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

  • Zipper69 "At least Lincoln finally learned to do a better job of not appearing to have raided the Ford parts bin"But they differentiate by being bland and unadventurous and lacking a clear brand image.
  • Zipper69 "The worry is that vehicles could collect and share Americans' data with the Chinese government"Presumably, via your cellphone connection? Does the average Joe in the gig economy really have "data" that will change the balance of power?
  • Zipper69 Honda seem to have a comprehensive range of sedans that sell well.
  • Oberkanone How long do I have to stay in this job before I get a golden parachute?I'd lower the price of the V-Series models. Improve the quality of interiors across the entire line. I'd add a sedan larger then CT5. I'd require a financial review of Celestiq. If it's not a profit center it's gone. Styling updates in the vision of the XLR to existing models. 2+2 sports coupe woutd be added. Performance in the class of AMG GT and Porsche 911 at a price just under $100k. EV models would NOT be subsidized by ICE revenue.
  • NJRide Let Cadillac be Cadillac, but in the context of 2024. As a new XT5 owner (the Emerald Green got me to buy an old design) I would have happy preferred a Lyriq hybrid. Some who really like the Lyriq's package but don't want an EV will buy another model. Most will go elsewhere. I love the V6 and good but easy to use infotainment. But I know my next car will probably be more electrified w more tech.I don't think anyone is confusing my car for a Blazer but i agree the XT6 is too derivative. Frankly the Enclave looks more prestigious. The Escalade still has got it, though I would love to see the ESV make a comeback. I still think GM missed the boat by not making a Colorado based mini-Blazer and Escalade. I don't get the 2 sedans. I feel a slightly larger and more distinctly Cadillac sedan would sell better. They also need to advertise beyond the Lyriq. I don't feel other luxury players are exactly hitting it out of the park right now so a strengthened Cadillac could regain share.
Next