Filed under: Car Buying, Government/Legal, Safety
Crash test ratings required on window stickers soon
New rule: every vehicle sold in the U.S. must have its crash rating displayed on its window sticker by September 1st, 2007. Sponsored by the Republican Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine, the new law aims to provide consumers with information about the ability of a vehicle to protect its occupants in the event of front or side impact. The crash ratings being used will, of course, be provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and will likely use the star ratings we're all familiar with by now. Pickup trucks, however, have been mysteriously left off the list of vehicles that require crash test ratings to be displayed. Hmm... Ford and GM have already pledged to put the crash test ratings on their trucks anway.
We should assume that dealers are none to happy about this, despite the cooperative nature of their respective automakers thus far. Just imagine you're the guy trying to sell a car that got two stars on its frontal crash test. On account of this, the new requirement may have automakers trying even harder to build their vehicles to NHTSA crash test specs so as not to suffer the shame of a two-star crash test performance for all the world to see.
[Source: Reuters]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jeff Banks 7:01PM (9/07/2006)
"Hmm... Ford and GM have already pledged to put the crash test ratings on their trucks anway."
That is because they're built like tanks and the only person who is going to die is the guy in the civic with a 5 star crash safety rating.
Reply
Robert 7:26PM (9/07/2006)
Hmmm... you're an idiot.
Reply
Will 7:29PM (9/07/2006)
This is long overdue. Really, why bother with mandatory crash testing if you don't require it be up front on the sticker and easily available to the consumer?
Reply
Rich Larson 7:30PM (9/07/2006)
Does anyone know if this applies only to NEW cars? Or does it apply to used cars being sold on dealer lots as well?
Reply
doug 7:30PM (9/07/2006)
If you have nothing to hide - no sweat! A consequence will be that cars will become overbuilt to get the 5 stars, and thus heavier and less fuel efficient.
This type of labelling is not new. Around here restaurants have to post their health inspection scores, it's a good incentive to get it right.
Reply
Jamal 7:30PM (9/07/2006)
Jeff,
The civic outperformed these trucks:
http://www.leasetips.com/f150crashtest.htm
Reply
Steve 7:34PM (9/07/2006)
Lets hope gas is 10$ a gallon soon. Then we will see who has the guts to buy tanks.
Reply
far jr 7:42PM (9/07/2006)
This is good news for the consumer. If the score is low, consumers will have more negotiating power to accept more risk. Hey you might get a great deal on a 2006 Sebring convertable or a Suzuki Verona.
This may be the governments way to indirectly persuade auto companies to make side air bags standard across the board. This will also get manufacturers in gear to ensure they are focussing on body structure.
Reply
Chivo 7:46PM (9/07/2006)
Jamal, your an idiot. Why do you even bother posting a link that is over 5 years old? Oh, because the Tundra did well? I see, sucking up to the Japanese.
Ahh, and Jeff is right. It does not matter if a Civic got a 5 star rating if it is being crushed by a tank!
Reply
David S. 7:52PM (9/07/2006)
Why is "safety" always focused on how well a vehicle does in an accident? What I'd like to see is the maximum speed a vehicle can make it through a slalom course -- to at least give people some idea of the chance of them swerving to miss a pedestrian and getting back into their lane without rolling over or getting hammered by the bus in the oncoming lane...
Reply
JC Whitless 7:55PM (9/07/2006)
Bah, I'm angry this passed.
How am I supposed to sell my brand new JiangLing Landwind SUV's at my dealership?!?!
/Stars, who needs Stars!
//Why just think, you'll never suffer any injuries in a crash in our fine automobiles
///Nobody suffers when your dead...
Reply
Steve 7:58PM (9/07/2006)
Lets hope cost of steel gets 5 times higher than now and gas becomes
500$/barrell
or more than 10$/gallon.
Everybody will then come to senses.
Reply
Jamal 8:05PM (9/07/2006)
Jeff, your're right. Most 5 year old F150 are no longer on the road ;)
Reply
UGH! 8:27PM (9/07/2006)
Those rating don't mean crap.
Reply
Mitsufan 9:02PM (9/07/2006)
This is crap. I wish they would have improved the testing proceedures before posting them on the cars. To my knowledge, there are no SUV vs. compact type of tests, when that is exactly what every compact car driver is worried about. Ford and Chevy should lobby for that, actually, because it would probably put more people in trucks, despite gas prices.
Reply
Justin 9:09PM (9/07/2006)
The NHTSA's rating system is SO OUTDATED! First of all, it's a lot easier then the IIHS's tests because the frontal is full on, meaning the car absorbs more then off-set, which is more demanding. And for side impact, they use a car-sized sled, instead of the IIHS's SUV sized one, and the NHTSA dosen't use the head scores for the final side-impact score. The reason many cars w/o side airbags fail the IIHS's test is b/c the dummys head hits the barrier and the dummy "dies". For the same car, the NHTSA gives 5 stars even though it deserves two!!!! They need to change their test procedures!!! For the 5 year old F-150, IIHS gave "Poor" NHTSA? FOUR STARS!!!!!
To see NHSTA ratings go to www.safercar.gov.
To see IIHS ratings go to iihs.org
To see the F-150's page go to http://safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/988.html
(Look how low the side-impact barrier is on the link above)
(FYI, the 2004-current F-150 did great on all the crash testings)
Reply
AZMike 1:00AM (9/08/2006)
this is absolutely ridiculous.
let me know the next time your car is moving inside a building, being pulled by a cable at precisely 40MPH, into a fixed, off-center barrier. I'll even go along for the ride with the dummies.
give me a break!
what's even worse is that people actually believe this crap. what's happened here is that we're not driving cars anymore, but tanks. weights have gone up between 500-1,000 pounds from all this added junk.
in the real world, there are many factors that affect injuries, like weather and road conditions, and condition (and composition) of road surface. other things to consider: exactly where did the cars strike each other, and were either of them rustbuckets?
this may sound stupid, but if you've ever seen cars with severe underbody corrosion issues, they will fold like an accordian.
but of course, we have publications like "the small timer's bible" (Consumer Reports) that will always endorse crap like this from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
I've seen so many horrible injuries from airbag deployment that I've disconnected the airbags in all of my vehicles, as well as those stupid, distracting daytime running lights.
Mike
Reply
Nick 1:02AM (9/08/2006)
Jamal, why are you giving us a link to crash tests from 2001?
Reply
Chivo 1:09AM (9/08/2006)
Mike, your not the same guy that disconnected the ABS from all your cars, right?
Reply
AZMike 1:30AM (9/08/2006)
Chivo,
sorry, I haven't disconnected the ABS from any car I own. I've found that avoiding the accident sure beats having one.
if you've ever seen how many people are burned by air bags, as well as blinded by an exploding windshield (and the windshield ALWAYS shatters when the passenger air bag goes off), you'd understand why I feel this way.
daytime running lights are nothing but irritating, and greatly contribute to light pollution. other issues: motorcycles disappear from all the shimmering light, and how many times have you encountered a DRL-equipped car (usually a rental), driving at night with only the DRLs on? how about one driving in a rainstorm with no tail lights illuminated?
Mike
Reply