The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has revealed the premium-inflating costs of low-speed accidents to 10 luxury cars (plus a Saab 9-3). The IIHS subjected the fleet to crashes from four angles. The IIHS' boffins ran the front and rear tests at six mph, and impacted corners at three mph. And the "winners" are: Mercedes C-Class ($5486 front), Infiniti G35 ($3544 front corner), Infiniti G35 ($4035 rear) and Audi A4 ($1899 rear corner). To reduce insurance payouts costs, the IIHS advised luxury carmakers to lengthen bumper bars to protect critical and costly equipment ($1,046 for one Lexus ES headlight, not counting installation), make the bumpers taller to protect against SUVs, pickups and minivans; and mount bumper bars farther out. Are we looking at a return of the railroad tie bumper bars of the 70's? In their dreams.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Another solution? Drive a beater!
I am astonished at the costs of repairs, in particular for luxury cars, and in particular at dealerships. In suburban NJ, it’s hard to avoid all the scratches, bender fenders, thefts and other damage to your car, not to mention mechanical repairs after the warranty is expired.
That may make me buy a Mazda3 instead of an A3 or 1-series…
Well, or buy an 80’s beater. I used to have an ’84 325e, with “diving board” bumpers. Got rear-ended once; no discernable damage to my car, while the poor Civic that hit me had visible bumper damage.
So it is the fault of the car that SUV’s are inappropriately designed to meet Federal crash standards? Something’s backward here, and it appears to be the IIHS. Given the common usage of SUV’s and pickup trucks (towing, added traction in snow), it is ludicrous that these over-macho’d antiques should determine the way that cars are protected in crashes. The obvious solution to the problem is higher insurance on any vehicle which does not meet the same standards as a car, since it will be responsible for the increase in damage in any collision. If SUV’s and trucks are forced to live closer to the road, it will have the added benefit that they won’t roll over so frequently and maim their occupants.
A friend recently bumped into an SUV with a tow hitch installed; even though the accident occurred at 2 mph, a speed when two car drivers might have looked at minor scratches to the paint, the tow hitch punched a hole in the bumper cover of the car, causing the bumper to ride up into the grille and thus bend the hood. Cost: $2600. The result would have been the same had the SUV backed into the car while parking.
Everyone who drives a car thus pays a premium for tow hitches, yet there seems to be no call from the IIHS to require these to be a part of normal testing (why can’t a tow hitch design be developed which is unexposed until the trailer is attached?)
It is never easy to glean the IIHS agenda, but it generally has little to do with Highway Safety.
Probably because the tow hitch was an aftermarket item. On Jeep Grand Cherokees, if you order one as an option, the hitch is high enough that it uses a different bumper with a notch cut into the rear bumper, and the reciever is recessed. If you have a U-Haul or similar hitch installed, the reciever is not recessed, increasing the damage potential. It’s pretty much this way with all SUV’s. Factory trailer hitch, good. Aftermarket trailer hitch, evil.
edgett–
You want to reduce the safety of my truck just so you can pay less on insurance? That is the wrong way to go. We should strive to increase the safety of vehicles, not reduce the safety to the lowest common denominator.
A little more overhang is a good idea: its amazing how much expensive stuff is crammed between the bumper and radiator these days.
The protection would be nice for those who refuse to lease a new car every 2 years.
Just like restaurant checks and hospital bills, ALWAYS read the details of repair bills. There was a period of several years where I seemed to be a magnet for fender benders. In each incident, I caught repair shops stealing, I mean errors, on the list of items repaired. Caveat Emptor!
theSane – are you proposing a car design world where the car with the tallest bumper wins? The high bumper design of most trucks and some SUVs is not only a danger to smaller cars but also a danger to pedestrians. Should we redesign pedestrians to that truck owners can keep their agressive tall hoods and bumpers? I would suggest that a redesign of trucks and SUVs would be a better way to go. Lower bumpers will not make your truck/SUV less safe but it will make everyone else safer.
Modern car “bumpers” are one of my favorite topics. I believe they should be called “breakers” since that’s all they’re good for now.
“The obvious solution to the problem is higher insurance on any vehicle which does not meet the same standards as a car…” Very funny, edgett. My 1977 Omega is equipped with a “bumper jack” for emergency tire changes. Each bumper is designed to hold half the weight of the car, about 1,700lbs of static force per bumper. Keep buying new cars everyone, it makes mine safer by default!
One way to have less SUV’s on the road would be for someone to again make cars that have enough towing capacity to handle something more than a lightly loaded utility trailer. The newer CUV’s are getting there, but some of them are still have bumpers high enough to cause “incompatibility”.
No one seems to be mentioning why people are crashing in the first place. I again advocate better driver training and more vigorous testing to weed out the incompetent drivers.
As for trucks and SUVs, all other factors (e.g., driver skills, speed, etc.) being equal, they pose a greater danger to other people and vehicles, so insurance (and maybe taxes) should reflect this.
My two above points converge at a rudimentary principle – one should pass the driving test in the vehicle (or at least class of vehicle) one drives. So, no passing the test in the driving instructor’s Corolla then getting an Escalade from rich parents.
Thank you Edgett. It’s about time the country stopped promoting light trucks at the expense of cars and pedestrians. Lower ride height on trucks would also likely increase their on-road handling and aerodynamics (fuel efficiency). If these trucks need high ride hight for off-road or snow, then they can be fitted with an adjustable suspension at the owner’s expense. I believe “brush guards” are outlawed in Europe due to the danger they pose to pedestrians.
Solution: convert idled factories (preferably US/Canadian) into replacement parts powerhouses. And as long as the dollar is weak, exporting parts to other countries where auto markets are emerging (India, China) will be profitable. $1000 for one headlight assembly is a joke. I’d like to know the true cost to auto repair shops and how much is their mark-up. The issue is the cost of these pieces of steel and plastic and why they’re so much more expensive than the pieces of steel and plastic on other cars.
Safety design nowadays protect the passenger compartment at all cost. So the the ends and corners are purposely designed to deform and deflect on impact. I don’t see how the IIHS can have it both ways.
Yuppie – You hit the crux of the problem; the most unsafe part of modern vehicles is the driver. So long as we continue to permit anyone who is basically warm and breathing to get a driver’s license, we will continue to kill and maim tens of thousands of people per year. And in the end, the majority of “damage” done in automobile accidents is in the cost of fixing the bodies damaged in the cars.
If the IIHS were truly interested in Safety, they would be promoting driving tests which would require every driver to correctly deal with a full-on no-warning emergency stop, a spin on a wet roadway and evasive action for an unplanned emergency. The cost attached to such training would easily be compensated by the reduction in accidents and injuries. Then, before one could “graduate” to a top-heavy 2 1/2 ton utility vehicle, one would be tested *in that vehicle* to demonstrate one’s understanding that the dynamics are different from the average sedan.
Case in point: automakers were baffled that the advent of ABS did not reduce the number of rear-end collisions. Research showed that the majority of drivers had no idea how to use the combination of ABS and that novel round handle (used to pilot the car) as a means of avoiding accidents. Thus “brake-booster” technology was born to help the average joe or jane to more fully utilize the excellent brakes available in most cars.
Nonetheless, the exemption that trucks (and their SUV offspring) were given from safety regulations should be eliminated. An entire market was created by this exemption which allowed Detroit to falsely puff up profits by selling 1950’s-design vehicles wrapped in modern clothing. In the long run, the exemption neither helped Detroit nor the consumer.
It’s calld the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety because it’s owned and funded by insurance companies.
That’s why they are advocating better bumpers; it saves their owners’ money. No big surprise there.
However, it’s a fact that bumpers have become a joke in the past 10 years. They don’t do a good job of protecting the car, and they often cost thousands to replace. As it stands, their main function is to serve as part of the car’s crash structure for federal crash standards, and so they are not designed to deal with small impacts.
factotum: Safety design nowadays protect the passenger compartment at all cost. So the the ends and corners are purposely designed to deform and deflect on impact. I don’t see how the IIHS can have it both ways.
Sure you can — just expose the metal bumpers again, mount them on shock absorbers, and make them project out a little farther. Actually, VW and Audi still have the shock absorbers for the most part.
The painted plastic covers are the problem, as the slightest bump into any semi-rough surface causes unsightly scrapes or worse. And their rounded, slippery shape exacerbates the underride problem.
None of what I have said though will alleviate the mismatch problem between cars and trucks/SUVs.
edgett: If the IIHS were truly interested in Safety, they would be promoting driving tests which would require every driver to correctly deal with a full-on no-warning emergency stop, a spin on a wet roadway and evasive action for an unplanned emergency. The cost attached to such training would easily be compensated by the reduction in accidents and injuries.
This tired old canard gets trotted out again. Show me SOLID EVIDENCE where such “advanced training” is actually effective in preventing crashes. As far as I know, no one has yet devised a proven method to keep drivers from crashing.
As for how drivers really behave, just look in the mirror. Many of you boast in your posts, blogs, and letters to the editor of driving at insane speeds, “stretching it” when traffic lights turn yellow, “brake checking,” and all manner of “hoonage.” You know better of course, but you do it anyway.
Besides, there are lots of crashes where the best driving skills in the world wouldn’t help, because of poor judgment or inattention that simply leave no time for evasive action.
It’s attitude (which includes vigilance, paying attention to the driving task, and respect for others on the road) more than knowledge that counts, IMO. Sure there are some truly clueless or incompetent drivers out there, but my guess is their numbers are small in comparison to those whose number one priority is ME ME ME, so get out of my way or let me alone in the left lane while I yak on my cell phone!
Sorry, but the “tired old canard” is backed up by solid evidence. Check the safety record of highly trained commercial pilots vs less-well-trained general aviation pilots; there is an alarming difference in pilot-driven crashes. And even general aviation pilots must at a minimum demonstrate proficiency to handle an aircraft in conditions more extreme than taxiing it and finding a parking space.
Skill in any activity leads to greater proficiency, whether it is driving cars, playing pool or sex. Reducing accidents, and the severity of those which occur through added driver skill and knowledge is simply common sense, no matter what hoonage is done in red-mist automotive operation.
And I could not agree more about attitude, but this frequently arises from knowledge. If the average driver actually felt what happens when they try to make an emergency maneuver when one tire is at ten pounds, most would check tire pressures more frequently. Practice in real-world emergency conditions simply happens too infrequently to gain proficiency.
The proof for me is to take a drive in winter conditions; the vast majority of vehicles plugged into snowbanks are full-on 4WD SUV’s, most of which offer greater control in slippery conditions. Unfortunately, when they are operated outside of the envelope, turning or braking, their mass works against them. Anyone who’s compared the performance of drivers who learn to drive in snow vs the weekender who grew up in Arizona has to believe that proficiency has something to do with automotive safety.
Somehow when I look at the incredible overrepresentation of Finns at the pointed end of motorsports, it seems that learning to drive in extreme condistions must count for something.
All apples and oranges comparisons; no “solid evidence.” I’ll give you an interesting study that relates directly to the issue at hand. In the early 70’s the IIHS sought to compare the driving records of the general public against “national competition license” race drivers certified by the SCCA. The SCCA consented to participate because it was sure of the outcome: the “trained” drivers would certainly have superior records.
Surprise! Not only did the SCCA members have more traffic violations (well, not really a surprise), they had proportionately more crashes than the control group drivers. This was true even when mileage driven by each group was taken into account.
Needless to say, the SCCA never again agreed to participate in further such studies. I’ll say it again: attitude trumps knowledge (that is, you can lead a horse to water…) And of course, you have the overconfidence factor — the SUVs in the ditch scenario — but this too is part of attitude.
I remember when the 5 MPH bumper rules went into place in the mid 1970s. After that, most vehicles would take a low speed impact with little to no damage. Somehow the auto companies managed to get the rules relaxed to the point where as long as the car is still driveable after a 5MPH front collision is is “good enough”. The laws used to require selection of one of a few sized standard headlamps, which lamps were glass and inexpensive to replace. No we have cars with fancy plastic custom headlamps which often have terrible light patterns, are costly to replace and deteriorate in a matter of years as the plastic gets scratched and/or turns yellow.
Not all automotive progress over the last 30 years has been real progress.
Reference for the above study (sorry, no html link): Allan F. Williams and Brian O’Neill, “On-the-Road Driving Records of Licensed Race Drivers,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 6 No. 3/4 (December 1974), pp. 263-270.
IIHS motivation is simple: do whatever it takes to lower the insurance paid out.
This include items has nothing to do with safety (as in this article has indicated) and
unnecessary “safety” equipments that increase vehicle weight and lower gas mileage.
They don’t care the cost of the item to the consumer nor if the item make sense so long
it lower their paid out. After many year of brain washing using TV program like
dateline, they now turn into the rest of the cost items. It is article like this
that give IIHS legitimate and free publicity. Dateline start with the very viewable
but unlikely crash test and make IIHS legit.
Please stop reporting anything have to do with IIHS.
@quasimondo:
Your hitch receiver may be recessed on your Jeep, but if you leave the hitch ball sticking out, it’s still sticking out and a 2mph bump will still drive it through most car radiators & hoods.
Parking is at a premium at my day job, so the spaces are tiny. Very, very tiny – my 96 Accord is a tight squeeze to get it between the lines. Compound that by all the maintenance guys who drive their F250s, etc. and there’s not much parking space.
I got hit last week in the parking lot by the service van (Chevy Astro, I think) that had parked next to me. Hit the fender, parking light and bent the corner of the hood. The estimate is $1900 at a non-dealer body shop. (His company insurance is covering it.) Not bad for what couldn’t have been more than 2-3mph when he impacted.
hanmojo: the criticism that the IIHS doesn’t care about the cost of the car is valid, but how can a safety item not make sense if it lowers insurance payout?
Unlike other interest groups (including the NHTSA), the IIHS has an interest in all aspects of vehicle safety, from medical costs to parts costs. I really don’t understand how it’s possible to speak of lowering insurance costs as if it’s a bad thing.
If you hit a tail hitch vehicle in the rear, you are at fault – stop whining.
If a tail hitch backs into you, then make’m pay. They shouldn’t leave it on the vehicle.
If you want to mandate a bumper height, go ahead. I am sure that Ferrari and Porsche fans will be right there with the Jeep owners to beat the hell out of you.
While you are at it, you will need to level all the roads to withing a few degrees as well as tighten all the suspensions so brake dive doesn’t change the height (or, make all bumpers several inches tall).
Where I live, you can drown due to driving a standard height vehicle, and people do so every year. Where I used to live, you can get stuck in the snow and die.
Fix the roads, solve the flooding, pay to put a road across my acreage, subsidize me for the extra depreciation of a unibody car, get all the commercial trucks off the road, and THEN, I will buy a little car.
Otherwise, I will take my choice, and you can try not to hit me. Should I accidently hit you, I have insurance and money to pay. Motorcycles can and do go through cars, so bumpers won’t solve everything.
If you really want to add some value, stop trying to make everyone choose what you want, and ask the government to stop giving and renewing licenses to people who can’t safely operate a car. If you want higher standards for higher trucks – ALL THE BETTER.
If TTAC stops reporting on the IIHS, it’s only fair to ask TTAC not to publicize anything from the National Motorists Association or ABATE (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments…ahem, I mean Aimed Toward Education). These last may as well be run by shamans and fortune tellers, for all the anti-scientific rants they put out.
Re 210 delray:
Reference for the above study (sorry, no html link): Allan F. Williams and Brian O’Neill, “On-the-Road Driving Records of Licensed Race Drivers,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 6 No. 3/4 (December 1974), pp. 263-270.
Your point regarding trained race drivers vrs the general public is solid. And yes, additional ‘training’ for many inattentive and young drivers is mostly pointless.
(Although, from personal experience, I think teenage girls could be a demographic that would benefit from a good performance driving class)
However, give the NMA and ABATE some credit when they’re critical of the current ‘speeding-and-drinking-kills-everyone’ enforcement system.
You’ve gotta admit the IIHS is disturbingly silent when it comes to getting repeat dangerous drivers off the road. They are, after all, lucrative customers…
disturbingly silent
I don’t think so. Check this out http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/alcohol_general.html
Besides, they may be “lucrative” only until they take out innocent victims — then it’s payout time.
210Delray: Interesting study, but not terribly surprising–these are people paid (lucky SOBS) to drive like maniacs. I would like to see a study comparing OTR truckers and the average citizen, I think these results would be more in the line of what was expected from the race driver vs. John Q. Public study.
edgett: If lowering a truck or SUV was a factory option, fine. Forcing people is not acceptable. Lowering a truck destroys it’s usefulness offroad, at construction sites, etc… Lots of folks do buy these for work or going offroad like they’re designed to do.
As to the SCCA/regular driver study, it is only one study. I agree that long distance truckers are a reasonable comparison, as they must demonstrate an ability to drive large, heavily loaded vehicles before they are permitted a license to do the same. The analogy of professional pilots vs non-professionals is also worthwhile; professionals, who have better training, are safer and more effective pilots. I doubt that ex-F16 jocks are as a group more dangerous than the average civil aviation pilot, despite their similarity to professional racing drivers.
Confused: As to bumper heights, I was incorrect to suggest that all trucks and SUV’s be required to sit at normal car heights; adjustable suspensions would allow those who need the clearance for off-road or work to gain the advantage when necessary yet lower the truck for those times when it was simply operating as a passenger conveyance on the highway or in the city. This would have the added advantage of improving fuel mileage for most people when driving a truck or SUV on the road. And while many trucks and SUV’s do actually work for a living, the numbers suggest that the majority are used as mini-vans and never see any time off-road or on a construction site. The design of vehicles to meet crash standards suggests that we would all be better off with (mostly) matching bumper heights.
And back to the original article about a new IIHS “safety bleat”, it is worth remembering that the real push for stricter DUI laws came from a heartbroken mother and not from the IIHS. As I recall, the IIHS also joined Ralph Nader in predicting a huge increase in carnage when 55 ceased to be the national speed limit.
210Delray: Interesting study, but not terribly surprising–these are people paid (lucky SOBS) to drive like maniacs.
No, they’re paid to drive quickly and win races.
It’s no surprise that race car drivers would not fare so well in regular traffic, as the skills needed on the track are different from what is needed on the street.
Driving on the track requires car control at 10/10ths. It requires going like stink around a corner without losing control of the car. Much of it is a matter of physics and engineering.
Driving on the street is a cooperative dance with strangers. It requires the ability to anticipate what others will do, and how others will respond to your actions. The technical skills needed are minimal, it’s pretty easy to point a car down a road and accelerate. Overall, it’s not much tougher than is riding a bicycle, and it’s really a study in sociology.
In other words, 210delray is probably right — it’s mostly a function of attitude, and driver training won’t help. All you need to do is to look abroad, and you see that among developed nations, there is no correlation between driver training and fatality rates. The US is generally mid-pack to better-than-average, outperforming many nations where driver training is far more rigorous.
Then, look at the causes of accidents. The lead cause is typically driving under the influence — no amount of driver training is going to overcome a high BAC. Next causes are related to factors such as speed, tailgating and cutting off other drivers, again which are all related to inappropriate choices made by one driver in the exchange.
I don’t see how driver’s ed is supposed to do much good when there is no tangible evidence that it ever has, and when a lack of education doesn’t explain the causes of accidents. When drivers get drunk, tailgate or overdrive their brakes (speed), there’s usually a self-centered, uncooperative mindset behind it in which the driver elevates himself above all of those around him. You can’t fix a bad attitude with technical training; all you can do is make it so difficult for the chronically self-fixated to drive legally that they find it easier just to ride a bus.
pch101: You said it better than I did; great analysis. Driver’s ed teaches people how to drive; it doesn’t imprint on them the attitude necessary to stay out of crashes.
Also, another thought crossed my mind: even if you were able to take away the licenses of the worst drivers, I’d bet a fair percentage would continue driving anyway, without a license (and of course, without insurance). There are so many places in the US where it’s simply not possible to take the bus. No transportation means no job and no real life.
Edgett “it is worth remembering that the real push for stricter DUI laws came from a heartbroken mother and not from the IIHS. As I recall, the IIHS also joined Ralph Nader in predicting a huge increase in carnage when 55 ceased to be the national speed limit.”
No and no. The heartbroken mother may have provided the inspiration, but the IIHS provided much of the research to back her up. Look for example at the bibliography in the link I provided earlier.
It was Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen and Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety who were predicting a bloodbath with the lifting of the 65/55 mph limits in 1995. The IIHS took a “wait and see” attitude on the assumption that not all states would raise all highway speed limits.
Similarly, the IIHS sat on the sidelines of the Audi “sudden acceleration” brouhaha of the 1980s, because the fevered allegations against Audi (and other automakers) didn’t seem to add up.
210delray – You appear to have an answer for virtually anything related to auto safety and the IIHS, suggesting that perhaps you work for the IIHS or the insurance industry. As one who considers the braking and handling of a vehicle to be a primary safety factor (it can thus avoid being a statistic if it never has the accident) I took the time to look through IIHS press releases back to 1996. There was one article related to expected improvements from “stability control” systems, suggesting that in the event the driver has difficulty maintaining stability, perhaps an automatic (but more skilled) device could improve accident statistics. It’s worth a look for those who feel that driving skill is unrelated to accident performance, since it suggests that automatic systems can help to avoid the accident in the first place:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr061306.html
Despite the importance of braking systems in accident avoidance, I found only a single press release, from 1996, which discussed brakes. It cited statistics which said that ABS-equipped cars were actually in more accidents than non-ABS equipped cars. One might draw the conclusion that non-ABS-equipped cars were actually then safer. Yet this is not borne out by the 2005 study which rates cars by risk of death to the driver. And I found no further reference to the incredible statistic that drivers of Chevrolet Blazers were 17 times more likely to die than those in a Lexus RX-300. As I recall, the Lexus is equipped with ABS.
This is not to suggest that there are not other factors, such as demographics, which enter into the real safety arena. But it does point out that data alone does not tell the whole story.
If the IIHS is truly interested in vehicle safety, surely more study about the extraordinary differentials in death rates between vehicles is warranted. Why is the death rate 10 times higher in a Ford Explorer than a Toyota 4-Runner? Why is there a variance of 5 times in ordinary mid-size passenger cars? Is it possible that the driver has some factor in it? Do more drunks drive Explorers than 4-Runners?
Another factor notably absent from IIHS press releases has to do with specific road design issues or conditions of the roads, yet studies and accident reconstruction frequently cite flaws in road design or surface issues as contributory factors in many automobile accidents.
I’m not anti-IIHS, but simply wonder if research on the cost of bumper repair is a more pressing issue than basic research on how to avoid deaths and injuries, which are far more important as a public health matter. Surely the industry members of the IIHS spend far more money on injured people than on injured vehicles.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, another industry group, has sponsored a three-year study to understand if better training leads to fewer motorcycle accidents. It might be enlightening to find that education actually decreases the likelihood of accidents.