GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
543 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is changing up its five-star safety rating system.

The government agency will unveil changes to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) on Thursday with one of the announcements expected to be the inclusion on new vehicle stickers on whether those vehicles have automatic braking systems to avoid frontal collisions.

In a recent interview, NHTSA administrator Mark Rosekind said that Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx will also make two technology-rated announcements announcements tomorrow concerning “some data and some other announcements about the five-star system.”

Rosekind also said that NHTSA hasn’t decided whether to move forward with new regulations that would mandate all new vehicles to have frontal collision systems and plans on emphasizing that everything is still on the table for discussion. In the past, NHTSA mulled over adding a “silver” rating to NCAP that would assess the safety of the vehicle for older occupants as well as a “family” rating for how well the vehicle protects rear-seat passengers, including children. NHTSA’s five-star assessment program has been in place since 1978.
For more on this story, NHTSA Planning Changes to Five-Star Safety Rating System and all of the latest news please visit AutoGuide.com.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,578 Posts
Safety sells for many buyers, and I am all for safer cars, especially keeping children safer. Automatic braking is a great idea, and vehicles with it should have higher safety ratings. And I'm for clean air.
The problem I have is Government mandates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
Considering rear view cameras and tire pressure monitors are now required, it would seem quite odd not to add frontal collision systems to the list of mandated safety equipment.

I understand why some people are against requiring vehicles to become more and more sophisticated. I enjoy driving a vehile that is very basic. But these systems really seem to provide real safety and save lives and it's pretty hard not to be in favor of that. It would be nice to see some real world stats on how well these things work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,570 Posts
Considering rear view cameras and tire pressure monitors are now required, it would seem quite odd not to add frontal collision systems to the list of mandated safety equipment.

I understand why some people are against requiring vehicles to become more and more sophisticated. I enjoy driving a vehile that is very basic. But these systems really seem to provide real safety and save lives and it's pretty hard not to be in favor of that. It would be nice to see some real world stats on how well these things work.
I have a FEW "issues" with this EX on the becoming mandatory
#1 by re rating the standards will cause confusion IE my 2009 ETC is 5 star and this NEW is 4 star = stay with the old it is "safer" but is NOT as OLD 5 star = 3 or less NEW stars

#2 by putting so much "value" in electronic "safety" features and LESS importance in actual structural safety I wonder how well one of these new cars will do once the electronics start failing due to age and or a situation it can NOT handle IE dirt build up on radar unit

#3 it will increase the cost of car owner ship as used cars will be far more expensive to maintain + more likely to just be scrapped as the parts are to expensive/not made anymore
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
I have a FEW "issues" with this EX on the becoming mandatory
#1 by re rating the standards will cause confusion IE my 2009 ETC is 5 star and this NEW is 4 star = stay with the old it is "safer" but is NOT as OLD 5 star = 3 or less NEW stars

#2 by putting so much "value" in electronic "safety" features and LESS importance in actual structural safety I wonder how well one of these new cars will do once the electronics start failing due to age and or a situation it can NOT handle IE dirt build up on radar unit

#3 it will increase the cost of car owner ship as used cars will be far more expensive to maintain + more likely to just be scrapped as the parts are to expensive/not made anymore
Re: #1 - The rating system seems like it could either be done well or be a source of confusion; so it depends on how NHTSA decides to implement it. I didn't get that those details had been decided from the article. But I certainly wouldn't bet on NHTSA doing a wonderful job with it either.

Re: #2 - It seems like a real jump from adding this to electronics system to deciding to builid less safe vehicles. No one seemed to be advocating for doing the actual crash testing or relaxing those standards.

Re: #3 - yes, it will cost money. Right now Chrysler is charging $ 1295 for adaptive cruise control with automatic braking. That's certainly not cheap. But it certianly cost a lot less once it's mainstreamed just like airbags and all the other stuff early adopters get raped on price wise. Still, money is money. As for used cars, I'm not sure how anyone would be required to maintain the system but getting parts isn't really an insurmountable obsticle.

It's kind of funny how consumers get so angry about being required to spend money on vehicles regarding required/mandated equipment, yet we all waste a lot of money on stuff we really don't need on practically every car. I get it as I'm the same way. Just saying it's ironic. Being required to buy a system that could save your life is offensive, but blowing the same amount of money for prettier wheels is attractive to a lot of consumers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
How about they do their dam job for once. They are politicized and accept money to hide serious defects. The whole agency should have been replaced just as GM was investigated it also showed how inept and limp NHTSA really is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,719 Posts
Safety sells for many buyers, and I am all for safer cars, especially keeping children safer. Automatic braking is a great idea, and vehicles with it should have higher safety ratings. And I'm for clean air.
The problem I have is Government mandates.
I don't think auto braking or accident avoidance should be in crash scoring. To me "preemptive" measures should be listed and active (where applicable) during testing. I want to know how a car will perform when it actually hits something and those features didn't work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Maybe some...safer drivers driving those safer cars? Hell lots can't drive unsafe cars safely...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,289 Posts
"Last month, I was driving our long-term Kia K900 on I-90 just past Little Bighorn Battlefield in Montana.

The adaptive cruise control was engaged at 75mph. My feet were perhaps six inches from the pedals, and I held the steering wheel with one hand. There was no traffic in front, none behind, none in the opposite lanes.

That's when the car, wholly unbidden, braked violently. Loose items in the ****pit rocketed forward, and the seatbelts cinched to chest-flattening pressure.

My wife cried out, and I was so thunderstruck that I couldn't think how to react. I recall saying, "What?" a couple of times, which did surprisingly little to mitigate the crisis.

Then I decided to pound the brakes--bleeding more speed, maybe to as little as 20 mph--which disengaged the cruise control.

That corrected the problem, although I achieved this result with no greater purpose than to cease being startled.
If an 18-wheeler had been tailgating, well, the Kia would be MIA."

John Phillips, "Ghosts in the Machines" Car and Driver Feb 2015 p. 30
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,570 Posts
I don't think auto braking or accident avoidance should be in crash scoring. To me "preemptive" measures should be listed and active (where applicable) during testing. I want to know how a car will perform when it actually hits something and those features didn't work.
this I agree with and believe there should be 2 scores ONE for passive coach performance and other for crash avoidance because there is NO tech that will stop the OTHER car from crossing the centre line OR running a red ETC

Re: #1 - The rating system seems like it could either be done well or be a source of confusion; so it depends on how NHTSA decides to implement it. I didn't get that those details had been decided from the article. But I certainly wouldn't bet on NHTSA doing a wonderful job with it either.

Re: #2 - It seems like a real jump from adding this to electronics system to deciding to builid less safe vehicles. No one seemed to be advocating for doing the actual crash testing or relaxing those standards.

Re: #3 - yes, it will cost money. Right now Chrysler is charging $ 1295 for adaptive cruise control with automatic braking. That's certainly not cheap. But it certianly cost a lot less once it's mainstreamed just like airbags and all the other stuff early adopters get raped on price wise. Still, money is money. As for used cars, I'm not sure how anyone would be required to maintain the system but getting parts isn't really an insurmountable obsticle.

It's kind of funny how consumers get so angry about being required to spend money on vehicles regarding required/mandated equipment, yet we all waste a lot of money on stuff we really don't need on practically every car. I get it as I'm the same way. Just saying it's ironic. Being required to buy a system that could save your life is offensive, but blowing the same amount of money for prettier wheels is attractive to a lot of consumers.
RE #2 the previous time they adjusted the standards it increased the crash performance required to make 5 star but this time the actual crash performance is the same but to get 5 you NEED to have this system that does NOTHING to improve the survivability of a crash and Most cars make the current 5 star making the "drive" to improve cars less aEX in low cost cars like the Sonic / micra EX after the integration cost of the braking system

and for #3 try to get a mandatory safety done with an ABS/Airbag light on
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,540 Posts
I hear that all is needed to make a vehicle that is unsafe into one that is safe is to blame the unsafe outcome on George Bush and suddenly the vehicle becomes safe! This line of logic was on display Tuesday night and the more it was said, the better off we were and we didn't even know it!
 

·
Super Moderator
2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS - 6M w/LS3
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
More needless complexity mandated by the gub'mint, more weight added to the car, more cost to keep and maintain...Less responsibility on the part of the driver and less need to hone one's driving skills.

Yeah, sounds like a real winner to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SRFCTY

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,719 Posts
this I agree with and believe there should be 2 scores ONE for passive coach performance and other for crash avoidance because there is NO tech that will stop the OTHER car from crossing the centre line OR running a red ETC



RE #2 the previous time they adjusted the standards it increased the crash performance required to make 5 star but this time the actual crash performance is the same but to get 5 you NEED to have this system that does NOTHING to improve the survivability of a crash and Most cars make the current 5 star making the "drive" to improve cars less aEX in low cost cars like the Sonic / micra EX after the integration cost of the braking system

and for #3 try to get a mandatory safety done with an ABS/Airbag light on
I agree though auto braking will likely drop the nose on a car even then. That's why the system should be active, to simulate real world collisions.

Maybe there should be 2 ratings, one for active safety measures, and the other for occupant protection during a crash? Though I am not sure how you can fairly evaluate active safety measures against each other and score them in a significant way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
"Last month, I was driving our long-term Kia K900 on I-90 just past Little Bighorn Battlefield in Montana.

The adaptive cruise control was engaged at 75mph. My feet were perhaps six inches from the pedals, and I held the steering wheel with one hand. There was no traffic in front, none behind, none in the opposite lanes.

That's when the car, wholly unbidden, braked violently. Loose items in the ****pit rocketed forward, and the seatbelts cinched to chest-flattening pressure.

My wife cried out, and I was so thunderstruck that I couldn't think how to react. I recall saying, "What?" a couple of times, which did surprisingly little to mitigate the crisis.

Then I decided to pound the brakes--bleeding more speed, maybe to as little as 20 mph--which disengaged the cruise control.

That corrected the problem, although I achieved this result with no greater purpose than to cease being startled.
If an 18-wheeler had been tailgating, well, the Kia would be MIA."

John Phillips, "Ghosts in the Machines" Car and Driver Feb 2015 p. 30
Yep.

And Toyota / Lexi product along with a few other older players and sad to say.......... new players who wrote the book on how to avoid .... are still suaing all over the place.

So... perhaps the NHTSA could provide an SUA / non commanded unwanted behavior - safety rating ?

You know, something useful that takes into account things like death, injury, and economic loss along with probabilities of occurrence ?


And these people want autonomous driving ........
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top