Prius v rated poor on new IIHS small overlap frontal crash test

Funny thing, about actuarial 'proofs'. Why not look at other contributing factors of those corner crashes. Take a broad number like "10,000 injuries". Marry the 10,000 crashes stat to "frontal corner crash" and to the statistic that "one fourth of those are corner crashes" and you have 2,500. The naked stat fails to account for;
inattentive drivers - speeding drivers - drunk drivers - low or no maintenance to their car drivers etc.
It's true we can't avoid those kinds of folks ... but by NOT doing the things that lead to corner impacts, we greatly increase the odds of avoiding those folks. In stead, it seems we strive to build the crash proof car - so you can inattentively drive it off a cliff and still walk away without a scratch.

 

So now we have to have a car that has as much force dissipation in each of its front fenders as it is expected to have in its front end. What is that going to cost in terms of $, weight and MPG?

Just hit it head on.

 

I'm not going to criticize the test. It's a new test, but it does set the bar higher for all automakers.
Toyota's reaction and statement that they will respond to the challenge is the correct response.

I (as many people) have driven vehicles for decades, as safety features slowly and sometimes rapidly have appeared and manifested.

I drove vehicles in the 80's and 90's that were comparative collision death traps by todays standards.

If this new crash test results in further safety evolution and thus prevents more injury or death in the future....good for it.

With airbags, vehicle stability control and anti-lock brakes, I wouldn't be too concerned driving almost any new vehicle. Even if improvements will be coming, it's the nature of evolution.

Of course, I remember a time when people BARELY used a single lap seat belt and dashboards were often made of metal.

Infact...I had an Aunt that INSISTED on cutting her seatbelts out. Nobody could talk her out of it. It took several tickets for NOT buckling up before she finally caught up with the times at least from the standpoint of using a safety belt.

 

Are you talking about only looking at tests that hit the car head on (so the entire frontal area is used) instead of partial overlap or that drivers should hit another car head on?

 

The question really is do these rating mean anything. We can go to the old stats, and I assume older models will do even worse in these tests. If cars are brand new we don't have track records

Car Make and Model Fatality Statistics | Statistic Brain
On the list of lowest are the Lexus ES and Audi A4, which rate very badly on this new test. Why aren't more of their drivers dieing, if its a valid test?

First we need to look at whether doing poorly on the test will result in a fatality. Looking at the graph of crash test dummy outcomes, it appears that they won't. Then we need to look at if the test was predictive of fatalities, what percent are affected, and according to IIHS only about 1/4 of 10,000 frontal out of NHTSA 33,000 total fatal crashes. That is about 7.5%. These small offset fatalities are rare, but not insignificant. When do they happen? When drivers are impaired, distracted, or driving too fast for weather conditions.

Which means, that car makers should test and see if fatalities are likely, but passing this test does not mean your car is safe to drive when impaired or distracted. If you don't drive impaired or distracted, it is unlikely that driving a camry or prius v will lead to your death from a small offset crash.

 

From Toyota December 20, 2012
Toyota Comments on Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Small Overlap Test
link here
Toyota | Toyota Comments on Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Small Overlap Test

It is a short and sweet statement. Here is the only new news (not really news), "We are evaluating the new test protocols and can say that there will not be one single solution to achieve greater crash performance in this area."

 

Boy - oh Boy the insurance folks sure sucked the drama out of THAT story.

 

Hopefully Toyota's design changes are ready before the new design in 2015.

 

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Honda has been working on compatability engineering in all of their vehicles for a number of years. Their ingenious design a large part of what made the accord and TL perform so well. Both of those cars get acceptable to class leading mpg marks and neither of them are pigs.

Take a look at the members they use to be able to accept crash energy along the entire width of the car and for more vertical range as well. Shouldn't be too hard for Toyota and other to do something similar next go around.

 

ummm - 2013 EPA of mid 30 mpg's is only acceptable if you tolerate getting below 50mpg or more. Thanks - but no thanks ... I,ll take my chances with crumple corners.

 

Do you really think Toyota couldn't get 50+ MPG using a crash structure similar to Honda's? If you take a Camry vs Accord comparison, the Accord is only 60 pounds heavier (a difference that could come from a number of different areas) than the Camry and it is getting 27/36 vs the Camry's 25/35. I think Toyota employs smart enough people that one shouldn't have to be "satisfied" with getting mid-30s. I do think we should demand the best, though. Toyota clearly wasn't thinking ahead here, few manufacturers really were.

(Also, please don't think that because I don't currently own a Prius that I am trying to troll here. I frequently read these boards because of PC's highly educated posters. I'm very appreciative of all the HSD insights that I can relate to my own car. Plus currently contemplating the purchase of a V or PiP.)

 

unless we work for Toyota engineering - we'd be EXTREMELY presumptuous to say what Toyota (or any other auto builder) can/can't do. If ANYTHING is closer to reality, the fact that NO one builds highly rated 50+mpg cars with corner crash protection - then the facts speak for their self .... it hasn't been done for a reason ... and that's likely because of the laws of physics. Speaking of physics, Camery versus Accord??? "Prius Chat". Soooo I thought we were talking Prius safety/MPG limits versus the Accord's. Curious - you state, "Toyota employs smart [] people" ... so they ought to be able to do a corner crash proof-non "mid 30mpg" car? Does that mean that Honda corp doesn't employ smart people? After all ... borrowing from your logic ... if they did, then they ought to be the folks building such a car, right?

BTW ... it's not all about weight (prius v accord) ... it's also a matter of the LIMITS of drag / CD. Square peg in a round hole .... meaning if for example (in addition to all other factors) drag is increased due to structural mods to fit extra beefy structural junk into prius corners - then mpg drops ... because you may need to loose the present day body shape. That of course is just an example/speculation . . . . but heck . . . . since we're speculating how and what Toyota "ought" to be able to do . . . . .

 

+1

I don't really buy the argument that passing this specific test makes you less likely to die in the car. The statistics from the cars rated poorly seem to have very low death statistics.

Building tanks, the arms race of these safety scores does increase costs, I'm not sure if it affects mpg much.

We can always go low width, lower rolling resistance tires to counter act the real weight. This may cause more accidents as the tires have less grip, but hey none of these IIHS tests really care about that. Its burried in the stopping distance and grip numbers from the car magazines.

Honda employed some more expensive steel and some parts redesign. What we get is focus on passing the test instead of active safety....

 

I don't work for Toyota engineering, but I do work in R&D at a large, global automaker and have my BS in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley. In my opinion, the engineers on these cars can work around any efficiency hurdles related to additional, or more likely, redesigned crash members. Cost may go up a little bit but I think the additional members wouldn't dramatically increase cost.

To me compatibility engineering isn't about passing tests its about performing well in the real world, where bumpers are at different heights and accidents are rarely at a perfect offset. The test is doing what they are supposed to do, driving industry forward.

The numbers do paint an odd picture as to the death rates of these accidents but I do think compatibility engineering is a smart idea. This test points out an area of weakness in most cars. These accidents do happen and they can happen at a higher speed than the test. The structural failure shown in many of these test should be avoided. Obviously, cars have evolved and will continue to do so. I don't think that the issue should be downplayed to the point of there not being a call to action. The V and Camry are obviously still safe cars and will continue to be purchased. This one test wouldn't dramatically change my purchasing decision.


It's not like cars can't or shouldn't have both active and passive safety systems. This generation of Accord with compatibility engineering also brought Honda's blind spot system and forward collision warning. They were late to the party on collision warning, though.

Here's an example from CL where an RX hit a tree at ~60 MPH when it's driver suffered a medical issue at the wheel. The tree largely missed the crash structure and went straight into the passenger cell. A car that scored perfectly in this new test certainly wouldn't have guaranteed survival but it would've helped. (For the record, the woman in the car survived, but had there been a passenger I don't think they would've been as lucky.)

 

If all these past calls to action had worked, then we wouldn't have anyone dying.

I'm not against the test, or responses of building to pass the test, but we should be pretty clear that

A) These cars are very safe historically, at least the camry according to fatality statistics. The prius v is too new to tell.

B) Analysing crash data is a good way to reduce fatalities.

C) I have severe doubts that passing the test will really decrease these incidents. Now lets go to your example

This story falls in line with the statistics. It was an impaired driver that hit the tree. The driver as may have been expected survived. Now we get into the what ifs. What if there was a passenger? Would they have grabbed the wheel and lessened the accident? Would have they been killed or injured. The check boxes from the luxury vehicles in the test indicated injuries not fatalities.

 

I'll be happy to have my feet and legs uninjured in this type of crash, thank you very much.

 

Oh my god the apologism going on here is sickening.

Are we seriously arguing that cars are "safe enough" and that we shouldn't bother making them any safer? Hmm, I think cars are efficient enough, why bother making them more economical. Excellent logic here.

A few points about the test results
–in the Camry, the steering wheel moves and ends up deflecting the driver's head to the side instead of protecting it! Absolutely unacceptable.
–in the v, there's a delay in the side curtain airbag deployment, which also ends up deflecting the driver's head outside the vehicle. Wth! Basically the airbags in this scenario end up HURTING the driver instead of helping him. This second point is particularly troublesome because it requires absolutely zero engineering/structural changes – the airbag literally just needs to deploy earlier.
–I love the comments about how if the accidents aren't fatal, there's no need to design for them. Seriously? Alright, how about this, you get into an accident like this, and you lose both your legs. But no problem, you're still alive! Right? Awesome.
–similarly digging the comments about driver error. First off, we had someone above just describe a situation in which "driver error" wasn't really in the driver's control. Imagine you have a stroke while driving. And then become incapacitated. I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that (a) you're still alive and (b) the accident was "your" fault, so the injuries are totally justified! Furthermore, people seem to always forget that it takes two to tango. You might be the safest driver on the planet, but that won't stop you from getting hit by a drunk teenager going toward you and veering into your lane in a situation where you can't swerve out of the way to avoid a collision.

These tests show one thing, really: a lot of automakers build to satisfy tests and don't bother thinking about other scenarios that aren't tested explicitly. Now, there's another test that will get them to adjust their designs. The end result will be safer cars for everyone. How anyone can be against this or dismiss it as just hype and negative PR is beyond me.

 

In stead of jacking up the cost of never ending car safety improvements - passed on via more expensive autos - that still kill people due primarily because of our nature to be inattentive - why don't we in stead take those same millions and millions spent on R &D and medical expenses caused by those inattentive drivers, and use it towards improving our pathetic mass transit - which collaterally saves fuel, gets drunks off the road - as well as the inattentive texters and phone callers and makes for even greater safety. Of course that's just crazy talk, right? Yea - better to just keep shoveling money into asphalt infrastructure and cars that end up on the junk Heep at about the 20 year mark.

SGH-I717R ? 2

 

Ah Hill, you are pushing my buttons.
My state of New Mexico had a moment of sanity, and built a decent rail right down the middle of I-25 that connects our main towns/cities. Then Fed stimulus money (in addition to state money) was used to widen and polish the highway. Surprisingly (NOT!) the train ridership declined, and our new tea party governor decided that the train should be trashed. She defunded the train, which responded by cutting service ... and you know what the outcome will be.

<<sigh>>

 

i don't really understand why this needs to be an either/or scenario.
or how we plan on getting Toyota to divert their R&D budget to other companies responsible for building transit vehicles.