[IIHS] 2007 Top Safety Picks

Toyota didn't make the list due to marginal rear protection.

[url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url]

[url]http://www.iihs.org/news/2006/iihs_news_112106.pdf[/url]

Somewhat surprising/disappointing.

eb

C. E. White wrote:[color=blue]
> "EB" <ebonak-a-@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SfN8h.5087$IW2.1039@trndny03...[color=green]
>> Toyota didn't make the list due to marginal rear protection.
>>
>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url]
>>
>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/2006/iihs_news_112106.pdf[/url]
>>
>> Somewhat surprising/disappointing.[/color]
>
> Only if you don't know the history of the IIHS.
>
> They pushed for the third brake light - and then couldn't prove it reduced
> crashes
> They pushed for 5 mph bumpers and then admitted they increased insurance
> costs.
> They pushed for ABS brakes and then admitted they weren't improving safety.
> They keep publicing their offset crash test, but never try to explain why
> the cars that do well in this test don't have any better injury loss rating
> than cars that did poorly.
> They support red light cameras and claim any studiy that don't support their
> installation is bogus but they never publish a good study proving they do
> any good either.
> They are like Consumer Reports, when they recpommend something, you would be
> well advised to buy something else.[/color]

Hi,

Interesting, thanks for a perspective I hadn't heard before.
By the way, I thought ABS were supposed to be an improvement
(though initially controversial)

EB

"EB" <ebonak-a-@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7789h.6439$d42.6253@trndny07...[color=blue]
> C. E. White wrote:[color=green]
>> "EB" <ebonak-a-@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:SfN8h.5087$IW2.1039@trndny03...[color=darkred]
>>> Toyota didn't make the list due to marginal rear protection.
>>>
>>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url]
>>>
>>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/2006/iihs_news_112106.pdf[/url]
>>>
>>> Somewhat surprising/disappointing.[/color]
>>
>> Only if you don't know the history of the IIHS.
>>
>> They pushed for the third brake light - and then couldn't prove it
>> reduced crashes
>> They pushed for 5 mph bumpers and then admitted they increased insurance
>> costs.
>> They pushed for ABS brakes and then admitted they weren't improving
>> safety.
>> They keep publicing their offset crash test, but never try to explain why
>> the cars that do well in this test don't have any better injury loss
>> rating than cars that did poorly.
>> They support red light cameras and claim any studiy that don't support
>> their installation is bogus but they never publish a good study proving
>> they do any good either.
>> They are like Consumer Reports, when they recpommend something, you would
>> be well advised to buy something else.[/color]
>
> Hi,
>
> Interesting, thanks for a perspective I hadn't heard before.
> By the way, I thought ABS were supposed to be an improvement
> (though initially controversial)[/color]

Well the latest studies no longer show that ABS equipped cars kill more
people than non-ABS cars. But I have not seen a good study that
unequivocally shows ABS provides a significant net safety benefit, much less
a safety benefit that justifies the cost of installing ABS (I am only
talking about passenger cars - ABS definitely is a useful safety device for
light trucks and SUVs). I have one personal reason to support the
installation of ABS - my Saturn Vue didn't have it. My 16 year old son
didn't believe me when I told him it didn't and he went out and locked up
the brakes to verify it - and flat spotted four new tires. Of course the
only way you get electronic stability control is if you have ABS, so if
IIHS gets their way, all vehicles will have ABS.

I distrust the IIHS statistics because they are basing the claims of life
saving on a comparison of cars with ESC to cars without it. However, most
cars with ESC are high end European cars that are already much safer than
average. This is a relatively small group of vehicles, with a mostly
affluent group of drivers. And there is not a valid control group for
comparison. There is not a fleet of otherwise identical cars without ESC
available for comparison. I suppose you could compare SUVs with and without
ESC (most SUVs now have ESC, but didn't only a few years ago), but SUVs
typically have different types of fatal accidents than cars. Probably, ten
years from now after we are all stuck paying an extra $500 to $1000 per car
to get ESC, nobody will go back and try to figure out if ESC is really
saving lives. They made that mistake with ABS - they won't do it again. And
remember, the IIHS is an insurance industry group. They have the best
interest of the insurance industry as their primary goal. This may or may
not coincide with your best interest. The insurance industry would be more
than willing to have the public spend billions per year on ESC if it saves
the insurance industry a few million per year. And for that matter, car
makers have an incentive to push ESC. If they can convince people that cars
with ESC are much safer, some people will go by a new car just to get it. It
used to be that safety didn't sell, but these days it is my impression that
it does sell. I know my SO has purchased two cars specifically because they
had safety features she thinks are valuable.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:HB99h.2246$sf5.175@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KI89h.82$uj6.14@edtnps89...
>[color=green]
>> ABS IS an improvement. 99% of drivers, 99% of the time, cna NOT do better
>> on a non-ABS equipped vehicle. Only those with large egos think
>> otherwise.[/color]
>
> Certainly in a properly constructed test, an ABS equipped passenger car
> will stop as short or shorter than an otherwise identical car without ABS.
> I am not saying that ABS doesn't provide a slight advantage in carefully
> defined shows. If people want to buy ABS as a performance option, fine, go
> for it. However, it has not concussively been shown to provide a
> significant net safety advantage in the real world. NHTSA has spent
> million trying to figure out why this is the case. They have mostly
> focused on drivers not reacting properly to ABS. This may be the case, but
> it doesn't change the fact that there is very little overall difference in
> the death/injury rates for cars with and without ABS (some type of
> accident are decreased, other are increased). On dry pavement the braking
> advantage for ABS is slight, probably no more than 3% to 5% (and probably
> less). A recent Consumer Reports tire test found a larger variation than
> this between different brands of tires. On a wet road, the advantage might
> be slightly greater, maybe 5% to 10%. On ice some ABS system are not
> effective, but then nothing is. On loose snow or loose gravel, ABS is
> often worse (sometimes much worse) than not having ABS.
>
> Again, I am only talking about ABS for passenger cars. For vehicles that
> might have drastically different loading, like light trucks and SUVs, ABS
> is a useful safety feature, although rear only ABS would provide most of
> the benefit at a greatly reduced cost compared to four wheel ABS..
>
> I have no problem with ABS as an option, I just don't like it being forced
> on me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White[/color]

I was with you until that last sentence, Ed. So many adolescents, young
males in particular, rebel against ANY kind of authority. They rail against
red lights, speed limits, seat belts. on and on and on. I am most certainly
NOT a liberal. I am not one of those who thinks that EVERYTHING should be
mandated by law. However, in my experience, if safety features are optional,
there would be great problems in convincing more than a few people to be
responsible enough to have them installed or to buy a vehicle with them
installed. My opinion, for example, is that if people don't use seatbelts,
for example, than any insurance that they have should be null and void, if
an accident claim is made. They, by NOT wearing the seat belts, contributed
to their injuries..regardless of who caused the accident.




[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

It should be point out, as well, that they tests the vehicles at a speed of
40 MPH exponentially above the NHTSA design speed. Remember their bogus
rear bumper tests, where they backed vehicles, particularly SUVs with
greater amount of the body work directly above the bumper, into a pole to
show the amount a damage that can occur? As a former automotive design
engineer, that worked on compliance with NHTSA standards, I can tell you one
could not afford the price of a vehicle built to pass THAT test. Their only
purpose is to show potential losses, to the various state Insurance
Commissions, in order to raise insurance rates in the particular state. ;)


mike hunt

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bn69h.2944$1s6.2817@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "EB" <ebonak-a-@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SfN8h.5087$IW2.1039@trndny03...[color=green]
>> Toyota didn't make the list due to marginal rear protection.
>>
>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url]
>>
>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/2006/iihs_news_112106.pdf[/url]
>>
>> Somewhat surprising/disappointing.[/color]
>
> Only if you don't know the history of the IIHS.
>
> They pushed for the third brake light - and then couldn't prove it reduced
> crashes
> They pushed for 5 mph bumpers and then admitted they increased insurance
> costs.
> They pushed for ABS brakes and then admitted they weren't improving
> safety.
> They keep publicing their offset crash test, but never try to explain why
> the cars that do well in this test don't have any better injury loss
> rating than cars that did poorly.
> They support red light cameras and claim any studiy that don't support
> their installation is bogus but they never publish a good study proving
> they do any good either.
> They are like Consumer Reports, when they recpommend something, you would
> be well advised to buy something else.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
>
>[/color]

C. E. White wrote:[color=blue]
> Probably, ten
> years from now after we are all stuck paying an extra $500 to $1000 per car
> to get ESC, nobody will go back and try to figure out if ESC is really
> saving lives.[/color]

If I recall correctly, the government recently came out with an
announcement that they will mandate that all cars sold in the US
after 2010 (? .. I'm pretty sure that was the date) will have to
be equipped standard with ESC.
[color=blue]
>It used to be that safety didn't sell, but these days it is my impression that
> it does sell. I know my SO has purchased two cars specifically because they
> had safety features she thinks are valuable.[/color]

Safety features were a major consideration for my new car purchase.
In fact my previous car didn't even have airbags (1991 Toyoto Corolla
Wagon). I just bought a RAV4 about 4 weeks ago, it has those (incl.
side curtain), ABS and ESC.

EB

sharx35 wrote:[color=blue]
> However, in my experience, if safety features are optional,
> there would be great problems in convincing more than a few people to be
> responsible enough to have them installed or to buy a vehicle with them
> installed.[/color]

Agreed. Starting in 2010 all cars sold in the US will have to be
equipped with ESC .. which is probably a good thing.
[color=blue]
> My opinion, for example, is that if people don't use seatbelts,
> for example, than any insurance that they have should be null and void, if
> an accident claim is made. They, by NOT wearing the seat belts, contributed
> to their injuries..regardless of who caused the accident.[/color]

Agreed on this too, I have been saying this for a long time. If one
doesn't act responsible, why should others pick up the tap?

Same goes for riding motor bikes w/o a brain bucket.

EB

C. E. White wrote:[color=blue]
> And
> remember, the IIHS is an insurance industry group. They have the best
> interest of the insurance industry as their primary goal. This may or may
> not coincide with your best interest.[/color]

No doubt, good point!

EB

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bn69h.2944$1s6.2817@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "EB" <ebonak-a-@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SfN8h.5087$IW2.1039@trndny03...[color=green]
>> Toyota didn't make the list due to marginal rear protection.
>>
>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url]
>>
>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/2006/iihs_news_112106.pdf[/url]
>>
>> Somewhat surprising/disappointing.[/color]
>
> Only if you don't know the history of the IIHS.
>
> They pushed for the third brake light - and then couldn't prove it reduced
> crashes
> They pushed for 5 mph bumpers and then admitted they increased insurance
> costs.
> They pushed for ABS brakes and then admitted they weren't improving
> safety.
> They keep publicing their offset crash test, but never try to explain why
> the cars that do well in this test don't have any better injury loss
> rating than cars that did poorly.
> They support red light cameras and claim any studiy that don't support
> their installation is bogus but they never publish a good study proving
> they do any good either.
> They are like Consumer Reports, when they recpommend something, you would
> be well advised to buy something else.[/color]

In that case, I'd advise you to *not* buy Toyotas, since CR recommends them
year in, year out.

Cathy

[color=blue]
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
>
>[/color]