What does Euro NCAP have planned for 2014?
While the body is not proceeding to ESC [electronic stability control] performance tests, as this is now part of EU regulation, Euro NCAP plans to update its pedestrian bumper test, using a more humanlike test impactor, known as the Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor. Crash avoidance systems will be included in the star rating and autonomous emergency braking tests will begin. Vehicles will also get points for lane departure warning and lane keep assist; if an OEM brings suitable data for the tested model, they will be awarded one point.
Secretary General, Euro NCAP
Do you think OEMs are being flexible enough to meet market requirements?
Some OEMs look at market requirements and develop the minimal safety standard they can get away with. This often leads to a vehicle with the same name being sold in different regions, with significant differences in safety performance. If you look at Latin NCAP’s list of cars tested recently and compare it with Euro NCAP, there are cars that are apparently the same. However, the results show significant score differences because the OEM has removed parts they don’t need in, for example, Latin America to optimise profits.
Our viewpoint is that a manufacturer should develop a car, making it as safe as possible so it should do well in every NCAP in the world. But they don’t and instead develop cars specifically for certain regions. This is a real problem for the NCAPs, because the results will be different even if the car is identical by name.
Are there any plans to establish harmonised rules between different NCAP markets?
Yes and no. One reason why the NCAPs are slightly different is because we all have ties with our regulations, and it’s important we keep those. Particularly with crash avoidance, there is hardly any legislation that specifies advanced braking systems, so there are opportunities here for NCAPs to align in what they do.
NCAPs are structured differently. US NCAP changes, for example, have to go through a regulatory process where a cost-benefit analysis needs to be made in terms of economic and road safety benefits. This makes it quite inflexible for standardising procedures. We in Europe have a very loose tie with regulation and could harmonise on test parameters more easily, without having a regulatory consequence.
Do you believe OEMs are taking more of a corporate route when it comes to safety decisions now than ever before?
That has always been the case. However, taking the i3, BMW is a famous OEM that has invested a lot in safety. It’s an innovative car, and going for five stars was possibly a step too far. However, four stars is perfectly okay, especially if you look at how Euro NCAP has developed over the last couple of years.
More concerning is that an OEM achieving a four star rating can start to remove some equipment without consequence. BMW has done this, which is poor judgement. The last ten vehicles have seatbelt reminders in the rear, but in the i3, BMW removed them. It’s basically cutting costs and maximising profits. I would say if you really believe in safety and safety technologies having a benefit in the real world, as an OEM you should not be doing that.
Which do you think is more important to consumers: a high Euro NCAP score or brand power?
Honestly, I think brand power is still the most important. We try to associate safety with a brand so they almost can’t develop a vehicle less than four or five stars. What is really challenging is that new budget brands, like Dacia, really don’t want to associate themselves with safety, then try to get away with lesser safety for a lower price. Renault, which makes the Dacia, have been giving us five stars since 1999, so it’s our job to make sure consumers still want the safety they’re used to.
Certainly for premium car manufacturers, brand power is still very important. But they’re not mutually exclusive. For us, brand power and Euro NCAP rating should go hand in hand.
Do you expect more OEMs to include advanced safety systems into their vehicles in the immediate future?
We started this year with autonomous emergency braking and lane departure warning systems and we discussed the development of these tests with OEMs and suppliers. We have seen a huge uptake and suppliers have said it’s been a revolution over the last two years with autonomous emergency braking, which is now on most vehicle development plans. It will at least be included as optional, which means OEMs have to design the car with the technology on board, almost for all segments of cars. I’m very positive we will see a lot of cars with a camera as standard, as it is nowadays in a mobile phone.
How important do you think these systems are?
We have made them a requirement for five stars, possibly for four stars in the future. For some advanced systems, we are still deciding what to think, but even for low speed city brake systems, we have very convincing evidence that the number of, let’s say whiplash claims, is significantly reduced if your car is equipped. If you go to the higher speed systems, these help in situations where people are inattentive, using their phone or not paying attention, and run into an accident with serious consequences.
How far do you think eCall will go in improving safety?
For the more developed markets like the UK, Sweden, The Netherlands, Germany, I don’t think eCall will add a lot. Our systems of emergency post crash support have already been well developed over the last 15 years. We have very quick response times.
eCall will be more beneficial in parts of Europe where there is no such system and certainly in rural areas, where drivers are by themselves at night and an accident happens.
Do you think more needs to be done to prevent accidents rather than managing them afterwards?
One of the reasons we don’t include eCall in Euro NCAP is that we certainly believe avoidance is a much more cost-effective way of dealing with the continued attempt towards achieving zero fatalities and serious injuries. Avoidance technology is getting constantly better.
Politicians now speak about autonomous driving being the next thing. The driver assistance systems we’re currently talking about will be key for the rollout of autonomous vehicles. Automated vehicles can only work if they are self monitoring, can look at the surroundings, communicate with other vehicles and sense the situation.
As vehicles become more hi-tech, will this be safer for drivers and pedestrians, or more distracting?
With the first phase, there is potential risk for distraction. It’s already on the political agenda in Europe and the US that, if cars are designed with more and more features, and they are not developed with safety in mind, distraction will be an issue. However, as the car moves towards taking over driving tasks – which isn’t far away – the risk of drivers being distracted won’t matter as much. HMI will become increasingly important and Euro NCAP will work on that with the industry in the coming years.
Do you think brought in technology is the main cause of driver distraction?
There are many forms of driver distraction, but the most overwhelming case is texting in vehicles. Distraction is never good, but it’s not as clear cut as texting cases. It’s much harder to say how many crashes have been caused by looking at a navigation system.
What do you think will be the main focus for Euro NCAP in the next ten years?
The majority of attention will go into further development and promotion of advanced avoidance technologies. There will be a parallel path of moving towards semi-automated driving cars, and then to highly automated cars, before fully automated cars. That will need to be supported by robust driver assistance systems, and we feel Euro NCAP can do a lot. We need to sort out the technical performance, and ensure OEMs are promoting the technology and making it available to the lower, cheaper segments.
