Its appalling


#1

This latest round of crash tests,only 3 passed by the agencys standards,a 40 mph offset impact-the two companies that did the best was GM and Toyota,if I seen it right ,the door was missing on the Toyota,So they said the driver could walk away unscathed(really?){what about boulders ,trees, posts,etc?} the bad thing is it will give people a false sense of security,none of these SUVs did real good,it shows the person in the machine better pay attention and drive defensivly,might look good on the CBS morning news.
This research makes vehicles better and safer,but it also shows that we are bags of jello,in a fragile eggshell of steel and plastic(the Honda pilot did the worse in thier view)Hope no one trys to sue now because they got seriously injured in a low speed crash in one of the “safe” SUVs.Or did they remove the doors for emphasis?-Kevin


#2

It would be nice if you could provide a link or an address to where you saw the tests with the Toyota’s door removed. It’s hard to comment without seeing it.


#3

+1
I did a search for news coverage of these latest IIHS tests, and while I can find very brief articles, I failed to find a photo of a Toyota with a missing door.

As to the test results, I think it is important to note that automakers are trying to keep up with new standards, and the “slight offset” test is new to the US, even if it has been used in Europe for awhile. With any test–whether it involves the performance of people or of machines–some will do better than others. And, that is where doing one’s due diligence before purchasing…a car…a washing machine…a camera…a lawnmower…or whatever, comes into play. If I bought a vehicle that had already shown itself to be…less than crashworthy…then shame on me for not doing my homework thoroughly enough.

If I had already purchased a vehicle that subsequently did poorly in this test, I might accelerate my decision about when to purchase a replacement vehicle, but I wouldn’t panic and try to dump it immediately. If I have been able to drive for the past 44 years with no accidents whatsoever, I think that the odds are with me regarding my ability to avoid a serious accident.


#4

It’s ironic. Or human nature to avoid crashing. IF you cannot avoid oncoming car, you should turn into path to allow your full frontal crash zone to absorb impact. According to engineers.


#5

I think it’s appalling that when someone is injured or killed in a car crash it aparently is the car’s fault. When you get hurt in a car wreck it’s not because the car didn’t adequately protect you, it’s because you crashed your car.


#6

I agree with @Cavelle, vehicles are designed to perform best with a square hit. When driving, it is always a good idea to consider where you would direct the car in the event of any kind of accident. Can you avoid it completely? (@VDCdriver has been successful with this, as have I) If not, how and what should I hit? It is never a good idea to hit immovable objects like bridges and buildings. Hitting another car, especially in a “safer” place like a bumper or colliding your side-to-their side rather than a driver’s door hit. Obviously very bad to hit pedestrians. Think about it before you get in the car, when you drive and as you are about to be in an accident. Since ABS is almost universal, pound the living heck out of the brake pedal and you’ll likely stop before contact. Cars, trucks and SUV’s stop waaaay better than most people realize. Drive safe so the type of car is less of concern.


#7

+1 to Mustangman’s comments.

In truth, the only kind of accident that I really fear is being T-boned, because there isn’t usually much that you can do to avoid being broadsided by somebody who is running a red light or a stop sign. Of course, looking at the cross-traffic before proceeding can help, and in just the past couple of years, I was able to avoid a car and a truck that ran red lights. However, you can’t always see what is approaching until it is too late–thus my fear of being broadsided.

I firmly believe that buying the safest-possible car is important, but even more important is to drive without being distracted, and to drive with the intent of avoiding collisions, rather than trying to prove to another driver that you are right.


#8

There’s an infinite number of ways a car can crash.
Focusing on a few impact types is not the way to go.
We need to raise the driving skills needed to get and keep a license, do more to discourage careless, reckless driving and make public transportation more appealing.


#9

I believe this is the insurance institute testing and not the government. Plus instead of straight on crashing it was with the angled front crash. So instead of the force being spread over the entire front end, which probably doesn’t happen very often, the force is applied to just one fender and part of the bumper. Seems reasonable there would be more damage. I think you have to take these tests with a little grain of salt. What’s important is the passenger compartment not collapsing and the general structual integrity of the car. Unlike my 59 Pontiac which was a tank, cars are designed to just fold up and absorb the impact by destroying the car. I guess I’m not real concerned.


#10

It’s the small offset frontal crash test by IIHS. The Equinox/Terrain twins were the only mid-size SUVs to receive all Good ratings. The Highlander got 3 Acceptables and 4 Goods. All others received at least 2 Marginal/Poor ratings. Once all the manufacturers meet the old requirements, IIHS will create a new test like this one or make a old test more difficult to pass. Like making a 40 MPH test a 45 or 50 MPH test. Here’s the news release:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/midsize-suvs-disappoint-in-small-overlap-front-crash-test

I think that the doors are missing because they were cut away to show the interior damage.


#11

@Same.it was on the CBS morning news,couldnt get the Car Talk link to work.
@JT,I think you about nailed it,they do these tests in Ruckersville ,VA,(Up the road a few miles from Charlottesville,VA,)In hindsight they must have removed the remenants of the door,to illustrate what went on in the crash-Kevin


#12

I believe that they ran a few tests with the doors off. These were not to rate the vehicle but just to see the dynamics of what was going on during the crash. Just research and not testing.


#13

Wouldnt that skew the results a bit?-Kevin


#14

It may be safer for you if you’re driving an SUV to hit another vehicle “square on”, but assuming the other vehicle may be a compact car, it’s probably not too great for the occupants of the other car.


#15

Hitting head on is better for icebergs, too ;-)////The “offset impact” test is newish, and driven by the fact that ALL the mfrs were acing the traditional tests, so a tougher test was needed to produce relevant results: “everybody’s awsome” not being news. (This will surely continue…in 2044, I’m sure CR will say, “We cannot recommend the Tesla Mongolia because it only got one star in the ‘RPG test’ , and only two in the ‘Thelma and Louise test’.”)


#16

What I find appalling is that people keep driving into each other, usually in broad daylight.
Yersterday I drove behind an erratic driver, who I finally managed to pass. He swerved all over. Passing him I notices he was drinking coffee and talking on his cell phone simutaneously.

Even the worst collision testing vehicle today is light years better than what we used to drive.

There was a vicious multiple stabbing this week on a US campus by a young man. He used a sharp knife which consumer groups would probably want to ban from being sold!


#17
He used a sharp knife which consumer groups would probably want to ban from being sold!
Hey now..."when knives are outlawed, only outlaws will eat steak."

#18

One of the books I’m reading is about the OSS operations during WWII. In their hand to hand training, the OSS officers were trained to use ordinary items as lethal weapons. One of them was making a lethal dagger out of a newspaper. I don’t know how they did it, but what the heck, not many people read newspapers anymore anyway so might as well eliminate them.


#19

ah, another example of the power of the written word


#20

Knives are allowed on aircraft now. Meanwhile, TSA is still confiscating Mickey Mouse snow globes because they have too much fluid. So if you visit Disney World, don’t get your kid a snow globe, get him a knife. The TSA considers it safer. {:stuck_out_tongue: