A leading road safety campaigner has
savaged a recently released list of safe and unsafe second hand
vehicles. The study, compiled by Australia’s Monash University Accident
Research Center, claims to have used actual crash data to determine
whether a type of vehicle is safe or unsafe. A leaflet based on the
study is being widely distributed across Australia.
Clive Matthew-Wilson, editor of the car buyer’s Dog & Lemon
Guide, described the leaflet as “ a pack of lies without scientific
basis.”
“What the researchers have done is to massage the facts
to support an argument. For example, if this study is to be believed,
the 1997-02 Mazda 121 is a very safe vehicle while the 1996-02 Range
Rover is a very unsafe vehicle. This conclusion is flatly contradicted
by the best scientific evidence.”“When the Mazda 121 was crash tested, it scored just 3.13 out of a
possible 16 in its simulated head-on collision. The passenger
compartment was substantially deformed. Protection from serious chest
and leg injury was poor for the driver. Yet this same vehicle is being
recommended as ‘very safe’ to an unsuspecting public”“By comparison, the 1996-02 Range Rover is a consistently good
performer in road accidents and would annihilate a vehicle like the
Mazda 121, yet the Range Rover gets listed as a ‘worst performer’.”“What Monash has done is to massage the data in order to discourage
car buyers from buying vehicles like the Range Rover. As a result, the
so-called scientific survey has become an exercise in deceiving the
public.”
Chris Coxon, the former technical head of the Australian New Car
Assessment Program, which has crash tested most newer Australian cars,
is equally horrified by the Monash study.
“Our job as scientists is to state the facts. It is not our job to massage the data to fit some political or social objective.”
“The cold, hard fact is that heavier, larger vehicles are generally safer than small, lightweight vehicles.”
“ The report that Monash has put out is totally untrustworthy from a car buyer’s point of view.”