After reports surfaced last year of automakers only adding driver’s side small-overlap crash protection to their vehicles, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put the claims to the test.
A study of seven compact crossovers showed vast differences in safety between the driver and passenger side of the vehicle during small-overlap crashes, Automotive News reports, prompting the IIHS to consider adding another category to its testing criteria.
The small-overlap test was (and still is) a problem for automakers, sinking many vehicles’ ratings after IIHS added it in 2012. The Dodge Challenger was a recent victim of the test, which simulates a partial head-on collision with a vehicle or an impact with a utility pole.
Automakers quickly added reinforcements to their vehicles, but often only on the driver’s side.
In its study, the IIHS tested the current generation Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forester, Nissan Rogue, Hyundai Tucson, Mazda CX-5, Honda CR-V and Buick Encore. Every model received a “good” rating for the driver’s side, but only the Tucson scored the same rating for the passenger side. (The Tucson’s passenger-side footwell load path cropped up in TTAC’s review of the redesigned model.)
It was night and day with the RAV4, which scored a “poor” in the passenger-side test, while the Forester and Rogue scored “marginal.” During the tests, the RAV4 and Rogue recorded the largest amount of passenger footwell intrusion — 13 inches for the RAV4 and 10 inches for the Rogue.
According to the IIHS report: “The Rogue’s door hinge pillar was torn off completely, and the RAV4’s door opened. In a real crash, an open door would leave the occupant at risk for ejection.”
The remaining crossovers returned an “acceptable” rating.
“It’s not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on,” stated David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer, in the report. “In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it meant they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides.”
A threat to add passenger-side small-overlap testing to its Top Safety Pick criteria would probably be enough to get automakers scrambling once again, eager to avoid a bad rating.
Ah… the smell of pure Capitalism in the morning.
Oh, wait… insurance is capitalist too. Invisible Hand of Righteousness!
It may be a purely capitalistic endeavour to provide more crash protection for the driver since they tend to be the one making the car payments.
One could claim misogyny and the so called glass ceiling since female spouses are more likely to be the passenger.
LOL
So you’re saying the approval of gay marriage was a feminist plot intended to kill more men as passengers!?!
I’m so confused now but I always have the steering wheel to protect me!
Are you sure, Takata-san?
Ohh… you’re thinking I drive something with airbags!
Ha ha… yeah, and *power windows*, too!
What you got, old F250?
Depends which era my brain has slipped into. Right now, I drive a ’53 GMC, three on the tree, fine as can be!
Funny, the oldest car I’ve ever been in is from 1986. And it had power everything!
I guess the oldest one I’ve been was a ’51 Studebaker Commander. But that was only as a tot.
CoreyDL – never thought of the “gay” angle.
Has feminism permeated management enough to do that?
If one looks at the proliferation of CUV’s then you are correct.
The emasculation of men is complete.
Jack Baruth has a lot of work to do :)
post script:
But to a feminist, isn’t a gay male the ultimate male?
It may have, as we’re about to have a woman for our Country Manager.
To a feminist, the ultimate male is a manly woman.
CoreyDL – what?
Hillary is a female?
Sh!T………
One more Bush in the Whitehouse!
The IIHS tests American cars.
Americans drive on the right-hand side of the road.
Thus the *driver* is the one facing oncoming traffic and center-of-the-road obstructions like overpass pylons or the like.
It *makes sense* to provide the driver more small-overlap crash protection, and to institute a test for that first, because I’d bet you a dollar [Terry Pratchett style] that most of your small-overlap crashes *are on the driver’s side*.
1,600+ people died as front passengers in frontal crashes in US in 2014. Clearly, if front passenger protection were stepped up, things would be a better. Cars already ace the full-overlap crash test and the moderate overlap crash test. The two major things that are still killing people now really are: excessive speed and small overlap crashes on either side. If you drive at 80+ and crash into a car, restraint systems or not, you’re probably toast.
The restraint systems probably won’t even work correctly as such a high deceleration will probably cause the airbag to be out of position and end up giving you an uppercut as it’s forced UNDER your chin before it deploys due to the impact energy (this has happened in some poorly built cars in the 40 mph IIHS moderate overlap test). We can’t fix how fast people drive. That’s their problem. If you want to go 80 mph and crash, too bad.
What the manufacturers should be focusing on is reducing front passenger deaths due to poor structural integrity in ~40mph crashes. If you’re driving at about 40 mph and the right side of your car hits a barrier, it shouldn’t collapse and trap the passenger. You should expect cars to be reasonably protective in crashes up to 40 mph. The government has been conducting 35 mph crash test (albeit full overlap) for 30+ years. The IIHS – over 10 years. An ~40 mph crash should be completely survivable and this is borne out by the numerous good ratings that are being awarded by the IIHS for moderate and even left-side small-overlap crash tests.
The driver’s primary obligation is themself.
I am always intrigued about accidents where the driver survives and not the passenger because the driver’s reflexes caused the vehicle to impact in a way as to protect the driver and not the passenger.
Ie swerving into a tree that misses the driver side but impacts the passenger.
Put a sign on your passenger’s side dashboards:
YOU DIE FIRST, SUKKAH!
Did you see “DEATH PROOF”?
“In order to get the benefit of the HELLCAT’s structural protection – you really need to be in this seat”
* proceeds to kill young women*
I’ve thought about that, too, actually. Not to mention that, in a left-hand turn, it is the passenger who will be exposed to the direct perpendicular forces of oncoming traffic should the driver misjudge a car.
On the other hand, in non-divided highways, oncoming traffic crashes will disproportionately (I’m guessing, because I have NO IDEA where to get the data to confirm or deny) start with driver’s-side small overlap, then to head-on, then to passenger-side small overlap, then to a miss, from intuition.
My *intuition* is also that there’s nearly a normal distribution of crash placement for *that particular kind of crash*, in a “half a bell curve” way, with the peak of the curve being driver small overlap, thus the IIHS focus.
(Head-on was already covered from the “running into a farkin’ wall or parked car ahead of you” test, which is normally full-overlap, eh?)
I still think focusing on driver-side first gets most-benefit from least-work, and thus is wise.
F*cking Toyota…
This is what happens when you write a test to a very specific metric, the “tested” respond to the “testers” metric and react accordingly.
Like Texas’ famous TAKS test that was so multiple choice focused the students weren’t being taught to write.
What gets measured gets done.
In my day it was called the TAAS Test. Teachers mentioned it practically every day, and would get the attention of students by saying, “This will be on the TAAS” in an ominous sing-song voice. IIRC it had a written portion as well.
In this case, replace “TAAS” with “small-overlap” and “teachers” with “IIHS.”
I hated that damned test, I was not good at taking it, but had no trouble with the rest of my classes in HS/
As much more difficult as it is to arrange an offset crash at significant speed on the side of the vehicle away from oncoming traffic, and as rarely as most vehicles carry a passenger at all, who cares?
Yes, because cars don’t weigh enough as it is.
In 1998 ,the LS1 F-car was panned by the automotive press because of “poor visibility”.
Compared to modern cars it’s damn near a greenhouse. The 2016 Camaro’s visibility reminds me of those big metal prison doors with the one slot in the middle.
If IIHS keeps this up there won’t be a need for speed enforcement – your 5,560 lb car with no windows will be impossible to control without automated computerized intervention.
High strength steel weighs the same as regular steel, so better crash worthiness doesn’t necessarily mean more weight. The new XC90 is the bigger, offers better crash protection and also weighs less the old model.
Fortunately, we will soon have the technology to implement that automated computerized intervention.
“The 2016 Camaro’s visibility reminds me of those big metal prison doors with the one slot in the middle.”
That slot is just big enough to work at Sonic (to get “prison food”), and the car hops are safe from grabby “mullet heads” as well.
I keed – no sue me Sonic :-)
My wife just bought a Honda Fit, which is about 5″ taller than a new Camaro. We pulled up next to one at a light the other day and I was surprised to note that the bottom of the side windows on the Fit are about 3″ lower than on the Camaro. That means the Fit’s windows are around 8″ taller than the Camaro’s overall.
And this is specifically why when someone says that everyone now caught up to safety level of Volvo (cough***Toyota***cough), i say BALONEY! XC90 was essentially unchanged from 2003 to 2015 and they aced the new test with that old structure.
The old XC90 actually did get some structural improvements for its MY2007 facelift, but that was well before the advent of the small-offset test.
The IIHS small overlap test was done on a 2014 XC90, and it applies to all model years from its launch for the 2003 model year.
the XC90 did well on the small overlap test purely by luck. the 2013 Fusion did OK too for the same reason; the particular shape of the front clip pushed the car away from the barrier, and caused it to miss slamming into the A-pillar structure.
I don’t think it’s called luck with a manufacturer’s entire line of vehicles access the small overlap test without modification. The S60, S80, XC60, and XC90 were all designed years before the small overlap test was even considered. All aced the test with the exception of the fact some models didn’t have long enough side airbags to cover the A pillar. Plus, the IIHS itself reported that Volvo has been studying and designing its cars around small overlap crashes for 20 plus years.
“Volvo has performed similar small overlap tests as part of its vehicle safety development process since the late 1980s, taking the results into account when designing new models.”
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-test-aims-to-drive-improvements-in-protecting-people-in-frontal-crashes
The wheel shearing off is by design. Better to lose a wheel then to have it mashed into your legs.
And numerous Toyotas scored poorly on the small overlap test – even when Toyota asked the IIHS to delay testing in order to make modifications.
Eventually, Toyota reinforced the drivers’ side enough to pass, but seems like they ignored to do the same for the passenger side.
The Fusion was completely redesigned for MY 2013. The front structure was subsequently modified for cars built after Dec 2012 specifically to improve performance in the small overlap test.
As Deontologist points out, Volvo has been designing cars for small overlap crashes since the late 1980s. The front side rails are made of high strength steel and are tied together by a high strength steel cross member under the dash board. That’s the reason for the dynamics Volvos exhibit in small overlap crashes.
In addition, the areas behind the front wheels are made of high strength steel and the front wheels are designed to break away to minimize intrusion into the cabin.
The performance is a result of careful design based on the analysis of real accidents, which Volvo has been doing for 45 years. It isn’t about luck or designing cars just to pass crash tests.
Maybe if you add another steering wheel for the passenger the outcome would be different.
The driver is gripping the wheel. The wheel is much closer to the driver than the dash is to the passenger. The passenger has nothing to leverage against in a crash.
If both the driver side and the passenger side were the same, would the outcome in a crash be the same?
Is the steering wheel on the floor or something?
“largest amount of passenger footwell intrusion”
Gripping and bracing may make you feel better, but compared to the impulse in these crashes it’s negligible. Pretty sure the crash dummy doesn’t brace in the test anyway. The difference is in the structure, not the steering wheel.
A RAV4 with no doors is statistically worth 35% more and called a Wrangler.
IIHS’s YouTube channel (the only one worth watching,) just posted some interesting stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/user/iihs/videos
No picture of the RAV4 or Rogue – but we’ll pull up a F-150 pic when it wasn’t even part of the test subjects.
Nope – no bias here – nothing to see folks.
In other news, FCA is the first auto maker of 4 to announce they will stop using recalled airbags in NEW vehicle construction by September of this year. VW, Mitsubishi and Toyota are continuing the practice of installing Claymore mines in new 2016-17 vehicles in the factory without advising customers.
Nope – no bias here.
“In other news, FCA is the first auto maker of 4 to announce they will stop using recalled airbags in NEW vehicle construction by September of this year.”
“Until September, FCA will also make the unprecedented move of applying “expiration date” labels to all Takata-supplied airbag modules; other manufacturers are expected to follow.”
FCA can’t even get airbags to deploy on the right side of your head.
Dodge RAM:
“Passenger — The side curtain airbag deployed on the wrong side of the dummy’s head, before the head had begun to move outward toward the rear passenger door. As a result, the head was hit by the pillar behind the door”
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/dodge/ram-1500-crew-cab-pickup
http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/ratings/images/api-rating-image.ashx?id=3823&width=800
“…dummy’s head, before the head had begun to move outward toward the rear passenger door. As a result, the head was hit by the pillar behind the door”
The airbag has full coverage of the window (all the way to the driver’s seatback), yet allows a properly-seated dummy’s head to smack the C-pillar.
It looks like the rearmost folded area deployed too late –
Oh boy.
That’s not the only time Dodge couldn’t figure out side airbags.
Dodge RAM again:
http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/ratings/images/api-rating-image.ashx?id=2212&width=800
“Dodge RAM again:”
Amazing – epic FAIL.
Apparently, FCA didn’t crash test this vehicle in the manner of the IIHS test.
http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/ratings/images/api-rating-image.ashx?id=2812&width=800