Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 10:35:02 -0400 From: "Todd J" <toddnospamnopsamail.com> Subject: Re: Opinions on the 1999 Saab 9-3?
The HLDI website specifies that the data for injuries is standardized (actually, I beleive the term "normalized" is more appropriate) for driver age. It effectively removes the bias that may be found due to driver related factors. Quote: "Results also are adjusted, or standardized, to reduce possible distortions from two nonvehicle factors — operator age (injury, collision, and theft results) and deductible amount (collision and theft results only). " In addition, a comment on the scientific validity of offset crash testing. THERE IS NONE. Analysis of repeated offset crash testing of the same car model shows that the test results have no statistical significance with respect to the actual performance of the car in the test. The test iteself is not reliable nor repeatable. Thus the arguments made by car companies (such as Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford, BMW, Mercedes) that it should not be used until it can be proven statistically valid. Of course, NCAP is made up of consumer and government organizations with agendas, and who are notoriously unable to use statistics in a scientific manner. I think it is interesting to note that the test reports (NCAP) include the comment "the deformable barrier helps improve repeatablility of the test" but in fact, there are no quotes on the actual statistical repeatability or reliability of the test. Wouldn't want to quote figures that don't help the cause. We are still searching for an offset crash testing methodology that is reliable for the comparison of autos. Today, one does not exist. KBB, you should review your own data before quoting it.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
