Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car
Assessment Program (29-APR-05, GAO-05-370).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-370
ACCNO: A22897
TITLE: Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's
New Car Assessment Program
DATE: 04/29/2005
SUBJECT: Data collection
Highway safety
Motor vehicle safety
Motor vehicle standards
Reporting requirements
Safety standards
Statistical data
Traffic accidents
Transportation safety
Comparative analysis
Program evaluation
Cost estimates
NHTSA New Car Assessment Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-370
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Committees
April 2005
VEHICLE SAFETY
Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program
a
GAO-05-370
[IMG]
April 2005
VEHICLE SAFETY
Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program
What GAO Found
NHTSA conducts three types of tests in the New Car Assessment Program-
full frontal and angled side crash tests and a rollover test. Each year,
NHTSA tests new vehicles that are expected to have high sales volume, have
been redesigned with structural changes, or have improved safety
equipment. Based on test results, vehicles receive ratings from one to
five stars, with five stars being the best, to indicate the vehicles'
relative crashworthiness and which are less likely to roll over. NHTSA
makes ratings available to the public on the Internet and through a
brochure. Other publications, such as Consumer Reports, use NHTSA's test
results in their safety assessments.
Examples of NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program Tests
GAO identified four other programs-the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety's program and the New Car Assessment Programs in Australia, Europe,
and Japan-that crash test vehicles and report the results to the public.
They share the goals of encouraging manufacturers to improve vehicle
safety and providing safety information to consumers. These programs
conduct different types of frontal and side crash tests, and some perform
other tests, such as pedestrian tests, that are not conducted under the
U.S. program. Only the U.S. program conducts a rollover test. The other
programs measure test results differently and include more potential
injuries to occupants in ratings. They also reported their test results
differently, with all summarizing at least some of the scores or combining
them into an overall crashworthiness rating to make comparisons easier.
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has been successful in encouraging
manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing information to
consumers. However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to
change to maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has
been eroded by the growing number of larger pickups, minivans, and sport
utility vehicles in the vehicle fleet since the program began. In
addition, NCAP scores have increased to the point where there is little
difference in vehicle ratings. As a result, the program provides little
incentive for manufacturers to further improve safety, and consumers can
see few differences among new vehicles. Opportunities to enhance the
program include developing approaches to better measure the interaction of
large and small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating
technologies that help prevent crashes, and using different injury
measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to
enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information provided to
consumers.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the
Results to the Public U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in
Testing, Rating, Reporting, and Government Involvement NCAP Has
Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are
Needed to Maintain Its Relevance Conclusions Recommendations for Executive
Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1 3 6
9
20
37 58 58 59
Appendixes
Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V: Appendix
VI: Appendix VII: Appendix VIII: Appendix IX:
Scope and Methodology
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Australian New Car Assessment Program
European New Car Assessment Programme
Japan New Car Assessment Program
Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts Acknowledgments
62
67
74
81
87
95
103
112
115 115 115
Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3:
Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8:
List of Organizations Contacted 64
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 69
Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star
Ratings 91
Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test 92
Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating 92
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria 98
Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System 99
Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings 100
Contents
Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star
Ratings 100 Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test
106 Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the
Programs 112
Figures Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Three Types of Tests-Frontal, Side, and Rollover-
Conducted by NCAP
Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
NCAP Tests
Time Line of NCAP
Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP
Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP
Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP
Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of
Serious Injury to the Head and Chest
Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of
Serious Injury to the Chest
Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness
Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of Rollover
Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on NHTSA's
Web Site
Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a
Passenger Vehicle as They Appear on NHTSA's Web Site
Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing Programs
Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test
Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test
Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs' Side Test (left) and
the Insurance Institute Side Test (right)
Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier
Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test
Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test
Figure 20: Child Restraint Test
Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal Test
and Driver in Side Test
Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
Tests
Figure 23: Frequency of Four- and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
Crash Tests in 2004
3
5
9 10 12 13
14
14 16
17
17
18
21 22 23
24 25 26 28 29
34
38
40
Contents
Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of
Different Type and Weight 42
Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the
Side of a Small Vehicle 44
Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance
Institute Test with the SUV-like Barrier 45
Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle
Structures 47
Figure 28: Example of Australia's NCAP Safety Rating
Information 53
Figure 29: Example of Japan's NCAP Safety Rating Information 54
Figure 30: Example of NHTSA's Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck
with Bar Chart Showing How the Vehicle Performed
within Its Class 55
Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash
Vehicles 56
Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and
Accelerometers 68
Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC 70
Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G 71
Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for
Frontal Crashes 71
Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve 72
Figure 37: Static Stability Factor of a Passenger Vehicle Compared
with an SUV 75
Figure 38: Programmable Steering Controller 76
Figure 39: Diagram of the Dynamic Test, Showing Steering
Parameters 77
Figure 40: Sensors to Detect Wheel-lift 78
Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover
Ratings 80
Figure 42: Guidelines for Rating Occupant Compartment Intrusion
Measured in Centimeters 83
Figure 43: Insurance Institute Rating of a Mid-size Passenger Car 85
Figure 44: Insurance Institute Crash Ratings Provided to Public in its
Status Report Publication 86
Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size
Passenger Car 93
Figure 46: Australian NCAP July 2004 Crash Test Update
Brochure 94
Figure 47: European NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger
Car 101
Contents
Figure 48: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in
Frontal Test, and Driver in Side Test 101
Figure 49: Test Vehicle Undergoing Brake Tests Under Dry and Wet
Conditions 105
Figure 50: Pedestrian Head Impact Test and Target Area 106
Figure 51: Japan NCAP Rating of a 2003 Mid-sized Passenger
Car 109
Figure 52: Example of Japan NCAP Detailed Full Frontal Data
Available for a 2003 Test 109
Figure 53: Key to Japan NCAP's Door Openability Ratings 110
Figure 54: Key to Japan NCAP's Rescueability Ratings 110
Contents
Abbreviations
AAAM Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine ADAC General
German Automobile Association (Allegmeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e V)
AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale
c.g. center of gravity
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DOT Department of Transportation
ESC Electronic Stability Control
Euro NCAP European New Car Assessment Programme
HIC Head Injury Criterion
kg kilogram
km/h kilometers per hour
mm millimeter
mph miles per hour
NASVA National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims' Aid
NBC National Broadcasting Company
NCAP New Car Assessment Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
SID side-impact dummy
SUV sport utility vehicle
SSF Static Stability Factor
TREAD Act Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation Act TSRE AB Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB TTI
Thoracic Trauma Index
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
Contents
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
April 29, 2005
The Honorable Christopher Bond
Chairman
The Honorable Patty Murray
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United
States Senate
The Honorable Joe Knollenberg
Chairman
The Honorable John W. Olver
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United
States. Yet for all its advantages, deaths and injuries resulting from
motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all persons from
3 through 33 years old. In 2003, 42,643 people were killed and more than
2.8 million people were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Frontal crashes
caused the largest portion of occupant deaths (about 41 percent), followed
by rollovers and side impact crashes (30 percent and 22 percent,
respectively). In addition to the loss of life, motor vehicle crashes have
a high economic cost, which the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimated at over $230 billion in 2000, the most
recent year for which cost estimates were available.1
Efforts to reduce fatality rates in motor vehicle crashes have resulted in
some improvement. The fatality rate per 100 million miles of travel in
2003 was at a historic low of 1.48, down from 1.75 per 100 million miles
of travel
1Economic costs include productivity losses, property damage, medical
costs, rehabilitation costs, travel delay, legal and court costs,
emergency services, insurance administration costs, and the costs to
employers. For more information, see U.S. Department of Transportataion
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Economic Impact of
Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: May 2002).
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.2 We also interviewed vehicle safety experts
and officials of foreign government entities, foreign vehicle
manufacturers, and foreign consumer magazines such as Which?. To identify
the impact of NCAP and opportunities for improvement, we analyzed changes
in NCAP scores over time and obtained views from experts in the auto and
insurance industries, public interest groups, and academia. We determined
that NCAP data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition, we analyzed how other organizations tested vehicles, rated
the crash tests, and reported their results to the public to identify
practices from other programs that may have potential application to the
U.S. program. We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief Under NCAP, NHTSA conducts three types of tests on
vehicles-a full frontal crash test, a side crash test, and a rollover
test, as shown in figure 1.3
Figure 1: Three Types of Tests-Frontal, Side, and Rollover-Conducted by
NCAP
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
2The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and
communications organization in the United States funded by the auto
insurance industry.
3The rollover test is nondestructive.
Each year, NHTSA tests a number of new vehicles that are predicted to have
high sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have
improved safety equipment. This practice is designed to ensure that NHTSA
rates vehicles that consumers are buying. NHTSA develops five separate
ratings based on the three tests and assigns one to five stars to indicate
which vehicles are more crashworthy in frontal and side crashes and which
vehicles are less likely to roll over. NCAP ratings, designed to help
consumers decide which vehicle to purchase, are available to the public on
the Internet and through the NHTSA Buying a Safer Car brochure. NCAP crash
results are also incorporated in different vehicle safety ratings
developed by others, such as Consumer Reports and The Car Book, both of
which get more extensive distribution than direct NHTSA reporting.
We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report the
results to the public-the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's program
and NCAP programs in Australia, Europe, and Japan. Like the U.S. NCAP, all
these programs shared similar goals-providing relative safety information
to consumers and encouraging manufacturers to improve vehicle safety. The
three foreign NCAPs conduct different types of frontal and side crash
tests and conduct pedestrian and child restraint systems tests that are
not conducted under the U.S. program. The Insurance Institute also
conducts different frontal and side crash tests than NHTSA's NCAP. Only
the U.S. program conducts a rollover test. Each vehicle testing program
also measures test results differently than the United States For example,
in addition to the data provided by the crash test dummies in the
vehicles, inspectors in other programs examine vehicles after crash tests
to determine if there was intrusion into the passenger compartment or
other abnormalities and adjust the test score accordingly. These other
programs also report their testing results to the public in a different
manner. While the U.S. NCAP reports results for each crash dummy by their
seating locations in the crash test, all of the other programs summarize
at least some of the scores or combined them into an overall
crashworthiness rating in an effort to make it easier for the public to
understand the results.
NCAP has contributed to making vehicles safer, but the program is at a
crossroads where it will need to change in order to maintain its
relevance. As shown in figure 2, vehicle safety as measured by NHTSA star
ratings has improved since the program began.
Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
Tests Side star ratings over timeFrontal star ratings over time
Average star rating Average star rating
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
4
3
2
1
0 1984 1994 2004 1997 2000 2004
Year Year
Average star rating driver Average star rating passenger Source: GAO
analysis of historical NCAP data provided by NHTSA. Note: Data include
only the vehicles that were crash tested for each model year.
The usefulness of the current tests has been eroded by changes in the
vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program began. Today there are
many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs than existed 27 years ago, and
this has created new safety hazards from the incompatibility between large
and small vehicles and rollover crashes, which are not fully addressed by
current NCAP tests. In addition, because most vehicles now receive four-or
five-star ratings, NCAP tests provide little incentive for automakers to
continue to improve vehicle safety and little differentiation among
vehicle ratings for consumers. Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and
side crash tests in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will
make current NCAP tests less meaningful. For example, NHTSA is increasing
the speed of the frontal safety standards to the same speed as the NCAP
test, eliminating the difference between the frontal NCAP and safety
standard tests. Opportunities to enhance the program include developing
approaches to better measure the effects of crashes between
large and small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating
technologies that help prevent crashes from occurring, and using different
measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to
enhance the timeliness of the tests and the presentation of the
information provided to consumers.
We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to ensure
that NCAP maintains its relevance in improving vehicle safety and to
enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information provided to the
public. We received oral comments from NHTSA on a draft of this report. In
general, NHTSA agreed with the report's findings. We are also making a
version of this report available at www.gao.gov, which includes video
clips of crash tests that are conducted by NHTSA and others.
Background Motor vehicle crashes are complex events resulting from
several factors, including driver behavior, the driving environment, and
the vehicle.4 Vehicle design can affect safety through
crashworthiness-that is, by providing occupants protection during a
crash-and through crash avoidance-that is, by helping the driver to avoid
a crash or recover from a driving error. Vehicle characteristics such as
size, weight, and the type of restraint system affect crashworthiness
because they play a large role in determining the likelihood and extent of
occupant injury from a crash. Vehicle characteristics such as vehicle
stability and braking performance are examples of crash avoidance features
in that they aid the driver in preventing a crash from occurring.
The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was established in response to a
requirement in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972
to provide consumers with a measure of the relative crashworthiness
4Driver behavior involves the actions taken by or the condition of the
driver of the motor
vehicle, including speeding and violating traffic laws, as well as the
effects of alcohol or
drugs, inattention, decision errors, and age. The driving environment
associated with
crashes includes roadway design, roadside hazards, and road conditions.
Vehicle factors
that contribute to crashes include vehicle-related failures or design of
the vehicle. For
additional information on the causes of motor vehicle crashes, see GAO,
Highway Safety:
Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor
Vehicle Crashes,
GAO-03-436 (Washington, D.C. : Mar. 31, 2003).
of passenger vehicles.5 NCAP's goals are to improve occupant safety by
providing market incentives for vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily
design vehicles with improved crashworthiness and provide independent
safety information to aid consumers in making comparative vehicle purchase
decisions. NHTSA has pursued these goals by conducting frontal and side
crash tests and a rollover test, assigning star ratings, and reporting the
results to the public.6 In fiscal year 2004, NCAP conducted 85 crash tests
and 36 rollover tests, with a budget of $7.7 million.7
NHTSA also administers the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.8 All
motor vehicles sold in the United States for use on the nation's highways
must meet minimum safety requirements as required by the standards. The
standards prescribe a minimum performance level for crashworthiness that
vehicles must meet in a number of different crash tests. Auto
manufacturers self-certify that their vehicles meet these minimum
standards. To test compliance with some of these standards, NHTSA conducts
30 miles per hour (mph) frontal impact tests and 33.5 mph side impact
tests for belted occupants.9
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards tests serve as a foundation for
NCAP testing. The test protocols for NCAP's frontal and side crash tests
are the same as the safety standards, except that the NCAP tests are
conducted at 5 mph faster. NHTSA's policy, although not required by law,
has been to make changes to the safety standards before considering
changes to NCAP.
5Crashworthiness is defined in 49 USC S: 32301 as "the protection a
passenger motor vehicle gives its passengers against personal injury or
death from a motor vehicle accident." Section 49 USC S: 32302, subsection
(a), requires the Secretary of Transportation to "maintain a program for
developing . . . information on passenger motor vehicles['] . . .
crashworthiness." Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to "provide to the
public information developed under subsection (a) . . . in a simple and
understandable form."
6NHTSA also rates the ease of use for child safety seats under NCAP, which
is not included in the scope of this report.
7An additional 16 vehicles were also rated for rollover based on a
calculation of their topheaviness.
8The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: chapter V, part
571) were created under section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The standards cover a broad range of safety
concerns, from windshield wipers and brakes to crashworthiness.
9Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and No. 214, for the
frontal and side tests, respectively.
When considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA generally follows the informal
rulemaking process, which includes seeking comments on proposed changes.
NCAP provides consumers with information regarding the crashworthiness of
new cars beyond the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with
which all vehicles sold in the United States must comply. There are no
minimum performance levels for the NCAP tests. NHTSA tests as many
vehicles as possible under NCAP to provide consumers with sufficient
independent information to make vehicle comparisons. In contrast, NHTSA
relies on auto manufacturers to self-certify compliance with the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and only conducts a limited number of tests
to ensure manufacturer compliance.10
NHTSA conducted the first NCAP crash tests in 1978 on model year 1979
vehicles, measuring only the crashworthiness of passenger cars in frontal
crashes. Since then, there have been a number of vehicle tests added to
NCAP, as shown in figure 3. For model year 1983, NHTSA expanded NCAP to
include light trucks, vans, and SUVs. In 1996, NHTSA first began the
side-impact NCAP test for model year 1997 vehicles. NHTSA expanded the
side-impact NCAP test to include light trucks, vans, and SUVs for model
year 1999. NHTSA began to rate vehicles for their rollover risk beginning
with the 2001 model year. NHTSA initially rated the risk of vehicle
rollover by measuring the top-heaviness of a vehicle and comparing this
measurement to the top-heaviness of vehicles involved in single-vehicle
crashes, as reflected in crash data. As required by the November 2000
Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation
(TREAD) Act, NHTSA began dynamic rollover testing on model year 2004
vehicles to supplement the measurement of a vehicle's top-heaviness in
determining a vehicle's rollover risk.11
10Vehicle manufacturers face severe civil penalties, potentially expensive
vehicle safety recalls, and potential legal liability if NHTSA's testing
indicates that a vehicle does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards.
11The dynamic rollover test is a specific driving maneuver. The Static
Stability Factor is a laboratory measurement.
Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP
NCAP adds
Act to rollover rating
1972 1979a 1983a 1994a 1997a 1999a 2000 2001a 2004a
Source: GAO.
aIndicates vehicle model year.
bNHTSA has not always used the star rating system to communicate a
vehicle's crashworthiness as measured by NCAP. Previously, NHTSA published
the numerical injury scores indicating the likelihood of head, chest, and
upper leg injuries to the vehicle occupants. NHTSA devised the star rating
system after the Senate and Conference Appropriations Reports for fiscal
year 1992 requested that NHTSA improve methods of informing consumers of
the comparative safety of passenger vehicles as measured by NCAP.
NCAP Crash Tests NHTSA conducts three types of tests in NCAP: a full
frontal crash test, an
angled side crash test, and a rollover test.12 NCAP ratings, designed to
aidVehicles, Rates Their consumers in deciding which vehicle to purchase,
are available to the Safety, and Reports the public on the Internet and
through NHTSA's Buying a Safer Car brochure. Results to the Public NCAP
crash results are also used in developing vehicle safety ratings by
other organizations, such as Consumer Reports and The Car Book.
NCAP Conducts Three Tests-Full Frontal, Side, and Rollover
Every year NHTSA tests new vehicles that are predicted to have high sales
volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have improved
safety equipment. NHTSA purchases vehicles-the base model with standard
equipment-for frontal and side crash tests directly from dealerships
across the country, just as the consumer would. The vehicles are provided
to five contractors that conduct the crash tests. NCAP crash
12According to NHTSA officials, they are conducting pilot studies to
determine the feasibility of conducting more tests under NCAP, including a
child seat crashworthiness sled test, rating vehicles on how well they
protect children, braking, and lighting.
test ratings only apply to belted occupants, as the crash test dummies
used in NCAP tests are secured with the vehicle's safety belts. According
to NHTSA officials, NCAP crash-test ratings are available on about 85
percent of the new vehicles sold because ratings for some models that have
had no significant safety or structural changes are carried over from year
to year. For the rollover tests, which are nondestructive, NHTSA leases
new vehicles, which are tested at one contractor location. Rollover risk
ratings are available for about 75 percent of new vehicles sold, according
to NHTSA officials.
Full Frontal Crash Test The full frontal crash test is the equivalent of
two identical vehicles, both traveling at 35 mph, crashing into each other
head-on.13 The test vehicle is attached to a cable and towed along a track
at 35 mph so that the entire front end of the vehicle engages a fixed
rigid barrier, as shown in figure 4. This type of crash test produces high
level occupant deceleration, making this test demanding of the vehicle's
restraint system.
Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Click the following link to watch a video of a full frontal crash test
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 35 mph:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v1.mpg
Because the full frontal crash test is equivalent to two identical
vehicles moving toward each other at 35 mph, the crash test results can
only be compared to other vehicles in the same class and with a weight
that is plus
13See appendix VIII for a diagram of the full frontal crash test
configuration.
or minus 250 pounds of the test vehicle. The test protocols for the full
frontal NCAP test are the same as the full frontal belted test in the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, with the exception of the test
speed-the NCAP test is conducted at 35 mph, 5 mph faster than the standard
test.14
Angled Side Crash Test The angled side crash test simulates an
intersection collision in which one moving vehicle strikes another moving
vehicle.15 The test vehicle is positioned such that the driver's side
forms a 63 degree angle with the test track. On the other end of the test
track is a chassis with a barrier also turned at a 63 degree angle.16 The
barrier is made of a deformable material to replicate the front of another
vehicle and is attached to a cable that tows it down a track into the test
vehicle at 38.5 mph. Both the barrier face and the driver's side of the
vehicle are parallel, so that the entire face of the barrier impacts the
side of the vehicle, as shown in figure 5.
14The higher speed creates more crash energy or power and inflicts
potentially more damage on the vehicle and its occupants. The increased
speed also allows differences in crashworthiness to be more readily
observed. The difference in speed is only 5 mph faster, but the total
kinetic energy released in a 35 mph crash is 36 percent greater than that
released in a 30 mph crash.
15See appendix VIII for a diagram of the angled side crash test
configuration.
16NHTSA performs the angled side test because accident data suggests that
intersection or perpendicular impacts occur with two moving vehicles. To
simulate a moving car to moving car crash, the angled or "crabbed" side
test is used. The test simulates the striking vehicle traveling at
approximately 34 mph and the test vehicle traveling at roughly half that
speed-approximately 17 mph-due to the 63/27 degree configuration.
Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Click the following link to watch a video of an angled side crash test
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 38.5 mph:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v2.mpg
Because all vehicles are hit with the same force by the same moving
barrier, test results can be compared across weight classes. The barrier
used in this test weighs approximately 3,015 pounds, and the top of the
deformable face is approximately 32 inches from the ground. The side NCAP
test is similar to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards test, with
the exception that the side NCAP test is conducted at 38.5 mph, or 5 mph
faster than the safety standard test.17
Rollover Test The dynamic rollover test simulates a driver making a
high-speed collision avoidance maneuver-steering sharply in one direction,
then sharply in the other direction-within about 1 second. NHTSA has
focused its rollover test primarily on pickups and SUVs because cars are
not susceptible to tipping up in this test. The rollover test is actually
a series of four runs, two left/right tests and two right/left tests, at
two different steering wheel angles and different speeds. Before the test,
the vehicle is loaded to represent five passengers and a full tank of gas.
During the test, the steering wheel is turned sharply in one direction at
a high speed and then turned sharply in the opposite direction at a
greater steering angle.18 The first run of each test is conducted at 35
mph. Subsequent runs are conducted at about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph and
50 mph, until the vehicle fails or "tips up" as defined by test procedures
or attains a speed of 50 mph on the last
17The safety standard, No. 214, applies to both sides of the vehicle and
specifies performance requirements for vehicle occupant protection in side
crashes. NCAP side tests only apply to the driver's side of the vehicle.
18Appendix III provides additional discussion of the basis for NHTSA's
rollover rating.
run of each test without tipping up. Tipping up is defined as both wheels
on one side of the vehicle lifting off the ground more than 2 inches
simultaneously, which most commonly occurs during the second turn, as
exhibited in figure 6. Outriggers are attached to the vehicle to prevent
it from tipping all the way over and injuring the test driver.
Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Click the following link to watch a video of a dynamic rollover test
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 48 mph:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v3.mpg
NHTSA Rates Vehicles by Assigning Up to Five Stars to Communicate the
Results of Its Tests
Frontal and Side Crashworthiness Ratings
NHTSA separately rates the frontal, side, and rollover tests. It assigns
one (worst) to five (best) stars to communicate the results of the three
tests to aid consumers in their vehicle purchase decisions. Each star in
the frontal and side ratings corresponds to a diminishing probability of a
potentially life-threatening injury, whereas each star in the rollover
rating corresponds to a reduced likelihood of vehicle rollover. The
rollover rating does not represent the chance of a potentially
life-threatening injury should a rollover crash occur.
Frontal and side star ratings represent the chances of a person wearing a
safety belt incurring an injury serious enough to require immediate
hospitalization or to be life threatening in the event of a crash. Frontal
star ratings indicate the combined chance of a serious head and chest
injury19 to the driver and right front seat passenger, as shown in figure
7.
19The head and chest measurements are known as the Head Injury Criterion
(HIC) and chest deceleration value, measured in Gs.
Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious
Injury to the Head and Chest
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Side star ratings indicate the chance of a serious chest injury to the
driver and the rear seat driver's side passenger, as shown in figure 8.20
NHTSA reports two separate star ratings for the frontal and side crash
test, according to the occupant position.
Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious Injury
to the Chest
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In the side and frontal test, NHTSA uses crash test dummies that represent
an average-sized adult male. Each dummy is secured with the vehicle's
20The forces on the dummy's lower spine and the greater of the
accelerations of the lower and upper ribs are used in the side NCAP star
ratings. These accelerations are averaged to produce a measurement known
as the Thoracic Trauma Index.
safety belts prior to the crash test.21 The dummies are affixed with
instruments that measure the force of impact experienced in different
parts of the body during the crash. While only forces to the head and
chest are used to calculate the frontal star ratings, impacts to each
dummy's neck, pelvis, legs, and feet are also measured.22 For the frontal
rating, NHTSA calculates the chance of serious injury to the head and
chest by linking measured forces on the dummies' heads and chests during
the crash test to information about human injury.23 For the side rating,
NHTSA calculates the chance of serious injury to the chest by linking
measured forces on the dummies' ribs and lower spine during the crash test
and information about human injury. Forces to the head and pelvis are also
measured but are not included in side star ratings.
Rollover Rating NHTSA's rollover star ratings represent the propensity of
a vehicle to roll over but do not address the probability of a severe
injury in a rollover crash. Knowing a vehicle's propensity to roll is
important because rollovers are the most deadly crashes. While totaling
just over 2 percent of police reported crashes, rollovers account for
almost one-third of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. The crash
avoidance rollover rating is based primarily on the measure of a vehicle's
top-heaviness, as shown in figure 9, and, to a lesser extent, the results
of the dynamic test.24
21The crash test dummies used in the frontal and side NCAP test represent
the 50th percentile male or the average male in terms of height and
weight. The dummy used is approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs
approximately 170 pounds.
22If these force measurements are sufficiently high to cause serious or
life-threatening injury, they are reported separately as a safety concern
but are not included in the star rating calculation. NHTSA does not report
tibia and feet measurements as safety concerns because there are no
agency-approved metrics for these body regions. In side impact tests,
forces to the head are also measured, though they are not included in the
star rating. They are also reported separately as a safety concern if
considered high.
23See appendix II for more information about how dummy measures and
information about human injury are combined to develop a probability of
injury.
24NHTSA began rating a vehicle's risk of rollover in 2001. Rollover
ratings between 2001 and 2003 were based on the measure of a vehicle's
top-heaviness because NHTSA had determined that this was a good indicator
of rollover likelihood. In 2004, NHTSA began to conduct a dynamic rollover
test as mandated by the TREAD Act.
Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
aThe Static Stability Factor (SSF) is a vehicle's track width divided by
two times its center of gravity height.
NHTSA uses the measure of a vehicle's top-heaviness to predict the
likelihood of a vehicle rolling over under the circumstances that occur
most often-when a vehicle leaves the roadway and the vehicle's wheels hit
a curb, soft shoulder, or other roadway object, causing it to roll over.
These "tripped" rollovers account for about 95 percent of all rollover
crashes. NHTSA's dynamic rollover test does not correspond to these types
of rollovers because it does not involve the vehicle hitting a tripping
mechanism, such as a curb or soft shoulder. As such, NHTSA's dynamic
rollover test does not affect the star rating significantly, resulting in
no more than a half-star difference in a vehicle's rollover rating. NHTSA
primarily selects top-heavy vehicles, such as light trucks, small vans,
and SUVs for the rollover test.25 NHTSA assigns one to five stars to
reflect the chance of rollover, as shown in figure 10.26
25A vehicle's Static Stability Factor ranges (SSF) from approximately 1.00
to 1.50, with SUVs lying in the lower half and passenger cars lying in the
upper half of that range. The lower the SSF, the more likely a rollover
will occur. For rollover ratings, vehicles are rated using a statistical
risk model that incorporates both the vehicle's SSF and its tip or no-tip
result in the dynamic test. NHTSA does not always subject passenger cars
to the dynamic test. For some passenger cars, NHTSA imputes or assigns a
"no tip-up" if other passenger cars that are more top-heavy did not tip up
during the dynamic test. NHTSA periodically puts vehicles with imputed
test results through the dynamic test to verify the no tip-up assignation.
26See appendix III for a more detailed description of the development of
the NCAP rollover rating.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA Reports the Results to the Public Through the Internet and the
Buying a Safer Car Brochure
NHTSA distributes NCAP safety ratings and information about a vehicle's
safety features through its Web site, press releases, and the Buying a
Safer Car brochure. NHTSA primarily relies on the Web site to educate
consumers about vehicle safety; in 2004 there were about 4.3 million
visits to the NCAP Web site. The Web site was last redesigned in August
2004 and provides information about crash test ratings from model year
1990 to the present.27 To view a vehicle's ratings, users can search using
parameters such as vehicle class, year, make, and model. Once a vehicle
class and year are selected, the list of vehicles comes up with the star
rating information, as shown in figure 11.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
27NCAP rating information for vehicles prior to model year 1990 is
archived and not available on the Web site. NCAP information for these
vehicles has been converted into star ratings and is available to
consumers upon request.
Users can get more detailed information about the vehicle's star rating by
selecting a specific vehicle, as shown in figure 12.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
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. 28
Published annually, The Car Book provides consumers with a broad range of
information about new vehicles, listed alphabetically by model.
Information such as fuel economy, repair costs, and front and side crash
tests are included in the book. The Car Book takes the NCAP raw test
results and converts them into a numerical rating scheme, 10 being best
and 1 being worst. In addition to the information by vehicle model, The
Car Book also presents detailed safety information based on the safety
features of each car and the government's rollover ratings. Since first
being published privately for the 1983 vehicle model year, The Car Book
has sold over 1.5 million copies.29
28Visits to the Consumer Reports Web site include those seeking rating
information on an array of consumer products, not just vehicle safety.
29The Car Book was originally a government publication. It is now produced
commercially.
U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating, Reporting,
and Government Involvement
We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report the
results to the public-the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(Insurance Institute) program in the United States and NCAP programs in
Australia, Europe, and Japan.30 All of the programs shared the U.S. NCAP
goals of providing manufacturers with an incentive to produce safer
vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information on
the vehicles they plan to purchase. We found differences in the types of
tests conducted, how the crash tests were evaluated, and how the test
results were shared with the public. In addition, we found that each
program had varied levels of government and industry involvement.
Vehicle Testing Programs Conduct Different Tests
Each of the organizations we examined conducts a variety of frontal, side,
and other tests designed to measure various elements of vehicle safety.
Figure 13 shows the tests performed across the U.S. NCAP and other four
programs. (See appendixes II through VIII for additional discussion on
each program and the tests conducted.)
30The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and
communications organization in the United States funded by the auto
insurance industry.
Test performed Test not performed
Source: GAO analysis of crash test programs.
aThe Insurance Institute conducts a perpendicular side-impact crash test
with a SUV-like barrier.
Frontal Crash Tests The five programs we examined use two crash tests to
represent frontal crashes-full frontal and offset crash tests. The U.S.
and Japan NCAPs conduct full frontal tests, which involve crashing the
test vehicle's entire front end into a solid barrier. The offset frontal
test involves crashing the test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 kilometers
per hour-km/h) into a deformable barrier with about 40 percent of the
vehicle's overall width on the driver's side actually impacting the
barrier, as shown in figure 14. All programs, except the U.S. NCAP,
conduct the offset frontal test.
Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Club.
Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it
is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the driver is
on the right side of the vehicle.
Click the following link to watch a video of an offset frontal crash test
conducted by Australia NCAP at 40 mph:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v4.mpg
The full frontal and offset frontal tests measure different
characteristics of vehicle crashworthiness. The full frontal test focuses
on measuring the ability of the vehicles' restraint systems to protect the
occupants. The offset frontal test assesses a vehicle's structural
integrity and its ability to manage the crash energy generated from a
crash entirely on one side of the vehicle. Officials from the programs
using the offset test told us they believe it is more representative of
real world crashes because most frontal crashes involve vehicles hitting
only a portion of their front ends.
Side Crash Tests Three types of side-impact tests are conducted among the
programs we examined-the angled side test, the perpendicular side test,
and the pole side test. Only the U.S. NCAP performs the angled side
test.31 All of the other testing programs conduct a perpendicular side
tests. This test involves crashing a moving deformable barrier traveling
at about 31 mph
(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.
Source: Euro NCAP.
Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it
is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the driver is
on the right side of the vehicle.
Click the following link to watch a video of a perpendicular side impact
crash test conducted by Euro NCAP at 31 mph:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v5.mpg
Other differences between the side tests were the height, shape, and
weight of the barriers and the crash dummies used. For example, the U.S.
NCAP and the three foreign programs performed their side tests using a
moving deformable barrier with a front end simulating a passenger car,
while the Insurance Institute's barrier simulates the front end of a
typical pickup
31As discussed earlier, the angled side test involves crashing a
3,015-pound moving deformable barrier traveling at 38.5 mph into a
standing test vehicle.
truck or SUV. In addition, the Insurance Institute barrier weighs about
3,300 pounds (1,500 kilograms-kg) compared to 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for
the U.S. barrier and 2,095 pounds (950 kg) for the Australian, European,
and Japanese barriers. Also, the Australia, Europe, Japan, and U.S. side
tests used 50th percentile adult male dummies and the Insurance Institute
used 5th percentile adult female dummies.32
Insurance Institute officials told us they found that in serious
real-world side-impact collisions, occupants' heads are often struck by
intruding vehicles, especially in the side collisions involving pickup
trucks or SUVs with high front hoods. As a result, in 2003 when they began
their side impact test, they developed the barrier to simulate these types
of vehicles, while using dummies that represented smaller occupants. They
said that the test challenges the automobile industry to provide
additional occupant protection specifically for the head region. Figure 16
shows the difference in the size and height of the barriers, while figure
17 shows the crash test.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
32The 50th percentile adult male dummy represents an average-sized male,
and the 5th percentile adult female dummy represents a small female or
12-year-old child.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
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.33 Figure 18 illustrates how the pole
test is performed.
Source: Euro NCAP.
Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it
is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the driver is
on the left side of the vehicle.
Click the following link to watch a video of a side pole crash test
conducted by Euro NCAP at about 18mph:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v7.mpg
33NHTSA has proposed a regulatory revision to its Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 214, in which vehicles would have to meet additional
performance criteria of a pole side test involving a vehicle traveling at
20 mph into a rigid pole at a 75 degree angle.
Other Safety Tests In addition to the frontal and side crash tests, other
safety tests are conducted in the various programs. These include vehicle
rollover, pedestrian protection, and child restraint tests. The U.S. NCAP
is the only program to conduct a vehicle rollover test.34 Officials of the
other NCAPs told us they do not conduct this test because rollover has not
been a major problem in their countries due to their smaller-sized vehicle
fleet. However, Australian NCAP officials told us they have noted a growth
in the size of their vehicle fleets, and they will be evaluating the
usefulness of adding a rollover test to their programs.
The NCAPs in Australia, Europe, and Japan also conduct pedestrian tests,
which are used to assess the risk to pedestrians if struck by the front of
a car. The pedestrian test involves projecting adult and child-sized dummy
parts (such as heads) at specified areas of the front of a vehicle to
replicate a car-to-pedestrian collision. Officials in these programs said
they included this test because pedestrian fatalities in some of their
countries were quite high. For example, in 2003 pedestrians accounted for
nearly 30 percent of the annual traffic fatalities in Japan, 20 percent in
Europe (nearly 30 percent in the United Kingdom alone), and 14 percent in
Australia. In contrast, in the United States, approximately 5,000
pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2003, accounting for
13 percent of the annual traffic fatalities. Figure 19 illustrates how the
pedestrian protection test is performed.
34As discussed earlier, NHTSA's rollover test evaluates vehicles' rollover
resistance using a Static Stability Factor calculation and a dynamic test
simulating a high-speed collision avoidance maneuver.
Source: Euro NCAP.
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.
Each vehicle testing organization used crash dummy readings as a principal
part of its rating process.35 However, we found some differences in other
aspects of the organizations' rating processes. For example, all programs
except NHTSA supplement the dummy measures with inspector observations or
measurements of the post-crash vehicles. In addition, in Europe and
Australia, rating scores can be modified depending on the existence or
absence of certain safety features. Further, each program except the
Insurance Institute uses stars to convey the test results, and some
programs combine individual ratings into summary ratings in an effort to
make it easier for the public to understand crash test results.
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
35Appendixes IV through VII provide details on each country's approach to
vehicle ratings.
Source: Euro NCAP.
Vehicle Testing Programs Rate Safety Differently
Organizations Use Different Body Region Measurements and Types of Dummies
to Develop Ratings
for serious injury, which in turn is converted into a star rating.36 NHTSA
officials said they use these measures because they are the most important
indicators of serious or fatal injury in frontal and side crashes.37 In
addition to the U.S. NCAP measures, the Insurance Institute uses
measurements of the neck, left leg and foot, and right leg and foot for
its frontal crash analysis and measurements of the head, neck, pelvis, and
left leg for its side crash analysis. Australia and Euro NCAP use the
neck, knee, femur, pelvis, and leg and foot for frontal tests and head,
abdomen, and pelvis for side tests. Japan uses neck, femur, and tibia
measurements for its frontal crash analysis and head, abdomen, and pelvis
measurements for its side crash analysis. The other organizations use some
of these additional measures to capture what in some cases may not
necessarily be life-threatening injuries, such as those to the victim's
legs. As discussed earlier, the U.S. NCAP measures the impact of crashes
on many of the same body regions but does not use them to calculate safety
ratings.
In addition to differences in the body areas being measured, some programs
use different dummies in their side-impact tests. For the frontal tests,
the U.S. NCAP and other organizations use dummies that represent an
average-size adult male who is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs about 170
pounds. While this size dummy is used by most programs for the side-impact
tests, there are differences in the dummy types and the instrumentation it
contains.38 In addition, in its side-impact tests, the Insurance Institute
uses a smaller female dummy (about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110
pounds). Insurance Institute officials said they chose this dummy because
there is evidence that females are more at risk in side collisions. It
hopes this test will encourage manufacturers to install side curtain air
bags that are designed to extend low enough to protect smaller passengers.
Although NHTSA's proposed changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards would add a side-impact pole test using the average-size male
and the smaller female dummies, NHTSA officials said that at this time
they have no plans to alter the sizes or types of crash
36For the side crashes, dummy readings of the chest and lower spine are
used to compute the Thoracic Trauma Index, which is used to determine the
star rating.
37In the proposed change to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
side impact test, the new pole test would evaluate protection to front
seat occupants against head, thoracic, and pelvic injuries. This would be
the first time that head injury criteria would need to be met under the
side standards.
38For the side impact tests, the U.S. NCAP uses the SID-H3 dummy,
Australia and Euro NCAPs use the EuroSID-II dummy, and Japan's NCAP uses
the EuroSID-1.
dummies they use but plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once
the pole test requirements for the safety standards are resolved and
finalized.
Using Inspector Observations to Another distinction between the U.S.
program and other programs is the
Supplement Dummy Results
Using a Modifier System to Adjust Scores
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.
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.
Use of Stars as a Measure of Except for the Insurance Institute, all
programs used stars to convey test
Safety results. Officials from the NCAPs noted that star ratings are well
understood by the public. For example, NHTSA officials said they used
focus groups in 1993 to examine various options to communicate crash test
results to the public, and the five-star rating was found preferable. In
addition, officials in the other programs told us they followed the U.S.
NCAP's use of star ratings. None of the programs has plans to change its
rating measures.
There have been some concerns expressed about the use of stars. For
example, a 1996 study by the National Academy of Sciences noted that stars
are inherently positive symbols and the public may not understand the
distinctions between the different levels of stars.39 In addition,
officials of a consumer group noted that most people would associate the
star rating with hotels and that staying in a three-star hotel would be
quite acceptable to most people. In discussing its use of Good,
Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor, the Insurance Institute said it considered
these types of qualitative measures as being clearer to the general
public.
Developing Summary Ratings Australia, Europe, and Japan NCAPs provide
summary ratings, while the U.S. NCAP provides only individual ratings for
each seating position that is included in the test for the frontal and
side crash tests. For example, Australia and Euro NCAPs provide overall
ratings that combine the frontal and side crash tests. Japan's NCAP
combines frontal and side crash tests to provide overall ratings for the
driver and passenger of a vehicle. Australian and European officials
explained that they believed potential vehicle purchasers can be confused
by the large amount of detail available on the
39Shopping for Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety Information,
Special Report 248, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council.
test results and that summarizing results makes the ratings more useful.
They noted they make the actual injury readings available for those
interested in that level of detail. In addition, while the Insurance
Institute does not combine individual ratings, it does identify "Best Pick
- Frontal" and "Best Pick - Side" to assist consumers. Similarly,
officials with publications like Consumer Reports and The Car Book told us
they have found it helpful to provide consumers with summarized rating
information. NHTSA officials noted that overall or summary ratings might
hide or mask deficiencies in some areas of the tests. For example, they
said that if a vehicle were to get a very high frontal rating and a very
low side rating, merging the results could give consumers a misleading
impression of the overall safety of that vehicle.
Programs Used a Variety The crash testing programs we examined used a
variety of approaches to
Approaches to Inform share safety results with the public. Across all the
programs, the Internet
Consumers of Safety was the most relied-upon source for getting
information to consumers, with each organization providing details of its
test results. Safety
Results pamphlets were used by all programs to supplement the safety
information presented on their Web sites. Some programs also work with the
news media to increase awareness of test results.
Internet Used to Convey Results Each organization made the results of its
testing program available to the public on the Internet. In general, the
public can access the results of individual tests, including the actual
numeric dummy readings. To help the public understand these results, each
Web site uses charts, tables, and graphics. For example, in addition to
providing star ratings, the Euro NCAP also uses color-coded dummy injury
diagrams to display how the specific body regions perform in the frontal,
side, pole, and pedestrian tests. The color-coded indicators are: Good
(Green), Adequate (Yellow), Marginal (Orange), Weak (Red), and Poor
(Brown). The color used is based on the points awarded for that body
region, as shown in figure 21.
Publications Used to Share Test Results
Working with the News Media to Share Test Results
Source: Euro NCAP.
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.
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.
Government and Industry The level of government and industry involvement
varies among the crash Involvement Varies among the test programs. For
example, the U.S. NCAP, which is operated and funded
Crash Testing Programs
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.40 Also, the technical working groups and
automobile manufacturers engage in direct dialogue in industry liaison
meetings.
According to NCAP officials, Japan's NCAP is funded by the government but
administered by an independent, government-appointed committee. The
committee includes members who are experts from automobile research
institutes, academics, journalists, and representatives of the Japanese
automobile industry and the automobile importers association. This
government/industry committee manages the program and must approve changes
submitted by program officials. The committee reaches its decisions
through consensus. Although the government ministry that oversees the
program may override the committee's decisions, this has never occurred.
40Primary safety includes vehicle safety features designed to help
vehicles avoid crashes. Secondary safety includes vehicle safety features
designed to help minimize the risk of injury for vehicle occupants
involved in crashes.
NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are Needed to
Maintain Its Relevance
NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to produce safer
vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information.
However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to change to
maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has been
eroded by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the
program began. Today there are many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs
than existed 27 years ago and new safety hazards have resulted from the
incompatibility between large and small vehicles and rollover crashes,
which are not fully addressed by current NCAP tests. In addition, because
most vehicles now receive four- or five-star ratings, the NCAP tests
provide little incentive for automakers to continue to improve vehicle
safety and little differentiation among vehicle ratings for consumers.
Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and side crash tests in the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will make current NCAP tests less
meaningful. Opportunities to enhance the program include developing
approaches to better measure the effects of crashes between large and
small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies
that help prevent crashes from occurring, and using different measures to
rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the
presentation and timeliness of information provided to consumers.
NCAP Has Encouraged NCAP testing has contributed to more crashworthy
passenger vehicles and Improvement in Vehicle NHTSA has informed the
public of test results. As shown in figure 22, there Safety and Provided
the 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
thePublic with Vehicle Safety driver in frontal crash tests, about 4.4
stars for the passenger in frontal Information 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.
Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
Tests Side star ratings over timeFrontal star ratings over time
Average star rating Average star rating 55
44
33
22
11
00
1984 1994 2004 1997 2000 2004 Year Year
Average star rating driver
Average star rating passenger
Source: GAO analysis of historical NCAP data provided by NHTSA.
Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each model
year.
The improved ratings indicate that manufacturers have taken NCAP seriously
and designed and built vehicles that do well on NCAP tests. Automakers
told us that vehicle safety and NCAP test results have become an important
marketing tool. As a result, many auto manufacturers advertise five-star
ratings in government crash tests in their television, radio, and print
ads.
NHTSA has informed the public of the NCAP test results through its Web
site and by publishing a safety brochure. In addition, according to NHTSA
officials, the NCAP Web site has been redesigned in an effort to make it
more user-friendly. More importantly, NCAP crash test results are used by
popular publications that influence large segments of the car-buying
public. Both Consumer Reports and The Car Book use NCAP test results as
part of their vehicle safety ratings.
Without Change, NCAP's Relevance Will Likely Diminish
While NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to make safer
vehicles, it will need to change to remain relevant. There have been
significant changes in the makeup of the nation's vehicle fleet, a growing
similarity of crash test ratings, and upgrades in the safety standard
tests for frontal and side crashworthiness. Without addressing these
changes, NCAP provides little incentive to manufacturers to continue to
improve safety and may provide consumers with only limited comparative
information on vehicle safety.
Since NHTSA began NCAP testing in 1979, there have been dramatic changes
in the vehicle fleet. Vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs have
transformed the fleet once dominated by passenger cars. There are now more
than 85 million pickups, minivans, and SUVs on the road, representing
about 37 percent of the vehicle fleet. The change in vehicle fleet
presents new safety challenges that NCAP's testing does not fully
address-vehicle incompatibility and rollover. The issue of incompatibility
emerges when a large vehicle such as a pickup, minivan, or SUV crashes
into a smaller, lighter vehicle because the larger vehicle can inflict
serious damage that is particularly dangerous to the occupants of the
smaller vehicle. The current NCAP frontal and side tests do not account
for vehicles of different size, weight, and geometry crashing into one
another. Significant differences in ratings can result when tests are
designed to address these vehicle differences, as evidenced by comparing
the Insurance Institute side test results with NCAP results. The Insurance
Institute, which uses a higher SUV-like barrier, gave 27 vehicles its
lowest rating (Poor) in side-impact tests, primarily because there were no
side air bags in the vehicle. NHTSA, which uses a low barrier and, unlike
the Insurance Institute, does not include head measures in its star
calculations, gave 21 of these same 27 vehicles (77 percent) four- or
five-star safety ratings. Also, with the increase in pickups, minivans,
and SUVs in the nation's fleet, vehicle rollover has become a more
important issue; in 2003, rollovers accounted for over 10,000 fatalities,
or more than 30 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities.
However, the NCAP rollover test only measures the likelihood that a
vehicle will roll over and does not assess the safety afforded to
occupants should a rollover occur.
NCAP frontal and side crash test results have improved to a point where
there is little difference among most vehicles' ratings. In 2004, NHTSA
provided the public with NCAP rating information for 234 vehicles.41 Most
of these vehicle ratings were four or five stars for drivers and
passengers in frontal and side crash tests, as shown in figure 23.
Figure 23: Frequency of Four- and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
Crash Tests in 2004 Number of star ratings Number of star ratings
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
140 120 100 80 60 40 20
0
Frequency of star ratings for driver in frontal test in 2004 Frequency of
star ratings for driver in side test in 2004
Frequency of star ratings for passenger in frontal test in 2004 Frequency
of star ratings for rear passenger in side test in 2004
Source: GAO analysis of 2004 NCAP data available on NHTSA's Web site.
Note: For the driver and front passenger in the frontal test, star ratings
were available for 234 vehicles in 2004. For the driver in the side test,
star ratings were available for 210 vehicles in 2004. For the rear
passenger driver's side, in the side test, star ratings were available for
186 vehicles in 2004.
The vehicles crash tested more recently have done even better. Of the 49
frontal and 18 side crash tests conducted in 2004, over 95 percent
received a four- or five-star rating. As a result, NCAP's ability to
challenge auto manufacturers to continue improving vehicle safety has
eroded. Also, with almost all scores being about the same, consumers do
not have
41This includes carryover vehicles and corporate twins. Carryover vehicles
are those that have been tested under NCAP in previous years and whose
design and safety rating has not changed. Corporate twins are two vehicles
that are built on the same chassis, share most of their underhood and
interior components, and have the same air bag and safety belt interaction
but are sold under different brand names.
comparative safety information that differentiates significantly among
vehicles.
Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading the frontal and side tests under the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which make current NCAP testing less
meaningful.42 For frontal tests, safety standards will require that for
vehicles built after September 1, 2007, manufacturers must certify the
crashworthiness of their vehicles at 35 mph (instead of the current 30
mph).43 This change will eliminate the speed difference between the
frontal NCAP and the frontal belted safety standard tests. Because of this
change, NHTSA has begun to examine alternatives to its current frontal
crash test program and hopes to finalize any changes to the NCAP frontal
test in 2006. Similarly, NHTSA announced in May 2004 that it is proposing
to add a 20 mph side pole crash test to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards. This test will use a more technically advanced average-size
male dummy than is currently used in the NCAP tests and a dummy that
represents a small female. According to NHTSA officials, the new test and
advanced dummy will enable them to confidently measure compliance with
head injury standards and challenge automakers to provide adequate head
protection to vehicle occupants in side impact crashes. However, neither
this test nor the new dummies are currently part of NCAP. NHTSA officials
said they plan to begin examining alternatives to the side crash test at
the end of 2005.
Opportunities to Enhance NCAP Testing
NHTSA could explore several opportunities to enhance NCAP and ensure its
relevance. These opportunities include (1) addressing changes to the
vehicle fleet, particularly as it relates to vehicle incompatibility and
rollover; (2) developing approaches for NCAP to encourage improved safety
from emerging technology that helps drivers avoid crashes; and (3)
examining the various testing procedures and measures that are available
and in use by other organizations and determining their applicability to
NCAP.
42NHTSA made these changes in recognition of the need to upgrade the level
of safety in frontal crashes in the regulations and to reflect specific
fatality risks in side crashes in the regulations.
43The higher test speed will be phased in for increasing percentages of
vehicles over 3 years.
Addressing the Increased Fatality Risks Created by Changes in the Vehicle
Fleet
Vehicle Incompatibility When pickups, minivans, and SUVs collide with
smaller passenger cars, the mismatch of the vehicles' weight, height, and
geometry are considerable, as shown in figure 24. In terms of the weight
differences, subcompact cars may weigh as little as 1,500 pounds while the
large SUV may exceed 6,000 pounds.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Because of the higher ground clearance of large pickups and SUVs, their
bumpers may skip over the crash structures of passenger cars, raising the
likelihood that an occupant of the car will be killed or seriously
injured.44 A
44This is called self protection and partner protection. While the
occupants of a large vehicle might be protected in a crash, occupants of a
smaller vehicle, the partner in a vehicle-to-vehicle crash, would have
less protection.
2003 NHTSA study found that in frontal collisions involving a car and a
light truck or van, there were almost four times the number of fatalities
in the car than in the light truck or van.45 The success of NCAP and the
other testing programs may have indirectly contributed to this problem.
According to some experts, to improve crashworthiness scores of large
vehicles, vehicle manufacturers have increased the rigidity of the
structure that absorbs and manages the substantial forces in the crash
tests.46 As a result, the structure of large vehicles has had to become
more substantial and stiffer than that of smaller vehicles because the
larger vehicles must absorb more energy in the crash test due to their
greater weight.
NHTSA's NCAP frontal tests could potentially be modified to measure and
rate vehicle incompatibility. Some experts, NHTSA officials, and vehicle
manufacturers told us that there are a number of approaches being
investigated that could help to address vehicle incompatibility. For
example, some researchers are examining the use of sensors in test walls;
crashing a moving deformable barrier into the front of the test vehicles,
instead of propelling the test vehicle into a solid wall; or crashing test
vehicles into a solid wall at varying speeds, depending on the size of the
vehicle, to equate the crash to hitting a standardized vehicle. The
hypothesis is that information obtained by measuring how vehicles strike
the crash test barrier could be used to estimate the relative damage that
a vehicle would cause in collisions with another vehicle and could be used
to rate the aggressiveness of vehicles. Using a moving barrier for frontal
crash tests would make test results comparable across weight classes, as
is the case with the current side-impact rating, because all vehicles
would be struck by the same size barrier. Using variable speeds based on
vehicle weight would also allow ratings of small and large vehicles to be
compared. Each of these alternatives requires further development and
testing to assess the overall safety implications, including the potential
for reducing fatalities in passenger cars when struck by larger vehicles,
the potential for diminished occupant protection for large vehicles in
single vehicle crashes,
45Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility, NHTSA, June 2003.
46According to a safety expert, automobile manufacturers have generally
opted to increase the strength and stiffness of the front of their
vehicles within the original vehicle design rather than adding additional
length to the front of vehicles which could be used to reduce the impact
on the vehicle struck.
and consideration of potential costs.47 Ratings based on these tests could
provide manufacturers with incentives to address incompatibilities between
large and small vehicles and provide consumers with information on the
potential safety hazards associated with vehicle incompatibility.
The problem of vehicle incompatibility is even worse in side crashes. When
a large vehicle like an SUV crashes into the side of a small vehicle, the
larger vehicle may miss the door sill of the vehicle, causing most of the
energy to be directed to the door and window areas, as shown in figure 25.
In such cases, the injuries can be exacerbated when there is no side head
protection, leaving the window as the only barrier between the occupant's
head and the impacting vehicle. Head injuries are a major cause of
fatalities in side collisions, particularly in crashes where a single
vehicle strikes a tree or utility pole and in intersection crashes where
smaller, lighter vehicles are hit in the side by larger, heavier vehicles.
NHTSA has estimated that in serious side-impact crashes involving one or
more fatalities in 2002, nearly 60 percent of those killed suffered brain
injuries.
Source: GAO photo of Insurance Institute test vehicles.
47According to NHTSA officials, in such tests, larger vehicles could
experience a lower change in velocity than smaller vehicles, potentially
leading manufacturers to incorporate softer structures that would not
absorb as much energy when these vehicles are in single vehicle crashes.
There are also possibilities for modifying the NCAP side test to help
address vehicle incompatibility. For example, NHTSA could examine the
barrier that is being used to ensure that it best represents today's
vehicles. NHTSA's current side-impact barrier is about the size and weight
of a compact car. As a result, when this barrier hits the test vehicle, it
will almost always hit the bottom sill of the door, which is designed to
manage much of the crash energy.48 To address the disparity in height
between passenger cars and SUVs, the Insurance Institute uses a
side-impact test barrier that is larger and higher than NCAP's barrier, as
shown in figure 26. According to Insurance Institute officials, they
designed this barrier to represent an SUV so their test could more
accurately reflect the increased risk for occupants in smaller vehicles.
They said that it has encouraged manufacturers to install side curtain air
bags. Using this higher barrier has resulted in different scores than
NHTSA's NCAP. For example, the Insurance Institute has given 27 vehicles
its lowest rating (Poor) in sideimpact tests, while NHTSA, which uses a
low barrier and does not include head measures in its star calculations,
gave 21 of these 27 vehicles (77 percent) four- or five-star safety
ratings.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Click the following link to watch a video of an interior view of the side
impact crash test with an SUV-like barrier conducted by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety at 31 mph:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v9.mpg
48NHTSA officials said they are addressing this issue by proposing a
change to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that would require a
20 mph oblique side pole test.
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:
o 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.
o Larger vehicles will sustain a lower velocity change than smaller
vehicles when struck by the Insurance Institute barrier.
o The higher ride height of large vehicles could keep the dummy's head
from striking the top of the Insurance Institute barrier.
Occupant Protection in Rollover Crashes
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Given the changes in the vehicle fleet, fatalities due to rollover crashes
have continued to increase. Rollovers are dangerous incidents and have a
higher fatality rate than other kinds of crashes. Just over 2 percent of
all police-reported crashes that occurred in 2003 were rollovers, but they
accounted for over 10,000 highway fatalities, or more than 30 percent of
all passenger vehicle occupant deaths. All types of vehicles can roll
over. However, taller, narrower vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and
SUVs have higher centers of gravity and thus are more susceptible to roll
over if involved in a single-vehicle crash. NHTSA reported that 61 percent
of fatalities in SUVs and 45 percent of fatalities in pickups in 2002 were
the results of rollover crashes.49 NCAP's rollover testing does not rate
the chance of a potentially life-threatening injury should a rollover
crash occur; it only measures the risk of rollover.
49By contrast, 22 percent of those who died in passenger cars in 2002 were
killed in rollover crashes.
Although NHTSA has not incorporated occupant protection in rollovers into
NCAP, officials said they have been examining occupant protection in
rollover crashes, focusing on reducing occupant ejection and increasing
roof strength through regulation. According to NHTSA officials, the most
deadly rollovers occur when unbelted occupants are completely ejected from
the vehicle though doors, windows, and sun roofs and when the roof crushes
into the occupant compartment, causing serious, if not deadly, head, neck,
and spinal cord injuries. NHTSA has proposed changes to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards that would upgrade the door lock requirements to
help prevent vehicle occupant ejection and increase roof strength. They
are also considering other ways to prevent ejection, specifically looking
at the potential of side curtain air bags to prevent ejection through
vehicle windows.
NHTSA's NCAP rollover testing could be modified to better measure and rate
the risks of serious injury associated with a rollover crash. NHTSA
officials and others said that they have not been able to develop a
repeatable crash test in which the vehicle rolls over and dummies would be
used to measure injuries. However, in the absence of such a rollover crash
test, NCAP could examine various aspects of the vehicle which are known to
affect occupant safety in rollover, such as rating the roof strength of
vehicles. For example, officials from a consumer group told us that NHTSA
could conduct dynamic tests on roof strength and point to a 2002 Society
of Automotive Engineers paper that attests that such drop tests for roof
strength are repeatable. They also said that there has been other
promising research that would measure roof crush in dynamic tests.
However, including such tests in NCAP would require further development
and funding considerations.
Incorporating Active Safety NCAP also has an opportunity to begin
assessing new technology that
Technologies into NCAP could help prevent crashes. Vehicle manufacturers
and others have been developing and testing new active safety systems that
hold promise for reducing traffic fatalities by helping drivers avoid
crashes altogether. These active safety systems include improving vehicle
handling and braking in emergency situations, providing warning alerts for
potential collisions or straying out of roadway lanes, and providing
distance alerts when driving too close to another vehicle. A 2004 NHTSA
study estimated that the incorporation of electronic stability control
systems50 could reduce certain
50Electronic stability control keeps the vehicle under control by applying
brakes to individual wheels when the system detects loss of control or
instability.
crashes by about 67 percent.51 Similarly, the Insurance Institute reported
that electronic stability control can reduce the risk of involvement in
single vehicle crashes by more than 50 percent.52 Some experts suggested
that NCAP might be used to encourage and speed the adoption of active
safety systems into the vehicle fleet.
Some elements of active safety systems are included in some current tests.
While the rollover test is not designed to measure the effectiveness of
electronic stability control systems, vehicles equipped with this
technology would be expected to perform better in the rollover test
because the vehicle would be less likely to tip up. In addition, brake
tests are conducted as part of Japan's NCAP, with the results provided as
a separate safety rating. The Euro NCAP has also established committees to
identify potential active safety systems to include in their program, as
well as the testing protocols that would be used.
While using NCAP to further test and rate active safety systems could
encourage their adoption in the marketplace, there are challenges to
overcome. According to NHTSA officials, NHTSA would first need to identify
those active safety systems that could be effective in preventing crashes.
They said this would be difficult because they would have to determine how
well a system helps drivers avoid crashes. Also, determining the testing
methodology would be challenging because the effectiveness of some active
systems could be affected by factors such as driver behavior and the
physical characteristics of the road, such as the dampness of the
pavement.
Officials from various automobile manufacturers told us that they are
developing many new active safety systems with the objective of helping
drivers avoid crashes. They pointed out that while NCAP could be used to
encourage them to market such systems, they would have concerns regarding
which systems to include in NHTSA's program and how the system would be
rated. In addition, they noted that because of competitive forces, active
safety advances could be available sooner than NHTSA is capable of
deciding to include them and developing an acceptable approach for testing
and rating them. Officials from automakers said they
51Preliminary Results Analyzing the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability
Control (ESC) Systems, NHTSA, September 2004.
52Effects of Electronic Stability Control on Automotive Crash Risk, C.M.
Farmer, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2004.
are willing to share their research and work in cooperation with NHTSA to
develop tests or measurements that could help NCAP address these issues.
Using Additional Test Measures NHTSA could provide consumers with more
safety information by using
and Different Size Dummies
additional test measures and different crash dummies. All of the other
organizations we contacted used more dummy measures to calculate vehicles'
safety ratings than U.S. NCAP used. To determine the star ratings, NHTSA
uses head and chest readings from the frontal NCAP test and chest and
lower spine readings for side-impact tests. Other organizations use
measurements that included such areas as the head, neck, chest, leg, and
foot for frontal test ratings and the head, neck, chest, pelvis, and leg
for side test ratings.53
The concern with using few dummy readings is that the safety rating might
not include important safety considerations. While NHTSA uses head and
chest readings for frontal ratings and chest and lower spine readings for
the side ratings, it measures other items during crash tests and may
identify them as "Safety Concerns" on its Web site if they exceed certain
values. We identified over 140 Safety Concerns on NHTSA's Web site since
vehicle model year 1990-36 of these were for vehicles that received four-
or five-star ratings.54 The Safety Concerns included high femur readings
in frontal crashes, which could mean there was a high likelihood of thigh
injury; high head acceleration readings in side crashes, which could
indicate a high likelihood of serious head trauma; and doors opening
during side crash tests, which could increase the likelihood of occupant
ejection.55 Having a Safety Concern noted for vehicles with a four- or
five-star rating presents conflicting information that could be confusing
to consumers.
53The U.S. NCAP uses head and chest crash dummy readings in frontal
crashes and chest and lower spine readings for side crashes because
according to NHTSA these are the most important indicators of serious or
fatal injury. The Insurance Institute uses four body regions for its
frontal crash analysis and three for its side crash analysis. Japan uses
five body regions for its frontal crash analysis and four for its side
crash analysis, while Australia and Europe use four for frontal and two
for side. The other organizations use additional measures to capture what
can be serious, although not necessarily life-threatening injuries such as
those to the victim's legs.
54These Safety Concerns were taken from the several thousand vehicle
ratings available on NHTSA's Web site, including carryover vehicles and
corporate twins.
55Data collected during NCAP tests but not used to calculate star ratings
are available on the NHTSA Web site. Other data, such as the results of
force-of-load testing, are available on the NHTSA research Web site.
As NHTSA makes changes to its testing program, it has the opportunity to
reexamine the size and type of dummies it uses in crashes in addition to
the body areas of the dummies being measured. At present, NHTSA's dummies
equate to an average-size adult male who is about 5 feet 9 inches tall and
weighs about 170 pounds. Most of the other organizations use this size
dummy in their crash tests, and vehicle manufacturers work to maximize the
safety systems for an occupant with these characteristics. However, not
all vehicle occupants are the same size, and optimizing the restraint
system for the average male would not necessarily be optimum for others
who may be smaller, shorter, taller, or heavier.56 Also, children and the
elderly may react differently to crash forces than the average-size male.
Recognizing this, the Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy
(about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds) in the driver and rear
seat of the sideimpact test. Insurance Institute officials said they made
this change to encourage manufacturers to install side curtain air bags
that would extend low enough to protect the heads of smaller passengers.
In addition, in its proposed side-impact pole standards test, NHTSA
specifies using a 50th percentile male and a 5th percentile female to
address the issue of different size drivers and passengers.
The U.S. NCAP officials said that at this time they are waiting on the
resolution to the proposed safety standard changes that would add a side
pole test before deciding on altering the size or type of crash dummies
they use. While generating additional information on which to base safety
ratings, altering the size of the dummy in the NCAP tests could provide
challenges for automobile manufacturers because they would have to conduct
more internal tests. Officials from many vehicle manufacturers said they
must already conduct hundreds of crash tests each year to ensure that they
meet the variety of tests and dummies used in NHTSA's standards, U.S.
NCAP, and tests conducted by the other testing organizations.57
56Officials from vehicle manufacturers said they are developing new
restraint systems that they believe will be able to determine the weight
of the occupant and will vary the safety belt restraint and air bag
deployment to maximize the protection for different-sized occupants during
a crash.
57Automakers also encouraged NHTSA to work towards consistency with other
countries to lessen the burden on their testing programs. For example,
they noted that an advanced side impact dummy called "World SID" has been
developed and that it should be considered for use in side crash tests by
all side testing programs.
Opportunities to Enhance NCAP has the opportunity to enhance its program
by changing the way it
the Presentation and reports test results. Specifically, it could provide
summary ratings, present
Timeliness of NCAP Results information in a comparative manner, increase
public awareness, and make results available earlier in the model year.
Providing Summary Ratings According to some safety experts, NHTSA could
improve its program by developing an overall safety rating rather than
reporting four separate ratings for crash tests.58 Consumer Reports, The
Car Book, the Insurance Institute, and all of the other NCAPs provide more
summary information for consumers than NHTSA. Further, a 1996 National
Academy of Sciences study that examined NCAP recommended that NHTSA
provide an overall rating to provide consumers with an overview of a
vehicle's safety. However, the study also recommended that NHTSA make the
detailed test results available for those consumers who wish to examine
them more fully.59
NHTSA and Insurance Institute officials said they did not develop an
overall crashworthiness rating because combining ratings are technically
difficult and could obscure low ratings in one test area that would be
revealed when test results are reported separately. Insurance Institute
officials added that consumers can evaluate the different ratings to
determine those that are most applicable to their situations. They said a
person who is primarily the sole occupant of a vehicle might not be as
concerned with the passenger safety rating as someone who routinely
carries passengers.
NHTSA officials said that they will continue investigating the feasibility
of creating an overall safety rating for vehicles. However, they said that
they would like to incorporate additional elements into such a rating. For
example, they said that it is important to develop a rating that considers
more than just the frontal and side-impact test results, such as the
rollover results and vehicle compatibility, which can have a large bearing
on the overall safety of vehicles. In their view, without the elements
that address rollover and compatibility, consumers might get the wrong
impression of
58The U.S. NCAP provides four separate star ratings for crash test
results. There are separate ratings for drivers and passengers (front
seat) in frontal crashes and separate ratings for drivers and rear (driver
side) passengers in side-impact crashes.
59"Shopping for Safety," Special Report 248, National Academy Press
(Washington, D.C. : 1996).
the relative safety of vehicles. Officials said they have not yet
developed a method to incorporate the rollover rating into an overall
rating and have not identified measures to reflect vehicle compatibility,
although they have long recognized compatibility as an issue. They could
not estimate how long it would take to address the problem of adding the
rollover rating to a combined rating but said they would pursue developing
a summary safety rating for vehicles after they decide how to measure
vehicle compatibility.
Comparative Safety Information Each testing organization uses a different
presentation approach for
Could Benefit the Public 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.
Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.
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.
Increasing Public Awareness of Results
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA could look to other programs for innovative ways to garner more
interest in crash test results. Like other testing organizations, NHTSA
uses the Internet, brochures, and press releases to inform the public of
NCAP ratings. However, other organizations use additional approaches to
inform the public of their program and test results. For example, the
Japan Automobile Federation creates public awareness of the program with a
portable sled in which the general public can experience a simulated
collision at 5 kilometers per hour and have a protective air bag deploy.
The Euro NCAP also stages a public display of crash vehicles. They try to
select areas where media and public interest would be high. Recent events
were held in Wenceslas Square, Prague; Athens; and London. Figure 31 shows
two events, one in London and another in Prague.
Source: Euro NCAP.
There have also been proposals to increase public awareness of NCAP
results by requiring their inclusion on new car stickers. For example, S.
1072, a bill introduced in the 108th Congress to reauthorize funds for
federal aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs,
included a provision that would require automakers to include NCAP test
results on new car stickers. Officials from consumer advocate groups told
us that they support such an approach because consumers would have
information available at the time of their purchase decisions. Officials
from automakers said that there are a number of challenges that would need
to be overcome if such an approach were taken, including scheduling tests
to ensure that results are available in time for the information to be
included on new car stickers.
NCAP Ratings Could Be NHTSA could conduct vehicle tests earlier and
release NCAP ratings
Available Earlier in the Car sooner in the model year, which would make
the results more useful for
Model Year 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.60 For model year 2005, NHTSA attempted to address the issue
of getting timely information to consumers by publishing an early edition
of its Buying a Safer Car brochure in December 2004. This publication
included test results for some 2005 models. In addition, towards of the
end 2004, NHTSA began posting the results to its Web site as soon as the
quality control process was completed. NHTSA officials plan to publish an
updated version in spring 2005, after additional testing has been
completed.
There are several factors that affect the timing of the testing and the
release of NCAP ratings. First, NHTSA obtains vehicles for NCAP testing
directly from the dealerships and leasing companies to ensure that each
vehicle is representative of that make and model. Under this approach,
testing cannot begin until after vehicles are available for purchase by
the public-the model year begins in September for many companies. In
addition, NHTSA does not receive its funding until after the fiscal year
begins on October 1st of each year. Further, due to the number of vehicles
to be included, vehicle testing is spread out over a period of months. As
a result, testing can extend from October though April. Until recently,
NHTSA did not make ratings available to the public as soon as the results
were known but waited until all testing of a vehicle category was finished
before issuing a press release announcing the test results. Beginning with
model year 2005 tests, NHTSA began posting the test results to its Web
site after the quality control process was complete. Press releases
continue to be generated after each batch of tests is completed. NHTSA
officials said that by releasing the results this way, consumers have
comparative information on all vehicles of one type at the same time.
One testing organization has addressed some of the timeliness issues. Euro
NCAP obtains some vehicles directly from the manufacturers prior to
distribution to dealerships. This enables them to begin testing before the
vehicles are available to the public.61 In addition, the Euro NCAP divides
its program into two testing and information releases each year-one in
November and one in June-to speed the information to the public.
60Automotive News. Includes new model year passenger vehicles sales from
September 2003 though February 2004.
61The Euro NCAP selects the vehicles from the manufacturers randomly by
vehicle identification number.
Conclusions While NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has contributed to
making safer vehicles, it is at a crossroads where it will need to change
to remain relevant. The usefulness of the current testing has been eroded
by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program
began. The growing number of large pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the
nation's vehicle fleet is creating different safety risks, particularly
with regard to the incompatibility of large and small vehicles and vehicle
rollover, which NCAP does not fully address. In addition, the very success
of the program has brought it to a point where it is not clear that the
program's goals can continue to be met. Because almost all vehicles today
receive four- and five-star frontal and side-impact safety ratings, NCAP
provides little incentive for manufacturers to further improve the safety
of their vehicles and does not provide consumers with information that
differentiates the safety of one vehicle compared to another. Further, the
planned changes to the safety standards for frontal and side
crashworthiness may make current NCAP tests less meaningful.
While we believe there are opportunities to enhance NCAP by developing
approaches to better measure the interaction of large and small vehicles
and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help
prevent crashes from occurring, and using different injury measures to
rate the crash results, there are challenges that must be considered and
addressed before changes can be implemented. However, without changing its
testing, NCAP provides little incentive for manufacturers to improve
vehicle safety. In addition, NHTSA will need to enhance the timeliness of
testing and presentation of the New Car Assessment Program information.
For example, by the time NHTSA finished its testing and published the test
results for model year 2004 vehicles, about 7.7 million, or over 46
percent of new vehicles had already been purchased. To enhance the
information available to consumers, NHTSA can provide summary ratings,
present information in a comparative manner, increase public awareness,
and conduct tests earlier in the car model year. Given the substantial
numbers of traffic deaths and injuries suffered on the nation's roads each
year, efforts to improve vehicle safety seem warranted.
Recommendations for We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation
direct the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
to examine
Executive Action 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.
This examination should include
o 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;
o developing approaches to incorporate active safety systems ratings as a
part of NCAP; and
o analyzing alternative testing methodologies and dummies to provide a
robust and accurate measure of the likelihood of serious injuries to a
wide range of vehicle occupants.
In addition, we recommend that steps be taken to provide the public with
improved NCAP safety information in a more timely manner. In doing so it
may be necessary to examine how other organizations inform the public and
develop summary ratings, whether vehicles could be obtained more
efficiently for testing, how budgeted funds are managed during the year,
and how efficiently NCAP times the crash tests conducted by its
contractors.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a copy of the draft report to the Department of Transportation
for its review and comment. In commenting on the report, the Senior
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety commented that NHTSA was
pleased that the report concluded that NCAP has been successful in
encouraging manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing vehicle
safety information to consumers. While NHTSA generally agreed with the
report findings, including recognition that there are opportunities to
enhance NCAP, the official emphasized that NCAP was just one of the many
interrelated methods, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and
traffic injury control programs, the agency uses to achieve its mission of
saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing vehicle-related crashes.
The official said that NHTSA has been consistently working to address the
challenges associated with enhancing this complex technical program while
ensuring that the testing and results reported to consumers are accurate
and reliable. The official explained that this requires NHTSA to ensure
that any changes to NCAP, or for that matter to the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards, are based on sound science and careful analysis of
supporting data. The official cited a number of recent efforts that NHTSA
said demonstrate the careful and systematic approach the agency
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 [email protected].
Individuals
making key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX.
JayEtta Z. Hecker
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
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 92513);
the Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation
(TREAD) Act; and other documents pertaining to NCAP regulations. We also
searched NHTSA's docket and NCAP documentation. In addition, we conducted
interviews with NHTSA officials responsible for operating the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulatory program and the New Car
Assessment Program. We visited and interviewed officials from the Federal
Highway Administration and the National Crash Analysis Center. During
visits to all five of the contractors that perform regulatory and NCAP
crash tests-- including Karco Engineering, LLC, in Adelanto, California;
MGA Research Corporation in Burlington, Wisconsin; Medical College of
Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; General Dynamics- Advanced Information
Systems in Buffalo, New York; and the Transportation Research Center,
Inc., in East Liberty, Ohio--we interviewed officials and engineers
performing tests and observed various crash tests. We documented the
procedures for obtaining the data, how results were recorded, and the
conversion into star ratings. We determined that NCAP data were
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. In addition, we
reviewed literature pertaining to vehicle safety issues and documents
published by the Transportation Research Board.
To compare NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program with other programs that
test vehicles and report vehicle safety results to the public, we
researched literature and interviewed NHTSA officials to identify three
foreign New Car Assessment Programs (in Australia, Europe, and Japan) and
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as a domestic program. We also
identified publishers of Consumer Reports and The Car Book as
organizations that used NHTSA's NCAP data to derive their own vehicle
safety ratings. We identified a program in Korea but did not include this
program in our review because it began operating in 1999 and had not
tested a significant number of vehicles.
We obtained information on these programs by reviewing their literature
and their Web sites. We also interviewed officials and visited the test
facilities of the Insurance Institute and the NCAPs in Australia, Europe,
and Japan. We visited the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety's Vehicle
Research Center and observed a crash test. We also examined international
crash test and rating programs, including the Australia, Euro, and Japan
NCAPs. For Australia's NCAP, we visited Australia and conducted
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
interviews with government officials associated with the respective New
Car Assessment Program and vehicle safety policy. For Euro NCAP, we
visited Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, where we
conducted interviews with the European Commission, and the government
officials associated with the respective New Car Assessment Programs and
vehicle safety policies in Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For
Japan's NCAP, we visited Japan and interviewed government officials
associated with the respective New Car Assessment Program and vehicle
safety policy. While in these countries, we also interviewed auto
associations, consumer advocacy groups, and vehicle safety experts. We
identified and selected these auto associations, consumer advocacy groups,
and vehicle safety experts by reviewing studies and conference papers,
talking to program officials and other experts, and reviewing materials on
Web sites. We interviewed auto manufacturers in these countries, including
BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo. We reviewed New Car
Assessment Program regulations, testing protocols, and program
documentation. See table 1 for a list of domestic and international
organizations contacted.
To determine whether opportunities exist for NCAP to enhance its vehicle
safety testing and reporting, we obtained views from experts in vehicle
safety and the auto and insurance industries. In selecting vehicle safety
experts, we examined studies and conference papers, considered referrals
from other experts, and consulted the National Academy of Sciences. We
interviewed officials of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine and Applied Research Associates. We visited and interviewed
automobile manufacturers in the United States, including General Motors,
Ford Motor Company, Daimler-Chrysler, and American Honda Motor Company. We
interviewed trade associations including the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers. We interviewed consumer advocacy groups, including
Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety,
Advocates for Highway Safety and Auto Safety, and the National Safety
Council. We reviewed relevant research on consumer information regarding
vehicle safety from the Transportation Research Board.
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted
U.S. NCAP
Federal agencies Department of Transportation
NHTSA
George Washington University's National Crash Analysis Center
Federal Highway Administration
Consumer information organizations
Consumer Reports
The Center for Auto Safety (The Car Book)
Crash test organizations
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Automobile manufacturers
American Honda Motor Company
Daimler-Chrysler Corporation
Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
Industry associations and experts
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Applied Research Associates
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
Consumers Union
Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center
National Safety Council
Public Citizen
Transportation Research Board
Vehicle Certification Agency North America
Contractors
General Dynamics-Advanced Information Systems
Karco Engineering, LLC
Medical College of Wisconsin
MGA Research Corporation
Transportation Research Center
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
(Continued From Previous Page)
Australia NCAP
Australia Automobile Association (administrator for Australia NCAP)
Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE magazine)
Department of Transport and Regional Services-Vehicle Safety Standards
Crashlab-New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority (Australia NCAP test
facility)
Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries
Monash University Accident Research Center
National Roads and Motorists Association Motoring and Services Royal Automobile
Club of Victoria
Victoria Road and Traffic Authority
Euro NCAP
Belgium
European Auto Manufacturers Association European Commission, Directorate General
for Energy and Transport European Transport Safety Council
Germany
General German Automobile Club (ADAC)
BMW AG
Daimler Chrysler AG, Mercedes-Benz Technology Center
Federal Ministry for Traffic, Building, and Housing
TU:V Automotive Group
United Kingdom
Automotive Safety Centre at the University of Birmingham
Department for Transport
Euro NCAP
International Consumer Research and Testing (Which? magazine)
Thatcham (Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre)
Transportation Research Laboratory
Sweden
Swedish Road Administration
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute
Volvo
Japan NCAP
Honda Research and Development Corporation
Japan Auto Research Institute (Japan NCAP test facility)
Japan Automobile Federation
Japan Automobile Importers Association
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
(Continued From Previous Page)
Japan Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport Mitsubishi Motors
Corporation National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim's Aid (Japan NCAP)
Nissan Motor Corporation
Toyota Motor Corporation
Source: GAO.
We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
To rate a vehicle's crashworthiness, NHTSA combines information about (1)
the forces that would injure a human during a crash and (2) the effects of
those forces on areas of the human body. The forces that would injure a
human during a crash are measured by anthropomorphic test devices,
commonly referred to as crash test dummies, which serve as proxies for
human vehicle occupants. These dummies are fitted with accelerometers and
load sensors that measure the forces of impact on particular areas of the
body, as shown in figure 32.
Appendix II
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB. All
rights reserved.
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).
Appendix II
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
This scale, the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), ranks injuries, from minor
through currently untreatable, for particular areas of the body and
assigns a number from 1 through 6 to each rank, as shown in table 2. The
AIS is used to provide a simple numerical method for ranking and comparing
injuries by severity.
Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)
AIS code Description of injury
Minor
Moderate
Serious
Severe
Critical
Currently untreatable
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine, reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
AIS values in NCAP are injury probability values derived from measurements
of dummy response taken from specific characteristics (e.g., size, shape,
mass, stiffness, or energy dissipation) that simulate corresponding human
responses (e.g., acceleration, velocity, or articulation). These dummy
responses are correlated with both experimental biomechanical research as
well as with real world crash injury investigation. Researchers have used
a statistical procedure to relate the levels of injury to the forces that
caused them. This procedure produces theoretical injury curves, which
NHTSA uses as the basis for safety ratings.
NHTSA develops crashworthiness ratings, expressed in stars, for both
frontal and side crashes. To develop the NCAP ratings for frontal crashes,
NHTSA measures forces to the head and chest. Specifically, the injury
criteria for the frontal star rating are the head, as measured by a
composite of acceleration values known as the Head Injury Criterion (HIC),
and the chest, as measured by a chest deceleration value known as chest
Gs. Each of these two measures has its own injury risk curve that has been
fixed at AIS level 4 or greater-that is, a severe, critical, or currently
untreatable injury, as shown in figures 33 and 34. Using the mathematical
functions that describe each of these injury risk curves, NHTSA transforms
the HIC and chest G measures from the frontal NCAP test into probabilities
of head and chest injuries of AIS level 4 or greater. The lower the HIC
and chest G
Appendix II
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
measures, the less risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently
untreatable injury to the head and chest in a full frontal crash.
80
60
40
20
0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 HIC
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Appendix II
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
Probability of AIS >4 chest injury
100
80
60
40
20
0 0 30 60 90 120 150 Chest G
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
To convert the probability of severe injury for particular HIC and Chest G
scores into a star rating for the frontal NCAP test, NHTSA adds the
probability of severe injury to the head and chest and then subtracts the
product, shown below in figure 35. NHTSA concluded that a combined effect
of injury to the head and chest should be used since it is well documented
that an individual who suffers multiple injuries has a higher risk of
death. NHTSA calculates the probability of severe injury to the head and
chest for both the driver and the front passenger dummies in the frontal
NCAP test.
Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for Frontal
Crashes
Prob(Combined) = Prob(HIC) + Prob(Chest) - (Prob(HIC) * Prob(Chest))
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
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
Appendix II
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
generate a measurement known as the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI). The TTI
also has an injury curve that has been fixed at the AIS level of 4 or
greater, as shown in figure 36. The lower the TTI measure, the lower the
risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently untreatable injury to
the thorax and upper abdomen in a side crash.
Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve Probability of severe thoracic
injury 100
80
60
40
20
0 60 90 120 150 180
Thoracic Trauma Index
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
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
Appendix II
Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
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.
Appendix III
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
To indicate the likelihood of a vehicle's rolling over in a single-vehicle
crash, NHTSA combines the risk of rollover in a single vehicle crash
indicated by a measure of the vehicle's top-heaviness, called the Static
Stability Factor (SSF), with the results of a dynamic rollover test to
produce a star rollover rating. The SSF is an indicator for the most
frequent type of rollover, called a "tripped rollover," which occurs when
a vehicle leaves the roadway and its wheels are tripped by a curb, soft
shoulder, or other roadway object, causing the vehicle to roll over. About
95 percent of rollovers are tripped. Because the SSF is an indicator of
the most frequent type of rollover, it plays a significantly larger role
in a vehicle's star rating than do the results of the dynamic rollover
test. The dynamic rollover test determines how susceptible a vehicle is to
an on-road "untripped" rollover-a type that accounts for less than 5
percent of rollovers. Because untripped rollovers are so infrequent, the
rollover test does not affect the vehicle's star rating significantly,
resulting in a difference of no more than half a star in the rating.
Static Stability Factor The SSF is a calculation of a vehicle's
top-heaviness, defined as one-half of the vehicle's track width divided by
the height of the center of gravity (c.g.). A higher SSF value equates to
a more stable, less top-heavy vehicle. SSF values across all vehicle types
range from around 1.0 to 1.5. Most passenger cars have values in the 1.3
to 1.5 range, as shown in figure 37. Higher riding SUVs, pickups, and vans
usually have values in the 1.0 to 1.3 range, also shown in figure 37. Many
of the higher riding vehicles of previous model years are being redesigned
to ride lower on a wider track to improve their rollover resistance and
obtain a higher SSF rating.
Appendix III
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
After determining the SSF, NHTSA selects certain vehicles for the dynamic
rollover test. Not all passenger cars selected for NCAP testing undergo
the dynamic test. Thus far, for most passenger cars, NHTSA has imputed or
assigned a no-tip result for the dynamic test based on the testing of
other passenger cars that are more top heavy (according to the SSF score)
but did not tip up during the dynamic test. NHTSA periodically tests
passenger cars to validate the imputed results.
Dynamic Rollover Test In the dynamic rollover test, a driver sits in the
vehicle and conducts the test by applying the accelerator and initiating
commands for the programmable steering controller, which actually
maneuvers the vehicles, as shown in figure 38. The general steering
parameters are 270 degrees (about a three-quarters turn) for the initial
turn and 540 degrees (about one and one-half turn) for the correction
turn, as shown in figure 39. Outriggers are attached to the vehicle to
prevent the vehicle from tipping all the way over.
Appendix III
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Appendix III
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
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.
Appendix III
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA first began to rate vehicles' rollover avoidance in model year 2001,
using the SSF alone to determine the star rating. At that time, NHTSA used
a statistical procedure to determine how the SSF affects the risk of
rollover.1 Physics theory would suggest that vehicles with a low SSF-
vehicles that are more top-heavy-are more likely to roll over than
vehicles
1NHTSA used linear regression to determine the relationship between a
vehicle's probability of rollover per single vehicle crash and its Static
Stability Factor controlling for road use and state dummy variables. It is
important to emphasize that this relationship may only be imputed to
vehicles involved in single-vehicle crashes and not to the vehicle fleet
at large.
Appendix III
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
with a high SSF. NHTSA's empirical model confirmed this theory, showing
that the lower the SSF, the more likely a vehicle is to roll over in a
singlevehicle crash. For the first 3 years that NHTSA rated rollover risk,
it used a linear model that examined accident report data at the state
level. Following the passage of the TREAD Act, which required NHTSA to
include a dynamic rollover test in NCAP, and the publication of a National
Academy of Sciences report, which recommended that NHTSA use a nonlinear
model to predict rollover risk, NHTSA altered its method of calculating
rollover risk.2 NHTSA now links the SSF and the risk of rollover using a
nonlinear model.3 In addition, NHTSA includes the results of the dynamic
test-that is, whether a vehicle tips or not-in this new model, as shown in
figure 41.
2The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Rating System for
Rollover Resistance: An Assessment, TRB Special Report 265 (Washington,
D.C. : National Academy of Sciences, 2002).
3NHTSA's new model uses logistic instead of linear regression. In
addition, NHTSA performs a log transformation of the Static Stability
Factor to increase the accuracy of the model for vehicles with low Static
Stability Factors.
Appendix III
Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover Ratings
Chance of rollover 80
70
60
10
00.95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 Static stability factor (SSF)
No tip Tip Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
A vehicle's rollover rating is an estimate of its risk of rolling over in
a singlevehicle crash, not a prediction of the likelihood of a rollover
crash.
Appendix IV
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and
communications organization funded by the U.S. auto insurance industry.
The Insurance Institute has been conducting vehicle safety research since
1969, and in 1992 it opened the Vehicle Research Center to conduct vehicle
crash tests. The Insurance Institute began crash testing and rating
vehicles for frontal collisions in 1995 and for side collisions in 2003.1
The center conducts the Insurance Institute's vehicle-related research,
which includes controlled tests of vehicles and their components using
instrumented crash tests, as well as studies of real collisions. Insurance
Institute officials told us that scrutinizing the outcomes of both
controlled tests and on-the-road crashes gives researchers-and ultimately
the public-a better idea of how and why vehicle occupants are injured in
crashes. This research, in turn, leads to vehicle designs that reduce
injuries. The Insurance Institute buys the vehicles for crash tests
directly from dealers. It also chooses vehicles for testing to represent
both a range of manufacturers and the largest portions of new car sales,
in an effort to cover as much of the marketplace as possible. The
Insurance Institute tests vehicles in categories, such as small cars,
minivans, and midsize SUVs.
Testing Conducted The Insurance Institute conducts two types of crash
tests-an offset frontal test and a perpendicular side test. The offset
frontal test is conducted at about 40 mph to simulate a typical head-on
collision of two vehicles. The offset frontal test evaluates the potential
for injuries caused to occupants by intrusion into the occupant
compartment. The Insurance Institute uses a frontal impact dummy, called
the 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy, in its frontal crash tests. This
dummy represents a man of average size, 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing
about 170 pounds. Such dummies were designed to measure the risk of injury
to the head, neck, chest, and lower extremities in a frontal crash.
The Insurance Institute's perpendicular side test measures the impact of a
moving deformable barrier striking the driver's side of a passenger
vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end
shaped to simulate the typical front end of a pickup truck or SUV. Two
instrumented 5th percentile side-impact dummies (SID-IIs), representing
small females or 12-year-old adolescents who are 5 feet tall and weigh
about 110 pounds, are positioned in the driver's seat and in the rear seat
behind the driver to
1The Insurance Institute began evaluating head restraint geometry in 1995,
and dynamic seat/head restraint tests were added in 2004.
Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
measure the impact of the vehicle crash. The SID-IIs dummies were designed
to measure acceleration of the spine and ribs plus compression of the rib
cage in a side crash.2 They are also equipped with unique load cells,
which measure the force of the impact applied to the dummies during the
crash.
Scoring Tests To evaluate a vehicle's performance in the frontal crash
test and develop an overall rating for the frontal test, the Insurance
Institute uses three types of measures: (1) structural performance, the
amount and pattern of intrusion into the occupant compartment during the
offset test; (2) injuries measured by a Hybrid III dummy positioned in the
driver's seat; and (3) dummy kinematics, or the dummy's movements during
the test, as determined through an analysis of a slow-motion film. The
structural performance assessment indicates how well the front-end crush
zone managed the crash energy and how well the safety cage limited
intrusion into the driver space. Figure 42 shows the intrusion levels on
which a vehicle's structural performance is rated. Injury measures are
used to determine the likelihood of injury to various regions of the
driver's body. The measures recorded from the head, neck, chest, legs, and
feet of the dummy indicate the level of stress/strain on that part of the
body. Thus, greater numbers mean larger stresses and strains and a greater
risk of injury. Because significant risk of injury can result from
undesirable dummy kinematics in the absence of high injury measures, such
as partial ejection from the occupant compartment through a window, a
slow-motion film is used during the crash test. An analysis of this
slow-motion film helps evaluate the interactions of the restraint system's
components-including the safety belts, air bags, steering columns, head
restraints, and other components- to control the dummy's movement.
2Compression refers to the extent body regions are squeezed during the
impact and is used as an indicator of injury to internal organs.
Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Footrest Left Center Right Brake Left inside Right inside Door toepan
toepan toepan pedal panel panel
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
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
Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
measures, especially from the head and neck and from the torso (chest and
abdomen), are the major components of the vehicle's overall rating. To
supplement head injury measures, the movements and contacts of the
dummies' heads during the crash are evaluated. High head injury measures
typically are recorded when the moving deformable barrier hits a dummy's
head during impact. Moreover, a "near miss" or a grazing contact also
indicates a potential for serious injury in a real-world crash because
small differences in an occupant's height or seating position, compared
with a dummy's, could result in a hard contact and high risk of serious
head injury. The vehicle's structural performance is based on measurements
of intrusion into the occupant compartment around the B-pillar (between
the doors). This assessment indicates how well the vehicle's side
structure resisted intrusion into the driver's and rear-seat passenger
space. Some intrusion into the occupant compartment is inevitable in
serious side crashes.
The overall side rating depends on the risk of injury measured for small
female occupants mainly to the head and neck and torso (chest and
abdomen); the effectiveness of the occupant compartment in protecting the
head; and the vehicle's structure performance during the impact. The
overall side rating for any body region, based on the injury measures
recorded on the two SID-IIs dummies, is the lowest rating scored for any
injury within that region.
Sharing Results with the Public
The Insurance Institute's rating system provides qualitative ratings of
Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. The Insurance Institute provides one
rating for the frontal test and one rating for the side test. Vehicle
rating information is available on the Insurance Institute's Web site,
through press releases, and through television coverage. Figure 43 shows
how the Insurance Institute communicated its ratings to consumers on the
Internet. In addition to the ratings for frontal and side crashes, the
Insurance Institute provided the results of various tests, such as those
of the vehicle's structural performance and of injuries to various body
regions.
Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Source: Insurance Insitute for Highway Safety.
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.
Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Note: The names of vehicles that received the crash ratings above were
purposely removed.
News magazine television shows, such as Dateline NBC, periodically use
Insurance Institute crash test results and interview representatives,
including the president or chief operating officer, as report segments for
their programs.
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
The Australian New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides information for
consumers on the safety performance of new vehicles sold in Australia and
New Zealand. The main purposes of the program are to provide new vehicle
buyers with independent advice on vehicle occupant protection and to
develop strategies for vehicle manufacturers to increase the level of
passive safety in their vehicles.1 The program is funded by a consortium
of the state government transport departments of New South Wales,
Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia;
automobile clubs through the Australian Automobile Association and New
Zealand Automobile Association; the Land Transport Safety Authority of New
Zealand; and the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society.2 The
Australia Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services has
established minimum safety standards for vehicles sold in Australia and
has conducted joint research projects with NCAP but has not contributed to
the support of the crash test program.
The Australia NCAP buys the vehicles that it crash tests directly from
dealers, as would any consumer. The program selects vehicles on the basis
of (1) actual or projected sales, to target vehicles that are most
popular; (2) vehicle model, to account for standard or deluxe models,
which may contain more expensive passive safety features such as air bags
and advanced restraint systems; (3) new and popular body designs, to
select the body design that is most popular or to allow for direct
comparisons across different makes and models; (4) market segment, to
target individual segments of the market to allow comparisons of results;
and (5) vehicle price. Using these selection criteria, the Australia NCAP
covers more than 70 percent of the new vehicle fleet by volume. The
program also uses European NCAP (Euro NCAP) crash test results. However,
the Euro NCAP results are intended to be used as a guide only, because the
structure and equipment of the European specification model may differ
materially from
1Passive safety is the term used to refer to automobile designs and
technologies that help mitigate the injury potential in vehicle crashes
(sometimes called "crashworthiness"). Passive safety comes from an
optimized vehicle structure and vehicle restraint technologies.
2The Australia New Car Assessment Program is supported by a consortium of
15 members of the Australian Automobile Association. The membership
includes the National Roads and Motorists Association; the Royal
Automobile Clubs of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western
Australia, and Tasmania; the Automobile Association of the Northern
Territory; the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society; the state
road and transport authorities in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland,
South Australia, and Western Australia; the New Zealand Automobile
Association; and the New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority.
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
the model of the same name sold in Australia or New Zealand. The Australia
NCAP tests and reports on vehicles in seven categories-small, medium, and
large passenger cars; luxury cars; four-wheel drive vehicles (SUVs);
multipurpose utility vehicles (small trucks); and sports cars.
Testing Conducted The Australia NCAP's testing has evolved over time.
Established in 1992, the Australia NCAP was originally modeled on the U.S.
program and began rating vehicles in 1993. Initially, it conducted only a
full frontal crash test, but it added an offset frontal test in 1994. In
1999, the Australia NCAP harmonized its tests and assessment procedures
with the Euro NCAP through a memorandum of understanding. By harmonizing,
it discontinued the full frontal crash test and began conducting the
perpendicular sideimpact test and pedestrian test. Australia NCAP
officials have been considering eliminating the perpendicular side-impact
test in favor of a pole test that they believe will more accurately test
vehicles of all sizes for occupant protection.
In 2004, the Australia NCAP performed three crash tests and a pedestrian
protection test. The three crash tests include the 40 percent offset
frontal, the perpendicular side-impact, and the side-impact pole tests.
The offset frontal test involves pulling a test vehicle traveling at 40
mph (64 km/h) and crashing it into an offset deformable aluminum barrier.
The deformable barrier has a crushable aluminum honeycomb face attached to
a solid barrier. The deformable structure resembles the front-end
characteristics of another vehicle. Two instrumented 50th percentile
Hybrid III dummies (weighing about 194 pounds each) are used to collect
data during the crash and are placed in the front driver's and front
passenger seats. Two child dummies, representing a 3-year-old and a
1-1/2-year-old child, are placed in the rear seats in appropriate
restraints. While Australia NCAP does not use the measurements from the
child dummies in its crash test rating, the dummies are included in the
tests to maintain alignment with Euro NCAP testing.
The perpendicular side-impact test involves pulling a barrier with a
deformable face at about 31 mph (50 km/h) and crashing it into a
stationary test vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the driver's
seating position. The moving deformable barrier has a mass of 2,095 pounds
(950 kg) compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S. barrier. One
instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy (weighing about 176 pounds)
is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the front driver
seat. As in the frontal test, to maintain alignment with Euro NCAP's
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
testing, the two child dummies are placed in the rear seats in appropriate
restraints.
The pole side-impact test involves propelling a vehicle placed on a
platform at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has a
diameter of about 10 inches, or about 254 millimeters (mm), and its
vertical axis is aligned with the front seat dummy's head. One
instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy is used to collect data
during the crash and is placed in the front driver's seat.
The pedestrian protection test evaluates the interaction of dummy parts
and the bumper, hood, and windshield area of a vehicle. Adult and
childsize dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and
front bumper of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-pedestrian
collision. The test simulates the impact of a lower leg against a bumper,
a thigh against the lower edge of the hood, and an adult and a child head
against the upper portion of the hood.
Scoring Tests Frontal tests in the Australia NCAP are scored on the basis
of three types of observations--dummy measurements, a vehicle's structural
performance, and a post-crash inspection of the vehicle. The injury
measurements are recorded from two Hybrid III dummies positioned in the
front driver's seat and front passenger seat. The injury assessment
evaluates four body regions: (1) head and neck; (2) chest; (3) knee,
femur, and pelvis; and (4) legs and feet. Structural performance is based
on measurements indicating the amount and pattern of intrusion into the
occupant compartment during the test. Dummy injury measurements and
vehicle deformation can be compared with predicted values. Evidence of
structural collapse can be determined by a post-crash inspection and by
viewing a high-speed video recorded from various angles during the crash
test. The post-crash inspection and video allow trained inspectors to
assess dummy kinematics, evaluate the evidence of interior contacts, and
inspect safety belts, seats, and air bags to ensure they operated as
intended.3 For example, according to Australia NCAP officials, air bag
performance could be compromised by the dynamics of a crash in ways that
might not be evident from a post-crash inspection but could be revealed
through careful analysis of the video.
3Dummy kinematics (movement) are evaluated by how well the safety belt and
air bag perform and interact with the steering column and other vehicle
parts to control movement.
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
Each body region receives a score based on the dummy measurements, the
vehicle deformation data, and the findings of the post-crash inspection
(using modifiers). For example, excessive rearward movement of the
steering wheel could lower the head score by a point to reflect identified
risks. Other modifiers include lack of air bag stability, steering column
movement, A-pillar movement, structural integrity, hazardous structures in
the knee impact area, and brake pedal movement.4
For the side-impact and pole tests, the scores are based on injury
measurements recorded on one EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front
driver's seat. The injury assessment evaluates four body regions: the
head, ribs, abdomen, and pelvis. A post-crash inspection and high-speed
video are also used to evaluate structural collapse.
A summary star rating shows the protection level indicated by the front
and side-impact tests together. The summary score for the two tests is
based on the point scores achieved in each test. Sixteen points can be
achieved in the frontal test and 18 points in the side tests, for a
maximum of 34 points. Two of the 18 points available in the side test come
from the optional pole test, which assesses only one body region-the head.
Each of the four body regions in the frontal test could receive a maximum
score of 4 points, for a cumulative score of 16 points. Similarly, the
four body regions in the sideimpact test could receive a maximum score of
4 points, for a cumulative score of 16 points. If a vehicle has
head-protecting side air bags, the manufacturer of the vehicle has the
option of accepting a side impact pole test, through which 2 bonus points
can be earned.
The offset and side-impact scores are added together to produce an overall
score with a maximum of 32 points. In addition, if a pole side test is
conducted and shows good head protection, then 2 extra points can be
earned, and up to 3 more points can be earned for having a safety belt
reminder system. The points are translated into stars, as shown in table
3.
4The A-pillar is the side support for the roof that is in the front of the
passenger compartment and the B-pillar provides side roof support in the
center of the passenger compartment just behind the door.
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
Table 3: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star Ratings
Minimum score in
Star Minimum score in side Minimum combined score
rating offset test impact test (including pole test)
1 - - 0.5
2 1.5 1.5 8.5
4.5 4.5 16.5
8.5 8.5 24.5
12.5 12.5 32.5a
Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.
aTo earn five stars a vehicle must achieve at least 1 point in the
optional pole test (maximum 2 points). This is an Australia NCAP
requirement.
If the injury score for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis is 0, then
there is a high risk of a life-threatening injury. A warning note is added
to the overall rating to highlight concern that there is a serious risk of
injury in at least one vulnerable body region. The regions are the head or
chest for the frontal impact test and the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis
for the sideimpact test.
For the pedestrian test, the scores are based on adult and child-size
dummy parts (head and lower limbs) used to assess the severity of impact.
The two different size dummy heads are tested at six areas of the hood,
and the lower limbs for an adult and child are tested at three areas, for
a total of 18 impacts tested for each vehicle. Based on the injury
measurements recorded from the dummy parts, each impact can receive up to
2 points, and the maximum number of points that can be received is 36, as
shown in table 4.
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
Table 4: Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test
Maximum
Type of test Impact locations Points
Child head 6
Adult head 6
Upper leg 3
Lower leg 3
Total 18
Source: Euro NCAP.
A separate rating of one to four stars shows the level of pedestrian
protection. The score reflects the results of the 18 impacts of the dummy
parts against the specified areas of the bumper and hood. These results
are summed to provide an overall score. The pedestrian protection star
rating for a vehicle is based on the number of points received, or a
maximum of 36 points. The points are translated into stars, as shown in
table 5.
Table 5: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating
Star rating Points
0
1
2 10-18
3 19-27
4 28-36
Source: Euro NCAP.
Sharing Results with the The Australia NCAP's reporting of results to the
public has evolved over
Public 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.
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
In 1995, the Australia NCAP began summarizing full frontal and offset
frontal head, chest, and leg test results by using bar charts to represent
the percentage of risk of a life-threatening injury to drivers and to
passengers. In 1996, the program began differentiating between upper and
lower leg injuries, reported the results separately, and adopted the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rating scale of Good, Acceptable,
Marginal, and Poor. However, the program combined the scores for the full
frontal driver and passenger tests with the score for the offset frontal
driver test to arrive at an overall vehicle rating. According to Australia
NCAP officials, subsequent research with focus groups supported the
decision because the results indicated that consumers wanted the safety
information in a simplified, summary form. In November 1999, to align with
the Euro NCAP, the Australia NCAP first used a five-star system to report
crash test performance. This system provided an overall rating along with
a bar chart that enabled consumers to differentiate between vehicles with
different scores that received the same number of stars.
Today, the Australia NCAP makes vehicle rating information available on
its Web site, through press releases, and through a safety brochure.
Figure 45 shows how the program communicates its overall and pedestrian
ratings to consumers on the Internet.
Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger
Car
Overall evaluation Pedestrian rating
Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.
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.
Appendix V
Australian New Car Assessment Program
Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.
Appendix VI
European New Car Assessment Programme
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 fu:r Verkehr, Bau- und
Wohnungswesen); United Kingdom Department for Transport; Dutch Ministry of
Transport-Public Works and Water Management; FIA (Federation
Internationale de l'Automobile) Foundation for the Automobile and Society;
Catalonia Department of Employment and Industry (Departament de Treball i
Industria); International Consumer Research and Testing; French Ministry
of Equipment (Ministere de l'Equipement); Swedish Road Administration; and
Thatcham. The Euro NCAP crash testing program was modeled from the U.S.
NCAP (1979) and the Australia NCAP (1992).
The decision process for Europe involves the use of technical working
groups and subgroups to examine vehicle safety issues and make
recommendations for change. Such groups are investigating the feasibility
of incorporating such safety features as braking and handling, visibility
and lighting, ergonomics, driver information, and whiplash into Euro NCAP.
The automobile industry and public safety organizations may be involved in
providing research or opinions, but the committees are free to make
decisions they believe appropriate. Generally, decisions are made through
two working groups, one for primary safety systems and one for secondary
safety systems, that perform research and analysis. The Euro NCAP allows
industry representatives to participate in the discussions of the
subgroups of its two technical working groups. Also, the technical working
groups and automobile manufacturers engage in direct dialogue in industry
liaison meetings to address issues such as whiplash.
Each member of the Euro NCAP is required to sponsor at least one vehicle
for crash testing each year. The vehicles are normally acquired by the
Euro NCAP Secretariat by various methods, including purchasing directly
from dealers and selecting from manufacturers' production lines. The Euro
NCAP tests vehicles in categories-superminis, family cars, executive cars,
Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme
roadsters, off-roaders, and multipurpose vehicles. The following further
describes (1) the testing conducted, (2) the methods used for developing
the vehicle crash ratings, and (3) the approaches taken to share the
safety results with the public.
Testing Conducted The Euro NCAP performs three vehicle crash tests, a
pedestrian protection test, and a child restraint test. The three crash
tests are the 40 percent offset frontal test, the perpendicular
side-impact test, and the side-impact pole test. The frontal test involves
a moving test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 km/h) crashing into an
offset deformable aluminum barrier where 40 percent of the vehicle's width
engages the barrier on the driver's side. The deformable barrier used is a
crushable aluminum honeycomb face attached to a solid barrier. The
deformable structure is designed to replicate the essential
characteristics of the front end of another car. Two instrumented 50th
percentile Hybrid III dummies (each weighing about 194 pounds) are used to
collect data during the crash and are placed in the front driver's and
front passenger seats.
In the side-impact test, a moving trolley with a deformable barrier is
towed at about 31 mph (50 km/h) into a stationary test vehicle at a 90
degree angle centered on the driver seating position. This test simulates
a side-impact collision. The moving deformable barrier has a mass of 2,095
pounds (950 kg) compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S.
barrier. The European barrier's face is smaller and much softer than the
face of the barrier used in the U.S. NCAP. However, Euro NCAP officials
said that because the barrier strikes a vehicle at a 90 degree angle,
their side-impact test is more aggressive than NHTSA's side-impact test.
One instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy (weighing about 176
pounds) is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the
front driver seat.
The pole side-impact test consists of a vehicle placed on a platform and
propelled at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has a
diameter of 10 inches (254 mm), and its vertical axis is aligned with the
front seat dummy's head. One instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy
is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the front
driver's seat.
The pedestrian protection test evaluates the impact of dummy parts against
the bumper, hood, and windshield areas of a vehicle. Adult and child-size
dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and front bumper
of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-pedestrian collision.
The
Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme
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 18month-old child (about 24 pounds) is placed behind the
passenger, and a dummy with the weight and size of a 3-year-old child
(about 33 pounds) is placed behind the driver. In the side-impact test,
the positions of the two dummies are reversed.
Scoring Tests The Euro NCAP bases its assessment of crashworthiness on
three types of observations made during or after a crash test: (1) dummy
measurements of forces to the body, used to assess injuries; (2) five
measurements of vehicle deformation, used to assess the vehicle's
structural performance; and (3) post-crash inspection data for six areas,
which are termed "modifiers" because problems in any one of them may
result in a penalty that modifies the vehicle's assessment score.
In the offset frontal crash test, two instrumented Hybrid III dummies are
positioned in the front driver's seat and front passenger seat to measure
injuries to four regions of the body: (1) head and neck; (2) chest; (3)
knee, femur, and pelvis; and (4) legs and feet. The five structural
measurements provide vehicle deformation data, indicating the amount and
pattern of intrusion into the occupant compartment. The post-crash
inspection provides information about air bag stability, steering column
movement, Apillar movement, structural integrity, hazardous structures in
the knee impact area, and brake pedal movement. The dummy measurements and
the vehicle deformation data are combined to generate a score-up to four
points-for each body region. This score may be modified by findings from
the post-crash inspection.
In the side-impact and pole tests, injury measurements are recorded on one
EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front driver's seat. These measurements
provide data for assessing injuries to four body regions: the head, ribs,
abdomen (chest or thorax), and pelvis. No structural or postcrash
inspection data are gathered during these tests. Thus, the score for each
body region is based on the dummy measurements alone.
Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme
In the pedestrian test, readings taken from the adult and child-size dummy
parts (head and lower limbs) are used to assess the risk of injury. The
two different size dummy heads are tested at six different areas of the
hood, and the lower limbs are tested at three areas, for a total of 18
impacts tested for each vehicle. Depending on the injury measurements
recorded from the dummy parts, each impact can receive up to 2 points, and
the maximum number of points that can be received is 36 points. See table
6.
Table 6: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Type of test Impact locations points
Child head 6
Adult head 6
Upper leg 3
Lower leg 3
Total 18
Source: Euro NCAP.
The child protection test consists of three assessments that are based on
(1) dummy measurements and dynamic evaluations, (2) marking requirements
for child restraint systems, and (3) a vehicle-based assessment. Points
reflect the results of the three assessments. The first assessment uses
dummy measurements taken from the two child dummies in the frontal and
side tests, together with dynamic evaluations of ejection from the child
restraint system and head contact within the vehicle. Another assessment
evaluates whether the markings on the child restraint fully comply with
the test requirements. The final assessment evaluates how easily the child
restraint system can be used inside the vehicle.
A combined star rating is used to show the protection level achieved in
the offset frontal and side impact tests together. The score for this
rating is the sum of the scores achieved in these two tests-up to 16
points for the frontal test and up to 18 points for the side test, for a
maximum of 34 points. For both tests, each of four body regions can
receive up to 4 points, for a cumulative score of 16 points per test, and
for the side test, 2 additional points can come from an optional pole
test, which assesses protection for only one body region-the head. The
pole side-impact test is an option for the manufacturer of a vehicle that
has head-protecting side air
Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme
bags. Finally, up to 3 more points can be earned for having a safety belt
reminder system. The points are translated into stars, as shown in table
7.
Table 7: Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System
Star rating Points
1-8
9-16
17-24
25-32
33-40
Source: Euro NCAP.
If the crash tests demonstrate a high risk of a life-threatening injury,
indicated by an injury score of 0 for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis,
then a warning note is added to the overall rating. Euro NCAP uses a
"struck star" to convey this warning. When the star is struck through, it
highlights concern that there is a serious risk of injury in at least one
vulnerable body region. These concerns are based on data from the offset
frontal test for the head or chest and from the side-impact test for the
head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis. A star cannot be struck because of
findings from post-crash inspections showing the effects of modifiers.
Euro NCAP provides a separate rating of one to four stars to show the
level of pedestrian protection. The score for this rating sums the results
of the 18 impact tests of dummy parts propelled into the specified areas
of the bumper and hood. A vehicle can earn up to 2 points for each test,
for a maximum of 36 points. The points are translated into stars, as shown
in table 8.
Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme
Table 8: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings
Star rating Points
0
1
2 10-18
3 19-27
4 28-36
Source: Euro NCAP.
Euro NCAP also provides a separate rating of one to five stars to show the
level of child protection. Currently, the tests on which this rating is
based can produce a maximum of 49 points, but the rating scale allows
further points to be awarded for future developments in child protection.
Table 9 shows how the points are translated into stars.
Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star Ratings
Star rating Points
0
1
2 13-24
3 25-36
4 37-48
5 49-60
Source: Euro NCAP.
Sharing Results with the Public
Vehicle rating information is available on the Euro NCAP Web site, through
press releases, and through popular consumer magazines. Figure 47 shows
the ratings that the program makes available to consumers on the
Internet-a front and side-impact rating, a pedestrian protection rating,
and a child restraint protection rating. The pedestrian protection rating
is intended to encourage manufacturers to start designing for pedestrian
protection. The child restraint protection rating is based on a vehicle's
performance using the child seats recommended by that vehicle's
manufacturer. Specifically, the rating depends on the fitting instructions
for the child seats, the car's ability to accommodate the seats safely,
and the seats' performance in front and side impact tests.
Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme
Source: Euro NCAP.
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.
Source: Euro NCAP.
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
Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme
Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer magazines in Europe provide
additional crash test information.
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
The National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims' Aid (NASVA)
conducts the Japan NCAP and is funded by the government through the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation. According to NASVA
officials, the Automobile Assessment Committee, made up of 12 members
appointed by the ministry, oversees the program. The committee includes
four working groups, each focusing on specific areas: crash tests, tests
of active safety systems such as brakes, pedestrian tests, and tests of
child restraint systems. NASVA officials conduct research in these areas
and propose changes to the program that must be approved by the committee.
NASVA officials said that the Japan NCAP is funded through appropriations
from the Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance that every car owner
must pay.
The Japan NCAP began testing vehicles in 1995, starting with a full
frontal collision test. The program added the side-impact test in 1999 and
the offset frontal test in 2000. Vehicles are selected for testing on the
basis of sales. By 2004, the program had evaluated 79 vehicles
representing over 80 percent of those that were on the market at that
time. Ratings for 60 of these vehicles were carried over from previous
years' testing, and ratings for 19 vehicles were based on tests performed
in 2003. Testing is conducted at the Japan Auto Research Institute under
the control and supervision of NCAP officials. The institute crash tests
cars, minivans, and SUVs and performs other NCAP tests, such as the brake
and pedestrian tests. The research laboratory has one track for conducting
frontal and side-impact tests. In these tests, either the vehicle is towed
to strike the barrier, or, in side-impact tests, the barrier is moved to
strike the vehicle. In 2005, the institute plans to open a new test
facility with multiple tracks that will enable researchers to conduct
vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests at various angles.
Testing Conducted The Japan NCAP performs a variety of safety tests and
rates vehicles according to the results. It conducts three types of crash
tests-a full frontal test, an offset frontal test, and a perpendicular
side-impact test. In addition, it performs a braking test, which measures
the performance of an active safety system that enables a driver to avoid
a crash. The program further assesses how easily doors are opened and
occupants are removed after a crash and how well vehicles perform if they
strike pedestrians. The program also evaluates how well child safety seats
perform.
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
The Japan NCAP is the only program that conducts both the full frontal and
the offset frontal crash tests. Together, the two tests assess both the
potential for injuries caused by intrusion and the effectiveness of the
vehicle's restraint system. The full frontal test is performed by towing a
vehicle to collide with a rigid barrier at 55 km/h (about 34 mph). This
test simulates a head-on collision between two vehicles of the same size
traveling at the same speed. The offset frontal test involves towing a
vehicle into a deformable barrier that represents the front end of another
vehicle and simulates a head-on collision of two vehicles traveling at 40
mph. In this test, only a portion of the front end (40 percent) engages
the barrier, and the impact on the vehicle body is greater than the full
frontal test because much of the crash energy is distributed to one side
of the vehicle. Thus, there is the possibility of substantial vehicle
deformation, which makes this test suitable for evaluating injuries caused
to occupants by intrusion into the occupant compartment. The program uses
the Hybrid III dummy that represents a man of about 5 feet 10 inches tall
and weighing about 185 pounds.
The side-impact test propels a moveable deformable barrier weighing about
2,090 pounds into the driver's and passenger's side of the vehicle,
simulating a perpendicular collision at 55 km/h (about 34 mph). The
barrier is shaped like the front end of a car, and because it is not
rigid, its performance is intended to simulate a vehicle's response in an
actual collision. A EuroSID-I dummy is placed in the driver's seat. This
dummy is the same height as the Hybrid III dummy but weighs about 20
pounds less. The EuroSID-I dummy was designed to measure the risk of
injury to the head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.
The Japan NCAP conducts a braking performance test that measures how far a
vehicle travels before it stops and how stable it is at the time of
braking when it is stopped abruptly while traveling at about 62 mph. The
braking test is a test of an active safety system because it enables the
driver to avoid a crash. The test is performed under wet and dry road
conditions for a vehicle with a driver and a weight on the front passenger
seat. To ensure consistent testing, Japan NCAP officials said, the dry
road surface temperature must be 95.0 degrees plus or minus 18.0 degrees
Fahrenheit and the wet road surface temperature must be 80.6 degrees plus
or minus 9.0 degrees Fahrenheit because the temperature of the road
surface affects the distance it takes to stop the vehicle. Japan NCAP
officials also said that all braking tests must be performed at the same
location because road surfaces vary and surface differences could affect
test results. Professional drivers conduct the tests, and the speed of the
vehicle and force with which
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
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.
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.
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
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
toward the car hood from a testing machine. The force received by the head
impactor is measured and then evaluated using a head injury criterion. The
test is conducted on multiple points on each car, and the impact angles
differ according to the shape of the front part of three types of
vehicles-sedan, SUV, and van. Figure 50 illustrates how the test is
performed.
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.
Note: The distance between the ground and where the pedestrian's head hits
the car in crashes is called the wrap-around distance, which is measured
according to the length of that area. The location of the impact area for
adult's and children's heads is based on the data from actual crash data.
The pedestrian test is conducted on vehicles with three different body
types, as shown in table 10.
Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test
Vehicle type Definition
Sedan With the hood leading edge height less than 835 mm
SUV With the hood leading edge height more than 835 mm
Van With the hood angle more than 30 degrees
Source: Japan NCAP, National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims'
Aid.
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
The Japan NCAP also assesses the safety performance of child seats in a
car crash and the ease of using the seats. Child seats are installed in
the rear passenger seats of a test vehicle stripped down to its body
frame. The test uses dummies to represent a 9-month-old child and a
3-year-old child. The test vehicle is placed on a sled and subjected to a
shock identical to the test speed used in the full frontal crash test.
Scoring Tests The Japan NCAP measures injuries to the head, neck, chest,
and upper (femur) and lower (tibia) legs for both the full frontal and
offset frontal crash tests. Points vary by body region, from 2 points for
upper and lower leg injuries to 4 points for head, neck, or chest
injuries, according to the extent of injuries as measured by crash test
dummies. Vehicle deformation is measured after the crash test, and if
certain limits are exceeded, a point is deducted from the score for one
body area, according to where the deformation occurred. In addition,
weighting factors are assigned according to the frequency of injuries to
these body areas in vehicle crashes. The weighted points for each body
area are then combined to arrive at separate total point scores for the
driver and the passenger in full frontal and offset frontal crash tests.
The maximum score that a vehicle can achieve is 12 points because of the
way the injuries are weighted.
For the side-impact crash test, the Japan NCAP measures injuries to the
driver's head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.1 Four points are assigned for
each body area and then weighted according to the incidence of injuries in
this type of accident, with lesser weights assigned to the abdomen and
pelvis than to the head and chest. Again, the maximum score that a vehicle
can achieve is 12 points, because of the way injuries to the driver are
weighted.
The Japan NCAP is the only program that adjusts its test results by
weighting the injury scores according to historical crash data. NCAP
officials said they can do this because the police are well trained to
investigate every accident and provide thorough reports to the government.
For the pedestrian test, a series of head injury scores is used to assign
injury probability levels from 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst). The results
are then combined to arrive at an overall score. According to NCAP
officials,
1The side-impact crash test can also be performed on the passenger side of
the vehicle, but the rating applies to only one occupant position.
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
vehicles with hoods that are more flexible and compress upon impact can
receive better scores than those that are rigid and leave no room between
the hood and the engine for the impact to be absorbed.
Child seats are evaluated according to their performance in a collision
and their ease of use. For the collision test, overall ratings of
Excellent, Good, Normal, and Not Recommended are assigned. The ratings are
primarily based on the head and chest injury scores taken from the dummies
used in the test. Five child seat specialists assessed the ease of
installation, the ease of understanding the instructions, the product
warning labels and markings to aid in installation, the structural design,
and the ease of securing the child in the seat. For each area, the
specialists assigned points, from 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst). The
scores given by the specialists were averaged and reported separately for
each area.
Sharing Results with the Public
Initially, the Japan NCAP used a four-letter system to rate vehicles'
crashworthiness, in which "A" reflected the highest scores for performance
and "D" reflected the lowest scores. As vehicles' performance improved,
more and more vehicles achieved an "A" rating. To help consumers better
differentiate vehicles' performance, NCAP officials expanded the range of
ratings to include AA and AAA. This same scale was later converted to six
stars. Many vehicles have achieved a five-star rating, and some have
received a six-star rating for occupant protection. In addition to the
star ratings, the Japan NCAP reports the percentage of possible points
that each vehicle received and provides a bar chart indicating how well
the vehicles performed in these tests.
Figure 51 shows how the Japan NCAP communicates its ratings to consumers
as two overall ratings-one for the driver's seat and one for the
passenger's seat. The overall safety rating for the driver's seat combines
the results of the two frontal crash tests (full and offset) and the
side-impact test. The overall safety rating for the passenger's seat
includes the results of the full frontal and offset frontal tests. The
Japan NCAP also provides consumers with star ratings by type of test for
the driver's and passenger's seats and makes the detailed test information
available to consumers for each crash test, as shown in figure 52.
Consumers are also provided with ratings on how difficult it was to open
the door after the test (openability) and how difficult it was to retrieve
the dummy from the vehicle after the crash test (rescueability), as shown
in figure 53 and 54 respectively. Although not shown as part of the
crashworthiness rating, the ratings for the pedestrian tests are provided,
as well as the ratings for the child
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
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.
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.
aAt times, a vehicle may turn sideways (roll over) after a side impact.
This test is performed to measure how well passengers are protected when a
vehicle is hit while stopped; it is not intended to evaluate the stability
of the vehicle while it is in motion.
Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
Victims' Aid. All rights reserved
The Japan NCAP publicizes ratings through the NASVA Web site and publishes
a brochure that contains summary information on vehicle ratings. In
addition to the summary ratings, detailed information for each vehicle
tested is posted on the Web site and published in a book by NASVA every
year. The Japan Automobile Federation also publishes NCAP vehicle
Appendix VII
Japan New Car Assessment Program
ratings in its magazine and posts the information on its Web site.
According to Japan NCAP officials, vehicle ratings and new tests under the
program are further publicized in television specials. According to NASVA
officials, the public response was very positive after these specials
because the number of hits to NASVA Web site increased by 15 to 20 percent
in the few days after each broadcast.
Appendix VIII
Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs
Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs Test type
Description of test Assessment Considerations
Frontal tests
The test vehicle's entire front The test assesses the ability Test results
cannot be
end is crashed into a fixed rigid of vehicle restraint systems, compared
between vehicles
barrier at 35 miles per hour such as safety belts and air of different
weight classes.
(mph), which is equivalent to a bags, to restrain occupants.
head-on collision between two
similar size vehicles, each The test maximizes the
moving at 35 mph. energy absorbed by the front
of the vehicle so that the Only the U.S. NCAP and Japan occupant
compartment is currently conduct this test.a more likely to remain intact.
The test vehicle is the equivalent of two vehicles of the same weight
crashing into each other. The vehicle is crashed into a deformable barrier
at 40 mph where approximately 40 percent of the vehicle's width makes
contact with the barrier.
Australia, Europe, Japan, and the Insurance Institute currently conduct
this test.
The test assesses a vehicle's structural integrity and its ability to
manage the energy generated in the crash entirely on the driver's side of
the vehicle.
This type of crash forces a smaller area of the vehicle's structure to
absorb the energy from the crash.
Test results cannot be compared between vehicles of different weight
classes.
Side tests
The test vehicle is The test represents an Test results can be
struck by a
moving deformable intersection-type compared across
barrier at collision. vehicle
38.5 mph at an angle. weight classes
Both the because
barrier and the The barrier striking the each vehicle is
driver's side of test struck by a
the vehicle are vehicle is shaped like a barrier of the same
parallel, so that size and
the entire face of the passenger car and is about weight.
barrier
impacts the side of the the size of a medium
vehicle.
passenger car, weighing The test does not
assess the
Only the U.S. NCAP 3,015 pounds. risks of head
currently injury from side
conducts this test. impacts from
vehicles like
SUVs and pickups.
Appendix VIII
Different Types of Tests Used by the
Programs
(Continued From Previous Page)
Test type Description of test Assessment Considerations
The test vehicle is struck by a The test represents a 90 Test results can
be moving deformable barrier degree intersection-type compared across
vehicle traveling at about 31 mph (50 collision. weight classes because
km/h) at a 90 degree angle each vehicle is struck by a centered on the
driver side The barrier that strikes the barrier of the same size and
seating position. test vehicle weighs 2,095 weight.
pounds (950 kg) and has a Australia, Europe, and Japan front end shaped to
simulate currently conduct this test.b the typical front end of a
passenger car.
The test vehicle is struck by a moving deformable barrier traveling at 31
mph (50 km/h) perpendicular impact into the driver side of a passenger
vehicle.
The Insurance Institute currently conducts this test.
The test represents a 90 degree intersection-type collision.
The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs about
3,300 pounds (1,500 kg), is higher than other barriers with a front end
shaped to simulate the typical front end of a pickup or SUV.
Test results can be compared across vehicle weight classes because each
vehicle is struck by a barrier of the same size and weight.
The test was designed to encourage automakers to provide side-impact head
protection by installing air curtain bags that extend low enough to
protect smaller occupants in front and rear seats.
The test vehicle is placed on a The test represents a side-The side-impact
test is platform and propelled at 29 impact collision involving a
demanding on vehicles' km/h (about 18 miles per hour) narrow object such
as a tree structures, and heavy into a stationary cylindrical pole or
pole. vehicles have to cope with producing a side-impact crash higher
loads than lighter on the driver's door. The diameter of the pole is
vehicles.
10 inches (254 mm) and Australia and Europe currently aligned with the
front conduct this test. occupant's head.
Appendix VIII
Different Types of Tests Used by the
Programs
(Continued From Previous Page)
Test type Description of test Assessment Considerations
Other tests
The test vehicle is subjected to a series of left/right tests and
right/left tests at different speeds and steering wheel angles.The first
run of tests is conducted at 35 mph, with each subsequent run conducted at
about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph, and 50 mph, until the vehicle "tips up"
(fails) or attains a speed of 50 mph on the last run of each test without
tipping up (pass).
Only the U.S. NCAP currently conducts this test.
The dynamic test represents an untripped rollover by simulating a
high-speed collision-avoidance maneuver.
The Static Stability Factor is a measurement used to determine the
top-heaviness of a vehicle, accounting for situations of potential tripped
rollovers such as when a vehicle strikes a curb.
Rollovers where the vehicle is not tripped account for less than 5 percent
of all rollover crashes.
Adult and child-size dummy The test is used to assess This test evaluates
the front
parts (such as heads) are the risk to pedestrians if end design of
vehicles and
projected at specified areas of a struck by the front of a car. the effect
on pedestrian
test vehicle front end to replicate injuries.
a car colliding with a pedestrian.
Australia, Europe, and Japan
currently conduct this test.
Euro NCAP tests child restraints The Euro NCAP test is used The Euro NCAP
test by placing child-size dummies in to evaluate child protection
evaluates the performance child seats during frontal and focusing on the
interaction of of a car seat during a front or side crash tests. a
vehicle's child restraint side collision.
system and a child seat. The Japan NCAP test evaluates Japan NCAP tests
child child seats by placing child-size The Japan NCAP test restraint
systems dummies in child seats using a evaluates the ease of independent
of vehicle test sled instead of actual correctly using the child
performance in a simulated collisions. seats. frontal crash and evaluates
the ease of use.
aThe Japan NCAP full frontal test is performed at 55 km/h (about 34 mph).
bThe Japan NCAP perpendicular side test is performed at 55 km/h (about 34
mph).
Appendix IX
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts JayEtta Hecker, (202) 512-2834 Glen Trochelman, (312)
220-7729
Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Vashun Cole, Michelle
Dresben, Colin Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly, Doug Manor, Terry Richardson,
Beverly Ross, Brian Sells, Jena Sinkfield, Stacey Thompson, and Frank
Taliaferro made key contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***