In case anyone is interested in a small SUV, IIHS did a small offset crash test at 40 mph, but tested the passenger side rather than the driver’s side this time.
Of the seven vehicles that had the highest driver’s side rating, only one duplicated it on the passenger side: the Hyundai Tuscon. The Buick Encore, Honda CR-V, and the Mazda CX-5 all had acceptable ratings. The crash results for the Buick were the same, but the crash dummy’s head slipped between the air bags and this could mean that a person’s head could slip through to the dash board, hence the lower rating. Marginal ratings went to the Nissan Rogue and Subaru Forrester, while the Toyota RAV4 received a poor rating. The lowest three appear to use asymmetrical protection, meaning the driver’s side is beefed up but the passenger side is not.
The IIHS always finds something new to harp on, don’t they? That is capitalism at work!
Regulatory agencies are headed by cabinet members, appointees of the presidents. The executive branch is responsible by law for enforcing the laws passed by congress, and the way they do so is through regulatory agencies, whose function it is to create regulations to enact and enforce the new law… These appointees are politicians. They report directly to the executive branch. The way they become more and more powerful is to build a regulatory agency that creates more and more regulations and interprets them more and more stringently. That’s how a politician grows his agency’s budget from $1million to $500million, and how he becomes a powerful Washington figure.
I watched the video on the RAV4 forum and the owners were not happy. I don’t blame them. When I was shopping for a small CUV, the RAV4 was on my list but I never thought that Toyota would reinforce the driver side and leave the passenger side as is. I ended up with a 2015 Tucson that is not even tested but I think I am happier with Hyundai’s design overall.
Looking at the front pic of the RAV4, I think some policing of these companies is necessary.
No, MB, you’re not oversimplifying in this case, you are providing incorrect information!
The IIHS is NOT a governmental regulatory agency, and it is–as jtsanders implied–a capitalistic enterprise because it is funded by a consortium of car insurance companies. This is entirely a creature of private enterprise, not a governmental entity.
I think that you have confused the privately-funded IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) with a US government agency, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Mea Culpa. I stand corrected regarding the IIHS.
And, having said that, the IIHS goal is to eliminate exposure for the insurance industry to as close to zero as possible.
However, the results of IIHS testing end up as additional vehicle requirements of the Department of Transportation for Over the Road Vehicles.
“the IIHS goal is to eliminate exposure for the insurance industry to as close to zero as possible.”
That is certainly true, but in the process of reducing their claims for personal injury/death resulting from collisions, they are–obviously–reducing the severity of injuries and the incidence of death. How can that possibly be interpreted as being a bad thing?
The IIHS started these offset and small offset tests because real world statistics showed that they were the most common type of impact in accidents. But that was for the drivers side only. The passenger side offset and small offset were not a significant percentage of accidents. I wonder why they would test them if they weren’t very common.
@“the same mountainbike” , you really came very close to the major reason why the federal government can’t control spending, even though you were wrong about the IIHS being a government agency.
Within the federal government bureaucracy, if you are in a management position, you get an evaluation once a year. All the evaluations are sent to a board for review and the top managers at each level are selected for advancement to the next level.
The problem is that the evals (evaluations) are almost always top grades. On a scale of 1-10, 99% are 10’s, the rest are 1’s. You are either a hero or a dirtbag. The people on theboards do not know you or anyone else under review.
In addition to the numerical score, you have a comments or remarks section and they are always written in bullet form. Over the last 40 or 50 years, the bullet that has become the most important is the size of your budget. Its literally the only thing that can break you out of the pack. Everyone is a 10 and has done their job brilliantly so two things break you out, your budget and the number of people who answer to you.
Most government employees are very conservative and would genuinely like to see government spending reduced, except for their department, their department needs more money. If their budget is increased, their chances for advancement is also increased.
Changing the evaluations so that the size of the budget is not allowed to be shown will not get government spending under control, but until that is done, nothing else will work.
Offset crashes on the passenger side are not rare, but combine that with how often passengers ride in the front passenger seat, then the incidence is rare. As I mentioned above, I believe that the IIHS will always find another aspect of auto safety to test, even if the issue represents a small part of the total cost of all accidents.
“Most government employees are very conservative and would genuinely like to see government spending reduced, except for their department, their department needs more money. If their budget is increased, their chances for advancement is also increased.”
^ It’s actually very similar to people’s feelings regarding their own Senators and Congressman.
If asked about Congress in the aggregate, generally speaking the public wants lower taxes/reduced spending, and is critical of Congress for not reducing costs sufficiently.
However, when you ask for their opinion regarding their own representative, what is frequently heard is something on the order of, “He/she is pretty good because he/she brings home the bacon to this district”.
When I attempt to point out the disconnect in that type of reasoning, I usually get blank stares in return.
In other words, spending is a bad thing when it pertains to the nation at large, but it suddenly becomes something wonderful when it takes place in one’s own district. Interesting, isn’t it?
In any event, I am still trying to figure out how the IIHS’s goal of reducing injuries and deaths could possibly be considered a bad thing, even though they are doing it for the benefit of the bottom line on their clients’ balance sheets.
"Reducing insurance payouts means the insurers can reduce rates now or at least reduce the rate of rise."
Yup!
I have been very pleased at how my auto insurance costs have dropped for both of the past two years. My driving record obviously has something to do with this rate drop, but I believe that reduced expenditures on the part of my insurance company also factor into this drop in rates.
^
That is probably another factor–in addition to my spotless driving record for the past 46 years-- as well as my insurance company’s very good profit margins that have undoubtedly resulted from a drop in injury/death claims. Besides lowering my rates for two consecutive years, they have also increased the amount of the dividend checks that all of their policy holders receive after the first year.
Mine keeps dropping too. That’s one of the many advantages of taking good care of a car. It gets to get old and I get to watch my insurance and tax (registration) costs drop.
