Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program
Published: 2005-04-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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  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  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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Motor vehicle crashes are complex events resulting from several factors,  including driver behavior, the driving environment, and the vehicle.  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 of passenger vehicles. 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. In fiscal year 2004, NCAP conducted 85 crash tests  and 36 rollover tests, with a budget of $7.7 million.
NHTSA also administers the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the Results to the Public
paragraphs: NHTSA conducts three types of tests in NCAP: a full frontal crash test, an  angled side crash test, and a rollover test. 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.
subsections: section_title: NCAP Conducts Three Tests—Full Frontal, Side, and Rollover
paragraphs: 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 crash-  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.
subsections: section_title: Full Frontal Crash Test
paragraphs: The full frontal crash test is the equivalent of two identical vehicles, both  traveling at 35 mph, crashing into each other head-on. 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.
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  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.
section_title: Angled Side Crash Test
paragraphs: The angled side crash test simulates an intersection collision in which one  moving vehicle strikes another moving vehicle. 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. 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.
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.
section_title: Rollover Test
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: NHTSA Rates Vehicles by Assigning Up to Five Stars to Communicate the Results of Its Tests
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Frontal and Side Crashworthiness Ratings
paragraphs: 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 injury to  the driver and right front seat passenger, as shown in figure 7.
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. NHTSA  reports two separate star ratings for the frontal and side crash test,  according to the occupant position.
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 safety belts prior to the crash test. 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. 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. 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.
section_title: Rollover Rating
paragraphs: 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.
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. NHTSA assigns one to five stars to reflect the  chance of rollover, as shown in figure 10.
section_title: NHTSA Reports the Results to the Public Through the Internet and the Buying a Safer Car Brochure
paragraphs: 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. 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.
Users can get more detailed information about the vehicle’s star rating by  selecting a specific vehicle, as shown in figure 12.
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  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.
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.
section_title: U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating, Reporting, and Government Involvement
paragraphs: 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Vehicle Testing Programs Conduct Different Tests
paragraphs: 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.)
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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Side Crash Tests
paragraphs: 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. All of the  other testing programs conduct a perpendicular side tests. This test  involves crashing a moving deformable barrier traveling at about 31 mph  (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.
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  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.
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.
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  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. Figure 18 illustrates how the pole test is  performed.
section_title: Other Safety Tests
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
section_title: Vehicle Testing Programs Rate Safety Differently
paragraphs: Each vehicle testing organization used crash dummy readings as a principal  part of its rating process. 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.
subsections: section_title: Organizations Use Different Body Region Measurements and Types of Dummies to Develop Ratings
paragraphs: 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  for serious injury, which in turn is converted into a star rating. NHTSA  officials said they use these measures because they are the most important  indicators of serious or fatal injury in frontal and side crashes. 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. 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  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.
section_title: Using Inspector Observations to Supplement Dummy Results
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Using a Modifier System to Adjust Scores
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Use of Stars as a Measure of Safety
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Developing Summary Ratings
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Programs Used a Variety Approaches to Inform Consumers of Safety Results
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Internet Used to Convey Results
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Working with the News Media to Share Test Results
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Government and Industry Involvement Varies among the Crash Testing Programs
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are Needed to Maintain Its Relevance
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: NCAP Has Encouraged Improvement in Vehicle Safety and Provided the Public with Vehicle Safety Information
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Without Change, NCAP’s Relevance Will Likely Diminish
paragraphs: 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 provided the public with NCAP rating information for 234 vehicles. 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.
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  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. 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). 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.
section_title: Opportunities to Enhance NCAP Testing
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Addressing the Increased Fatality Risks Created by Changes in the Vehicle Fleet
subsections: section_title: Vehicle Incompatibility
paragraphs: 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.
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. A  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. 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. 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, and consideration of potential costs. 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.
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. 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 side-  impact 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.
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 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.
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. 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.
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.
section_title: Incorporating Active Safety Technologies into NCAP
paragraphs: 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 systems could reduce certain  crashes by about 67 percent. Similarly, the Insurance Institute reported  that electronic stability control can reduce the risk of involvement in single  vehicle crashes by more than 50 percent. 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  are willing to share their research and work in cooperation with NHTSA to  develop tests or measurements that could help NCAP address these issues.
section_title: Using Additional Test Measures and Different Size Dummies
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.  Having a Safety Concern noted for vehicles with a four- or five-star rating  presents conflicting information that could be confusing to consumers.
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. 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 side-  impact 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.
section_title: Opportunities to Enhance the Presentation and Timeliness of NCAP Results
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Providing Summary Ratings
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  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.
section_title: Comparative Safety Information Could Benefit the Public
paragraphs: 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. (Goal average 80.5%) (Goal average 84.8%)
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.
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.
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.
section_title: NCAP Ratings Could Be Available Earlier in the Car Model Year
paragraphs: 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  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. 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. 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.  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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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  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.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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.
We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Basis for NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Ratings
paragraphs: 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.
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).
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.
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  measures, the less risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently  untreatable injury to the head and chest in a full frontal crash.
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.
Prob(Combined) = Prob(HIC) + Prob(Chest) - (Prob(HIC) * Prob(Chest))
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  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.
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  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.
section_title: Basis for NHTSA’s Rollover Rating
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Static Stability Factor
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Dynamic Rollover Test
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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. Physics theory would suggest that vehicles with a low SSF— vehicles that are more top-heavy—are more likely to roll over than vehicles  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 single- vehicle 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. NHTSA now links the SSF and the risk of rollover  using a nonlinear model. 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.
A vehicle’s rollover rating is an estimate of its risk of rolling over in a single- vehicle crash, not a prediction of the likelihood of a rollover crash.
section_title: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
paragraphs: 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Testing Conducted
paragraphs: 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  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. They are also equipped with unique load cells,  which measure the force of the impact applied to the dummies during the  crash.
section_title: Scoring Tests
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Sharing Results with the Public
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Australian New Car Assessment Program
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Testing Conducted
paragraphs: 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 side- impact 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  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 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 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.
section_title: Scoring Tests
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
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 side-  impact 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.
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 side- impact 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.
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.
section_title: Sharing Results with the Public
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: European New Car Assessment Programme
paragraphs: 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,  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.
subsections: section_title: Testing Conducted
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Scoring Tests
paragraphs: 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, A- pillar 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 post- crash inspection data are gathered during these tests. Thus, the score for  each body region is based on the dummy measurements alone.
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.
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  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.
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.
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.
section_title: Sharing Results with the Public
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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  Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer magazines in Europe  provide additional crash test information.
section_title: Japan New Car Assessment Program
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Testing Conducted
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
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  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.
The pedestrian test is conducted on vehicles with three different body  types, as shown in table 10.
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.
section_title: Scoring Tests
paragraphs: 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. 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,  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.
section_title: Sharing Results with the Public
paragraphs: 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  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. (Goal average 80.5%) (Goal average 84.8%)
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.