US NCAP program update. Presentation given by Jenny Dang at the 2014 Global NCAP Annual Meeting. CATARC, Tianjin, China. 30 October 2014

1. U.S. NCAP Update
2014 Global NCAP Annual Meeting
October 30, 2014
1

2. Recent U.S. New Vehicle Performance
 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
2

3. 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

4. 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 optional
5 – 8 standard, 2 unclear, all others optional

5. 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 unclear
B – 85 optional, 1 standard
C – 160 optional, 2 standard, 24 unclear
D – 270 optional, 31 standard
E – 341 optional, 36 standard, 6 unclear

6. Penetration of U.S. NCAP Advanced
Technologies Into the U.S. Marketplace (Cont.)
6
Model
Year
Rearview Video Systems : MY 2014-2015
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

7. U.S. NCAP Success and Goal
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
7

8. Recent U.S. NCAP Activities
 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
8

9. Next Steps for U.S. NCAP
 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
9

10. Jennifer N. Dang
Chief, U.S. NCAP
Email: Jenny.Dang@dot.gov
Visit us at www.SaferCar.gov
10
Questions?

11. Overarching Public Comments
 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
11