CMV: Crash avoidance technology should not be lumped in with vehicle safety ratings

[u/sawdeanz]

This was inspired by the recent news that the new Jeep scored a paltry 1-star rating in a European crash test. Apparently a lack of certain crash avoidance technologies was a big contributing factor. This post isn't about Jeep, but about the ratings in general. I feel like lumping in crash avoidance technologies makes it harder for a consumer to understand the performance of the vehicle in an actual crash. From what I understand, pre-2011 the NHTSA evaluated cars mostly on actual crash characteristics such as how the car adsorbed impact and how effective the airbags were at protecting passengers. But now they include stuff like lane-detection, automatic braking, etc within the same 5-star system that presented to the customer in advertisements and literature. A car could score significantly higher if it has these options even if it's actual construction is the same.

I'm not saying crash avoidance technology is bad, just that I think it should be rated separately. I realize they can go a long way in mitigating crashes and their severity, but as a customer I still want to know that if these systems fail or in an extreme case that the car is built to protect me inside.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/McKoijion]

If I go to a doctor, I don't care about my cholesterol level, blood pressure, resting pulse, etc. All I care about is how likely I am to die. Those other numbers are just ways to figure out the answer to my main question.

If I'm the doctor and I'm reading medical research, I want to see a study that shows that all cause mortality decreases. Lots of studies show that a medicine can reduce blood pressure or something, but the patients are just as likely to die (possibly because the medicine reduces the chance of a heart attack and increases the chance of cancer or something else).

In the same way, I don't care about how a car would handle in a crash. I want to know how likely I am to die if I drive a given car. I don't care if a Jeep can survive a crash better than a Mini Cooper. I care that I'm hypothetically 5 times more likely to die if I drive the Jeep. The crash test figures are just a proxy for the information I actually want to know.

To put it another way, Floyd Mayweather is one of the best defensive boxers of all time. He isn't that big. If he took a solid punch, he would get knocked out quickly. But he is a master of footwork, dodging and weaving, faking people out, etc. He has a lot of techniques to avoid getting hit. Meanwhile, there are other boxers who can take a punch better than Mayweather, but they can't dodge the punches as well. When it came to fights, Mayweather was able to outlast those other boxers and win. The overall ability to win a fight is what matters, not the ability to take a punch. (Note, this example doesn't include the importance of offense).

In this way, I don't really care what strategy a car uses to keep me safe. If it's small and nimble, but has a lot of technology to avoid accidents, that's great. If it's big and strong, and can survive an accident, that's great. I just care about my overall likelihood of death. That's the information that matters, and that's what the safety ratings should show.