[Merged] Shocker: Small Cars Don't Protect as Well in Collisions

[AGR-1]

Date posted: 04-13-2009

ARLINGTON, Virginia — Turns out your parents were right after all: Big cars really do protect you better in a collision than small cars. Or so says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which tested pairs of large and small cars from three manufacturers — Daimler, Honda and Toyota.

The IIHS performed car-to-car crash tests between the 2009 Toyota Camry and Yaris, the 2009 Honda Accord and Fit and the 2009 Mercedes-Benz C300 and Smart Fortwo. While all vehicles performed relatively well in the institute's frontal offset barrier test, all three small cars received poor ratings in the crash tests with midsize cars.

"There are good reasons people buy minicars," said IIHS President Adrian Lund. "They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety tradeoffs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised."

As it does in the frontal barrier tests, the IIHS rated performance in the 40-mph car-to-car tests based on measured intrusion into the occupant compartment, as well as forces recorded on the driver dummy and movement of the dummy during the impact. According to the test results, the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller vehicle.

"Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter," Lund said.

Inside Line says: Sometimes the conventional wisdom turns out to be correct. — Paul Lienert, Correspondent

Link to article and photos....Click (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=145948#6)

[SkiD]

Lots of people don't realize that a '5 star' rating for a subcompact is not the same as a '5 star' rating for a midsize car, the ratings are only comparable for cars of roughly the same weight.

I have had to explain to a few people that Smart cars are not very safe because they don't have very much deformable body panels to absorb impacts. That fancy safety cage technology they promote just transfers that energy directly to the passengers (a helmet may stop you from cracking your skull, but doesn't stop momentum from letting your brain from hit your skull).

[Dina_E]

ofcourse you cant bend physics, but majority of people who tend to buy these small cars like the fit or smart tend to live in the city, where they would never go fast enough and collisions tend to be minor fender benders.

[ES_Revenge]

What's not a shocker is that cars like these (Yaris, Fit, Smart, etc.) blow and fail at being cars to begin with. Being less safe is just another reason not to buy these super econo[crap]boxes. I would have avoided them way before looking at the safety data though. They had me running away at hello.

[achanna]

Honestly is it really a shocker ???

[Jon Lai]

What's not a shocker is that cars like these (Yaris, Fit, Smart, etc.) blow and fail at being cars to begin with. Being less safe is just another reason not to buy these super econo[crap]boxes. I would have avoided them way before looking at the safety data though. They had me running away at hello.

Thanks for bringing our gas prices and CO2 emissions up then, brother.

[golden]

I would never buy those tiny cars. Just look at those thin doors. In order to be fuel efficent, all of these cars use tiny engines and they must be light in order for the tiny engine to pull. I'm not compromising the safety by saving a few $ on gas and the purchase price. I think at the very least, get a Civic/Mazda3/Corolla size car if you want fuel efficiency.

Smart car was made for tiny parking space and roads in Europe. We don't need that kinda extremes in North America. Whoever bought Smart were all for its special image. I was looking at those smart cars in autoshows. No matter what they say about the safety, I don't believe it'll survive a highway crash.

[Justin]

It's about time a study like this was done. I hate when people think their small, econobox is safe. Put a 5-star econobox up against a 3-star large SUV and the car is going to lose.

[urameatball]

It's about time a study like this was done. I hate when people think their small, econobox is safe. Put a 5-star econobox up against a 3-star large SUV and the car is going to lose.

BOTH, because I just plowed the two of you over in my DUMP TRUCK.

On the plus side, small cars are generally more nimble and more capable of avoiding an accident.

[mjl_toronto]

I was going to post how the quote about minicars doing comparitvely poorer but then saw these details: Crash Test Details (http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=90&type=f).

I wonder why they didn't include the VW Golf or Volvo C30. I'd like to know how those cars would fare comparatively.

[Rehan]

Look at how the Smart car bounces around in the crash at the end of the video!
http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/releases/pr041409

[woodstock827]

This is why everyone should drive a tank or a Hummer (no not the H2 or H3). :twisted:

[mohitk]

This is why everyone should drive a tank or a Hummer (no not the H2 or H3). :twisted:

This is what happens to a H2
http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200611/hummer-vs-school-bus_460x0w.jpg

[JAC]

This is what happens to a H2
http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200611/hummer-vs-school-bus_460x0w.jpg

http://www.ultimatefatality.com/images/Fatality_logo.gif

[notanexpert]

This is why everyone should drive a tank or a Hummer (no not the H2 or H3). :twisted:

+1

Anyone buying anything smaller than a dump truck is really putting their life in danger in the event of a collision. I have a friend who bought a Suburban for her work commute because she felt she needed something reasonably safe. Why would you trade some small CO2 emissions reduction or a few bucks in fuel savings for your life or grave injury? I think these people who buy Suburbans and Expeditions should have their heads examined, their tin-cans would be absolutely demolished in a collision with an 18-wheeler or any other REAL truck! Look at the 401 at any time of day, half the traffic out there is real trucks, the kinds that weigh in at dozens of tonnes.

[gill2k]

Nooooo... I was looking forward to crusing in a Scion IQ!!! ;)

[PsioniC]

Thanks for bringing our gas prices and CO2 emissions up then, brother.

If you've got a problem with someone driving a big car or truck then take it up with your local parliament rep. If someone is willing to pay more to drive a bigger vehicle than that's their choice and they pay for it. Theres extra tax revenue to be gained by selling more gas and this tax money is supposed the be used to counteract the negative costs associated with burning the gas.

Thats why we tax things like gas.

Now if you'll excuse me I've gotta go do some donut in my V8 pickup truck while laughing like a maniac. I might even go take out some sub-compacts afterward.

[notanexpert]

...this tax money is supposed the be used to counteract the negative costs associated with burning the gas.
...

No it does not, does not even put a small scratch in those costs. Those costs are borne by EVERYONE on the planet. And its very easy to screw a farmer in Australia or a peasant in Chile.

[ispiratica]

There will always be a bigger fish (vehicle). Its the chain of life. Living in the city a small car is very useful and makes sense for parking, fuel, insurance.

Just look at the major real cities like Paris, London, Tokyo. They don't have huge trucks that create the situation of instant collision death in inner cities. In Asia trucks aren't allowed on the roads except after late evenings. Not to mention better educated drivers that know how to handle larger vehicles and not just for the cool factor. These are things the yanks are last to admit or account for in their surveys.

So you should drive whatever you want, big or small, and just live with the price of petrol. Petrol is like food, you'll pay whatever you need to to eat and survive.

[Dina_E]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2008/11/MOZ_Mini_Vs_Tahoe_1.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2008/11/MOZ_Mini_Vs_Tahoe_2.jpg



btw that not one of those mini cuv trucks.

thats a full size GMC Tahoe!

[blakjak]

btw that not one of those mini cuv trucks.

thats a full size GMC Tahoe!

Obviously the Mini t-boned the Tahoe in these pics. Now let's turn this around and see what happens to the Mini when it gets t-boned by the full size Tahoe! It will become a hood ornament.

[blakjak]

Thanks for bringing our gas prices and CO2 emissions up then, brother.

I'd rather do that than compromise my (and my passengers) safety.

[PsioniC]

No it does not, does not even put a small scratch in those costs. Those costs are borne by EVERYONE on the planet. And its very easy to screw a farmer in Australia or a peasant in Chile.

Then petition your local PM to increase the taxes on gas. Don't yell at people to stop driving large vehicles.

Also the idea that all of the costs associated with burning gas and operating a vehicle are borne EQUALLY by every person on the planet is just foolish. I'm sure the Australian Farmers are suffering much more from their neighbors car exhaust than my own. That's why its up to the Australian government to appropriately tax cars in Australia and the Canadian government to appropriate tax me.

[bobbings]

+1

I think these people who buy Suburbans and Expeditions should have their heads examined, their tin-cans would be absolutely demolished in a collision with an 18-wheeler or any other REAL truck! Look at the 401 at any time of day, half the traffic out there is real trucks, the kinds that weigh in at dozens of tonnes.

I would think that any car or SUV would be demolished in the event of a major accident with an 18-wheeler.

[time space]

Shocker: SUV's Are in Far More Collisions Because Bad Drivers Pick Them Believing They'll Make Them Safe

[PsioniC]

Shocker: SUV's Are in Far More Collisions Because Bad Drivers Pick Them Believing They'll Make Them Safe

Any evidence of this?

Not that I necessarily disagree with the logic of the statement, but you cant go around making statements like that without backing them up.

[Jon Lai]

I'd rather do that than compromise my (and my passengers) safety.

Your safety wouldn't be compromised if everyone, or the majority drives small vehicles, which is the going trend.

I fail to see why some people insist on big vehicles when it isn't practically necessary for their applications.

[galanz]

Shocker: SUV's Are in Far More Collisions Because Bad Drivers Pick Them Believing They'll Make Them Safe

Heheh, anyone who claims that they need a bigger vehicle to feel safe says more about their driving skills than they realise.

[Capt.]

I fail

no shocker there

Lots of people don't realize that a '5 star' rating for a subcompact is not the same as a '5 star' rating for a midsize car, the ratings are only comparable for cars of roughly the same weight.

I have had to explain to a few people that Smart cars are not very safe because they don't have very much deformable body panels to absorb impacts. That fancy safety cage technology they promote just transfers that energy directly to the passengers (a helmet may stop you from cracking your skull, but doesn't stop momentum from letting your brain from hit your skull).

good post, thanks for sharing that. I was one of those people that thought it was all the same. Interesting to know it's on a relative comparison basis only.

[teknoluv]

Don't think it's a "shocker" either. It's common sense, isn't it?

[Sepiraph]

Look at how the Smart car bounces around in the crash at the end of the video!
http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/releases/pr041409

That's a crazy bounce! :eek:

I'll always remember 2 pictures of auto fatality from forums: one was a smart car that got crashed when it crashed with a truck and the other was a biker who threw off his bike and his body was 'stuck' in the truck due to the impact...

Also although SUVs are generally safer in a collision with another car due to its size, they have higher center of gravity and tend to be more prone to roll-over.

[gherikill]

Your safety wouldn't be compromised if everyone, or the majority drives small vehicles, which is the going trend.

I fail to see why some people insist on big vehicles when it isn't practically necessary for their applications.

Not everyone is comfortable in a small vehicle, some people are taller than 5'6"

[time space]

Shocker: SUV's Are in Far More Collisions Because Bad Drivers Pick Them Believing They'll Make Them Safe

Any evidence of this?

Not that I necessarily disagree with the logic of the statement, but you cant go around making statements like that without backing them up.

It's not a statement, it's a Shocker.

[urameatball]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2008/11/MOZ_Mini_Vs_Tahoe_1.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2008/11/MOZ_Mini_Vs_Tahoe_2.jpg



btw that not one of those mini cuv trucks.

thats a full size GMC Tahoe!

HAHA, it's like the MINI simply refused to get any smaller. AWESOME! poor tahoe is just a victim.

[time space]

Not everyone is comfortable in a small vehicle, some people are taller than 5'6"

Like Shaquille O'Neal perhaps?

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/08/shaq_smart_450op.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/05/shaq-buys-smart-fortwo-wears-as-shoe/)

Standing seven feet and one inches tall and weighing in at 375 pounds, Shaquille O'Neal is one big dude. Must drive a big 'ol car then, right? Umm, not exactly. The Phoenix Suns star center has recently been spotted in his newest automotive purchase, a smart fortwo. Seriously. And, surprisingly enough, he fits! Don't believe us? See above for photo proof.

[HP_John]

Lots of people don't realize that a '5 star' rating for a subcompact is not the same as a '5 star' rating for a midsize car, the ratings are only comparable for cars of roughly the same weight.

While I'll do agree with your general premise, it's important to note the rating for side impact is against the same force, whereas the rating for front impact is only against cars of similar weight. Therefore, side impact ratings are useful, front impact ratings are not as useful.

[BAM]

The title of this could just as easily read "Larger Cars make accidents more serious - A menace to society?".

Either way these small cars are probably safer that mid size cars of 5 years ago despite their diminutive stature.

[blakjak]

Your safety wouldn't be compromised if everyone, or the majority drives small vehicles, which is the going trend.

I fail to see why some people insist on big vehicles when it isn't practically necessary for their applications.

I'm living in the real world. When your little scenario becomes reality and everyone is driving small cars, then I might get one too (if my 6'6" frame fits in it).

What people decide to drive and for what reasons is strictly up to them, whether practical or not from your perspective.

[gordholio]

Obviously, small cars are not for everyone.
Although I do own a small car.

[ES_Revenge]

It's not a statement, it's a Shocker.

:lol:

[jed]

Anyone here who drives tow truck who can put some light on what comes out better in a collision? Tests are one thing, but real life is quite another.

I'm not certain how a full framed truck can come out better in a collision - heavy trucks notwithstanding. Thats not to say they're the best (I have one but don't drive it on a daily basis) but more, heavy metal to deform and slow the accident has to help.

[CaptSmethwick]

On the plus side, small cars are generally more nimble and more capable of avoiding an accident.

Capable perhaps but this capability does not appear to be realized on a widespread basis. Have a gander through IIHS' stats for collision and injury incidence for model years 2005-2007 (http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx) (http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx) and you'll conclude that even the best-performing small car does worse than the worst-performing large SUV in terms of injury claims.

This is real world data, not some simulated test.

[BAM]

Capable perhaps but this capability does not appear to be realized on a widespread basis. Have a gander through IIHS' stats for collision and injury incidence for model years 2005-2007 (http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx) (http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx) and you'll conclude that even the best-performing small car does worse than the worst-performing large SUV in terms of injury claims.

This is real world data, not some simulated test.

These numbers reflect the driving habits of the people that are likely to purchase these vehicles. It also is reflecting the cost and not just the likelyhood.

Volkswagen Beetle convertible beats alot of the SUV's in these numbers for example. Hybrid versions seem to fair much better than non hybrid .....

Anyway your right the general trend is Larger is better insurance wise anyway

[Jon Lai]

The title of this could just as easily read "Larger Cars make accidents more serious - A menace to society?".

Either way these small cars are probably safer that mid size cars of 5 years ago despite their diminutive stature.

I like this one ;)

[jetway1212]

What's not a shocker is that cars like these (Yaris, Fit, Smart, etc.) blow and fail at being cars to begin with. Being less safe is just another reason not to buy these super econo[crap]boxes. I would have avoided them way before looking at the safety data though. They had me running away at hello.

LOL they're not exactly cheap compare to mid size sedans being offered from GM.

Beside your opinion is purely bias being a canuck. Go to EUROPE or other parts of the world to see what transportation has changed in the past 10 years.

No1 would be dumb enough to buy one of this to commute 100km daily.

[morglum82]

The title of this could just as easily read "Larger Cars make accidents more serious - A menace to society?".


+1

I hate how people make themselves "safer" by turning a " 2 drivers lightly injured" situation into a "1 driver safe (them) and 1 driver killed".

[notanexpert]

+1

I hate how people make themselves "safer" by turning a " 2 drivers lightly injured" situation into a "1 driver safe (them) and 1 driver killed".

+1
Amen to that!

[ispiratica]

Heheh, anyone who claims that they need a bigger vehicle to feel safe says more about their driving skills than they realise.

The usual soccer moms or the ones that like to compensate for lost "inches".

[onlineharvest]

+1

I hate how people make themselves "safer" by turning a " 2 drivers lightly injured" situation into a "1 driver safe (them) and 1 driver killed".

-1


Yeah, all people who get big cars want to kill the other should they get into an accident.

People need to stop being so damned opinionated about people buying large vehicles. If they want to, and don't mind paying more for gas, who the hell cares?

AND PLEASE REMEMBER, this was a test comparing compact to midsize SEDANS, not SUVs. Are you going to start bashing midsize sedan owners too? Sheesh, get a grip people!

Simple laws of physics demands that these tests are accurate, obviously. And of course an SUV is no match for a Semi Truck, obviously. But since the number of accidents involving sedans, and other NON-semi truck vechicles are the majority, it helps to look at what is practical.

[CaptSmethwick]

These numbers reflect the driving habits of the people that are likely to purchase these vehicles. It also is reflecting the cost and not just the likelyhood.

Volkswagen Beetle convertible beats alot of the SUV's in these numbers for example. Hybrid versions seem to fair much better than non hybrid .....

Anyway your right the general trend is Larger is better insurance wise anyway

I would agree that a lot of cars' collision incidence is influenced by the demographics and "geographics" of their owners. All you have to do is look at the claim history for Accord coupes vs. sedans - the 4-door looks to be a far safer car than the coupe but that is counter-intuitive. Likely the difference is how as opposed to where the car is driven.

Absolutely, some cars are simply driven fewer kms a year - cars like the Prius and Beetle are mostly used as urban cars. While they are driven fewer kms, they are (proportionately) exposed to a significant density of traffic - one might expect their collision numbers, for example to be higher than their injury claim figures. That's precisely what you see in the sports model category - although the explanation of that is probably a variation on that theme.

Other cars suffer from regional preferences - pick-up trucks and other "working" vehicles spend more time (proportionately) on less traffic-dense roads. Conversely, that puts their occupants at a proportionately greater risk of higher speed collisions.

So, it's difficult to isolate the car's inherent safety characteristics in an analysis of data across vehicle types - some models just leap out at you as those which are likely driven fewer kms or more "gently" than others.

And, yes, the IIHS numbers are a blend but whereas collision claims are most definitely a function of likelihood of collision and the value of the vehicle, the cost of injury claims increases pretty linearly with the vehicle's ability to protect the occupant.

At the end of the day, different vehicles are designed to do things differently - a Smart car can drive at highway speeds but, frankly, probably shouldn't. There are very few "bad" cars out there these days but I'd have a hard time - based on IIHS numbers - buying a Mitsubishi Endeavour or Kia Sorento (their personal injury claims are inexcusably high for the class, IMO).

[ES_Revenge]

Beside your opinion is purely bias being a canuck.
No, my opinion is purely opinon and that should be obvious. Not sure what bias has to do with it. :confused:

Go to EUROPE or other parts of the world to see what transportation has changed in the past 10 years.
What makes you think I haven't been to Europe? :confused:

I don't give a damn what Europe does or doesn't do or what people like there. News bulletin! Canadians love super econoboxes too--just look at the sales. However I do not like them, which is what I already said. They blow goats! Oh and so do most SUVs for that matter. Both are sorry excuses for vehicles to drive on the road. While SUVs do have some purpose, that's unfortunately been perverted in the past decade or so.

[CSR]

http://www.wheels.ca/article/533297

Minicars bear brunt of impact with sedans in head-on collisions, safety gurus find

[SkylineGTR]

Science has finally confirmed what motorists have been saying for years...Minicars...they perform poorly in crashes with larger vehicles.

Haha they just figured that out? :confused: What a joke. :D

[Spray]

get a scooby :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUxF9VEaVic&feature=channel

[camber]

Seriously....

Who did the test???

IIHS... They represent American insurance companies.

Ulterior motives...

[Jucius Maximus]

Seriously, Newton's second law.

F = ma

We should all know this by grade 11 or 12...

[coriolis]

So you're telling me if a 250 lb football player tackles a 6 year old, the outcome would be........

[CaptSmethwick]

why are we starting another thread on this newsflash? :confused:

[CSR]

why are we starting another thread on this newsflash? :confused:

Because we can.

[DaVibe]

I've always said this to myself and I will always choose larger cars over smaller, economical ones because it simply doesn't make sense to me, from a safety standpoint.

There's no way I can stand a chance if I rear-end someone or get smacked while making a left turn. And though its never happened to me PERSONALLY, it's something I worry about.

No SmartCar in my near future. I'll stick with my Oldsmobile, thanks.

[mazdubb]

If everyone bought smaller vehicles to begin with this would be a non issue. Unfortunately many people have the attitude that bigger is always better. Kill someone else's children in a collision who might not be able to afford a larger gas guzzler. As long as your own kids are safe. Right?

[Jon Lai]

repost....

[blakjak]

If everyone bought smaller vehicles to begin with this would be a non issue. Unfortunately many people have the attitude that bigger is always better. Kill someone else's children in a collision who might not be able to afford a larger gas guzzler. As long as your own kids are safe. Right?

You make an excellent point. I need to get a bigger car. Thanks!

[camber]

I don't see a point of this common sense observation. Also, since the vast majority of accidents and fatalities are caused by driver error and not vehicle size.... What exactly is the point of this?

It's been proven time and time again that in the real world, different sizes of passenger vehicles have about the same passenger fatality rate in collisions.

Did I mention this was sponsored by the insurance industry which is fixated on $$$. Couldn't have been be due to the fact that this small cars are more likely to be written off?;)

[CaptSmethwick]

It's been proven time and time again that in the real world, different sizes of passenger vehicles have about the same passenger fatality rate in collisions.


Not true - not even close. Read this IIHS 2007 Status Report: "Driver Deaths by make & model: Fatality risk in one vehicle versus another" (www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf) or any other paper written on this subject for the last 40 years. I'd be interested in a link to a credible report that supports your assertion.

Here's a little quotation from the above report:

Vehicle size and weight are strongly related, so it’s not surprising that driver death rates generally are higher in lighter vehicles. For example, the rate in the lightest SUVs is much higher than in the heaviest ones — 131 per million versus 47. Pound for pound across vehicle types, cars almost always have lower death rates than pickups or SUVs. An exception is that the rate in pickups weighing 2,500-3,000 pounds is lower than in cars or SUVs weighing about the same.

“There’s no ready explanation for this,” McCartt says. “It probably has to do with how light pickups are driven and use patterns compared with heavier pickups.”

[dealmeone]

Well, DUHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[onlineharvest]

If everyone bought smaller vehicles to begin with this would be a non issue. Unfortunately many people have the attitude that bigger is always better. Kill someone else's children in a collision who might not be able to afford a larger gas guzzler. As long as your own kids are safe. Right?

Yeah, I'm sure the motivation with people who can afford larger vehicles is that they want to ensure they will kill and not be killed should they get into an accident...sigh.

And since when is this an issue of wealth? Plenty of people who CANNOT afford large vehicles drive them all the time.

[camber]

Not true - not even close. Read this IIHS 2007 Status Report: "Driver Deaths by make & model: Fatality risk in one vehicle versus another" (www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf) or any other paper written on this subject for the last 40 years. I'd be interested in a link to a credible report that supports your assertion.

Here's a little quotation from the above report:

:rolleyes:

yes... an IIHS report... I'm sure they don't have an ulterior motive...

Their more holes in that report then swiss cheese.

Their probably is a stronger correlation between MSRP of vehicles to fatalities then size. IIHS answer should be to buy expensive cars instead of cheap ones:lol:

Did you read the entire report(look at page 3 and the data panel on the right)?

Care to explain why Large 2WD pickups have a higher fatality rate then a small 4 door car?

Or why large station wagons or more deadly then small station wagons?

Why Large Luxury cars are more deadly then midsized?

Whoopsy IIHS... Getting ahead of youself:lol:

Which makes this IIHS statement confusing, when data from their own report contradicts this statement.

Vehicle size and weight are strongly related, so it’s not surprising that driver death rates generally are higher in lighter vehicles. For example, the rate in the lightest SUVs is much higher than in the heaviest ones — 131 per million versus 47. Pound for pound across vehicle types, cars almost always have lower death rates than pickups or SUVs. An exception is that the rate in pickups weighing 2,500-3,000 pounds is lower than in cars or SUVs weighing about the same.

“There’s no ready explanation for this,” McCartt says. “It probably has to do with how light pickups are driven and use patterns compared with heavier pickups.”

:eek:

I think this sums up the IIHS and their agenda.

http://www.autoextremist.com/on-the-table1/

IIHS. Publisher’s Note: We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming documenting the The Last Days of the Old Detroit Two as GM and Chrysler pirouette into their preordained meltdown/bankruptcy scenario to bring news from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, those wild and crazy geniuses who have all but retired the “Masters of the Obvious” title. This week, it’s another gripping installment of “small cars don’t hold up as well as larger cars” in crashes, confirming yet again what we all learned at some point in a rudimentary physics lesson along the way. Only this time, the IIHS crashed vehicles from the same manufacturer against each other: the Smart Fortwo against a Mercedes-Benz C-Class, a Toyota Yaris against a Toyota Camry and a Honda Fit against a Honda Accord, all in head-on impacts with both vehicles traveling 40 mph. What was the point to all of this? That if you drive small you can’t fight the laws of physics? I only wish it was that simple. First of all, you have to remember that the IIHS has an agenda, and it’s fueled by the fact that the IIHS was created and continues to be funded by this nation’s insurance companies. Lest you think this is some noble endeavor out to save us from our imminent destruction on the highways and byways of America, I want to make one thing crystal clear: It’s not about safety with the IIHS, or doing the right thing for the general populace out of the goodness of their hearts, or any other esoteric set of benevolent goals. No, it’s about m-o-n-e-y, plain and simple. They want the government to mandate more safety standards so that the manufacturers will have to spend more money on the IIHS’s quixotic pursuit of upending the laws of physics, and then they want you the consumer to then spend more money on the vehicles you buy and more money on the insurance premiums you need to keep them operating. Why do you think the IIHS hypes these results to the media? To save us all by giving us obvious facts that we’re all pretty much aware of by nature? Hardly. No, they want to create a hysteria that not only jars the consumer, but touches to the very core of the bureaucrats’ hearts in Washington just itching for another way to push for legislation that will keep stuffing high-technology safety systems in our cars designed to save us from ourselves. So that the cycle can continue. And so that the fundamental concepts of accountability and responsibility behind the wheel can be shoved under the carpet, yet again. And so we can all spend more money on the pursuit of, well, what was it again? Pathetic


If you saw significant shift away from cars with higher insurance premiums(larger, more expensive cars) to small cheaper cars with cheaper premiums. Would you stand by while your business model gets messed up;)

[CaptSmethwick]

:rolleyes:

yes... an IIHS report... I'm sure they don't have an ulterior motive...

Their more holes in that report then swiss cheese.

Their probably is a stronger correlation between MSRP of vehicles to fatalities then size. IIHS answer should be to buy expensive cars instead of cheap ones:lol:

Did you read the entire report(look at page 3 and the data panel on the right)?

Care to explain why Large 2WD pickups have a higher fatality rate then a small 4 door car?

Or why large station wagons or more deadly then small station wagons?

Why Large Luxury cars are more deadly then midsized?

Whoopsy IIHS... Getting ahead of youself:lol:

Which makes this IIHS statement confusing, when data from their own report contradicts this statement.

:eek:

I think this sums up the IIHS and their agenda.

http://www.autoextremist.com/on-the-table1/

Anyways, the majority of fatalities are caused by driver error. Unfortunately, the IIHS doesn't make money when people drive better;)

Yes, I read the entire report and, yes, there are interesting complexities in the data but you'd have to really want to discredit the findings to not agree with the conclusion that, on average, larger vehicles tend to be safer for their occupants.

I have read over a dozen reports on this issue -and dozens more or related ones - over the years and, the fact of the matter, is that fatality rates are complicated by a large number of things. Further, the data is not static over time - once upon a time, SUV drivers had stable demographic characteristics (far more male and younger than sedan drivers) but, as SUVs became popularized, the data changed.

In all reports I have read, the bottom line is that bigger is always better - all other things being equal. The exceptions are where all other things are not equal - things like driver skill and risk tolerance differences, number of passengers, degree of passive safety equipment, use of seatbelt, etc. Still, the "bigger is better rule" has held in all studies I have read - whether the study is by the IIHS, the NHTSA, or academic institutions.

But, by all means, resort to cheap, ad hominem attacks when you disagree with the findings of a study.

[camber]

Yes, I read the entire report and, yes, there are interesting complexities in the data but you'd have to really want to discredit the findings to not agree with the conclusion that, on average, larger vehicles tend to be safer for their occupants.

Thanks mister obvious but a simple physics lessons tells me that already.

I have read over a dozen reports on this issue -and dozens more or related ones - over the years and, the fact of the matter, is that fatality rates are complicated by a large number of things. Further, the data is not static over time - once upon a time, SUV drivers had stable demographic characteristics (far more male and younger than sedan drivers) but, as SUVs became popularized, the data changed.


Ding.. Ding... We have a winner!

So why do you support the current oversimplified IIHS report?

In all reports I have read, the bottom line is that bigger is always better - all other things being equal. The exceptions are where all other things are not equal - things like driver skill and risk tolerance differences, number of passengers, degree of passive safety equipment, use of seatbelt, etc. Still, the "bigger is better rule" has held in all studies I have read - whether the study is by the IIHS, the NHTSA, or academic institutions.

:confused:

Ummm... You read that report right?

IIHS own data proves even within a type of passenger vehicle category that the "bigger is always better rule" doesn't always apply.



But, by all means, resort to cheap, ad hominem attacks when you disagree with the findings of a study.

Right... So you aren't at all skeptical when an industry funded organization makes a report when they start to see their cash flow go down?

This wouldn't be the first time the IIHS has been caught lying ot stirring the pot.