Passengers Aren't Getting the Same Protection as Drivers; IIHS Threatens Another Crash Category

After reports surfaced last year of automakers only adding driver’s side small-overlap crash protection to their vehicles, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put the claims to the test.

A study of seven compact crossovers showed vast differences in safety between the driver and passenger side of the vehicle during small-overlap crashes, Automotive News reports, prompting the IIHS to consider adding another category to its testing criteria.

The small-overlap test was (and still is) a problem for automakers, sinking many vehicles’ ratings after IIHS added it in 2012. The Dodge Challenger was a recent victim of the test, which simulates a partial head-on collision with a vehicle or an impact with a utility pole.

Automakers quickly added reinforcements to their vehicles, but often only on the driver’s side.

In its study, the IIHS tested the current generation Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forester, Nissan Rogue, Hyundai Tucson, Mazda CX-5, Honda CR-V and Buick Encore. Every model received a “good” rating for the driver’s side, but only the Tucson scored the same rating for the passenger side. (The Tucson’s passenger-side footwell load path cropped up in TTAC’s review of the redesigned model.)

It was night and day with the RAV4, which scored a “poor” in the passenger-side test, while the Forester and Rogue scored “marginal.” During the tests, the RAV4 and Rogue recorded the largest amount of passenger footwell intrusion — 13 inches for the RAV4 and 10 inches for the Rogue.

According to the IIHS report: “The Rogue’s door hinge pillar was torn off completely, and the RAV4’s door opened. In a real crash, an open door would leave the occupant at risk for ejection.”

The remaining crossovers returned an “acceptable” rating.

“It’s not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on,” stated David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer, in the report. “In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it meant they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides.”

A threat to add passenger-side small-overlap testing to its Top Safety Pick criteria would probably be enough to get automakers scrambling once again, eager to avoid a bad rating.