There was, putting it bluntly, a really stupid piece of news made by the Malaysia Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS) stating that cars that are more than 12 years old are not safe to be on the road. MIROS added that there is a higher risk of death in an accident because such cars could be faulty without the driver being aware of it and that most cars are designed to have a lifespan of five to twelve years. MIROS also stated that cars made more than twelve years ago were also lacking in safety features. This conclusion was derived after a car collision test at the Asean New Car Assessment Programme (ASEAN NCAP) . The test car was done on a...23 year old Proton Saga. 

I have to say that this test and press statement made by MIROS officials are right down stupid. You state that cars older than 12 years of age are unsafe and then test a 23 year old Proton Saga? Hello MIROS, you're testing a car that was designed in the early 1980s. Please note that the Proton Saga, nee Mitsubishi Lancer first came out in 1983 which meant that this was a car designed as early as 1980. This car was definitely designed prior to airbags as standard requirement. 

Anyway, the actual reason why this test is really stupid is the fact that the Proton Saga was sold till 2008 with only a bumper change most of the time. If the Saga from twenty-three years ago suffered from massive damage after hitting something at 64km/h what makes you people at MIROS think that a last batch Proton Saga from 2008 can manage to keep its occupants safe? This test has no bearing on the reason that older cars aren't safe because the test model shows that newer cars aren't safe too. 

This is the problem with testing a Malaysian car. They are almost never replaced. Why not try a 1997 Volvo S40? Euro NCAP rating for that car was 4stars -"The S40 was awarded four stars for protection in frontal and side impacts, the only one of 13 family cars tested to achieve this result. The S40 performed well in the frontal-impact test and no major failings were detected. However, a reduced level of footwell intrusion would be beneficial. The car tested was fitted with a driver airbag and side-impact protection airbags mounted in the front seats all of which are standard equipment throughout Europe. The side airbags move with the seat and should be effective in any seating position."

The second point I wish to raise up is the fact that cars like most machinery have a specific lifespan but it does no depend on age per se. If all machinery depended on age as its lifespan you think the Royal Malaysian Air Force could be safely flying their C130 Hercules transport planes? Some are older than 12 years of age.

In airplanes there is a lifespan due to structural fatigue due to how many flight hours. It is the same with automobiles. The lfiespan is based on a car's mileage. Note that every car has a service manual and one should keep to it. Most cars are designed to have a last a good 150,000km before any serious problems come out of it. Even then most manufacturers have a service procedure for the cars. Some cars require a change of steering ball joints every 100,000km, brakes every 60,000km or bushings every 200,000km. Theoretically, cars can go on forever if maintained carefully in accordance with the manufacturer's specification. 

Note that if you opened up the latest Mercedes Benz manual you'd see that service schedules are for a good fifteen years before you return back to the first service schedule. Most cars are planned by manufacturers to run mileages of around 30,000km per year. What would happen to the car that is run by people who use it for school runs? I know a friend who owns a 6 year old Perodua Myvi with less than 15,000km on the clock. In fact, the 2011 Suzuki Alto at home has less than 5,000km on the clock. I also have a 1998 Proton Wira 1.6 with a mileage of only 160,000km. Hey, that makes it a low 10,000km per year.  The Wira also drives perfectly as I maintain the darn thing by keeping to its regular service schedule and let my mechanic inspect all points thoroughly. So imagine that 65 year old uncle who has been carefully maintaining his 1990 Proton Saga since he first bought it and only clocking up less than 5,000km per year. It's possible in a kampung environment. 

What this MIROS test actually proves is the lack of intelligence of the people there. There are so many factors and variables in a lifespan of a vehicle. The only reason this test was done was so that some quarters in the automotive industry are trying to push the end-of-life policy on all cars here in Malaysia. I suppose cars after twelve years would undergo a mandatory test at workshops like the British MOT, which is a annual test for roadworthiness. This actually creates an support industry where workshops get a piece of the action in ensuring cars are 'safe'. However in UK they have a problem of rust as salt is thrown on roads during the winter for de-icing or anti-icing. We don't have that problems and our cars last a great deal longer. It is only cars made prior to 1990 that have rust. And actually those that are on the roads from that era are in good condition because no one really keeps old cars unless they are enthusiastic about them. 

So think about it. This is basically a ploy by the powers-that-be to try say that older cars aren't safe. But the example they used was still in production till 2008. Car manufacturers and workshops stand to gain as people would be forced to change their cars or send their cars to authorised workshops to get their car stamped for approval. Note that even the most advanced country in the world, America does not have such checks. Look at the burgeoning classic car market over there folks.

Things like this would only benefit a certain group. and makes no sense to the general public. And yes, I think the people in MIROS could benefit from actually using their thought processes better instead of thinking that the general Malaysian public is filled with ignorant baboons. Idiots.