VW Golf scores five-star EuroNCAP rating
March 17, 2009 by George Skentzos
The new-generation Volkswagen Golf has been awarded the maximum five-star EuroNCAP safety rating despite stricter and more comprehensive assessment criteria.
Furthermore, it now boasts the highest overall safety rating of any vehicle to be tested under the new scheme.
After undergoing front, side and pedestrian crash testing, the new Golf scored 97 per cent for Adult protection, 84 per cent for Child protection and 61 per cent for Pedestrian protection.
Safety Assist, the fourth and latest rating system of EuroNCAP, takes into consideration all safety and assistant systems of the individual vehicle such as the Electronic Stability Programme (ESP), which is fitted in the Golf as standard.
In this category the Golf scored 71 per cent thanks to standard safety features such as ESP and whiplash-optimised head restraints (WOKS).
Print it: 
******** PRIMO *******
Not bad at all, anything less should be considered a failure from now on. If folk took these figures seriously when choosing a car then you might not be driving the cars we do. Sadly the selfish among us will kind-of ignore the pedestrian figure as it doesn’t affect them directly.
So what …. who needs a Golf ???????
Dumbass comment Hardly Known!!
This would have been a story if the Golf didn’t get the 5 star rating…….totally expected and no doubt deserved!!
Carl, I agree; would have been a bigger story if it had missed out – however, the real story is the highest rating so far under new testing regime.
Harley – what an idiotic statement.
Well done yet again, VW Group.
Take that, Volvo.
It’s a shame that so much money has to be spent on the stupid pedestrian saety, though.
Why don’t pedestrians have to take responsibility for themselves?
Reckless, I agree. Statistically 1/3 pedestrians involved in an accident are within 30m of a designated pedestrian crossing. What excuses are there for such stupidity?
so Bret/Reckless, you’re saying that you’ve NEVER jaywalked? Even when you want to go into a shop or something directly across the street, but there is a crossing 30m up the road. You always go to the crossing?
The holier-than-thou arrogance of some of the opinions on this site is astonishing sometimes…..
I agree with Bret and Reckless re pedestrian safety.
its about time that someone stops putting the responsibility only on car manufacturers/owners.
I see these advertisements of “wipe off 5″ why not tell the pedestrians to look both ways and not to run in front of cars….
I appreciate the loss tht some people have experienced due to reckless car drivers and where pedestrians have been injured or killed. Its unfortunate, but we need to educate both sides and not just the car owners and manufacturers…
^ Absi, another one. Ridiculous statement.
So let me get this straight – a little girl runs out onto the street unexpectedly to fetch a ball, with no traffic awareness, and you mow her down in your non-pedestrian friendly car, and she dies. Your response is, “well, she should’ve taken more responsibility for her actions and she may have lived”.
Get real everyone, these safety measures are a good thing…
Another fine machine by the Volkswagen Group. The German mill is still pumping.
HAL i dont think bret and reckless are saying that they have never jaywalked… but i think its more about taking responsibilities for your own actions.
If u dont care enough about ur life to jump in front of a car just so that u can cross the road and perhaps get on the other side 10 seconds earlier, then why do you expect anyone else to care.
there is certainly no “holier-than-thou arrogance” as you put it…
Gee thanks Absi, that certainly clears that up for me. Whatever was I thinking???
Hal, what a jerk! Anybody else’s opinion is wrong! Only you know what is right! Talk about self-righteous, holier-than-thou! “Whatever was I thinking???” – obviously not much!
On topic – I believe pedestrian safety measures on cars are good, but agree with comments above also. Why should the total responsibility for pedestrian safety rest with vehicle manufacturers?
Peter, the comments about pedestrian safety by others above are narrow-minded and ridiculous – it’s got nothing to do with my opinions being the only ones that are right. I didn’t resort to name-calling (as you have), I focussed on the comments themselves and the attitudes of some of the regular posters on this website. Hang around for a while, read the commentary, and see if you don’t come to the same conclusion.
Back to the justification of my ridicule of the comments about pedestrians taking responsibility for their actions. I mean, come on – where in this article does it state that the responsibility for pedestrian safety is totally with the car maker? It doesn’t say that once, it’s a non-fact brought into the argument by Reckeless, and backed up by Bret, Absi and now you.
Just for the hell of it, refer to the scenario with the little girl I outlined above, and tell me if you still think it’s not incumbent on car manufacturers to take as much responsibility as possible for pedestrian safety? It shouldn’t even be a point of conjecture.
But thanks for the insult anyway……
My comment is not narrow minded and ridiculous, oh – but wait on – HAL has decreed it so.
My apologies, HAL, I and those who share my view will now bow down before your worthiness and ask that you smile upon us in future with your boundless wisdom, when faced with our folly.
Where would this site be without your steadying hand, eh, and where might the world be had you not avoided being hit by a rampant car when you were little only such a short time ago?
So what is your comment based on then, Reckless1? Please, some substance to your initial comment? What is the point of saying, “Why don’t pedestrians have to take responsibility for their own actions”. Who said that they didn’t and what relevance does that statement have to this article? Hence my description of the statement being ridiculous and narrow-minded.
The article is about car designers and manufacturers making their products as safe as they possibly can, it says nothing at all about them doing so just so pedestrians don’t have to take responsibility for their actions.
You may have heard that sarcasm is the lowest form of humour? And it’s also not a valid tactic for defending your comments.
Guys… i just can’t help but feel that the tests are inconclusive or simplistic … especially in a test lab where everything is clinical…
Take the frontal impact test where the car is crashed on deformable barrier at 64k/h. on a head-on collision on a highway with another car, i doubt we would be travelling at 64k/h.
Most collision is due to loss of control due to skidding (understeer or oversteer) and some of the impact tests do not represent the equation at all. In fact, crashes might be a little more complex than tested, e.g. headon and tailon…
In the world of finite element analysis, surely the engineers would be able to calculate the impact forces the cabin can withstand. Having said that, those crashes do provide some visual elements to deter drivers, and some confirmation to things that can be calculated.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how many stars the car got if you got the worst driving habit… I just felt that these “stars” can be a double-edged sword….
The biggest star should be reserved for driver’s education and culture we are honed in.
sorry i meant to say –
Having said that, those crashes do provide some visual elements to deter drivers, and some confirmation to things that CANNOT be calculated.
HAL,
My comment was intended to highlight the stupidity of many pedestrians.
Don’t try to confuse the argument between the 6yo chasing a ball and an irresponsible adult being an idiot.
BTW the statistic that I presented comes directly from a current road safety campaign in SA, where the authorities are saying that pedestrians should take more responsibility for their road safety!
Bret, I’m not the confused one here. By ‘many’ pedestrians you mean 1/3? Again, as I said to Reckless, it’s a question of relevance to the thread. The article is good news story about technological advances made by one company that are making their cars safer – not only for the drivers but the things they are likely to run into. I just don’t get why we then need to start talking about how ’stupid’ some pedestrians are. It’s such a massive generalisation, and in the context of the article, not very relevant either. Vehicle/pedestrian accidents will always occur, regardless of who’s at fault, so the fact that car makers are considering this in their designs as technological advances are made is a brilliant thing, end of story.
Hal, I have been reading CA for some time now (but have only recently started adding comments myself).
Something that has stood out quite clearly is your high-handed approach to other’s comments/views, “bagging” all and sundry who don’t agree with you, calling people’s opinions and views “narrow minded” or “ridiculous”. So, if the shoe fits!
As for the scenario – the child’s safety in this case rests with the parents followed by the driver, and, yes, the vehicle itself – that is why I said “I believe pedestrian safety measures on cars are good …”
be careful Peter, unless you can quote specific examples of where I have “bagged all & sundry”, you open yourself up to potential defamation. To the contrary, on many occassions I have pulled others up for being rude, impolite, and unnecessarily nasty/snide to others for simply having a differing opinion to their own. So I find it hard to believe that if you have been reading CA for a while that you would have seen me guilty of those very things. I called the COMMENTS of others today ridiculous, and have articluated in several proceeding posts as to why I thought so. To this point nobody has put forward an plausible counter-defence.
I have never, and will never call any PERSON names, or take them to task simply because they have a different view to my own. Today’s example is an anomaly because it is an issue very close to me, given a family member was involved in such an incident. But lets not go there.
The reason I comment on this website is because I like to hear others views on things, and ‘debate’ topics in a constructive manner. But I do get my back up when people make generalised statements from what appears to be a position of authority, and then continue the nonsense when someone questions them on it.
Defamation? For an alias? Who are you trying to kid?
Sleepy, it’s just a relative measurement on how safe a car is. A 64km/h head on crash would actually mean just 32km/h(who would drive at 32km/h eh?) for both cars if they are traveling on opposite direction. More stars for 1 car simply mean you will less likely be injured/dead compared with being in another car with less stars. You don’t really have to put the cars in what-you-would-car real world/non simplistic conditions to see which one is relatively safer.
Are they doing a roll over as part of the test?
OK, Golfschwein, although it could be called defamation, libel or slander, technically it would be libel:
“false or misleading statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast”.
But I’m not that worried. Just wanted to remind people that the degree of anonymity isn’t as far-reaching as they seem to think it is on the net. You still have to be careful what you say about people, and generalisations like the one Peter made about me, is total bollocks and shouldn’t have been posted in the first place.
Okay. But this would only be a problem if someone’s true identity was used, wouldn’t it? If someone here accused Golfschwein of being or doing something that is completely false, does that become my problem for being Golfschwein or is it the accuser’s problem? However annoyed I’d be, I suspect it would be my problem.
I agree with HAL.
If manufacturers have the ability to make their cars safer for pedestrians, why not let them? If one particular manufacturer wants to spend more money making their cars safer for pedestrians, should such spending not be rewarded with recognition that their car is more safe from an overall viewpoint than another manufacturer? It’s not like car companies HAVE to make their vehicles pedestrian safe, but it does encourage them to.
I would have thought that pedestrian safety also translates to less deadly crashes with other vehicles? I have nothing to support that than intuition though. If the car is designed to crumple and exert less force on pedestrians then surely it would work the same way with other cars… I mean its all good if you have a 5 star car but if its a massive tank on wheels you might be fine but the poor individual in the microcar you crunched probably doesn’t feel the same way.
Whilst I do agree with reckless and brets views as to pedestrians having to take responsibility for themselves, this attitude will not apply to everyone. Think about that little girl… what about the situations where the driver is driving wildly and mounts a curb and takes out a group of pedestrians? Even if a few of these deaths or permanent injuries can be reduced in their severity then isn’t it all worth it?
The R32 replacement R20 is looking more exciting than ever!!!
Bring it on VW.
4Motion Direct Injection 2.0L T DSG will be a wolf in se><y clothing!!!
Hal is right – increased pedestrian safety in the design of cars is a good thing. We are all pedestrians at some point. Anything which reduces the likelyhood of a pedestrian being killed or seriously injured by a car is welcome. How can anyone complain about such improvements? It’s an intellectually incoherent position.
Oh Damn – I just answered my own question!
If they can be made safer for pedestrians it has to be a good think whether it saves a child or a careless adult.
Simon (and others) nobody has said anything about improving pedestrian safety of cars not being a good thing.
All I said was that at some point pedestrians need to take responsibility for road safety too.
It IS the subject of a current road safety campaign in SA. The authorities do agree.
So right brets about sa ,i drive in the city a fair bit and boy o boy what the hell are traffic lights for , they just ignore them , bloody walkers .
When iam a pedestrian i tread carefully because not all drivers are alert ,and certainly a lot of pedstrians believe its their god given right to walk blatantly in front of on coming cars , quite carelessly .
Well they might just end up with god .
Good on you VW another top car , that might spare a dumb walker from death.
Bret, I never never disagreed that pedestrians need to take more responsibility. I agree with that. I just happend to agree with Hal too.
A little of topic, but I am considering a new golf and was wondering if VW are going to release a GT TDI in the near future or is it the comfortline version I’ll have to look at…
Bret and Reckless….the drivers you want to AVOID when you are driving.
Jeeze – Can’t believe folk here even think that their cars should not have quite so much resource input against pedestrian injury protection. Guess they need to educate themselves of the true meaning of the word “Accident”.
Cupid, who said that? I don’t think that anybody has said that it shouldn’t be spent, and that ultimately it isn’t a good thing. Reckless said it was a shame that it is neccessary, that’s all.