![]() 09/27/2015 at 22:08 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
I honestly thought that the US standards (FMVSS) were safer since our crash testing tended to be more strict, such as testing the car during a rollover. Not sure what this would mean for the current Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations for harmonization/mutual recognition of vehicle standards, but it could make a strong case for the US to switch over to the global EU (UN-ECE) standard (not going to happen anytime soon though).
Interesting bit:
Of particular concern to safety groups is the finding that passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a typical US model.
That 33 percent figure is based on # of collisions vs. amount seriously injured.
Report:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Here’s a relevant NPR piece on this subject. One major difference in design is that US models are crash tested for unbelted occupants while the EU models are crash tested assuming you’re wearing a seat belt, so it seems the EU models are optimized for belted occupants, while the US models have to compromise belted occupant safety to save unbelted occupants.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
However, the overwhelming majority (85+ percent) of US drivers do wear seat belts, according to this:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
photo credit: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
![]() 09/27/2015 at 22:20 |
|
Not surprised at all. US standards were designed to be different, not better. Frozen in time from when GM was the majority of the car market. Jealousy keeping superior cars out of the market.
European standards were written by engineers. Our laws were written by lobbyists and accountants.
Hopefully the automakers are smart enough to figure out that it’s cheaper to build one car than two. Alan Mulally was the only modern automotive CEO that understands. I’m surprised that Fiat Serg isn’t lobbying to accept the UNECE standards since so’s so much for consolidation; this would be right up his alley.
Joining the rest of the world would also make the stupid 25-year rule moot.
![]() 09/27/2015 at 22:22 |
|
I think you’ll find that, in many of these cases, no one standard is clearly “better” or “worse” (for instance, some would argue that testing unbelted is better in some ways), just “different”.
Also, it should be noted that your 33 percent-better data comes from actual collisions, and so one must take into account whether or not the objects/vehicles involved are comparable. Smaller vehicles means less energy (per given velocity) to dissipate. The accelerations in a crash will be similar, but not identical. I’d bet some of the gap in those numbers comes from a very different average accident profile in the US vs the EU.
TL;DR: Comparing things is hard.
![]() 09/27/2015 at 22:29 |
|
So fmvss is a bare minimum. You should really be looking at NCAP. That updates every few years.
As far as crashes, you can’t really compare because the overall accident type rates are so different.
OEMs may optimize for each NCAP test, but they still test a “worst case” that is harder than both
![]() 09/27/2015 at 22:56 |
|
The flaw in the this report is the different vehicle types in the different markets. EU doesn’t have to worry about ever encountering an F-series or a GM SUV. So if all you’re doing is comparing a bunch of Corsa’s bumping into Golf’s, yea the Corsa and Golf drivers are going to be much better off than the Cruze drivers getting hit by an F-150
![]() 09/27/2015 at 23:10 |
|
Yeah, there are so many variables. I originally thought the US standards would be safest due to our crash tests attempting to simulate hits by large trucks that are so prevalent on our roads, which is why even a US-spec Mitsubishi Mirage should be a very safe car, even though it doesn’t look like it to most people.