I’m talking mostly about frontal head on crashes here, like on those 2 lane 65 MPH speed limit Colorado roads. Older cars are softer and smash up more in a crash which reduces the forces on the people sitting in the back, while sacrificing the front seats. It’s simple physics. The industry doesn’t want to admit it, but making cars safer for the front has had a significant negative effect on the rear, and the front passenger as well if just the driver side gets hit.
The trend toward more compact vehicles with less trunk space behind hasn’t helped either. Rear impacts are the most common.
They may try to make statistics that take in to account side airbags and compare over all deaths of newer cars to older cars, or not take in to consideration that rear passengers are less likely to wear seat belts. But it is basic physics that the rear seats are no longer much safer in head on collisions in modern cars. Sure they can say that the better side crash protection makes up for it, but if you primarily drive on rural roads that doesn’t matter to you.
The IIHS added a rear passenger to their testing this year. The top ratings are only given to the vehicles that protect these occupants (small woman or 12 year-old positioned behind the driver.) Of course, when testing 100’s of cars, the relative damage to test dummies will be quite variable. Conversely, a similar problem exists when attempting to use accident-reconstruction data to explain the cause of death.
And, we also know that for years, the best place for someone younger than 13 is the back seat. My 10 year old granddaughter reminded me of that this last week.)
I recall a rear passenger test in 1998. The Buick Regal had a higher rating for rear side impact than the Olds Intrigue. The door panel on the Regal was higher than on the Intrigue. I guessed that was the reason.