IIHS Documents Link Between Side Crash Results, Fatalities

David C. Holzman
by David C. Holzman

Side head and torso airbags have greatly boosted driver safety in left-side impact crashes, according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Side bags alone can make the difference between a “poor” result, and a “good” result, as they do in the case of the 2003 Accord, although structural integrity is also very important. Drivers in cars with a good rating were 70 percent less likely to die in such a crash than drivers in cars rated poor. Drivers of vehicles rated “acceptable” and “marginal” are 64 percent and 49 percent less likely to die in such crashes than drivers of poor-rated cars, respectively.

The study is the most recent in a series the IIHS undertook in 2004 to nudge manufacturers towards improving side impact safety. Has it worked? “The answer is a resounding yes,” says David Zuby, the Institute’s chief research officer. Zuby credits the agency’s rating system for pushing the manufacturers towards side head and torso bags, as well as strong side structures, which have also been very important in improving side impact safety. Currently, 78 percent of vehicle designs that have been tested by IIHS have good side ratings, compared with only about one third of vehicles tested during the program’s first two years.

Some winners: ’07-’09 Prius, Chevy Malibu, Ford Fusion, and Honda Accord (all good).

Some losers: PT Cruiser (poor), BMW 3 series convertible (marginal), VW Beetle (poor), and the previous generation Maxima (marginal).

Twenty-seven percent of all in vehicle traffic deaths in 2009—6,362– were caused by side impacts.

In the Institutes test, a vehicle is hit on the driver side by a deformable barrier weighing 3,300 lbs and traveling at 31 mph. The barrier’s height and shape are designed like the front of a typical SUV or pickup.

Overall safety ratings here: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Press release and study here: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr011911.html


David C. Holzman
David C. Holzman

I'm a freelance journalist covering science, medicine, and automobiles.

More by David C. Holzman

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 18 comments
  • Benzaholic Benzaholic on Jan 20, 2011

    The interesting aspect of the IIHS side impact testing is that it tests all vehicles against being T-boned by a common SUV/pickup, whereas the front impact testing is still only relative to the size and mass of the vehicle being tested. Obviously we can reach a point where we add another $500 in per vehicle costs to save an estimated 5 lives a year. This would be money well spent to those five people, but maybe not so much for the other 100,000 buyers of the car. Could go off on a rant here about how the current NHTSA guy apparently doesn't want any of us to do our own driving, but let's save that for another time.

  • Rpn453 Rpn453 on Jan 20, 2011

    I wouldn't pay extra for front airbags if I had the option, but I would pay extra for side airbags.

    • See 1 previous
    • Advo Advo on Jan 21, 2011

      Hopefully this vid of 2 cars crashing into each other at a 'mere' 40mph each will change your mind about airbags and how they can stop your head from plowing into the steering wheel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY This vid allows you a driver`s view of what it`s like to crash into another car going at the same 60 mph as you are. They are older cars, but the expert assures us that the results in a modern car at that speed would be the same! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe3JpuVy4cA&feature=channel

  • Fred I would get the Acura RDX, to replace my Honda HR-V. Both it and the CRV seats are uncomfortable on longer trips.
  • RHD Now that the negative Nellies have chimed in...A reasonably priced electric car would be a huge hit. There has to be an easy way to plug it in at home, in addition to the obvious relatively trickle charge via an extension cord. Price it under 30K, preferably under 25K, with a 200 mile range and you have a hit on your hands. This would be perfect for a teenager going to high school or a medium-range commuter. Imagine something like a Kia Soul, Ford Ranger, Honda CR-V, Chevy Malibu or even a Civic that costs a small fraction to fuel up compared to gasoline. Imagine not having to pay your wife's Chevron card bill every month (then try to get her off of Starbuck's and mani-pedi habits). One car is not the solution to every case imaginable. But would it be a market success? Abso-friggin-lutely. And TTAC missed today's announcement of the new Mini Aceman, which, unfortunately, will be sold only in China. It's an EV, so it's relevant to this particular article/question.
  • Ajla It would. Although if future EVs prove relatively indifferent to prior owner habits that makes me more likely to go used.
  • 28-Cars-Later One of the biggest reasons not to purchase an EV that I hear is...that they just all around suck for almost every use case imaginable.
  • Theflyersfan A cheaper EV is likely to have a smaller battery (think Mazda MX-30 and Mitsubishi iMEV), so that makes it less useful for some buyers. Personally, my charging can only take place at work or at a four-charger station at the end of my street in a public lot, so that's a crapshoot. If a cheaper EV was able to capture what it seems like a lot of buyers want - sub-40K, 300+ mile range, up to 80% charging in 20-30 minutes (tops) - then they can possibly be added to some lists. But then the issues of depreciation and resale value come into play if someone wants to keep the car for a while. But since this question is asking person by person, if I had room for a second car to be garaged (off of the street), I would consider an EV for a second car and keep my current one as a weekend toy. But I can't do a 50K+ EV as a primary car with my uncertain charging infrastructure by me, road trips, and as a second car, the higher insurance rates and county taxes. Not yet at least. A plug in hybrid however is perfect.
Next