Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2014, 12:50 AM
 
Location: Michigan
29,391 posts, read 55,574,845 times
Reputation: 22044

Advertisements

I was going to buy a Honda Fit and now I'm glad I didn't.


The smallest cars on the road carry the biggest injury risk in a common and deadly type of crash, a report released Wednesday reveals.

Only one of 11 small city and minicars passed the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's small front overlap crash test in which a car hits a barrier with the front driver's side corner at 40 miles per hour. It simulates clipping another car head-on or hitting a tree or pole.


Only one small car passes tough crash test

Last edited by JD59; 01-24-2014 at 01:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2014, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,138,905 times
Reputation: 29983
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960 View Post
I was going to buy a Honda Fit and now I'm glady I didn't.
So your relief comes from the results of a contrived test standard based on a highly improbable crash scenario, a test recently dreamed up and implemented by the IIHS out of the blue with virtually zero advanced notice to the auto industry so they could engineer their newer models to meet the standard. It's borderline unethical for the IIHS to spring this crash standard on the industry, then start testing cars that they know damn well were never designed to meet the standard, and then issue alarmist press releases about poor test results.

What's more, it's not like small cars are the only ones that haven't fared so well:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 09:07 AM
 
24,392 posts, read 23,044,056 times
Reputation: 14982
Our 15 year old sedan scored particularly well on that crash test, earning a top rating. I've seen many accidents where a car hits a tree or pole and one person is killed or terribly injured in that particular kind of impact and other passengers are relatively unharmed. Its definitely something to consider.
You're more likely to hit another oncoming car off center, not head on. I'll be waiting to see how the new 2014 Kia Soul does, the 2013 Soul did poorly. And the new 2015 Honda Fit will hopefully do better than the 2013. If I wanted a new 2013 Fit I'd definitely demand 2K off the asking price. One K for it being the old outgoing model and another 1 K for the bad crash test. Still an economical and practical car, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 10:47 AM
 
Location: WA
5,641 posts, read 24,944,880 times
Reputation: 6574
OK, but I don't buy cars to wreck them... I look for what I want to drive and let others worry about crash ratings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Arizona
255 posts, read 660,087 times
Reputation: 705
I just bought a 14 Versa Note for my 450 mile/week commuter. This test doesn't make me regret buying it. I know you can't control every circumstance, but let's be honest the majority of major accidents are a result of drivers not paying attention to what they're doing. I spend a lot of time on the road, everyday I see sooooo many people texting, eating, doing random crap while driving...and lately, I have seen a ton of people smoking (weed), while driving..That's just not cool.

Be a smart driver, not an idiot..leave plenty of space in front and behind of you, PAY ATTENTION, know your escape routes and be very alert..You can do a lot to prevent a major incident by simply being an alert, defensive driver.

In the mean time, I will enjoy my 42MPG while you worry about a highly unlikely type of accident.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 11:13 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,668,651 times
Reputation: 14622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
So your relief comes from the results of a contrived test standard based on a highly improbable crash scenario, a test recently dreamed up and implemented by the IIHS out of the blue with virtually zero advanced notice to the auto industry so they could engineer their newer models to meet the standard. It's borderline unethical for the IIHS to spring this crash standard on the industry, then start testing cars that they know damn well were never designed to meet the standard, and then issue alarmist press releases about poor test results.

What's more, it's not like small cars are the only ones that haven't fared so well:
I don't know how improbable it is. The statistic is something like 25% of all accident deaths occur in that particular crash scenario and it is the most prevalant type of crash on two-lane non-median roads and the most common type of accident when hitting an object like a tree or pole.

They introduced the concept for the test in like 2009/10 and did the first rounds in 2012. The industry knew they were going to be doing it. Almost nothing scored well then, but current cars with recent redesigns are doing much better on the test. In the last round, the majority of compact, midisze and larger cars did pretty well. It's the subcompacts that still seem to struggle with it, but they struggle with everything, especially against other vehicles.

I will give it to you that they should stipulate cars designed since the new protocol was introduced versus ones designed afterward. They should also state that the purpose of this test almost represents a worst case scenario and will aboslutely shred almost any car. They should also be more upfront in stating that no car can score acceptable or better without side impact and curtain airbags. They don't often test optional safety equipment and many of the subcompacts don't have both side impact and curtain airbags standard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 11:37 AM
 
19,014 posts, read 27,562,983 times
Reputation: 20264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
So your relief comes from the results of a contrived test standard based on a highly improbable crash scenario, a test recently dreamed up and implemented by the IIHS out of the blue with virtually zero advanced notice to the auto industry so they could engineer their newer models to meet the standard. It's borderline unethical for the IIHS to spring this crash standard on the industry, then start testing cars that they know damn well were never designed to meet the standard, and then issue alarmist press releases about poor test results.

What's more, it's not like small cars are the only ones that haven't fared so well:


Whatever will justify to make "new and improved" cars and sell them for more. Ain't it that simple?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 11:46 AM
 
2,668 posts, read 4,493,841 times
Reputation: 1996
I'm still skeptical about these tests that make the news wire. The test was introduced with little to no notice to manufacturers and so I'm not really buying into the failure rates. I'll let the builders get their engineering and what not on track to deal with this test and deal with the re-vals then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 12:10 PM
 
3,759 posts, read 5,853,701 times
Reputation: 5537
My daughter really wanted a Fit but her grandparents bought her a Malibu in '09 for college graduation. In someways, the Malibu is bigger and uses more gas, but I do think she is safer in it. When she is at her job long enough, then she can buy her own car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Pikesville, MD
5,228 posts, read 15,282,410 times
Reputation: 4846
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I don't know how improbable it is. The statistic is something like 25% of all accident deaths occur in that particular crash scenario and it is the most prevalant type of crash on two-lane non-median roads and the most common type of accident when hitting an object like a tree or pole.

How improbable is it? Less than 3% of cars on the road get into crashes each year. Less than half of those have injuries involved, and less than .01% of THOSE have fatalities, with less than a quarter of THOSE being this type of accident. That's a damn small percentage. We're talking less than .0001% of cars on the road will be affected, and with a very small perceantage being both new AND that small, we're now talking about an extremely tiny number of potential crashes that fit this scenario. So yeah, I'd say his assesment of it being improbable is spot on.

And no, the small overlap isn't the most common type of accident in hitting a pole. Large overlap and side impacts are more prevalent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top