The new IIHS test is not bullshit - it's economics.

"thevegetable" (thevegetable) 01/25/2014 at 07:01 • Filed to: None

4

19

The internet backlash against the new IIHS test is pretty insane. I'd have to point out that this test was developed entirely because so many fatal accidents occur during off-angle collisions in smaller or older vehicles. Is it so surprising the IIHS would want to test for strength in a situation where occupants could be seriously injured or killed in certain cars?

I think some people get the IIHS philosophically confused with the NHTSA, too. I know most of us know it, but maybe a clear reminder is in order that the IIHS has nothing to do with the government - it's a bunch of insurance companies trying to reduce the cost of accident claims. In fact, it's one of the few NGOs actually doing some good for auto safety these days, because the goal of the insurance companies aligns precisely with what is generally the public interest: safer cars for normal people. They don't pull these tests out of their asses, they have the largest and most detailed database of accident information in the US to based this stuff on and, I'm sorry, but I really doubt any of us know better than the IIHS engineers and statisticians how to design a rigorous collision test that will significantly reduce passenger car injuries and fatalities.

The IIHS wants all vehicles, no matter how small or cheap, to have a high level of occupant protection in multiple scenarios, so that fewer people are maimed or killed* (interestingly, it's more the maimed they're worried about, death claims are way cheaper than serious lifelong disability claims).

I get that it's cool for the Jalop crowd to champion "personal responsibility" and "growing a pair" and "I sat in the front seat of my dad's 48 Ford and played with firecrackers for years and I'm still alive and have all my limbs so you can deal with it" but you have to realize: 98% of people don't care about cars that much. They don't care about how heavy they are, how many electronic "nannies" they have, or that the Econobox X base model might cost $800 more next year because it has a more complex, harder-to-repair platform.

Car & Driver is just hopping on the debunk bandwagon that I guarantee the manufacturers of said maligned subcompacts are frantically trying to sell everyone on right now. I'm sorry, did I just read a bunch of Jalopnik commenters defend the evil beigeifying car makers of the world? It's almost like the manufacturers might have a business interest in getting a public hatestorm built around this test so the IIHS will dump it before it's too late.

Remember all the hate the rollover test got when it was introduced? In retrospect, does that test seem all that stupid now that everyone's driving around big, tall SUVs? Small cars need strict safety standards, too, and it's not fair to be skeptical of only one party here. I respect everyone's right to disagree with the IIHS, but let's not pretend there isn't very real profit motive for the manufacturers of these cars to discredit this test.

And really, it's "unfair" because some of the cars being tested are old? No shit they're old. It's almost as though testing cars based on older platforms might encourage the manufacturers of said vehicles to up the ante on introducing new / updated vehicles. Also, I get that a new Fit is coming, but the IIHS' testing applies to both new and used car buyers, so I take zero issue with them testing a car that's soon to be phased out. It's on the market, there are a lot of them out there, consumers deserve the information.

I think we all need to think carefully about just what we're endorsing when we knock the IIHS here. They aren't perfect, but let's be realistic: if the insurance companies think it's worth the over/under to develop and run this test (no cheap proposition), something they have probably researched to the Nth degree, I'm more inclined to side with them on it than say, Honda, whose entire reaction is on the basis of potentially losing profits on cars sold.

Money Hustard > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 07:13

0

Yeah, I got a similar response from a video I posted on Oppo a few days ago. The hubris involved in thinking that a lack of vehicle safety can be overcome be increased driver vigilance is simultaneously hilarious and sad. I stopped responding when the guy started to sound like Dwight Schrute.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Alex87f > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 07:18

0

Nice write-up, though I have two comments:

-This debate isn't that much about small cars. When you look at these tests, most larger cars are just as bad. I don't get why this is considered to be about small cars

-There's another reason why the IIHS wants "safer" cars: insurance premiums. It's easy: If you buy a new car, you're going to get a full cover for it. After a few years -usually when the car's paid off-, most people are going to switch to a less-profitable-for-insurance-companies third party coverage.
This is where this is brilliant. If you release a new generation of tests every 5-10 years, you give people a very good reason to get into a new car, with, of course, a full insurance coverage. Because who wouldn't fully cover a brand new car?
And the manufacturers couldn't be happier since this prepares the public for a new generation of safer cars.

Now I know this sounds like conspiracy theory, but keep in mind this helps passengers stay... well, alive (ha, ha, ha, ha, stayin' aliiiiii... OK I've lost myself there ). So the consumers clearly don't completely lose here.

duurtlang > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 07:24

1

My biggest beef was with the word 'unsafe'. Cars weren't labeled less safe, they were labeled unsafe. Which is bullshit. These new small offset tests are useful, as they show a serious design flaw in, basically, all current vehicles. I'm sure it's felt as a strong incentive, and future generations of vehicles will do much better in these tests.

davedave1111 > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 07:25

1

One factor you seem to have missed out is that insurance companies make their money from the difference between perceived risk and actual risk. The silly overlap test works very well to increase the perception of risk.

Being slightly less cynical, I suspect a lot of people have seen how well modern cars do in most crash tests and thought that means they're invulnerable at any speed. Having a test that cars fail is probably a good thing.

Axial > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 07:29

0

I wouldn't say what the IIHS does aligns quite with what the NHTSA is doing. Its job is purely to figure out ways to reduce costs to insurance companies. It just so happens that keeping you safe goes hand-in-hand with that impetus, but this is a case of all squares being rectangles while not all rectangles are squares. If the insurance companies had their way, we'd have a really low maximum legal speed limit around the nation, maximum speed would be legally capped at that legal limit, horsepower would be legally capped, so on and so forth. Let's be realistic, part of the IIHS's job also includes finding reasons to jack up your insurance rate in the face of new information. The entire thing is motivated by profit. Everybody knows that the auto insurance industry is essentially rigged by various government mandates, and so increasing your rate because your car model fails some newfangled test when you as a driver have done nothing to deserve it is rather unjust.

That being said, I don't mind this new test. I think improved safety is generally good. I think certain standards that result from these tests (i.e. bonnet-engine crush space requirements in Europe) carry things a little far, but I can't really see why this latest battery is being railed against by motorists.

thevegetable > davedave1111 01/25/2014 at 07:33

0

Edit: nevermind, I see your point - rates for cars that fail will go up. Which, hey, if you're an actuary, makes sense. A car that is less likely to kill or maim its occupants is less risk, even if that risk is largely perceived. I can't say it's fair to fault insurance companies for that mathematical reality.

thevegetable > Axial 01/25/2014 at 07:39

0

Correct, but that's part of my point about it lining up well with consumer interests - the IIHS doesn't have any authority. All it can do is point out flaws in safety, and that's a big part of the reason it's effective. Sure, I wouldn't want them in charge of speed limits, horsepower, or things like that, obviously.

If I'm super concerned about car safety, I'll trust the guys insuring my butt for half a million bucks over the federal government any day. The former has more to lose.

thevegetable > duurtlang 01/25/2014 at 07:41

0

Fair enough, and I think that word is mostly used to get press, frankly. Which is kinda scummy as a way to get attention.

Axial > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 07:47

0

But they'll also oversell you on the importance of every test if they can, because it'll make you more inclined to put up with the higher insurance rates.

I look at it like the US government (well...the ideal version anyway): you need the NHTSA, the IIHS, and the auto-maker lobbyists because they create a system of checks and balances. You should listen to what each of them has to say, because they are all correct in their respective fields of expertise. You just have to be able to tell when they are talking within that expertise and when they aren't.

Victorious Secret > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 09:49

0

The problem is the IIHS is now saying cars that fail are UNSAFE.

THAT is the bullshit part.

My Focus which is more or less brand new or my Veloster aren't suddenly deathtraps because they don't pass the small overlap test, but now the insurance companies can use that against me and potentially increase my rates because of how the IIHS says it.

My cars are not unsafe. The cars that 'failed' are not unsafe. They are just less safe and to be bluntly honest the small overlap test itself is so new that its not a shock a majority of the cars were never designed with that kind of scenario in mind.

So that is the issue. Those cares aren't unsafe. They are less safe. Ideally you want updates to the chassis to address that issue. But they aren't suddenly not worth consideration nor worth increase insurance rates...

davedave1111 > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 10:19

0

It's not a matter of blame so much as the incentives on the table. Broadly speaking you're correct, in that insurance companies' actions largely align with what we'd like to see from them, but there is one particular disconnect that's not widely mentioned. The risk the crash test is measuring (or purporting to measure, if you prefer) hasn't changed thanks to the measurement, but people will now give it more weight in their purchasing decisions.

"Which, hey, if you're an actuary, makes sense."

Funny you should mention that. My dad is an actuary. As far as I know (and it sounds a bit callous put like this) he made money investing in insurance companies after 9/11 on the basis that the risk of terrorism hadn't risen from what it was on 9/10, but the perceived risk, and consequently premiums, had gone through the roof.

Slave2anMG > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 10:43

0

Getting attention is what 'news' outlets want - sells more advertising.

Follow the money.

erikgrad > thevegetable 01/25/2014 at 11:59

0

Not to beat up on Jalopnik editors, but The Crash Test That Hammered The Honda Fit Is Bullshit might be a bit of a clickbait headline, since the Car and Driver article, while understating the safety issues of small cars, doesn't go so far to call the test invalid in any way (at least I don't think so, my eyes glazed over while reading it.) The hard truth is, it is difficult to die in a new car these days, but if you are going to, the most effective way is by driving a sub-compact or compact car. Older small cars are exponentially more dangerous, so if you are trading your Chevette, Festiva, or even Aveo in on a new Fit, Sonic, Fiesta, etc, you are going to be much better off. The IIHS publishes data on driver death rates by vehicle by model (though they dont publish data for all models) every four years. The last one was in 2011: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/s…

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > erikgrad 01/29/2014 at 21:45

1

Clickbait? On a Gawker Media site? Say it ain't so...

thebigbossyboss > thevegetable 01/30/2014 at 07:39

0

Why would they test old cars? I drive an old car. I already bought it, with whatever safety equipment it came with. How does testing this help or hurt the risk of me getting hurt. They don't even make my car anymore.

mazdaspeed2 > thevegetable 01/30/2014 at 08:43

0

I think that the problem most people had with the test was more about the coverage of the test. There is no doubt that it is a good thing to test for, because it highlights a dangerous scenario. The problem I saw was that they focused on just small cars even though larger cars did just as bad and that means the general public now thinks buying a small car is equal to buying a death trap. It should have been made more apparent that all these cars were designed before the test was made so it would be very impressive if they performed well for something they weren't designed to do.

yung bramblepelt > duurtlang 01/30/2014 at 09:23

0

Doesn't that make them unsafe? All it takes is a specific situation to make a car unsafe, correct? Take the Jeep/Moose challenge, for example. Maybe it has 5-star crash ratings all around, but in the event that you have to brake and turn sharply, it's unsafe, therefore, the car is unsafe.

It's a new test; cars haven't tested for this before, and so they aren't prepared to handle the new type of offset crash. The reason that they're prepared for the other kinds is because they instituted the other tests.

I just don't find it surprising that most contemporary cars have been found wanting in the new offset test (have any done well?).

(Just as a disclaimer; not everyone on the internet posts in good spirit. I just want to say that I do, and please give me the benefit of the doubt, haha. I'm open for discussion, I'm not just an internet troll trying to beat someone else's opinion down with the club of my opinion)

duurtlang > yung bramblepelt 01/30/2014 at 09:39

0

Even before your disclaimer I noticed the good spirit. Don't worry.

Anyway, safety isn't black or white. It's a sliding scale with shades of gray. With this new offset test it's not like you'd have a 100% chance to die in car x and a 100% chance to survive unharmed in car y. They all provided a certain degree of safety, some better than others. None were perfect, none were horrible deathtraps. I might be wrong, but I haven't seen vehicles that did a far, far worse than average. I think it's safe to assume they all did better than cars from 2 decades ago would've done in this test.

Having said that, is it fair to say some of these cars are 'safe' while others are 'unsafe'? I think that's too binary, all you can say is that some cars are more (or less) safe than others, not outright safe or outright unsafe.

Stef Schrader > thevegetable 01/30/2014 at 10:56

0

The test itself seems needed. It's that the coverage of said test is completely "OMG, the sky is falling" in regards to small cars in particular.

Larger vehicles failed just as often because they have the same issue: they weren't designed for this test—yet that's not what gets covered. "Old vehicles that weren't designed for a new test don't pass the new test" isn't a sexy enough headline to bait people into clicks. Riling up the idiots who feel they need a friggin' tank to be safe in normal traffic, though—that'll get clicks. Sorry, vehicle design has moved beyond that. I feel safer in my compact car than I would in a top-heavy crossover mainly because it's built ridiculously sturdy to withstand all of these tests.

While I'm very much "drive what makes you happy" on things like this, I honestly think that's my beef about this culture of "small cars are unsafe" BS—a lot of people would be a lot happier in a smaller car. They get better gas mileage. They cost less. They're more engaging to drive than a big, wafty SUV or CUV. And we'd have fewer people feeling as if driving is just a boring chore.