car saftey ratings

[lilme 0]

i was very pleased to find that my car had a better than avarage saftey rating, heres the link,

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/vehicles/...cars/index.html

[WarNox 1]

i've seen that before, but i could never find the actual tests they did with e36's.

and how can e30's have the same safety rating as e36's?

[martyyn 2]

What I find really interesting is the amount of 4x4's that have a protection rating of only average for the occupants.

Dispells the myth that your safer in the 4x4. Its only the monsters that have better than average ratings, but with that comes the fact your more likely to kill someone else.

[kiwi535 538]

and 4wd are even worse if they hit another 4wd,tree ,bridge abutment(can you say SOLID),or truck

[martyyn 2]

The reality for 4x4's is that if you hit a pedestrian you are 4 times more likely to kill them, if you t-bone another car you are 4 times more likely to kill the person you hit (assuming there is someone on the side you hit) and if you crash the car yourself you are twice as likely to die.

Honestly, if there was a vote to ban them from city streets Id be at the front of the queue.

[rxsumo 33]

Personally I take the safety ratings with a "grain of salt".

The tests usually involve smashing vehicles, in situations, that you might not always face in the real world.

The other factors involve things like the number of airbags etc. While some of these safety features are great, there are things like good interior design and good structure design, that some of the older cars like the BMWs have that is the difference between other cars.

I havent checked the ratings for a while, but an example is my Ute. My current XH, has a higher rating than my last Ute a XF.

The XH is the same unibody, with the exception of the front clip,the interior is basically the same.The XH had as options, drivers airbag, and ABS, is this the difference?. My XH didnt have those options ticked, so in theory, its no different to the XF, but the ratings dont factor that!

You only have to look at the E34, it has the same rating as a Ford Laser, and a worse rating than the EA Falcon series.

At the age of the cars now, the E34, is likely to be more structurally sound (without hidden rust), has better seat mounting, as well as ABS as standard and things like the "reversed" rear seat belts. All stuff that likely to save your life!

What scares me the most is, that the people that these ratings appeal to most, are the people that think that the car is an appliance, and who's buying choice will be based on the colour and it's safety rating. This may be good for new cars, but when it also is covering cars that are over 10 years old, their buying choice may be falsely influenced by incorrect assumptions.

Edited November 4, 2006 by rxsumo

[lilme 0]

The reality for 4x4's is that if you hit a pedestrian you are 4 times more likely to kill them, if you t-bone another car you are 4 times more likely to kill the person you hit (assuming there is someone on the side you hit) and if you crash the car yourself you are twice as likely to die.

Honestly, if there was a vote to ban them from city streets Id be at the front of the queue.

my signature would be number 2 after yours on the petition!!

i would really like to check out this other saftey rating you guys have been talking about can someone please post a link? thanks.

and just to rebut what someone said about people thinking their cars are appliances are the ones who are interested in the saftey rating, i am not one of these people, i have a young family that i would like to protect and i feel safer with the knowledge that my car has been recognised as a safe car knowing just how many stupid idiots their are on the road!!!!

[lilme 0]

i just had a look at the euro ncap ratings for the e36 and i have to say i am slightly dishearted about what it said, does anyone know what speed the crash tests are done at?

how is it that the nz tests and the euro ncap test results can differ so much?