[BsickPassat]

Few midsize cars excel in updated side crash test (iihs.org)

Only the Subaru Outback gets a Good rating.

"With vehicles that sit lower to the ground, the striking barrier hits higher on the door panel,” says IIHS President David Harkey. “That potentially puts sedans and wagons at a disadvantage in this evaluation but reflects what happens in a real-world crash when these vehicles are struck by a higher-riding pickup or SUV.”

 

[CostcoPizza]

More negative externalities from ever growing SUVs and trucks, color me completely shocked.

Sadly the result will probably not be to rein those in, but just bulk up the lower riding cars.

 

[whoisglipglop]

More evidence the front ends of vehicles like Tahoes, Silverados, etc., should be made illegal. They’re doing the damage, everyone else pays for it.

 

[DerSpiegel]

And imagine what happens when you get hit by dude-bro's super shiny lifted "off-roader" complete with Mad-Max aftermarket steel bumper

 

[Double-V]

The IIHS keeps moving the goalposts to help insurers jack up rates.

 

[2 doors]

The IIHS keeps moving the goalposts to help insurers jack up rates.

But, but, but they're here for our protection! They only have our (the consumers) best interests in mind!

 

[NoGrip61]

Same as it ever was... repeating annual article: "New IIHS standards cause vehicles to fail test... since they were designed to the old standards/tests".

The IIHS keeps moving the goalposts to help insurers jack up rates.

What's fun is they keep doing it "for our safety", but in doing so, our cars are now way heavier, which negatively contributes to fuel economy, tire wear (leaving deposits on the road), and the physics around crash testing itself (heavier vehicles create more force, requiring even more material/mass to strengthen). But, nobody will go after IIHS for the environmental impacts. For sure our cars are way better now than even 20 years ago, but at what point do we draw the line?

 

[chucchinchilla]

"With vehicles that sit lower to the ground, the striking barrier hits higher on the door panel,”

....so they threw in a Subaru Outback, a car with the same ground clearance as a Ford Explorer, and found out it performed best. Brilliant!

 

[2 doors]

but at what point do we draw the line?

When we all drive these

 

[Air and water do mix]

Same as it ever was...


What's fun is they keep doing it "for our safety", but in doing so, our cars are now way heavier, which negatively contributes to fuel economy, tire wear (leaving deposits on the road), and the physics around crash testing itself (heavier vehicles create more force, requiring even more material/mass to strengthen). But, nobody will go after IIHS for the environmental impacts. For sure our cars are way better now than even 20 years ago, but at what point do we draw the line?

That meme is quite apt.

 

[Double-V]

When we all drive these

No ablative armor. Won't do well in the upcoming IIHS updated testing protocols.

 

[Nealric]

When we all drive these

Are you out of your mind? Clearly, an LAV has insufficient armor to provide occupant protection. The 2025 impact tests will only be passable by Gen IV MBTs. If your car can't deflect a point blank hit from a 125mm canon, how can you keep your family safe on today's roads?

 

[OOOO-A3]

The IIHS keeps moving the goalposts to help insurers jack up rates.

Please provide supporting data for your claim.

Safety relates to the occupants, not damage to the car. Medical payments are a much bigger portion of auto insurance payouts than comprehensive, collision, or property damage claims (see Private Passenger Auto Insurance Losses, 2011-2020 on this page: Facts + Statistics: Auto insurance | III) Over time, healthcare costs in the US have increased (see Healthcare Costs By Year on this page: See for Yourself wherther Obamacare Increased Healthcare Costs) so even though insurance payouts have increased in dollar amount, reducing the amount and severity of injuries is necessary to keep the medical payment payouts from increasing and causing even higher rates than we have now.

What's fun is they keep doing it "for our safety", but in doing so, our cars are now way heavier, which negatively contributes to fuel economy, tire wear (leaving deposits on the road), and the physics around crash testing itself (heavier vehicles create more force, requiring even more material/mass to strengthen). But, nobody will go after IIHS for the environmental impacts. For sure our cars are way better now than even 20 years ago, but at what point do we draw the line?

Please describe in thorough detail exactly how much pain, injury, short- and long-term physical disability, loss of income, and related effects on family YOU are willing to incur to save on the "environmental impacts". I'll wait. That way we know where you would draw the line. For me, I'm willing to bet I care more about the actual environmental impacts of cars than most and my tolerance for pain/injury/death is... zero. My line is somewhere on the safer side of that. Heavier because cleaner battery EVs are heavier, and engineer safety around that, I'm OK with. Heavier because you feel entitled to single-person commute in an F-150 that never does truck things, I'm not OK with. The average vehicle weight is up more because people have made ****ty choices to drive massively huge vehicles, more so than because of safety tech and engineering.

 

[hasnfefr]

This seems to always devolve into the same discussion that a humans life is worth any cost, and no other metric matters. And you are then a mouth breathing troglodyte for believing anything other than that. Meanwhile third world countries are just happy to have clean water. Yeah, first world problems...

 

[whoisglipglop]

This seems to always devolve into the same discussion that a humans life is worth any cost, and no other metric matters. And you are then a mouth breathing troglodyte for believing anything other than that. Meanwhile third world countries are just happy to have clean water. Yeah, first world problems...

There are US residents that have not had clean water to drink for years. We are increasingly experiencing water shortages with each passing year.

It is not a ‘first-world problem’ to not want to be killed by a six thousand pound truck with more frontal area than a double wide.

 

[Chris....]

Sadly the result will probably not be to rein those in, but just bulk up the lower riding cars.

More like eliminate lower riding cars, they are generally unpopular in the US and will be even more so if crash test ratings on the door sticker are garbage. Ford has already done so, making their entry level "economy car" a pickup truck instead and the new "Mustang" is a crossover EV.

And if you think SUVs are bad, just wait until they get electrified with extended range batteries. The Hummer EV is something like 9,100lbs in base trim.

Might make some Miata fans reconsider.

 

[Nealric]

More like eliminate lower riding cars, they are generally unpopular in the US and will be even more so if crash test ratings on the door sticker are garbage. Ford has already done so, making their entry level "economy car" a pickup truck instead and the new "Mustang" is a crossover EV.

And if you think SUVs are bad, just wait until they get electrified with extended range batteries. The Hummer EV is something like 9,100lbs in base trim.

Might make some Miata fans reconsider.

I still love my small cars, but it is making me give some serious thought to putting a full cage on the Alfa project even though it's supposed to be a street car. Yeah, I'm dead if I bump my unhelmeted head on the cage, but I'm dead if just about SUV/Truck hits a 2,000lb car with their bumper at my eye level unless there is something other than my head to take the impact.

 

[adrew]

Ah, the true reason for the "lifted sedan" Toyota Crown

 

[BSM]

Title is misleading. Nothing is “penalizing” small cars other than the clown world in which we live.

 

[Senior Member]

Are you out of your mind? Clearly, an LAV has insufficient armor to provide occupant protection. The 2025 impact tests will only be passable by Gen IV MBTs. If your car can't deflect a point blank hit from a 125mm canon, how can you keep your family safe on today's roads?

I'll wait for the hybrid version.