The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated protection that was at least adequate for the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. However, structures in the dashboard presented a risk of injury to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions, and protection for this part of the body was downgraded to marginal. Chest protection was also rated as marginal for both front seat occupants, based on dummy readings of chest compression. Analysis of the deformable barrier after the test revealed that it would be a benign crash opponent. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the front seat driver and rear seat passenger was at least adequate for all critical parts of the body. In the side barrier test, representing an impact by another vehicle, chest compression indicated a marginal level of protection. In the side pole test, protection of all critical body areas was rated as good or adequate. An assessment of the excursion of an occupant in a far-side impact showed poor protection and the car does not have a counter-measure, such as a centre airbag, for this accident type. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. However, a geometric analysis of the rear seats indicated marginal whiplash protection.

In the frontal offset test, protection of the chest and neck of the 10 year dummy was rated as weak, based on dummy readings during the impact. For the 6 year dummy, protection of the neck was marginal while that of the head and chest was adequate and good respectively. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded.  One CRS, a full sized rearward facing toddler restraint, could be fitted in the car with no problem but was deemed a fail because Dacia indicate in the user manual that the car cannot accommodate this (R3) category of restraint.  One type of universal restraint could not be properly fitted in the third row seats, where these are fitted. Otherwise, restraint systems could be installed and accommodated properly.

The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was predominantly good or adequate with poor results recorded at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff windscreen pillars. The bumper provided good or adequate protection to pedestrians' legs at all test locations. However, protection of the pelvis was poor over much of the width of the car. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Jogger does not detect vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

A seat belt reminder system is standard for the front and rear seats. However, there is no reminder for the seat belts in the third row, where these are fitted, so the Jogger loses points compared with the Sandero Stepway on which the rating is based, and this is enough to drop the score in Safety Assist below the threshold required for two stars.  A driver-set speed limiter is also standard but the Jogger provides no lane assistance. The AEB system performed well in tests of its response to other vehicles with accidents avoided or mitigated in many cases.