Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Call for safety rating review

  • By Paul Gover
  • Herald Sun
image The Australian New-Car Assessment Program's five star-rating doesn't do justice for Volvo. Photo Gallery

The company claiming the safest car in Australia is calling for an urgent review of national safety ratings.

Volvo says the star-rating system used by the Australian New-Car Assessment Program, which scores vehicles for crash-test results and fitting of ESP stability control, has been overtaken by advanced new systems in the world's safest cars.

It wants recognition of the sort of electronic driver assistance systems fitted to its latest XC60 — which it claims sets a new safety standard for Australia — and the upcoming BMW 7 Series and Mercedes- Benz E Class.

All have breakthrough new systems - the XC has radar crash avoidance for city traffic, the 7 can recognise speed signs and the E warns drowsy drivers - which go well beyond the current ANCAP tests and ratings.

"It's my opinion that we need to have another think about the star system. There is no doubt that it's a good cause, and a very important cause, but at the end of the day if they want to give customers what they want and not just tick boxes they need to move on," says Alan Desselss, head of Volvo Cars Australia.

"A five-star rating for something like the XC60 is probably unjustified. It gets the same star rating, and I don't mean to denigrate the product, as a Hyundai or a Mitsubishi Lancer. It's just not right.

"The public could think that five stars on one car is equal to five stars on another car, and that's not right."

Desselss wants ANCAP to begin looking beyond its crash tests, and further than the ESP stability control now essential for a five-star safety rating, to assess a vehicle's 'real' safety ranking.

And he says it should start by looking at the stability control systems used by different brands.

"Take ESP, or DTSC as we call it. I believe it is different on different cars," he says.

"What's happened now is that people just put on an ESP system because it's the only way they can get five stars. That can't be right for the message that they are trying to get out.

"An ESP system can be very different. And sometimes a good system reacts differently on different cars. And that's not given enough attention."

He also says Volvo's newest safety systems, from its blind-spot warning to lane-departure warning and the latest City Safety - which warns if a driver is too close to the car ahead, and even brakes if it senses a potential collision - are not being assessed by ANCAP.

"It's those type of things that really actively help to create better drivers. Everyone wants more safe cars on the road," he says.

 

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 6 comments

  • What Australia really needs, in terms of safety of cars, is to try to catch up with New Zealand, and implement mandatory regular (six-monthly, on an ongoing basis, and, no older than three months on cars for sale) roadworthiness testing, the same as the New Zealand Warrant of Fitness. Until that is done, safety assessments by brand and model, are absolutely dishonest, and, deliberately misleading. I once was sold a brand new 750cc motocycle, and it wast't until I rerturned to the motorcycle shop the next day, complaining about the poor road handling of the bike, that I found that the tyres were not properly inflated. I still do not know whether the shop had tried to deliberately kill me. I now have a car that is of a brand that I had regarded as the safest on the road, but the servicing of the car, by registered dealerships of the car brand, made the car dangerous to drive, each time it was serviced. Road testing was simply not done by the dealerships, before returning the car. Safety ratings by brand and model, are simply dishonest, without mandatory regular roadworthiness testing. But, until the federal and state parliaments start to regard road safety, and, human life, as important, road transport in Australia will continue to be dangerous.

    Bret Busby of Western Australia Posted on 11 March 2009 2:58am
  • That is true - consumers are seeing all these 5-star cars and thinking they all have the same safety advancements! After looking through the images attached to this story, it seems carmakers like Volvo are way ahead of the local manufacturers, and it would be good if we had a better system to rank these - as some comments below suggest, maybe a scale of 100 would be better and more indicative of true safety. And a rating for active and passive safety features could also be good.

    Ben of Sunshine Coast, QLD Posted on 24 February 2009 7:34pm
  • Oh, and if Volvo want people to realise how fantastic their safety systems are, advertise it. That's what the marketting department is there for.

    mikmak of Pacfic Paradise, QLD Posted on 24 February 2009 3:52pm
  • I don't necessarily agree with Volvo. These safety systems do not "create better drivers". It creates complacency. MH, you are certainly on the right track. The main problem, however, is the sheer scale of safety systems available. As has been said in the article, ESP systems often operate differently from one another, but is a nanny goat system (such as that found on my rental Aurion) a better system than the more progressively tuned version on the Commodore (which I have driven) or the Falcon (which I haven't driven)? The more abrupt system upsets car balance in corners possibly creating more danger (let's say, downhill off camber in the wet). What really needs to happen is for joe citizen to treat a car purchase with the importance it deserves. Buy a magazine with the appropriate test, look on the 'net, ask some one who knows something about cars (some of us do still exist). At least make a judgment call rather than a nod of the head whenever 5 stars appears next to a badge.

    MIKMAK of Sunshine Coast, QLD Posted on 24 February 2009 3:50pm
  • It really is impossible to argue with the Volvo logic on this. I have for many years and well before ANCAP said that cars should be assessed on their primary safety which is the ability to avoid accidents as a separate rating to the ANCAP ratings which only provide a secondary rating count in the event that the primary safety systems and design of the vehicles accident avoidance properties have not worked. ANCAP ratings are essential but only tell a very small part of the entire accident story. There are many potential design faults that can cause an accident:. For instance: looking at primary safety at a really base level, some cars have a mix of disk and drum brakes which each have different fade and grip properties and other idiosyncrasies which may actually be enough to set the groundwork for a crash to be potentially a very high probability. The rear wheels don't necessarily have to lock hard on but just enough to set a spin in motion and not be enough to show black rubber marks on the road. Another very similar accident could be caused by a wheel momentarily locking because it hits a part of the body on full deflection mid corner causing a similar set of circumstances. Effects such as these need to be researched and tested as part of the safety evaluation and certifying process. It's really not too hard. We only need one industry funded test course providing all variances of condition to test for such idiosyncrasies.

    Roger Knight of Adelaide Posted on 24 February 2009 2:40pm
  • I totally agree with Volvo. Although the intent of the ANCAP system is good, it is too flawed to be of any true value. The acheivement of the maximum five stars is now too common place. Like the head of Volvo said, not all five star cars are the same. The only way to rate the cars is by splitting it into a two-pronged rating (passive and active systems), scoring each out of 100. The scoring should not focus on whether a particular system is there, more on how good the system is. Manufacturers standard fittings are being driven by the ANCAP score. The stupid and ridiculous "seat belt reminder" is a perfect example. The safety rating should be driving the manufacturers to develop new systems, not how to fit a silly little chime.

    MH of Adelaide Posted on 22 February 2009 11:22pm
Read all 6 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links