us ncap update
TRANSCRIPT
U.S. NCAP Update2014 Global NCAP Annual Meeting
October 30, 20141
Program currently provides ratings on approximately 85 percent of the new model year U.S. vehicle fleet
Vehicles are generally performing well under the Enhanced Program Excellent (4- to 5-star ratings) side performance seen in most
vehicles (MY 2011-2014)
Further improvements are still needed Right front passenger position (H-III 5th percentile female
dummy) in frontal impact
Recent U.S. New Vehicle Performance
2
Past 35 Years Market Response to U.S. NCAP
3
Full Frontal Impact: Percent of Vehicles with 4- and 5-Star Ratings (Old U.S. NCAP)
Model Year Driver Front Passenger
1979 30% 43%
2010 99% 99%
Side Impact Barrier: Percent of Vehicles with 4- and 5-Star Ratings (Old U.S. NCAP)
Model Year Driver Rear Passenger
1997 24% 20%
2010 97% 95%
Percent of Vehicles with 4- and 5-Star Ratings (Enhanced U.S. NCAP)
Model Year Full Frontal Impact Side Impact Barrier Side Impact Pole
Driver Front Passenger Driver Rear Passenger Driver
2011 79% 66% 85% 78% 83%
2014 89% 81% 95% 95% 91%
Note: The percent numbers are based on vehicles rated by U.S. NCAP
Penetration of U.S. NCAP Advanced Technologies Into the U.S. Marketplace
4
Lane Departure Warning Systems : MY 2011-2015
Model
Year
Total
Manufacturers Total Makes
Total Trim
Lines Offering
LDW
Total trim lines with confirming
data provided and therefore
recommended on Safercar.gov
2011 7 9 601 51
2012 7 9 812 68
2013 10 17 1483 125
2014 16 24 2424 173
2015 19 28 3205 310
1 – 29 optional, 31 unclear 2 – All optional 3 – 1 standard, all others optional 4 – 4 standard, 6 unclear, all others optional5 – 8 standard, 2 unclear, all others optional
Penetration of U.S. NCAP Advanced Technologies Into the U.S. Marketplace (Cont.)
5
Forward Collision Warning Systems : MY 2011-2015
Model
Year
Total
Manufacturers Total Makes
Total Trim
Lines
Offering
FCW
Total trim lines with confirming
data provided and therefore
recommended on Safercar.gov
2011 9 16 98A 49
2012 8 14 86B 77
2013 11 20 186C 165
2014 14 27 301D 223
2015 20 32 383E 357
A – 79 optional, 19 unclearB – 85 optional, 1 standardC – 160 optional, 2 standard, 24 unclearD – 270 optional, 31 standardE – 341 optional, 36 standard, 6 unclear
Penetration of U.S. NCAP Advanced Technologies Into the U.S. Marketplace (Cont.)
6
Model
Year
Total
Manufacturers
Total
Makes
Total Trim
Lines
Offering
Backup
Camera
Total trim lines with confirming
data provided, recommended on
Safercar.gov
2014 21 36 605* 101
2015 22 35 621** 99
*400 optional, 205 standard**293 optional, 206 standard, 122 unclear
Rearview Video Systems : MY 2014-2015
Success
Manufacturers respond to our crash test programs by designing vehicles to achieve 4- and 5-star ratings at a much faster pace than ever before Full frontal impact test (old program) – more than 2 decades
Side impact barrier test (old program) – about 10 years
Enhanced full frontal impact, side impact barrier and pole tests – less than 4 years
Steady increases of vehicles with advanced technologies that are recommended by our program
Goal
Encourage continuous advancement of vehicle safety
U.S. NCAP Success and Goal
7
April 2013 – Published a notice seeking public input on potential areas for improvements
Received public comments; stakeholder meetings were held
September 2013 – Replaced ESC with rearview video systems as one of the 3 recommended advanced technologies
Recent U.S. NCAP Activities
8
Publish a 5-year plan outlining research that NHTSA plans to conduct to support near- and long-term upgrades
Publish a notice for near-term upgrades to U.S. NCAP
Increase efforts to further promote U.S. NCAP Digital materials about 5-Star Safety and advanced safety
technologies
Partners outreach
Next Steps for U.S. NCAP
9
Any changes to U.S. NCAP should be based on real-world data
Sufficient lead time should be considered
Consideration of performance requirements and test procedures of other NCAP programs, global regulations, and organization such as ISO and SAE
Consistency between U.S. NCAP and Federal motor vehicle safety standards
Suggestions on how crash avoidance should be treated in U.S. NCAP were conflicted A single vehicle rating vs. separate ratings for crash avoidance
and crashworthiness
No ratings for crash avoidance systems other than at the level of individual technologies
Overarching Public Comments
11