“Small overlap” test results: Scary…

Conversation 4 comments

1. There are a lot of problems with this test.

   First of all, who hits a tree or a pole on the driver's side of the vehicle? It seems much more likely that a collision with a hard object would occur on the right side of the road (and the vehicle) in a country that has right-hand traffic, unless the car drives across oncoming lanes of traffic to hit a tree on the other (left) side of the road.

   Although small overlap tests undoubtedly occur, why doesn't the IIHS use a deformable barrier to more accurately how well a car would perform in this kind of test in the much more likely scenario of hitting another car?

   The IIHS was innovative in the 80's and 90's for its research on overlap crash tests. Now, however, it is clearly trying to come up with as many BS little safety tests it can to try and remain relevant. Case in point: its support of red-light traffic cameras. In over 30 years of testing they have never been conclusively proven to reduce the number of crashes at intersections, but the private companies that operate the cameras offer incentives to municipalities through insurance companies. For instance, if West Hollywood hired a private company to install red-light cameras, drivers registered in that zip code would pay less insurance premiums. Such BS…

2. The other good result is that there's one less Jeep Patriot.
   They should test a few more just to be sure.

3. interresting. The Jeep Patriot has some of the best crash test results of any CUV or SUV… except apparently for this new test. So do I buy a Subaru Forester and hope to be in the extra ordinarily rare type of crash tested here… or buy the Jeep because it's safer in all the other more commonly occuring crash tests. ??? Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

4. The Forester performs better overall than the Patriot in all kinds of crash tests conducted by American, Japanese, and European crash safety agencies?

   Not to mention the Forester is a better car…