NCAPs: when sensationalism works and doesn't

"How far is too far?" — a very uncomfortable question to ask when it comes to saving lives and preventing disabling injuries.

When it comes to crash safety in cars, NCAPs have been at the forefront of pushing that limit using a simple formula: testing the safety performance of cars and publicising its benefits. When done right, that increases demand for safety and makes it more sensible for car manufacturers to invest in it.

Does everybody really win, or is that too good to be true? Let's dig into why NCAPs are inevitable, but also need to change some habits if they want to sustain progress in the long term.

Regulation simply cannot replace NCAP stars

Government regulations around the world are highly rigid — a test that could make a car illegal to sell overnight requires very, very solid reproducibility. Also, unless you're delusional you'll probably agree that regulation can't possibly require all cars to have some state-of-the-art safety technology that made its debut on the S-Class yesterday — that is to say safety regulations have to be framed keeping in mind that every car will have to meet them, and are not a very good way for customers to judge cars in segments where state-of-the-art safety is a common expectation.

Regulation can't possibly require an Alto to have some state-of-the-art safety technology that made its debut on the S-Class yesterday

What safety regulations do right is force car manufacturers to discontinue cars with horribly outdated safety technology or performance, often the case in segments where safety is in poor demand.

Renault can't LEGALLY sell a Kwid like this anymore, thanks to AIS 98, India's UN-based offset crash test regulation. (Of course GNCAP's sensationalist headlines and eye-catching visuals had a role in catching the attention of legislators) Picture courtesy: Global NCAP #SaferCarsForIndia (www.globalncap.org/safercarsforindia)

Why India was a little different

When Euro NCAP started in 1997, new UN ECE crash test regulations for Europe were already on the way, set to be implemented in 1998. For years, Euro NCAP's tests were themselves faster and more demanding replicas of these.

But India was a rare case of having an NCAP long before crash test regulations: when Global NCAP started the #SaferCarsForIndia project in 2014, India didn't even have an (independent) crash test facility, and even crash regulations were far in sight. That they came as early as 2017 for newly introduced models and Oct 2019 for all new cars is quite impressive, especially when other "emerging economies" like Africa and Latin America still haven't caught up. And it's something for India to be quite proud of.

India was a rare case of having an NCAP long before crash test regulations

That also created an interesting role switch, where an NCAP was stepping in to drive out unsafe cars before regulations did. Refresher: it's almost 10 years now since Global NCAP asked the now-on-the-run Carlos Ghosn to straight up take the Datsun Go off sale.

Global NCAP letter to Carlos Ghosn demanding that the Datsun Go be taken off sale in India. www.globalncap.org/news/global-ncap-calls-for-urgent-withdrawal-of-datsun-go

When sensationalism is good

No one is better at publicly flogging* manufacturers that deserve it than Global NCAP was, or is. Part of it had to do with their experience with Latin America, where they learned many of the dirty tricks manufacturers play in unregulated markets.

No one is better at publicly flogging* manufacturers that deserve it than Global NCAP is

*figuratively of course

That's what made the organisation perfect for an unregulated Indian auto industry that urgently needed the bad publicity. And after a lot of drama, things have really changed drastically. A large chunk of consumers also look at the ratings keenly. And even if it doesn't reflect in the stars just yet, or even if they don't want to admit it, it's quite clear that no serious manufacturer today is ignoring Global NCAP/BNCAP altogether.

When sensationalism goes wrong

That begs the question — will the safety sensationalism that Global NCAP has relied on so far continue forever, and more importantly, how sustainable is it going to be in the long run?

Sadly I think Global NCAP's habit of prioritising pressuring the industry over everything else might not work in the organisation's favour much longer.

Indian consumers who were 'early adopters' of NCAP stars might have been mostly about virtue signalling on social media, but today safety ratings are popular even in the mainstream. Many who genuinely want to understand their practical implications on safety, tend to take for granted big claims about the ratings, usually heard when they were introduced to the ratings by the automotive equivalent of the "tabloid press", or the 'early adopters' themselves, in a sensational, emotional way that well exceeds what the ratings can really promise.

'Early adopters' of NCAP stars might have been mostly about virtue signalling on social media, but today safety ratings are popular even in the mainstream

Bad decisions

More concerningly, Global NCAP themselves, in their relentless quest to pressure the industry into making cars safer "in the near future", are making decisions that treat the customer looking at their ratings "today" as a tool to drive change rather than a beneficiary of those changes.

For example, allowing ridiculously low fitment volumes for optional equipment to be included in the final rating. The optional equipment is not then considered part of a second "dual rating" like Euro NCAP, but is applied to the entire model. No doubt it is an effective way to persuade the industry to start fitting side airbags and ESC. But from the customer's side, a base variant can swing between 2 stars and 5 depending on a potentially MUCH more expensive variant that needs to make only 30% of sales!

Base Scorpio-N given 5 stars (not 2) because Z8 that costs 6 lakh more has 6 airbags and ESC. Pic: Global NCAP www.globalncap.org/safercarsforindia

And there is the point imbalance issue which I have written about in more detail here. Global NCAP decided to delete one star from cars with a significant imbalance in their front and side test scores, because it makes the sum misleading. The problem with that it in a handful of cases the "higher" of the two scores doesn't improve the star rating because of some missing feature, but still attracts the penalty, meaning safer cars get one star less.

Decisions like the poorly designed penalty for imbalanced scores might not be received well by genuinely interested customers. Picture source: www.globalncap.org/safercarsforindia

The unanimous justification from the "early adopters"? Since anything less than 4 stars is equally bad and Global NCAP is improving the industry, we should shut up (read here for yourself).

Where does that leave today's genuinely interested MPV customer who's pressed for options? Do they not deserve to know they're being misled by a serious mathematical flaw, just because Global NCAP didn't do it intentionally? Because looking at the test critically could stall progress? And with ever-changing criteria, when does this stop?

That's not even to mention that very few consumers have direct access to very important information about the tests, like the fact that results are only valid with child restraints selected and installed as recommended by the carmaker, or the limited crash conditions the tests can confidently represent.

And even while I'm unquestionably in support of pushing carmakers to explore their limits when it comes to vehicle safety, I can't help but wonder if India's vehicle safety scene is still so bad that sensational headlines to hasten progress are more important than transparency about what the tests really mean.