Rear-impact collisions at low speed are a leading cause of economic costs among motor vehicle accidents. Recently, EuroNCAP has incorporated in its protocol the whiplash test, to reproduce a low-speed rear impact. This paper presents a field driving study to assess the potential differences between the EuroNCAP dummy tests and actual drivers in the field, focusing on occupant position and biomechanics experimental results. A total of 182 drivers were randomly selected in two geographical areas in Spain. The driving position of each driver was recorded with a focus on the most relevant measurements for rear impact. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain means, standard deviations and density functions to compare observational seating position with that of the EuroNCAP testing protocol. The observational data showed a similar seatback angle to that used in the EuroNCAP protocol (24º in front of 25º for the protocol), a greater distance between the head vertex and the top of the head restraint (53mm compared to 39.5mm), and less distance between the occipital bone of the head and the headrest (67.9 compared to 89.3mm). Based on these data, 4 dummy tests were conducted using the dummy BioRID IIg. The baseline test was designed to reproduce the dummy position according to EuroNCAP 3.0 whiplash protocol. Three different additional tests were defined to reproduce the actual observed driving position as well as to assess a "worst case" scenario in terms of reduced seatback angle. These variations in initial driver position, comparing the EuroNCAP protocol to the observational study results, were not observed to cause significant differences in the biomechanical values measured in the BioRID IIg, The T1 acceleration was reduced less than 8%, the NIC was increased about 8%, and the NKm presented a reduction of 20%. Reducing the seat angle was observed to be more harmful in terms of NIC.