Devised to mimic small overlap frontal crashes. Most premium cars did poorly...
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr081412.html
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr081412.html
New IIHS crash test
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
It seems as though VOLVO is still holding on to their roots in building safe vehicles. Shame on Lexus for not keeping up with the best in class in crash protection. The other MFG also need to step up their safety as well
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
That's exactly what I was thinking, but it happens. Then again, the Middle East could be the ultimate real life test course consider the weirdest accidents actually happen here.
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
That's exactly what I was thinking, but it happens. Then again, the Middle East could be the ultimate real life test course consider the weirdest accidents actually happen here.
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
Exactly. Who pays for all this? Hopefully not the taxpayer.
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
Exactly. Who pays for all this? Hopefully not the taxpayer.
Glad the iihs did this type of crash. These crashes occur anytime someone wraps their car around a tree or lamp post. Surprising results though
JHZR2
Staff member
This is an excuse to charge more for folks driving certain cars, in order to boost insurance profits. Car insurance is one of the biggest scams out there.
Quote:
The number of drivers of 0-3-year-old passenger vehicles involved in fatal frontal crashes has fallen 55 percent since 2001.
So since things are looking to be "safer", which should mean reduced premiums, they need a way to justify higher rates through more prefabricated actuarial risk...
Quote:
The number of drivers of 0-3-year-old passenger vehicles involved in fatal frontal crashes has fallen 55 percent since 2001.
So since things are looking to be "safer", which should mean reduced premiums, they need a way to justify higher rates through more prefabricated actuarial risk...
Just because fatal crash numbers may be going down, and in only one subset of vehicles (0-3 year old models), that doesn't mean insurance claims are going down also. Medical payments are just one aspect of insurance company expenditures. People can lock bumpers, have zero medical expenses, and still incur a lot of cost for the insurance company.
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
Probably infrequently in an urban area like San Diego. But offset frontal crashes are the predominant type of crash on two-lane roads, which is what a great number of American drivers use in their daily commute. Additionally, two-lane roads often have speed limits at least as high as divided roads (55 mph), so a head-on collision can be very tragic. Two-lane roads have little margin for error. I generally hate driving on them, honestly. A co-worker of mine suffered permanent disability after a crash very similar to what the IIHS is now testing for. He lost all movement in his right foot, and has to use either hand controls or a modified left-foot accelerator pedal setup in his vehicles now.
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
Probably infrequently in an urban area like San Diego. But offset frontal crashes are the predominant type of crash on two-lane roads, which is what a great number of American drivers use in their daily commute. Additionally, two-lane roads often have speed limits at least as high as divided roads (55 mph), so a head-on collision can be very tragic. Two-lane roads have little margin for error. I generally hate driving on them, honestly. A co-worker of mine suffered permanent disability after a crash very similar to what the IIHS is now testing for. He lost all movement in his right foot, and has to use either hand controls or a modified left-foot accelerator pedal setup in his vehicles now.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Engineering compromises are always going to get someone.
I was thinking along the same lines. If you're going to make cars stronger to withstand such small overlap frontal test, will that potentially make the cars more dangerous to pedestrians/bicyclists?
Engineering compromises are always going to get someone.
I was thinking along the same lines. If you're going to make cars stronger to withstand such small overlap frontal test, will that potentially make the cars more dangerous to pedestrians/bicyclists?
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Just because fatal crash numbers may be going down, and in only one subset of vehicles (0-3 year old models), that doesn't mean insurance claims are going down also. Medical payments are just one aspect of insurance company expenditures. People can lock bumpers, have zero medical expenses, and still incur a lot of cost for the insurance company.
I agree... But again, they are looking for an excuse to "justify" how these cars (which are also seemingly the insureds that can and will pay the most premiums and carry more profitable coverage) are unsafe and thus need to be charged higher rates though injuries and fatalities are low.
Just because fatal crash numbers may be going down, and in only one subset of vehicles (0-3 year old models), that doesn't mean insurance claims are going down also. Medical payments are just one aspect of insurance company expenditures. People can lock bumpers, have zero medical expenses, and still incur a lot of cost for the insurance company.
I agree... But again, they are looking for an excuse to "justify" how these cars (which are also seemingly the insureds that can and will pay the most premiums and carry more profitable coverage) are unsafe and thus need to be charged higher rates though injuries and fatalities are low.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: VNTS
We need less regulation not more
The IIHS is a private organization, funded by insurance companies.
Precisely. It has it's own agenda, too.
Despite all the hype, fatalities per mile has dropped steadily here for decades. Cars are safer than ever, I feel we have reached the point of diminishing returns.
We need DRIVER education and real training.
Originally Posted By: VNTS
We need less regulation not more
The IIHS is a private organization, funded by insurance companies.
Precisely. It has it's own agenda, too.
Despite all the hype, fatalities per mile has dropped steadily here for decades. Cars are safer than ever, I feel we have reached the point of diminishing returns.
We need DRIVER education and real training.
Originally Posted By: VNTS
So more cost added to the car.
Also wonder if this limits the shape the automakers can use so we may see more bland looking front ends with lousey look bumpers etc.
We need less regulation not more, why this country is going down the tubes.
Why more cost? It appears to be engineering more than actual materials to make that kind of change.
So more cost added to the car.
Also wonder if this limits the shape the automakers can use so we may see more bland looking front ends with lousey look bumpers etc.
We need less regulation not more, why this country is going down the tubes.
Why more cost? It appears to be engineering more than actual materials to make that kind of change.
Because people don't work for free? Takes R&D to pull this off; and of course, it'll have to be redone on every chassis update.
I agree, it'll probably conflict with the idea of making vehicles more safe for pedestrian/cyclist collisions.
My only beef is that if IIHS adds another "requirement" in order to obtain a 5 star rating is that I wish they would just make it a sixth start. It would help simplify comparing models from different years. A 5 year old vehicle which has 5 star rating might be equivalent to today's 4 star rated--or tomorrows 3 star for all we know of future ratings. The current 5 star rating works good for comparing new vehicles.
Makes me wonder, how many are getting 2 or 3 stars currently?
I agree, it'll probably conflict with the idea of making vehicles more safe for pedestrian/cyclist collisions.
My only beef is that if IIHS adds another "requirement" in order to obtain a 5 star rating is that I wish they would just make it a sixth start. It would help simplify comparing models from different years. A 5 year old vehicle which has 5 star rating might be equivalent to today's 4 star rated--or tomorrows 3 star for all we know of future ratings. The current 5 star rating works good for comparing new vehicles.
Makes me wonder, how many are getting 2 or 3 stars currently?
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
With people driving while on the cell phone or texting, drifting into the oncoming traffic lane, probably more than it should. (Sorry about the grammar).
Not to complain or anything but how often do these types of crashes occur?
With people driving while on the cell phone or texting, drifting into the oncoming traffic lane, probably more than it should. (Sorry about the grammar).
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Car insurance is one of the biggest scams out there.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
So since things are looking to be "safer", which should mean reduced premiums, they need a way to justify higher rates through more prefabricated actuarial risk...
Nothing in car insurance (or really ANY insurance) becomes "reduced". Always going up...
I needed a good one after a long night!
Take care, Bill
Car insurance is one of the biggest scams out there.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
So since things are looking to be "safer", which should mean reduced premiums, they need a way to justify higher rates through more prefabricated actuarial risk...
Nothing in car insurance (or really ANY insurance) becomes "reduced". Always going up...
I needed a good one after a long night!
Take care, Bill
- Status
Similar threads
