More Bad News On The Back Seat Safety Front

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Earlier this year, the German safety nuts at DEKRA and AutoBild ran rear-end crash tests on a pair of five-star-rated (Euro-NCAP) vehicles, and found that back seat occupants were at risk of severe spinal, head and pelvic injuries. Now, the dour Deutschlanders are back at it, as the ADAC has run tests showing that rear-seat passengers are also at disproportionate risk in front impacts, a far more common cause of traffic fatalities. And again, no government crash test standard requires testing of the rear-seat effects of frontal impacts.


On one level, this isn’t wildly surprising: other than side-impact airbags, rear passengers are basically protected only by a simple shoulder belt. And though rear passengers are farther from the actual crumple zone, the ADAC says the simplicity of rear-belt systems mean rear passengers can often come off worse in a frontal crash, noting

While stress-absorbing belt force limiters are commonplace in the front, they are a rarity in rear seat belt tensioners. Also most cars rear seatbelts don’t offer active-pull-back…

Because of the combination of simple rear seatbelts and no airbags, the ADAC’s crash tests (40 MPH frontal) show that rear-seat passengers exhibit far more frontward movement, resulting in more chest injuries, as well as more backwards motion, causing dangerous head impacts and whiplash.

Another problem: rear-seat headrests are often too inflexible and are placed too far from the passenger’s head, exacerbating head injuries during snap-back and rear-impacts. In one rear-impact example shown in the video above, the dummy’s head hits the top of the head rest and actually bounces upwards, driving the forehead into the car’s roof. Luckily for the typical rear-seat passenger, the danger demonstrated in these tests is largely limited to adult passengers, while children are typically safest in the back seat.

Had front-seat passengers suffered similar stress forces, the car in question would have received extremely poor crash test ratings… but because NCAP doesn’t test rear-seat impacts, these results aren’t part of the comforting star-rating system.

The good news: the ADAC tests show more sophisticated belt force limiters can have a major impact on rear-seat safety, so there’s no need to start filling the backs of front seats with airbags. Between this relatively minor upgrade and improved rear headrest geometries, the ADAC implies that manufacturers can address these rear-seat dangers at a relatively low cost. But until rear-seat safety is measured model-by-model by either a government crash test standard or a non-governmental body like the IIHS, car buyers should be aware that those comforting, comprehensive-sounding safety star ratings are no guarantee of back seat safety.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 14 comments
  • Secret Hi5 Secret Hi5 on Jun 22, 2011

    Flip the back seats around. Rear-facing back seats for all!

  • Ppxhbqt Ppxhbqt on Jun 22, 2011

    Too bad I don't speak German, but I have to wonder how having no front structure as well as seemingly having the front seat moved about as far forward as possible affected these tests. Can anyone say if that's addressed in the audio?

    • Herb Herb on Jun 22, 2011

      Don't worry not speaking German. The video says nothing on the questions you had. As a precautionary measure I'd suggest to replace all your cars by either roadsters (bonus: you might enjoy it), by trucks (preferably 2-seaters) or articulated trailers, as long as those issues are not resolved, industry-wide.

  • Dwford I don't think price is the real issue. Plenty of people buy $40-50k gas vehicles every year. It's the functionality. People are worried about range and the ability to easily and quickly recharge. Also, if you want to buy an EV these days, you are mostly limited to midsize 5 passenger crossovers. How about some body style variety??
  • SCE to AUX The nose went from terrible to weird.
  • Chris P Bacon I'm not a fan of either, but if I had to choose, it would be the RAV. It's built for the long run with a NA engine and an 8 speed transmission. The Honda with a turbo and CVT might still last as long, but maintenance is going to cost more to get to 200000 miles for sure. The Honda is built for the first owner to lease and give back in 36 months. The Toyota is built to own and pass down.
  • Dwford Ford's management change their plans like they change their underwear. Where were all the prototypes of the larger EVs that were supposed to come out next year? Or for the next gen EV truck? Nowhere to be seen. Now those vaporware models are on the back burner to pursue cheaper models. Yeah, ok.
  • Wjtinfwb My comment about "missing the mark" was directed at, of the mentioned cars, none created huge demand or excitement once they were introduced. All three had some cool aspects; Thunderbird was pretty good exterior, let down by the Lincoln LS dash and the fairly weak 3.9L V8 at launch. The Prowler was super cool and unique, only the little nerf bumpers spoiled the exterior and of course the V6 was a huge letdown. SSR had the beans, but in my opinion was spoiled by the tonneau cover over the bed. Remove the cover, finish the bed with some teak or walnut and I think it could have been more appealing. All three were targeting a very small market (expensive 2-seaters without a prestige badge) which probably contributed. The PT Cruiser succeeded in this space by being both more practical and cheap. Of the three, I'd still like to have a Thunderbird in my garage in a classic color like the silver/green metallic offered in the later years.
Next