Find the safest cars and vehicles and the most dangerous cars and vehicles
Last updated on: 4th of April 2014 at 4:44 pm (EST)

FAQ


 Frequently Asked Questions

 

[If you don't find the answer to your question send us an email.] 

 


*

 

Q1: How are Super-Stars defined?

 .

A1: Super-Stars are vehicles that achieved both "Top Pick" by IIHS and "5-Star Overall" by NHTSA. It is the exception when both IIHS and NHTSA agree on which vehicles are most crashworthy. For example, for model-years 2011-2012 IIHS evaluated 524 vehicles and rated 63% as "Top Pick"; NHTSA evaluated 501 vehicles and classifed 24% as "5-Star Overall", however only 35 vehicles (7%) received both "Top Pick" and "5-Star Overall".
.

*

Q2: Why has the risk index SCORE presented on this website between 2003-2012 been superseded by the Super-Stars?

 .

A2:When the risk index SCORE was initially developed in 2003 there existed a very wide distribution of risk among vehicles and both agencies utilized their full range of ratings, i.e., "POOR" -to- "GOOD" by IIHS and "1-Star" -to- "5-Stars" by NHTSA. Since that time vehicle design has greatly improved reflected by the excellent crash test results for most vehicles.


This does not mean that all vehicles are equivalently safe but rather that the rating systems are not refined enough to distinguish the differences in crashworthiness. For model-year 2012, IIHS rated 63% of all vehicles as "Top Pick", which means they received their best rating possible in all 4 categories, and NHTSA rated 24% as "5-Star Overall", their best possible rating.


While the rating systems continue to be useful in isolating the least crashworthy vehicles, there were too many vehicles with vitually identical best ratings . In order to overcome this distortion and to focus on the objective of this website which is to identify the "safest" vehicles, the methodology needed to change.


Vehicle weight has always been the missing risk element in the ratings systems of both agencies. The new methodology which requires the double selection of "Top Pick" plus "5-Star Overall" to create a short list of "Super-Stars', then focuses on vehicle weight in order to isolate the best of the best safe choices.

 

*

Q3: How does NHTSA’s new rating system (commencing with model year 2011) compare with Informed for Life's risk index SCORE method of calculating vehicle safety?

 .

A3:

image/jpeg

 

 *

Q4: Are new vehicles becoming safer and have traffic fatalities been reduced?

  .

A4: The chart, below, shows the that since 2003 there has been a significant reduction in vehicle risk index SCORE and approximately a 30% reduction in driver fatality rates. Although there may be multiple factors reducing fatality rates, including reduction in alcohol related accidents and increased use of seat belts, the significant improvement in vehicle crashworthiness, as evidenced by the reduction in SCOREs, appears to be a significant contributor. Note that the reduction in fatality rates resulting from safer vehicles will lag the actual reduction in SCOREs due to the relatively small number of "new" model vehicles added to the highway traffic each year.

  .

image/jpeg 

 *

Q5: How different are the crash test ratings between NHTSA and IIHS?

  .

A5: The differences can be very significant since the test methods are different and ratings are based on different criteria. In order to evaluate a vehicle’s crashworthiness both sets of ratings must be included.

  .

For example, the side impact crash testing performed by IIHS utilizes an impact sled that simulates an SUV colliding with the test vehicle which is higher off the ground than NHTSA's test sled. Also, not until the 2011 rating system did NHTSA include head trauma in their side impact rating whereas IIHS has done so consistently.

 

 

 *

Q6: Why aren't big and heavy vehicles always the safest choice?

  .

A6: Although increased weight is an advantage in multi-vehicle accidents that advantage can be quickly overcome with the higher risk of rollover typically associated with many "large and heavy" vehicles due to their high center-of-gravity. Below is a listing of heavy passenger vehicles (over 4,500 lbs.) and their risk of rollover, and despite their heavier-than-average weight their risk index SCORES are above 100 (greater than average passenger vehicle risk) . The average passenger car has a 12% risk of rollover and many of these heavy vehicles are at significantly higher risk of rollover than average. Their rollover risk, when combined on a fatality-weighted basis with the higher-than-average weight, results in a net increase in risk compared with the average passenger car.

 

  *

Q7: Why does the risk index SCORE for a vehicle change significantly, from one year to the next, when the vehicle appears to be virtually unchanged?

  .

A7: There are several possible valid reasons for differences in SCORE between models which appear to be identical, or for models with the same name from one year to the next.

  .

 

First, there may be a difference in the safety equipment installed in the vehicle. Specifically, Side-curtain AirBags (SAB) can have a dramatic effect on the side impact ratings provided by IIHS since their side-impact testing measures trauma to the head and SAB often change unacceptable "POOR" ratings to "GOOD" ratings. Also, Electronic Stability Control (ESC) can significantly change the rollover risk points calculated for a vehicle since ESC can significantly improve your ability to avoid a rollover from ever occurring.

  .

Second, the amount of rating information provided by NHTSA and/or IIHS may be different between the two vehicles. This is especially common early in a model-year (e.g. prior to January for a given model-year) since very few “new” models are tested prior to January and often the review to determine equivalency from year-to-year is not completed until several months after a new model is in the showroom. Once the agency completes its review of equivalency – it then publishes the prior year ratings for the new model-year, where appropriate. Caution: you should not assume that models of the same name have equivalent ratings from year-to-year.

 *

Q8. Where can I learn about the best way to protect children/baby passengers?

  .

A8. NHTSA summarizes their recommendations for child protection at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/ParentGuide2005/pages/WhenDoYou.htm

 *

Q9.  Which vehicle colors are safest?   

  .

A9.  There is presently no scientific evidence supporting the selection of a particular color for vehicle safety. Go to this link for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study results.

 *

Q10: Does the requirement to display NHTSA star ratings on showroom window stickers help the consumer select safer cars?

  .

A10: Unfortunately the window sticker information is incomplete, and therefore misleading!

 

 

What the sticker should also say but doesn’t:

 

 

     1.4-STARS is typically 3x risk vs. 5-STARS

 .

     2.in 2006, 56% of all vehicles received 5-STARS (+ 40% received 4-STARS)

 . .

     3.Side impact star ratings EXCLUDE head injury risk

 .

     4.Another independent agency (IIHS) may have crash tested this same vehicle in a different manner with different results. IIHS does evaluate head injury due to side impact. 

 .

     5.Light-weight vehicles experience approx 2x fatality rate vs. average weight vehicles

 . 

     6.Side-Curtain Airbags [mandated for 2013] reduce side-impact fatalities by approx 45%

 .

     7.Electronic Stability Control [mandated for 2012] reduces rollover fatalities by approx 43%)    

      .

     8.To properly evaluate the safety of this vehicle relative to any other, all of the above considerations must be weighed.

 *

Q11: How does NHTSA calculate the % risk of serious injury for frontal and side impact star ratings?

 

A11: For model years prior to 2011 NHTSA publishes a database for all of the vehicles they tested. To access the database go to: ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/ and then select NCAP, then select the file: NCAP.db.mdb

 

Below are highlights from NHTSA’s paper describing NHTSA's rating formulae applicable prior to model year 2011.

 

FRONTAL IMPACT

 

For head injury, the equation  Phead = {1+exp[5.02-0.00351*HIC]}-1                       

  .

relates the probability of an AIS $ 4 head injury to HIC.

    .

For chest injury, the equation    Pchest = {1+exp[5.55-0.0693*Chest G]}-1 

relates the probability of an AIS $ 4 injury to chest G’s. This chest injury risk curve is in Figure 2.

  .

Injury risk functions depend on complex biomechanical and real world collision investigations. Limitations exist relative to correlations between engineering measures of trauma and AIS levels. Research and analysis activities are continuing to examine existing biomechanical data and real world collision data and to develop additional data which may lead to changes and improvements in methods of determining injury risk.

     .                                  

Basic Assessment Criteria

  .

NHTSA uses the injury risk functions as defined by the equations for the head and chest to develop a star rating system. It was decided that a star rating system could better communicate the safety protection of vehicles than the older NCAP safety presentations. Consumers could better understand such a system, with five stars indicating the lowest probability of an AIS $ 4 injury and one star indicating the highest probability.

  .

NHTSA concluded that a combined effect of injury to the head and chest should be used, since it is well documented that an individual who suffers multiple injuries has a higher risk of permanent disability or death. Therefore, a combined probability of an AIS $ 4 injury is calculated from the equations for the head and chest as;

  .

 Pcombined = Phead + Pchest - Phead * Pchest                                                               

  .

where Pcombined = combined probability. This equation is applied to the HIC and chest G responses of the driver and passenger dummies in each frontal impact NCAP test.

  .

From these combined probability values, the safety performance is provided for each vehicle

that is tested for the frontal direction in NCAP with the driver and right front seat passenger. The agency uses a simplified nonnumeric format, the five star rating, for the frontal NCAP results. NHTSA wanted to give the US consumer easily grasped vehicle safety performance information. This nonnumeric format is based on the use of injury risk functions, that relate the Hybrid III dummy measurements to injury probabilities. The head and chest injury data is combined into a single rating, reflected by the number of stars.

  .

     5-stars    =          10% or less chance of any serious injury to the head or chest

     4-stars    =          11% to 20% chance of serious injury

     3-stars    =          21% to 35% chance of serious injury

     2-stars    =          36% to 45% chance of serious injury

     1-star     =          46% or greater chance of serious injury

    .

  SIDE IMPACT

  . .

 Lateral Impact Assessment criteria and limit values:

 

  .

Similarly for the NCAP lateral impact results, a star rating system is being used based on the thoracic injury function curve that was developed for Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI). This thoracic injury function curve is contained in the final regulatory evaluation for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 and is shown in Figure 4. This function relates the probability of an AIS >= 4 thoracic and upper abdominal injury to TTI in a lateral impact.

The TTI value is determined for the side impact dummy (SID) based on the signals recorded in the lateral impact NCAP crash test. Probability of injury is determined from the injury function curve. From the probability values, the star ratings can be determined for each laterally impacted car for the front and rear seat occupant. The following levels are used to designate the stars:

Using the risk curve, the star ratings correspond to a range of TTI values.

  .

     5-stars   =          TTI # 57

     4-stars   =          57 < TTI # 72

     3-stars   =          72 < TTI # 91

     2-stars   =          91 < TTI # 98

     1-star    =          TTI > 98

   .

From the probability values, star ratings for the front and rear seat occupant is developed. The following levels are used to designate the stars:

  .

     5-stars    =          5% or less chance of serious thoracic and upper abdominal injury

     4-stars    =          6% to 10% chance of serious injury

     3-stars    =          11% to 20% chance of serious injury

     2-stars    =          21% to 25% chance of serious injury

     1-stars    =          26% or greater chance of serious injury

  .

Since the lateral impact probabilities are based on only one injury, to the thorax, (whereas, frontal impact probabilities are based on the combination of head and chest injury), the lateral impact star levels are one-half of the levels for the front impact at the five, and four star levels. A further deviation from the frontal impact star levels is used for the three, two, and one star levels. The break for the three star level for frontal impact rating was based on the condition that any vehicle that met FMVSS 208 (i.e., HIC not greater than 1000 and chest g's not greater than 60) in the NCAP condition would receive at least three stars. To follow this same procedure, the level is set such that any vehicle that meets FMVSS 214 (i.e., TTI not greater than 90 as applicable to 2-door passenger cars) would receive three stars. Subsequently, establishing this level requires some changes at the two and one star levels to provide a spread between the levels.

  .

Steps in calculating injury probability:

  .

     1.      The term “GR is the greater of the peak acceleration of either the upper or lower rib expressed in g’s.

  .

     2.      The term “GLS “ is the lower spine (T12) peak acceleration expressed in g’s.

  .

     3.      The TTI is calculated in accordance with the following formula

  .

            TTI = 0.5(GR + GLS).

  .

Rollover Risk:

 .

The formula for calculating rollover risk is described in the October 2003 Federal Register notice (68 FR 59250) that established NHTSA's current NCAP methodology which uses a logistic regression technique and includes the effect of the dynamic test ("fishhook) result as well as SSF.  To access that document, go to the DOT docket website (http://dms.dot.gov) and, using the "Simple Search" feature, type in the docket no. "9663".  The notice is item no. 84 in that docket, and the formulae are listed near the end of the document in Appendix II, on p. 59291 of the notice as it appeared in the Federal Register (assumes you are viewing the PDF version).  There are two formulae, one for vehicles that tip-up in the dynamic test and one for vehicles that do not tip up.

 

 *

 

Q12. Where can I see the definition of the terms used in NHTSA's test database ?

 .

A12. Go to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Everything is defined in the CFR. You can view the CFR online using the links below.

§571.214 for side testing ( see S7.2.5 and S7.2.6)

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bef96d672694b4d32c8f4d1caf3bf2ad&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.37&idno=49#49:6.1.2.3.37.2.7.50 <https://webmail3.dot.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr%26sid=bef96d672694b4d32c8f4d1caf3bf2ad%26rgn=div5%26view=text%26node=49:6.1.2.3.37%26idno=49%2349:6.1.2.3.37.2.7.50>

§571.208 for frontal testing (start at S5.1)

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bef96d672694b4d32c8f4d1caf3bf2ad&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.37&idno=49#49:6.1.2.3.37.2.7.43 <https://webmail3.dot.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr%26sid=bef96d672694b4d32c8f4d1caf3bf2ad%26rgn=div5%26view=text%26node=49:6.1.2.3.37%26idno=49%2349:6.1.2.3.37.2.7.43>



Untitled Document

Every effort has been made to be accurate and objective, however all information is subject to errors and omissions.

Informed For Life  is a Connecticut nonprofit organization
http://www.informedforlife.org

This website can also be located by searching on the following terms: finding the safest cars, finding the safest vehicles, selecting safe cars, selecting safe vehicles, which cars are safest, which vehicles are safest, car safety, safe cars, safer cars, finding safe cars, crashworthy cars, safest cars, selecting a safe car, vehicle safety, safe vehicles, ,safer vehicles, finding safe vehicles, crashworthy vehicles, safest vehicles, selecting a safe vehicle, auto safety, safe autos, safer autos, finding safe autos, crashworthy autos, safest autos, selecting a safe auto, automobile safety, safe automobiles, safer automobiles, finding safe automobiles, crashworthy automobiles, safest automobiles, selecting a safe automobile, crash tests, car safety ratings, vehicle safety ratings, automobile safety ratings, car ratings, vehicle ratings, auto ratings, automobile ratings, crash test ratings, crash-test ratings, rollover ratings, car crash ratings, vehicle crash ratings, NHTSA ratings, IIHS ratings, finding a safe car, finding a safe vehicle, finding a safe automobile, dulberger index, risk index, risk SCORE