Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
84% -
See More
![]()
79% -
See More
![]()
58% -
See More
![]()
57%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Front Seat
Car
Pole
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as optionForward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both the 3 year and the 18 month dummies were properly contained within the protective shells of their restraints. The passenger airbag can be disabled by means of a switch, allowing a rearward facing restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag is not sufficiently clear. The dangers of using a child seat in that seat without first disabling the airbag are clearly indicated on labels in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 13.4 Pts
Pelvis Impact 1.6 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
The bumper scored maximum points for the protection offered to pedestrians' legs. The front edge of the bumper offered marginal protection in most areas tested. Good protection was provided by the bonnet in most areas where the head of child might strike However, predominantly poor protection was provided in those areas likely to by struck by an adult's head.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | ESP | |
| Performance | ||
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
 |
|
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
FailElectronic stability control is standard equipment. A seatbelt reminder system is standard for the driver's seat. A driver-set speed limitation device is fitted to equipment grades other than the 'Visia' cars assessed.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Nissan Micra 1.2 'Visia', LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2010
Kerb Weight 945kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - MDHFBUK13U0027824
Class City and Supermini
Safety Equipment
Note: Other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year.
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as option![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available![]()
Not Applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as optionVideos
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the front seat occupants. However, structures in the dashboard posed a risk of injury to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions and protection for the knee/femur/pelvis body region was rated as marginal. In the side barrier impact, protection of most body regions was rated as good. Dummy readings for the chest were also good but the car was penalised for loading the dummy in an unrealistic way, and the protection was rated as fair. In the more sever side pole test, dummy readings of rib deflection indicated marginal protection of the chest. Protection of the neck against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision was rated as marginal.