IIHS "poor" rating on 'small overlap front' test crash

There's no such thing as a 2-vehicle crash that approximates the overlap test, not even close. The test uses an immovable wall, and the only way to duplicate it in the real world is to hit a wall. A concrete barrier or piling on the freeway would be the comparison. Hitting another car is a totally different case where the impact is shared between both cars, and forces are re-directed sideways as the 2 cars glance off each other. Apples and oranges. Yes, people hit walls and pilings, but they are usually protected by a variety of impact-absorbing barriers. In short, the small overlap test is only relevant to a VERY small sample of real-world crashes.

 

I feel adequately protected by Toyota. The test results mean almost nothing. But if it really bothers you, sell the car and move on.

 

Seems to me this type of impact happens in several ways.

Your attention wanders and you hit some immovable barrier, tree, abutment etc.

You are not paying attention and you drift to the right, over correct and do the same.

Someone drifts across the center line and you don't or can't move to the right to avoid. Seems to me your instinct as a driver would be to avoid this crash. And such a crash between two vehicles isn't really what these tests simulate as two cars would have two crush zones to absorb the impact.

The only crashes like this I've seen personally in 54 years of driving (gasp!) were:

3AM on New Years where the kid across the street fell asleep at the wheel. The left front wheel made a 3" dent in the seat frame right where it would hurt the most. Kid had a broken foot. I'm not even sure he had a air bag. Did '85 era Fieros?

A Saturday afternoon where some young men took a early '90s 300Z out for a way too enthusiastic test drive and were going way too fast for the hilly suburban street design. The car got airborne coming over the top of a slight hill, slid off the edge of the road to the right, driver over-corrected and ran up a bank on the left getting airborne and then hitting a tree with its left front which flung the car around so it came to rest in its original lane with it's tail facing the wrong direction. Both guys walked out of the car. There was a gash 6 feet high on the tree and the car cleared a fire hydrant in the air as it made its way from the tree backwards in the air onto the road. I watched this one happen from 50 feet.

In both cases, you shouldn't a been doing that.

So I'm not going to overreact to this test. Something to consider when redesigning, sure. But everything you design is a trade-off between cost, functionality, weight, mileage, space, curb appeal, safety, etc.

 

You have to be really silly to buy into this crap. Yes safety is a priority and the Prius is very safe. Take an Accord or a Prius or a Hummer and have an 18-wheeler T-bone them. In both cases the occupants will most likely die. Take either of those 3 vehicles and miss a turn going down a mountain, you will nosedive off a cliff into rocks and everyone will die. You can't build a vehicle that protects everyone from everything every time. It is not possible.

This kind of accident is rare. It is not 50/50 like you suggest. You could argue you also have a 50/50 chance of a plane dropping out of the sky and exploding on impact on your car as you drive down the road. It either happens or it doesn't right? Should Toyota and Honda and everyone else design a car able to withstand an impact of 300+ miles per hour and a few thousand degree jet fuel blast? Safety is a priority right?

You need to keep in check with reality when it comes to safety. Teach them defensive driving, the dangers of texting while driving, limit the number of friends in the car with them when they drive, that sort of thing. It is better to prevent an accident that to try and protect against an accident. And even then, as already mentioned many times, it is extremely unlikely this is the type of accident you will encounter.

And you also say that selling the car is not available for you. Well neither would be buying a vehicle that super "safe" if you can't afford a few thousand in transfer charges.

If you are truly that worried, buy a Marauder. It has ballistic protection of STANAG 4569 level III and mine blast protection of level STANAG 4569 3a and 3b which is a single anti-tank mine or 8 kg of TNT under the hull and under any wheel. You could accidentally run over 8kg of explosives, 50/50 chance of it happening or not happening right? The base model of this level of safety comes at the low low price of $650,000 USD which rapidly increases as you add additional safety features like tear gas dispensers and automated machine guns that can be fired from the cabin. No price is too high for the safety of passengers right?

A couple of picture to show scale are also included below:

 

you should have purchased a volvo. who told you prius was the safest car on the road?

 

Hey, there's a chance that my Prius could get hit by a Boeing 737 too, is Toyota responsible for that as well? Its not ALWAYS someone else's responsibility. Sometimes its your responsibility, and you're not supposed to drive into walls.

 

Koto, lets be fair now, NO car is going to protect you and your family 100% of the time in 100% of situations.

Personally I do think the overlap test is important as it comes closer to showing results of some real world collisions. However, as others have said, it is an uncommon accident and does not tell you exactly what is going to happen in all non-head on collisions.

This test is recent and now that it has been shown I am confident Toyota will be addressing it.

That said, the best way to avoid injury due to an accident is to avoid the accident.
If you ever eat, drink, or use a phone while driving, that is more likely to cause you injury than an off-center collision.

No, this is not deflecting responsibility. This is recognizing that both the manufacturer and vehicle operator have responsibility for safety.

 

Koko, what exactly do you expect Toyota to do? Fix your car so that is passes the small overlap test? LOL! You have got to be kidding! Toyota will address the results by building their vehicles to pass the test in the future, not in vehicles already built and bought by consumers. There is no defect to fix here. The Prius family of vehicles have statistically been very safe and passed all known safety tests at the time they were designed and built. I think you're giving too much credence to Consumer Reports. There are cars that pass the small overlap test, and many cars that don't. However, all cars are much safer than they were 10 years ago. I can't imagine the cars I drove when I first got my license passing ANY kind of safety test, What did you first drive when you were in your teens?

 

Lets not forget that the IIHS is paid by insurance companies, and the real reason for their tests is to force car makers into reducing the value of insurance claims. The fact that "Safety" is affected is secondary in their eyes, and purely a marketing tool. Consumers end up paying the costs regardless. Does anyone really believe that the insurance companies fund these tests out of the goodness of their hearts?

Anyhow, if you actually read the IIHS documents, you'll see that even they don't claim it in any way represents a vehicle to vehicle crash. Its unfortunate that people do go out and drive into a wall or pole, but its not Toyota's fault.

 

Considering that insurance company payouts for medical costs associated from injuries sustained in accidents far outweigh the cost of material damages to the vehicles involved, I find that a rather dubious line of reasoning.

 

I'm always amazed by how people state opinion as fact or see a conspiracy by big companies and institutions to deceive the public. It would be nice to see some references to back up claims that the frontal small overlap crash test is unrealistic or meaningless or a ploy to increase earnings.

In fact a 2009 IIHS study concluded that front corner vehicle collisions occur in about a quarter of frontal collisions involving serious or fatal injury to front seat occupants, even in cars with otherwise good crash protection. ( ref: Consumer Reports, Dec 2013, p. 17).

Toyota and a few other manufacturers missed this important crash safety issue but will no doubt correct it in the next model change. It would be great if they could develop a fix for current Priuses and Camrys, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

I'd like to reiterate the "far outweighs".

 

I agreed with the logic why CR is not recommending the Camry and Prius v. There are a lot of choices in the market and it is their job to differentiate the products.

I am not happy with the test result of my v but at least now I know it has a weakness I need to keep in mind. In general, it is still a safe car as the NHTSA test and the other IIHS tests are still great. It is not the top pick+ but still a top pick.

The big impact will be resale value of the car. Darn....

 

I was thinking about this a bit while driving our Volvo on a long trip today. I think what this kind of test really exposes is exactly what happens to a vehicle when a crash is able to penetrate the crumple zones and start to intrude on the passenger compartment. The Prius is good as long as the crumple zones are not bypassed somehow, or blown through entirely in a severe impact. If they are, the passenger cell itself is not overly strong, and you may be in trouble. Volvo, for example, has long prioritized excellent a-pillar and roof strength. That's probably why the XC90 aces this test despite not being designed for it. Look at the pictures posted earlier. The Camry's a-pillar just crumples whereas the Accords remains relatively intact, giving some measure of protection to the occupants even if the passenger cell is unable to dissipate the remaining energy, at least it remains intact.

 

Hello zhenya,
Yes, The real problem comes when cars are designed around a specific test, and then tests are designed around weaknesses in the car. The 2015 Toyotas will do much better in this test, But some other cars will again fail a new test in 2016.

Volvo has a safety design culture independent of the testing. The problem with that is that it costs more, both in cost of the car and in fuel usage because of added weight. That added cost is why Volvo is a minor brand in terms of sales volumes. The average USA customer will not pay for this.

Clearly the testing process, including changing the tests, causes the auto industry to improve safety. But maybe part of the value of the testing is the effect it has on getting more of the customer base to be willing to pay for cars that have the added safety features.

Thanks,
Dan