4 Star Government Safety Ratings- Will it impact sales?

The Fusion hybrid is an excellent choice for overall safety. If cost and fuel economy were not also a factor, we would have highly considered the Fusion or Camry.

www.informedforlife.org has a nice rating system that factors in crash test results, safety features and weight in a very sensible manner. Using their calculator, the Prius would earn a SCORE of around 69 or so if I entered the data correctly. Their results are not yet updated. Models with missing data are given "typical" results and so their overall SCORE may not be reflective of a final SCORE when they have updated their crash test results.

Quite likely, relative to other angles and types of crashes, anyway. For serious crashes with a fatality, frontal and frontal offset impacts with other vehicles are the most common type.

 

I'd think side and rear impacts are more common than frontal. Is this not true?

 

Not for severe impacts that involve a fatality. It's not even close. Frontal impacts account for about half of the total, roughly split between full width and offset. Rear crashes are under 10% of the total. The remainder are side impacts, rollovers and other modes. Interestingly, side impacts account for the most fatalities to properly restrained passengers...

Data for less severe impacts that do not involve a fatality are not nearly as well documented, but rear-enders tend to be more frequent for fender benders and crashes involving only injuries.

 

Again, I think it depends on where you live and drive. I'm almost 50 and I have never seen a frontal impact between two cars, although they would be far more deadly (although I forgot about pickups rolling over with kids in the back). The only times I have seen or read about them usually involves a drunk late at night. Someone driving into a guardrail, or a tree, or a house, or a Walmart seem more common and can be fatal, even when alcohol is not involved. Rear-end collisions and intersection accidents are probably the most common, although they tend to be at fairly low speeds.

 

You can break down the data by state, vehicle type and numerous other variables at FARS Encyclopedia . Use the Query tab to create your own report. I've found the results to be fairly consistent, though. Frontal crashes are the most common type in crashes involving fatalities.

 

To improve one's survivability in a collision wear a helmet, HANS device & nomax suit.

 

As I expected, it looks like fatal head-on collisons between 2 cars is pretty uncommon where I live.

 

Then stability control and handling may be a bigger part of the picture. Crash protection ratings are still a factor if you strike a tree or pole or barrier, though your vehicle weight would be less of a factor in that case.

 

I just learned that you have to actually compute the NHTSA frontal risk percentage from the sub category results of chest and head numbers. I had used an average of 15% as a typical 4-star figure, but it turns out the actual numbers really are closer to 5-star ratings.

The author has now updated their FAQ to reflect this, along with the risk calculation that is used. The actual load based figure for the 2010 Prius is 11.48% for the NHTSA frontal risk factor. 10% would be the threshold for 5-stars, 20% for 3-stars. Rounding down (of course!) to 11 for their SCORE calculator, that results in a score of 64. That is quite good overall and barely makes their "Recommended" requirements. Yeah, if I round up it barely misses, so sue me;-)

 

It seems to me that Anne1965 is making a very important point here - and it undersores the problem with having 5 "buckets" for ratings instead of a continuous "ramp". Let's use "*" to represent "star"

Suppose 4* runs from 4.00 - 4.99 and 5* runs from 5.00 -5.99. Now suppose there are three cars:
modelA = 4.99 (= 4* !!)
modelB = 5.00 (= 5* !!)
modelC = 5.99 (= 5* !!)

Many people will prefer B(5*) over A(4*), when there is really NO DIFFERENCE because of measurement error (unless you crash 100 cars of each model and average them). But the same people will think B(5*) and C(5*) are the same when B is definitely LESS SAFE than C.

Wouldn't a decimal number system provide a LOT more information than the star system. I know there are other numbers given, but 90% of the buyers only are only seeing stars.

This is my 1.99 cents worth anyway

 

You are right, but the 5-star system is reasonable for the general public. Sometimes, dumbing things down is handy for quick comparisons if the information you need for a more thorough comparison is also presented. For those interested in more detail, you can still get a decimal number based on those sub category ratings, as I indicated above. 11.48% in the frontal risk factor is a pretty good number, though not quite 5-star territory.

 

Thanks. I wonder if a combined approach would be possible, such as 5-STAR/5.25; 3-STAR/3.92; etc. Actually, I really like the deeper approach used by the "informedforlife" people in their SCORE method that you referred to. It seems much more comprehensive than any of the other approaches - and I like the fatality-based correlation. That's the bottom line, isn't it?

And if the 2010 Prius gets a SCORE of around 65, putting it in the safest 8% of all '03-'10 cars, that sounds terrific to me. Am I missing something?

 

I looked at the referenced rating page. There are some things under the features and options which don't look correct to me:

Seat Belt Extenders - (this is a free option from Toyota)
Rear Center Lap/Shoulder Belt - (this should be "standard")
Traction Control - (this should be "standard"))
Auto-Dimming Rearview Mirrors - (this should be "option")
Auto Door Locks - (this should be "standard")

I hope these items don't affect the safety ratings.

 

Hopefully they will have the NHTSA data in their calculator in a few days do we can verify the math.

It seems that fatalities are the only concern, but how does that correlate with serious injuries? It might be that if you are more likely to survive in one crash, you may be more likely to escape serious injury in another crash. I just don't know if that is really the case though.

 

Seems that a 3g PV with ATP, would score better than a 4 star rating. The fact that the car is going to try to reduce speed before impact, even if driver does not respond seems like that should boost rating to 5, There are few other feature on PV with ATP that would reduce injury, like active head rest, and active seatbelts that adjust before impact to reduce injury. I am sure I am leaving out some details but ATP should have its own test. I bet there is no way to give credit for ATP features. I know my insurance company does not have a clue on how to reduce my bill with all the extra safety features that are loaded into my ATP, examples: LKA, Dynamic Radar, and safety feature described above, they have no clue.

 

It doesn't make sense for insurance companies to give discount for having the pre-collision system. If you're going to crash, you're going to crash and they'll pay either way.

 

Yes. What they try to do is take all the crash tests, safety features and weight, things that have correlated to real-world reductions in fatality rates, then present a combined rating in a manner similar to the way the IIHS shows overal fatality data. If my numbers are right, it would barely be in the top 8%, but it could vary a bit.

You can put it into their calculator now. I have confirmed that the real number for the NHTSA frontal load average is 11.48%. The only issue is whether you use 11% or 12% when you enter it into their calculator. Hopefully, within a few weeks, you won't need their calculator at all, the data will all be in their database and you can just lookup the result that will be 64 or 67 or something around there.

You may never get a good answer to that. Crashes without fatalities do not have a uniform reporting system as do ones with a fatality. The data from these crashes varies a lot if it is documented at all. Every once in a while, you may find a study with a much smaller number of data points that yields some specific information. For example, the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia worked with State Farm to document crashes with injuries over a period of years to get information on child seats and boosters.

Good point. In fact, they would likely turn off the pre-collision system because what they really want is to compare what happens at a specific impact speed. In the real world, there could well be an average reduction in closing speed due to to advanced safety features in some types of crashes. Keep in mind that many vehicles have active seatbelt pre-tensioners, but they adjust when impact is detected, not by means for forward radar or camera. Also, I think the active head restraints are standard in all models and this is what helped the Prius improve in the IIHS rear test.

But there could be a small adjustment in claims for injury and death related expenses. The science is there, I think, but the data wont follow for years or decades. How insurance companies play it may be a little different than ABS. Many gave discounts for ABS, even though the jury had been out until this week, when a more comprehensive study showed a signifcant benefit in injury reduction, though none for fatalities.

 

I agree with this. When I think 5 stars, I think in 20% increments. Therefore a 4-star rating means car A is 20% less safe than car B.

 

again, CPSDarren and other participants in this great thread! I'm still a little puzzled by all this. I traded in my 04 CR-V for my new 2010 Prius and have been delighted with both cars but especially the latter. However, like some others I was a bit concerned about some of the 4-STAR NHTSA ratings of the Prius compared to my CR-V's 5-STAR ratings.

Now I find the Connecticut SCORE value for the Prius is around 65 or so (top 10% or better) and the CR-V is around 135 (bottom 20% or so?). I see that the CR-V low overall SCORE comes largely from roll-over risk - but the particular route to perdition is not my first concern, I prefer to try to avoid it completely. Also, the G3 did great in IIHS and Euro-NCAP. Should I focus on the relatively small difference in the NHTSA rating and ignore the overwhelming difference in SCORE, plus the IIHS and Euro-NCAP???

 

According to informedforlife.org, the '10 Prius received a score of 72. This means it missed reccomendation by 8 points. The Honda Insight scored 77 and the Civic Hybrid was 84.

The Prius isn't close to most mid-size sedans, but its score looks to be excellent compared to compact cars.

Edit: One thing I'm confused about is why hybrid versions of various cars aren't scored as well. For example, the '09 Camry scores 64 whereas the Camry hybrid scores 77. The '09 Civic 4-door scores 67 and the Civic hybrid scores 84.