Each year, it seems as if more and more new models are able to ace both the IIHS' and the government's crash-test ratings. In fact, according to Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, 97-percent of all new cars available today earn the highest four or five-star ratings from NHTSA. These all-too-similar ratings makes it rather difficult for consumers to make a choice based solely on passenger safety, so the Fed's have decided to take another stab at the current rating system, which was introduced way back in 1979. Though still based on a five-star ranking, the revised 2010 ratings will include additional front-end tests and a new side-impact test meant to mimic the impact of a vehicle that collides with a tree or pole. Also new for the '10 model year is an overall rating meant to make comparisons easier between competing vehicles. More changes are possible for 2012, as NHTSA is still considering whether to make electronic nannies like stability control mandatory.
It's not a surprise that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) would be backing a proposal that has the potential to lower the amount of damage vehicles sustain in crashes, and therefore lead to less costly repairs for insurers. What is surprising is the NHTSA's stubborn attitude about accepting outside suggestions. The proposal is simple enough; the IIHS recommends that trucks and cars use the same bumper standards for greater crash compatibility. Being cynical and following the money does lead one back to the fact that such a change would save the insurance industry a large sum, but so what? Saving the insurance industry money saves us poor saps a few nickels, too – or the rates continue to be just as expensive while the corporate robber barons pocket the increased profits. NHTSA has heard this argument before, rejecting petitions for porting the car bumper standard to light trucks in both 1984 and 1991. The IIHS is hoping that this time around, the fact that it's an organization proposing the change, and their new research, will sway the regulatory body in a more favorable direction. The IIHS used the Ford Explorer and its more car-compatible bumpers to demonstrate in tests that both vehicles in a crash would sustain less damage without exacting any penalty in usefulness or capability. NHTSA is already on the case of vehicle compatibility in a broad sense, and will likely try to roll any bumper-centric work into that effort. It would seem like a no-brainer to have cars and light trucks with bumpers that match up, but it's taken the past century of automotive production and dependence to get the idea any kind of traction. With that kind of glacial pace, we should start petitioning now in anticipation of a super-tight oil supply and incoming waves of sub-A class vehicles. We sure wouldn't want to get mauled by an Explorer on our way to get milk and bread in our Nano in 2030.
The IIHS has put the 2008 smart fortwo through its frontal offset crash test, and the video is on YouTube even though the IIHS hasn't released its results yet. For everyone who points out the benefits of the smart's miniscule size, there are a number of others who say they wouldn't want to go up against a normal American car in a smart. Even the NHTSA had some concerns when it tested the fortwo's crashworthiness. Based on the video after the jump, however, it looks like the smart acquits itself quite well with no deformation of the A-pillar and not even a crack in the windshield. We'll have to wait for the IIHS to give its final, official word, however. Sure, we wouldn't want to be driving a smart fortwo in an accident... but that's only because we don't want to be in an accident. Follow the jump to watch the video for yourself.
more ...
Transport Canada has been planning on implementing a change which would lower Canadian bumper safety standards from the current 8 km/h standard to 4 km/h. This halving of the standard would bring the Canadian testing in line with the regulations of both Europe and the U.S. Apparently, Transport Canada believes that vehicles would be cheaper to import while maintaining automobile safety. In fact, Canadian officials believe that the new standard could actually improve pedestrian safety. Or not, according to the IIHS, which has sent a letter to Transport Canada urging them to reconsider making the change. The IIHS response is pretty scathing, Using words and phrases like "unsubstantiated, incorrect assumptions, ill-informed and misleading," but the response could seemingly be summed up this way: Yo hosers, what were you thinking, eh?
Crash safety ratings are a big selling point – who's going to buy a car with just two stars? In pursuit of salable collision performance, automakers have turned to stronger metals and better construction, and consumers can reap the benefit by choosing from a panoply of highly rated vehicles. A problem arises, however, if that safety design is ever called upon to perform. Lots of vehicles now sport high strength steel in critical areas like roof pillars, and while it certainly helps protect occupants, it could hinder rescue crews. Tools that once made quick work of crashed vehicles are now having trouble shearing through modern cars. Not only that, modern cars have lots of airbags around the cabin, and there are also worries about cutting high-voltage electrical cabling in hybrid or electric vehicles. Rescuers need to know where all the potentially hazardous equipment lies within a vehicle so that they can safely retrieve human cargo without creating a further tragedy.
What was once a simple matter of cutting a roof off to get passengers out can now become a sawblade-eating saga that takes double or triple the time. Taking more time at an accident scene has repercussions that put recovery or even survival at risk by delaying treatment. Automakers are aware of this, and they're working with public safety entities to provide training and information. Schematics and build details of vehicles are being made available to first responders by the non-profit group COMCARE Emergency Response Alliance. The ability to research where and how a car should be taken apart in an emergency could buy injured people critical minutes, so Ford, for instance, is asking for a dialogue with rescue crews and the makers of their tools by offering a look at the construction of the 2009 F-150. Upgrades to rescue tools are also necessary, but the flip side of the harder rescue is that the death rate from passenger car accidents is historically low. So buy that five-star vehicle and try not to hit anything.
There's been considerable debate between automakers, legislators and safety advocates over how roof strength correlates to deaths in rollover crashes. The majority of the focus has appropriately been heaped on SUVs, whose high center of gravity makes them more prone to rollovers, particularly when they leave the road.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has just released a study that proves that more roof strength can reduce injuries by some 39 to 57 percent when compared to the weaker models it tested. The IIHS used the same roof strength test as the feds on a group of SUVs that currently meet the government's roof requirements. At the top of the heap was the 2000-2004 Nissan Xterra that was able to withstand almost 12,000 pounds of force, while the lowest ranked vehicle, the 1999-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee, lost its head(room) after 6,500 pounds of force was applied to the roof.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has just finished the latest round of their long running series of crash tests of new vehicles. This time around they evaluated nine different mid-sized SUVs and CUVs. IIHS does front, rear and side impact testing on each of the vehicles and in the latest batch of tests, only one vehicle got the Top Safety Pick award. The second generation Nissan Murano scored the coveted award for getting good ratings in all crash tests as well as having electronic stability control. While IIHS points out that overall safety is improving on this class of vehicles, some of them still aren't performing as well as they could.
The Jeep Liberty and Wrangler Unlimited only managed a marginal grade on the side impact test, while the Kia Sorento was rated poor on the same test. Mazda's CX-9 and CX-7 got marginal rear crash results, while the Mitsubishi Endeavor did poorly when hit from behind. The only vehicle in the test to miss out on a good rating for the frontal offset test was the HUMMER H3 which was only acceptable.
Infiniti has finally joined the ranks of other automakers deemed worthy of the IIHS' Top Safety Pick with its recently introduced EX35 CUV. The luxurious and techalicious cute 'ute has garnered a fair amount of praise in recent months for its combination of high-class amenities and high-tech wizardry, but the Institute's focus is set squarely on how it avoids crashes and how it fairs in front, side and rear impacts. In order to receive the IIHS' designation, the vehicle has to provide "superior overall crash protection" and incorporate electronic stability control, both of which, the EX35 apparently provides.
more ...
The new Cadillac CTS has been snatching up awards and garnering praise since its launch last year, and now its got another trophy to place on its shelf. After the IIHS wrapped up its battery of batterings, the CTS joined the Institute's list of Top Safety Picks for 2008. Cadillac's entry-level sports sedan is sitting at the table with the Volvo S80, Saab 9-3, Audi A4 and A6 as another vehicle to receive the highest rating issued by the Institute after enduring front, side and rear crash tests, along with being equipped with electronic stability control.
