IIHS releases small overlap test for midsize family cars--Toyota scores poorly
#34
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
#35
Toyota certainly isn't the only one caught off guard in this new IIHS test. But I struggle to find good enough reasons to argue with the Honda fans over why the Accord managed to survive both the recent NHTSA change and this new IIHS test, while the Camry didn't.
Anyway I'm off to the other forums to defend Toyota by repeating what some of you guys said even though I'm still not totally convinced myself lol. Being a Toyota fan isn't easy sometimes you know.
Anyway I'm off to the other forums to defend Toyota by repeating what some of you guys said even though I'm still not totally convinced myself lol. Being a Toyota fan isn't easy sometimes you know.
#36
Lexus Fanatic
One thing that seems to be overlooked, in the constant Toyota-vs.-Honda harping in this thread (I'm not going to get involved in that argument), is that, although the DOT/NHTSA and IIHS tests may be a uniform set-standard to make crash-test evaluations from one car to another, relatively few accidents in real life happen exactly the way that they are pre-programmed in the lab. In these lab tests, dummies and mannequins are placed in the seats, they don't move at all, they are all belted in exactly as recommended, the seats are all in the same position relative to the dash/steering wheel, the headrests are all properly-snug on the backs of the necks, the G-force/impact sensors are all attached to the dummies in the same spots, the dummies are all staring straight ahead and are not distracted by things like texting, cell-phones, road-rage, fiddling with complex dash controls. etc...and, of course, the crashes are all at the same speeds and into the same barriers at the same angles.
So........what does that tell us? Although, of course, uniform/fixed test-results like this are admittedly better than nothing as an indicator of crash-survival and injury-rate, they may or may not (in most cases, probably not) give an idea of what will actually happen in real-life crashes.
Of course, for obvious reasons, dummies, rather then humans, have to be used for these tests. But my point is that dummies, which just sit there and stare ahead and have everything about them carefully pre-programmed, aren't necessarily a good indication of will happen to humans in a major accident.
So........what does that tell us? Although, of course, uniform/fixed test-results like this are admittedly better than nothing as an indicator of crash-survival and injury-rate, they may or may not (in most cases, probably not) give an idea of what will actually happen in real-life crashes.
Of course, for obvious reasons, dummies, rather then humans, have to be used for these tests. But my point is that dummies, which just sit there and stare ahead and have everything about them carefully pre-programmed, aren't necessarily a good indication of will happen to humans in a major accident.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-20-12 at 05:52 PM.
#37
Rookie
iTrader: (15)
That's not true. Everyone here knows most Hondas get bashed for controversial design, poor mpg, lack of feature, and more. A simple search will yield a bunch of posts. Not that I disagree with any of it because Honda deserves some of the hate for putting out subpar vehicles (CRZ, ZDX, etc). If anything, Honda is the laughing stock on the internet
#38
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Honda cars in almost every aspect are engineered to a minimum. Period.
That's not true. Everyone here knows most Hondas get bashed for controversial design, poor mpg, lack of feature, and more. A simple search will yield a bunch of posts. Not that I disagree with any of it because Honda deserves some of the hate for putting out subpar vehicles (CRZ, ZDX, etc). If anything, Honda is the laughing stock on the internet
#39
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that seems to be overlooked, in the constant Toyota-vs.-Honda harping in this thread (I'm not going to get involved in that argument), is that, although the DOT/NHTSA and IIHS tests may be a uniform set-standard to make crash-test evaluations from one car to another, relatively few accidents in real life happen exactly the way that they are pre-programmed in the lab. In these lab tests, dummies and mannequins are placed in the seats, they don't move at all, they are all belted in exactly as recommended, the seats are all in the same position relative to the dash/steering wheel, the headrests are all properly-snug on the backs of the necks, the G-force/impact sensors are all attached to the dummies in the same spots, the dummies are all staring straight ahead and are not distracted by things like texting, cell-phones, road-rage, fiddling with complex dash controls. etc...and, of course, the crashes are all at the same speeds and into the same barriers at the same angles.
So........what does that tell us? Although, of course, uniform/fixed test-results like this are admittedly better than nothing as an indicator of crash-survival and injury-rate, they may or may not (in most cases, probably not) give an idea of what will actually happen in real-life crashes.
Of course, for obvious reasons, dummies, rather then humans, have to be used for these tests. But my point is that dummies, which just sit there and stare ahead and have everything about them carefully pre-programmed, aren't necessarily a good indication of will happen to humans in a major accident.
So........what does that tell us? Although, of course, uniform/fixed test-results like this are admittedly better than nothing as an indicator of crash-survival and injury-rate, they may or may not (in most cases, probably not) give an idea of what will actually happen in real-life crashes.
Of course, for obvious reasons, dummies, rather then humans, have to be used for these tests. But my point is that dummies, which just sit there and stare ahead and have everything about them carefully pre-programmed, aren't necessarily a good indication of will happen to humans in a major accident.
That's why researching how different models and brands hold up in real world crashes is important.
That's not true. Everyone here knows most Hondas get bashed for controversial design, poor mpg, lack of feature, and more. A simple search will yield a bunch of posts. Not that I disagree with any of it because Honda deserves some of the hate for putting out subpar vehicles (CRZ, ZDX, etc). If anything, Honda is the laughing stock on the internet
In some cases yes Honda is/was a laughing stock in many places. But, even so, a lot of auto journalists have a bias for Honda, and a lot of auto websites also are biased towards Honda, even when looking at their mediocre models. Auto websites, journalists, random forum posters ... all love to hate on Toyota for the smallest of reasons, most of which are undeserved.
Plus we have Honda supporters here on a Lexus forum coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden, as quickly as the Infiniti and Hyundai supporters seem to appear here on CL. They disappear just as quickly too.
You can disagree, but that won't change my opinion.
Last edited by TRDFantasy; 12-20-12 at 07:20 PM.
#40
One thing that seems to be overlooked, in the constant Toyota-vs.-Honda harping in this thread (I'm not going to get involved in that argument), is that, although the DOT/NHTSA and IIHS tests may be a uniform set-standard to make crash-test evaluations from one car to another, relatively few accidents in real life happen exactly the way that they are pre-programmed in the lab. In these lab tests, dummies and mannequins are placed in the seats, they don't move at all, they are all belted in exactly as recommended, the seats are all in the same position relative to the dash/steering wheel, the headrests are all properly-snug on the backs of the necks, the G-force/impact sensors are all attached to the dummies in the same spots, the dummies are all staring straight ahead and are not distracted by things like texting, cell-phones, road-rage, fiddling with complex dash controls. etc...and, of course, the crashes are all at the same speeds and into the same barriers at the same angles.
So........what does that tell us? Although, of course, uniform/fixed test-results like this are admittedly better than nothing as an indicator of crash-survival and injury-rate, they may or may not (in most cases, probably not) give an idea of what will actually happen in real-life crashes.
Of course, for obvious reasons, dummies, rather then humans, have to be used for these tests. But my point is that dummies, which just sit there and stare ahead and have everything about them carefully pre-programmed, aren't necessarily a good indication of will happen to humans in a major accident.
So........what does that tell us? Although, of course, uniform/fixed test-results like this are admittedly better than nothing as an indicator of crash-survival and injury-rate, they may or may not (in most cases, probably not) give an idea of what will actually happen in real-life crashes.
Of course, for obvious reasons, dummies, rather then humans, have to be used for these tests. But my point is that dummies, which just sit there and stare ahead and have everything about them carefully pre-programmed, aren't necessarily a good indication of will happen to humans in a major accident.
#41
Lexus Fanatic
Your opinion noted. But, unfortunately, lab-tests aren't always a reliable judge of real-life crash-tests. However, if you had read what I said closely before attacking it, you would have noted that I did point out that the tests are better than nothing, and give at least a linear-comparison from vehicle to vehicle on the specific (and exact) type of accident they do recreate.
Me personally, no, but, as others have pointed out, that's what insurance companies do (besides the IIHS tests, of course). They base their premiums on what they actually have to pay out for vehicle-damage and medical-costs in real-life accidents with real-life people.
Yes and no. These types of accidents are, as you note, common. But the characteristics of each individual accident, for reasons I noted above, are usually different. Take rear-enders, for instance. ...and say you're in a typical famly-sedan like in this specific thread/test. There's a big difference between getting rear-ended by a Fiat 500 and getting rear-ended by a Chevy/GMC Suburban....and, on top of that, the head-rest may not be in the same position both times either, protecting you from whiplash. Or, in a front-end accident, between hitting a tree/pole and hitting a brick wall. Or, even hitting that brick wall with your front-end at different angles. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of variables that tests like this can't necessarily address. But, unfortunately, that's all we have outside of real accidents....and, as you note, there's not much else we can do without real people and/or more testing-variables.
Hard to say which specific car is best for all (or most) situations. But, if I had to make a single across-the-board choice for overall safety, it would probably be the Mercedes S-class.......with a Volvo S80 second. Both vehicles (and companies) have generally a well-deserved reputation for crash-safety. The S-Class, though, especially, is a lot of money, and, though a human life is priceless, sometimes, when buying a vehicle, one must weigh in both the safety and cost-factor against what he or she is actually able to fit into his or her budget. For those who can't afford high-dollar cars, Subaru designs in a lot of safety for the low-to-moderate prices they charge.
Yes, in the specific tests, car makers can, and sometimes do, improve their results with modifications and redesigns. But, again, in real life, there are many different factors involved.
So do you have a better way of doing it without involving a human being to see the real injuries?
Few accidents in real life happen exactly the way that they are in the lab? Really? Frontal, rear and side impacts in real life are rare?
I agree this new one is but which car would you rather be in IF it DOES happen like the way they tested?
Thanks to IIHS and NHTSA for tests like this, car manufacures will take notes and implement changes to make them safer.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-20-12 at 09:26 PM.
#43
Lexus Test Driver
This news is silly and yellow journalism. The chances of hitting something small and off to the front corner of a car are far slimmer than hitting another car or larger object head-on. This new test represents a rare event, but as usual the media is headlining the story w/o explaining any of that and making it sound like these cars are failing and dangerous. 95% of everyone is getting misled here and I'm disappointed those in this forum are as well. Stick to the original tests the IIHS does and that more accurately represents real world crash scenarios.
#44
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
how do you really feel?
maybe so, but that doesn't mean the test is worthless. plus, i was thinking about changes in driving habits, things like people texting or tweeting, etc., while driving, and that can lead to people simply 'drifting' in which case they very much could just 'clip' something on one side or the other. of course, flying straight into the back of something is also possible - this just happened to someone i know (they were hit) - the driver behind them seemed to now slow at all.
The chances of hitting something small and off to the front corner of a car are far slimmer than hitting another car or larger object head-on.
#45
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)