of the information provided to consumers. 

In 2003, 42,643 people were killed 

and more than 2.8 million people 

were injured in motor vehicle 

crashes. Efforts to reduce fatalities 

on the nation’s roadways include 

the National Highway 

Transportation Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) New Car 

Assessment Program. Under this 

program, NHTSA conducts vehicle 

crash and rollover tests to 

encourage manufacturers to make 

safety improvements to new 

vehicles and provide the public 

with information on the relative 

safety of vehicles. GAO examined 

(1) how NHTSA’s New Car 

Assessment Program crash tests 

vehicles, rates their safety, and 

reports the results to the public; 

(2) how NHTSA’s program 

compares to other programs that 

crash test vehicles and report 

results to the public; and (3) the 

impact of the program and 

opportunities to enhance its 

effectiveness. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NHTSA 

examine the direction of the New 

Car Assessment Program to ensure 

that it maintains its relevance in 

improving vehicle safety, including 

identifying tests that best address 

the fatalities occurring on the 

nation’s roads. GAO also 

recommends that NHTSA enhance 

the presentation and timeliness of 

the information provided to the 

public. NHTSA generally agreed 

with GAO’s findings. 
Page i GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the 

Results to the Public 9

U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating, 

Reporting, and Government Involvement 20

NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are 

Needed to Maintain Its Relevance 37

Conclusions 58

Recommendations for Executive Action 58

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 59

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 62

Appendix II: Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings 67

Appendix III: Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating 74

Appendix IV: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 81

Appendix V: Australian New Car Assessment Program 87

Appendix VI: European New Car Assessment Programme 95

Appendix VII: Japan New Car Assessment Program 103

Appendix VIII: Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs 112

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 115

GAO Contacts 115

Acknowledgments 115

Tables Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted 64

Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 69

Table 3: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star 

Ratings 91

Table 4: Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test 92

Table 5: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating 92

Table 6: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria 98

Table 7: Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System 99

Table 8: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings 100
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star 

Ratings 100

Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test 106

Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the 

Programs 112

Figures Figure 1: Three Types of Tests—Frontal, Side, and Rollover—

Conducted by NCAP 3

Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side 

NCAP Tests 5

Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP 9

Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP 10

Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP 12

Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP 13

Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of 

Serious Injury to the Head and Chest 14

Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of 

Serious Injury to the Chest 14

Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle’s Top-Heaviness 16

Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of 

Rollover 17

Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on 

NHTSA’s Web Site 17

Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a 

Passenger Vehicle as They Appear on NHTSA’s Web 

Site 18

Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing 

Programs 21

Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test 22

Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test 23

Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs’ Side Test 

(left) and the Insurance Institute Side Test (right) 24

Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier 25

Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test 26

Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test 28

Figure 20: Child Restraint Test 29

Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in 

Frontal Test and Driver in Side Test 34

Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side 

NCAP Tests 38

Figure 23: Frequency of Four- and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and 

Side Crash Tests in 2004 40
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of 

Different Type and Weight 42

Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the 

Side of a Small Vehicle 44

Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance 

Institute Test with the SUV-like Barrier 45

Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle 

Structures 47

Figure 28: Example of Australia’s NCAP Safety Rating 

Information 53

Figure 29: Example of Japan’s NCAP Safety Rating Information 54

Figure 30: Example of NHTSA’s Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck 

with Bar Chart Showing How the Vehicle Performed 

within Its Class 55

Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash 

Vehicles 56

Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and 

Accelerometers 68

Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC 70

Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G 71

Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for 

Frontal Crashes 71

Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve 72

Figure 37: Static Stability Factor of a Passenger Vehicle Compared 

with an SUV 75

Figure 38: Programmable Steering Controller 76

Figure 39: Diagram of the Dynamic Test, Showing Steering 

Parameters 77

Figure 40: Sensors to Detect Wheel-lift 78

Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover 

Ratings 80

Figure 42: Guidelines for Rating Occupant Compartment Intrusion 

Measured in Centimeters 83

Figure 43: Insurance Institute Rating of a Mid-size Passenger Car 85

Figure 44: Insurance Institute Crash Ratings Provided to Public in its 

Status Report Publication 86

Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size 

Passenger Car 93

Figure 46: Australian NCAP July 2004 Crash Test Update 

Brochure 94

Figure 47: European NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger 

Car 101
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 48: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in 

Frontal Test, and Driver in Side Test 101

Figure 49: Test Vehicle Undergoing Brake Tests Under Dry and Wet 

Conditions 105

Figure 50: Pedestrian Head Impact Test and Target Area 106

Figure 51: Japan NCAP Rating of a 2003 Mid-sized Passenger 

Car 109

Figure 52: Example of Japan NCAP Detailed Full Frontal Data 

Available for a 2003 Test 109

Figure 53: Key to Japan NCAP’s Door Openability Ratings 110

Figure 54: Key to Japan NCAP’s Rescueability Ratings 110
Contents

Page v GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Abbreviations

AAAM Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine

ADAC General German Automobile Association (Allegmeiner 

Deutscher Automobil-Club e V)

AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale

c.g. center of gravity

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DOT Department of Transportation

ESC Electronic Stability Control

Euro NCAP European New Car Assessment Programme

HIC Head Injury Criterion

kg kilogram

km/h kilometers per hour

mm millimeter

mph miles per hour

NASVA National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid

NBC National Broadcasting Company

NCAP New Car Assessment Program

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SID side-impact dummy

SUV sport utility vehicle

SSF Static Stability Factor

TREAD Act Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 

Documentation Act

TSRE AB Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB

TTI Thoracic Trauma Index

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Contents

Page vi GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program
Page 1 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 29, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Christopher Bond

Chairman

The Honorable Patty Murray

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, 

 Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg

Chairman

The Honorable John W. Olver

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing 

 and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia,

 and Independent Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United 

States. Yet for all its advantages, deaths and injuries resulting from motor 

vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all persons from 3 

through 33 years old. In 2003, 42,643 people were killed and more than 2.8 

million people were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Frontal crashes 

caused the largest portion of occupant deaths (about 41 percent), followed 

by rollovers and side impact crashes (30 percent and 22 percent, 

respectively). In addition to the loss of life, motor vehicle crashes have a 

high economic cost, which the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) estimated at over $230 billion in 2000, the most 

recent year for which cost estimates were available.1

Efforts to reduce fatality rates in motor vehicle crashes have resulted in 

some improvement. The fatality rate per 100 million miles of travel in 2003 

was at a historic low of 1.48, down from 1.75 per 100 million miles of travel 

1

Economic costs include productivity losses, property damage, medical costs, rehabilitation 

costs, travel delay, legal and court costs, emergency services, insurance administration 

costs, and the costs to employers. For more information, see U.S. Department of 

Transportataion National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Economic Impact of 

Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: May 2002).
Page 2 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

in 1993. The Department of Transportation (DOT) attributes this change to 

several factors, including increased safety belt use, reduction of 

alcohol-related deaths, and vehicle safety programs, including Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP), both run by NHTSA. Under NCAP, which began in 1978, NHTSA 

conducts frontal and side crash tests and rollover tests of new cars, light 

trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) and reports the results to the 

public. The specific goals of the program are to encourage market forces 

that prompt vehicle manufacturers to make safety improvements to new 

vehicles and provide the public with objective information on the relative 

safety performance of vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are regulations that establish 

minimum performance levels that manufacturers must self-certify to in 

order to sell vehicles in the United States. Under the safety standards, 

NHTSA requires vehicles to pass a number of performance tests to ensure 

that the minimum safety level is met. The NCAP frontal and side crash tests 

are based on two of the crash tests carried out under the safety standards. 

However, the NCAP tests are conducted at 5 miles per hour faster so that 

the differentiation between vehicles becomes more apparent. When 

considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA generally follows the rulemaking 

process, which includes seeking informal comments on proposed changes 

before they become effective. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the 

Department of Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 

(S. 1589) directed us to conduct a study of the New Car Assessment 

Program. This report examines (1) how NHTSA’s New Car Assessment 

Program tests vehicles, rates their safety, and reports the results to the 

public; (2) how NCAP compares to other programs that test vehicles and 

report results to the public; and (3) the impact NCAP has had and the 

opportunities that exist to enhance its effectiveness.

To understand NHTSA’s basis for testing and rating vehicles, we reviewed 

laws, regulations, and program documentation. We also conducted 

interviews with NHTSA officials, crash test contractors, vehicle 

manufacturers, trade associations, public interest groups, and independent 

researchers. We observed various vehicle crash tests and documented how 

the results were converted into star ratings. To document how NHTSA 

reports the results to the public, we consulted NHTSA officials, the 

Internet, and other vehicle safety information sources, such as Consumer 

Reports. To compare NHTSA’s program with other crash test and rating 
Page 3 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

programs, domestic and foreign, we interviewed officials of the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety and the New Car Assessment Programs of 

Australia, Europe, and Japan.2

 We also interviewed vehicle safety experts 

and officials of foreign government entities, foreign vehicle manufacturers, 

and foreign consumer magazines such as Which?. To identify the impact of 

NCAP and opportunities for improvement, we analyzed changes in NCAP 

scores over time and obtained views from experts in the auto and 

insurance industries, public interest groups, and academia. We determined 

that NCAP data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In 

addition, we analyzed how other organizations tested vehicles, rated the 

crash tests, and reported their results to the public to identify practices 

from other programs that may have potential application to the U.S. 

program. We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Under NCAP, NHTSA conducts three types of tests on vehicles—a full 

frontal crash test, a side crash test, and a rollover test, as shown in figure 

1.3

Figure 1: Three Types of Tests—Frontal, Side, and Rollover—Conducted by NCAP

2

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications 

organization in the United States funded by the auto insurance industry.

3

The rollover test is nondestructive.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Page 4 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Each year, NHTSA tests a number of new vehicles that are predicted to 

have high sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or 

have improved safety equipment. This practice is designed to ensure that 

NHTSA rates vehicles that consumers are buying. NHTSA develops five 

separate ratings based on the three tests and assigns one to five stars to 

indicate which vehicles are more crashworthy in frontal and side crashes 

and which vehicles are less likely to roll over. NCAP ratings, designed to 

help consumers decide which vehicle to purchase, are available to the 

public on the Internet and through the NHTSA Buying a Safer Car

brochure. NCAP crash results are also incorporated in different vehicle 

safety ratings developed by others, such as Consumer Reports and The Car 

Book, both of which get more extensive distribution than direct NHTSA 

reporting.

We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report the 

results to the public—the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s program 

and NCAP programs in Australia, Europe, and Japan. Like the U.S. NCAP, 

all these programs shared similar goals—providing relative safety 

information to consumers and encouraging manufacturers to improve 

vehicle safety. The three foreign NCAPs conduct different types of frontal 

and side crash tests and conduct pedestrian and child restraint systems 

tests that are not conducted under the U.S. program. The Insurance 

Institute also conducts different frontal and side crash tests than NHTSA’s 

NCAP. Only the U.S. program conducts a rollover test. Each vehicle testing 

program also measures test results differently than the United States For 

example, in addition to the data provided by the crash test dummies in the 

vehicles, inspectors in other programs examine vehicles after crash tests to 

determine if there was intrusion into the passenger compartment or other 

abnormalities and adjust the test score accordingly. These other programs 

also report their testing results to the public in a different manner. While 

the U.S. NCAP reports results for each crash dummy by their seating 

locations in the crash test, all of the other programs summarize at least 

some of the scores or combined them into an overall crashworthiness 

rating in an effort to make it easier for the public to understand the results. 

NCAP has contributed to making vehicles safer, but the program is at a 

crossroads where it will need to change in order to maintain its relevance. 

As shown in figure 2, vehicle safety as measured by NHTSA star ratings has 

improved since the program began. 
Page 5 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP Tests

Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each model year. 

The usefulness of the current tests has been eroded by changes in the 

vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program began. Today there are 

many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs than existed 27 years ago, 

and this has created new safety hazards from the incompatibility between 

large and small vehicles and rollover crashes, which are not fully addressed 

by current NCAP tests. In addition, because most vehicles now receive 

four- or five-star ratings, NCAP tests provide little incentive for automakers 

to continue to improve vehicle safety and little differentiation among 

vehicle ratings for consumers. Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and 

side crash tests in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will 

make current NCAP tests less meaningful. For example, NHTSA is 

increasing the speed of the frontal safety standards to the same speed as 

the NCAP test, eliminating the difference between the frontal NCAP and 

safety standard tests. Opportunities to enhance the program include 

developing approaches to better measure the effects of crashes between 

Frontal star ratings over time Side star ratings over time

Source: GAO analysis of historical NCAP data provided by NHTSA.

0

1

2

3

4

5

1984 1994 2004 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Average star rating passenger

Average star rating driver

1997 2000 2004 

Average star rating Average star rating

Year Year
Page 6 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

large and small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating 

technologies that help prevent crashes from occurring, and using different 

measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to 

enhance the timeliness of the tests and the presentation of the information 

provided to consumers.

We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to 

ensure that NCAP maintains its relevance in improving vehicle safety and 

to enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information provided to 

the public. We received oral comments from NHTSA on a draft of this 

report. In general, NHTSA agreed with the report’s findings. We are also 

making a version of this report available at www.gao.gov, which includes 

video clips of crash tests that are conducted by NHTSA and others.

Background Motor vehicle crashes are complex events resulting from several factors, 

including driver behavior, the driving environment, and the vehicle.4

Vehicle design can affect safety through crashworthiness—that is, by 

providing occupants protection during a crash—and through crash 

avoidance—that is, by helping the driver to avoid a crash or recover from a 

driving error. Vehicle characteristics such as size, weight, and the type of 

restraint system affect crashworthiness because they play a large role in 

determining the likelihood and extent of occupant injury from a crash. 

Vehicle characteristics such as vehicle stability and braking performance 

are examples of crash avoidance features in that they aid the driver in 

preventing a crash from occurring. 

The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was established in response to 

a requirement in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 

1972 to provide consumers with a measure of the relative crashworthiness

4

Driver behavior involves the actions taken by or the condition of the driver of the motor 

vehicle, including speeding and violating traffic laws, as well as the effects of alcohol or 

drugs, inattention, decision errors, and age. The driving environment associated with 

crashes includes roadway design, roadside hazards, and road conditions. Vehicle factors 

that contribute to crashes include vehicle-related failures or design of the vehicle. For 

additional information on the causes of motor vehicle crashes, see GAO, Highway Safety: 

Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes, 

GAO-03-436 (Washington, D.C. : Mar. 31, 2003).
Page 7 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

of passenger vehicles.5 NCAP’s goals are to improve occupant safety by 

providing market incentives for vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily design 

vehicles with improved crashworthiness and provide independent safety 

information to aid consumers in making comparative vehicle purchase 

decisions. NHTSA has pursued these goals by conducting frontal and side 

crash tests and a rollover test, assigning star ratings, and reporting the 

results to the public.6

 In fiscal year 2004, NCAP conducted 85 crash tests 

and 36 rollover tests, with a budget of $7.7 million.7

NHTSA also administers the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.8 All 

motor vehicles sold in the United States for use on the nation’s highways 

must meet minimum safety requirements as required by the standards. The 

standards prescribe a minimum performance level for crashworthiness that 

vehicles must meet in a number of different crash tests. Auto 

manufacturers self-certify that their vehicles meet these minimum 

standards. To test compliance with some of these standards, NHTSA 

conducts 30 miles per hour (mph) frontal impact tests and 33.5 mph side 

impact tests for belted occupants.9

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards tests serve as a foundation for 

NCAP testing. The test protocols for NCAP’s frontal and side crash tests are 

the same as the safety standards, except that the NCAP tests are conducted 

at 5 mph faster. NHTSA’s policy, although not required by law, has been to 

make changes to the safety standards before considering changes to NCAP. 

5

Crashworthiness is defined in 49 USC § 32301 as “the protection a passenger motor vehicle 

gives its passengers against personal injury or death from a motor vehicle accident.” Section 

49 USC § 32302, subsection (a), requires the Secretary of Transportation to “maintain a 

program for developing . . . information on passenger motor vehicles[’] . . . 

crashworthiness.” Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to “provide to the public 

information developed under subsection (a) . . . in a simple and understandable form.” 

6

NHTSA also rates the ease of use for child safety seats under NCAP, which is not included 

in the scope of this report.

7

An additional 16 vehicles were also rated for rollover based on a calculation of their topheaviness. 

8

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: chapter V, part 571) were 

created under section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The 

standards cover a broad range of safety concerns, from windshield wipers and brakes to 

crashworthiness.

9

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and No. 214, for the frontal and side tests, 

respectively.
Page 8 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

When considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA generally follows the informal 

rulemaking process, which includes seeking comments on proposed 

changes. 

NCAP provides consumers with information regarding the crashworthiness 

of new cars beyond the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

with which all vehicles sold in the United States must comply. There are no 

minimum performance levels for the NCAP tests. NHTSA tests as many 

vehicles as possible under NCAP to provide consumers with sufficient 

independent information to make vehicle comparisons. In contrast, NHTSA 

relies on auto manufacturers to self-certify compliance with the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and only conducts a limited number of 

tests to ensure manufacturer compliance.10

NHTSA conducted the first NCAP crash tests in 1978 on model year 1979 

vehicles, measuring only the crashworthiness of passenger cars in frontal 

crashes. Since then, there have been a number of vehicle tests added to 

NCAP, as shown in figure 3. For model year 1983, NHTSA expanded NCAP 

to include light trucks, vans, and SUVs. In 1996, NHTSA first began the 

side-impact NCAP test for model year 1997 vehicles. NHTSA expanded the 

side-impact NCAP test to include light trucks, vans, and SUVs for model 

year 1999. NHTSA began to rate vehicles for their rollover risk beginning 

with the 2001 model year. NHTSA initially rated the risk of vehicle rollover 

by measuring the top-heaviness of a vehicle and comparing this 

measurement to the top-heaviness of vehicles involved in single-vehicle 

crashes, as reflected in crash data. As required by the November 2000 

Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation 

(TREAD) Act, NHTSA began dynamic rollover testing on model year 2004 

vehicles to supplement the measurement of a vehicle’s top-heaviness in 

determining a vehicle’s rollover risk.11

10Vehicle manufacturers face severe civil penalties, potentially expensive vehicle safety 

recalls, and potential legal liability if NHTSA’s testing indicates that a vehicle does not 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

11The dynamic rollover test is a specific driving maneuver. The Static Stability Factor is a 

laboratory measurement.
Page 9 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP

a

Indicates vehicle model year.

b

NHTSA has not always used the star rating system to communicate a vehicle’s crashworthiness as 

measured by NCAP. Previously, NHTSA published the numerical injury scores indicating the likelihood 

of head, chest, and upper leg injuries to the vehicle occupants. NHTSA devised the star rating system 

after the Senate and Conference Appropriations Reports for fiscal year 1992 requested that NHTSA 

improve methods of informing consumers of the comparative safety of passenger vehicles as 

measured by NCAP.

NCAP Crash Tests 

Vehicles, Rates Their 

Safety, and Reports the 

Results to the Public 

NHTSA conducts three types of tests in NCAP: a full frontal crash test, an 

angled side crash test, and a rollover test.12 NCAP ratings, designed to aid 

consumers in deciding which vehicle to purchase, are available to the 

public on the Internet and through NHTSA’s Buying a Safer Car brochure. 

NCAP crash results are also used in developing vehicle safety ratings by 

other organizations, such as Consumer Reports and The Car Book.

NCAP Conducts Three 

Tests—Full Frontal, Side, 

and Rollover

Every year NHTSA tests new vehicles that are predicted to have high sales 

volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have improved 

safety equipment. NHTSA purchases vehicles—the base model with 

standard equipment—for frontal and side crash tests directly from 

dealerships across the country, just as the consumer would. The vehicles 

are provided to five contractors that conduct the crash tests. NCAP crashSource: GAO.

Motor Vehicle 

Information and 

Cost Savings 

Act

NCAP frontal 

tests begin

NCAP frontal 

tests include light 

trucks, vans, and 

SUVs

NCAP begins to 

rate vehicle safety 

using stars in 

response to Senate 

reportb

NCAP side tests 

include light 

trucks, vans, and 

SUVs

NCAP adds 

dynamic rollover 

test as required 

by the TREAD 

Act to rollover 

rating 

NCAP begins to 

rate rollover based 

on measurement 

of a vehicle’s topheaviness

NCAP side TREAD Act

tests begin

1972 1979a 1983a 1994a 1997a 1999a 2004a 2001a 2000

12According to NHTSA officials, they are conducting pilot studies to determine the feasibility 

of conducting more tests under NCAP, including a child seat crashworthiness sled test, 

rating vehicles on how well they protect children, braking, and lighting.
Page 10 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

test ratings only apply to belted occupants, as the crash test dummies used 

in NCAP tests are secured with the vehicle’s safety belts. According to 

NHTSA officials, NCAP crash-test ratings are available on about 85 percent 

of the new vehicles sold because ratings for some models that have had no 

significant safety or structural changes are carried over from year to year. 

For the rollover tests, which are nondestructive, NHTSA leases new 

vehicles, which are tested at one contractor location. Rollover risk ratings 

are available for about 75 percent of new vehicles sold, according to 

NHTSA officials.

Full Frontal Crash Test The full frontal crash test is the equivalent of two identical vehicles, both 

traveling at 35 mph, crashing into each other head-on.13 The test vehicle is 

attached to a cable and towed along a track at 35 mph so that the entire 

front end of the vehicle engages a fixed rigid barrier, as shown in figure 4. 

This type of crash test produces high level occupant deceleration, making 

this test demanding of the vehicle’s restraint system. 

Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP

Click the following link to watch a video of a full frontal crash test 

conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 35 mph: 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v1.mpg

Because the full frontal crash test is equivalent to two identical vehicles 

moving toward each other at 35 mph, the crash test results can only be 

compared to other vehicles in the same class and with a weight that is plus 

13See appendix VIII for a diagram of the full frontal crash test configuration.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Page 11 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

or minus 250 pounds of the test vehicle. The test protocols for the full 

frontal NCAP test are the same as the full frontal belted test in the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, with the exception of the test speed—the 

NCAP test is conducted at 35 mph, 5 mph faster than the standard test.14

Angled Side Crash Test The angled side crash test simulates an intersection collision in which one 

moving vehicle strikes another moving vehicle.15 The test vehicle is 

positioned such that the driver’s side forms a 63 degree angle with the test 

track. On the other end of the test track is a chassis with a barrier also 

turned at a 63 degree angle.16 The barrier is made of a deformable material 

to replicate the front of another vehicle and is attached to a cable that tows 

it down a track into the test vehicle at 38.5 mph. Both the barrier face and 

the driver’s side of the vehicle are parallel, so that the entire face of the 

barrier impacts the side of the vehicle, as shown in figure 5.

14The higher speed creates more crash energy or power and inflicts potentially more damage 

on the vehicle and its occupants. The increased speed also allows differences in 

crashworthiness to be more readily observed. The difference in speed is only 5 mph faster, 

but the total kinetic energy released in a 35 mph crash is 36 percent greater than that 

released in a 30 mph crash. 

15See appendix VIII for a diagram of the angled side crash test configuration.

16NHTSA performs the angled side test because accident data suggests that intersection or 

perpendicular impacts occur with two moving vehicles. To simulate a moving car to moving 

car crash, the angled or “crabbed” side test is used. The test simulates the striking vehicle 

traveling at approximately 34 mph and the test vehicle traveling at roughly half that 

speed—approximately 17 mph—due to the 63/27 degree configuration.
Page 12 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP

Click the following link to watch a video of an angled side crash test 

conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 38.5 mph: 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v2.mpg

Because all vehicles are hit with the same force by the same moving 

barrier, test results can be compared across weight classes. The barrier 

used in this test weighs approximately 3,015 pounds, and the top of the 

deformable face is approximately 32 inches from the ground. The side 

NCAP test is similar to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards test, 

with the exception that the side NCAP test is conducted at 38.5 mph, or 5 

mph faster than the safety standard test.17

Rollover Test The dynamic rollover test simulates a driver making a high-speed collision 

avoidance maneuver—steering sharply in one direction, then sharply in the 

other direction—within about 1 second. NHTSA has focused its rollover 

test primarily on pickups and SUVs because cars are not susceptible to 

tipping up in this test. The rollover test is actually a series of four runs, two 

left/right tests and two right/left tests, at two different steering wheel 

angles and different speeds. Before the test, the vehicle is loaded to 

represent five passengers and a full tank of gas. During the test, the steering 

wheel is turned sharply in one direction at a high speed and then turned 

sharply in the opposite direction at a greater steering angle.18 The first run 

of each test is conducted at 35 mph. Subsequent runs are conducted at 

about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph and 50 mph, until the vehicle fails or “tips 

up” as defined by test procedures or attains a speed of 50 mph on the last 

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

17The safety standard, No. 214, applies to both sides of the vehicle and specifies 

performance requirements for vehicle occupant protection in side crashes. NCAP side tests 

only apply to the driver’s side of the vehicle.

18Appendix III provides additional discussion of the basis for NHTSA’s rollover rating.
Page 13 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

run of each test without tipping up. Tipping up is defined as both wheels on 

one side of the vehicle lifting off the ground more than 2 inches 

simultaneously, which most commonly occurs during the second turn, as 

exhibited in figure 6. Outriggers are attached to the vehicle to prevent it 

from tipping all the way over and injuring the test driver. 

Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP

Click the following link to watch a video of a dynamic rollover test 

conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 48 mph: 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v3.mpg

NHTSA Rates Vehicles by 

Assigning Up to Five Stars 

to Communicate the Results 

of Its Tests

NHTSA separately rates the frontal, side, and rollover tests. It assigns one 

(worst) to five (best) stars to communicate the results of the three tests to 

aid consumers in their vehicle purchase decisions. Each star in the frontal 

and side ratings corresponds to a diminishing probability of a potentially 

life-threatening injury, whereas each star in the rollover rating corresponds 

to a reduced likelihood of vehicle rollover. The rollover rating does not 

represent the chance of a potentially life-threatening injury should a 

rollover crash occur. 

Frontal and Side 

Crashworthiness Ratings

Frontal and side star ratings represent the chances of a person wearing a 

safety belt incurring an injury serious enough to require immediate 

hospitalization or to be life threatening in the event of a crash. Frontal star 

ratings indicate the combined chance of a serious head and chest injury19 to 

the driver and right front seat passenger, as shown in figure 7. 

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

19The head and chest measurements are known as the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) and chest 

deceleration value, measured in Gs.
Page 14 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious Injury to the 

Head and Chest

Side star ratings indicate the chance of a serious chest injury to the driver 

and the rear seat driver’s side passenger, as shown in figure 8.20 NHTSA 

reports two separate star ratings for the frontal and side crash test, 

according to the occupant position.

Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious Injury to the 

Chest

In the side and frontal test, NHTSA uses crash test dummies that represent 

an average-sized adult male. Each dummy is secured with the vehicle’s

20The forces on the dummy’s lower spine and the greater of the accelerations of the lower 

and upper ribs are used in the side NCAP star ratings. These accelerations are averaged to 

produce a measurement known as the Thoracic Trauma Index.

Frontal star rating Chance of serious injury

10 percent or less

11 percent to 20 percent

21 percent to 35 percent

36 percent to 45 percent

46 percent or greater

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Side star rating Chance of serious injury

5 percent or less

6 percent to 10 percent

11 percent to 20 percent

21 percent to 25 percent

26 percent or greater

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Page 15 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

safety belts prior to the crash test.21 The dummies are affixed with 

instruments that measure the force of impact experienced in different parts 

of the body during the crash. While only forces to the head and chest are 

used to calculate the frontal star ratings, impacts to each dummy's neck, 

pelvis, legs, and feet are also measured.22 For the frontal rating, NHTSA 

calculates the chance of serious injury to the head and chest by linking 

measured forces on the dummies’ heads and chests during the crash test to 

information about human injury.23 For the side rating, NHTSA calculates 

the chance of serious injury to the chest by linking measured forces on the 

dummies’ ribs and lower spine during the crash test and information about 

human injury. Forces to the head and pelvis are also measured but are not 

included in side star ratings.

Rollover Rating NHTSA’s rollover star ratings represent the propensity of a vehicle to roll 

over but do not address the probability of a severe injury in a rollover 

crash. Knowing a vehicle’s propensity to roll is important because rollovers 

are the most deadly crashes. While totaling just over 2 percent of police 

reported crashes, rollovers account for almost one-third of all passenger 

vehicle occupant fatalities. The crash avoidance rollover rating is based 

primarily on the measure of a vehicle’s top-heaviness, as shown in figure 9, 

and, to a lesser extent, the results of the dynamic test.24

21The crash test dummies used in the frontal and side NCAP test represent the 50th percentile 

male or the average male in terms of height and weight. The dummy used is approximately 

5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs approximately 170 pounds.

22If these force measurements are sufficiently high to cause serious or life-threatening injury, 

they are reported separately as a safety concern but are not included in the star rating 

calculation. NHTSA does not report tibia and feet measurements as safety concerns because 

there are no agency-approved metrics for these body regions. In side impact tests, forces to 

the head are also measured, though they are not included in the star rating. They are also 

reported separately as a safety concern if considered high.

23See appendix II for more information about how dummy measures and information about 

human injury are combined to develop a probability of injury. 

24NHTSA began rating a vehicle’s risk of rollover in 2001. Rollover ratings between 2001 and 

2003 were based on the measure of a vehicle’s top-heaviness because NHTSA had 

determined that this was a good indicator of rollover likelihood. In 2004, NHTSA began to 

conduct a dynamic rollover test as mandated by the TREAD Act. 
Page 16 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle’s Top-Heaviness

a

The Static Stability Factor (SSF) is a vehicle’s track width divided by two times its center of gravity 

height.

NHTSA uses the measure of a vehicle’s top-heaviness to predict the 

likelihood of a vehicle rolling over under the circumstances that occur 

most often—when a vehicle leaves the roadway and the vehicle’s wheels hit 

a curb, soft shoulder, or other roadway object, causing it to roll over. These 

“tripped” rollovers account for about 95 percent of all rollover crashes. 

NHTSA’s dynamic rollover test does not correspond to these types of 

rollovers because it does not involve the vehicle hitting a tripping 

mechanism, such as a curb or soft shoulder. As such, NHTSA’s dynamic 

rollover test does not affect the star rating significantly, resulting in no 

more than a half-star difference in a vehicle’s rollover rating. NHTSA 

primarily selects top-heavy vehicles, such as light trucks, small vans, and 

SUVs for the rollover test.25 NHTSA assigns one to five stars to reflect the 

chance of rollover, as shown in figure 10.26 

25A vehicle’s Static Stability Factor ranges (SSF) from approximately 1.00 to 1.50, with SUVs 

lying in the lower half and passenger cars lying in the upper half of that range. The lower the 

SSF, the more likely a rollover will occur. For rollover ratings, vehicles are rated using a 

statistical risk model that incorporates both the vehicle’s SSF and its tip or no-tip result in 

the dynamic test. NHTSA does not always subject passenger cars to the dynamic test. For 

some passenger cars, NHTSA imputes or assigns a “no tip-up” if other passenger cars that 

are more top-heavy did not tip up during the dynamic test. NHTSA periodically puts vehicles 

with imputed test results through the dynamic test to verify the no tip-up assignation.

26See appendix III for a more detailed description of the development of the NCAP rollover 

rating.

Center of gravity 

height, H

Track width, T

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

SSFa = T

2H
Page 17 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of Rollover

NHTSA Reports the Results 

to the Public Through the 

Internet and the Buying a 

Safer Car Brochure

NHTSA distributes NCAP safety ratings and information about a vehicle’s 

safety features through its Web site, press releases, and the Buying a Safer 

Car brochure. NHTSA primarily relies on the Web site to educate 

consumers about vehicle safety; in 2004 there were about 4.3 million visits 

to the NCAP Web site. The Web site was last redesigned in August 2004 and 

provides information about crash test ratings from model year 1990 to the 

present.27 To view a vehicle’s ratings, users can search using parameters 

such as vehicle class, year, make, and model. Once a vehicle class and year 

are selected, the list of vehicles comes up with the star rating information, 

as shown in figure 11. 

Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on NHTSA’s Web Site

Rollover star rating Chance of serious injury

Less than 10 percent 

Between 10 percent to 20 percent

Between 20 percent to 30 percent

Between 30 percent to 40 percent

Greater than 40 percent 

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

27NCAP rating information for vehicles prior to model year 1990 is archived and not 

available on the Web site. NCAP information for these vehicles has been converted into star 

ratings and is available to consumers upon request.

Frontal star rating Side star rating Rollover rating

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Driver Passenger Front seat Rear seat 2 wheel drive 4 wheel drive

based on risk of head

and chest injury

based on risk of

chest injury
Page 18 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Users can get more detailed information about the vehicle’s star rating by 

selecting a specific vehicle, as shown in figure 12.

Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a Passenger Vehicle 

as They Appear on NHTSA’s Web Site

In addition to the Web site, NCAP’s star ratings and a list of vehicles’ safety 

features are available in the Buying a Safer Car brochure. The American 

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Drive

Tire size

Dynamic test result

Static stability factor

Chance of rollover 11%

1.37

No-tip*

Front wheel drive

P215/50R17

Driver Passenger

Head Injury Criterion

Chest Deceleration (g's)

Femur Load l/r1 (lbs)

Frontal Crash

268 214

42 43

187/214 805/350

Front seat Rear seat

Head Injury Criterion2 (HIC)

Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI)

Pelvis deceleration2 (g's)

Side Crash

Rollover

288 532

52 67

64 57

Rollover

Rating

1 2 4 5

Star Rating Chance of Rollover* (%)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Chance for this vehicle Range for Passenger Cars

*If involved in a single-vehicle crash

11

1not used in calculating frontal star rating

2not used in calculating side star rating

*

imputed test result
Page 19 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Automobile Association primarily distributes the brochure, and it is also 

available at NHTSA’s regional offices, state highway safety offices, and 

libraries. For vehicle model year 2004, NHTSA published 25,000 copies of 

the Buying a Safer Car brochure. For vehicle model year 2005, NHTSA 

published a first printing of the brochure in December 2004. In addition, it 

plans to print a second brochure in spring 2005. While the 2004 edition does 

not have all the test results for model year 2005, it has a large number of 

carryover vehicles from model year 2004 plus some early 2005 tests.

Other sources of vehicle safety information that use data from NCAP crash 

tests include Consumer Reports and The Car Book. Consumer Reports

takes into consideration a vehicle’s performance in NHTSA NCAP tests and 

tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Insurance 

Institute) to determine an overall crash-protection rating. Instead of 

printing stars, Consumer Reports uses a circle rating scheme. Consumer 

Reports publishes this crash-protection rating, as well as individual NHTSA 

and Insurance Institute front and side crash test results, in its monthly 

magazine, in all of its newsstand-only new-car publications, and on its Web 

site. Consumer Reports magazine has about 4 million subscribers, but 

representatives told us they inform in excess of 13.5 million people 

monthly as a result of pass-along readership. The Web site has an additional 

1.8 million subscribers.

28

Published annually, The Car Book provides consumers with a broad range 

of information about new vehicles, listed alphabetically by model. 

Information such as fuel economy, repair costs, and front and side crash 

tests are included in the book. The Car Book takes the NCAP raw test 

results and converts them into a numerical rating scheme, 10 being best 

and 1 being worst. In addition to the information by vehicle model, The Car 

Book also presents detailed safety information based on the safety features 

of each car and the government’s rollover ratings. Since first being 

published privately for the 1983 vehicle model year, The Car Book has sold 

over 1.5 million copies.29

28Visits to the Consumer Reports Web site include those seeking rating information on an 

array of consumer products, not just vehicle safety.

29The Car Book was originally a government publication. It is now produced commercially.
Page 20 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

U.S. NCAP Differs from 

Other Crash Programs 

in Testing, Rating, 

Reporting, and 

Government 

Involvement

We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report the 

results to the public—the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

(Insurance Institute) program in the United States and NCAP programs in 

Australia, Europe, and Japan.30 All of the programs shared the U.S. NCAP 

goals of providing manufacturers with an incentive to produce safer 

vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information on 

the vehicles they plan to purchase. We found differences in the types of 

tests conducted, how the crash tests were evaluated, and how the test 

results were shared with the public. In addition, we found that each 

program had varied levels of government and industry involvement.

Vehicle Testing Programs 

Conduct Different Tests

Each of the organizations we examined conducts a variety of frontal, side, 

and other tests designed to measure various elements of vehicle safety. 

Figure 13 shows the tests performed across the U.S. NCAP and other four 

programs. (See appendixes II through VIII for additional discussion on 

each program and the tests conducted.)

30The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications 

organization in the United States funded by the auto insurance industry.
Page 21 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing Programs

a

The Insurance Institute conducts a perpendicular side-impact crash test with a SUV-like barrier.

Frontal Crash Tests The five programs we examined use two crash tests to represent frontal 

crashes—full frontal and offset crash tests. The U.S. and Japan NCAPs 

conduct full frontal tests, which involve crashing the test vehicle’s entire 

front end into a solid barrier. The offset frontal test involves crashing the 

test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 kilometers per hour—km/h) into a 

deformable barrier with about 40 percent of the vehicle’s overall width on 

the driver’s side actually impacting the barrier, as shown in figure 14. All 

programs, except the U.S. NCAP, conduct the offset frontal test.

Source: GAO analysis of crash test programs.

Test U.S. NCAP Australia NCAP Euro NCAP Japan NCAP Insurance Institute

Frontal crash tests

 Full frontal crash

 Offset frontal crash

Side crash tests

 Angled side impact crash

 Perpendicular side impact crash

 Pole test

Other vehicle safety tests

 Rollover test

 Pedestrian test

 Child restraint test

Test not performed

Test performed

a
Page 22 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test

Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it is right-hand drive or left-hand 

drive. In the photo shown, the driver is on the right side of the vehicle.

Click the following link to watch a video of an offset frontal crash test 

conducted by Australia NCAP at 40 mph: 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v4.mpg

The full frontal and offset frontal tests measure different characteristics of 

vehicle crashworthiness. The full frontal test focuses on measuring the 

ability of the vehicles’ restraint systems to protect the occupants. The 

offset frontal test assesses a vehicle’s structural integrity and its ability to 

manage the crash energy generated from a crash entirely on one side of the 

vehicle. Officials from the programs using the offset test told us they 

believe it is more representative of real world crashes because most frontal 

crashes involve vehicles hitting only a portion of their front ends. 

Side Crash Tests Three types of side-impact tests are conducted among the programs we 

examined—the angled side test, the perpendicular side test, and the pole 

side test. Only the U.S. NCAP performs the angled side test.31 All of the 

other testing programs conduct a perpendicular side tests. This test 

involves crashing a moving deformable barrier traveling at about 31 mph 

Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Club.
Page 23 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

(50 km/h) into a stationary vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the 

driver’s seating position. Figure 15 illustrates how the perpendicular test is 

performed.

Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test

Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it is right-hand drive or left-hand 

drive. In the photo shown, the driver is on the right side of the vehicle.

Click the following link to watch a video of a perpendicular side impact 

crash test conducted by Euro NCAP at 31 mph: 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v5.mpg 

Other differences between the side tests were the height, shape, and weight 

of the barriers and the crash dummies used. For example, the U.S. NCAP 

and the three foreign programs performed their side tests using a moving 

deformable barrier with a front end simulating a passenger car, while the 

Insurance Institute’s barrier simulates the front end of a typical pickup 

31As discussed earlier, the angled side test involves crashing a 3,015-pound moving 

deformable barrier traveling at 38.5 mph into a standing test vehicle.

Source: Euro NCAP.
Page 24 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

truck or SUV. In addition, the Insurance Institute barrier weighs about 3,300 

pounds (1,500 kilograms—kg) compared to 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the 

U.S. barrier and 2,095 pounds (950 kg) for the Australian, European, and 

Japanese barriers. Also, the Australia, Europe, Japan, and U.S. side tests 

used 50th percentile adult male dummies and the Insurance Institute used 

5th percentile adult female dummies.32

Insurance Institute officials told us they found that in serious real-world 

side-impact collisions, occupants’ heads are often struck by intruding 

vehicles, especially in the side collisions involving pickup trucks or SUVs 

with high front hoods. As a result, in 2003 when they began their side 

impact test, they developed the barrier to simulate these types of vehicles, 

while using dummies that represented smaller occupants. They said that 

the test challenges the automobile industry to provide additional occupant 

protection specifically for the head region. Figure 16 shows the difference 

in the size and height of the barriers, while figure 17 shows the crash test.

Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs’ Side Test (left) and the 

Insurance Institute Side Test (right) 

32The 50th percentile adult male dummy represents an average-sized male, and the 5th

percentile adult female dummy represents a small female or 12-year-old child.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Page 25 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier

Click the following link to watch a video of a side-impact crash test with an 

SUV-like barrier conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety at 

31 mph: http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v6.mpg

The Australia NCAP and European NCAP (Euro NCAP) also include 

optional pole side tests. The pole side test involves a side impact to a 

vehicle placed on a platform and propelled at about 29 km/h (about 18 

mph) into a stationary cylindrical pole. The pole test is an optional extra 

test, available at the manufacturer’s cost. This option is only available if a 

vehicle has head-protecting side air bags and receives the highest score in 

the side-impact test. If the vehicle performs well in the pole test, the vehicle 

can receive a higher overall score. Officials in Europe said this test is 

important, for example, because in Germany over half of the serious to 

fatal highway injuries occur when a vehicle crashes into a pole or a tree. 

The test is designed to encourage auto manufacturers to equip vehicles 

with head protection devices. Officials in Australia stated they are 

considering replacing the perpendicular side test with a pole side test to 

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Page 26 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

better test the increasing number of SUVs on their roadways. They said that 

SUVs are higher off the ground and heavier than most passenger cars. As a 

result, SUVs would always score higher under the current side-impact test 

because the barrier often impacts below the hip point on the dummy and 

would register little injury data. The pole test will impact all vehicles, 

including SUVs, the same way regardless of height and weight. NHTSA 

officials told us that while they have no plans at this time to include this 

test in NCAP, they plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once the 

pole test requirements for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are 

resolved and finalized.33 Figure 18 illustrates how the pole test is 

performed.

Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test 

Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it is right-hand drive or left-hand 

drive. In the photo shown, the driver is on the left side of the vehicle.

Click the following link to watch a video of a side pole crash test conducted by 

Euro NCAP at about 18mph: http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v7.mpg 

33NHTSA has proposed a regulatory revision to its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

214, in which vehicles would have to meet additional performance criteria of a pole side test 

involving a vehicle traveling at 20 mph into a rigid pole at a 75 degree angle.

Source: Euro NCAP.
Page 27 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Other Safety Tests In addition to the frontal and side crash tests, other safety tests are 

conducted in the various programs. These include vehicle rollover, 

pedestrian protection, and child restraint tests. The U.S. NCAP is the only 

program to conduct a vehicle rollover test.34 Officials of the other NCAPs 

told us they do not conduct this test because rollover has not been a major 

problem in their countries due to their smaller-sized vehicle fleet. However, 

Australian NCAP officials told us they have noted a growth in the size of 

their vehicle fleets, and they will be evaluating the usefulness of adding a 

rollover test to their programs.

The NCAPs in Australia, Europe, and Japan also conduct pedestrian tests, 

which are used to assess the risk to pedestrians if struck by the front of a 

car. The pedestrian test involves projecting adult and child-sized dummy 

parts (such as heads) at specified areas of the front of a vehicle to replicate 

a car-to-pedestrian collision. Officials in these programs said they included 

this test because pedestrian fatalities in some of their countries were quite 

high. For example, in 2003 pedestrians accounted for nearly 30 percent of 

the annual traffic fatalities in Japan, 20 percent in Europe (nearly 30 

percent in the United Kingdom alone), and 14 percent in Australia. In 

contrast, in the United States, approximately 5,000 pedestrians were killed 

in motor vehicle crashes in 2003, accounting for 13 percent of the annual 

traffic fatalities. Figure 19 illustrates how the pedestrian protection test is 

performed.

34As discussed earlier, NHTSA’s rollover test evaluates vehicles' rollover resistance using a 

Static Stability Factor calculation and a dynamic test simulating a high-speed collision 

avoidance maneuver.
Page 28 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test 

Click the following link to watch a video of a pedestrian test, where a head 

form is propelled into a vehicle hood, conducted by Euro NCAP: 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v8.mpg 

The NCAPs in Europe and Japan also conduct child restraint tests to 

evaluate child protection, although these tests are not directly related to 

crashworthiness. In Europe, two different child-size dummies are placed in 

child seats of the auto manufacturer’s choice during the frontal and side 

crash tests, as shown in figure 20. In Japan, two child-size dummies are 

placed in child seats installed in the rear passenger seats of a test vehicle 

that has been stripped down to its body frame. The test vehicle is placed on 

a sled and subjected to a shock identical to the test speed used in the full 

frontal crash test. Japan NCAP also separately assesses the ease of 

correctly using child seats. NHTSA officials told us that the U.S. NCAP is 

conducting a pilot test to determine whether or not the addition of child 

safety seats into the frontal NCAP would provide meaningful consumer 

information. NHTSA also provides ratings on child safety seat ease of use.

Source: Euro NCAP.
Page 29 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 20: Child Restraint Test 

Vehicle Testing Programs 

Rate Safety Differently

Each vehicle testing organization used crash dummy readings as a principal 

part of its rating process.35 However, we found some differences in other 

aspects of the organizations’ rating processes. For example, all programs 

except NHTSA supplement the dummy measures with inspector 

observations or measurements of the post-crash vehicles. In addition, in 

Europe and Australia, rating scores can be modified depending on the 

existence or absence of certain safety features. Further, each program 

except the Insurance Institute uses stars to convey the test results, and 

some programs combine individual ratings into summary ratings in an 

effort to make it easier for the public to understand crash test results. 

Organizations Use Different 

Body Region Measurements and 

Types of Dummies to Develop 

Ratings

The four organizations we reviewed used more dummy measures in 

calculating a vehicle’s safety rating than U.S. NCAP. The U.S. NCAP uses 

head and chest crash dummy readings in frontal crashes and chest and 

lower spine readings for side crashes, then converts them to a probability 

Source: Euro NCAP.

35Appendixes IV through VII provide details on each country’s approach to vehicle ratings.
Page 30 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

for serious injury, which in turn is converted into a star rating.36 NHTSA 

officials said they use these measures because they are the most important 

indicators of serious or fatal injury in frontal and side crashes.37 In addition 

to the U.S. NCAP measures, the Insurance Institute uses measurements of 

the neck, left leg and foot, and right leg and foot for its frontal crash 

analysis and measurements of the head, neck, pelvis, and left leg for its side 

crash analysis. Australia and Euro NCAP use the neck, knee, femur, pelvis, 

and leg and foot for frontal tests and head, abdomen, and pelvis for side 

tests. Japan uses neck, femur, and tibia measurements for its frontal crash 

analysis and head, abdomen, and pelvis measurements for its side crash 

analysis. The other organizations use some of these additional measures to 

capture what in some cases may not necessarily be life-threatening injuries, 

such as those to the victim’s legs. As discussed earlier, the U.S. NCAP 

measures the impact of crashes on many of the same body regions but does 

not use them to calculate safety ratings.

In addition to differences in the body areas being measured, some 

programs use different dummies in their side-impact tests. For the frontal 

tests, the U.S. NCAP and other organizations use dummies that represent 

an average-size adult male who is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs about 170 

pounds. While this size dummy is used by most programs for the 

side-impact tests, there are differences in the dummy types and the 

instrumentation it contains.38 In addition, in its side-impact tests, the 

Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy (about 5 feet tall and 

weighing about 110 pounds). Insurance Institute officials said they chose 

this dummy because there is evidence that females are more at risk in side 

collisions. It hopes this test will encourage manufacturers to install side 

curtain air bags that are designed to extend low enough to protect smaller 

passengers. Although NHTSA’s proposed changes to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards would add a side-impact pole test using the 

average-size male and the smaller female dummies, NHTSA officials said 

that at this time they have no plans to alter the sizes or types of crash 

36For the side crashes, dummy readings of the chest and lower spine are used to compute 

the Thoracic Trauma Index, which is used to determine the star rating.

37In the proposed change to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards side impact test, the 

new pole test would evaluate protection to front seat occupants against head, thoracic, and 

pelvic injuries. This would be the first time that head injury criteria would need to be met 

under the side standards.

38For the side impact tests, the U.S. NCAP uses the SID-H3 dummy, Australia and Euro 

NCAPs use the EuroSID-II dummy, and Japan’s NCAP uses the EuroSID-1.
Page 31 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

dummies they use but plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once 

the pole test requirements for the safety standards are resolved and 

finalized. 

Using Inspector Observations to 

Supplement Dummy Results

Another distinction between the U.S. program and other programs is the 

use of observations to modify test results. All programs except the U.S. 

NCAP observe or measure changes to various parts of the occupant 

compartment after the frontal crash test to identify potential safety 

concerns. For example, the Euro NCAP measures the intrusion of the 

steering column and lower leg area into the occupant compartment. Euro 

NCAP officials noted that while an intrusion may not have affected the 

dummy in the test, the potential for serious injury to vehicle occupants in 

real-world crashes causes them to lower the safety rating. Japan’s NCAP 

also measures intrusion into the passenger compartment, but rather than 

relying on observation, Japan has established fixed measures that if 

exceeded will result in a lower score in a particular area. 

The U.S. NCAP does not use observations to modify test scores. According 

to a NHTSA official, these observations add subjectivity to the rating 

assessments and are not based on criteria that can be repeated and 

substantiated. Many of the automobile manufacturers we contacted stated 

that using observations adds a subjective element to the test that is difficult 

for them to replicate. Additionally, some pointed out that in some cases 

different inspectors could reach different conclusions.

Using a Modifier System to 

Adjust Scores

Another basic difference in scoring vehicles is the use of a modifier system 

in Europe and Australia. This system adjusts the score generated from the 

dummy injury data where injuries to occupants can be expected to be 

worse than indicated by the dummy readings or the vehicle deformation 

data alone. For example, a frontal test modifier might result in points being 

deducted if the dummy’s head hit the steering wheel in a vehicle without an 

air bag.

The system in Europe and Australia also adjusts points based on the 

existence or absence of various safety features on the test vehicles. For 

example, a test vehicle can get extra points if it has a safety belt reminder 

system that meets their NCAP specifications. Officials said they use this 

approach to encourage manufactures to install new safety features sooner 

than might otherwise occur. 

Officials from several organizations and automobile manufacturers 

operating under the Europe and Australia programs expressed concerns 
Page 32 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

that some of the modifiers might not have a direct impact on occupant 

safety and could artificially increase scores. They noted, for example, that 

in some countries safety belt usage exceeds 90 percent and that giving 

extra points for a feature to encourage safety belt use may not really add to 

safety. In addition, some automobile manufacturers identified concerns 

with how items included in the modifier system are developed and 

measured. They said that in some cases they have received just 6 months 

notice of changes. They said that such changes can be expensive and that 

they need to be notified sooner, so they have time to make changes to 

comply with new measures.

Use of Stars as a Measure of 

Safety

Except for the Insurance Institute, all programs used stars to convey test 

results. Officials from the NCAPs noted that star ratings are well 

understood by the public. For example, NHTSA officials said they used 

focus groups in 1993 to examine various options to communicate crash test 

results to the public, and the five-star rating was found preferable. In 

addition, officials in the other programs told us they followed the U.S. 

NCAP’s use of star ratings. None of the programs has plans to change its 

rating measures. 

There have been some concerns expressed about the use of stars. For 

example, a 1996 study by the National Academy of Sciences noted that 

stars are inherently positive symbols and the public may not understand 

the distinctions between the different levels of stars.39 In addition, officials 

of a consumer group noted that most people would associate the star rating 

with hotels and that staying in a three-star hotel would be quite acceptable 

to most people. In discussing its use of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and 

Poor, the Insurance Institute said it considered these types of qualitative 

measures as being clearer to the general public. 

Developing Summary Ratings Australia, Europe, and Japan NCAPs provide summary ratings, while the 

U.S. NCAP provides only individual ratings for each seating position that is 

included in the test for the frontal and side crash tests. For example, 

Australia and Euro NCAPs provide overall ratings that combine the frontal 

and side crash tests. Japan’s NCAP combines frontal and side crash tests to 

provide overall ratings for the driver and passenger of a vehicle. Australian 

and European officials explained that they believed potential vehicle 

purchasers can be confused by the large amount of detail available on the 

39Shopping for Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety Information, Special 

Report 248, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 
Page 33 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

test results and that summarizing results makes the ratings more useful. 

They noted they make the actual injury readings available for those 

interested in that level of detail. In addition, while the Insurance Institute 

does not combine individual ratings, it does identify “Best Pick – Frontal” 

and “Best Pick – Side” to assist consumers. Similarly, officials with 

publications like Consumer Reports and The Car Book told us they have 

found it helpful to provide consumers with summarized rating information. 

NHTSA officials noted that overall or summary ratings might hide or mask 

deficiencies in some areas of the tests. For example, they said that if a 

vehicle were to get a very high frontal rating and a very low side rating, 

merging the results could give consumers a misleading impression of the 

overall safety of that vehicle.

Programs Used a Variety 

Approaches to Inform 

Consumers of Safety 

Results

The crash testing programs we examined used a variety of approaches to 

share safety results with the public. Across all the programs, the Internet 

was the most relied-upon source for getting information to consumers, 

with each organization providing details of its test results. Safety 

pamphlets were used by all programs to supplement the safety information 

presented on their Web sites. Some programs also work with the news 

media to increase awareness of test results.

Internet Used to Convey Results Each organization made the results of its testing program available to the 

public on the Internet. In general, the public can access the results of 

individual tests, including the actual numeric dummy readings. To help the 

public understand these results, each Web site uses charts, tables, and 

graphics. For example, in addition to providing star ratings, the Euro NCAP 

also uses color-coded dummy injury diagrams to display how the specific 

body regions perform in the frontal, side, pole, and pedestrian tests. The 

color-coded indicators are: Good (Green), Adequate (Yellow), Marginal 

(Orange), Weak (Red), and Poor (Brown). The color used is based on the 

points awarded for that body region, as shown in figure 21.
Page 34 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal Test and 

Driver in Side Test

Publications Used to Share Test 

Results

Each testing organization publishes the results of its testing programs. The 

U.S. NCAP publishes the Buying a Safer Car booklet, which provides new 

and carryover crash test ratings. The Insurance Institute publishes a Status 

Report newsletter about 10 times a year, which contains new crash test 

ratings as well as other highway safety information. It can be obtained in 

hard copy through subscription, as well as downloaded from the Insurance 

Institute’s Web site. Australia publishes a Crash Test Update brochure 

twice a year, which provides new crash test results. According to Euro 

NCAP officials, Euro NCAP divides its tests into two test phases and 

releases the results twice a year—in November and June. The results are 

also published by What Car? (a British car magazine), Which? Car (a 

magazine owned and produced by British consumer associations), and the 

General German Automobile Association (ADAC) magazine. Other 

consumer magazines in Europe also provide crash test information. Lastly, 

Japan annually publishes the Choosing a Safer Car booklet, which 

provides new and carryover crash test results. The Japan NCAP also 

publishes summary brochures of test results.

Working with the News Media to 

Share Test Results

Like the U.S. NCAP, the Insurance Institute and the Australia and Euro 

NCAPs worked with the news media to inform consumers about the results 

of the vehicle safety tests. For example, each program issued press releases 

to convey the results of safety research and crash tests. In addition, the 

Good Adequate Marginal Weak Poor

Source: Euro NCAP.
Page 35 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Insurance Institute has worked with television broadcasts, such as the 

prime time news magazine program Dateline NBC, to raise the public’s 

awareness of how vehicles perform in the program’s crash tests. Insurance 

Institute officials grant interviews explaining the results of the tests and 

use broadcast-quality film and lighting to record the crash tests and make 

them available for television broadcasts. According to Japan NCAP 

officials, they work with television shows to help produce news segments 

that highlight changes in test procedures and recent test results. Further, 

according to Euro NCAP officials, in addition to other activities, Europe 

promotes consumer education by using crashed vehicles as public displays 

in prominent places in Europe during press conferences. The events are 

designed to attract news media and public attention in an attempt to 

increase public interest in and knowledge about car safety.

Government and Industry 

Involvement Varies among the 

Crash Testing Programs

The level of government and industry involvement varies among the crash 

test programs. For example, the U.S. NCAP, which is operated and funded 

solely by the U.S. DOT, has traditionally based its U.S. NCAP on the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as a matter of agency policy and follows an 

informal rulemaking process where industry and other interested parties 

can submit comments once NHTSA issues a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. The Insurance Institute, which is funded by private insurance 

companies, has no such process and can make an internal decision to 

modify tests at any time. For example, according to Insurance Institute 

officials, when they began their side-impact tests, they developed a crash 

test barrier to represent the risk of severe head injuries in side impacts by 

SUVs and pickups. The Insurance Institute officials said they did not 

involve automobile manufacturers in the decision-making process but 

informed them as well as NHTSA before implementing the change. 

The Australian NCAP was developed and is dominated mainly by private 

motor clubs but includes government transportation departments in six 

Australian states and territories, the New Zealand government, and 

consumer groups. The national Australian government sets minimum 

safety standards for vehicles but is not involved in funding or managing 

NCAP. Similarly, the Euro NCAP is sponsored by the governments of Great 

Britain, Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, as well as a 

number of motor clubs and consumer organizations. According to Euro 

NCAP officials, each sponsoring member agrees to perform or sponsor a 

number of crash tests and participates in making the decisions related to 

the program. In Australia and Europe, NCAP officials told us that by not 

being exclusively controlled by government, they have flexibility when 
Page 36 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

modifying their programs. They said that as a result they can make changes 

quicker because they do not have to follow governmental procedures.

According to NCAP officials, the decision processes for Australia and 

Europe involve the use of committees and working groups to examine 

issues and make recommendations for change. The automobile industry 

and public safety organizations may be involved in providing research or 

opinions, but the committees are free to make decisions they believe are 

appropriate. When these committees make recommendations, the full 

governing body votes to accept or reject the changes. The government 

partners have a vote in the process but cannot veto the result. In Australia, 

according to NCAP and government officials, automobile manufacturers 

were initially reluctant to engage in meaningful dialogue with the officials 

of the Australia NCAP. However, more recently, Australia NCAP officials 

have consulted with manufacturers prior to making changes in the program 

and have received positive responses. On the other hand, the Euro NCAP 

allows industry representatives to participate in the discussions of the 

subgroups of its two technical working groups—primary safety and 

secondary safety.40 Also, the technical working groups and automobile 

manufacturers engage in direct dialogue in industry liaison meetings.

According to NCAP officials, Japan’s NCAP is funded by the government 

but administered by an independent, government-appointed committee. 

The committee includes members who are experts from automobile 

research institutes, academics, journalists, and representatives of the 

Japanese automobile industry and the automobile importers association. 

This government/industry committee manages the program and must 

approve changes submitted by program officials. The committee reaches 

its decisions through consensus. Although the government ministry that 

oversees the program may override the committee’s decisions, this has 

never occurred. 

40Primary safety includes vehicle safety features designed to help vehicles avoid crashes. 

Secondary safety includes vehicle safety features designed to help minimize the risk of 

injury for vehicle occupants involved in crashes.
Page 37 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

NCAP Has Contributed 

to Making Vehicles 

Safer, but Changes are 

Needed to Maintain Its 

Relevance

NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to produce safer 

vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information. 

However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to change to 

maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has been eroded 

by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program began. 

Today there are many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs than existed 

27 years ago and new safety hazards have resulted from the incompatibility 

between large and small vehicles and rollover crashes, which are not fully 

addressed by current NCAP tests. In addition, because most vehicles now 

receive four- or five-star ratings, the NCAP tests provide little incentive for 

automakers to continue to improve vehicle safety and little differentiation 

among vehicle ratings for consumers. Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its 

frontal and side crash tests in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 

which will make current NCAP tests less meaningful. Opportunities to 

enhance the program include developing approaches to better measure the 

effects of crashes between large and small vehicles and occupant 

protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help prevent crashes from 

occurring, and using different measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA 

also has opportunities to enhance the presentation and timeliness of 

information provided to consumers. 

NCAP Has Encouraged 

Improvement in Vehicle 

Safety and Provided the 

Public with Vehicle Safety 

Information 

NCAP testing has contributed to more crashworthy passenger vehicles and 

NHTSA has informed the public of test results. As shown in figure 22, there 

has been a substantial increase in the average star rating of vehicles since 

testing began. In 2004, tested vehicles averaged about 4.6 stars for the 

driver in frontal crash tests, about 4.4 stars for the passenger in frontal 

crash tests, about 4.4 stars for the driver in side crash tests, and about 4.3 

stars for the rear passenger in side crash tests.
Page 38 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP Tests

Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each model year. 

The improved ratings indicate that manufacturers have taken NCAP 

seriously and designed and built vehicles that do well on NCAP tests. 

Automakers told us that vehicle safety and NCAP test results have become 

an important marketing tool. As a result, many auto manufacturers 

advertise five-star ratings in government crash tests in their television, 

radio, and print ads.

NHTSA has informed the public of the NCAP test results through its Web 

site and by publishing a safety brochure. In addition, according to NHTSA 

officials, the NCAP Web site has been redesigned in an effort to make it 

more user-friendly. More importantly, NCAP crash test results are used by 

popular publications that influence large segments of the car-buying public. 

Both Consumer Reports and The Car Book use NCAP test results as part of 

their vehicle safety ratings.

Frontal star ratings over time Side star ratings over time

Source: GAO analysis of historical NCAP data provided by NHTSA.

0

1

2

3

4

5

1984 1994 2004 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Average star rating passenger

Average star rating driver

1997 2000 2004 

Average star rating Average star rating

Year Year
Page 39 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Without Change, NCAP’s 

Relevance Will Likely 

Diminish

While NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to make 

safer vehicles, it will need to change to remain relevant. There have been 

significant changes in the makeup of the nation’s vehicle fleet, a growing 

similarity of crash test ratings, and upgrades in the safety standard tests for 

frontal and side crashworthiness. Without addressing these changes, NCAP 

provides little incentive to manufacturers to continue to improve safety and 

may provide consumers with only limited comparative information on 

vehicle safety.

Since NHTSA began NCAP testing in 1979, there have been dramatic 

changes in the vehicle fleet. Vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs 

have transformed the fleet once dominated by passenger cars. There are 

now more than 85 million pickups, minivans, and SUVs on the road, 

representing about 37 percent of the vehicle fleet. The change in vehicle 

fleet presents new safety challenges that NCAP’s testing does not fully 

address—vehicle incompatibility and rollover. The issue of incompatibility 

emerges when a large vehicle such as a pickup, minivan, or SUV crashes 

into a smaller, lighter vehicle because the larger vehicle can inflict serious 

damage that is particularly dangerous to the occupants of the smaller 

vehicle. The current NCAP frontal and side tests do not account for 

vehicles of different size, weight, and geometry crashing into one another. 

Significant differences in ratings can result when tests are designed to 

address these vehicle differences, as evidenced by comparing the 

Insurance Institute side test results with NCAP results. The Insurance 

Institute, which uses a higher SUV-like barrier, gave 27 vehicles its lowest 

rating (Poor) in side-impact tests, primarily because there were no side air 

bags in the vehicle. NHTSA, which uses a low barrier and, unlike the 

Insurance Institute, does not include head measures in its star calculations, 

gave 21 of these same 27 vehicles (77 percent) four- or five-star safety 

ratings. Also, with the increase in pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the 

nation’s fleet, vehicle rollover has become a more important issue; in 2003, 

rollovers accounted for over 10,000 fatalities, or more than 30 percent of all 

passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. However, the NCAP rollover test only 

measures the likelihood that a vehicle will roll over and does not assess the 

safety afforded to occupants should a rollover occur. 

NCAP frontal and side crash test results have improved to a point where 

there is little difference among most vehicles’ ratings. In 2004, NHTSA
Page 40 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

provided the public with NCAP rating information for 234 vehicles.41 Most 

of these vehicle ratings were four or five stars for drivers and passengers in 

frontal and side crash tests, as shown in figure 23. 

Figure 23: Frequency of Four- and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side Crash Tests in 2004

Note: For the driver and front passenger in the frontal test, star ratings were available for 234 vehicles 

in 2004. For the driver in the side test, star ratings were available for 210 vehicles in 2004. For the rear 

passenger driver’s side, in the side test, star ratings were available for 186 vehicles in 2004.

The vehicles crash tested more recently have done even better. Of the 49 

frontal and 18 side crash tests conducted in 2004, over 95 percent received 

a four- or five-star rating. As a result, NCAP’s ability to challenge auto 

manufacturers to continue improving vehicle safety has eroded. Also, with 

almost all scores being about the same, consumers do not have 

41This includes carryover vehicles and corporate twins. Carryover vehicles are those that 

have been tested under NCAP in previous years and whose design and safety rating has not 

changed. Corporate twins are two vehicles that are built on the same chassis, share most of 

their underhood and interior components, and have the same air bag and safety belt 

interaction but are sold under different brand names.

Source: GAO analysis of 2004 NCAP data available on NHTSA’s Web site.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Frequency of star ratings for passenger in frontal test in 2004

Frequency of star ratings for driver in frontal test in 2004

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Frequency of star ratings for rear passenger in side test in 2004

Frequency of star ratings for driver in side test in 2004

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Number of star ratings Number of star ratings
Page 41 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

comparative safety information that differentiates significantly among 

vehicles. 

Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading the frontal and side tests under the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which make current NCAP testing less 

meaningful.42 For frontal tests, safety standards will require that for 

vehicles built after September 1, 2007, manufacturers must certify the 

crashworthiness of their vehicles at 35 mph (instead of the current 30 

mph).43 This change will eliminate the speed difference between the frontal 

NCAP and the frontal belted safety standard tests. Because of this change, 

NHTSA has begun to examine alternatives to its current frontal crash test 

program and hopes to finalize any changes to the NCAP frontal test in 2006. 

Similarly, NHTSA announced in May 2004 that it is proposing to add a 

20 mph side pole crash test to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 

This test will use a more technically advanced average-size male dummy 

than is currently used in the NCAP tests and a dummy that represents a 

small female. According to NHTSA officials, the new test and advanced 

dummy will enable them to confidently measure compliance with head 

injury standards and challenge automakers to provide adequate head 

protection to vehicle occupants in side impact crashes. However, neither 

this test nor the new dummies are currently part of NCAP. NHTSA officials 

said they plan to begin examining alternatives to the side crash test at the 

end of 2005.

Opportunities to Enhance 

NCAP Testing 

NHTSA could explore several opportunities to enhance NCAP and ensure 

its relevance. These opportunities include (1) addressing changes to the 

vehicle fleet, particularly as it relates to vehicle incompatibility and 

rollover; (2) developing approaches for NCAP to encourage improved 

safety from emerging technology that helps drivers avoid crashes; and (3) 

examining the various testing procedures and measures that are available 

and in use by other organizations and determining their applicability to 

NCAP.

42NHTSA made these changes in recognition of the need to upgrade the level of safety in 

frontal crashes in the regulations and to reflect specific fatality risks in side crashes in the 

regulations.

43The higher test speed will be phased in for increasing percentages of vehicles over 3 years.
Page 42 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Addressing the Increased 

Fatality Risks Created by 

Changes in the Vehicle Fleet

Vehicle Incompatibility When pickups, minivans, and SUVs collide with smaller passenger cars, the 

mismatch of the vehicles’ weight, height, and geometry are considerable, as 

shown in figure 24. In terms of the weight differences, subcompact cars 

may weigh as little as 1,500 pounds while the large SUV may exceed 6,000 

pounds. 

Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of Different Type and Weight

Because of the higher ground clearance of large pickups and SUVs, their 

bumpers may skip over the crash structures of passenger cars, raising the 

likelihood that an occupant of the car will be killed or seriously injured.44 A 

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

44This is called self protection and partner protection. While the occupants of a large vehicle 

might be protected in a crash, occupants of a smaller vehicle, the partner in a 

vehicle-to-vehicle crash, would have less protection.
Page 43 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

2003 NHTSA study found that in frontal collisions involving a car and a light 

truck or van, there were almost four times the number of fatalities in the 

car than in the light truck or van.45 The success of NCAP and the other 

testing programs may have indirectly contributed to this problem. 

According to some experts, to improve crashworthiness scores of large 

vehicles, vehicle manufacturers have increased the rigidity of the structure 

that absorbs and manages the substantial forces in the crash tests.46 As a 

result, the structure of large vehicles has had to become more substantial 

and stiffer than that of smaller vehicles because the larger vehicles must 

absorb more energy in the crash test due to their greater weight. 

NHTSA’s NCAP frontal tests could potentially be modified to measure and 

rate vehicle incompatibility. Some experts, NHTSA officials, and vehicle 

manufacturers told us that there are a number of approaches being 

investigated that could help to address vehicle incompatibility. For 

example, some researchers are examining the use of sensors in test walls; 

crashing a moving deformable barrier into the front of the test vehicles, 

instead of propelling the test vehicle into a solid wall; or crashing test 

vehicles into a solid wall at varying speeds, depending on the size of the 

vehicle, to equate the crash to hitting a standardized vehicle. The 

hypothesis is that information obtained by measuring how vehicles strike 

the crash test barrier could be used to estimate the relative damage that a 

vehicle would cause in collisions with another vehicle and could be used to 

rate the aggressiveness of vehicles. Using a moving barrier for frontal crash 

tests would make test results comparable across weight classes, as is the 

case with the current side-impact rating, because all vehicles would be 

struck by the same size barrier. Using variable speeds based on vehicle 

weight would also allow ratings of small and large vehicles to be compared. 

Each of these alternatives requires further development and testing to 

assess the overall safety implications, including the potential for reducing 

fatalities in passenger cars when struck by larger vehicles, the potential for 

diminished occupant protection for large vehicles in single vehicle crashes,

45Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility, NHTSA, June 2003.

46According to a safety expert, automobile manufacturers have generally opted to increase 

the strength and stiffness of the front of their vehicles within the original vehicle design 

rather than adding additional length to the front of vehicles which could be used to reduce 

the impact on the vehicle struck.
Page 44 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

and consideration of potential costs.47 Ratings based on these tests could 

provide manufacturers with incentives to address incompatibilities 

between large and small vehicles and provide consumers with information 

on the potential safety hazards associated with vehicle incompatibility. 

The problem of vehicle incompatibility is even worse in side crashes. When 

a large vehicle like an SUV crashes into the side of a small vehicle, the 

larger vehicle may miss the door sill of the vehicle, causing most of the 

energy to be directed to the door and window areas, as shown in figure 25. 

In such cases, the injuries can be exacerbated when there is no side head 

protection, leaving the window as the only barrier between the occupant’s 

head and the impacting vehicle. Head injuries are a major cause of fatalities 

in side collisions, particularly in crashes where a single vehicle strikes a 

tree or utility pole and in intersection crashes where smaller, lighter 

vehicles are hit in the side by larger, heavier vehicles. NHTSA has estimated 

that in serious side-impact crashes involving one or more fatalities in 2002, 

nearly 60 percent of those killed suffered brain injuries. 

Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the Side of a Small Vehicle 

47According to NHTSA officials, in such tests, larger vehicles could experience a lower 

change in velocity than smaller vehicles, potentially leading manufacturers to incorporate 

softer structures that would not absorb as much energy when these vehicles are in single 

vehicle crashes.

Source: GAO photo of Insurance Institute test vehicles. 
Page 45 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

There are also possibilities for modifying the NCAP side test to help 

address vehicle incompatibility. For example, NHTSA could examine the 

barrier that is being used to ensure that it best represents today’s vehicles. 

NHTSA’s current side-impact barrier is about the size and weight of a 

compact car. As a result, when this barrier hits the test vehicle, it will 

almost always hit the bottom sill of the door, which is designed to manage 

much of the crash energy.48 To address the disparity in height between 

passenger cars and SUVs, the Insurance Institute uses a side-impact test 

barrier that is larger and higher than NCAP’s barrier, as shown in figure 26. 

According to Insurance Institute officials, they designed this barrier to 

represent an SUV so their test could more accurately reflect the increased 

risk for occupants in smaller vehicles. They said that it has encouraged 

manufacturers to install side curtain air bags. Using this higher barrier has 

resulted in different scores than NHTSA’s NCAP. For example, the 

Insurance Institute has given 27 vehicles its lowest rating (Poor) in sideimpact tests, while NHTSA, which uses a low barrier and does not include 

head measures in its star calculations, gave 21 of these 27 vehicles (77 

percent) four- or five-star safety ratings. 

Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance Institute Test with the SUV-like Barrier 

Click the following link to watch a video of an interior view of the side 

impact crash test with an SUV-like barrier conducted by the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety at 31 mph: 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v9.mpg

48NHTSA officials said they are addressing this issue by proposing a change to the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that would require a 20 mph oblique side pole test. 

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Page 46 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Officials from a number of automobile makers told us that vehicle 

compatibility is an important safety issue, and they are working to enhance 

occupant protection in front and side crashes, outside of NHTSA safety 

standards or NCAP testing. Several automakers voluntarily entered into an 

agreement with the Insurance Institute to work collaboratively to have all 

of their vehicles meet new safety criteria that require large vehicles to 

match the height of the fronts of small vehicles by September 2009, as 

shown in figure 27. According to Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

members, better matching of structural components may enhance the 

ability to absorb crash forces, thereby reducing occupant fatalities by an 

estimated 16 to 28 percent. The agreement also specified that by

September 1, 2007, at least 50 percent of these automakers’ vehicles offered 

in the United States will meet enhanced side-impact protection with 

features such as side air bags, air curtain bags, and revised side-impact 

structures. By September 2009 all vehicles of these manufacturers are to 

meet the new side criteria.

In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA officials noted that in order 

for 50 percent of the vehicles to meet the voluntary side requirements by 

September 1, 2007, manufacturers can certify by using either the existing 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard pole test or the Insurance Institutes 

side impact test. They noted that in September 2009, the pole test will no 

longer be an option and that, therefore, it is very possible that large 

vehicles, such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs, would be able to pass the 

test without incorporation of enhanced side-impact features such as side 

air bags or curtains for the following reasons:

• Manufacturers may not need to subject large vehicles to the pole test by 

September 1, 2007, if 50 percent of its fleet is comprised of smaller 

passenger cars.

• Larger vehicles will sustain a lower velocity change than smaller 

vehicles when struck by the Insurance Institute barrier.

• The higher ride height of large vehicles could keep the dummy’s head 

from striking the top of the Insurance Institute barrier.
Page 47 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle Structures

Occupant Protection in Rollover 

Crashes

Given the changes in the vehicle fleet, fatalities due to rollover crashes 

have continued to increase. Rollovers are dangerous incidents and have a 

higher fatality rate than other kinds of crashes. Just over 2 percent of all 

police-reported crashes that occurred in 2003 were rollovers, but they 

accounted for over 10,000 highway fatalities, or more than 30 percent of all 

passenger vehicle occupant deaths. All types of vehicles can roll over. 

However, taller, narrower vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs 

have higher centers of gravity and thus are more susceptible to roll over if 

involved in a single-vehicle crash. NHTSA reported that 61 percent of 

fatalities in SUVs and 45 percent of fatalities in pickups in 2002 were the 

results of rollover crashes.49 NCAP’s rollover testing does not rate the 

chance of a potentially life-threatening injury should a rollover crash occur; 

it only measures the risk of rollover. 

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

49By contrast, 22 percent of those who died in passenger cars in 2002 were killed in rollover 

crashes. 
Page 48 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Although NHTSA has not incorporated occupant protection in rollovers 

into NCAP, officials said they have been examining occupant protection in 

rollover crashes, focusing on reducing occupant ejection and increasing 

roof strength through regulation. According to NHTSA officials, the most 

deadly rollovers occur when unbelted occupants are completely ejected 

from the vehicle though doors, windows, and sun roofs and when the roof 

crushes into the occupant compartment, causing serious, if not deadly, 

head, neck, and spinal cord injuries. NHTSA has proposed changes to the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that would upgrade the door lock 

requirements to help prevent vehicle occupant ejection and increase roof 

strength. They are also considering other ways to prevent ejection, 

specifically looking at the potential of side curtain air bags to prevent 

ejection through vehicle windows. 

NHTSA’s NCAP rollover testing could be modified to better measure and 

rate the risks of serious injury associated with a rollover crash. NHTSA 

officials and others said that they have not been able to develop a 

repeatable crash test in which the vehicle rolls over and dummies would be 

used to measure injuries. However, in the absence of such a rollover crash 

test, NCAP could examine various aspects of the vehicle which are known 

to affect occupant safety in rollover, such as rating the roof strength of 

vehicles. For example, officials from a consumer group told us that NHTSA 

could conduct dynamic tests on roof strength and point to a 2002 Society of 

Automotive Engineers paper that attests that such drop tests for roof 

strength are repeatable. They also said that there has been other promising 

research that would measure roof crush in dynamic tests. However, 

including such tests in NCAP would require further development and 

funding considerations. 

Incorporating Active Safety 

Technologies into NCAP 

NCAP also has an opportunity to begin assessing new technology that 

could help prevent crashes. Vehicle manufacturers and others have been 

developing and testing new active safety systems that hold promise for 

reducing traffic fatalities by helping drivers avoid crashes altogether. These 

active safety systems include improving vehicle handling and braking in 

emergency situations, providing warning alerts for potential collisions or 

straying out of roadway lanes, and providing distance alerts when driving 

too close to another vehicle. A 2004 NHTSA study estimated that the 

incorporation of electronic stability control systems50 could reduce certain 

50Electronic stability control keeps the vehicle under control by applying brakes to 

individual wheels when the system detects loss of control or instability. 
Page 49 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

crashes by about 67 percent.51 Similarly, the Insurance Institute reported 

that electronic stability control can reduce the risk of involvement in single 

vehicle crashes by more than 50 percent.52 Some experts suggested that 

NCAP might be used to encourage and speed the adoption of active safety 

systems into the vehicle fleet. 

Some elements of active safety systems are included in some current tests. 

While the rollover test is not designed to measure the effectiveness of 

electronic stability control systems, vehicles equipped with this technology 

would be expected to perform better in the rollover test because the 

vehicle would be less likely to tip up. In addition, brake tests are conducted 

as part of Japan’s NCAP, with the results provided as a separate safety 

rating. The Euro NCAP has also established committees to identify 

potential active safety systems to include in their program, as well as the 

testing protocols that would be used.

While using NCAP to further test and rate active safety systems could 

encourage their adoption in the marketplace, there are challenges to 

overcome. According to NHTSA officials, NHTSA would first need to 

identify those active safety systems that could be effective in preventing 

crashes. They said this would be difficult because they would have to 

determine how well a system helps drivers avoid crashes. Also, 

determining the testing methodology would be challenging because the 

effectiveness of some active systems could be affected by factors such as 

driver behavior and the physical characteristics of the road, such as the 

dampness of the pavement.

Officials from various automobile manufacturers told us that they are 

developing many new active safety systems with the objective of helping 

drivers avoid crashes. They pointed out that while NCAP could be used to 

encourage them to market such systems, they would have concerns 

regarding which systems to include in NHTSA’s program and how the 

system would be rated. In addition, they noted that because of competitive 

forces, active safety advances could be available sooner than NHTSA is 

capable of deciding to include them and developing an acceptable 

approach for testing and rating them. Officials from automakers said they 

51Preliminary Results Analyzing the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) 

Systems, NHTSA, September 2004. 

52Effects of Electronic Stability Control on Automotive Crash Risk, C.M. Farmer, Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety, 2004.
Page 50 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

are willing to share their research and work in cooperation with NHTSA to 

develop tests or measurements that could help NCAP address these issues.

Using Additional Test Measures 

and Different Size Dummies

NHTSA could provide consumers with more safety information by using 

additional test measures and different crash dummies. All of the other 

organizations we contacted used more dummy measures to calculate 

vehicles’ safety ratings than U.S. NCAP used. To determine the star ratings, 

NHTSA uses head and chest readings from the frontal NCAP test and chest 

and lower spine readings for side-impact tests. Other organizations use 

measurements that included such areas as the head, neck, chest, leg, and 

foot for frontal test ratings and the head, neck, chest, pelvis, and leg for 

side test ratings.53

The concern with using few dummy readings is that the safety rating might 

not include important safety considerations. While NHTSA uses head and 

chest readings for frontal ratings and chest and lower spine readings for the 

side ratings, it measures other items during crash tests and may identify 

them as “Safety Concerns” on its Web site if they exceed certain values. We 

identified over 140 Safety Concerns on NHTSA’s Web site since vehicle 

model year 1990—36 of these were for vehicles that received four- or 

five-star ratings.54 The Safety Concerns included high femur readings in 

frontal crashes, which could mean there was a high likelihood of thigh 

injury; high head acceleration readings in side crashes, which could 

indicate a high likelihood of serious head trauma; and doors opening during 

side crash tests, which could increase the likelihood of occupant ejection.55

Having a Safety Concern noted for vehicles with a four- or five-star rating 

presents conflicting information that could be confusing to consumers. 

53The U.S. NCAP uses head and chest crash dummy readings in frontal crashes and chest 

and lower spine readings for side crashes because according to NHTSA these are the most 

important indicators of serious or fatal injury. The Insurance Institute uses four body 

regions for its frontal crash analysis and three for its side crash analysis. Japan uses five 

body regions for its frontal crash analysis and four for its side crash analysis, while Australia 

and Europe use four for frontal and two for side. The other organizations use additional 

measures to capture what can be serious, although not necessarily life-threatening injuries 

such as those to the victim’s legs. 

54These Safety Concerns were taken from the several thousand vehicle ratings available on 

NHTSA’s Web site, including carryover vehicles and corporate twins.

55Data collected during NCAP tests but not used to calculate star ratings are available on the 

NHTSA Web site. Other data, such as the results of force-of-load testing, are available on the 

NHTSA research Web site. 
Page 51 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

As NHTSA makes changes to its testing program, it has the opportunity to 

reexamine the size and type of dummies it uses in crashes in addition to the 

body areas of the dummies being measured. At present, NHTSA’s dummies 

equate to an average-size adult male who is about 5 feet 9 inches tall and 

weighs about 170 pounds. Most of the other organizations use this size 

dummy in their crash tests, and vehicle manufacturers work to maximize 

the safety systems for an occupant with these characteristics. However, not 

all vehicle occupants are the same size, and optimizing the restraint system 

for the average male would not necessarily be optimum for others who may 

be smaller, shorter, taller, or heavier.56 Also, children and the elderly may 

react differently to crash forces than the average-size male. Recognizing 

this, the Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy (about 5 feet tall 

and weighing about 110 pounds) in the driver and rear seat of the sideimpact test. Insurance Institute officials said they made this change to 

encourage manufacturers to install side curtain air bags that would extend 

low enough to protect the heads of smaller passengers. In addition, in its 

proposed side-impact pole standards test, NHTSA specifies using a 50th

percentile male and a 5th percentile female to address the issue of different 

size drivers and passengers. 

The U.S. NCAP officials said that at this time they are waiting on the 

resolution to the proposed safety standard changes that would add a side 

pole test before deciding on altering the size or type of crash dummies they 

use. While generating additional information on which to base safety 

ratings, altering the size of the dummy in the NCAP tests could provide 

challenges for automobile manufacturers because they would have to 

conduct more internal tests. Officials from many vehicle manufacturers 

said they must already conduct hundreds of crash tests each year to ensure 

that they meet the variety of tests and dummies used in NHTSA’s standards, 

U.S. NCAP, and tests conducted by the other testing organizations.57

56Officials from vehicle manufacturers said they are developing new restraint systems that 

they believe will be able to determine the weight of the occupant and will vary the safety 

belt restraint and air bag deployment to maximize the protection for different-sized 

occupants during a crash.

57Automakers also encouraged NHTSA to work towards consistency with other countries to 

lessen the burden on their testing programs. For example, they noted that an advanced side 

impact dummy called “World SID” has been developed and that it should be considered for 

use in side crash tests by all side testing programs.
Page 52 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Opportunities to Enhance 

the Presentation and 

Timeliness of NCAP Results

NCAP has the opportunity to enhance its program by changing the way it 

reports test results. Specifically, it could provide summary ratings, present 

information in a comparative manner, increase public awareness, and make 

results available earlier in the model year. 

Providing Summary Ratings According to some safety experts, NHTSA could improve its program by 

developing an overall safety rating rather than reporting four separate 

ratings for crash tests.58 Consumer Reports, The Car Book, the Insurance 

Institute, and all of the other NCAPs provide more summary information 

for consumers than NHTSA. Further, a 1996 National Academy of Sciences 

study that examined NCAP recommended that NHTSA provide an overall 

rating to provide consumers with an overview of a vehicle’s safety. 

However, the study also recommended that NHTSA make the detailed test 

results available for those consumers who wish to examine them more 

fully.59 

NHTSA and Insurance Institute officials said they did not develop an 

overall crashworthiness rating because combining ratings are technically 

difficult and could obscure low ratings in one test area that would be 

revealed when test results are reported separately. Insurance Institute 

officials added that consumers can evaluate the different ratings to 

determine those that are most applicable to their situations. They said a 

person who is primarily the sole occupant of a vehicle might not be as 

concerned with the passenger safety rating as someone who routinely 

carries passengers. 

NHTSA officials said that they will continue investigating the feasibility of 

creating an overall safety rating for vehicles. However, they said that they 

would like to incorporate additional elements into such a rating. For 

example, they said that it is important to develop a rating that considers 

more than just the frontal and side-impact test results, such as the rollover 

results and vehicle compatibility, which can have a large bearing on the 

overall safety of vehicles. In their view, without the elements that address 

rollover and compatibility, consumers might get the wrong impression of 

58The U.S. NCAP provides four separate star ratings for crash test results. There are separate 

ratings for drivers and passengers (front seat) in frontal crashes and separate ratings for 

drivers and rear (driver side) passengers in side-impact crashes.

59“Shopping for Safety,” Special Report 248, National Academy Press (Washington, D.C. : 

1996).
Page 53 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

the relative safety of vehicles. Officials said they have not yet developed a 

method to incorporate the rollover rating into an overall rating and have 

not identified measures to reflect vehicle compatibility, although they have 

long recognized compatibility as an issue. They could not estimate how 

long it would take to address the problem of adding the rollover rating to a 

combined rating but said they would pursue developing a summary safety 

rating for vehicles after they decide how to measure vehicle compatibility.

Comparative Safety Information 

Could Benefit the Public

Each testing organization uses a different presentation approach for 

reporting its test results, with some providing additional information to the 

public. The U.S. NCAP provides separate star ratings for the four dummy 

positions in the two crash tests and the rollover test. The only ratings the 

U.S. NCAP presents in a comparative manner are the rollover ratings, 

which compare vehicle performance within a class of vehicles, such as 

pickup trucks. In contrast, Australia’s and Japan’s NCAPs provide more 

comparative information by supplementing their star ratings by adding bar 

charts that show how well the vehicle performed in the tests, as shown in 

figures 28 and 29. The Australia publication shows that although two 

vehicles received three stars, one of them performed better than the other. 

The Japan NCAP rating shows that the vehicle received five stars for 

overall driver safety but that the passenger score was higher than that of 

the driver.

Figure 28: Example of Australia’s NCAP Safety Rating Information

Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.

Occupant rating

1' 2' 3' 4' 5'
Page 54 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 29: Example of Japan’s NCAP Safety Rating Information

Similarly, Consumer Reports provides summary safety ratings for accident 

avoidance and crash protection and uses a bar chart to present its overall 

safety score. Consumer Reports also lists vehicles in ranked order rather 

than alphabetically, provides comments to highlight particular aspects of 

each vehicle’s performance, and uses qualitative descriptions--Excellent, 

Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor--to help inform its readers of safety 

results. Consumer Reports officials said that the overall rating provides an 

overview of the vehicle’s safety, and the two summary categories of 

accident avoidance and crash protection provide additional information 

that consumers may want. 

NHTSA recently began using a rating system for its rollover assessment 

that indicates, along with the star rating, the percentage of likelihood that a 

vehicle may roll over. NHTSA’s rollover information provides an extra level 

of detail of vehicle performance than the information provided for the 

frontal and side collision tests. The rollover results are ranked according to 

performance and, as illustrated in figure 30, show how well each vehicle 

performed within the range of performance of its vehicle class, such as 

passenger cars, pickups, vans, and SUVs.

Overall Collision Safety Ratings

Driver’s seat

Front passenger’s seat

Source: Copyright © 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. All rights reserved.

Point 28.98

(Goal average 80.5%)

Point 20.36

(Goal average 84.8%)
Page 55 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 30: Example of NHTSA’s Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck with Bar Chart 

Showing How the Vehicle Performed within Its Class 

Increasing Public Awareness of 

Results

NHTSA could look to other programs for innovative ways to garner more 

interest in crash test results. Like other testing organizations, NHTSA uses 

the Internet, brochures, and press releases to inform the public of NCAP 

ratings. However, other organizations use additional approaches to inform 

the public of their program and test results. For example, the Japan 

Automobile Federation creates public awareness of the program with a 

portable sled in which the general public can experience a simulated 

collision at 5 kilometers per hour and have a protective air bag deploy. The 

Euro NCAP also stages a public display of crash vehicles. They try to select 

areas where media and public interest would be high. Recent events were 

held in Wenceslas Square, Prague; Athens; and London. Figure 31 shows 

two events, one in London and another in Prague.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

15% No-tip

Rollover Rating Driving Test Result Rollover Chance

Rollover

Rating

5

15

1 2 3 4

Star Rating Chance of Rollover* (%)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Chance for this vehicle Range for Pickups

*If involved in a single-vehicle crash
Page 56 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash Vehicles

There have also been proposals to increase public awareness of NCAP 

results by requiring their inclusion on new car stickers. For example,

S. 1072, a bill introduced in the 108th Congress to reauthorize funds for 

federal aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, 

included a provision that would require automakers to include NCAP test 

results on new car stickers. Officials from consumer advocate groups told 

us that they support such an approach because consumers would have 

information available at the time of their purchase decisions. Officials from 

automakers said that there are a number of challenges that would need to 

be overcome if such an approach were taken, including scheduling tests to 

ensure that results are available in time for the information to be included 

on new car stickers.

NCAP Ratings Could Be 

Available Earlier in the Car 

Model Year

NHTSA could conduct vehicle tests earlier and release NCAP ratings 

sooner in the model year, which would make the results more useful for 

consumers. NCAP ratings are often released late in the model year, after 

many of the vehicles have already been purchased. In May 2003, long after 

the beginning of model year 2003, NHTSA released the results of some 

model year 2002 vehicle tests. NHTSA published its Buying a Safer Car

brochure for 2004 in February 2004, about 6 months after the vehicles were 

available for sale and before all of the tests were completed for the 2004 

models. To the extent that test results are available sooner, more car buyers 

could have safety information to help make their purchase decisions. For 

example, by the time NHTSA released the Buying a Safer Car brochure in 

Source: Euro NCAP.
Page 57 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

February 2004, according to industry sales statistics, about 7.7 million, or 

over 46 percent, of new cars and trucks had been purchased in the United 

States.60 For model year 2005, NHTSA attempted to address the issue of 

getting timely information to consumers by publishing an early edition of 

its Buying a Safer Car brochure in December 2004. This publication 

included test results for some 2005 models. In addition, towards of the end 

2004, NHTSA began posting the results to its Web site as soon as the quality 

control process was completed. NHTSA officials plan to publish an 

updated version in spring 2005, after additional testing has been completed.

There are several factors that affect the timing of the testing and the release 

of NCAP ratings. First, NHTSA obtains vehicles for NCAP testing directly 

from the dealerships and leasing companies to ensure that each vehicle is 

representative of that make and model. Under this approach, testing 

cannot begin until after vehicles are available for purchase by the 

public—the model year begins in September for many companies. In 

addition, NHTSA does not receive its funding until after the fiscal year 

begins on October 1st of each year. Further, due to the number of vehicles 

to be included, vehicle testing is spread out over a period of months. As a 

result, testing can extend from October though April. Until recently, 

NHTSA did not make ratings available to the public as soon as the results 

were known but waited until all testing of a vehicle category was finished 

before issuing a press release announcing the test results. Beginning with 

model year 2005 tests, NHTSA began posting the test results to its Web site 

after the quality control process was complete. Press releases continue to 

be generated after each batch of tests is completed. NHTSA officials said 

that by releasing the results this way, consumers have comparative 

information on all vehicles of one type at the same time.

One testing organization has addressed some of the timeliness issues. Euro 

NCAP obtains some vehicles directly from the manufacturers prior to 

distribution to dealerships. This enables them to begin testing before the 

vehicles are available to the public.61 In addition, the Euro NCAP divides its 

program into two testing and information releases each year—one in 

November and one in June—to speed the information to the public.

60Automotive News. Includes new model year passenger vehicles sales from September 2003 

though February 2004.

61The Euro NCAP selects the vehicles from the manufacturers randomly by vehicle 

identification number.
Page 58 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Conclusions While NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program has contributed to making 

safer vehicles, it is at a crossroads where it will need to change to remain 

relevant. The usefulness of the current testing has been eroded by changes 

in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program began. The 

growing number of large pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the nation’s 

vehicle fleet is creating different safety risks, particularly with regard to the 

incompatibility of large and small vehicles and vehicle rollover, which 

NCAP does not fully address. In addition, the very success of the program 

has brought it to a point where it is not clear that the program’s goals can 

continue to be met. Because almost all vehicles today receive four- and 

five-star frontal and side-impact safety ratings, NCAP provides little 

incentive for manufacturers to further improve the safety of their vehicles 

and does not provide consumers with information that differentiates the 

safety of one vehicle compared to another. Further, the planned changes to 

the safety standards for frontal and side crashworthiness may make 

current NCAP tests less meaningful. 

While we believe there are opportunities to enhance NCAP by developing 

approaches to better measure the interaction of large and small vehicles 

and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help prevent 

crashes from occurring, and using different injury measures to rate the 

crash results, there are challenges that must be considered and addressed 

before changes can be implemented. However, without changing its testing, 

NCAP provides little incentive for manufacturers to improve vehicle safety. 

In addition, NHTSA will need to enhance the timeliness of testing and 

presentation of the New Car Assessment Program information. For 

example, by the time NHTSA finished its testing and published the test 

results for model year 2004 vehicles, about 7.7 million, or over 46 percent of 

new vehicles had already been purchased. To enhance the information 

available to consumers, NHTSA can provide summary ratings, present 

information in a comparative manner, increase public awareness, and 

conduct tests earlier in the car model year. Given the substantial numbers 

of traffic deaths and injuries suffered on the nation’s roads each year, 

efforts to improve vehicle safety seem warranted.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the 

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to examine 

the future direction of the New Car Assessment Program to maximize its 

value in providing an incentive for manufacturers to improve vehicle safety 

and informing the public about the relative safety of vehicles.
Page 59 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

This examination should include

• identifying and evaluating NCAP tests that should help prevent fatalities 

on the nation’s roadways, which should include developing measures for 

rating vehicle incompatibility in front and side-impact tests and 

occupant protection in rollover crashes; 

• developing approaches to incorporate active safety systems ratings as a 

part of NCAP; and 

• analyzing alternative testing methodologies and dummies to provide a 

robust and accurate measure of the likelihood of serious injuries to a 

wide range of vehicle occupants. 

In addition, we recommend that steps be taken to provide the public with 

improved NCAP safety information in a more timely manner. In doing so it 

may be necessary to examine how other organizations inform the public 

and develop summary ratings, whether vehicles could be obtained more 

efficiently for testing, how budgeted funds are managed during the year, 

and how efficiently NCAP times the crash tests conducted by its 

contractors. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a copy of the draft report to the Department of Transportation 

for its review and comment. In commenting on the report, the Senior 

Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety commented that NHTSA was 

pleased that the report concluded that NCAP has been successful in 

encouraging manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing vehicle 

safety information to consumers. While NHTSA generally agreed with the 

report findings, including recognition that there are opportunities to 

enhance NCAP, the official emphasized that NCAP was just one of the 

many interrelated methods, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards and traffic injury control programs, the agency uses to achieve 

its mission of saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing vehicle-related 

crashes. The official said that NHTSA has been consistently working to 

address the challenges associated with enhancing this complex technical 

program while ensuring that the testing and results reported to consumers 

are accurate and reliable. The official explained that this requires NHTSA 

to ensure that any changes to NCAP, or for that matter to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards, are based on sound science and careful analysis 

of supporting data. The official cited a number of recent efforts that 

NHTSA said demonstrate the careful and systematic approach the agency 
Page 60 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

uses when considering changes to the program. These include pilot studies 

with child restraint systems to determine the feasibility of incorporating 

them into NCAP, seeking public comments for revising frontal NCAP 

collision testing, and working to ensure that advanced safety technologies 

are publicized so that consumers can factor them into the vehicle purchase 

decision-making process. 

The NHTSA official also said that the agency recognizes that vehicle 

rollover and compatibility issues cause a significant portion of the fatal and 

serious motor vehicle occupant injuries on our nation’s highways, and 

NHTSA has made these areas two of its highest priorities. In June 2003, 

NHTSA published initiatives for public comment to address both of these 

areas. The NHTSA official said the agency is continuing its efforts to 

identify effective vehicle metrics and countermeasures to address these 

issues, since they are necessary in order for NCAP to provide meaningful 

consumer information that can be linked to safety improvements in the 

vehicle.

We recognize that NCAP is one of a number of efforts that NHTSA uses in 

an attempt to reduce highway crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities. In 

addition, we support NHTSA’s view that changes to the NCAP program 

should be based on sound science and careful analysis of supporting data. 

We encourage NHTSA to take timely action to address the issues raised in 

this report. NCAP has helped make vehicles safer, but there are 

opportunities to improve the program and ultimately help save more lives. 

The risks associated with vehicle incompatibility and rollover and the 

potential benefits to be gained from active safety systems heighten the 

importance of addressing these issues as promptly as possible. In addition, 

analyzing alternative testing methodologies and dummies could lead to 

more robust and accurate measures of the likelihood of serious injury to a 

wide range of vehicle occupants. Lastly, NHTSA has the opportunity to 

improve the timeliness and presentation of the NCAP results, which could 

help consumers make informed decisions when they purchase cars.

NHTSA also provided technical clarifications to our report, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at 

no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. We are also making 
Page 61 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

available a version of this report that includes video clips of some of the 

crash tests conducted by NHTSA and others.

If you or your staffs have any questions regarding the contents of this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. Individuals 

making key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX.

JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 62 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To determine how NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program tests vehicles, 

rates their safety, and reports the results to the public, we reviewed Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: Chapter V, Part 571); the 

Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-

513); the Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act; and other documents pertaining to NCAP 

regulations. We also searched NHTSA’s docket and NCAP documentation. 

In addition, we conducted interviews with NHTSA officials responsible for 

operating the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulatory program 

and the New Car Assessment Program. We visited and interviewed officials 

from the Federal Highway Administration and the National Crash Analysis 

Center. During visits to all five of the contractors that perform regulatory 

and NCAP crash tests-- including Karco Engineering, LLC, in Adelanto, 

California; MGA Research Corporation in Burlington, Wisconsin; Medical 

College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; General Dynamics—

Advanced Information Systems in Buffalo, New York; and the 

Transportation Research Center, Inc., in East Liberty, Ohio--we interviewed 

officials and engineers performing tests and observed various crash tests. 

We documented the procedures for obtaining the data, how results were 

recorded, and the conversion into star ratings. We determined that NCAP 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. In addition, we 

reviewed literature pertaining to vehicle safety issues and documents 

published by the Transportation Research Board.

To compare NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program with other programs 

that test vehicles and report vehicle safety results to the public, we 

researched literature and interviewed NHTSA officials to identify three 

foreign New Car Assessment Programs (in Australia, Europe, and Japan) 

and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as a domestic program. We 

also identified publishers of Consumer Reports and The Car Book as 

organizations that used NHTSA’s NCAP data to derive their own vehicle 

safety ratings. We identified a program in Korea but did not include this 

program in our review because it began operating in 1999 and had not 

tested a significant number of vehicles. 

We obtained information on these programs by reviewing their literature 

and their Web sites. We also interviewed officials and visited the test 

facilities of the Insurance Institute and the NCAPs in Australia, Europe, and 

Japan. We visited the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety’s Vehicle 

Research Center and observed a crash test. We also examined international 

crash test and rating programs, including the Australia, Euro, and Japan 

NCAPs. For Australia’s NCAP, we visited Australia and conducted 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 63 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

interviews with government officials associated with the respective New 

Car Assessment Program and vehicle safety policy. For Euro NCAP, we 

visited Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, where we 

conducted interviews with the European Commission, and the government 

officials associated with the respective New Car Assessment Programs and 

vehicle safety policies in Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For 

Japan’s NCAP, we visited Japan and interviewed government officials 

associated with the respective New Car Assessment Program and vehicle 

safety policy. While in these countries, we also interviewed auto 

associations, consumer advocacy groups, and vehicle safety experts. We 

identified and selected these auto associations, consumer advocacy 

groups, and vehicle safety experts by reviewing studies and conference 

papers, talking to program officials and other experts, and reviewing 

materials on Web sites. We interviewed auto manufacturers in these 

countries, including BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo. We 

reviewed New Car Assessment Program regulations, testing protocols, and 

program documentation. See table 1 for a list of domestic and international 

organizations contacted. 

To determine whether opportunities exist for NCAP to enhance its vehicle 

safety testing and reporting, we obtained views from experts in vehicle 

safety and the auto and insurance industries. In selecting vehicle safety 

experts, we examined studies and conference papers, considered referrals 

from other experts, and consulted the National Academy of Sciences. We 

interviewed officials of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive 

Medicine and Applied Research Associates. We visited and interviewed 

automobile manufacturers in the United States, including General Motors, 

Ford Motor Company, Daimler-Chrysler, and American Honda Motor 

Company. We interviewed trade associations including the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International 

Automobile Manufacturers. We interviewed consumer advocacy groups, 

including Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the AAA Foundation for Traffic 

Safety, Advocates for Highway Safety and Auto Safety, and the National 

Safety Council. We reviewed relevant research on consumer information 

regarding vehicle safety from the Transportation Research Board.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 64 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted

U.S. NCAP

Federal agencies

Department of Transportation

 NHTSA

 George Washington University’s National Crash Analysis Center

 Federal Highway Administration

Consumer information organizations

Consumer Reports

The Center for Auto Safety (The Car Book)

Crash test organizations

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Automobile manufacturers

American Honda Motor Company

Daimler-Chrysler Corporation

Ford Motor Company

General Motors Corporation

Industry associations and experts

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Applied Research Associates

Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers

Consumers Union

Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center

National Safety Council

Public Citizen

Transportation Research Board

Vehicle Certification Agency North America

Contractors

General Dynamics—Advanced Information Systems

Karco Engineering, LLC

Medical College of Wisconsin

MGA Research Corporation

Transportation Research Center
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 65 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Australia NCAP

Australia Automobile Association (administrator for Australia NCAP)

Australian Consumers’ Association (CHOICE magazine)

Department of Transport and Regional Services—Vehicle Safety Standards 

Crashlab—New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority (Australia NCAP test facility)

Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

Monash University Accident Research Center

National Roads and Motorists Association Motoring and Services

Royal Automobile Club of Victoria

Victoria Road and Traffic Authority

Euro NCAP

Belgium

European Auto Manufacturers Association 

European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport

European Transport Safety Council

Germany

General German Automobile Club (ADAC)

BMW AG

Daimler Chrysler AG, Mercedes-Benz Technology Center

Federal Ministry for Traffic, Building, and Housing

TÜV Automotive Group

United Kingdom

Automotive Safety Centre at the University of Birmingham 

Department for Transport

Euro NCAP

International Consumer Research and Testing (Which? magazine)

Thatcham (Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre)

Transportation Research Laboratory

Sweden

Swedish Road Administration

Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute

Volvo

Japan NCAP

Honda Research and Development Corporation

Japan Auto Research Institute (Japan NCAP test facility)

Japan Automobile Federation 

Japan Automobile Importers Association

Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 66 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Source: GAO.

We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Japan Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim’s Aid (Japan NCAP)

Nissan Motor Corporation

Toyota Motor Corporation

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 67 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix II

Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings ApendxiI

To rate a vehicle’s crashworthiness, NHTSA combines information about 

(1) the forces that would injure a human during a crash and (2) the effects 

of those forces on areas of the human body. The forces that would injure a 

human during a crash are measured by anthropomorphic test devices, 

commonly referred to as crash test dummies, which serve as proxies for 

human vehicle occupants. These dummies are fitted with accelerometers 

and load sensors that measure the forces of impact on particular areas of 

the body, as shown in figure 32. 
Appendix II

Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings 

Page 68 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and Accelerometers

Because the current dummy technology has yet to replicate a human with 

the same biological matter or physiology, dummies cannot exhibit injuries 

following a crash as a human would. Therefore, the effects of the forces on 

particular areas of the human body, as measured by the dummies, have 

been developed by researchers who have gathered information by applying 

varying forces to biological specimens and by using a scale developed by 

the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM). 

Source: Copyright © 2005 Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB. All rights reserved.
Appendix II

Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings 

Page 69 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

This scale, the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), ranks injuries, from minor 

through currently untreatable, for particular areas of the body and assigns 

a number from 1 through 6 to each rank, as shown in table 2. The AIS is 

used to provide a simple numerical method for ranking and comparing 

injuries by severity.

Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 

Source: Copyright © 2005 Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. 

AIS values in NCAP are injury probability values derived from 

measurements of dummy response taken from specific characteristics 

(e.g., size, shape, mass, stiffness, or energy dissipation) that simulate 

corresponding human responses (e.g., acceleration, velocity, or 

articulation). These dummy responses are correlated with both 

experimental biomechanical research as well as with real world crash 

injury investigation. Researchers have used a statistical procedure to relate 

the levels of injury to the forces that caused them. This procedure produces 

theoretical injury curves, which NHTSA uses as the basis for safety ratings.

NHTSA develops crashworthiness ratings, expressed in stars, for both 

frontal and side crashes. To develop the NCAP ratings for frontal crashes, 

NHTSA measures forces to the head and chest. Specifically, the injury 

criteria for the frontal star rating are the head, as measured by a composite 

of acceleration values known as the Head Injury Criterion (HIC), and the 

chest, as measured by a chest deceleration value known as chest Gs. Each 

of these two measures has its own injury risk curve that has been fixed at 

AIS level 4 or greater—that is, a severe, critical, or currently untreatable 

injury, as shown in figures 33 and 34. Using the mathematical functions that 

describe each of these injury risk curves, NHTSA transforms the HIC and 

chest G measures from the frontal NCAP test into probabilities of head and 

chest injuries of AIS level 4 or greater. The lower the HIC and chest G 

AIS code Description of injury 

1 Minor

2 Moderate

3 Serious

4 Severe

5 Critical

6 Currently untreatable
Appendix II

Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings 

Page 70 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

measures, the less risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently 

untreatable injury to the head and chest in a full frontal crash.

Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

HIC

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Probability of AIS >4 head injury
Appendix II

Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings 

Page 71 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G

To convert the probability of severe injury for particular HIC and Chest G 

scores into a star rating for the frontal NCAP test, NHTSA adds the 

probability of severe injury to the head and chest and then subtracts the 

product, shown below in figure 35. NHTSA concluded that a combined 

effect of injury to the head and chest should be used since it is well 

documented that an individual who suffers multiple injuries has a higher 

risk of death. NHTSA calculates the probability of severe injury to the head 

and chest for both the driver and the front passenger dummies in the 

frontal NCAP test. 

Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for Frontal Crashes 

To develop the NCAP ratings for side crashes, NHTSA measures forces to 

the ribs and lower spine. Specifically, the injury criteria for the side star 

rating are the greater acceleration of the upper or lower ribs and the 

acceleration of the lower spine. NHTSA averages these accelerations to 

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 30 60 90 120 150

Probability of AIS >4 chest injury

Chest G

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Prob(Combined) = Prob(HIC) + Prob(Chest) - (Prob(HIC) * Prob(Chest))

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Appendix II

Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings 

Page 72 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

generate a measurement known as the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI). The 

TTI also has an injury curve that has been fixed at the AIS level of 4 or 

greater, as shown in figure 36. The lower the TTI measure, the lower the 

risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently untreatable injury to the 

thorax and upper abdomen in a side crash. 

Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve

The Thoracic Trauma Index score and its associated probability of 

receiving an AIS level 4 or greater injury is the sole basis for the side NCAP 

star rating. NHTSA calculates probability of severe injury to the thorax and 

upper abdomen for both the front and rear dummies on the driver’s side. 

Using the probability of injury calculated from the frontal and side NCAP 

tests, NTHSA assigns a vehicle a rating of one (the worst) to five (the best) 

stars for each of the dummy occupants in each of the crashworthiness 

tests. The star ratings for the frontal and side tests correspond to the 

percentage chance of serious injury for each of these tests.

The numerical boundaries between each star rating are determined by 

NHTSA. The frontal NCAP star boundaries are roughly twice as large as the 

side NCAP star boundaries because NHTSA uses a combined probability of 

injury to generate star ratings for the frontal NCAP test and uses only one 

100

80

60

40

20

0

60 90 120 150 180

Probability of severe thoracic injury

Thoracic Trauma Index

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Appendix II

Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings 

Page 73 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

probability of injury to generate star ratings for the side NCAP test. In 

addition, the forces and associated probabilities at the boundary between 

two and three stars for both the frontal and side NCAP tests are roughly 

equal to the relevant force thresholds for compliance with two Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards—numbers 208 and 214, respectively. 
Page 74 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix III

Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating ApendxiI

To indicate the likelihood of a vehicle’s rolling over in a single-vehicle 

crash, NHTSA combines the risk of rollover in a single vehicle crash 

indicated by a measure of the vehicle’s top-heaviness, called the Static 

Stability Factor (SSF), with the results of a dynamic rollover test to 

produce a star rollover rating. The SSF is an indicator for the most frequent 

type of rollover, called a “tripped rollover,” which occurs when a vehicle 

leaves the roadway and its wheels are tripped by a curb, soft shoulder, or 

other roadway object, causing the vehicle to roll over. About 95 percent of 

rollovers are tripped. Because the SSF is an indicator of the most frequent 

type of rollover, it plays a significantly larger role in a vehicle’s star rating 

than do the results of the dynamic rollover test. The dynamic rollover test 

determines how susceptible a vehicle is to an on-road “untripped” 

rollover—a type that accounts for less than 5 percent of rollovers. Because 

untripped rollovers are so infrequent, the rollover test does not affect the 

vehicle’s star rating significantly, resulting in a difference of no more than 

half a star in the rating. 

Static Stability Factor The SSF is a calculation of a vehicle’s top-heaviness, defined as one-half of 

the vehicle’s track width divided by the height of the center of gravity (c.g.). 

A higher SSF value equates to a more stable, less top-heavy vehicle. SSF 

values across all vehicle types range from around 1.0 to 1.5. Most passenger 

cars have values in the 1.3 to 1.5 range, as shown in figure 37. Higher riding 

SUVs, pickups, and vans usually have values in the 1.0 to 1.3 range, also 

shown in figure 37. Many of the higher riding vehicles of previous model 

years are being redesigned to ride lower on a wider track to improve their 

rollover resistance and obtain a higher SSF rating.
Appendix III

Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating

Page 75 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 37: Static Stability Factor of a Passenger Vehicle Compared with an SUV

After determining the SSF, NHTSA selects certain vehicles for the dynamic 

rollover test. Not all passenger cars selected for NCAP testing undergo the 

dynamic test. Thus far, for most passenger cars, NHTSA has imputed or 

assigned a no-tip result for the dynamic test based on the testing of other 

passenger cars that are more top heavy (according to the SSF score) but 

did not tip up during the dynamic test. NHTSA periodically tests passenger 

cars to validate the imputed results. 

Dynamic Rollover Test In the dynamic rollover test, a driver sits in the vehicle and conducts the 

test by applying the accelerator and initiating commands for the 

programmable steering controller, which actually maneuvers the vehicles, 

as shown in figure 38. The general steering parameters are 270 degrees 

(about a three-quarters turn) for the initial turn and 540 degrees (about one 

and one-half turn) for the correction turn, as shown in figure 39. Outriggers 

are attached to the vehicle to prevent the vehicle from tipping all the way 

over. 

SSF = t

2h

t = 60"

track width

t = 58"

track width

h = 20"

c.g.

height

h = 29" c.g.

height

1.50 1.00

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Appendix III

Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating

Page 76 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 38: Programmable Steering Controller

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Appendix III

Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating

Page 77 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 39: Diagram of the Dynamic Test, Showing Steering Parameters 

The result of the dynamic rollover test is either “tip-up” or “no tip-up.” To 

receive a “no tip-up” result, a vehicle must reach a speed of 50 miles per 

hour (mph) on four dynamic test runs—two from left to right and two from 

right to left—without the inside wheels on either side of the vehicle 

simultaneously lifting at least 2 inches off the surface, and it must do this at 

two different steering wheel angles. Sensors are used to detect wheel-lift, 

as shown in figure 40. For the first run of each test, the speed is 35 mph, 

and subsequent runs are conducted at about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph, and 

50 mph, until the vehicle tips up or attains an entrance speed of 50 mph on 

the last run of each test without tipping up. The same series of tests is 

repeated at a different steering wheel angle.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Zone where tip-up 

most likely to occur

Test starts here at 

entrance speed 

between 35 to 50 mph

Overcorrection

~540 degrees

Initial rapid 

steering input

~270 degrees

Test complete

2

1
Appendix III

Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating

Page 78 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 40: Sensors to Detect Wheel-lift

NHTSA first began to rate vehicles’ rollover avoidance in model year 2001, 

using the SSF alone to determine the star rating. At that time, NHTSA used 

a statistical procedure to determine how the SSF affects the risk of 

rollover.1

 Physics theory would suggest that vehicles with a low SSF—

vehicles that are more top-heavy—are more likely to roll over than vehicles 

1

NHTSA used linear regression to determine the relationship between a vehicle’s probability 

of rollover per single vehicle crash and its Static Stability Factor controlling for road use and 

state dummy variables. It is important to emphasize that this relationship may only be 

imputed to vehicles involved in single-vehicle crashes and not to the vehicle fleet at large. 

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Appendix III

Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating

Page 79 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

with a high SSF. NHTSA’s empirical model confirmed this theory, showing 

that the lower the SSF, the more likely a vehicle is to roll over in a singlevehicle crash. For the first 3 years that NHTSA rated rollover risk, it used a 

linear model that examined accident report data at the state level. 

Following the passage of the TREAD Act, which required NHTSA to 

include a dynamic rollover test in NCAP, and the publication of a National 

Academy of Sciences report, which recommended that NHTSA use a 

nonlinear model to predict rollover risk, NHTSA altered its method of 

calculating rollover risk.2

 NHTSA now links the SSF and the risk of rollover 

using a nonlinear model.3

 In addition, NHTSA includes the results of the 

dynamic test—that is, whether a vehicle tips or not—in this new model, as 

shown in figure 41.

2

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Rating System for Rollover 

Resistance: An Assessment, TRB Special Report 265 (Washington, D.C. : National Academy 

of Sciences, 2002).

3

NHTSA’s new model uses logistic instead of linear regression. In addition, NHTSA performs 

a log transformation of the Static Stability Factor to increase the accuracy of the model for 

vehicles with low Static Stability Factors. 
Appendix III

Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating

Page 80 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover Ratings 

A vehicle’s rollover rating is an estimate of its risk of rolling over in a singlevehicle crash, not a prediction of the likelihood of a rollover crash.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.95 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.05

70

80

Chance of rollover

Tip

No tip

Static stability factor (SSF)

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Page 81 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix IV

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ApendxiIV

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and 

communications organization funded by the U.S. auto insurance industry. 

The Insurance Institute has been conducting vehicle safety research since 

1969, and in 1992 it opened the Vehicle Research Center to conduct vehicle 

crash tests. The Insurance Institute began crash testing and rating vehicles 

for frontal collisions in 1995 and for side collisions in 2003.1

 The center 

conducts the Insurance Institute’s vehicle-related research, which includes 

controlled tests of vehicles and their components using instrumented crash 

tests, as well as studies of real collisions. Insurance Institute officials told 

us that scrutinizing the outcomes of both controlled tests and on-the-road 

crashes gives researchers—and ultimately the public—a better idea of how 

and why vehicle occupants are injured in crashes. This research, in turn, 

leads to vehicle designs that reduce injuries. The Insurance Institute buys 

the vehicles for crash tests directly from dealers. It also chooses vehicles 

for testing to represent both a range of manufacturers and the largest 

portions of new car sales, in an effort to cover as much of the marketplace 

as possible. The Insurance Institute tests vehicles in categories, such as 

small cars, minivans, and midsize SUVs.

Testing Conducted The Insurance Institute conducts two types of crash tests—an offset frontal 

test and a perpendicular side test. The offset frontal test is conducted at 

about 40 mph to simulate a typical head-on collision of two vehicles. The 

offset frontal test evaluates the potential for injuries caused to occupants 

by intrusion into the occupant compartment. The Insurance Institute uses a 

frontal impact dummy, called the 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy, in its 

frontal crash tests. This dummy represents a man of average size, 5 feet 9 

inches tall and weighing about 170 pounds. Such dummies were designed 

to measure the risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, and lower extremities 

in a frontal crash.

The Insurance Institute’s perpendicular side test measures the impact of a 

moving deformable barrier striking the driver’s side of a passenger vehicle 

at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end shaped to 

simulate the typical front end of a pickup truck or SUV. Two instrumented 

5th percentile side-impact dummies (SID-IIs), representing small females or 

12-year-old adolescents who are 5 feet tall and weigh about 110 pounds, are 

positioned in the driver’s seat and in the rear seat behind the driver to 

1

The Insurance Institute began evaluating head restraint geometry in 1995, and dynamic 

seat/head restraint tests were added in 2004.
Appendix IV

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Page 82 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

measure the impact of the vehicle crash. The SID-IIs dummies were 

designed to measure acceleration of the spine and ribs plus compression of 

the rib cage in a side crash.2

 They are also equipped with unique load cells, 

which measure the force of the impact applied to the dummies during the 

crash. 

Scoring Tests To evaluate a vehicle’s performance in the frontal crash test and develop an 

overall rating for the frontal test, the Insurance Institute uses three types of 

measures: (1) structural performance, the amount and pattern of intrusion 

into the occupant compartment during the offset test; (2) injuries measured 

by a Hybrid III dummy positioned in the driver’s seat; and (3) dummy 

kinematics, or the dummy’s movements during the test, as determined 

through an analysis of a slow-motion film. The structural performance 

assessment indicates how well the front-end crush zone managed the crash 

energy and how well the safety cage limited intrusion into the driver space. 

Figure 42 shows the intrusion levels on which a vehicle’s structural 

performance is rated. Injury measures are used to determine the likelihood 

of injury to various regions of the driver’s body. The measures recorded 

from the head, neck, chest, legs, and feet of the dummy indicate the level of 

stress/strain on that part of the body. Thus, greater numbers mean larger 

stresses and strains and a greater risk of injury. Because significant risk of 

injury can result from undesirable dummy kinematics in the absence of 

high injury measures, such as partial ejection from the occupant 

compartment through a window, a slow-motion film is used during the 

crash test. An analysis of this slow-motion film helps evaluate the 

interactions of the restraint system’s components—including the safety 

belts, air bags, steering columns, head restraints, and other components—

to control the dummy’s movement.

2

Compression refers to the extent body regions are squeezed during the impact and is used 

as an indicator of injury to internal organs.
Appendix IV

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Page 83 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 42: Guidelines for Rating Occupant Compartment Intrusion Measured in 

Centimeters

A vehicle’s overall frontal rating depends on the effectiveness of its 

structure, or safety cage, in protecting the occupant compartment, the risk 

of injury measured for an average-size male, and the effectiveness of the 

restraint system in controlling occupants’ movements. The structural 

performance and injury assessments are the major components of each 

vehicle's overall frontal rating; the dummy kinematics (movement) 

contributes less to the rating.

A vehicle’s side crash test performance and overall rating are based on 

(1) the injury measures recorded on the two instrumented SID-IIs dummies 

positioned in the driver’s seat and in the rear seat behind the driver, (2) an 

assessment of head-protection countermeasures, and (3) the vehicle's 

structural performance during the impact. The injury measures are used to 

determine the likelihood that the driver, the passenger, or both would have 

sustained serious injury to various body regions. Measures are recorded 

from the head, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and leg. These injury 

Footrest Left

toepan

Center

toepan

Right

toepan

Brake

pedal

Left inside

panel

Right inside

panel

Door

0

5

10

15

40

35

30

25

20

Poor

Marginal

Acceptable

Good

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Appendix IV

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Page 84 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

measures, especially from the head and neck and from the torso (chest and 

abdomen), are the major components of the vehicle's overall rating. To 

supplement head injury measures, the movements and contacts of the 

dummies' heads during the crash are evaluated. High head injury measures 

typically are recorded when the moving deformable barrier hits a dummy's 

head during impact. Moreover, a “near miss” or a grazing contact also 

indicates a potential for serious injury in a real-world crash because small 

differences in an occupant’s height or seating position, compared with a 

dummy’s, could result in a hard contact and high risk of serious head injury. 

The vehicle’s structural performance is based on measurements of 

intrusion into the occupant compartment around the B-pillar (between the 

doors). This assessment indicates how well the vehicle's side structure 

resisted intrusion into the driver’s and rear-seat passenger space. Some 

intrusion into the occupant compartment is inevitable in serious side 

crashes.

The overall side rating depends on the risk of injury measured for small 

female occupants mainly to the head and neck and torso (chest and 

abdomen); the effectiveness of the occupant compartment in protecting 

the head; and the vehicle's structure performance during the impact. The 

overall side rating for any body region, based on the injury measures 

recorded on the two SID-IIs dummies, is the lowest rating scored for any 

injury within that region.

Sharing Results with the 

Public

The Insurance Institute’s rating system provides qualitative ratings of 

Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. The Insurance Institute provides 

one rating for the frontal test and one rating for the side test. Vehicle rating 

information is available on the Insurance Institute’s Web site, through press 

releases, and through television coverage. Figure 43 shows how the 

Insurance Institute communicated its ratings to consumers on the Internet. 

In addition to the ratings for frontal and side crashes, the Insurance 

Institute provided the results of various tests, such as those of the vehicle’s 

structural performance and of injuries to various body regions.
Appendix IV

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Page 85 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 43: Insurance Institute Rating of a Mid-size Passenger Car

Figure 44 shows how the Insurance Institute presented its ratings to 

consumers in its Status Report. The print version is available only to 

subscribers, and some of the publications can be downloaded from the 

Insurance Institute’s Web site.

Overall FRONTAL Overall SIDE

Structure/safety cage

Head protection

Injury measures

Head/neck

Torso

Pelvis/leg

Structure/safety cage

Injury measures

Head/neck

Chest

Leg/foot, left

Leg/foot, right

Restraints/dummy kinematics

Driver

Rear

passenger

Poor Marginal Acceptable Good

Source: Insurance Insitute for Highway Safety.

P

P

P

P M

P

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

A

A

A

A
Appendix IV

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Page 86 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 44: Insurance Institute Crash Ratings Provided to Public in its Status Report

Publication

Note: The names of vehicles that received the crash ratings above were purposely removed.

News magazine television shows, such as Dateline NBC, periodically use 

Insurance Institute crash test results and interview representatives, 

including the president or chief operating officer, as report segments for 

their programs.

Crashworthiness

evaluations

Overall side

evaluation

Overall

frontal

evaluation

Head

protection

Injury measures

Head/neck Torso Pelvis/leg

Structure/

safety cage

Poor Marginal Acceptable Good

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

G

G

P

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

A

A

M

M

P A

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

M

G

G

M

P

G

M

G

P

G

G

M

G

G

G

G

P

G

P P

A

rear 

passenger

driver

rear 

passenger

driver

rear 

passenger

driver

rear 

passenger

driver

rear 

passenger

driver

BEST

PICK

frontal

BEST

PICK

frontal

Crashworthiness

evaluationsof midsize 4-door cars
Page 87 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program ApendxiV

The Australian New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides 

information for consumers on the safety performance of new vehicles sold 

in Australia and New Zealand. The main purposes of the program are to 

provide new vehicle buyers with independent advice on vehicle occupant 

protection and to develop strategies for vehicle manufacturers to increase 

the level of passive safety in their vehicles.1

 The program is funded by a 

consortium of the state government transport departments of New South 

Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western 

Australia; automobile clubs through the Australian Automobile Association 

and New Zealand Automobile Association; the Land Transport Safety 

Authority of New Zealand; and the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and 

Society.2

 The Australia Commonwealth Department of Transport and 

Regional Services has established minimum safety standards for vehicles 

sold in Australia and has conducted joint research projects with NCAP but 

has not contributed to the support of the crash test program. 

The Australia NCAP buys the vehicles that it crash tests directly from 

dealers, as would any consumer. The program selects vehicles on the basis 

of (1) actual or projected sales, to target vehicles that are most popular; (2) 

vehicle model, to account for standard or deluxe models, which may 

contain more expensive passive safety features such as air bags and 

advanced restraint systems; (3) new and popular body designs, to select the 

body design that is most popular or to allow for direct comparisons across 

different makes and models; (4) market segment, to target individual 

segments of the market to allow comparisons of results; and (5) vehicle 

price. Using these selection criteria, the Australia NCAP covers more than 

70 percent of the new vehicle fleet by volume. The program also uses 

European NCAP (Euro NCAP) crash test results. However, the Euro NCAP 

results are intended to be used as a guide only, because the structure and 

equipment of the European specification model may differ materially from 

1

Passive safety is the term used to refer to automobile designs and technologies that help 

mitigate the injury potential in vehicle crashes (sometimes called “crashworthiness”). 

Passive safety comes from an optimized vehicle structure and vehicle restraint 

technologies.

2

The Australia New Car Assessment Program is supported by a consortium of 15 members 

of the Australian Automobile Association. The membership includes the National Roads and 

Motorists Association; the Royal Automobile Clubs of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, 

Western Australia, and Tasmania; the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory; the 

FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society; the state road and transport authorities in 

New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia; the New 

Zealand Automobile Association; and the New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority.
Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program

Page 88 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

the model of the same name sold in Australia or New Zealand. The 

Australia NCAP tests and reports on vehicles in seven categories—small, 

medium, and large passenger cars; luxury cars; four-wheel drive vehicles 

(SUVs); multipurpose utility vehicles (small trucks); and sports cars.

Testing Conducted The Australia NCAP’s testing has evolved over time. Established in 1992, 

the Australia NCAP was originally modeled on the U.S. program and began 

rating vehicles in 1993. Initially, it conducted only a full frontal crash test, 

but it added an offset frontal test in 1994. In 1999, the Australia NCAP 

harmonized its tests and assessment procedures with the Euro NCAP 

through a memorandum of understanding. By harmonizing, it discontinued 

the full frontal crash test and began conducting the perpendicular sideimpact test and pedestrian test. Australia NCAP officials have been 

considering eliminating the perpendicular side-impact test in favor of a 

pole test that they believe will more accurately test vehicles of all sizes for 

occupant protection.

In 2004, the Australia NCAP performed three crash tests and a pedestrian 

protection test. The three crash tests include the 40 percent offset frontal, 

the perpendicular side-impact, and the side-impact pole tests. The offset 

frontal test involves pulling a test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 km/h) and 

crashing it into an offset deformable aluminum barrier. The deformable 

barrier has a crushable aluminum honeycomb face attached to a solid 

barrier. The deformable structure resembles the front-end characteristics 

of another vehicle. Two instrumented 50th percentile Hybrid III dummies 

(weighing about 194 pounds each) are used to collect data during the crash 

and are placed in the front driver’s and front passenger seats. Two child 

dummies, representing a 3-year-old and a 1-1/2-year-old child, are placed in 

the rear seats in appropriate restraints. While Australia NCAP does not use 

the measurements from the child dummies in its crash test rating, the 

dummies are included in the tests to maintain alignment with Euro NCAP 

testing.

The perpendicular side-impact test involves pulling a barrier with a 

deformable face at about 31 mph (50 km/h) and crashing it into a stationary 

test vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the driver’s seating position. 

The moving deformable barrier has a mass of 2,095 pounds (950 kg) 

compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S. barrier. One 

instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy (weighing about 176 

pounds) is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the front 

driver seat. As in the frontal test, to maintain alignment with Euro NCAP’s 
Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program

Page 89 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

testing, the two child dummies are placed in the rear seats in appropriate 

restraints.

The pole side-impact test involves propelling a vehicle placed on a platform 

at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has a diameter of 

about 10 inches, or about 254 millimeters (mm), and its vertical axis is 

aligned with the front seat dummy’s head. One instrumented 50th percentile 

EuroSID-II dummy is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in 

the front driver’s seat.

The pedestrian protection test evaluates the interaction of dummy parts 

and the bumper, hood, and windshield area of a vehicle. Adult and childsize dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and front 

bumper of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-pedestrian 

collision. The test simulates the impact of a lower leg against a bumper, a 

thigh against the lower edge of the hood, and an adult and a child head 

against the upper portion of the hood.

Scoring Tests Frontal tests in the Australia NCAP are scored on the basis of three types of 

observations--dummy measurements, a vehicle’s structural performance, 

and a post-crash inspection of the vehicle. The injury measurements are 

recorded from two Hybrid III dummies positioned in the front driver’s seat 

and front passenger seat. The injury assessment evaluates four body 

regions: (1) head and neck; (2) chest; (3) knee, femur, and pelvis; and 

(4) legs and feet. Structural performance is based on measurements 

indicating the amount and pattern of intrusion into the occupant 

compartment during the test. Dummy injury measurements and vehicle 

deformation can be compared with predicted values. Evidence of 

structural collapse can be determined by a post-crash inspection and by 

viewing a high-speed video recorded from various angles during the crash 

test. The post-crash inspection and video allow trained inspectors to assess 

dummy kinematics, evaluate the evidence of interior contacts, and inspect 

safety belts, seats, and air bags to ensure they operated as intended.3

 For 

example, according to Australia NCAP officials, air bag performance could 

be compromised by the dynamics of a crash in ways that might not be 

evident from a post-crash inspection but could be revealed through careful 

analysis of the video.

3

Dummy kinematics (movement) are evaluated by how well the safety belt and air bag 

perform and interact with the steering column and other vehicle parts to control movement.
Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program

Page 90 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Each body region receives a score based on the dummy measurements, the 

vehicle deformation data, and the findings of the post-crash inspection 

(using modifiers). For example, excessive rearward movement of the 

steering wheel could lower the head score by a point to reflect identified 

risks. Other modifiers include lack of air bag stability, steering column 

movement, A-pillar movement, structural integrity, hazardous structures in 

the knee impact area, and brake pedal movement.4

For the side-impact and pole tests, the scores are based on injury 

measurements recorded on one EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front 

driver’s seat. The injury assessment evaluates four body regions: the head, 

ribs, abdomen, and pelvis. A post-crash inspection and high-speed video 

are also used to evaluate structural collapse. 

A summary star rating shows the protection level indicated by the front and 

side-impact tests together. The summary score for the two tests is based on 

the point scores achieved in each test. Sixteen points can be achieved in 

the frontal test and 18 points in the side tests, for a maximum of 34 points. 

Two of the 18 points available in the side test come from the optional pole 

test, which assesses only one body region—the head. Each of the four body 

regions in the frontal test could receive a maximum score of 4 points, for a 

cumulative score of 16 points. Similarly, the four body regions in the sideimpact test could receive a maximum score of 4 points, for a cumulative 

score of 16 points. If a vehicle has head-protecting side air bags, the 

manufacturer of the vehicle has the option of accepting a side impact pole 

test, through which 2 bonus points can be earned.

The offset and side-impact scores are added together to produce an overall 

score with a maximum of 32 points. In addition, if a pole side test is 

conducted and shows good head protection, then 2 extra points can be 

earned, and up to 3 more points can be earned for having a safety belt 

reminder system. The points are translated into stars, as shown in table 3.

4

The A-pillar is the side support for the roof that is in the front of the passenger 

compartment and the B-pillar provides side roof support in the center of the passenger 

compartment just behind the door. 
Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program

Page 91 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Table 3: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star Ratings

Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.

a

To earn five stars a vehicle must achieve at least 1 point in the optional pole test (maximum 2 points). 

This is an Australia NCAP requirement.

If the injury score for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis is 0, then there is 

a high risk of a life-threatening injury. A warning note is added to the 

overall rating to highlight concern that there is a serious risk of injury in at 

least one vulnerable body region. The regions are the head or chest for the 

frontal impact test and the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis for the sideimpact test.

For the pedestrian test, the scores are based on adult and child-size dummy 

parts (head and lower limbs) used to assess the severity of impact. The two 

different size dummy heads are tested at six areas of the hood, and the 

lower limbs for an adult and child are tested at three areas, for a total of 18 

impacts tested for each vehicle. Based on the injury measurements 

recorded from the dummy parts, each impact can receive up to 2 points, 

and the maximum number of points that can be received is 36, as shown in 

table 4.

Star 

rating

Minimum score in

offset test

Minimum score in

side

impact test

Minimum combined score

(including pole test)

1 - - 0.5

2 1.5 1.5 8.5

3 4.5 4.5 16.5

4 8.5 8.5 24.5

5 12.5 12.5 32.5a
Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program

Page 92 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Table 4: Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test

Source: Euro NCAP.

A separate rating of one to four stars shows the level of pedestrian 

protection. The score reflects the results of the 18 impacts of the dummy 

parts against the specified areas of the bumper and hood. These results are 

summed to provide an overall score. The pedestrian protection star rating 

for a vehicle is based on the number of points received, or a maximum of 36 

points. The points are translated into stars, as shown in table 5.

Table 5: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating

Source: Euro NCAP.

Sharing Results with the 

Public

The Australia NCAP’s reporting of results to the public has evolved over 

time. Initially, the program reported the raw test results for the head, chest, 

and legs. The program also portrayed the risk of injury in each area as high 

(red), medium (yellow), or low (green) and graphically represented the risk 

on an outline of a human figure in each area. When the offset frontal crash 

test was added in 1994, its results were reported in the same way. Also in 

1994, the program began publishing tables comparing the results of the 

vehicles tested. 

Type of test Impact locations

Maximum

Points

Child head 6 12

Adult head 6 12

Upper leg 3 6

Lower leg 3 6

Total 18 36

Star rating Points

0 0

1 1-9

2 10-18

3 19-27

4 28-36
Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program

Page 93 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

In 1995, the Australia NCAP began summarizing full frontal and offset 

frontal head, chest, and leg test results by using bar charts to represent the 

percentage of risk of a life-threatening injury to drivers and to passengers. 

In 1996, the program began differentiating between upper and lower leg 

injuries, reported the results separately, and adopted the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety rating scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, 

and Poor. However, the program combined the scores for the full frontal 

driver and passenger tests with the score for the offset frontal driver test to 

arrive at an overall vehicle rating. According to Australia NCAP officials, 

subsequent research with focus groups supported the decision because the 

results indicated that consumers wanted the safety information in a 

simplified, summary form. In November 1999, to align with the Euro NCAP, 

the Australia NCAP first used a five-star system to report crash test 

performance. This system provided an overall rating along with a bar chart 

that enabled consumers to differentiate between vehicles with different 

scores that received the same number of stars.

Today, the Australia NCAP makes vehicle rating information available on 

its Web site, through press releases, and through a safety brochure. Figure 

45 shows how the program communicates its overall and pedestrian ratings 

to consumers on the Internet.

Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger Car

According to Australia NCAP officials, the Australia NCAP also publishes 

the Crash Test Update, a brochure that provides new crash test results 

about twice a year. In addition to an overall star rating for each type of 

tested vehicle, the brochure presents star ratings with comparative bar 

graphs showing how well vehicles scored within the star levels. Figure 46 

shows the brochure Australia NCAP officials provide for consumers.

Overall evaluation

Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.

Pedestrian rating
Appendix V

Australian New Car Assessment Program

Page 94 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 46: Australian NCAP July 2004 Crash Test Update Brochure

Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.
Page 95 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme ApendxiVI

The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) provides 

information for consumers with an assessment of the safety performance 

of some new vehicles sold in Europe. The program was established and 

began rating vehicles in 1997. Its main purposes are to make comparative 

safety rating information available to consumers for vehicles in the same 

class and to provide incentives for manufacturers to improve the safety of 

their vehicles. The program is operated and funded by a consortium of six 

European governments—Catalonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom—and of various motoring and consumer 

organizations throughout Europe, including the General German 

Automobile Association (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e V); 

German Federal Ministry for Traffic, Building and Housing 

(Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen); United 

Kingdom Department for Transport; Dutch Ministry of Transport—Public 

Works and Water Management; FIA (Fédération Internationale de 

l'Automobile) Foundation for the Automobile and Society; Catalonia 

Department of Employment and Industry (Departament de Treball i 

Indústria); International Consumer Research and Testing; French Ministry 

of Equipment (Ministère de l'Equipement); Swedish Road Administration; 

and Thatcham. The Euro NCAP crash testing program was modeled from 

the U.S. NCAP (1979) and the Australia NCAP (1992).

The decision process for Europe involves the use of technical working 

groups and subgroups to examine vehicle safety issues and make 

recommendations for change. Such groups are investigating the feasibility 

of incorporating such safety features as braking and handling, visibility and 

lighting, ergonomics, driver information, and whiplash into Euro NCAP. 

The automobile industry and public safety organizations may be involved in 

providing research or opinions, but the committees are free to make 

decisions they believe appropriate. Generally, decisions are made through 

two working groups, one for primary safety systems and one for secondary 

safety systems, that perform research and analysis. The Euro NCAP allows 

industry representatives to participate in the discussions of the subgroups 

of its two technical working groups. Also, the technical working groups and 

automobile manufacturers engage in direct dialogue in industry liaison 

meetings to address issues such as whiplash.

Each member of the Euro NCAP is required to sponsor at least one vehicle 

for crash testing each year. The vehicles are normally acquired by the Euro 

NCAP Secretariat by various methods, including purchasing directly from 

dealers and selecting from manufacturers’ production lines. The Euro 

NCAP tests vehicles in categories—superminis, family cars, executive cars, 
Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme

Page 96 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

roadsters, off-roaders, and multipurpose vehicles. The following further 

describes (1) the testing conducted, (2) the methods used for developing 

the vehicle crash ratings, and (3) the approaches taken to share the safety 

results with the public.

Testing Conducted The Euro NCAP performs three vehicle crash tests, a pedestrian protection 

test, and a child restraint test. The three crash tests are the 40 percent 

offset frontal test, the perpendicular side-impact test, and the side-impact 

pole test. The frontal test involves a moving test vehicle traveling at 40 mph 

(64 km/h) crashing into an offset deformable aluminum barrier where 40 

percent of the vehicle’s width engages the barrier on the driver’s side. The 

deformable barrier used is a crushable aluminum honeycomb face attached 

to a solid barrier. The deformable structure is designed to replicate the 

essential characteristics of the front end of another car. Two instrumented 

50th percentile Hybrid III dummies (each weighing about 194 pounds) are 

used to collect data during the crash and are placed in the front driver’s and 

front passenger seats.

In the side-impact test, a moving trolley with a deformable barrier is towed 

at about 31 mph (50 km/h) into a stationary test vehicle at a 90 degree angle 

centered on the driver seating position. This test simulates a side-impact 

collision. The moving deformable barrier has a mass of 2,095 pounds (950 

kg) compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S. barrier. The 

European barrier’s face is smaller and much softer than the face of the 

barrier used in the U.S. NCAP. However, Euro NCAP officials said that 

because the barrier strikes a vehicle at a 90 degree angle, their side-impact 

test is more aggressive than NHTSA’s side-impact test. One instrumented 

50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy (weighing about 176 pounds) is used to 

collect data during the crash and is placed in the front driver seat.

The pole side-impact test consists of a vehicle placed on a platform and 

propelled at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has a 

diameter of 10 inches (254 mm), and its vertical axis is aligned with the 

front seat dummy’s head. One instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II 

dummy is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the front 

driver’s seat.

The pedestrian protection test evaluates the impact of dummy parts against 

the bumper, hood, and windshield areas of a vehicle. Adult and child-size 

dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and front bumper 

of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-pedestrian collision. The 
Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme

Page 97 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

test simulates the impact of a lower leg against a bumper, a thigh against 

the lower edge of the hood, and adult and child heads against the upper 

portion of the hood.

The child protection test evaluates a vehicle’s ability to protect children by 

assessing the performance of the vehicle’s child restraint system in front 

and side-impact tests. During these tests, two child-size dummies are 

placed in the manufacturer’s recommended child restraints in the rear seat 

of a vehicle. In the frontal test, a dummy with the weight and size of an 18-

month-old child (about 24 pounds) is placed behind the passenger, and a 

dummy with the weight and size of a 3-year-old child (about 33 pounds) is 

placed behind the driver. In the side-impact test, the positions of the two 

dummies are reversed.

Scoring Tests The Euro NCAP bases its assessment of crashworthiness on three types of 

observations made during or after a crash test: (1) dummy measurements 

of forces to the body, used to assess injuries; (2) five measurements of 

vehicle deformation, used to assess the vehicle’s structural performance; 

and (3) post-crash inspection data for six areas, which are termed 

“modifiers” because problems in any one of them may result in a penalty 

that modifies the vehicle’s assessment score. 

In the offset frontal crash test, two instrumented Hybrid III dummies are 

positioned in the front driver’s seat and front passenger seat to measure 

injuries to four regions of the body: (1) head and neck; (2) chest; (3) knee, 

femur, and pelvis; and (4) legs and feet. The five structural measurements 

provide vehicle deformation data, indicating the amount and pattern of 

intrusion into the occupant compartment. The post-crash inspection 

provides information about air bag stability, steering column movement, Apillar movement, structural integrity, hazardous structures in the knee 

impact area, and brake pedal movement. The dummy measurements and 

the vehicle deformation data are combined to generate a score—up to four 

points—for each body region. This score may be modified by findings from 

the post-crash inspection.

In the side-impact and pole tests, injury measurements are recorded on one 

EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front driver’s seat. These 

measurements provide data for assessing injuries to four body regions: the 

head, ribs, abdomen (chest or thorax), and pelvis. No structural or postcrash inspection data are gathered during these tests. Thus, the score for 

each body region is based on the dummy measurements alone.
Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme

Page 98 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

In the pedestrian test, readings taken from the adult and child-size dummy 

parts (head and lower limbs) are used to assess the risk of injury. The two 

different size dummy heads are tested at six different areas of the hood, 

and the lower limbs are tested at three areas, for a total of 18 impacts 

tested for each vehicle. Depending on the injury measurements recorded 

from the dummy parts, each impact can receive up to 2 points, and the 

maximum number of points that can be received is 36 points. See table 6.

Table 6: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria

Source: Euro NCAP.

The child protection test consists of three assessments that are based on 

(1) dummy measurements and dynamic evaluations, (2) marking 

requirements for child restraint systems, and (3) a vehicle-based 

assessment. Points reflect the results of the three assessments. The first 

assessment uses dummy measurements taken from the two child dummies 

in the frontal and side tests, together with dynamic evaluations of ejection 

from the child restraint system and head contact within the vehicle. 

Another assessment evaluates whether the markings on the child restraint 

fully comply with the test requirements. The final assessment evaluates 

how easily the child restraint system can be used inside the vehicle.

A combined star rating is used to show the protection level achieved in the 

offset frontal and side impact tests together. The score for this rating is the 

sum of the scores achieved in these two tests—up to 16 points for the 

frontal test and up to 18 points for the side test, for a maximum of 34 

points. For both tests, each of four body regions can receive up to 4 points, 

for a cumulative score of 16 points per test, and for the side test, 2 

additional points can come from an optional pole test, which assesses 

protection for only one body region—the head. The pole side-impact test is 

an option for the manufacturer of a vehicle that has head-protecting side air 

Type of test Impact locations

Maximum

points

Child head 6 12

Adult head 6 12

Upper leg 3 6

Lower leg 3 6

Total 18 36
Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme

Page 99 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

bags. Finally, up to 3 more points can be earned for having a safety belt 

reminder system. The points are translated into stars, as shown in table 7.

Table 7: Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System

Source: Euro NCAP.

If the crash tests demonstrate a high risk of a life-threatening injury, 

indicated by an injury score of 0 for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis, 

then a warning note is added to the overall rating. Euro NCAP uses a 

“struck star” to convey this warning. When the star is struck through, it 

highlights concern that there is a serious risk of injury in at least one 

vulnerable body region. These concerns are based on data from the offset 

frontal test for the head or chest and from the side-impact test for the head, 

chest, abdomen, or pelvis. A star cannot be struck because of findings from 

post-crash inspections showing the effects of modifiers. 

Euro NCAP provides a separate rating of one to four stars to show the level 

of pedestrian protection. The score for this rating sums the results of the 18 

impact tests of dummy parts propelled into the specified areas of the 

bumper and hood. A vehicle can earn up to 2 points for each test, for a 

maximum of 36 points. The points are translated into stars, as shown in 

table 8.

Star rating Points

1 1-8

2 9-16

3 17-24

4 25-32

5 33-40
Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme

Page 100 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Table 8: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings

Source: Euro NCAP.

Euro NCAP also provides a separate rating of one to five stars to show the 

level of child protection. Currently, the tests on which this rating is based 

can produce a maximum of 49 points, but the rating scale allows further 

points to be awarded for future developments in child protection. Table 9 

shows how the points are translated into stars.

Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star Ratings

Source: Euro NCAP.

Sharing Results with the 

Public

Vehicle rating information is available on the Euro NCAP Web site, through 

press releases, and through popular consumer magazines. Figure 47 shows 

the ratings that the program makes available to consumers on the 

Internet—a front and side-impact rating, a pedestrian protection rating, and 

a child restraint protection rating. The pedestrian protection rating is 

intended to encourage manufacturers to start designing for pedestrian 

protection. The child restraint protection rating is based on a vehicle’s 

performance using the child seats recommended by that vehicle’s 

manufacturer. Specifically, the rating depends on the fitting instructions for 

the child seats, the car’s ability to accommodate the seats safely, and the 

seats’ performance in front and side impact tests.

Star rating Points

0 0

1 1-9

2 10-18

3 19-27

4 28-36

Star rating Points

0 0

1 1-12

2 13-24

3 25-36

4 37-48

5 49-60
Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme

Page 101 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 47: European NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger Car

In addition to star ratings, the Euro NCAP uses color-coded dummy injury 

diagrams to show how specific body regions performed in the frontal, side, 

and pole crash tests. The color-codes are: Good (green), Adequate (yellow), 

Marginal (orange), Weak (red), and Poor (brown). The colored injury 

diagrams display the risk of injury to the various body regions, as shown in 

figure 48.

Figure 48: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal Test, and 

Driver in Side Test

The Euro NCAP divides its testing into two phases and releases the results 

twice a year, in November and June. The results are posted on the 

program’s Web site, issued in press releases, and published by What Car? 

(a British car magazine), Which? Car (a magazine owned and produced by 

British consumer associations), and the General German Automobile 

Child Protection

Ratings

Front and Side

Year Impact Rating

Pedestrian Rating

Source: Euro NCAP.

2004

Good Adequate Marginal Weak Poor

Source: Euro NCAP.
Appendix VI

European New Car Assessment Programme

Page 102 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer magazines in Europe 

provide additional crash test information.
Page 103 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program ApendxiVI

The National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid (NASVA) 

conducts the Japan NCAP and is funded by the government through the 

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation. According to NASVA 

officials, the Automobile Assessment Committee, made up of 12 members 

appointed by the ministry, oversees the program. The committee includes 

four working groups, each focusing on specific areas: crash tests, tests of 

active safety systems such as brakes, pedestrian tests, and tests of child 

restraint systems. NASVA officials conduct research in these areas and 

propose changes to the program that must be approved by the committee. 

NASVA officials said that the Japan NCAP is funded through appropriations 

from the Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance that every car owner 

must pay. 

The Japan NCAP began testing vehicles in 1995, starting with a full frontal 

collision test. The program added the side-impact test in 1999 and the offset 

frontal test in 2000. Vehicles are selected for testing on the basis of sales. 

By 2004, the program had evaluated 79 vehicles representing over 80 

percent of those that were on the market at that time. Ratings for 60 of 

these vehicles were carried over from previous years’ testing, and ratings 

for 19 vehicles were based on tests performed in 2003. Testing is conducted 

at the Japan Auto Research Institute under the control and supervision of 

NCAP officials. The institute crash tests cars, minivans, and SUVs and 

performs other NCAP tests, such as the brake and pedestrian tests. The 

research laboratory has one track for conducting frontal and side-impact 

tests. In these tests, either the vehicle is towed to strike the barrier, or, in 

side-impact tests, the barrier is moved to strike the vehicle. In 2005, the 

institute plans to open a new test facility with multiple tracks that will 

enable researchers to conduct vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests at various 

angles.

Testing Conducted The Japan NCAP performs a variety of safety tests and rates vehicles 

according to the results. It conducts three types of crash tests—a full 

frontal test, an offset frontal test, and a perpendicular side-impact test. In 

addition, it performs a braking test, which measures the performance of an 

active safety system that enables a driver to avoid a crash. The program 

further assesses how easily doors are opened and occupants are removed 

after a crash and how well vehicles perform if they strike pedestrians. The 

program also evaluates how well child safety seats perform.
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 104 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

The Japan NCAP is the only program that conducts both the full frontal and 

the offset frontal crash tests. Together, the two tests assess both the 

potential for injuries caused by intrusion and the effectiveness of the 

vehicle’s restraint system. The full frontal test is performed by towing a 

vehicle to collide with a rigid barrier at 55 km/h (about 34 mph). This test 

simulates a head-on collision between two vehicles of the same size 

traveling at the same speed. The offset frontal test involves towing a 

vehicle into a deformable barrier that represents the front end of another 

vehicle and simulates a head-on collision of two vehicles traveling at 40 

mph. In this test, only a portion of the front end (40 percent) engages the 

barrier, and the impact on the vehicle body is greater than the full frontal 

test because much of the crash energy is distributed to one side of the 

vehicle. Thus, there is the possibility of substantial vehicle deformation, 

which makes this test suitable for evaluating injuries caused to occupants 

by intrusion into the occupant compartment. The program uses the Hybrid 

III dummy that represents a man of about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighing 

about 185 pounds. 

The side-impact test propels a moveable deformable barrier weighing 

about 2,090 pounds into the driver’s and passenger’s side of the vehicle, 

simulating a perpendicular collision at 55 km/h (about 34 mph). The barrier 

is shaped like the front end of a car, and because it is not rigid, its 

performance is intended to simulate a vehicle’s response in an actual 

collision. A EuroSID-I dummy is placed in the driver’s seat. This dummy is 

the same height as the Hybrid III dummy but weighs about 20 pounds less. 

The EuroSID-I dummy was designed to measure the risk of injury to the 

head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.

The Japan NCAP conducts a braking performance test that measures how 

far a vehicle travels before it stops and how stable it is at the time of 

braking when it is stopped abruptly while traveling at about 62 mph. The 

braking test is a test of an active safety system because it enables the driver 

to avoid a crash. The test is performed under wet and dry road conditions 

for a vehicle with a driver and a weight on the front passenger seat. To 

ensure consistent testing, Japan NCAP officials said, the dry road surface 

temperature must be 95.0 degrees plus or minus 18.0 degrees Fahrenheit 

and the wet road surface temperature must be 80.6 degrees plus or minus 

9.0 degrees Fahrenheit because the temperature of the road surface affects 

the distance it takes to stop the vehicle. Japan NCAP officials also said that 

all braking tests must be performed at the same location because road 

surfaces vary and surface differences could affect test results. Professional 

drivers conduct the tests, and the speed of the vehicle and force with which 
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 105 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

the drivers depress the brake pedal are monitored electronically to ensure 

consistency. Three braking tests are conducted to be sure that the result is 

not due to a flaw in the testing process. Figure 49 illustrates the braking 

test.

Figure 49: Test Vehicle Undergoing Brake Tests Under Dry and Wet Conditions

In addition, the Japan NCAP assesses and scores the ease with which doors 

can be opened and the dummies removed after a crash test. The purpose of 

the accessibility assessment is to rate how easily emergency responders 

can assist injured persons. The rating is based on whether the doors can be 

opened with one hand, two hands, or whether tools are needed to open the 

doors.

The pedestrian test measures the effect of a pedestrian being hit by a 

vehicle traveling at about 22 mph if the pedestrian’s head strikes part of the 

hood or windshield. This test was initiated because pedestrian fatalities 

represent a high percentage of total vehicle fatalities in Japan. Dummies 

modeling the head of an adult or a child (head impactor) are projected 

Source: Copyright © 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. All rights reserved.

Test vehicle is equipped with a device for measuring 

stopping distance and vehicle speed.
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 106 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

toward the car hood from a testing machine. The force received by the 

head impactor is measured and then evaluated using a head injury 

criterion. The test is conducted on multiple points on each car, and the 

impact angles differ according to the shape of the front part of three types 

of vehicles—sedan, SUV, and van. Figure 50 illustrates how the test is 

performed.

Figure 50: Pedestrian Head Impact Test and Target Area 

Note: The distance between the ground and where the pedestrian’s head hits the car in crashes is 

called the wrap-around distance, which is measured according to the length of that area. The location 

of the impact area for adult’s and children's heads is based on the data from actual crash data.

The pedestrian test is conducted on vehicles with three different body 

types, as shown in table 10. 

Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test

Source: Japan NCAP, National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid.

Vehicle type Definition

Sedan With the hood leading edge height less than 835 mm

SUV With the hood leading edge height more than 835 mm

Van With the hood angle more than 30 degrees

Source: Copyright © 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. All rights reserved.
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 107 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

The Japan NCAP also assesses the safety performance of child seats in a 

car crash and the ease of using the seats. Child seats are installed in the 

rear passenger seats of a test vehicle stripped down to its body frame. The 

test uses dummies to represent a 9-month-old child and a 3-year-old child. 

The test vehicle is placed on a sled and subjected to a shock identical to the 

test speed used in the full frontal crash test.

Scoring Tests The Japan NCAP measures injuries to the head, neck, chest, and upper 

(femur) and lower (tibia) legs for both the full frontal and offset frontal 

crash tests. Points vary by body region, from 2 points for upper and lower 

leg injuries to 4 points for head, neck, or chest injuries, according to the 

extent of injuries as measured by crash test dummies. Vehicle deformation 

is measured after the crash test, and if certain limits are exceeded, a point 

is deducted from the score for one body area, according to where the 

deformation occurred. In addition, weighting factors are assigned 

according to the frequency of injuries to these body areas in vehicle 

crashes. The weighted points for each body area are then combined to 

arrive at separate total point scores for the driver and the passenger in full 

frontal and offset frontal crash tests. The maximum score that a vehicle can 

achieve is 12 points because of the way the injuries are weighted.

For the side-impact crash test, the Japan NCAP measures injuries to the 

driver’s head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.1

 Four points are assigned for 

each body area and then weighted according to the incidence of injuries in 

this type of accident, with lesser weights assigned to the abdomen and 

pelvis than to the head and chest. Again, the maximum score that a vehicle 

can achieve is 12 points, because of the way injuries to the driver are 

weighted. 

The Japan NCAP is the only program that adjusts its test results by 

weighting the injury scores according to historical crash data. NCAP 

officials said they can do this because the police are well trained to 

investigate every accident and provide thorough reports to the government.

For the pedestrian test, a series of head injury scores is used to assign 

injury probability levels from 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst). The results are 

then combined to arrive at an overall score. According to NCAP officials, 

1

The side-impact crash test can also be performed on the passenger side of the vehicle, but 

the rating applies to only one occupant position.
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 108 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

vehicles with hoods that are more flexible and compress upon impact can 

receive better scores than those that are rigid and leave no room between 

the hood and the engine for the impact to be absorbed. 

Child seats are evaluated according to their performance in a collision and 

their ease of use. For the collision test, overall ratings of Excellent, Good, 

Normal, and Not Recommended are assigned. The ratings are primarily 

based on the head and chest injury scores taken from the dummies used in 

the test. Five child seat specialists assessed the ease of installation, the 

ease of understanding the instructions, the product warning labels and 

markings to aid in installation, the structural design, and the ease of 

securing the child in the seat. For each area, the specialists assigned points, 

from 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst). The scores given by the specialists were 

averaged and reported separately for each area.

Sharing Results with the 

Public

Initially, the Japan NCAP used a four-letter system to rate vehicles’ 

crashworthiness, in which “A” reflected the highest scores for performance 

and “D” reflected the lowest scores. As vehicles’ performance improved, 

more and more vehicles achieved an “A” rating. To help consumers better 

differentiate vehicles’ performance, NCAP officials expanded the range of 

ratings to include AA and AAA. This same scale was later converted to six 

stars. Many vehicles have achieved a five-star rating, and some have 

received a six-star rating for occupant protection. In addition to the star 

ratings, the Japan NCAP reports the percentage of possible points that each 

vehicle received and provides a bar chart indicating how well the vehicles 

performed in these tests. 

Figure 51 shows how the Japan NCAP communicates its ratings to 

consumers as two overall ratings—one for the driver’s seat and one for the 

passenger’s seat. The overall safety rating for the driver’s seat combines the 

results of the two frontal crash tests (full and offset) and the side-impact 

test. The overall safety rating for the passenger’s seat includes the results of 

the full frontal and offset frontal tests. The Japan NCAP also provides 

consumers with star ratings by type of test for the driver’s and passenger’s 

seats and makes the detailed test information available to consumers for 

each crash test, as shown in figure 52. Consumers are also provided with 

ratings on how difficult it was to open the door after the test (openability) 

and how difficult it was to retrieve the dummy from the vehicle after the 

crash test (rescueability), as shown in figure 53 and 54 respectively. 

Although not shown as part of the crashworthiness rating, the ratings for 

the pedestrian tests are provided, as well as the ratings for the child 
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 109 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

restraint seats (Excellent, Good, Normal, and Not Recommended). 

Furthermore, the Japan NCAP has provided consumers with comparative 

information on vehicles’ braking capability on wet and dry pavements.

Figure 51: Japan NCAP Rating of a 2003 Mid-sized Passenger Car

Figure 52: Example of Japan NCAP Detailed Full Frontal Data Available for a 2003 Test

Overall Collision Safety Ratings

Driver’s seat

Front passenger’s seat

Source: Copyright © 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. All rights reserved.

Point 28.98

(Goal average 80.5%)

Point 20.36

(Goal average 84.8%)

Restart

acceleration

[G-3 mm/sec]

Chest

displacement

[mm]

Femur

load [kN]

Right

tibia

Left

tibia

Passenger protection

performance

Rescue

ability

Head

Injury

value

[HIC]

Shearing

load

[kN]

Tensile

load

[kN]

Moment

of

extension

[Mm]

Neck Chest Legs Body Deformation Door open

ability fuel

leakage

after

collision

Steering column

destination mm

Brake pedal

destination mm

Source: Copyright © 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. All rights reserved.

Level

Level 3

Level 3

1 234 5

Drivers seat Front passenger seat

Rear displacement

Upper displacement

Roof displacement

Upper displacement

Right leg

left leg

Upper TI

Lower TI

Upper TI

Lower TI

8.33

(69.4%)

8.61

(71.7%)

777.6

365.5 .95 1.58

0.57 36.57 50.13 40.85 0.10 1.78

2.10

0.58 

0.65

0.60 

0.58

0.66 

0.32

0.47 

0.48

2.19 

0.22

0

59

25

11

55.28 50.14 32.55
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 110 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Figure 53: Key to Japan NCAP’s Door Openability Ratings

a

At times, a vehicle may turn sideways (roll over) after a side impact. This test is performed 

to measure how well passengers are protected when a vehicle is hit while stopped; it is not 

intended to evaluate the stability of the vehicle while it is in motion.

Figure 54: Key to Japan NCAP’s Rescueability Ratings

The Japan NCAP publicizes ratings through the NASVA Web site and 

publishes a brochure that contains summary information on vehicle 

ratings. In addition to the summary ratings, detailed information for each 

vehicle tested is posted on the Web site and published in a book by NASVA 

every year. The Japan Automobile Federation also publishes NCAP vehicle 

Door openability (Degree of difficulty in opening the doors after a test collision)

Opened with one hand Opened with both hand Opened using tools

Door was locked

Source: Copyright © 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. All rights reserved.

Vehicle turned

sideways after impacta

Rescueability (Degree of difficulty in retrieving a dummy from the vehicle after a test collision)

Source: Copyright © 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. All rights reserved

Dummy could be 

removed by hand 

without moving the 

seat

Dummy could be 

removed by hand after 

sliding or otherwise 

moving the seat

Dummy was wedged in 

by the body of the 

vehicle and had to be 

removed using tools
Appendix VII

Japan New Car Assessment Program

Page 111 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

ratings in its magazine and posts the information on its Web site. According 

to Japan NCAP officials, vehicle ratings and new tests under the program 

are further publicized in television specials. According to NASVA officials, 

the public response was very positive after these specials because the 

number of hits to NASVA Web site increased by 15 to 20 percent in the few 

days after each broadcast.
Page 112 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix VIII

Different Types of Tests Used by the ProgramsApendxiVI

Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs

Test type Description of test Assessment Considerations

Frontal tests

The test vehicle’s entire front 

end is crashed into a fixed rigid 

barrier at 35 miles per hour 

(mph), which is equivalent to a 

head-on collision between two 

similar size vehicles, each 

moving at 35 mph.

Only the U.S. NCAP and Japan 

currently conduct this test.a

The test assesses the ability 

of vehicle restraint systems, 

such as safety belts and air 

bags, to restrain occupants.

The test maximizes the 

energy absorbed by the front 

of the vehicle so that the 

occupant compartment is 

more likely to remain intact.

Test results cannot be 

compared between vehicles 

of different weight classes.

The test vehicle is the equivalent 

of two vehicles of the same 

weight crashing into each other. 

The vehicle is crashed into a 

deformable barrier at 40 mph 

where approximately 40 percent 

of the vehicle’s width makes 

contact with the barrier.

Australia, Europe, Japan, and 

the Insurance Institute currently 

conduct this test.

The test assesses a vehicle’s 

structural integrity and its 

ability to manage the energy 

generated in the crash 

entirely on the driver’s side of 

the vehicle.

This type of crash forces a 

smaller area of the vehicle’s 

structure to absorb the 

energy from the crash.

Test results cannot be 

compared between vehicles 

of different weight classes.

Side tests

The test vehicle is struck by a 

moving deformable barrier at 

38.5 mph at an angle. Both the 

barrier and the driver’s side of 

the vehicle are parallel, so that 

the entire face of the barrier 

impacts the side of the vehicle.

Only the U.S. NCAP currently 

conducts this test.

The test represents an 

intersection-type collision.

The barrier striking the test 

vehicle is shaped like a 

passenger car and is about 

the size of a medium 

passenger car, weighing 

3,015 pounds.

Test results can be 

compared across vehicle 

weight classes because 

each vehicle is struck by a 

barrier of the same size and 

weight.

The test does not assess the 

risks of head injury from side 

impacts from vehicles like 

SUVs and pickups.

Source: GAO.

Full-frontal test

Off-set test

Source: GAO.

Source: GAO.

Angled side
Appendix VIII

Different Types of Tests Used by the 

Programs

Page 113 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

The test vehicle is struck by a 

moving deformable barrier 

traveling at about 31 mph (50 

km/h) at a 90 degree angle 

centered on the driver side 

seating position.

Australia, Europe, and Japan 

currently conduct this test.b

The test represents a 90 

degree intersection-type 

collision.

The barrier that strikes the 

test vehicle weighs 2,095 

pounds (950 kg) and has a 

front end shaped to simulate 

the typical front end of a 

passenger car.

Test results can be 

compared across vehicle 

weight classes because 

each vehicle is struck by a 

barrier of the same size and 

weight.

The test vehicle is struck by a 

moving deformable barrier 

traveling at 31 mph (50 km/h) 

perpendicular impact into the 

driver side of a passenger 

vehicle.

The Insurance Institute currently 

conducts this test.

The test represents a 90 

degree intersection-type 

collision. 

The moving deformable 

barrier that strikes the test 

vehicle weighs about 3,300 

pounds (1,500 kg), is higher 

than other barriers with a 

front end shaped to simulate 

the typical front end of a 

pickup or SUV.

Test results can be 

compared across vehicle 

weight classes because 

each vehicle is struck by a 

barrier of the same size and 

weight.

The test was designed to 

encourage automakers to 

provide side-impact head 

protection by installing air 

curtain bags that extend low 

enough to protect smaller 

occupants in front and rear 

seats.

The test vehicle is placed on a 

platform and propelled at 29 

km/h (about 18 miles per hour) 

into a stationary cylindrical pole 

producing a side-impact crash 

on the driver’s door.

Australia and Europe currently 

conduct this test.

The test represents a sideimpact collision involving a 

narrow object such as a tree 

or pole.

The diameter of the pole is 

10 inches (254 mm) and 

aligned with the front 

occupant’s head.

The side-impact test is 

demanding on vehicles’ 

structures, and heavy 

vehicles have to cope with 

higher loads than lighter 

vehicles.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Test type Description of test Assessment Considerations

Source: GAO.

Perpendicular side with medium barrier

Source: GAO. 

Perpendicular side with large barrier

Pole side test

Source: GAO.
Appendix VIII

Different Types of Tests Used by the 

Programs

Page 114 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

a

The Japan NCAP full frontal test is performed at 55 km/h (about 34 mph).

b

The Japan NCAP perpendicular side test is performed at 55 km/h (about 34 mph).

Other tests

The test vehicle is subjected to a 

series of left/right tests and 

right/left tests at different speeds 

and steering wheel angles.The 

first run of tests is conducted at 

35 mph, with each subsequent 

run conducted at about 40 mph, 

45 mph, 47.5 mph, and 50 mph, 

until the vehicle “tips up” (fails) 

or attains a speed of 50 mph on 

the last run of each test without 

tipping up (pass).

Only the U.S. NCAP currently 

conducts this test.

The dynamic test represents 

an untripped rollover by 

simulating a high-speed 

collision-avoidance 

maneuver. 

The Static Stability Factor is 

a measurement used to 

determine the top-heaviness 

of a vehicle, accounting for 

situations of potential tripped 

rollovers such as when a 

vehicle strikes a curb.

Rollovers where the vehicle 

is not tripped account for 

less than 5 percent of all 

rollover crashes.

Adult and child-size dummy 

parts (such as heads) are 

projected at specified areas of a 

test vehicle front end to replicate 

a car colliding with a pedestrian.

Australia, Europe, and Japan 

currently conduct this test.

The test is used to assess 

the risk to pedestrians if 

struck by the front of a car.

This test evaluates the front 

end design of vehicles and 

the effect on pedestrian 

injuries.

Euro NCAP tests child restraints 

by placing child-size dummies in 

child seats during frontal and 

side crash tests.

The Japan NCAP test evaluates 

child seats by placing child-size 

dummies in child seats using a 

test sled instead of actual 

collisions.

The Euro NCAP test is used 

to evaluate child protection 

focusing on the interaction of 

a vehicle’s child restraint 

system and a child seat.

The Japan NCAP test 

evaluates the ease of 

correctly using the child 

seats.

The Euro NCAP test 

evaluates the performance 

of a car seat during a front or 

side collision.

Japan NCAP tests child 

restraint systems 

independent of vehicle 

performance in a simulated 

frontal crash and evaluates 

the ease of use.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Test type Description of test Assessment Considerations

Rollover test

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Zone where tipup most likely to 

occur

Test starts here at 

entrance speed 

between 35 to 50 mph

Overcorrection

~540 degrees

Initial rapid 

steering input

~270 degrees

Test complete

2

1

Pedestrian protection test

Source: Euro NCAP.

Leg

Upper

Leg

Child

head

Adult

head

Child restraint test

Source: Euro NCAP.
Page 115 GAO-05-370 New Car Assessment Program

Appendix IX

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIX

GAO Contacts JayEtta Hecker, (202) 512-2834

Glen Trochelman, (312) 220-7729

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Vashun Cole, Michelle Dresben, Colin 

Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly, Doug Manor, Terry Richardson, Beverly Ross, 

Brian Sells, Jena Sinkfield, Stacey Thompson, and Frank Taliaferro made 

key contributions to this report.

(544085)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548