ANCAP has revealed the results of a car-to-car crash, claiming drivers of older cars (pre-2000) are four times more likely to die than those in a new car.
AS PART OF the United Nations’ Global Road Safety Week, ANCAP has slammed an old Toyota Corolla into a new one “to highlight the important role safer vehicles play in improving road safety”. It was an impressive way to state the bleeding obvious.
“This test physically illustrates the benefits of newer, safer cars,” said ANCAP Chief Executive Officer, James Goodwin.
According to research conducted by ANCAP, while pre-2000 built cars account for just 20% of all the vehicles registered in Australia, they’re involved in 33% of fatal crashes. “In contrast, newer vehicles [those built 2011-2016] make up 31% of the fleet yet are involved in just 13% of fatality crashes,” ANCAP said.
“We’ve been tracking the average age of a vehicle involved in a fatal crash, and in just one year we’ve seen that average increase from 12.5 years to 12.9 years. This highlights the need for a renewed national focus and greater support for safer vehicles,” Goodwin said.
“It is unfortunate we tend to see our most at-risk drivers – the young and inexperienced, as well as the elderly and more frail – in the most at-risk vehicles, and we hope this test promotes a conversation to encourage all motorists to consider the safety of their car”.
“Safety is not a luxury and we want everyone to remain safe on the road, so consumers should look for the safest car they can afford and the safest car that suits their needs.”
“The outcomes of this test are stark and the automotive, finance and insurance industries can play a part to assist in encouraging people into newer, safer cars.”
The frontal offset test, which replicates a head-on crash, was conducted at 64km/h.
“The older car sustained catastrophic structural failure with dummy readings showing an extremely high risk of serious head, chest and leg injury to the driver. It achieved a score of just 0.40 out of 16 points – zero stars.”
“In contrast, the current model performed very well with a five-star level of protection offered, scoring 12.93 out of 16 points,” said Goodwin.
Very interesting and instructive. Perhaps the government could work towards ridding the country of older cars by making the cost of new cars less. Stamp duty would be a starting point. Perhaps a reduced tax level for cars with a higher ANCAP rating. That could apply to used cars that have a good safety rating. It would be nice to see a real effort to reduce the road toll (injuries as well as deaths) instead of constantly bleating about speed. 100 kph in a 1990 Corolla has to be far less safe than the same speed in a 2017 Volvo but the authorities have no interest in anything but nanny approaches to the subject. Somehow 100 kph is the magic number at which we will all live happily ever after, no matter what we are driving.
Agree to a point…..would hate to see classics legislated off the road, and pre 2000 vehicles with ESC and airbags are no doubt safer than many post 2000 vehicles without…..
I take your point but most of the classics (I drooled over a V12 E type this afternoon) are not daily drivers and not by inexperienced drivers either. There are specific registrations available at least in Victoria. The older, less safe cars are often driven by younger, less experienced drivers. They are the very people who could do with a safer car. I think that the safety rating should count more than the model year.
We’re thinking along similar lines…..what you said is pretty much what I was trying to say in my above post….
When comparing similar vehicles, they are most likely correct. Inertia makes a difference though. Recently in WA when a crazed driver of an 80 series landcruiser drove head on at highway speeds into a recent model RAV4, all the contemporary safety technology resulted in the RAV4 driver being dead, and the landcruiser driver surviving.
I’m pretty sure the 80 series is body on frame, and although larger, isn’t a massive beast, compared to the current RAV4, and the RAV4 being a newer design sports greater advantages for crumple zones to absorb impact.
Of course, safety means much more than driver survival, but newer doesn’t automatically mean safer for the person driving it.
I’m not sure what point you are making. Would a 20 year old Rav 4 have meant the passengers would have survived?
The point being made is that when comparing the same impact a newer vehicle improves your chances significantly.
Unless you are advocating that we all drive around in large 4wd’s? In that case I would suggest that we are back to the original result of a newer vehicle being safer than an older one.