NCAP Testing Modifications
01-19-2005, 04:43 AM
#21
Contributors
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: [i][b][u]Since 19 august 2004[/u][/b][/i]: [color=red][b]530i[/b] High Executive[/color], Silvergray with beige interior, Popular wood, Servotronic, Sportssuspension, electric foldable and dimmed mirrors, dimmed interior mirror, pappelmaser braun wood, cupholders, styling 123 18" wheels, Logic 7, Steptronic, alarm class 3, electric sunscreen in the rear and suncreens for sidewindows, Comfort seats, heated seats, Xenon with headlightwashers, Adaptive corner lights ALC, Advanced airconditioning, lightpackage, Nav Pro, 6 cd changer, side airbags rearseats, bluetooth siemens S55, chrome kidneys, gearlever with wood, voice recognition retrofit, front windshield with green band.
Waiting for trunkopener button from Hobi :)
blah blah blah is right.. This is exactly how i feel about this situation. If I had waited one month with buying the car I would have had the new 2005 model.
BMW Netherlands send me an e-mail after my complaint and the only thing that was in the e-mail was a description why the 1 series has 5 stars and the 5 series a 4 star rating.. Not the answer to my question as usual..
BMW Netherlands send me an e-mail after my complaint and the only thing that was in the e-mail was a description why the 1 series has 5 stars and the 5 series a 4 star rating.. Not the answer to my question as usual..
01-19-2005, 06:13 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by 530E60NL' date='Jan 19 2005, 08:43 AM
blah blah blah is right.. This is exactly how i feel about this situation. If I had waited one month with buying the car I would have had the new 2005 model.
BMW Netherlands send me an e-mail after my complaint and the only thing that was in the e-mail was a description why the 1 series has 5 stars and the 5 series a 4 star rating.. Not the answer to my question as usual..
BMW Netherlands send me an e-mail after my complaint and the only thing that was in the e-mail was a description why the 1 series has 5 stars and the 5 series a 4 star rating.. Not the answer to my question as usual..
[snapback]80692[/snapback]
Blah blah blah makes very poor arguments and fails to rebut any of the points raised as explained below:
1. Purely subjective speculation -- As Iceman has opined, the US IIHS has the highest safety testing standards. Even assuming that the US IIHS standards are not the highest for the sake of argument, Blah blah blah fails to explain why it is not "purely subjective speculation" to rely on the NCAP results. No one has overlooked any evidence of poor performance, but instead relied upon more credible evidence as explained in point #2 below.
2. The NCAP results have not been overlooked or defamed. NCAP could obviate the entire issue by simply publishing the test methodology and measured results, including those specific measurements disputed by BMW, for the configured e60 vehicle tested. For some reason, NCAP has failed to do so and this failure raises issues as to NCAP's credibility. The US IIHS publishes the test results so that the reader can review and make its own determinations.
3. Blah blah blah has failed to quantitatively and conclusively establish and define the difference between a 4 star and a 3 star NCAP rating. Instead, Blah blah blah reinforces my point, which is that the difference between any ordinal NCAP ratings is qualitative (i.e., subjective and opinionated), which results in Euro auto manufacturers using the NCAP ratings as a marketing device. I implore Blah blah blah to explain the quantitative differences between each ordinal NCAP star ratings so that the reader can quantitatively determine and measure the degree of safety "improvement" between a 3 star and 4 star NCAP rating or a 4 star and 5 star NCAP rating. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of marketing nonsense.
4. Blah blah blah argues that BMW should either fix the "deficiencies" or buy back the vehicles. As explained above, BMW disputes that there are any "deficiencies," but as a pragmatic "marketing" matter in Europe, made changes to "game" the NCAP results and improve its star rating. Unless the alleged design "deficiencies" can be quantified and proven to result in actual harm to the purchaser, BMW has no legal obligation to buy back, recall or do anything for the purchaser. Neither BMW nor any other auto manufacturer will buy back your car simply because you have a subjective belief (that you cannot quantify or prove) that it is unsafe -- it is irrational and unrealistic to expect otherwise.
5. Blah blah blah is completely wrong by conveniently ignoring the cause the harm/loss from an accident. The reason why an accident occurs and how the loss/injury is caused is exactly the "point" in civil litigation. In many US states, if you cannot prove in a court trial that the alleged BMW design defect was the proximate cause of your loss and/or injury, you recover NOTHING. In California, you may be able to recover something from BMW, but you must prove that your loss and/or injury was in part caused by the alleged BMW design defect -- in most cases, the alleged contribution, if any is proven, is likely to be very small (in the 1-5% range at most) since other conditions, such as driver error, speed, weather conditions, other drivers, violation of traffic laws, etc. will be the primary cause. That is why very few auto design defect cases go to trial in the US -- instead, hungry lawyers try to get large class actions to force a settlement from the manufacturer because they cannot prove in court that the design defect was the proximate cause of the loss/injury (e.g., in the Ford Explorer rollovers, driver error and excessive speed are the proximate cause of the rollover in most cases; where they were not, defective tires were the cause and there was enough quantitative data that Ford recalled them for replacement). Here again, Blah blah blah offers nothing except handwaving and an observation that BMW redesigned the e60 to improve its NCAP results -- in the US, you cannot even use the fact that BMW redesigned the e60 to improve NCAP results in court to prove that the alleged defect caused your loss/injury (the rules of evidence preclude such facts because the courts want to encourage manufacturers to make and sell safe products, so they cannot be punished for improving them).
01-19-2005, 08:40 AM
#23
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: White Plains, NY
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550, Carbon Black Metallic, Natural Brown Dakota Leather, Sport Package, Sport Automatic Transmission, Cold Weather Package, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades, etc.
Retired - 2004 545 SMG, Black Sapphire Metallic, Auburn Dakota Leather, Cold Weather and Sports Packages, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades
I posted the letter I received from BMWNA (121/21/04) on this issue in one of the other related threads. It was the standard BS answer. I wrote back (12/28/04) seeking more information. Since then, I have recived two telphone calls from the contact at BMWNA, including one this morning, stating:
The BMWNA engineers told him he needs to get the information from Germany, he is waiting to find out if the changes affected US spec cars, and, here is the good one, whether BMW believes this is the type of information that it wishes to disclose to the public.
Bottom line - still no info.
The BMWNA engineers told him he needs to get the information from Germany, he is waiting to find out if the changes affected US spec cars, and, here is the good one, whether BMW believes this is the type of information that it wishes to disclose to the public.
Bottom line - still no info.
01-19-2005, 10:44 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Guest' date='Jan 19 2005, 10:13 AM
As I said before, if you believe your 2004 e60 is unsafe, you should sell it immediately, instead of griping on an owners forum, since it is not worth the risk of loss of life/limb for a few Euros or $$ as the case may be.
I think those Ford Explorer owners with Firestone tires shoulda had to go out and get new cars and tires too! Owners forums are the exact place for this discussion. Some might prefer a whitewash of this saftey concern, but others want to know that after their $55K to $65K investment, that their family members dont become another morbility & mortality stastis while BMW puts more cash in the bank not taking care of its vehicle.
Blah blah blah makes very poor arguments and fails to rebut any of the points raised as explained below:
1.? Purely subjective speculation -- As Iceman has opined, the US IIHS has the highest safety testing standards.? Even assuming that the US IIHS standards are not the highest for the sake of argument, Blah blah blah fails to explain why it is not "purely subjective speculation" to rely on the NCAP results.? No one has overlooked any evidence of poor performance, but instead relied upon more credible evidence as explained in point #2 below.
It is quite obvious that BMW puts MUCH stock in NCAP results. After all, it was BMW that rushed to make vehicle modifications lickety-split once they got wind of the E60's dismall performance.
2.? The NCAP results have not been overlooked or defamed.? NCAP could obviate the entire issue by simply publishing the test methodology and measured results, including those specific measurements disputed by BMW, for the configured e60 vehicle tested.? For some reason, NCAP has failed to do so and this failure raises issues as to NCAP's credibility.? The US IIHS publishes the test results so that the reader can review and make its own determinations.
Hmm. I guess the same arguement can be made of BMW, who steadfastly refuses to disclose information it possesses on this topic as well. I realize you dont like the NCAP results, but are you stating that the NCAP testing is flawed and worthless?
3.? Blah blah blah has failed to quantitatively and conclusively establish and define the difference between a 4 star and a 3 star NCAP rating.? Instead, Blah blah blah reinforces my point, which is that the difference between any ordinal NCAP ratings is qualitative (i.e., subjective and opinionated), which results in Euro auto manufacturers using the NCAP ratings as a marketing device.? I implore Blah blah blah to explain the quantitative differences between each ordinal NCAP star ratings so that the reader can quantitatively determine and measure the degree of safety "improvement" between a 3 star and 4 star NCAP rating or a 4 star and 5 star NCAP rating.? Otherwise, it's just a bunch of marketing nonsense.
So your point is that 2 or 3 stars is the same as 4 or 5 stars?? The FACT that BMW saw it necessary to reconfigure the safety features of its vehicle is proof that this conjecture is false. Their marketing department could have placed a whole lot more advertisements if they wanted to. But instead, they quickly addressed the safety deficiencies found by NCAP.
4.? Blah blah blah argues that BMW should either fix the "deficiencies" or buy back the vehicles.? As explained above, BMW disputes that there are any "deficiencies," but as a pragmatic "marketing" matter in Europe, made changes to "game" the NCAP results and improve its star rating.? Unless the alleged design "deficiencies" can be quantified and proven to result in actual harm to the purchaser, BMW has no legal obligation to buy back, recall or do anything for the purchaser.? Neither BMW nor any other auto manufacturer will buy back your car simply because you have a subjective belief (that you cannot quantify or prove) that it is unsafe -- it is irrational and unrealistic to expect otherwise.
After passengers are injured in 2004 E60's the courts will decide whether this is a mere marketing issue or rather a safety issue (and NCAP results suggest the latter).
5.? Blah blah blah is completely wrong by conveniently ignoring the cause the harm/loss from an accident.? The reason why an accident occurs and how the loss/injury is caused is exactly the "point" in civil litigation.? In many US states, if you cannot prove in a court trial that the alleged BMW design defect was the proximate cause of your loss and/or injury, you recover NOTHING.? In California, you may be able to recover something from BMW, but you must prove that your loss and/or injury was in part caused by the alleged BMW design defect -- in most cases, the alleged contribution, if any is proven, is likely to be very small (in the 1-5% range at most) since other conditions, such as driver error, speed, weather conditions, other drivers, violation of traffic laws, etc. will be the primary cause.? That is why very few auto design defect cases go to trial in the US -- instead, hungry lawyers try to get large class actions to force a settlement from the manufacturer because they cannot prove in court that the design defect was the proximate cause of the loss/injury (e.g., in the Ford Explorer rollovers, driver error and excessive speed are the proximate cause of the rollover in most cases; where they were not, defective tires were the cause and there was enough quantitative data that Ford recalled them for replacement).? Here again, Blah blah blah offers nothing except handwaving and an observation that BMW redesigned the e60 to improve its NCAP results -- in the US, you cannot even use the fact that BMW redesigned the e60 to improve NCAP results in court to prove that the alleged defect caused your loss/injury (the rules of evidence preclude such facts because the courts want to encourage manufacturers to make and sell safe products, so they cannot be punished for improving them).
Time will tell what is or is not admissable evidence. But I did like the way you summed up the facts above!
I think those Ford Explorer owners with Firestone tires shoulda had to go out and get new cars and tires too! Owners forums are the exact place for this discussion. Some might prefer a whitewash of this saftey concern, but others want to know that after their $55K to $65K investment, that their family members dont become another morbility & mortality stastis while BMW puts more cash in the bank not taking care of its vehicle.
Blah blah blah makes very poor arguments and fails to rebut any of the points raised as explained below:
1.? Purely subjective speculation -- As Iceman has opined, the US IIHS has the highest safety testing standards.? Even assuming that the US IIHS standards are not the highest for the sake of argument, Blah blah blah fails to explain why it is not "purely subjective speculation" to rely on the NCAP results.? No one has overlooked any evidence of poor performance, but instead relied upon more credible evidence as explained in point #2 below.
It is quite obvious that BMW puts MUCH stock in NCAP results. After all, it was BMW that rushed to make vehicle modifications lickety-split once they got wind of the E60's dismall performance.
2.? The NCAP results have not been overlooked or defamed.? NCAP could obviate the entire issue by simply publishing the test methodology and measured results, including those specific measurements disputed by BMW, for the configured e60 vehicle tested.? For some reason, NCAP has failed to do so and this failure raises issues as to NCAP's credibility.? The US IIHS publishes the test results so that the reader can review and make its own determinations.
Hmm. I guess the same arguement can be made of BMW, who steadfastly refuses to disclose information it possesses on this topic as well. I realize you dont like the NCAP results, but are you stating that the NCAP testing is flawed and worthless?
3.? Blah blah blah has failed to quantitatively and conclusively establish and define the difference between a 4 star and a 3 star NCAP rating.? Instead, Blah blah blah reinforces my point, which is that the difference between any ordinal NCAP ratings is qualitative (i.e., subjective and opinionated), which results in Euro auto manufacturers using the NCAP ratings as a marketing device.? I implore Blah blah blah to explain the quantitative differences between each ordinal NCAP star ratings so that the reader can quantitatively determine and measure the degree of safety "improvement" between a 3 star and 4 star NCAP rating or a 4 star and 5 star NCAP rating.? Otherwise, it's just a bunch of marketing nonsense.
So your point is that 2 or 3 stars is the same as 4 or 5 stars?? The FACT that BMW saw it necessary to reconfigure the safety features of its vehicle is proof that this conjecture is false. Their marketing department could have placed a whole lot more advertisements if they wanted to. But instead, they quickly addressed the safety deficiencies found by NCAP.
4.? Blah blah blah argues that BMW should either fix the "deficiencies" or buy back the vehicles.? As explained above, BMW disputes that there are any "deficiencies," but as a pragmatic "marketing" matter in Europe, made changes to "game" the NCAP results and improve its star rating.? Unless the alleged design "deficiencies" can be quantified and proven to result in actual harm to the purchaser, BMW has no legal obligation to buy back, recall or do anything for the purchaser.? Neither BMW nor any other auto manufacturer will buy back your car simply because you have a subjective belief (that you cannot quantify or prove) that it is unsafe -- it is irrational and unrealistic to expect otherwise.
After passengers are injured in 2004 E60's the courts will decide whether this is a mere marketing issue or rather a safety issue (and NCAP results suggest the latter).
5.? Blah blah blah is completely wrong by conveniently ignoring the cause the harm/loss from an accident.? The reason why an accident occurs and how the loss/injury is caused is exactly the "point" in civil litigation.? In many US states, if you cannot prove in a court trial that the alleged BMW design defect was the proximate cause of your loss and/or injury, you recover NOTHING.? In California, you may be able to recover something from BMW, but you must prove that your loss and/or injury was in part caused by the alleged BMW design defect -- in most cases, the alleged contribution, if any is proven, is likely to be very small (in the 1-5% range at most) since other conditions, such as driver error, speed, weather conditions, other drivers, violation of traffic laws, etc. will be the primary cause.? That is why very few auto design defect cases go to trial in the US -- instead, hungry lawyers try to get large class actions to force a settlement from the manufacturer because they cannot prove in court that the design defect was the proximate cause of the loss/injury (e.g., in the Ford Explorer rollovers, driver error and excessive speed are the proximate cause of the rollover in most cases; where they were not, defective tires were the cause and there was enough quantitative data that Ford recalled them for replacement).? Here again, Blah blah blah offers nothing except handwaving and an observation that BMW redesigned the e60 to improve its NCAP results -- in the US, you cannot even use the fact that BMW redesigned the e60 to improve NCAP results in court to prove that the alleged defect caused your loss/injury (the rules of evidence preclude such facts because the courts want to encourage manufacturers to make and sell safe products, so they cannot be punished for improving them).
Time will tell what is or is not admissable evidence. But I did like the way you summed up the facts above!
[snapback]80720[/snapback]
01-19-2005, 11:02 AM
#25
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: White Plains, NY
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550, Carbon Black Metallic, Natural Brown Dakota Leather, Sport Package, Sport Automatic Transmission, Cold Weather Package, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades, etc.
Retired - 2004 545 SMG, Black Sapphire Metallic, Auburn Dakota Leather, Cold Weather and Sports Packages, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades
Way OT now, but the rules of evidence only prohbit the introduction of subsequent remedial measures to prove certain things, such as that the prior design was defective. The subsequent remedial measures can be used to prove that the improvements were feasible and when an alleged defect was discovered.
01-19-2005, 12:09 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by robg' date='Jan 19 2005, 03:02 PM
Way OT now, but the rules of evidence only prohbit the introduction of subsequent remedial? measures? to prove certain things, such as that the prior design was defective.? The subsequent remedial measures can be used to prove that the improvements were feasible and when an alleged defect was discovered.
[snapback]80832[/snapback]
01-19-2005, 12:19 PM
#27
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: White Plains, NY
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550, Carbon Black Metallic, Natural Brown Dakota Leather, Sport Package, Sport Automatic Transmission, Cold Weather Package, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades, etc.
Retired - 2004 545 SMG, Black Sapphire Metallic, Auburn Dakota Leather, Cold Weather and Sports Packages, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades
great - another lawyer
01-19-2005, 12:33 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with Blah blah blah that "discussion" of alleged safety issues is appropriate in an owner's forum; however, "discussion"/griping is not an excuse for lack of action/omission -- if you truly and honestly believe the 2004 e60 is an unsafe car, please sell your e60 and get into something else before you and/or your family suffer any loss/injury.
Nothing will happen in any court unless one of the e60 owners brings a case (i.e., "time will tell" nothing unless someone brings this to trial), which will obviously cost $$ for the legal fees. I doubt that many ambulance chasers would take this type of case on a contingency fee basis (i.e., they get 30-50% of whatever judgment/settlement is made) since there do not appear to be any injuries at this point and the operative nucleus of facts/circumstances surrounding any potential injuries/claims would appear to involve substantial questions/issues of whether the driver was at fault and proximately caused most of his/her own injuries (and the alleged safety modifications, based on the published newspaper explanations, would appear in the best case only to mitigate, but not eliminate, the risk of injury -- in short, speed kills and no automobile safety design can prevent injury if the car is not driven at a safe speed).
Please read my explanation carefully -- I have not asserted or assumed any equivalency between any NCAP ratings or ratings differences (whether 2, 3, 4 or 5 stars) ==> what I have stated is that you have not QUANTIFIED the differences between any NCAP ratings (maybe you cannot because the assignment of stars is completely subjective). Ask yourself how you would measure the safety improvement, if any, between a 4 star rated car versus a 3 star rated car?? Or, if you prefer, between a 5 star rated car and a 4 star rated car?? Do you have any data (NOT handwaving) to establish how much safer a 4 star rated car is than a 3 star rated car??
Lastly, Blah blah blah and others have made a big deal about the changes BMW has made, as well as the timing of those changes, to improve the NCAP star ratings. While this may be important to emotionally propound one's dissatisfaction in an owner's forum, it does not prove causation in court. More importantly, unless the differences between NCAP star ratings can be objectively quantified/measured, all this will prove is that European auto manufacturers will spend lots of $$ quickly to improve the NCAP ratings because it will hamper vehicle sales as they cannot market them effectively in Europe against their competitors (this explains everything that has happened in this instance, which makes arguments regarding certain nefarious BMW purposes or motives incredible). Thus, we are back to where we have started -- if you believe the 2004 e60 is unsafe, your best course of action is to sell the car; while you may gripe on this forum (or elsewhere online), this will not make your 2004 e60 any safer, nor will it prevent any loss/injury to you or your family.
Nothing will happen in any court unless one of the e60 owners brings a case (i.e., "time will tell" nothing unless someone brings this to trial), which will obviously cost $$ for the legal fees. I doubt that many ambulance chasers would take this type of case on a contingency fee basis (i.e., they get 30-50% of whatever judgment/settlement is made) since there do not appear to be any injuries at this point and the operative nucleus of facts/circumstances surrounding any potential injuries/claims would appear to involve substantial questions/issues of whether the driver was at fault and proximately caused most of his/her own injuries (and the alleged safety modifications, based on the published newspaper explanations, would appear in the best case only to mitigate, but not eliminate, the risk of injury -- in short, speed kills and no automobile safety design can prevent injury if the car is not driven at a safe speed).
Please read my explanation carefully -- I have not asserted or assumed any equivalency between any NCAP ratings or ratings differences (whether 2, 3, 4 or 5 stars) ==> what I have stated is that you have not QUANTIFIED the differences between any NCAP ratings (maybe you cannot because the assignment of stars is completely subjective). Ask yourself how you would measure the safety improvement, if any, between a 4 star rated car versus a 3 star rated car?? Or, if you prefer, between a 5 star rated car and a 4 star rated car?? Do you have any data (NOT handwaving) to establish how much safer a 4 star rated car is than a 3 star rated car??
Lastly, Blah blah blah and others have made a big deal about the changes BMW has made, as well as the timing of those changes, to improve the NCAP star ratings. While this may be important to emotionally propound one's dissatisfaction in an owner's forum, it does not prove causation in court. More importantly, unless the differences between NCAP star ratings can be objectively quantified/measured, all this will prove is that European auto manufacturers will spend lots of $$ quickly to improve the NCAP ratings because it will hamper vehicle sales as they cannot market them effectively in Europe against their competitors (this explains everything that has happened in this instance, which makes arguments regarding certain nefarious BMW purposes or motives incredible). Thus, we are back to where we have started -- if you believe the 2004 e60 is unsafe, your best course of action is to sell the car; while you may gripe on this forum (or elsewhere online), this will not make your 2004 e60 any safer, nor will it prevent any loss/injury to you or your family.
01-19-2005, 01:16 PM
#29
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: White Plains, NY
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550, Carbon Black Metallic, Natural Brown Dakota Leather, Sport Package, Sport Automatic Transmission, Cold Weather Package, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades, etc.
Retired - 2004 545 SMG, Black Sapphire Metallic, Auburn Dakota Leather, Cold Weather and Sports Packages, Power Rear and Manual Side Sun Shades
I do not think the law suit will be about the value of cars without the improvements. Rather, when an onwer of an E60 w/o the improvements is in an accident, it will become an issue. Whether or not the improvments / lack of improvements is directly implicated, it will be an issue in litigation. The other driver, the maintiner of the roads, and thecar manufacturer are all targets of litgation. Adding the aditional defendants only marginally increaces thecost of the litigation. During the discovery phase, the plaintiff will ask about all design changes.
In any event, this is all way, way off topic. I oringinally started this thread to find out if anyone had any information. I do not know if the newer E60's are safer than the older ones becasue BMW has never disclosed exactly what the changes were. It seems premature to sell your car, or to challenge others to sell thier cars, until the relavant information is known. If the old versions are as safe as the new versions, and the NCAP ratings are all about marketing, why doesn't BMW just explain in detail what the changes were?
In any event, this is all way, way off topic. I oringinally started this thread to find out if anyone had any information. I do not know if the newer E60's are safer than the older ones becasue BMW has never disclosed exactly what the changes were. It seems premature to sell your car, or to challenge others to sell thier cars, until the relavant information is known. If the old versions are as safe as the new versions, and the NCAP ratings are all about marketing, why doesn't BMW just explain in detail what the changes were?
01-19-2005, 02:14 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by robg' date='Jan 19 2005, 05:16 PM
If the old versions are as safe as the new versions, and the NCAP ratings are all about marketing, why doesn't BMW just explain in detail what the changes were?
[snapback]80893[/snapback]
Here in the US, the IIHS publishes its testing results so that prospective purchasers can review the information and make their own judgments about the safety-worthiness of the tested vehicles (even if IIHS assigns its own ratings).
Why does NCAP refuse to release the e60 testing results, including its own explanation of the measurements disputed by BMW?? If the NCAP results are published, sophisticated purchasers can evaluate/determine the seriousness of the alleged deficiencies, if any. By concealing the results, NCAP has created its own credibility problem -- here in the US, IIHS obviates any credibility issues publishing its test results.