In an ideal world all vehicles would score 100% in all categories but we don’t live in an ideal world..

If that was the case there would be no point in a league table, so some other features would be found to present some sort of hierarchy, to justify higher prices !! That may well be the point of some of the unnecessary gizmos already there.

Edited by Andrew-T on 16/04/2022 at 09:36

The problem with a score out of 100 is that when the scores first are used, a very lwo total has to be used because advancements in the tech mean that the score will only go in one direction. It would mean that vehicles would initially all have very low scores, which would likely put off customers.

The problem with going the other way, as was the case for eco ratings for energy usage is that, like with educational grade inflation, you quickly get way too many getting 'A' and thus you get the ridicuolous state of affairs of A++ etc, etc.

It's even worse now with the NCAP scores because older cars keep the score/rating they were originally given, but obviously there were done using older tech to a lower weighted score.

The only way around this, as far as I can see is for the current rating to get a score out of 100 overall, and when the authorities change the testing to account for new tech, they need to add in and update (each time one is changed) the old scores by adding a new 'weighted muliplier', e.g. (hypothetical)

Original score in 2005 of 80 / 100

Latest test is 4 generations hence, so the scores from the 2005 is weighted by a factor of 0.6, thus the 'comparable' score is 48 / 100.

Probably not perfect either, especially as some safety advancements have made far more of an impact (especially in the early years) on death and serious injury rates (all other things being equal) than others.

The problem as I see it is that firstly the politicians and quango chiefs want to be seen to be 'improving safety' year-on-year so it's in their interests, PR-wise (really only with the media, twitterati and actvisist, not with most of the public), to keep saying yes to ever higher safety standards even if that means cars at the cheaper end of the market become uneconomic.

Much the same can be said for 'environmental' measures, both of which give a reducing balance of improvements and often paper over the negative effects. Cars like the Dacia with low or no star ratings on NCAP tests are likely safer than my 2005-built Mazda3, which 'has' a 4 star rating, but from a far older (and thus less strngent) test standard.

In my view, higher NCAP ratings (and thus safety features) also encourage more people to be (more) reckless in their driving because they believe the car will 'get them out of trouble'. Unfortunately that won't still be the case in many circumstances, and none of them will keep you alive if you are hit with any force by an HGV or are doing over a ton on the motorway and come acropper.

In my view, it is ridiculous that such new cars cannot be judged fairly. Driving safety is as much about the skill and judgement of the driver (including of the road and weather conditions) as it is about the crash resistance and safety features fitted to the car.

Whatever the safety gizmos a small car having an accident with a bigger car usually comes off much worse. However the more safety built into the smaller car the better the chances of the occupants

My recently purchased Dacia Duster 2 phase 2 facelift 1.5 dci blue etc etc to give it it's full title has lots of airbags and seems a solid little shoebox.

It also came with what they call blind spot protection, which AFAIK warns the driver by a bright red led flashing in one corner of the door mirrors, should there be a vehicle alongside, at speed, and the driver indicates to change lane towards that vehicle.

Thankfully it can be turned off by a simple switch.

I'm still doing shoulder checks and lifesavers after all these years even in the car - motorcyclists will understand!

All these Safety gizmo's did n't stop a Tesla driver coming into the middle lane, even though I had indicated to the right. A look over the should saved me.

The question for me, is the Dacia safe in the fundamentals? Such as safety bags, impact bars etc....

It is the same with insurance Defacto rating where the big insurance determine what is considered 5 stars.

Put it this way - it's likely that the Dacia has more safety features than a 4 or even 5 star car from the early and maybe even mid 2010s, and most of us wouldn't have a problem driving one from a safety standpoint.

As has been said in this thread, unless certain (latest) safety gimzos get included in the car's spec, it can only get a 2 or (in this case) zero NCAP rating, whetaver else it may have and how crash-resistant the bodyshell etc is.

Bonkers. A zero-rated NCAP car just means it meets the minimum standards for safety, and that is both subjective and changing almost yearly. It's not as though we were all driving 'unsafe' cars 3 years ago. Maybe 25, but since then?

I suspect that the Defacto rating has more to do with the cost of repairs (parts and labour) as it does what safety elements and NCAP rating the car has. After all, insurers care about the bottom line first and foremost, and most accidents and that serious (to the occupant).