Is your vehicle road safe?

At least 23 entry-level vehicles on South Africa’s roads do not pass safety affordability levels, according to a report.
The four entry level vehicles deemed as acceptable for safety includes the VW Take up!, Renault Sandero 66kw turbo expression, Toyota Aygo 1.0 and Smart ForTwo, a report shows. Picture: Supplied
The vast majority of entry-level cars in South Africa fall short when it comes to safety, according to the latest Automobile Association (AA) Entry-Level Vehicle Safety Report.
 
Only four of 27 entry-level vehicles in a tested sample had safety affordability levels that were regarded as acceptable, according to the report.
 
AA spokesperson, Layton Beard, says the basic safety features considered in the research included electronic stability control, ABS anti-locking braking systems, the number of airbags in the vehicle while points were also awarded if the car had been crash tested. He added the safety affordability index considered the safety features in the car compared to its affordability.
 
“We want people to start looking at safety features in vehicles and not just the aesthetics.”
 
The report considered the safety features of these vehicles, which are available in South Africa and currently priced under R180 000. The price threshold to be included in the latest report is a 12.5% increase from the threshold in the previous report to account for inflation related price increases.
 
A vehicle is generally the second largest purchase by a consumer after their house while entry-level vehicles form a large and growing part of total new vehicle sales. 
 
“The point we are making is that if they are paying R180 000 for instance for the vehicle and it doesn’t have all these safety features, then they should start asking why the vehicle is so expensive,” he said.
 
AA 2019 Entry-level vehicle safety report 

Source: AA.co.za

 
The four entry-level vehicles with acceptable safety affordability levels were the Volkswagen Take up!, Renault Sandero 66kw turbo expression, Toyota Aygo 1.0 and Smart ForTwo.
 
A further 15 vehicles were ranked in the “Moderate” category while eight vehicles were in the “Poor” category in the safety/affordability index.
 
The eight vehicles in the “Poor” category were: Datsun Go+ 1.2 Lux, Kia Picanto 1.0 Start, Nissan NP 200, JMC 4×2 Boarding, Kia Picanto MT 1.0 Style, GWM M4, Nissan Micra Active 1.2 Visia+ and Haval H1.
 
The AA said the purpose of the entry-level vehicle safety research was to highlight the importance of safety features in new cars, understand how these features could save lives and to encourage new car buyers to consider safety in their decisions and not only price.
 
“Price is, unfortunately, a driving factor in people’s decisions to buy vehicles. What we would like to see more of is people considering other elements of the vehicles they intend buying such as safety features, which can mean the difference between life and death,” it said.
 
The AA said this is especially important because many of the people who were buying or driving entry-level vehicles were often those with the least driving experience and, as such, this made safety features even more critical.
 
Of the 27 vehicles assessed for the latest research report, five have local safety ratings, and were awarded points accordingly. The research report was the result of desktop research and specifically assessed safety features only and did not consider the structural integrity of the driver/passenger compartment.
 
The 27 vehicles were then categorised into three groups based on their safety ratings. Of the 27 vehicles assessed, seven vehicles were categorised in the “Acceptable Safety” range prior to considering their affordability. This was a marked improvement on the previous report, which only had two vehicles in this category.
 
Sixteen of the vehicles are ranked in the “Moderate Safety” class while four vehicles were classed as having “Poor Safety”. The AA said the overall results were encouraging despite eight vehicles still remaining in the “Poor” category.
 
It said these results indicated a definite move to more safety features in vehicles but also pointed to a dire need for these features to be standard instead of optional, particularly on entry-level vehicles.
The association confirmed in November it was engaging the national transport department in a bid to get the safety ratings of all vehicles sold in the country displayed on vehicles in dealer showrooms.
 
The engagement formed part of an initiative by the AA with the Global New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP) to provide consumers with information to enable them to make better purchasing choices.
 

AUTHOR PROFILE

VIDEOS

COMMENTS   16

Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.

SUBSCRIBE NOW SIGN IN

What does the AA say about the industry that is by far the largest killer in SA, the Taxi industry?

Your statement is contradicted by the scientific evidence. Read it here
https://www.sajs.co.za/article/download/4287/7000

That report is not “scientific evidence”. The baseline figures are extracted from the RTMC annual reports which can be confidently filed under ‘fiction’, for several reasons:

1. The under-reporting rate is historically high (15%+) and was 25% – 40% when NIMSS data was available as a benchmark.
2. The RTMC stats only report on fatal crashes, not all crashes. When last known, fatal crashes were 1% of all crashes.
3. The RTMC stats have not included an exposure fatality rate (fatalities / 100mvk) since 2006.
4. The RTMC stats have not, since 2011, included such basic measures as crashes by street element. They are fatally deficient for policymaking purposes.
5. No RTMC report has ever complied with the Stats SA standards for statistics published by organs of government.
6. The ’causes and contributing factors’ data is highly questionable and in some cases are based on a sample size of just 15 crashes (out of an annually estimated 2 million). Hence, they vary wildly from year to year and cannot be relied upon at all.
7. Finally, the 2012 statistics were deleted in totality when an external contractor corrupted the database. The RTMC has confirmed this publicly. Yet suddenly, four years after the fact, they were ‘discovered’.

In summary, the current state of SA road safety statistics is so dire as to preclude most reasonable attempts at conclusions or benchmarking. If someone asks me for a definitive benchmark, I’m forced to stretch back to 1998 for a comparison, the last year in which full statistics were published by a reputable organisation (CSIR Transportek).

No. My comment relates to the evidence that there are more fatalities involving taxis than say mining.

3 of the 36 people who die every day on SA roads are related to minibuses.

You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts

Africa Pragmatist, I’m sure you meant to say:

What does the AA say about the issue that is by far the largest killer on the roads in SA, pedestrian fatalities?

At least your question will then have a basis in fact.

Most accidents on the road are due to many faults excluding the driven cars. Not to sound boring, it is not the taxi, but driver who see himself above life and law. Reading the news, it is becoming culture. With the only difference, outside the car environment, life carry on as usual corrupt. Not when brave drivers do the thing of blinking first. The poor car, even with no breaks, can not be blamed.

Approximately 50% of SA’s drivers drive with illegal licenses or without licenses. Probably a majority of vehicles are not roadworthy.

Hang on! I’ve got the perfect solution to congestion! Actually enforce the law. Get fake licensed drivers off the road, and also unroadworthy vehicles. Voila! A 50% plus reduction in traffic.

Seems like most of the vehicles have their head offices in earthquake alley, and are probably built in some south Bolivian mafia controlled territory

What rubbish. The reckless arrogant drivers are the safety problem and not the cars. Surprise me that AA can publish such drivel. So the price of a car plays are role in its safety rating. ?? Nuts.

So when the reckless arrogant driver drives into you, who did nothing wrong, would you rather be in a Go or an Up?

Anyone paying close to R180 000 for any of the above vehicles don’t need no airbags, they are already brain dead. Damn have some self respect and buy a proper cheap second hand car that isn’t built for mice.

As long as you provide the warranty Officejonny…

You will have much less reliability issues with a safe and decently designed second hand car than with most of the above list of cars which was designed on a very limited budget. And if you feel you need a warranty…then you should not be spending R180k on a car in the first place, because you can’t afford it!

End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR
BTC / USD

Podcasts

INSIDER SUBSCRIPTION APP VIDEOS RADIO / LISTEN LIVE SHOP OFFERS WEBINARS NEWSLETTERS TRENDING

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: