Here, you can see which models qualified for their latest Top Safety Pick designation.
I like the fact that they have included extensive headlight testing.
1 Like
They do great work. I’d like to see them raise the crash test speeds. 40 mph seems a bit too low.
The major auto insurance companies found that improving safety also improved their bottom line in addition to keeping people in one piece and alive. Once the auto manufacturers mostly meet the new test requirements IIHS will pick another issue to raise the bar on.
My “car” passes all those tests AND it’s the most green solution yet- not even batteries required! Works with most terrain including water! Not so good on steep grades or in high winds though, but can’t have everything… 
1 Like
Does anyone remember the tragic story years ago about the two guys at a ski lift in Russia?
I believe it’s called the Zorb ball. And yes, they were offering rides for a few rubles, so they both climbed into it on a mountain, and somehow, instead of staying on the path of thing got blown off course went rolling and rolling and rolling, and then eventually over a several thousand foot drop.
One guy was killed the other was left paralyzed.
And yes, there’s a video of it. Not the whole thing but you could definitely see them start to go off course and then they eventually are out of view. But you still get a glimpse of them right when they’re starting to pick up huge amounts of speed, rolling down that hill. You know it’s not going to end well.
It’s on YouTube.
The lone survivor described the experience as if being inside a washing machine during the high speed spin cycle, but it never stops.
25% of fatalities are still from side impact crashes! Which means that 75% are not. So side impact may not need to be top priority.
IIHS now uses a 4180 pound moving barrier at 37 MPH. They say that they have changed the design so that it is softer in the middle, to better represent a real vehicle. I think the barrier is still too wide and it distributes forces around too large of an area to represent an actual vehicle. The test vehicle is still stopped during during the test. In almost every real crash the test vehicle would be moving forward while hit.
Originally it was 3,300 pounds at 31 MPH. The barrier was even more uniform in how it distributed forces, making it less like a real vehicle. To make matters worse, they would adjust the height of the test barrier according to the height of the test vehicle. They assume that SUVs will only be hit by other SUVs, and cars by other cars in the real world. Have you seen cars with door beams that are so flimsy that 1000 pounds of force would probably smash it in? This IIHS test allows this because the laboratory test is always at 90 degrees using a test barrier with unrealistically large surface area. Most car makers design to the minimum required.
Most current vehicles would fail a 50 MPH crash quite badly. A few expensive European vehicle may do well. I believe it may be impossible to make compact and sub compact vehicles achieve a Good rating. The distance between the driver and the front is just too small. So there is strong resistance from vehicle makers to have this kind of test. It would mean eliminating all of their sub compact models to acheive even Acceptable ratings on their vehicles. Or they would have to switch to a rear engine design to make more crush space in front.
“Since 2009, pedestrian fatalities have risen almost 80%”. This is mostly due to the popularity of SUVs, which hit pedestrians higher up. Having the industry push SUVs is contributing to this.
Have
You considered discussing this with IIHS?
If the original president from 1995 was still there it might be worth it. He seemed to be focused on the original purpose of IIHS, which was safety. I see that IIHS actually replies to what people comment on their youtube channel now. I wonder if they would have my posts deleted if I mentioned some of these things … Maybe someone else can post on the Alphabet/Google platform and see what happens? My post about seat belt load limiters was actually deleted from a similar big tech platform.
I imagine you’re on their blocked list. No surprise there.
4 Likes
If you don’t talk, they can’t listen.
Good to see headlights getting more attention. Consumer Reports had headlight ratings a few years ago but stopped. I will definitely look at IIHS site when buying our future cars.
1 Like
I had 4 or 5 users on here gang up on me and try to manipulate me in to saying things to get me banned for talking about the industry’s refusal (except Volvo) to test cars at speeds above 39 MPH. I wonder how long I would last with Youtube’s “community guidelines”? Maybe you would like to give it a try? I can tell you what to say.
I don’t think side impact is a high priority though. It was 1 in 3 fatalities in 1997, now it is 1 in 4. That is some progress. Aside from letting vehicles with flimsy door beams pass due to not having any angled crashes, their current tests aren’t that bad. Most people are dying from head on crashes, oblique head on crashes, and roll over crashes. Many vehicles are very dangerous for rear seat passengers, as there is currently no rear end crash testing, despite being the most common type of accident.
We already have people thinking Volvo is less safe now because one of their cars got an Acceptable rating instead of a Good rating on the revised 37 MPH test. If Volvo stopped their real world testing and just designed for the laboratory test they could easily get a Good rating.
If there is any chance that you may decide to stop in the middle of an intersection while a 4000 pound cart with a large honeycomb shock absorber mounted to the front comes through and hits you on the side, then don’t drive a Volvo!
No one has to manipulate you to say wrong things. You do that all by yourself .
3 Likes