This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-370 
entitled 'Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New 
Car Assessment Program' which was released on April 29, 2005.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Committees:

April 2005:

Vehicle Safety:

Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-370]:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-05-370, a report to congressional committees.

Why GAO Did This Study:

In 2003, 42,643 people were killed and more than 2.8 million people 
were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Efforts to reduce fatalities on 
the nation’s roadways include the National Highway Transportation 
Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program. Under this 
program, NHTSA conducts vehicle crash and rollover tests to encourage 
manufacturers to make safety improvements to new vehicles and provide 
the public with information on the relative safety of vehicles. GAO 
examined (1) how NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program crash tests 
vehicles, rates their safety, and reports the results to the public; 
(2) how NHTSA’s program compares to other programs that crash test 
vehicles and report results to the public; and (3) the impact of the 
program and opportunities to enhance its effectiveness.

What GAO Found:

NHTSA conducts three types of tests in the New Car Assessment 
Program—full frontal and angled side crash tests and a rollover test. 
Each year, NHTSA tests new vehicles that are expected to have high 
sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have 
improved safety equipment. Based on test results, vehicles receive 
ratings from one to five stars, with five stars being the best, to 
indicate the vehicles’ relative crashworthiness and which are less 
likely to roll over. NHTSA makes ratings available to the public on the 
Internet and through a brochure. Other publications, such as Consumer 
Reports, use NHTSA’s test results in their safety assessments.

Examples of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program Tests

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure] 

GAO identified four other programs—the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety’s program and the New Car Assessment Programs in Australia, 
Europe, and Japan—that crash test vehicles and report the results to 
the public. They share the goals of encouraging manufacturers to 
improve vehicle safety and providing safety information to consumers. 
These programs conduct different types of frontal and side crash tests, 
and some perform other tests, such as pedestrian tests, that are not 
conducted under the U.S. program. Only the U.S. program conducts a 
rollover test. The other programs measure test results differently and 
include more potential injuries to occupants in ratings. They also 
reported their test results differently, with all summarizing at least 
some of the scores or combining them into an overall crashworthiness 
rating to make comparisons easier. 

NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program has been successful in encouraging 
manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing information to 
consumers. However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need 
to change to maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current 
tests has been eroded by the growing number of larger pickups, 
minivans, and sport utility vehicles in the vehicle fleet since the 
program began. In addition, NCAP scores have increased to the point 
where there is little difference in vehicle ratings. As a result, the 
program provides little incentive for manufacturers to further improve 
safety, and consumers can see few differences among new vehicles. 
Opportunities to enhance the program include developing approaches to 
better measure the interaction of large and small vehicles and occupant 
protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help prevent crashes, 
and using different injury measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA 
also has opportunities to enhance the presentation and timeliness of 
the information provided to consumers.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that NHTSA examine the direction of the New Car 
Assessment Program to ensure that it maintains its relevance in 
improving vehicle safety, including identifying tests that best address 
the fatalities occurring on the nation’s roads. GAO also recommends 
that NHTSA enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information 
provided to the public. NHTSA generally agreed with GAO’s findings.

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-370].

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact JayEtta Hecker at (202) 
512-2834 or [Hyperlink, heckerj@gao.gov].

[End of Section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the Results 
to the Public:

U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating, 
Reporting, and Government Involvement:

NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are Needed 
to Maintain Its Relevance:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings:

Appendix III: Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating:

Appendix IV: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

Appendix V: Australian New Car Assessment Program:

Appendix VI: European New Car Assessment Programme:

Appendix VII: Japan New Car Assessment Program:

Appendix VIII: Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs:

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted:

Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS):

Table 3: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star Ratings:

Table 4: Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test:

Table 5: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating:

Table 6: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria:

Table 7: Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System:

Table 8: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings:

Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star Ratings:

Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test:

Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs:

Figures:

Figure 1: Three Types of Tests--Frontal, Side, and Rollover--Conducted 
by NCAP:

Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP 
Tests:

Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP:

Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:

Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:

Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP:

Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious 
Injury to the Head and Chest:

Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious 
Injury to the Chest:

Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness:

Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of Rollover:

Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on 
NHTSA's Web Site:

Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a 
Passenger Vehicle as They Appear on NHTSA's Web Site:

Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing Programs:

Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test:

Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test:

Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs' Side Test (left) 
and the Insurance Institute Side Test (right):

Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier:

Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test:

Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test:

Figure 20: Child Restraint Test:

Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal 
Test and Driver in Side Test:

Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side 
NCAP Tests:

Figure 23: Frequency of Four-and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side 
Crash Tests in 2004:

Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of Different 
Type and Weight:

Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the Side of 
a Small Vehicle:

Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance Institute Test 
with the SUV-like Barrier:

Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle Structures:

Figure 28: Example of Australia's NCAP Safety Rating Information:

Figure 29: Example of Japan's NCAP Safety Rating Information:

Figure 30: Example of NHTSA's Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck with 
Bar Chart Showing How the Vehicle Performed within Its Class:

Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash Vehicles:

Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and 
Accelerometers:

Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC:

Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G:

Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for 
Frontal Crashes:

Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve:

Figure 37: Static Stability Factor of a Passenger Vehicle Compared with 
an SUV:

Figure 38: Programmable Steering Controller:

Figure 39: Diagram of the Dynamic Test, Showing Steering Parameters:

Figure 40: Sensors to Detect Wheel-lift:

Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover Ratings:

Figure 42: Guidelines for Rating Occupant Compartment Intrusion 
Measured in Centimeters:

Figure 43: Insurance Institute Rating of a Mid-size Passenger Car:

Figure 44: Insurance Institute Crash Ratings Provided to Public in its 
Status Report Publication:

Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size 
Passenger Car:

Figure 46: Australian NCAP July 2004 Crash Test Update Brochure:

Figure 47: European NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger Car:

Figure 48: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal 
Test, and Driver in Side Test:

Figure 49: Test Vehicle Undergoing Brake Tests Under Dry and Wet 
Conditions:

Figure 50: Pedestrian Head Impact Test and Target Area:

Figure 51: Japan NCAP Rating of a 2003 Mid-sized Passenger Car:

Figure 52: Example of Japan NCAP Detailed Full Frontal Data Available 
for a 2003 Test:

Figure 53: Key to Japan NCAP's Door Openability Ratings:

Figure 54: Key to Japan NCAP's Rescueability Ratings:

Abbreviations:

AAAM: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine:

ADAC: General German Automobile Association (Allegmeiner Deutscher 
Automobil-Club e V):

AIS: Abbreviated Injury Scale:

c.g.: center of gravity:

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations:

DOT: Department of Transportation:

ESC: Electronic Stability Control:

Euro NCAP: European New Car Assessment Programme:

HIC: Head Injury Criterion:

kg: kilogram:

km/h: kilometers per hour:

mm: millimeter:

mph: miles per hour:

NASVA: National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims' Aid:

NBC: National Broadcasting Company:

NCAP: New Car Assessment Program:

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

SID: side-impact dummy:

SUV: sport utility vehicle:

SSF: Static Stability Factor:

TREAD Act: Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation Act:

TSRE AB: Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB:

TTI: Thoracic Trauma Index

Letter:

April 29, 2005:

The Honorable Christopher Bond:
Chairman:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and 
Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban 
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent 
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:

Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the 
United States. Yet for all its advantages, deaths and injuries 
resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 
all persons from 3 through 33 years old. In 2003, 42,643 people were 
killed and more than 2.8 million people were injured in motor vehicle 
crashes. Frontal crashes caused the largest portion of occupant deaths 
(about 41 percent), followed by rollovers and side impact crashes (30 
percent and 22 percent, respectively). In addition to the loss of life, 
motor vehicle crashes have a high economic cost, which the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated at over $230 
billion in 2000, the most recent year for which cost estimates were 
available.[Footnote 1]

Efforts to reduce fatality rates in motor vehicle crashes have resulted 
in some improvement. The fatality rate per 100 million miles of travel 
in 2003 was at a historic low of 1.48, down from 1.75 per 100 million 
miles of travel in 1993. The Department of Transportation (DOT) 
attributes this change to several factors, including increased safety 
belt use, reduction of alcohol-related deaths, and vehicle safety 
programs, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the New 
Car Assessment Program (NCAP), both run by NHTSA. Under NCAP, which 
began in 1978, NHTSA conducts frontal and side crash tests and rollover 
tests of new cars, light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) 
and reports the results to the public. The specific goals of the 
program are to encourage market forces that prompt vehicle 
manufacturers to make safety improvements to new vehicles and provide 
the public with objective information on the relative safety 
performance of vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are regulations that establish 
minimum performance levels that manufacturers must self-certify to in 
order to sell vehicles in the United States. Under the safety 
standards, NHTSA requires vehicles to pass a number of performance 
tests to ensure that the minimum safety level is met. The NCAP frontal 
and side crash tests are based on two of the crash tests carried out 
under the safety standards. However, the NCAP tests are conducted at 5 
miles per hour faster so that the differentiation between vehicles 
becomes more apparent. When considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA 
generally follows the rulemaking process, which includes seeking 
informal comments on proposed changes before they become effective.

The Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the Department 
of Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 (S. 1589) 
directed us to conduct a study of the New Car Assessment Program. This 
report examines (1) how NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program tests 
vehicles, rates their safety, and reports the results to the public; 
(2) how NCAP compares to other programs that test vehicles and report 
results to the public; and (3) the impact NCAP has had and the 
opportunities that exist to enhance its effectiveness.

To understand NHTSA's basis for testing and rating vehicles, we 
reviewed laws, regulations, and program documentation. We also 
conducted interviews with NHTSA officials, crash test contractors, 
vehicle manufacturers, trade associations, public interest groups, and 
independent researchers. We observed various vehicle crash tests and 
documented how the results were converted into star ratings. To 
document how NHTSA reports the results to the public, we consulted 
NHTSA officials, the Internet, and other vehicle safety information 
sources, such as Consumer Reports. To compare NHTSA's program with 
other crash test and rating programs, domestic and foreign, we 
interviewed officials of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and 
the New Car Assessment Programs of Australia, Europe, and 
Japan.[Footnote 2] We also interviewed vehicle safety experts and 
officials of foreign government entities, foreign vehicle 
manufacturers, and foreign consumer magazines such as Which?. To 
identify the impact of NCAP and opportunities for improvement, we 
analyzed changes in NCAP scores over time and obtained views from 
experts in the auto and insurance industries, public interest groups, 
and academia. We determined that NCAP data were sufficiently reliable 
for the purposes of this report. In addition, we analyzed how other 
organizations tested vehicles, rated the crash tests, and reported 
their results to the public to identify practices from other programs 
that may have potential application to the U.S. program. We conducted 
our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

Under NCAP, NHTSA conducts three types of tests on vehicles--a full 
frontal crash test, a side crash test, and a rollover test, as shown in 
figure 1.[Footnote 3]

Figure 1: Three Types of Tests--Frontal, Side, and Rollover--Conducted 
by NCAP:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Each year, NHTSA tests a number of new vehicles that are predicted to 
have high sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, 
or have improved safety equipment. This practice is designed to ensure 
that NHTSA rates vehicles that consumers are buying. NHTSA develops 
five separate ratings based on the three tests and assigns one to five 
stars to indicate which vehicles are more crashworthy in frontal and 
side crashes and which vehicles are less likely to roll over. NCAP 
ratings, designed to help consumers decide which vehicle to purchase, 
are available to the public on the Internet and through the NHTSA 
Buying a Safer Car brochure. NCAP crash results are also incorporated 
in different vehicle safety ratings developed by others, such as 
Consumer Reports and The Car Book, both of which get more extensive 
distribution than direct NHTSA reporting.

We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report 
the results to the public--the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 
program and NCAP programs in Australia, Europe, and Japan. Like the 
U.S. NCAP, all these programs shared similar goals--providing relative 
safety information to consumers and encouraging manufacturers to 
improve vehicle safety. The three foreign NCAPs conduct different types 
of frontal and side crash tests and conduct pedestrian and child 
restraint systems tests that are not conducted under the U.S. program. 
The Insurance Institute also conducts different frontal and side crash 
tests than NHTSA's NCAP. Only the U.S. program conducts a rollover 
test. Each vehicle testing program also measures test results 
differently than the United States For example, in addition to the data 
provided by the crash test dummies in the vehicles, inspectors in other 
programs examine vehicles after crash tests to determine if there was 
intrusion into the passenger compartment or other abnormalities and 
adjust the test score accordingly. These other programs also report 
their testing results to the public in a different manner. While the 
U.S. NCAP reports results for each crash dummy by their seating 
locations in the crash test, all of the other programs summarize at 
least some of the scores or combined them into an overall 
crashworthiness rating in an effort to make it easier for the public to 
understand the results.

NCAP has contributed to making vehicles safer, but the program is at a 
crossroads where it will need to change in order to maintain its 
relevance. As shown in figure 2, vehicle safety as measured by NHTSA 
star ratings has improved since the program began.

Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP 
Tests:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each 
model year.

[End of figure]

The usefulness of the current tests has been eroded by changes in the 
vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program began. Today there 
are many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs than existed 27 years 
ago, and this has created new safety hazards from the incompatibility 
between large and small vehicles and rollover crashes, which are not 
fully addressed by current NCAP tests. In addition, because most 
vehicles now receive four-or five-star ratings, NCAP tests provide 
little incentive for automakers to continue to improve vehicle safety 
and little differentiation among vehicle ratings for consumers. Lastly, 
NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and side crash tests in the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will make current NCAP tests less 
meaningful. For example, NHTSA is increasing the speed of the frontal 
safety standards to the same speed as the NCAP test, eliminating the 
difference between the frontal NCAP and safety standard tests. 
Opportunities to enhance the program include developing approaches to 
better measure the effects of crashes between large and small vehicles 
and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help 
prevent crashes from occurring, and using different measures to rate 
the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the 
timeliness of the tests and the presentation of the information 
provided to consumers.

We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to 
ensure that NCAP maintains its relevance in improving vehicle safety 
and to enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information 
provided to the public. We received oral comments from NHTSA on a draft 
of this report. In general, NHTSA agreed with the report's findings. We 
are also making a version of this report available at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov], which includes video clips of crash tests that are 
conducted by NHTSA and others.

Background:

Motor vehicle crashes are complex events resulting from several 
factors, including driver behavior, the driving environment, and the 
vehicle.[Footnote 4] Vehicle design can affect safety through 
crashworthiness--that is, by providing occupants protection during a 
crash--and through crash avoidance--that is, by helping the driver to 
avoid a crash or recover from a driving error. Vehicle characteristics 
such as size, weight, and the type of restraint system affect 
crashworthiness because they play a large role in determining the 
likelihood and extent of occupant injury from a crash. Vehicle 
characteristics such as vehicle stability and braking performance are 
examples of crash avoidance features in that they aid the driver in 
preventing a crash from occurring.

The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was established in response to a 
requirement in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 
1972 to provide consumers with a measure of the relative 
crashworthiness of passenger vehicles.[Footnote 5] NCAP's goals are to 
improve occupant safety by providing market incentives for vehicle 
manufacturers to voluntarily design vehicles with improved 
crashworthiness and provide independent safety information to aid 
consumers in making comparative vehicle purchase decisions. NHTSA has 
pursued these goals by conducting frontal and side crash tests and a 
rollover test, assigning star ratings, and reporting the results to the 
public.[Footnote 6] In fiscal year 2004, NCAP conducted 85 crash tests 
and 36 rollover tests, with a budget of $7.7 million.[Footnote 7]

NHTSA also administers the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards.[Footnote 8] All motor vehicles sold in the United States for 
use on the nation's highways must meet minimum safety requirements as 
required by the standards. The standards prescribe a minimum 
performance level for crashworthiness that vehicles must meet in a 
number of different crash tests. Auto manufacturers self-certify that 
their vehicles meet these minimum standards. To test compliance with 
some of these standards, NHTSA conducts 30 miles per hour (mph) frontal 
impact tests and 33.5 mph side impact tests for belted 
occupants.[Footnote 9]

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards tests serve as a foundation 
for NCAP testing. The test protocols for NCAP's frontal and side crash 
tests are the same as the safety standards, except that the NCAP tests 
are conducted at 5 mph faster. NHTSA's policy, although not required by 
law, has been to make changes to the safety standards before 
considering changes to NCAP. When considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA 
generally follows the informal rulemaking process, which includes 
seeking comments on proposed changes.

NCAP provides consumers with information regarding the crashworthiness 
of new cars beyond the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards with which all vehicles sold in the United States must 
comply. There are no minimum performance levels for the NCAP tests. 
NHTSA tests as many vehicles as possible under NCAP to provide 
consumers with sufficient independent information to make vehicle 
comparisons. In contrast, NHTSA relies on auto manufacturers to self-
certify compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and 
only conducts a limited number of tests to ensure manufacturer 
compliance.[Footnote 10]

NHTSA conducted the first NCAP crash tests in 1978 on model year 1979 
vehicles, measuring only the crashworthiness of passenger cars in 
frontal crashes. Since then, there have been a number of vehicle tests 
added to NCAP, as shown in figure 3. For model year 1983, NHTSA 
expanded NCAP to include light trucks, vans, and SUVs. In 1996, NHTSA 
first began the side-impact NCAP test for model year 1997 vehicles. 
NHTSA expanded the side-impact NCAP test to include light trucks, vans, 
and SUVs for model year 1999. NHTSA began to rate vehicles for their 
rollover risk beginning with the 2001 model year. NHTSA initially rated 
the risk of vehicle rollover by measuring the top-heaviness of a 
vehicle and comparing this measurement to the top-heaviness of vehicles 
involved in single-vehicle crashes, as reflected in crash data. As 
required by the November 2000 Transportation, Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, NHTSA began dynamic 
rollover testing on model year 2004 vehicles to supplement the 
measurement of a vehicle's top-heaviness in determining a vehicle's 
rollover risk.[Footnote 11]

Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP:

[See PDF for image]

[A] Indicates vehicle model year.

[B] NHTSA has not always used the star rating system to communicate a 
vehicle's crashworthiness as measured by NCAP. Previously, NHTSA 
published the numerical injury scores indicating the likelihood of 
head, chest, and upper leg injuries to the vehicle occupants. NHTSA 
devised the star rating system after the Senate and Conference 
Appropriations Reports for fiscal year 1992 requested that NHTSA 
improve methods of informing consumers of the comparative safety of 
passenger vehicles as measured by NCAP.

[End of figure]

NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the Results 
to the Public:

NHTSA conducts three types of tests in NCAP: a full frontal crash test, 
an angled side crash test, and a rollover test.[Footnote 12] NCAP 
ratings, designed to aid consumers in deciding which vehicle to 
purchase, are available to the public on the Internet and through 
NHTSA's Buying a Safer Car brochure. NCAP crash results are also used 
in developing vehicle safety ratings by other organizations, such as 
Consumer Reports and The Car Book.

NCAP Conducts Three Tests--Full Frontal, Side, and Rollover:

Every year NHTSA tests new vehicles that are predicted to have high 
sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have 
improved safety equipment. NHTSA purchases vehicles--the base model 
with standard equipment--for frontal and side crash tests directly from 
dealerships across the country, just as the consumer would. The 
vehicles are provided to five contractors that conduct the crash tests. 
NCAP crash-test ratings only apply to belted occupants, as the crash 
test dummies used in NCAP tests are secured with the vehicle's safety 
belts. According to NHTSA officials, NCAP crash-test ratings are 
available on about 85 percent of the new vehicles sold because ratings 
for some models that have had no significant safety or structural 
changes are carried over from year to year. For the rollover tests, 
which are nondestructive, NHTSA leases new vehicles, which are tested 
at one contractor location. Rollover risk ratings are available for 
about 75 percent of new vehicles sold, according to NHTSA officials.

Full Frontal Crash Test:

The full frontal crash test is the equivalent of two identical 
vehicles, both traveling at 35 mph, crashing into each other head-
on.[Footnote 13] The test vehicle is attached to a cable and towed 
along a track at 35 mph so that the entire front end of the vehicle 
engages a fixed rigid barrier, as shown in figure 4. This type of crash 
test produces high level occupant deceleration, making this test 
demanding of the vehicle's restraint system.

Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of a full frontal crash test 
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 35 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/
media/video/d05370v1.mpg]:

Because the full frontal crash test is equivalent to two identical 
vehicles moving toward each other at 35 mph, the crash test results can 
only be compared to other vehicles in the same class and with a weight 
that is plus or minus 250 pounds of the test vehicle. The test 
protocols for the full frontal NCAP test are the same as the full 
frontal belted test in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, with 
the exception of the test speed--the NCAP test is conducted at 35 mph, 
5 mph faster than the standard test.[Footnote 14]

Angled Side Crash Test:

The angled side crash test simulates an intersection collision in which 
one moving vehicle strikes another moving vehicle.[Footnote 15] The 
test vehicle is positioned such that the driver's side forms a 63 
degree angle with the test track. On the other end of the test track is 
a chassis with a barrier also turned at a 63 degree angle.[Footnote 16] 
The barrier is made of a deformable material to replicate the front of 
another vehicle and is attached to a cable that tows it down a track 
into the test vehicle at 38.5 mph. Both the barrier face and the 
driver's side of the vehicle are parallel, so that the entire face of 
the barrier impacts the side of the vehicle, as shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of an angled side crash test 
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 38.5 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/
media/video/d05370v2.mpg]:

Because all vehicles are hit with the same force by the same moving 
barrier, test results can be compared across weight classes. The 
barrier used in this test weighs approximately 3,015 pounds, and the 
top of the deformable face is approximately 32 inches from the ground. 
The side NCAP test is similar to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards test, with the exception that the side NCAP test is conducted 
at 38.5 mph, or 5 mph faster than the safety standard test.[Footnote 17]

Rollover Test:

The dynamic rollover test simulates a driver making a high-speed 
collision avoidance maneuver--steering sharply in one direction, then 
sharply in the other direction--within about 1 second. NHTSA has 
focused its rollover test primarily on pickups and SUVs because cars 
are not susceptible to tipping up in this test. The rollover test is 
actually a series of four runs, two left/right tests and two right/left 
tests, at two different steering wheel angles and different speeds. 
Before the test, the vehicle is loaded to represent five passengers and 
a full tank of gas. During the test, the steering wheel is turned 
sharply in one direction at a high speed and then turned sharply in the 
opposite direction at a greater steering angle.[Footnote 18] The first 
run of each test is conducted at 35 mph. Subsequent runs are conducted 
at about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph and 50 mph, until the vehicle fails 
or "tips up" as defined by test procedures or attains a speed of 50 mph 
on the last run of each test without tipping up. Tipping up is defined 
as both wheels on one side of the vehicle lifting off the ground more 
than 2 inches simultaneously, which most commonly occurs during the 
second turn, as exhibited in figure 6. Outriggers are attached to the 
vehicle to prevent it from tipping all the way over and injuring the 
test driver.

Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of a dynamic rollover test 
conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 48 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/
media/video/d05370v3.mpg]:

NHTSA Rates Vehicles by Assigning Up to Five Stars to Communicate the 
Results of Its Tests:

NHTSA separately rates the frontal, side, and rollover tests. It 
assigns one (worst) to five (best) stars to communicate the results of 
the three tests to aid consumers in their vehicle purchase decisions. 
Each star in the frontal and side ratings corresponds to a diminishing 
probability of a potentially life-threatening injury, whereas each star 
in the rollover rating corresponds to a reduced likelihood of vehicle 
rollover. The rollover rating does not represent the chance of a 
potentially life-threatening injury should a rollover crash occur.

Frontal and Side Crashworthiness Ratings:

Frontal and side star ratings represent the chances of a person wearing 
a safety belt incurring an injury serious enough to require immediate 
hospitalization or to be life threatening in the event of a crash. 
Frontal star ratings indicate the combined chance of a serious head and 
chest injury[Footnote 19] to the driver and right front seat passenger, 
as shown in figure 7.

Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious 
Injury to the Head and Chest:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Side star ratings indicate the chance of a serious chest injury to the 
driver and the rear seat driver's side passenger, as shown in figure 
8.[Footnote 20] NHTSA reports two separate star ratings for the frontal 
and side crash test, according to the occupant position.

Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious 
Injury to the Chest:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In the side and frontal test, NHTSA uses crash test dummies that 
represent an average-sized adult male. Each dummy is secured with the 
vehicle's safety belts prior to the crash test.[Footnote 21] The 
dummies are affixed with instruments that measure the force of impact 
experienced in different parts of the body during the crash. While only 
forces to the head and chest are used to calculate the frontal star 
ratings, impacts to each dummy's neck, pelvis, legs, and feet are also 
measured.[Footnote 22] For the frontal rating, NHTSA calculates the 
chance of serious injury to the head and chest by linking measured 
forces on the dummies' heads and chests during the crash test to 
information about human injury.[Footnote 23] For the side rating, NHTSA 
calculates the chance of serious injury to the chest by linking 
measured forces on the dummies' ribs and lower spine during the crash 
test and information about human injury. Forces to the head and pelvis 
are also measured but are not included in side star ratings.

Rollover Rating:

NHTSA's rollover star ratings represent the propensity of a vehicle to 
roll over but do not address the probability of a severe injury in a 
rollover crash. Knowing a vehicle's propensity to roll is important 
because rollovers are the most deadly crashes. While totaling just over 
2 percent of police reported crashes, rollovers account for almost one-
third of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. The crash avoidance 
rollover rating is based primarily on the measure of a vehicle's top-
heaviness, as shown in figure 9, and, to a lesser extent, the results 
of the dynamic test.[Footnote 24]

Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness:

[See PDF for image]

[A] The Static Stability Factor (SSF) is a vehicle's track width 
divided by two times its center of gravity height.

[End of figure]

NHTSA uses the measure of a vehicle's top-heaviness to predict the 
likelihood of a vehicle rolling over under the circumstances that occur 
most often--when a vehicle leaves the roadway and the vehicle's wheels 
hit a curb, soft shoulder, or other roadway object, causing it to roll 
over. These "tripped" rollovers account for about 95 percent of all 
rollover crashes. NHTSA's dynamic rollover test does not correspond to 
these types of rollovers because it does not involve the vehicle 
hitting a tripping mechanism, such as a curb or soft shoulder. As such, 
NHTSA's dynamic rollover test does not affect the star rating 
significantly, resulting in no more than a half-star difference in a 
vehicle's rollover rating. NHTSA primarily selects top-heavy vehicles, 
such as light trucks, small vans, and SUVs for the rollover 
test.[Footnote 25] NHTSA assigns one to five stars to reflect the 
chance of rollover, as shown in figure 10.[Footnote 26]

Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of Rollover:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

NHTSA Reports the Results to the Public Through the Internet and the 
Buying a Safer Car Brochure:

NHTSA distributes NCAP safety ratings and information about a vehicle's 
safety features through its Web site, press releases, and the Buying a 
Safer Car brochure. NHTSA primarily relies on the Web site to educate 
consumers about vehicle safety; in 2004 there were about 4.3 million 
visits to the NCAP Web site. The Web site was last redesigned in August 
2004 and provides information about crash test ratings from model year 
1990 to the present.[Footnote 27] To view a vehicle's ratings, users 
can search using parameters such as vehicle class, year, make, and 
model. Once a vehicle class and year are selected, the list of vehicles 
comes up with the star rating information, as shown in figure 11.

Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on 
NHTSA's Web Site:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Users can get more detailed information about the vehicle's star rating 
by selecting a specific vehicle, as shown in figure 12.

Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a 
Passenger Vehicle as They Appear on NHTSA's Web Site:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In addition to the Web site, NCAP's star ratings and a list of 
vehicles' safety features are available in the Buying a Safer Car 
brochure. The American Automobile Association primarily distributes the 
brochure, and it is also available at NHTSA's regional offices, state 
highway safety offices, and libraries. For vehicle model year 2004, 
NHTSA published 25,000 copies of the Buying a Safer Car brochure. For 
vehicle model year 2005, NHTSA published a first printing of the 
brochure in December 2004. In addition, it plans to print a second 
brochure in spring 2005. While the 2004 edition does not have all the 
test results for model year 2005, it has a large number of carryover 
vehicles from model year 2004 plus some early 2005 tests.

Other sources of vehicle safety information that use data from NCAP 
crash tests include Consumer Reports and The Car Book. Consumer Reports 
takes into consideration a vehicle's performance in NHTSA NCAP tests 
and tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(Insurance Institute) to determine an overall crash-protection rating. 
Instead of printing stars, Consumer Reports uses a circle rating 
scheme. Consumer Reports publishes this crash-protection rating, as 
well as individual NHTSA and Insurance Institute front and side crash 
test results, in its monthly magazine, in all of its newsstand-only new-
car publications, and on its Web site. Consumer Reports magazine has 
about 4 million subscribers, but representatives told us they inform in 
excess of 13.5 million people monthly as a result of pass-along 
readership. The Web site has an additional 1.8 million 
subscribers.[Footnote 28]

Published annually, The Car Book provides consumers with a broad range 
of information about new vehicles, listed alphabetically by model. 
Information such as fuel economy, repair costs, and front and side 
crash tests are included in the book. The Car Book takes the NCAP raw 
test results and converts them into a numerical rating scheme, 10 being 
best and 1 being worst. In addition to the information by vehicle 
model, The Car Book also presents detailed safety information based on 
the safety features of each car and the government's rollover ratings. 
Since first being published privately for the 1983 vehicle model year, 
The Car Book has sold over 1.5 million copies.[Footnote 29]

U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating, 
Reporting, and Government Involvement:

We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report 
the results to the public--the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(Insurance Institute) program in the United States and NCAP programs in 
Australia, Europe, and Japan.[Footnote 30] All of the programs shared 
the U.S. NCAP goals of providing manufacturers with an incentive to 
produce safer vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety 
information on the vehicles they plan to purchase. We found differences 
in the types of tests conducted, how the crash tests were evaluated, 
and how the test results were shared with the public. In addition, we 
found that each program had varied levels of government and industry 
involvement.

Vehicle Testing Programs Conduct Different Tests:

Each of the organizations we examined conducts a variety of frontal, 
side, and other tests designed to measure various elements of vehicle 
safety. Figure 13 shows the tests performed across the U.S. NCAP and 
other four programs. (See appendixes II through VIII for additional 
discussion on each program and the tests conducted.)

Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing Programs:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

AThe Insurance Institute conducts a perpendicular side-impact crash 
test with a SUV-like barrier.

Frontal Crash Tests:

The five programs we examined use two crash tests to represent frontal 
crashes--full frontal and offset crash tests. The U.S. and Japan NCAPs 
conduct full frontal tests, which involve crashing the test vehicle's 
entire front end into a solid barrier. The offset frontal test involves 
crashing the test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 kilometers per hour-
-km/h) into a deformable barrier with about 40 percent of the vehicle's 
overall width on the driver's side actually impacting the barrier, as 
shown in figure 14. All programs, except the U.S. NCAP, conduct the 
offset frontal test.

Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test:

[See PDF for image]

Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether 
it is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the 
driver is on the right side of the vehicle.

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of an offset frontal crash 
test conducted by Australia NCAP at 40 mph: [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v4.mpg]:

The full frontal and offset frontal tests measure different 
characteristics of vehicle crashworthiness. The full frontal test 
focuses on measuring the ability of the vehicles' restraint systems to 
protect the occupants. The offset frontal test assesses a vehicle's 
structural integrity and its ability to manage the crash energy 
generated from a crash entirely on one side of the vehicle. Officials 
from the programs using the offset test told us they believe it is more 
representative of real world crashes because most frontal crashes 
involve vehicles hitting only a portion of their front ends.

Side Crash Tests:

Three types of side-impact tests are conducted among the programs we 
examined--the angled side test, the perpendicular side test, and the 
pole side test. Only the U.S. NCAP performs the angled side 
test.[Footnote 31] All of the other testing programs conduct a 
perpendicular side tests. This test involves crashing a moving 
deformable barrier traveling at about 31 mph (50 km/h) into a 
stationary vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the driver's 
seating position. Figure 15 illustrates how the perpendicular test is 
performed.

Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test:

[See PDF for image]

Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether 
it is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the 
driver is on the right side of the vehicle.

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of a perpendicular side 
impact crash test conducted by Euro NCAP at 31 mph: [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v5.mpg]:

Other differences between the side tests were the height, shape, and 
weight of the barriers and the crash dummies used. For example, the 
U.S. NCAP and the three foreign programs performed their side tests 
using a moving deformable barrier with a front end simulating a 
passenger car, while the Insurance Institute's barrier simulates the 
front end of a typical pickup truck or SUV. In addition, the Insurance 
Institute barrier weighs about 3,300 pounds (1,500 kilograms--kg) 
compared to 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S. barrier and 2,095 
pounds (950 kg) for the Australian, European, and Japanese barriers. 
Also, the Australia, Europe, Japan, and U.S. side tests used 50TH 
percentile adult male dummies and the Insurance Institute used 
5THpercentile adult female dummies.[Footnote 32]

Insurance Institute officials told us they found that in serious real-
world side-impact collisions, occupants' heads are often struck by 
intruding vehicles, especially in the side collisions involving pickup 
trucks or SUVs with high front hoods. As a result, in 2003 when they 
began their side impact test, they developed the barrier to simulate 
these types of vehicles, while using dummies that represented smaller 
occupants. They said that the test challenges the automobile industry 
to provide additional occupant protection specifically for the head 
region. Figure 16 shows the difference in the size and height of the 
barriers, while figure 17 shows the crash test.

Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs' Side Test (left) 
and the Insurance Institute Side Test (right):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of a side-impact crash test 
with an SUV-like barrier conducted by the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety at 31 mph: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/media/video/
d05370v6.mpg]:

The Australia NCAP and European NCAP (Euro NCAP) also include optional 
pole side tests. The pole side test involves a side impact to a vehicle 
placed on a platform and propelled at about 29 km/h (about 18 mph) into 
a stationary cylindrical pole. The pole test is an optional extra test, 
available at the manufacturer's cost. This option is only available if 
a vehicle has head-protecting side air bags and receives the highest 
score in the side-impact test. If the vehicle performs well in the pole 
test, the vehicle can receive a higher overall score. Officials in 
Europe said this test is important, for example, because in Germany 
over half of the serious to fatal highway injuries occur when a vehicle 
crashes into a pole or a tree. The test is designed to encourage auto 
manufacturers to equip vehicles with head protection devices. Officials 
in Australia stated they are considering replacing the perpendicular 
side test with a pole side test to better test the increasing number of 
SUVs on their roadways. They said that SUVs are higher off the ground 
and heavier than most passenger cars. As a result, SUVs would always 
score higher under the current side-impact test because the barrier 
often impacts below the hip point on the dummy and would register 
little injury data. The pole test will impact all vehicles, including 
SUVs, the same way regardless of height and weight. NHTSA officials 
told us that while they have no plans at this time to include this test 
in NCAP, they plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once the 
pole test requirements for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
are resolved and finalized.[Footnote 33] Figure 18 illustrates how the 
pole test is performed.

Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test:

[See PDF for image]

Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether 
it is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the 
driver is on the left side of the vehicle.

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of a side pole crash test 
conducted by Euro NCAP at about 18mph: [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v7.mpg]:

Other Safety Tests:

In addition to the frontal and side crash tests, other safety tests are 
conducted in the various programs. These include vehicle rollover, 
pedestrian protection, and child restraint tests. The U.S. NCAP is the 
only program to conduct a vehicle rollover test.[Footnote 34] Officials 
of the other NCAPs told us they do not conduct this test because 
rollover has not been a major problem in their countries due to their 
smaller-sized vehicle fleet. However, Australian NCAP officials told us 
they have noted a growth in the size of their vehicle fleets, and they 
will be evaluating the usefulness of adding a rollover test to their 
programs.

The NCAPs in Australia, Europe, and Japan also conduct pedestrian 
tests, which are used to assess the risk to pedestrians if struck by 
the front of a car. The pedestrian test involves projecting adult and 
child-sized dummy parts (such as heads) at specified areas of the front 
of a vehicle to replicate a car-to-pedestrian collision. Officials in 
these programs said they included this test because pedestrian 
fatalities in some of their countries were quite high. For example, in 
2003 pedestrians accounted for nearly 30 percent of the annual traffic 
fatalities in Japan, 20 percent in Europe (nearly 30 percent in the 
United Kingdom alone), and 14 percent in Australia. In contrast, in the 
United States, approximately 5,000 pedestrians were killed in motor 
vehicle crashes in 2003, accounting for 13 percent of the annual 
traffic fatalities. Figure 19 illustrates how the pedestrian protection 
test is performed.

Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of a pedestrian test, where a 
head form is propelled into a vehicle hood, conducted by Euro NCAP: 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v8.mpg]:

The NCAPs in Europe and Japan also conduct child restraint tests to 
evaluate child protection, although these tests are not directly 
related to crashworthiness. In Europe, two different child-size dummies 
are placed in child seats of the auto manufacturer's choice during the 
frontal and side crash tests, as shown in figure 20. In Japan, two 
child-size dummies are placed in child seats installed in the rear 
passenger seats of a test vehicle that has been stripped down to its 
body frame. The test vehicle is placed on a sled and subjected to a 
shock identical to the test speed used in the full frontal crash test. 
Japan NCAP also separately assesses the ease of correctly using child 
seats. NHTSA officials told us that the U.S. NCAP is conducting a pilot 
test to determine whether or not the addition of child safety seats 
into the frontal NCAP would provide meaningful consumer information. 
NHTSA also provides ratings on child safety seat ease of use.

Figure 20: Child Restraint Test:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Vehicle Testing Programs Rate Safety Differently:

Each vehicle testing organization used crash dummy readings as a 
principal part of its rating process.[Footnote 35] However, we found 
some differences in other aspects of the organizations' rating 
processes. For example, all programs except NHTSA supplement the dummy 
measures with inspector observations or measurements of the post-crash 
vehicles. In addition, in Europe and Australia, rating scores can be 
modified depending on the existence or absence of certain safety 
features. Further, each program except the Insurance Institute uses 
stars to convey the test results, and some programs combine individual 
ratings into summary ratings in an effort to make it easier for the 
public to understand crash test results.

Organizations Use Different Body Region Measurements and Types of 
Dummies to Develop Ratings:

The four organizations we reviewed used more dummy measures in 
calculating a vehicle's safety rating than U.S. NCAP. The U.S. NCAP 
uses head and chest crash dummy readings in frontal crashes and chest 
and lower spine readings for side crashes, then converts them to a 
probability for serious injury, which in turn is converted into a star 
rating.[Footnote 36] NHTSA officials said they use these measures 
because they are the most important indicators of serious or fatal 
injury in frontal and side crashes.[Footnote 37] In addition to the 
U.S. NCAP measures, the Insurance Institute uses measurements of the 
neck, left leg and foot, and right leg and foot for its frontal crash 
analysis and measurements of the head, neck, pelvis, and left leg for 
its side crash analysis. Australia and Euro NCAP use the neck, knee, 
femur, pelvis, and leg and foot for frontal tests and head, abdomen, 
and pelvis for side tests. Japan uses neck, femur, and tibia 
measurements for its frontal crash analysis and head, abdomen, and 
pelvis measurements for its side crash analysis. The other 
organizations use some of these additional measures to capture what in 
some cases may not necessarily be life-threatening injuries, such as 
those to the victim's legs. As discussed earlier, the U.S. NCAP 
measures the impact of crashes on many of the same body regions but 
does not use them to calculate safety ratings.

In addition to differences in the body areas being measured, some 
programs use different dummies in their side-impact tests. For the 
frontal tests, the U.S. NCAP and other organizations use dummies that 
represent an average-size adult male who is 5 feet 9 inches tall and 
weighs about 170 pounds. While this size dummy is used by most programs 
for the side-impact tests, there are differences in the dummy types and 
the instrumentation it contains.[Footnote 38] In addition, in its side-
impact tests, the Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy 
(about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds). Insurance Institute 
officials said they chose this dummy because there is evidence that 
females are more at risk in side collisions. It hopes this test will 
encourage manufacturers to install side curtain air bags that are 
designed to extend low enough to protect smaller passengers. Although 
NHTSA's proposed changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
would add a side-impact pole test using the average-size male and the 
smaller female dummies, NHTSA officials said that at this time they 
have no plans to alter the sizes or types of crash dummies they use but 
plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once the pole test 
requirements for the safety standards are resolved and finalized.

Using Inspector Observations to Supplement Dummy Results:

Another distinction between the U.S. program and other programs is the 
use of observations to modify test results. All programs except the 
U.S. NCAP observe or measure changes to various parts of the occupant 
compartment after the frontal crash test to identify potential safety 
concerns. For example, the Euro NCAP measures the intrusion of the 
steering column and lower leg area into the occupant compartment. Euro 
NCAP officials noted that while an intrusion may not have affected the 
dummy in the test, the potential for serious injury to vehicle 
occupants in real-world crashes causes them to lower the safety rating. 
Japan's NCAP also measures intrusion into the passenger compartment, 
but rather than relying on observation, Japan has established fixed 
measures that if exceeded will result in a lower score in a particular 
area.

The U.S. NCAP does not use observations to modify test scores. 
According to a NHTSA official, these observations add subjectivity to 
the rating assessments and are not based on criteria that can be 
repeated and substantiated. Many of the automobile manufacturers we 
contacted stated that using observations adds a subjective element to 
the test that is difficult for them to replicate. Additionally, some 
pointed out that in some cases different inspectors could reach 
different conclusions.

Using a Modifier System to Adjust Scores:

Another basic difference in scoring vehicles is the use of a modifier 
system in Europe and Australia. This system adjusts the score generated 
from the dummy injury data where injuries to occupants can be expected 
to be worse than indicated by the dummy readings or the vehicle 
deformation data alone. For example, a frontal test modifier might 
result in points being deducted if the dummy's head hit the steering 
wheel in a vehicle without an air bag.

The system in Europe and Australia also adjusts points based on the 
existence or absence of various safety features on the test vehicles. 
For example, a test vehicle can get extra points if it has a safety 
belt reminder system that meets their NCAP specifications. Officials 
said they use this approach to encourage manufactures to install new 
safety features sooner than might otherwise occur.

Officials from several organizations and automobile manufacturers 
operating under the Europe and Australia programs expressed concerns 
that some of the modifiers might not have a direct impact on occupant 
safety and could artificially increase scores. They noted, for example, 
that in some countries safety belt usage exceeds 90 percent and that 
giving extra points for a feature to encourage safety belt use may not 
really add to safety. In addition, some automobile manufacturers 
identified concerns with how items included in the modifier system are 
developed and measured. They said that in some cases they have received 
just 6 months notice of changes. They said that such changes can be 
expensive and that they need to be notified sooner, so they have time 
to make changes to comply with new measures.

Use of Stars as a Measure of Safety:

Except for the Insurance Institute, all programs used stars to convey 
test results. Officials from the NCAPs noted that star ratings are well 
understood by the public. For example, NHTSA officials said they used 
focus groups in 1993 to examine various options to communicate crash 
test results to the public, and the five-star rating was found 
preferable. In addition, officials in the other programs told us they 
followed the U.S. NCAP's use of star ratings. None of the programs has 
plans to change its rating measures.

There have been some concerns expressed about the use of stars. For 
example, a 1996 study by the National Academy of Sciences noted that 
stars are inherently positive symbols and the public may not understand 
the distinctions between the different levels of stars.[Footnote 39] In 
addition, officials of a consumer group noted that most people would 
associate the star rating with hotels and that staying in a three-star 
hotel would be quite acceptable to most people. In discussing its use 
of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor, the Insurance Institute said 
it considered these types of qualitative measures as being clearer to 
the general public.

Developing Summary Ratings:

Australia, Europe, and Japan NCAPs provide summary ratings, while the 
U.S. NCAP provides only individual ratings for each seating position 
that is included in the test for the frontal and side crash tests. For 
example, Australia and Euro NCAPs provide overall ratings that combine 
the frontal and side crash tests. Japan's NCAP combines frontal and 
side crash tests to provide overall ratings for the driver and 
passenger of a vehicle. Australian and European officials explained 
that they believed potential vehicle purchasers can be confused by the 
large amount of detail available on the test results and that 
summarizing results makes the ratings more useful. They noted they make 
the actual injury readings available for those interested in that level 
of detail. In addition, while the Insurance Institute does not combine 
individual ratings, it does identify "Best Pick-Frontal" and "Best 
Pick-Side" to assist consumers. Similarly, officials with 
publications like Consumer Reports and The Car Book told us they have 
found it helpful to provide consumers with summarized rating 
information. NHTSA officials noted that overall or summary ratings 
might hide or mask deficiencies in some areas of the tests. For 
example, they said that if a vehicle were to get a very high frontal 
rating and a very low side rating, merging the results could give 
consumers a misleading impression of the overall safety of that vehicle.

Programs Used a Variety Approaches to Inform Consumers of Safety 
Results:

The crash testing programs we examined used a variety of approaches to 
share safety results with the public. Across all the programs, the 
Internet was the most relied-upon source for getting information to 
consumers, with each organization providing details of its test 
results. Safety pamphlets were used by all programs to supplement the 
safety information presented on their Web sites. Some programs also 
work with the news media to increase awareness of test results.

Internet Used to Convey Results:

Each organization made the results of its testing program available to 
the public on the Internet. In general, the public can access the 
results of individual tests, including the actual numeric dummy 
readings. To help the public understand these results, each Web site 
uses charts, tables, and graphics. For example, in addition to 
providing star ratings, the Euro NCAP also uses color-coded dummy 
injury diagrams to display how the specific body regions perform in the 
frontal, side, pole, and pedestrian tests. The color-coded indicators 
are: Good (Green), Adequate (Yellow), Marginal (Orange), Weak (Red), 
and Poor (Brown). The color used is based on the points awarded for 
that body region, as shown in figure 21.

Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal 
Test and Driver in Side Test:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Publications Used to Share Test Results:

Each testing organization publishes the results of its testing 
programs. The U.S. NCAP publishes the Buying a Safer Car booklet, which 
provides new and carryover crash test ratings. The Insurance Institute 
publishes a Status Report newsletter about 10 times a year, which 
contains new crash test ratings as well as other highway safety 
information. It can be obtained in hard copy through subscription, as 
well as downloaded from the Insurance Institute's Web site. Australia 
publishes a Crash Test Update brochure twice a year, which provides new 
crash test results. According to Euro NCAP officials, Euro NCAP divides 
its tests into two test phases and releases the results twice a year--
in November and June. The results are also published by What Car? (a 
British car magazine), Which? Car (a magazine owned and produced by 
British consumer associations), and the General German Automobile 
Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer magazines in Europe also 
provide crash test information. Lastly, Japan annually publishes the 
Choosing a Safer Car booklet, which provides new and carryover crash 
test results. The Japan NCAP also publishes summary brochures of test 
results.

Working with the News Media to Share Test Results:

Like the U.S. NCAP, the Insurance Institute and the Australia and Euro 
NCAPs worked with the news media to inform consumers about the results 
of the vehicle safety tests. For example, each program issued press 
releases to convey the results of safety research and crash tests. In 
addition, the Insurance Institute has worked with television 
broadcasts, such as the prime time news magazine program Dateline NBC, 
to raise the public's awareness of how vehicles perform in the 
program's crash tests. Insurance Institute officials grant interviews 
explaining the results of the tests and use broadcast-quality film and 
lighting to record the crash tests and make them available for 
television broadcasts. According to Japan NCAP officials, they work 
with television shows to help produce news segments that highlight 
changes in test procedures and recent test results. Further, according 
to Euro NCAP officials, in addition to other activities, Europe 
promotes consumer education by using crashed vehicles as public 
displays in prominent places in Europe during press conferences. The 
events are designed to attract news media and public attention in an 
attempt to increase public interest in and knowledge about car safety.

Government and Industry Involvement Varies among the Crash Testing 
Programs:

The level of government and industry involvement varies among the crash 
test programs. For example, the U.S. NCAP, which is operated and funded 
solely by the U.S. DOT, has traditionally based its U.S. NCAP on the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as a matter of agency policy and 
follows an informal rulemaking process where industry and other 
interested parties can submit comments once NHTSA issues a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. The Insurance Institute, which is funded by 
private insurance companies, has no such process and can make an 
internal decision to modify tests at any time. For example, according 
to Insurance Institute officials, when they began their side-impact 
tests, they developed a crash test barrier to represent the risk of 
severe head injuries in side impacts by SUVs and pickups. The Insurance 
Institute officials said they did not involve automobile manufacturers 
in the decision-making process but informed them as well as NHTSA 
before implementing the change.

The Australian NCAP was developed and is dominated mainly by private 
motor clubs but includes government transportation departments in six 
Australian states and territories, the New Zealand government, and 
consumer groups. The national Australian government sets minimum safety 
standards for vehicles but is not involved in funding or managing NCAP. 
Similarly, the Euro NCAP is sponsored by the governments of Great 
Britain, Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, as well as a 
number of motor clubs and consumer organizations. According to Euro 
NCAP officials, each sponsoring member agrees to perform or sponsor a 
number of crash tests and participates in making the decisions related 
to the program. In Australia and Europe, NCAP officials told us that by 
not being exclusively controlled by government, they have flexibility 
when modifying their programs. They said that as a result they can make 
changes quicker because they do not have to follow governmental 
procedures.

According to NCAP officials, the decision processes for Australia and 
Europe involve the use of committees and working groups to examine 
issues and make recommendations for change. The automobile industry and 
public safety organizations may be involved in providing research or 
opinions, but the committees are free to make decisions they believe 
are appropriate. When these committees make recommendations, the full 
governing body votes to accept or reject the changes. The government 
partners have a vote in the process but cannot veto the result. In 
Australia, according to NCAP and government officials, automobile 
manufacturers were initially reluctant to engage in meaningful dialogue 
with the officials of the Australia NCAP. However, more recently, 
Australia NCAP officials have consulted with manufacturers prior to 
making changes in the program and have received positive responses. On 
the other hand, the Euro NCAP allows industry representatives to 
participate in the discussions of the subgroups of its two technical 
working groups--primary safety and secondary safety.[Footnote 40] Also, 
the technical working groups and automobile manufacturers engage in 
direct dialogue in industry liaison meetings.

According to NCAP officials, Japan's NCAP is funded by the government 
but administered by an independent, government-appointed committee. The 
committee includes members who are experts from automobile research 
institutes, academics, journalists, and representatives of the Japanese 
automobile industry and the automobile importers association. This 
government/industry committee manages the program and must approve 
changes submitted by program officials. The committee reaches its 
decisions through consensus. Although the government ministry that 
oversees the program may override the committee's decisions, this has 
never occurred.

NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are Needed 
to Maintain Its Relevance:

NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to produce safer 
vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information. 
However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to change to 
maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has been 
eroded by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the 
program began. Today there are many more large pickups, minivans, and 
SUVs than existed 27 years ago and new safety hazards have resulted 
from the incompatibility between large and small vehicles and rollover 
crashes, which are not fully addressed by current NCAP tests. In 
addition, because most vehicles now receive four-or five-star ratings, 
the NCAP tests provide little incentive for automakers to continue to 
improve vehicle safety and little differentiation among vehicle ratings 
for consumers. Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and side crash 
tests in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will make 
current NCAP tests less meaningful. Opportunities to enhance the 
program include developing approaches to better measure the effects of 
crashes between large and small vehicles and occupant protection in 
rollovers, rating technologies that help prevent crashes from 
occurring, and using different measures to rate the crash results. 
NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the presentation and timeliness 
of information provided to consumers.

NCAP Has Encouraged Improvement in Vehicle Safety and Provided the 
Public with Vehicle Safety Information:

NCAP testing has contributed to more crashworthy passenger vehicles and 
NHTSA has informed the public of test results. As shown in figure 22, 
there has been a substantial increase in the average star rating of 
vehicles since testing began. In 2004, tested vehicles averaged about 
4.6 stars for the driver in frontal crash tests, about 4.4 stars for 
the passenger in frontal crash tests, about 4.4 stars for the driver in 
side crash tests, and about 4.3 stars for the rear passenger in side 
crash tests.

Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side 
NCAP Tests:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each 
model year.

[End of figure]

The improved ratings indicate that manufacturers have taken NCAP 
seriously and designed and built vehicles that do well on NCAP tests. 
Automakers told us that vehicle safety and NCAP test results have 
become an important marketing tool. As a result, many auto 
manufacturers advertise five-star ratings in government crash tests in 
their television, radio, and print ads.

NHTSA has informed the public of the NCAP test results through its Web 
site and by publishing a safety brochure. In addition, according to 
NHTSA officials, the NCAP Web site has been redesigned in an effort to 
make it more user-friendly. More importantly, NCAP crash test results 
are used by popular publications that influence large segments of the 
car-buying public. Both Consumer Reports and The Car Book use NCAP test 
results as part of their vehicle safety ratings.

Without Change, NCAP's Relevance Will Likely Diminish:

While NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to make 
safer vehicles, it will need to change to remain relevant. There have 
been significant changes in the makeup of the nation's vehicle fleet, a 
growing similarity of crash test ratings, and upgrades in the safety 
standard tests for frontal and side crashworthiness. Without addressing 
these changes, NCAP provides little incentive to manufacturers to 
continue to improve safety and may provide consumers with only limited 
comparative information on vehicle safety.

Since NHTSA began NCAP testing in 1979, there have been dramatic 
changes in the vehicle fleet. Vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and 
SUVs have transformed the fleet once dominated by passenger cars. There 
are now more than 85 million pickups, minivans, and SUVs on the road, 
representing about 37 percent of the vehicle fleet. The change in 
vehicle fleet presents new safety challenges that NCAP's testing does 
not fully address--vehicle incompatibility and rollover. The issue of 
incompatibility emerges when a large vehicle such as a pickup, minivan, 
or SUV crashes into a smaller, lighter vehicle because the larger 
vehicle can inflict serious damage that is particularly dangerous to 
the occupants of the smaller vehicle. The current NCAP frontal and side 
tests do not account for vehicles of different size, weight, and 
geometry crashing into one another. Significant differences in ratings 
can result when tests are designed to address these vehicle 
differences, as evidenced by comparing the Insurance Institute side 
test results with NCAP results. The Insurance Institute, which uses a 
higher SUV-like barrier, gave 27 vehicles its lowest rating (Poor) in 
side-impact tests, primarily because there were no side air bags in the 
vehicle. NHTSA, which uses a low barrier and, unlike the Insurance 
Institute, does not include head measures in its star calculations, 
gave 21 of these same 27 vehicles (77 percent) four-or five-star safety 
ratings. Also, with the increase in pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the 
nation's fleet, vehicle rollover has become a more important issue; in 
2003, rollovers accounted for over 10,000 fatalities, or more than 30 
percent of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. However, the NCAP 
rollover test only measures the likelihood that a vehicle will roll 
over and does not assess the safety afforded to occupants should a 
rollover occur.

NCAP frontal and side crash test results have improved to a point where 
there is little difference among most vehicles' ratings. In 2004, 
NHTSA: provided the public with NCAP rating information for 234 
vehicles.[Footnote 41] Most of these vehicle ratings were four or five 
stars for drivers and passengers in frontal and side crash tests, as 
shown in figure 23.

Figure 23: Frequency of Four-and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side 
Crash Tests in 2004:

[See PDF for image]

Note: For the driver and front passenger in the frontal test, star 
ratings were available for 234 vehicles in 2004. For the driver in the 
side test, star ratings were available for 210 vehicles in 2004. For 
the rear passenger driver's side, in the side test, star ratings were 
available for 186 vehicles in 2004.

[End of figure]

The vehicles crash tested more recently have done even better. Of the 
49 frontal and 18 side crash tests conducted in 2004, over 95 percent 
received a four-or five-star rating. As a result, NCAP's ability to 
challenge auto manufacturers to continue improving vehicle safety has 
eroded. Also, with almost all scores being about the same, consumers do 
not have comparative safety information that differentiates 
significantly among vehicles.

Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading the frontal and side tests under the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which make current NCAP testing less 
meaningful.[Footnote 42] For frontal tests, safety standards will 
require that for vehicles built after September 1, 2007, manufacturers 
must certify the crashworthiness of their vehicles at 35 mph (instead 
of the current 30 mph).[Footnote 43] This change will eliminate the 
speed difference between the frontal NCAP and the frontal belted safety 
standard tests. Because of this change, NHTSA has begun to examine 
alternatives to its current frontal crash test program and hopes to 
finalize any changes to the NCAP frontal test in 2006. Similarly, NHTSA 
announced in May 2004 that it is proposing to add a 20 mph side pole 
crash test to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This test 
will use a more technically advanced average-size male dummy than is 
currently used in the NCAP tests and a dummy that represents a small 
female. According to NHTSA officials, the new test and advanced dummy 
will enable them to confidently measure compliance with head injury 
standards and challenge automakers to provide adequate head protection 
to vehicle occupants in side impact crashes. However, neither this test 
nor the new dummies are currently part of NCAP. NHTSA officials said 
they plan to begin examining alternatives to the side crash test at the 
end of 2005.

Opportunities to Enhance NCAP Testing:

NHTSA could explore several opportunities to enhance NCAP and ensure 
its relevance. These opportunities include (1) addressing changes to 
the vehicle fleet, particularly as it relates to vehicle 
incompatibility and rollover; (2) developing approaches for NCAP to 
encourage improved safety from emerging technology that helps drivers 
avoid crashes; and (3) examining the various testing procedures and 
measures that are available and in use by other organizations and 
determining their applicability to NCAP.

Addressing the Increased Fatality Risks Created by Changes in the 
Vehicle Fleet:

Vehicle Incompatibility:

When pickups, minivans, and SUVs collide with smaller passenger cars, 
the mismatch of the vehicles' weight, height, and geometry are 
considerable, as shown in figure 24. In terms of the weight 
differences, subcompact cars may weigh as little as 1,500 pounds while 
the large SUV may exceed 6,000 pounds.

Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of Different 
Type and Weight:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Because of the higher ground clearance of large pickups and SUVs, their 
bumpers may skip over the crash structures of passenger cars, raising 
the likelihood that an occupant of the car will be killed or seriously 
injured.[Footnote 44] A 2003 NHTSA study found that in frontal 
collisions involving a car and a light truck or van, there were almost 
four times the number of fatalities in the car than in the light truck 
or van.[Footnote 45] The success of NCAP and the other testing programs 
may have indirectly contributed to this problem. According to some 
experts, to improve crashworthiness scores of large vehicles, vehicle 
manufacturers have increased the rigidity of the structure that absorbs 
and manages the substantial forces in the crash tests.[Footnote 46] As 
a result, the structure of large vehicles has had to become more 
substantial and stiffer than that of smaller vehicles because the 
larger vehicles must absorb more energy in the crash test due to their 
greater weight.

NHTSA's NCAP frontal tests could potentially be modified to measure and 
rate vehicle incompatibility. Some experts, NHTSA officials, and 
vehicle manufacturers told us that there are a number of approaches 
being investigated that could help to address vehicle incompatibility. 
For example, some researchers are examining the use of sensors in test 
walls; crashing a moving deformable barrier into the front of the test 
vehicles, instead of propelling the test vehicle into a solid wall; or 
crashing test vehicles into a solid wall at varying speeds, depending 
on the size of the vehicle, to equate the crash to hitting a 
standardized vehicle. The hypothesis is that information obtained by 
measuring how vehicles strike the crash test barrier could be used to 
estimate the relative damage that a vehicle would cause in collisions 
with another vehicle and could be used to rate the aggressiveness of 
vehicles. Using a moving barrier for frontal crash tests would make 
test results comparable across weight classes, as is the case with the 
current side-impact rating, because all vehicles would be struck by the 
same size barrier. Using variable speeds based on vehicle weight would 
also allow ratings of small and large vehicles to be compared. Each of 
these alternatives requires further development and testing to assess 
the overall safety implications, including the potential for reducing 
fatalities in passenger cars when struck by larger vehicles, the 
potential for diminished occupant protection for large vehicles in 
single vehicle crashes, and consideration of potential costs.[Footnote 
47] Ratings based on these tests could provide manufacturers with 
incentives to address incompatibilities between large and small 
vehicles and provide consumers with information on the potential safety 
hazards associated with vehicle incompatibility.

The problem of vehicle incompatibility is even worse in side crashes. 
When a large vehicle like an SUV crashes into the side of a small 
vehicle, the larger vehicle may miss the door sill of the vehicle, 
causing most of the energy to be directed to the door and window areas, 
as shown in figure 25. In such cases, the injuries can be exacerbated 
when there is no side head protection, leaving the window as the only 
barrier between the occupant's head and the impacting vehicle. Head 
injuries are a major cause of fatalities in side collisions, 
particularly in crashes where a single vehicle strikes a tree or 
utility pole and in intersection crashes where smaller, lighter 
vehicles are hit in the side by larger, heavier vehicles. NHTSA has 
estimated that in serious side-impact crashes involving one or more 
fatalities in 2002, nearly 60 percent of those killed suffered brain 
injuries.

Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the Side of 
a Small Vehicle:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

There are also possibilities for modifying the NCAP side test to help 
address vehicle incompatibility. For example, NHTSA could examine the 
barrier that is being used to ensure that it best represents today's 
vehicles. NHTSA's current side-impact barrier is about the size and 
weight of a compact car. As a result, when this barrier hits the test 
vehicle, it will almost always hit the bottom sill of the door, which 
is designed to manage much of the crash energy.[Footnote 48] To address 
the disparity in height between passenger cars and SUVs, the Insurance 
Institute uses a side-impact test barrier that is larger and higher 
than NCAP's barrier, as shown in figure 26. According to Insurance 
Institute officials, they designed this barrier to represent an SUV so 
their test could more accurately reflect the increased risk for 
occupants in smaller vehicles. They said that it has encouraged 
manufacturers to install side curtain air bags. Using this higher 
barrier has resulted in different scores than NHTSA's NCAP. For 
example, the Insurance Institute has given 27 vehicles its lowest 
rating (Poor) in side-impact tests, while NHTSA, which uses a low 
barrier and does not include head measures in its star calculations, 
gave 21 of these 27 vehicles (77 percent) four-or five-star safety 
ratings.

Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance Institute Test 
with the SUV-like Barrier:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Click the following link to watch a video of an interior view of the 
side impact crash test with an SUV-like barrier conducted by the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety at 31 mph: [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v9.mpg]:

Officials from a number of automobile makers told us that vehicle 
compatibility is an important safety issue, and they are working to 
enhance occupant protection in front and side crashes, outside of NHTSA 
safety standards or NCAP testing. Several automakers voluntarily 
entered into an agreement with the Insurance Institute to work 
collaboratively to have all of their vehicles meet new safety criteria 
that require large vehicles to match the height of the fronts of small 
vehicles by September 2009, as shown in figure 27. According to 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers members, better matching of 
structural components may enhance the ability to absorb crash forces, 
thereby reducing occupant fatalities by an estimated 16 to 28 percent. 
The agreement also specified that by September 1, 2007, at least 50 
percent of these automakers' vehicles offered in the United States will 
meet enhanced side-impact protection with features such as side air 
bags, air curtain bags, and revised side-impact structures. By 
September 2009 all vehicles of these manufacturers are to meet the new 
side criteria.

In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA officials noted that in 
order for 50 percent of the vehicles to meet the voluntary side 
requirements by September 1, 2007, manufacturers can certify by using 
either the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard pole test or 
the Insurance Institutes side impact test. They noted that in September 
2009, the pole test will no longer be an option and that, therefore, it 
is very possible that large vehicles, such as pickups, minivans, and 
SUVs, would be able to pass the test without incorporation of enhanced 
side-impact features such as side air bags or curtains for the 
following reasons:

* Manufacturers may not need to subject large vehicles to the pole test 
by September 1, 2007, if 50 percent of its fleet is comprised of 
smaller passenger cars.

* Larger vehicles will sustain a lower velocity change than smaller 
vehicles when struck by the Insurance Institute barrier.

* The higher ride height of large vehicles could keep the dummy's head 
from striking the top of the Insurance Institute barrier.

Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle Structures:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Occupant Protection in Rollover Crashes:

Given the changes in the vehicle fleet, fatalities due to rollover 
crashes have continued to increase. Rollovers are dangerous incidents 
and have a higher fatality rate than other kinds of crashes. Just over 
2 percent of all police-reported crashes that occurred in 2003 were 
rollovers, but they accounted for over 10,000 highway fatalities, or 
more than 30 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths. All 
types of vehicles can roll over. However, taller, narrower vehicles 
such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs have higher centers of gravity and 
thus are more susceptible to roll over if involved in a single-vehicle 
crash. NHTSA reported that 61 percent of fatalities in SUVs and 45 
percent of fatalities in pickups in 2002 were the results of rollover 
crashes.[Footnote 49] NCAP's rollover testing does not rate the chance 
of a potentially life-threatening injury should a rollover crash occur; 
it only measures the risk of rollover.

Although NHTSA has not incorporated occupant protection in rollovers 
into NCAP, officials said they have been examining occupant protection 
in rollover crashes, focusing on reducing occupant ejection and 
increasing roof strength through regulation. According to NHTSA 
officials, the most deadly rollovers occur when unbelted occupants are 
completely ejected from the vehicle though doors, windows, and sun 
roofs and when the roof crushes into the occupant compartment, causing 
serious, if not deadly, head, neck, and spinal cord injuries. NHTSA has 
proposed changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that 
would upgrade the door lock requirements to help prevent vehicle 
occupant ejection and increase roof strength. They are also considering 
other ways to prevent ejection, specifically looking at the potential 
of side curtain air bags to prevent ejection through vehicle windows.

NHTSA's NCAP rollover testing could be modified to better measure and 
rate the risks of serious injury associated with a rollover crash. 
NHTSA officials and others said that they have not been able to develop 
a repeatable crash test in which the vehicle rolls over and dummies 
would be used to measure injuries. However, in the absence of such a 
rollover crash test, NCAP could examine various aspects of the vehicle 
which are known to affect occupant safety in rollover, such as rating 
the roof strength of vehicles. For example, officials from a consumer 
group told us that NHTSA could conduct dynamic tests on roof strength 
and point to a 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers paper that attests 
that such drop tests for roof strength are repeatable. They also said 
that there has been other promising research that would measure roof 
crush in dynamic tests. However, including such tests in NCAP would 
require further development and funding considerations.

Incorporating Active Safety Technologies into NCAP:

NCAP also has an opportunity to begin assessing new technology that 
could help prevent crashes. Vehicle manufacturers and others have been 
developing and testing new active safety systems that hold promise for 
reducing traffic fatalities by helping drivers avoid crashes 
altogether. These active safety systems include improving vehicle 
handling and braking in emergency situations, providing warning alerts 
for potential collisions or straying out of roadway lanes, and 
providing distance alerts when driving too close to another vehicle. A 
2004 NHTSA study estimated that the incorporation of electronic 
stability control systems[Footnote 50] could reduce certain crashes by 
about 67 percent.[Footnote 51] Similarly, the Insurance Institute 
reported that electronic stability control can reduce the risk of 
involvement in single vehicle crashes by more than 50 percent.[Footnote 
52] Some experts suggested that NCAP might be used to encourage and 
speed the adoption of active safety systems into the vehicle fleet.

Some elements of active safety systems are included in some current 
tests. While the rollover test is not designed to measure the 
effectiveness of electronic stability control systems, vehicles 
equipped with this technology would be expected to perform better in 
the rollover test because the vehicle would be less likely to tip up. 
In addition, brake tests are conducted as part of Japan's NCAP, with 
the results provided as a separate safety rating. The Euro NCAP has 
also established committees to identify potential active safety systems 
to include in their program, as well as the testing protocols that 
would be used.

While using NCAP to further test and rate active safety systems could 
encourage their adoption in the marketplace, there are challenges to 
overcome. According to NHTSA officials, NHTSA would first need to 
identify those active safety systems that could be effective in 
preventing crashes. They said this would be difficult because they 
would have to determine how well a system helps drivers avoid crashes. 
Also, determining the testing methodology would be challenging because 
the effectiveness of some active systems could be affected by factors 
such as driver behavior and the physical characteristics of the road, 
such as the dampness of the pavement.

Officials from various automobile manufacturers told us that they are 
developing many new active safety systems with the objective of helping 
drivers avoid crashes. They pointed out that while NCAP could be used 
to encourage them to market such systems, they would have concerns 
regarding which systems to include in NHTSA's program and how the 
system would be rated. In addition, they noted that because of 
competitive forces, active safety advances could be available sooner 
than NHTSA is capable of deciding to include them and developing an 
acceptable approach for testing and rating them. Officials from 
automakers said they are willing to share their research and work in 
cooperation with NHTSA to develop tests or measurements that could help 
NCAP address these issues.

Using Additional Test Measures and Different Size Dummies:

NHTSA could provide consumers with more safety information by using 
additional test measures and different crash dummies. All of the other 
organizations we contacted used more dummy measures to calculate 
vehicles' safety ratings than U.S. NCAP used. To determine the star 
ratings, NHTSA uses head and chest readings from the frontal NCAP test 
and chest and lower spine readings for side-impact tests. Other 
organizations use measurements that included such areas as the head, 
neck, chest, leg, and foot for frontal test ratings and the head, neck, 
chest, pelvis, and leg for side test ratings.[Footnote 53]

The concern with using few dummy readings is that the safety rating 
might not include important safety considerations. While NHTSA uses 
head and chest readings for frontal ratings and chest and lower spine 
readings for the side ratings, it measures other items during crash 
tests and may identify them as "Safety Concerns" on its Web site if 
they exceed certain values. We identified over 140 Safety Concerns on 
NHTSA's Web site since vehicle model year 1990--36 of these were for 
vehicles that received four-or five-star ratings.[Footnote 54] The 
Safety Concerns included high femur readings in frontal crashes, which 
could mean there was a high likelihood of thigh injury; high head 
acceleration readings in side crashes, which could indicate a high 
likelihood of serious head trauma; and doors opening during side crash 
tests, which could increase the likelihood of occupant 
ejection.[Footnote 55] Having a Safety Concern noted for vehicles with 
a four-or five-star rating presents conflicting information that could 
be confusing to consumers.

As NHTSA makes changes to its testing program, it has the opportunity 
to reexamine the size and type of dummies it uses in crashes in 
addition to the body areas of the dummies being measured. At present, 
NHTSA's dummies equate to an average-size adult male who is about 5 
feet 9 inches tall and weighs about 170 pounds. Most of the other 
organizations use this size dummy in their crash tests, and vehicle 
manufacturers work to maximize the safety systems for an occupant with 
these characteristics. However, not all vehicle occupants are the same 
size, and optimizing the restraint system for the average male would 
not necessarily be optimum for others who may be smaller, shorter, 
taller, or heavier.[Footnote 56] Also, children and the elderly may 
react differently to crash forces than the average-size male. 
Recognizing this, the Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy 
(about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds) in the driver and 
rear seat of the side-impact test. Insurance Institute officials said 
they made this change to encourage manufacturers to install side 
curtain air bags that would extend low enough to protect the heads of 
smaller passengers. In addition, in its proposed side-impact pole 
standards test, NHTSA specifies using a 50tTHpercentile male and a 
5tTHpercentile female to address the issue of different size drivers 
and passengers.

The U.S. NCAP officials said that at this time they are waiting on the 
resolution to the proposed safety standard changes that would add a 
side pole test before deciding on altering the size or type of crash 
dummies they use. While generating additional information on which to 
base safety ratings, altering the size of the dummy in the NCAP tests 
could provide challenges for automobile manufacturers because they 
would have to conduct more internal tests. Officials from many vehicle 
manufacturers said they must already conduct hundreds of crash tests 
each year to ensure that they meet the variety of tests and dummies 
used in NHTSA's standards, U.S. NCAP, and tests conducted by the other 
testing organizations.[Footnote 57]

Opportunities to Enhance the Presentation and Timeliness of NCAP 
Results:

NCAP has the opportunity to enhance its program by changing the way it 
reports test results. Specifically, it could provide summary ratings, 
present information in a comparative manner, increase public awareness, 
and make results available earlier in the model year.

Providing Summary Ratings:

According to some safety experts, NHTSA could improve its program by 
developing an overall safety rating rather than reporting four separate 
ratings for crash tests.[Footnote 58] Consumer Reports, The Car Book, 
the Insurance Institute, and all of the other NCAPs provide more 
summary information for consumers than NHTSA. Further, a 1996 National 
Academy of Sciences study that examined NCAP recommended that NHTSA 
provide an overall rating to provide consumers with an overview of a 
vehicle's safety. However, the study also recommended that NHTSA make 
the detailed test results available for those consumers who wish to 
examine them more fully.[Footnote 59]

NHTSA and Insurance Institute officials said they did not develop an 
overall crashworthiness rating because combining ratings are 
technically difficult and could obscure low ratings in one test area 
that would be revealed when test results are reported separately. 
Insurance Institute officials added that consumers can evaluate the 
different ratings to determine those that are most applicable to their 
situations. They said a person who is primarily the sole occupant of a 
vehicle might not be as concerned with the passenger safety rating as 
someone who routinely carries passengers.

NHTSA officials said that they will continue investigating the 
feasibility of creating an overall safety rating for vehicles. However, 
they said that they would like to incorporate additional elements into 
such a rating. For example, they said that it is important to develop a 
rating that considers more than just the frontal and side-impact test 
results, such as the rollover results and vehicle compatibility, which 
can have a large bearing on the overall safety of vehicles. In their 
view, without the elements that address rollover and compatibility, 
consumers might get the wrong impression of the relative safety of 
vehicles. Officials said they have not yet developed a method to 
incorporate the rollover rating into an overall rating and have not 
identified measures to reflect vehicle compatibility, although they 
have long recognized compatibility as an issue. They could not estimate 
how long it would take to address the problem of adding the rollover 
rating to a combined rating but said they would pursue developing a 
summary safety rating for vehicles after they decide how to measure 
vehicle compatibility.

Comparative Safety Information Could Benefit the Public:

Each testing organization uses a different presentation approach for 
reporting its test results, with some providing additional information 
to the public. The U.S. NCAP provides separate star ratings for the 
four dummy positions in the two crash tests and the rollover test. The 
only ratings the U.S. NCAP presents in a comparative manner are the 
rollover ratings, which compare vehicle performance within a class of 
vehicles, such as pickup trucks. In contrast, Australia's and Japan's 
NCAPs provide more comparative information by supplementing their star 
ratings by adding bar charts that show how well the vehicle performed 
in the tests, as shown in figures 28 and 29. The Australia publication 
shows that although two vehicles received three stars, one of them 
performed better than the other. The Japan NCAP rating shows that the 
vehicle received five stars for overall driver safety but that the 
passenger score was higher than that of the driver.

Figure 28: Example of Australia's NCAP Safety Rating Information:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 29: Example of Japan's NCAP Safety Rating Information:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Similarly, Consumer Reports provides summary safety ratings for 
accident avoidance and crash protection and uses a bar chart to present 
its overall safety score. Consumer Reports also lists vehicles in 
ranked order rather than alphabetically, provides comments to highlight 
particular aspects of each vehicle's performance, and uses qualitative 
descriptions--Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor--to help 
inform its readers of safety results. Consumer Reports officials said 
that the overall rating provides an overview of the vehicle's safety, 
and the two summary categories of accident avoidance and crash 
protection provide additional information that consumers may want.

NHTSA recently began using a rating system for its rollover assessment 
that indicates, along with the star rating, the percentage of 
likelihood that a vehicle may roll over. NHTSA's rollover information 
provides an extra level of detail of vehicle performance than the 
information provided for the frontal and side collision tests. The 
rollover results are ranked according to performance and, as 
illustrated in figure 30, show how well each vehicle performed within 
the range of performance of its vehicle class, such as passenger cars, 
pickups, vans, and SUVs.

Figure 30: Example of NHTSA's Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck with 
Bar Chart Showing How the Vehicle Performed within Its Class:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Increasing Public Awareness of Results:

NHTSA could look to other programs for innovative ways to garner more 
interest in crash test results. Like other testing organizations, NHTSA 
uses the Internet, brochures, and press releases to inform the public 
of NCAP ratings. However, other organizations use additional approaches 
to inform the public of their program and test results. For example, 
the Japan Automobile Federation creates public awareness of the program 
with a portable sled in which the general public can experience a 
simulated collision at 5 kilometers per hour and have a protective air 
bag deploy. The Euro NCAP also stages a public display of crash 
vehicles. They try to select areas where media and public interest 
would be high. Recent events were held in Wenceslas Square, Prague; 
Athens; and London. Figure 31 shows two events, one in London and 
another in Prague.

Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash Vehicles:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

There have also been proposals to increase public awareness of NCAP 
results by requiring their inclusion on new car stickers. For example, 
S. 1072, a bill introduced in the 108th Congress to reauthorize funds 
for federal aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit 
programs, included a provision that would require automakers to include 
NCAP test results on new car stickers. Officials from consumer advocate 
groups told us that they support such an approach because consumers 
would have information available at the time of their purchase 
decisions. Officials from automakers said that there are a number of 
challenges that would need to be overcome if such an approach were 
taken, including scheduling tests to ensure that results are available 
in time for the information to be included on new car stickers.

NCAP Ratings Could Be Available Earlier in the Car Model Year:

NHTSA could conduct vehicle tests earlier and release NCAP ratings 
sooner in the model year, which would make the results more useful for 
consumers. NCAP ratings are often released late in the model year, 
after many of the vehicles have already been purchased. In May 2003, 
long after the beginning of model year 2003, NHTSA released the results 
of some model year 2002 vehicle tests. NHTSA published its Buying a 
Safer Car brochure for 2004 in February 2004, about 6 months after the 
vehicles were available for sale and before all of the tests were 
completed for the 2004 models. To the extent that test results are 
available sooner, more car buyers could have safety information to help 
make their purchase decisions. For example, by the time NHTSA released 
the Buying a Safer Car brochure in February 2004, according to industry 
sales statistics, about 7.7 million, or over 46 percent, of new cars 
and trucks had been purchased in the United States.[Footnote 60] For 
model year 2005, NHTSA attempted to address the issue of getting timely 
information to consumers by publishing an early edition of its Buying a 
Safer Car brochure in December 2004. This publication included test 
results for some 2005 models. In addition, towards of the end 2004, 
NHTSA began posting the results to its Web site as soon as the quality 
control process was completed. NHTSA officials plan to publish an 
updated version in spring 2005, after additional testing has been 
completed.

There are several factors that affect the timing of the testing and the 
release of NCAP ratings. First, NHTSA obtains vehicles for NCAP testing 
directly from the dealerships and leasing companies to ensure that each 
vehicle is representative of that make and model. Under this approach, 
testing cannot begin until after vehicles are available for purchase by 
the public--the model year begins in September for many companies. In 
addition, NHTSA does not receive its funding until after the fiscal 
year begins on October 1ST of each year. Further, due to the number of 
vehicles to be included, vehicle testing is spread out over a period of 
months. As a result, testing can extend from October though April. 
Until recently, NHTSA did not make ratings available to the public as 
soon as the results were known but waited until all testing of a 
vehicle category was finished before issuing a press release announcing 
the test results. Beginning with model year 2005 tests, NHTSA began 
posting the test results to its Web site after the quality control 
process was complete. Press releases continue to be generated after 
each batch of tests is completed. NHTSA officials said that by 
releasing the results this way, consumers have comparative information 
on all vehicles of one type at the same time.

One testing organization has addressed some of the timeliness issues. 
Euro NCAP obtains some vehicles directly from the manufacturers prior 
to distribution to dealerships. This enables them to begin testing 
before the vehicles are available to the public.[Footnote 61] In 
addition, the Euro NCAP divides its program into two testing and 
information releases each year--one in November and one in June--to 
speed the information to the public.

Conclusions:

While NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has contributed to making 
safer vehicles, it is at a crossroads where it will need to change to 
remain relevant. The usefulness of the current testing has been eroded 
by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program 
began. The growing number of large pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the 
nation's vehicle fleet is creating different safety risks, particularly 
with regard to the incompatibility of large and small vehicles and 
vehicle rollover, which NCAP does not fully address. In addition, the 
very success of the program has brought it to a point where it is not 
clear that the program's goals can continue to be met. Because almost 
all vehicles today receive four-and five-star frontal and side-impact 
safety ratings, NCAP provides little incentive for manufacturers to 
further improve the safety of their vehicles and does not provide 
consumers with information that differentiates the safety of one 
vehicle compared to another. Further, the planned changes to the safety 
standards for frontal and side crashworthiness may make current NCAP 
tests less meaningful.

While we believe there are opportunities to enhance NCAP by developing 
approaches to better measure the interaction of large and small 
vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that 
help prevent crashes from occurring, and using different injury 
measures to rate the crash results, there are challenges that must be 
considered and addressed before changes can be implemented. However, 
without changing its testing, NCAP provides little incentive for 
manufacturers to improve vehicle safety. In addition, NHTSA will need 
to enhance the timeliness of testing and presentation of the New Car 
Assessment Program information. For example, by the time NHTSA finished 
its testing and published the test results for model year 2004 
vehicles, about 7.7 million, or over 46 percent of new vehicles had 
already been purchased. To enhance the information available to 
consumers, NHTSA can provide summary ratings, present information in a 
comparative manner, increase public awareness, and conduct tests 
earlier in the car model year. Given the substantial numbers of traffic 
deaths and injuries suffered on the nation's roads each year, efforts 
to improve vehicle safety seem warranted.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to 
examine the future direction of the New Car Assessment Program to 
maximize its value in providing an incentive for manufacturers to 
improve vehicle safety and informing the public about the relative 
safety of vehicles.

This examination should include:

* identifying and evaluating NCAP tests that should help prevent 
fatalities on the nation's roadways, which should include developing 
measures for rating vehicle incompatibility in front and side-impact 
tests and occupant protection in rollover crashes;

* developing approaches to incorporate active safety systems ratings as 
a part of NCAP; and:

* analyzing alternative testing methodologies and dummies to provide a 
robust and accurate measure of the likelihood of serious injuries to a 
wide range of vehicle occupants.

In addition, we recommend that steps be taken to provide the public 
with improved NCAP safety information in a more timely manner. In doing 
so it may be necessary to examine how other organizations inform the 
public and develop summary ratings, whether vehicles could be obtained 
more efficiently for testing, how budgeted funds are managed during the 
year, and how efficiently NCAP times the crash tests conducted by its 
contractors.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a copy of the draft report to the Department of 
Transportation for its review and comment. In commenting on the report, 
the Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety commented that 
NHTSA was pleased that the report concluded that NCAP has been 
successful in encouraging manufacturers to make safer vehicles and 
providing vehicle safety information to consumers. While NHTSA 
generally agreed with the report findings, including recognition that 
there are opportunities to enhance NCAP, the official emphasized that 
NCAP was just one of the many interrelated methods, including Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and traffic injury control programs, the 
agency uses to achieve its mission of saving lives, preventing 
injuries, and reducing vehicle-related crashes. The official said that 
NHTSA has been consistently working to address the challenges 
associated with enhancing this complex technical program while ensuring 
that the testing and results reported to consumers are accurate and 
reliable. The official explained that this requires NHTSA to ensure 
that any changes to NCAP, or for that matter to the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards, are based on sound science and careful 
analysis of supporting data. The official cited a number of recent 
efforts that NHTSA said demonstrate the careful and systematic approach 
the agency uses when considering changes to the program. These include 
pilot studies with child restraint systems to determine the feasibility 
of incorporating them into NCAP, seeking public comments for revising 
frontal NCAP collision testing, and working to ensure that advanced 
safety technologies are publicized so that consumers can factor them 
into the vehicle purchase decision-making process.

The NHTSA official also said that the agency recognizes that vehicle 
rollover and compatibility issues cause a significant portion of the 
fatal and serious motor vehicle occupant injuries on our nation's 
highways, and NHTSA has made these areas two of its highest priorities. 
In June 2003, NHTSA published initiatives for public comment to address 
both of these areas. The NHTSA official said the agency is continuing 
its efforts to identify effective vehicle metrics and countermeasures 
to address these issues, since they are necessary in order for NCAP to 
provide meaningful consumer information that can be linked to safety 
improvements in the vehicle.

We recognize that NCAP is one of a number of efforts that NHTSA uses in 
an attempt to reduce highway crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities. 
In addition, we support NHTSA's view that changes to the NCAP program 
should be based on sound science and careful analysis of supporting 
data. We encourage NHTSA to take timely action to address the issues 
raised in this report. NCAP has helped make vehicles safer, but there 
are opportunities to improve the program and ultimately help save more 
lives. The risks associated with vehicle incompatibility and rollover 
and the potential benefits to be gained from active safety systems 
heighten the importance of addressing these issues as promptly as 
possible. In addition, analyzing alternative testing methodologies and 
dummies could lead to more robust and accurate measures of the 
likelihood of serious injury to a wide range of vehicle occupants. 
Lastly, NHTSA has the opportunity to improve the timeliness and 
presentation of the NCAP results, which could help consumers make 
informed decisions when they purchase cars.

NHTSA also provided technical clarifications to our report, which we 
incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees and the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. We are also making available a version of this 
report that includes video clips of some of the crash tests conducted 
by NHTSA and others.

If you or your staffs have any questions regarding the contents of this 
report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [Hyperlink, 
heckerj@gao.gov]. Individuals making key contributions to this report 
are listed in appendix IX.

Signed by:

JayEtta Z. Hecker:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:

[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To determine how NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program tests vehicles, 
rates their safety, and reports the results to the public, we reviewed 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: Chapter V, Part 
571); the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 
(Public Law 92-513); the Transportation, Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and other documents 
pertaining to NCAP regulations. We also searched NHTSA's docket and 
NCAP documentation. In addition, we conducted interviews with NHTSA 
officials responsible for operating the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards regulatory program and the New Car Assessment Program. We 
visited and interviewed officials from the Federal Highway 
Administration and the National Crash Analysis Center. During visits to 
all five of the contractors that perform regulatory and NCAP crash 
tests--including Karco Engineering, LLC, in Adelanto, California; MGA 
Research Corporation in Burlington, Wisconsin; Medical College of 
Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; General Dynamics--Advanced 
Information Systems in Buffalo, New York; and the Transportation 
Research Center, Inc., in East Liberty, Ohio--we interviewed officials 
and engineers performing tests and observed various crash tests. We 
documented the procedures for obtaining the data, how results were 
recorded, and the conversion into star ratings. We determined that NCAP 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. In 
addition, we reviewed literature pertaining to vehicle safety issues 
and documents published by the Transportation Research Board.

To compare NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program with other programs that 
test vehicles and report vehicle safety results to the public, we 
researched literature and interviewed NHTSA officials to identify three 
foreign New Car Assessment Programs (in Australia, Europe, and Japan) 
and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as a domestic program. 
We also identified publishers of Consumer Reports and The Car Book as 
organizations that used NHTSA's NCAP data to derive their own vehicle 
safety ratings. We identified a program in Korea but did not include 
this program in our review because it began operating in 1999 and had 
not tested a significant number of vehicles.

We obtained information on these programs by reviewing their literature 
and their Web sites. We also interviewed officials and visited the test 
facilities of the Insurance Institute and the NCAPs in Australia, 
Europe, and Japan. We visited the Insurance Institute of Highway 
Safety's Vehicle Research Center and observed a crash test. We also 
examined international crash test and rating programs, including the 
Australia, Euro, and Japan NCAPs. For Australia's NCAP, we visited 
Australia and conducted interviews with government officials associated 
with the respective New Car Assessment Program and vehicle safety 
policy. For Euro NCAP, we visited Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom, where we conducted interviews with the European 
Commission, and the government officials associated with the respective 
New Car Assessment Programs and vehicle safety policies in Germany, 
Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For Japan's NCAP, we visited Japan and 
interviewed government officials associated with the respective New Car 
Assessment Program and vehicle safety policy. While in these countries, 
we also interviewed auto associations, consumer advocacy groups, and 
vehicle safety experts. We identified and selected these auto 
associations, consumer advocacy groups, and vehicle safety experts by 
reviewing studies and conference papers, talking to program officials 
and other experts, and reviewing materials on Web sites. We interviewed 
auto manufacturers in these countries, including BMW, Honda, Mercedes, 
Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo. We reviewed New Car Assessment Program 
regulations, testing protocols, and program documentation. See table 1 
for a list of domestic and international organizations contacted.

To determine whether opportunities exist for NCAP to enhance its 
vehicle safety testing and reporting, we obtained views from experts in 
vehicle safety and the auto and insurance industries. In selecting 
vehicle safety experts, we examined studies and conference papers, 
considered referrals from other experts, and consulted the National 
Academy of Sciences. We interviewed officials of the Association for 
the Advancement of Automotive Medicine and Applied Research Associates. 
We visited and interviewed automobile manufacturers in the United 
States, including General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Daimler-Chrysler, 
and American Honda Motor Company. We interviewed trade associations 
including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association 
of International Automobile Manufacturers. We interviewed consumer 
advocacy groups, including Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the AAA 
Foundation for Traffic Safety, Advocates for Highway Safety and Auto 
Safety, and the National Safety Council. We reviewed relevant research 
on consumer information regarding vehicle safety from the 
Transportation Research Board.

Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted:

U.S. NCAP.

Federal agencies: 
Department of Transportation:
NHTSA.

Federal agencies: 
Department of Transportation:
George Washington University's National Crash Analysis Center.

Federal agencies: 
Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration.

Consumer Information Organizations:
Consumer Reports:

Consumer Information Organizations:
The Center for Auto Safety (The Car Book).

Crash Test Organizations:
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Automobile Manufacturers:
American Honda Motor Company.

Automobile Manufacturers:
Daimler-Chrysler Corporation.

Automobile Manufacturers:
Ford Motor Company.

Automobile Manufacturers:
General Motors Corporation.

Industry associations and experts:
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Industry associations and experts:
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.

Industry associations and experts:
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Industry associations and experts:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Industry associations and experts:
Applied Research Associates.

Industry associations and experts:
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

Industry associations and experts:
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.

Industry associations and experts:
Consumers Union.

Industry associations and experts:
Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center.

Industry associations and experts:
National Safety Council.

Industry associations and experts:
Public Citizen.

Industry associations and experts:
Transportation Research Board.

Industry associations and experts:
Vehicle Certification Agency North America.

Contractors:
General Dynamics--Advanced Information Systems.

Contractors:
Karco Engineering, LLC.

Contractors:
Medical College of Wisconsin.

Contractors:
MGA Research Corporation.

Contractors:
Transportation Research Center.

Australia NCAP:
Australia Automobile Association (administrator for Australia NCAP).

Australia NCAP:
Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE magazine).

Australia NCAP:
Department of Transport and Regional Services--Vehicle Safety Standards.

Australia NCAP:
Crashlab--New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority (Australia NCAP 
test facility).

Australia NCAP:
Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

Australia NCAP:
Monash University Accident Research Center.

Australia NCAP:
National Roads and Motorists Association Motoring and Services.

Australia NCAP:
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria.

Australia NCAP:
Victoria Road and Traffic Authority.

Belgium:
European Auto Manufacturers Association.

Belgium:
European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport.

Belgium:
European Transport Safety Council.

Germany:
General German Automobile Club (ADAC).

Germany:
BMW AG.

Germany:
Daimler Chrysler AG, Mercedes-Benz Technology Center.

Germany:
Federal Ministry for Traffic, Building, and Housing.

Germany:
TÜV Automotive Group.

United Kingdom:
Automotive Safety Centre at the University of Birmingham.

United Kingdom:
Department for Transport.

United Kingdom:
Euro NCAP.

United Kingdom:
International Consumer Research and Testing (Which? magazine).

United Kingdom:
Thatcham (Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre).

United Kingdom:
Transportation Research Laboratory.

Sweden:
Swedish Road Administration.

Sweden:
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.

Sweden:
Volvo.

Japan NCAP:
Honda Research and Development Corporation.

Japan NCAP:
Japan Auto Research Institute (Japan NCAP test facility).

Japan NCAP:
Japan Automobile Federation.

Japan NCAP:
Japan Automobile Importers Association.

Japan NCAP:
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association.

Japan NCAP:
Japan Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport.

Japan NCAP:
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation.

Japan NCAP:
National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim's Aid (Japan NCAP).

Japan NCAP:
Nissan Motor Corporation.

Japan NCAP:
Toyota Motor Corporation.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings:

To rate a vehicle's crashworthiness, NHTSA combines information about 
(1) the forces that would injure a human during a crash and (2) the 
effects of those forces on areas of the human body. The forces that 
would injure a human during a crash are measured by anthropomorphic 
test devices, commonly referred to as crash test dummies, which serve 
as proxies for human vehicle occupants. These dummies are fitted with 
accelerometers and load sensors that measure the forces of impact on 
particular areas of the body, as shown in figure 32.

Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and 
Accelerometers:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Because the current dummy technology has yet to replicate a human with 
the same biological matter or physiology, dummies cannot exhibit 
injuries following a crash as a human would. Therefore, the effects of 
the forces on particular areas of the human body, as measured by the 
dummies, have been developed by researchers who have gathered 
information by applying varying forces to biological specimens and by 
using a scale developed by the Association for the Advancement of 
Automotive Medicine (AAAM). This scale, the Abbreviated Injury Scale 
(AIS), ranks injuries, from minor through currently untreatable, for 
particular areas of the body and assigns a number from 1 through 6 to 
each rank, as shown in table 2. The AIS is used to provide a simple 
numerical method for ranking and comparing injuries by severity.

Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS):

AIS code: 1;
Description of injury: Minor.

AIS code: 2;
Description of injury: Moderate.

AIS code: 3;
Description of injury: Serious.

AIS code: 4;
Description of injury: Severe.

AIS code: 5;
Description of injury: Critical.

AIS code: 6;
Description of injury: Currently untreatable.

Source: Copyright © 2005 Association for the Advancement of Automotive 
Medicine, reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

[End of table]

AIS values in NCAP are injury probability values derived from 
measurements of dummy response taken from specific characteristics 
(e.g., size, shape, mass, stiffness, or energy dissipation) that 
simulate corresponding human responses (e.g., acceleration, velocity, 
or articulation). These dummy responses are correlated with both 
experimental biomechanical research as well as with real world crash 
injury investigation. Researchers have used a statistical procedure to 
relate the levels of injury to the forces that caused them. This 
procedure produces theoretical injury curves, which NHTSA uses as the 
basis for safety ratings.

NHTSA develops crashworthiness ratings, expressed in stars, for both 
frontal and side crashes. To develop the NCAP ratings for frontal 
crashes, NHTSA measures forces to the head and chest. Specifically, the 
injury criteria for the frontal star rating are the head, as measured 
by a composite of acceleration values known as the Head Injury 
Criterion (HIC), and the chest, as measured by a chest deceleration 
value known as chest Gs. Each of these two measures has its own injury 
risk curve that has been fixed at AIS level 4 or greater--that is, a 
severe, critical, or currently untreatable injury, as shown in figures 
33 and 34. Using the mathematical functions that describe each of these 
injury risk curves, NHTSA transforms the HIC and chest G measures from 
the frontal NCAP test into probabilities of head and chest injuries of 
AIS level 4 or greater. The lower the HIC and chest G measures, the 
less risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently untreatable 
injury to the head and chest in a full frontal crash.

Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

To convert the probability of severe injury for particular HIC and 
Chest G scores into a star rating for the frontal NCAP test, NHTSA adds 
the probability of severe injury to the head and chest and then 
subtracts the product, shown below in figure 35. 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 death.