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

Really no apologizing going on here, but I question the validitity of the test.

We have the Audi A4, one of the safest cars out there, scoring poorly. I have attempted to look at the tests, and I don't think they will do what is implied by the article, reduce fatalities by a significant amount.

There are trade offs for passing a test. In this case it is likely a more expensive worse handling car, at least according to honda. Definitely it is fine to come up with new tests, but remember what we are talking about here. A driver hitting a tree or pole in a certain way going 40+ mph.

OK, so here is the question if you are hitting that tree at 40 why not 90? Why not 200 mph? I assume the driver is either impaired or distracted and going too fast for conditions. These appear to be single car accidents. Are these accidents preventable? Is there any way to really protect everyone?

You may be right, if you have a camry or prius v and you slam into that tree you may get injured. We should look at the chances of you doing this act at high speed, and likely outcomes before selling you camry or prius v.

You will note, I never said driver error did not mean driving when not physically fit enough to drive. I always used impaired. You might be tired, you might be drunk or on drugs, you might have a heart attack. I don't think we want to test for all of these things. They are all very unlikely events, being impaired enough to crash in this way. Will you pay an extra $10,000 to avert a one in 10 million event? If so would not playing the lottery give you better payback? Certainly if you are worried, don't walk or ride a bike by a road way, since all the other drivers may simply hit you. The odds of an impaired drive hitting and killing a pedestrian is much higher than smashing into a tree in such a way to die.
+1

Will it get their designs to be safer, or simply pass the test so they can say they have the top safety rating. If you believe that this test will save your life, certainly go out sell your car, buy an accord sedan. You have the information. I certainly am not against new tests or car makers using them to make cars safer.

There was a great deal of exaggeration in the press releases about these tests. The audi A4 according NHTSA is one of the safest cars. I don't think it has a single fatality in this type of crash. Certainly driving is more dangerous than flying, and you can kill someone else by using a car, no matter how much of a tank it is built into. That's why the car statistics include fatality figures for the other car.

 

Improvements are going on all the time. It is not unexpected that some existing cars will fail this new type of test. Credit where it is due should go to cars like the VW Passat for doing well. But certainly it is a misplaced expectation that the manufacturer should retrofit a vehicle to these standards (assuming that's even possible) under warranty. Just because Goodyear comes out with a tire with more grip in the rain, they don't have to replace your current Goodyear tires that aren't as good.

 

But why do you question validity of the test? Just because it doesn't reduce fatalities? But again, I will reiterate this point, if you are not killed but simply incapacitated, what's so "great" about such an outcome?

As far as cost, oh noes, every single "change" to a vehicle will increase cost. Pretty sure that was one of the reasons the auto industry didn't seem crazy about adding airbags to all vehicles, but I don't think you'd argue now that we shouldn't require full airbag systems just due to cost?

And handling…lol…pretty sure 90% of the driving public wouldn't notice how well their car handled in day to day driving.

I'm confused, why this focus on trees? Is that really the only situation in which an accident like this will take place? And I'll tell you why not 90 or 200 – because no one drives 200 in this country, and few people drive 90. and of the places where that's possible – there aren't too many trees.

I'm really confused why we're talking about car sales here. No one implied that this test should mean that you run out and sell your car. The point is that this test highlights a pretty bad potential crash scenario from which you can come out very badly injured. I look forward to Toyota improving future model years to do better on this test. I am somewhat upset at the specific problems in terms of the airbag behavior in this test and I hope that in future, Toyota doesn't just engineer to specific tests.

$10,000? Probably not. An extra, $100-500, which is probably what this will actually cost? You bet.

I didn't read the press releases, I just looked at the video. It doesn't look very good for Toyota. I never said that the test will save your life, I said that the test highlights some pretty glaring problems with the way the airbags deploy and the way Toyota designs their cars for safety. As you know, Honda took a proactive approach, and as a result, they did very well in this test. So, my whole point was that I wish more manufacturers took Honda's approach, and I look forward to having this test serve as an impetus to other manufacturers to make their cars safer. That's all.

 

Why yes, exactly that, the press from IIHS says that they created it to reduce fatalities, but I question that.

Companies will defintely spend more money to reduce deaths versus say broken legs and hips.

What will reduce injuries and deaths on small offset? It is likely fewer impaired and distracted drivers and drivers going to fast for weather conditions. Number one for this type of crash is education. That can help on other crashes also. Safer roads can also help.

Crashing into a tree at 40+ miles per hour will never have great outcomes. The question is whether its more likely in a 15 year old SUV, or a brand new Audi A4. If its that A4, then the test may be valid. I doubt that is the case though. I don't really want to argue the chances of chances, and how bad the outcome would be if we had 4 instead of 9 air bags, etc.

 

I'm still confused about the tree thing. For you to hit a tree, this would require you to either (a) cross over into the opposing lane of traffic and hit the tree on the other side of the road, or (b) somehow manage to go off the road to the right and not hit anything until you hit that one magic tree that will cause intrusion into the driver compartment. huh? that seems like a pretty unlikely scenario.

 

I have watched the video many time and have a few observations:

1. Since the test is performed against an immovable barrier, it is similar to a tree collision. However, I would venture to speculate that there are very few left offset tree collisions.

2. There is very high penetration of the barrier into the passenger compartment ... not good for the driver.

3. The driver's head did not get any help from the airbags. The combination of the car (and the steering wheel) being pushed to the right, and the late deployment of the side airbag allowed the head to slip between the two bags.

Much of my driving is on winding 2-lane roads (55 mph). In winter especially, every corner offers the possibility that either my car or an oncoming car could drift over the centerline and be involved in a small-offset collision. This would not be the best scenario, fixed barrier crash (like the test) but with another vehicle, and probably a bigger, heavier one.

The idea behind doing this kind of test is to encourage the manufacturers to make a safer car. In no way is it going to prevent all injuries and deaths. But it will mitigate the consequences of these frequent incidents. It can only be good for everyone, in the long run.

FWIW, I own neither a Prius (nor an Audi)

 

Yep, its very unlikely, but that is the main thing that the test is about. Simulating a single vehicle accident hitting a tree or pole. Deaths are way down, but about 10,000 per year according to IIHS in frontal crashes, with about 1/4 - 2500 being small offset, which IIHS claims may be reduced by this test. Hitting another car is covered by the partial offset and head on tests. I think if everyone passed the test it is unlikely to prevent these 2500 deaths/per year because something else is going on.

I'm more concerned that if you are impaired or distracted enough for a small offest crash you kill a pedestrian or bicyclist, which die in much higher numbers. Something about the data seems to need more explanation than this test.

 

The idea inherent in any kind of test is the conclusions you can draw based on what happens during a controlled collision. An indoor setting with no other obstructions hitting a fixed immoveable barrier while coasting at 40 mph is not the same thing as a 25% offset collision in the real world. But it does give huge insight into what would likely occur.

If there are 2500 deaths occurring due to this kind of crash, would it not be realistic to believe that some percentage of those deaths could be converted into injuries? What if half of the deaths became injuries? That is 1250 people (fathers and mothers, spouses and friends). Wouldn't you go for that? Even a 10% survival would save 250 people. What if all of the injuries became less serious, especially head injuries. Wouldn't that be worth it?

Putting aside the structural shortcomings, it would seem that if Toyota could just fix its airbag configuration and design, then a lot of heads would not hit the dashboard.

 

.... one person's "what if's" are as meaningless as the other person's "what if's" - that hypothesize "what if" we legislate more and more and more safety features into new cars so that all these impaired/lead-footed/inattentave drivers survive, only to get behind the wheel again, so that (instead of just killing their self) next time this subset kills you or me or one of our friends/family members. So much for waxing speculative - and 'protecting' everybody at all cost.

SGH-I717R ? 2

 

There are some simple things like brake/accelerator interlocks that don't save many lives but save some. Because it isn't on these IIHS tests, Toyota fought tooth and nail not to do it, until a well publicized fatal accident made it very uncomfotable for them to just relly on the tests. I don't think its a good practice for organizations to over state what their tests will do, and these press releases give some very unhelpful thoughts about safety. IIHS seems to paint an extremely safe car from actual statistics, the audi A4 quatro as less safe than others because it doesn't pass this arbitrary test.

I am definitely not against testing or making cars safer. I am against pretending this test will save large number of lives. Giving us better tests helps. Let's at least validate this is better. Otherwise we just get more weight and cost on these cars. IMHO US cars are not actually safer than European cars, but they are heavier and pass more tests. Lets be smart about the priorities, and rank "safe cars" by their likely safety, and reduce regulations while keeping the cars safe. IIHS will claim victory when other factors - newer cars on the road,electronic safety, etc - reduce these fatalities. No one will care to check whether the test does anything.

On the small offset we come to a couple of conclusions - some cars may have more than 8 airbags to claim they are safe, but sometimes they just aren't aimed or deployed properely. We have gotten so carried away with the number that we don't care if they effective. The second is most modern cars were not designed for impacts outside the rails. Here is a good summary of the research
A Reexamination of the Small Overlap Frontal Crash

An idea is to convert the crash to a sliding impact, something the small fixed barrier may preve

Probably not a lot of heads. They definitely blew airbag deployment. I doubt it would affect the crash test dummies on this test.

 

The last very serious accident I witnessed (and was very lucky to avoid) was a lumber truck that spilled 2x6s coming from the other direction. They went airborne and struck the motorcyclist in front of me. I was lucky to avoid them, but he was not. When he was hit and went off the road, I stayed until the ambulance took him away (still unconscious). I just wonder if the next test will be for for airborne lumber. I doubt my airbags would protect me from lumber going through my windshield.

We have had numerous serious deer strikes in our county where the deer head or body went through the windshield and injured the driver - again airbags did not help.

The only way I see to be perfectly safe from car accidents is to stay at home. Trying to make our cars bullet-proof is a never-ending quest and there will always be some form of accident to worry about if that's what you want to do.

 

The left offset (in the US) tree collision is often the result of drifting off the road surface to the right off the pavement, over correcting and then exiting the road on the left. Where I used to live, one happened like that every 4 years within 100 feet of my house. The trees bore the scars to prove it and the scars were facing traffic but on the left hand side.

 

but some will drive 100 .... and since the standard is that it doesn't matter how few you do save from their own stupidity ... and we must protect all stupid people .... when that minority are heading towards each other and hit each each other both going 100 ... there you go ... the equivalent of 200mph ... we must save the few - right? After all ... someday it may be our friend or neighbor or relative.

SGH-I717R ? 2

 

Right, I think the alternative of using social Darwinism to "clear out the gene pool" from those impaired idiots is much better

 

How lacking feeling the recent postings have been. Some day you may get the knock on the door and a man in blue is standing there. Or your relative may get the knock (or the call) perhaps through no fault of your own. Drive long enough and you realize there are just situations where it could happen and only chance let you get away safely so far.

Front page of today's paper there is a picture of the car an idiot doing double the speed limit hit together with ones of the 2 innocent victims. Not saying that this type crash did it, just that it isn't something to act superior about.

 

Feelings have nothng to do with it. The feelings argument reminds me of anti-death penalty advocates who want everyone to pay for their 'feelings' ... that no one should have to face the consequences of capital crimes. If your 'feelings' are truely that everyone should have ultimate corner crash protection (or no death penalty for capital crimes) ... they YOU pay for it. Pay for the prisons that house capital criminals, and get folks that are like minded to pay for the corner crash R&D your self ... then pay for the tooling for auto manufacturers too. That's the test of sincerity - whether you (and like minded people) are willing to pay for your belief, or whether you simply want everyone else to pay for what you believe. Do that (or don't) and folks will know what you believe.
Look - I respect everyone's sincerity who wants more safety features ... but I hope folks realize there is a law of diminishing returns. Forcing society/technology beyond those limits ultimately becomes more costly than the benefits.
.

 

I agree with this post enough to quote it.

And all the safety / air bag technology in the world isn't a substitute for that old-fashioned term "defensive driving." Some of the rationalizing in this thread is ludicrous. OK, let's go all Genesis: should we do X if it saves 250 lives a year? 125? 75? 50? 5? Where do you stop? It's been known for some time that the slaughter on our highways could be significantly reduced if we just make everyone do what race drivers do: Nomex suit, 5-point harness, roll cage. We don't. Why? Because, yes, there is a value being placed on human life. But we ignore these things in favor of banning peanuts from schools (50-100 deaths per year from allergic reaction to peanuts, mostly not in schools), while the figure of over 30,ooo a year unintentional poisonings doesn't even make the news.

 

Doesn't this also attempt to simulate an offset head on collision? This is exactly the type of accident that we have seen twice in the last year on a county road near our house.
Oncoming distracted or drunk driver crosses the median. The other driver tries to avoid them and is only partially successful, resulting in an offset head on collision.

 

That's what I tried to suggest multiple times here but for some reason we're really caught up with the whole tree thing

 

My posting about lack of feelings was in response to the posting which seemed to me advocating Darwinism selection as being the just results of offset crashes. Imagine someone who lost a loved one reading that posting.

Sometimes an accident is just that and sometimes it is something I/the-driver caused.

I'm not advocating 500 pounds of prevention or $500 in cost...if you go back to my original post in this thread I suggested a simple low weight/cost deflector might do the trick. Nor am I blind to over regulation nor to self-promoting consumer advocacy groups.

But I have seen enough of these type crashes in my 53 years and millions of miles of driving to know they happen, sometimes they are unavoidable and they sometimes kill people and some of those are innocents. I've been in accidents where the performance of the fender contact area made a difference. And I've been first on the scene too many times.

I remember when I thought I was invincible and everyone else was an idiot driver ... that my racing experience and superior reflexes would protect me from everything ...