I am fairly sure that the Government will be basing all their decisions on information and advice supplied by the NZTA and the Ministry of Transport. The NZTA don't use NCAP or ANCAP ratings to determine the "risk rating" of a vehicle; they mainly use the "used car safety ratings" supplied by Monash University(Melbourne) generated from the results of all car crashes in NZ and AU over the past few decades. The "used car ratings'', which are weighted in several ways so as to make them directly comparable for any car no matter what its mass etc, can be vastly different to the ANCAP ratings. I believe that they only consider the ANCAP ratings if "used car safety ratings'' aren't available for a certain car, usually because of the small no.s of that car in NZ or AU.
mack77,
Sep 2, 11:29am
I feel that your opinion would only be valid if many of the crashes were caused by vehicle defects, but the statistics show that almost all crashes are caused by human failure. We can't prevent human failure but we can improve the safety of vehicles so that when they do crash, the risk of death or serious injury is reduced for all those involved in the crash.
vtecintegra,
Sep 2, 11:44am
UCSR is extremely flawed, there are a bunch of models that are incorrectly classified and it's up in the air how well they've controlled for other factors.
framtech,
Sep 2, 11:44am
But it should be done by importing safe vehicles instead of Labour talking of banning current cars, that just screws the poor and trashes billions of tons of reliable cars. Labour should spend the money on death spots not tax its people even more.
mack77,
Sep 2, 11:51am
Firstly the "used car rating" is based upon the results of the crash, so the no. of times that any model of car, is involved in a crash has no effect on the rating. Similarly the type of driver has no effect on the rating.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that my 1995 Honda Odyssey has not only been moving under its own weight for the past eight years, it has also carried my weight as well with no problem whatsoever and I have always been impressed with its acceleration. Yes it is still a relatively safe car and I know this because it now has a 4 star "used car safety rating" determined by its "crashworthiness" rating figure of 3.25 which is still much better than many near new cars. This rating is determined by the results of many crashes, both minor and major, over the years. The results that are considered are whether death or serious injury ocurred to the driver of the Honda Odyssey. The main reason I bought this car is because it was the cheapest car that I could buy at the time with the top safety rating.
The safest common used car in NZ and AU at present is the 2012 to 2015 Mazda 6/Atenza, which has an amazingly good "crashworthiness" rating figure of 0.79 which means that the risk of death or serious injury as a result of a crash is 0.79%, or in other words less than 1 chance in a 100(crashes).
mack77,
Sep 2, 11:56am
All very true, but unfortunately it's not possible to stop humans from making mistakes; that's why we need to improve the safety of cars and roads to make them more forgiving.
mack77,
Sep 2, 12:05pm
The "UCSR" (Used car safety rating) scheme doesn't classify cars; it simply determines the relative safety rating of a car as a result of the no. of deaths or serious injuries that occur as result of that model of car crashing. Why do you say the method of rating is flawed?
mack77,
Sep 2, 12:12pm
I believe that the Labour government is importing mainly "safe" vehicles because they are still using the same rules that were set by the previous National government which prevent most "unsafe" vehicles from being imported and gaining compliance in NZ.
comsolve,
Sep 2, 3:08pm
That heap of crap was a dangerous car by the standards of 1997.
You are 20+ years too late. Sweden is fast becoming a hellhole now.
eleni01,
Sep 3, 4:18am
The ANCAP safety rating system is a crock of shit just like these pack of useless pricks running the country. Nearly every ill thought policy they spew out either goes back on their word or hurts the people they claim they are there to help.
Reading between the lines you'd have to be a gullible head up the arse COL supporter to think they don't plan to tax older cars off the road.
Running an older car is a form of recycling. To dispose of something perfectly good ten years down the track fuels consumerism. The resources and pollution required to make a new car is more damaging to the environment than running around in a sound 1990-'00s car.
Less well off people, those who they conned to vote for them, aren't likely to be able to afford to buy, service and repair a more modern and complex vehicle. Tax them for owning a 1995 Accord or Corolla instead of financing a 2012 model they cant afford, well they will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I'm confident my 2.3 tonne W140 Benz from the 1990s will destroy any modern 5 star shit box in any form of collision. In fact I have a dereg but drivable S320 sitting there I'd donate to prove this against any 5 star shit box providing all seats in the 5 star car is filled with members from the Green Party. About time these hypocrites put their money where their mouths are!
vtecintegra,
Sep 3, 5:04am
The problem is with assigning a crash to a model of car. You get some very dissimilar vehicles lumped in together especially where there aren't a large number of them on the road in Australia (which is where most of the data comes from) or where models have changed part way through a year.
There is also no provision for spec differences at all which can be a problem in our market with the sheer number of imports.
flack88,
Sep 3, 5:30am
#87 Lol like it,They are a Panzer wagen alrite!
mrfxit,
Sep 3, 6:25am
It's a nasty cycle going on there. We improve the safety of vehicles because jo bloggs can't be bothered learning how to drive properly, which in turn reinforces the concept that the car will protect me so I can carry on being an even bigger idiot.
Something I heard a while ago was that the more safety features included = the more survivability the vehicle occupants have in a serious crash. Yes . great. BUT
That also translated on the bad end, to longer hospital stays & more rehabilitation needed for those in the crashes.
In short, a lot of really serious crashes these days, are still causing a lot of grief after the fact, for many years to come
atom.ant,
Sep 3, 9:29am
Yes that is right. Before they used to die, but now the same crash is survivable but need more complex and longer care.
Not according to friends and a lot of family who live there. Yes some aspects have changed and there are areas to avoid but the press has inflamed some of the issues. NZ is as much of a hellhole if you wish to use that analogy but I think you are rather over egging the pudding.
oddbits,
Sep 3, 11:36am
hydroplane wrote: But it should be done by importing safe vehicles instead of Labour talking of banning current cars, that just screws the poor and trashes billions of tons of reliable cars. Labour should spend the money on death spots not tax its people even more.[/quote thats the way they will ease congestion as they have spent the petrol taxes elsewhere
poppy62,
Sep 3, 3:36pm
It would be relevant if the powers to be (Land transport) published on an annual basis what makes/models of cars were involved in road deaths. Most of us have mistaken ideas on what we think is /isn't safe . I as a former Wrecker of cars was able to draw some conclusions from the wrecks that i bought and also from the cars that were up for sale because of accident damage. We (wreckers) were well informed in regards to the fatals and there were some real mangled wrecks over the years. I reckon it's a very important statistic for buyers of cars (especially with family) to have as a check point in their decisions to buy certain cars. Not all cars are involved in head-ons and many fatals occur with side and rear impacts and also roll over accidents. At present anyone wanting to buy a certain type of vehicle can't get anything other than controlled impact results to check with. But most accidents (in the real world) aren't a copy of the Ancap, Eurocap tests.
billyfieldman,
Sep 3, 4:48pm
That's what the Used Car Safety Rating was trying to address with ratings based on real accident data.
mack77,
Sep 3, 5:06pm
Poppy62] At present anyone wanting to buy a certain type of vehicle can't get anything other than controlled impact results to check with. But most accidents (in the real world) aren't a copy of the Ancap, Eurocap tests.[/quote]
Yes they can; just check the "Used Car Safety Ratings" (2017) which cover all common cars in NZ and AU, since these ratings are based on all types of crashes in which the car needs to be towed away.
poppy62,
Sep 3, 5:07pm
No it isn't. There is nothing that lists which cars in NZ are involved in Fatalities. Used car rating only reflects what has occurred in a controlled testing environment and doesn't reflect the reality of the accidents that occur on our roads.
mack77,
Sep 3, 5:12pm
No that's not correct. Before the percentage of late model cars on our roads increased, people were killed and seriously injured. Now with a larger percentage of late model cars on the road, people are still being killed and seriously injured. What has changed is that less people are being killed and seriously injured.
mack77,
Sep 3, 5:30pm
I can absolutely assure you that your statement is not correct. "Used Car Safety Ratings" are derived from the results of all "tow-away" accidents that have occurred in NZ and AU over the past few decades. They therefore reflect the relative risk of being killed or seriously injured in a crash. The "Update 2017-Crashworthiness Ratings" give a numerical rating for every used car. This number represents is the statistical chance of being killed or seriously injured in a certain model of car. As an example the chance of the driver of a 2012-2015 Mazda 6 being killed or seriously injured in a tow-away crash is 0.79% i.e less than 1 in 100 crashes. However the driver of a 1990-1996 Daihatsu Mira has a 12.35% chance of being killed or seriously injured in a tow-away crash.
kiwitt_nz,
Sep 4, 5:07am
Would you rather be in a 5-star Suzuki Swift (which recently had 4 people die in when there was a head-on crash in Taranaki) or a 2-star Ford Mustang when the two collide? Makes a mockery of the safety star rating doesn't it. I think the crashworthiness makes better stats, pity it requires actual crash data.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.