Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuajeeper  However, if you notice. They don't test things like double impact crumple zones (able to hand more that one inpact - a.k.a. pileup), pre-safe systems (BAS, ADS, SBC/ABR ect.), ETR (seat belt retractors), high impact offset crash, ability to exit vehicle quickly and safely, roll overs, ability to not also anielate the opposing vehicle, and many many others. They look at two main things - frontal (off-set) and side impacts at 40MPH. There is a company in Britain that does REALISTIC testing. They took a 2007 Subaru Forester and did a typical 55MPH rear end collision and then another vehicle rear ended it at the same speed. Bad things happened. And that is a very realistic accident. Crash test ratings are not all they are cracked up to be! |
Good points. IIHS tests are certainly not the be-all and end-all of safety. It would be interesting to see a lot of different safety tests compiled together, plus analysis of actual on-road crash results.
On the "ability to not also anielate [you mean "annihilate" I assume?] the opposing vehicle," a friend of mine with the same car as me was in a head-on with an Accord (Accord driver's fault). The Accord was totalled; my friend's son in the back seat barely noticed they had been in a crash.