ANCAP rating system in need of overhaul?

Comment

After initially not being sure in ANCAP's early years, I've come to the conclusion that we are far better off with the crash test rating organisation than without it. Back then, critics argued how you could measure the safety of a car after just one test as it would be like judging Don Bradman's cricket career after bowling him one ball. But the consumer only gets one chance to survive a crash.

There is no doubt the safety of cars of most shapes and sizes (utes are still dragging the chain) have improved markedly over the past 18 years or so thanks to the independent poking and prodding of crashed cars by the people in white coats at ANCAP. Indeed, ANCAP tests have highlighted some areas that may have gone unchecked if it weren't for their analysis. For example, several brands have had seatbelt failures or similar dramas during ANCAP tests over the years and quickly rectified their vehicles as a result. But as each manufacturer has become better at building safer cars, they've also become very good at designing and equipping cars to pass the ANCAP test -- and/or use the ANCAP rules to their advantage.

Let me share two examples. The latest Falcon comes standard with four airbags (not six or seven as its large-car rivals do) because Ford was able to achieve a five-star result with head-protecting side airbags in the front seats only.

Of course, curtain airbags are available on the Falcon (Ford has just made them standard on more models). But the point is, Ford has been able to say that every Falcon sedan has a five-star safety rating, even though a car with curtain airbags (that also protects back-seat passengers in a side impact) is clearly safer than a vehicle without them. The more airbags, the merrier.

Further, Ford was able to advertise the five-star rating even though its five-star rivals had more standard safety equipment. Ford has done nothing wrong, it just read the ANCAP rulebook very closely.

The second example is the Barina. Holden fitted side airbags to the front seats of all Barinas from November 2008 onwards. This lifted the Barina from a lowly two-star result to a "good" four-star figure. But Holden left anti-lock brakes off the standard equipment list (anti-lock brakes are bundled with alloy wheels for $1000) and almost no-one noticed.

The Barina example is all the more infuriating when you consider a lot of novice drivers -- who likely need more protection from themselves than the average driver -- are target buyers of the Holden cheapie. As with the Ford example, Holden has done nothing wrong. It just read the rules very closely.

With all of this in mind, it is time that ANCAP did a review of what it takes to earn four or more stars.

ANCAP has already insisted that a car must have stability control in order to qualify for a five-star rating, but really there needs to be a more detailed review to rachet up the requirements another notch. Otherwise, soon, everyone will have four- and five-star cars without necessarily having all available safety features.

For starters, a car shouldn't get a "good" four star rating if it doesn't have anti-lock brakes.

I suspect that ANCAP didn't think of this loophole because they probably thought no carmaker in their right mind would still sell a car without anti-lock brakes. They were wrong. And there are at least three passenger cars guilty of this. The others joining the Barina are the base models of the Hyundai Getz and Kia Rio.

ANCAP is a precious consumer resource, but it threatens to be overtaken by sharp-thinking carmakers if it does not act swiftly. In order to remain relevant ANCAP needs to be tougher with its own criteria -- and quickly -- or else the results will continue to be undermined by big car companies with an eye for fine print.

For further reading, see also:
Four stars for Chinese 4WD and Camry Hybrid
Hybrid Camry only four stars for safety
Great Wall Motors X240
Great Wall ute recalled

Read the latest Carsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at www.carsales.mobi