Encap ratings. Are they realistic?
Discussion
Firstly, i would hope that a dedicated, independant specialist organisation would be know what they are talking about, more so than PH.
That said, once you've selected a short list of vehicles that suit your requirements, assuming they are all in the same class, NCAP will tell you which one is the best to have a crash in, but don't just look at the numbers, instead read the detail to know the good and bad points, if it did ok in frontal but excellent for side impacts, etc. results should be comparable across generations too, but as others have said, it gets complicated once you start looking across classes.
That said, once you've selected a short list of vehicles that suit your requirements, assuming they are all in the same class, NCAP will tell you which one is the best to have a crash in, but don't just look at the numbers, instead read the detail to know the good and bad points, if it did ok in frontal but excellent for side impacts, etc. results should be comparable across generations too, but as others have said, it gets complicated once you start looking across classes.
Common sence is normally enough. A really large car like an Audi Q7 will almost always be much safer in a low-to-medium speed impact. However, such a large car is also quite cumbersome and as such will find it harder to avoid an accident should someone half pull out and you have to voilently steer. On a motorway such cars are obviously more likely to roll should they be swiped from the side but also likely to come off better if rear ended my a vehicle of high mass (like an LGV).
Simply put, you should not just consider saftey in an accident but also your ability to avoid an accident (which is more preferable).
I recall seeing a Police Camera Action or something showing the results of a Range Rover moving across 4 lanes as he was going to miss his exit and joined lane 4 without realising it was moving much slower (it was hidden from view by an HGV). He rear ended a Corsa (5 star N-cap I think) and drove right over the top of it killing the driver and then piled into the back of a near-20 year old Audi estate. The estate car became nearly 2ft shorter but the driver and passenger of that car were OK. The flat rear end prevently the Range Rover getting over the top and the sheer length of it gave a huge crumple zone to absorb the impact. The Range Rover driver was fine.
Volvo do very well in saftey so I'd consider a medium sized volvo such as an S60
Simply put, you should not just consider saftey in an accident but also your ability to avoid an accident (which is more preferable).
I recall seeing a Police Camera Action or something showing the results of a Range Rover moving across 4 lanes as he was going to miss his exit and joined lane 4 without realising it was moving much slower (it was hidden from view by an HGV). He rear ended a Corsa (5 star N-cap I think) and drove right over the top of it killing the driver and then piled into the back of a near-20 year old Audi estate. The estate car became nearly 2ft shorter but the driver and passenger of that car were OK. The flat rear end prevently the Range Rover getting over the top and the sheer length of it gave a huge crumple zone to absorb the impact. The Range Rover driver was fine.
Volvo do very well in saftey so I'd consider a medium sized volvo such as an S60
Personally I think it is better not to crash in the first place. Yes accidents do happen, but you can reduce the risk hugely by watching what you are doing.
Then have a look at the ways to die. RTA's are way down the list and of the people that did die in an RTA, many of them were not wearing seat belts. You are more likely to die from being fat and lazy than driving a "safe" car.
My car will need changing shortly. "Safety" features aren't even a consideration.
Then have a look at the ways to die. RTA's are way down the list and of the people that did die in an RTA, many of them were not wearing seat belts. You are more likely to die from being fat and lazy than driving a "safe" car.
My car will need changing shortly. "Safety" features aren't even a consideration.
sturobturbo said:
I always thought it was NCAP... Lol. But they do some very thorough testing, yes,
EuroNCAP, hence ENCAP.European New Car Assessment Programme IIRC.
Their tests should give you a fairly good idea of what it might be like to have an accident in new cars, but as others have said, it's important to remember that it's only a test and crashes very rarely happen in those specific conditions.
Also, bear in mind they usually test the top of the range with all the airbags, not the boggo one without them.
The NCAP tests simulate a car crashing at about 3/4 offset into an unmovable object with roughly the deformation characteristics of another car. How useful that is, probably depends on how often you intend to crash into such an object.
It does fail to take into account that heavier cars are fundamentally safer for their occupants (and more dangerous fore everyone else) in a head-on collision with another car.
So I suppose the question is "what are you planning on crashing into?".
It does fail to take into account that heavier cars are fundamentally safer for their occupants (and more dangerous fore everyone else) in a head-on collision with another car.
So I suppose the question is "what are you planning on crashing into?".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff