Topic: Marginal Crash Rating for the Toyota Corolla in IIHS Small overlap

[Black Hatch]

Another poor showing marginal crash result for Toyota.
Elantra, Focus, Civic rated better
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/toyota/corolla

I hope get Toyota get their act together.
Maybe borrow some of that Subaru stuff.

[rrocket]

Yea...for the crashes that kill ~1%

I'll roll the dice with ANY car that fails the small overlap....thanks.   


BTW....it got the same rating as your CX-5.  You sure you'll be able to sleep at night??
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-5

[Black Hatch]

Yea...for the crashes that kill ~1%

I'll roll the dice with ANY car that fails the small overlap....thanks.   


BTW....it got the same rating as your CX-5.  You sure you'll be able to sleep at night??
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-5

Nope. i have nightmares all the time.
The 1% is quoted by you and Sir Osis yet there are "other" sources that say 25%.
I read 25% of frontal car-related crashes are from the offset and MANY of them fatal k.

Anyways back to the overlap crash ratings (and this is how I view it),
the CX-5 may be marginal its at least 4 out of 15 say 73%
while the Corolla is 7 ouf of 13 say ~ 46%.

That is that out 13 cars, the Corolla is rated mid-pack and the CX-5 rated at around the top 27%.
The Focus, Elantra and Civic being ahead of it is telling.

edit- changed to 25% frontal crashes

[sailor723]

1%?.....25%?  That's a pretty big spread. Anybody got any credible sources to back up those numbers?

[rrocket]

1%?.....25%?  That's a pretty big spread. Anybody got any credible sources to back up those numbers?

I'll get you some.....

[dkaz]

Lol not this again.

But that's pretty bad for a brand new model.

[sailor723]

1%?.....25%?  That's a pretty big spread. Anybody got any credible sources to back up those numbers?

I'll get you some.....

I saw a stat from IIHS that said 25% of fatalities in vehicles with a "good" rating in frontal crashes occurred in frontal crashes that were offset but that's certainly not saying the 25% of frontal crashes were offset.

[Black Hatch]

How about this.
Small overlap are a smaller percentage of crashes.
Small overlap crashes have a high fatality rate.

Found this somewhere
"The insurance group launched the test in part because 25 percent of highway deaths caused by head-on collisions result from small overlap crashes"
http://www.autonews.com/article/20131003/OEM11/131009930/2014-toyota-corolla-rated-marginal-in-iihs-crash-test#axzz2gi52OrkA
So 25% of head-on highway deaths.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

But the total of head-on fatalities only make up 10% of fatal accidents, IIRC.

Sent from my G3 using Tapatalk 4

[rrocket]

Nope. i have nightmares all the time.
The 1% is quoted by you and Sir Osis yet there are "other" sources that say 25%.
I read 25% of car-related deaths are from the offset.

You read wrong. VERY wrong.  Per the IIHS , the 25% number of deaths is a percentage of total from FRONTAL car crash fatalities, not as a total of ALL car crashes.  From the IIHS own numbers from this story, offset crashes are responsible for ~2500 deaths per year in the USA.  There are generally ~35,000 car fatalities a year in the USA.  That would make the offset ~7% of ALL fatal crashes if you use the IIHS base numbers.  So yea, you read wrong.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1305_volvo_xc60_iihs_small_overlap_crash_test/viewall.html

Next, the study I read took a bunch of the crap out of the crashes.  Like if the driver was drunk.  Or speeding.  Or driving the wrong way down a road.  Clearly, the cause of death was not the structural integrity of the car in those cases...but being drunk...or driving in a manner that would kill you anyways.

The final number was around ~1-2% of fatalities.  ICBC traffic collision stats have heads on, in general, as 4.6% of total crashes, while single vehicle head ons at 3% (Tables 9.01, 9.02)  When you remove alcohol related crashes deaths from single vehicle ICBC stats crashes...you get right around 1-2%...like the other study I read.
http://www.icbc.com/road-safety/safety-research/traffic-coll-stats-2007.pdf

Maybe SirO can jump in and comment.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I just put in a 16 hour day. I ain't looking up duck all.:-)

Sent from my G3 using Tapatalk 4

[Black Hatch]

But the total of head-on fatalities only make up 10% of fatal accidents, IIRC.
Sent from my G3 using Tapatalk 4

How do they compute that again?
Are bystanders/passengers considered in the fatal accidents?
I always wondering if you can get into a fatal accident without at least one vehicle going forward (head-on).

If a a vehicles gets hit on the side from a vehicle moving head-on into it; likely the fatality would be the vehilce hit on the side.
But the CAUSE of the collision would be the vehicle moving head-on.

Is this classified as a head-on collision? In a way it should be considered a head-on collision AND the fatality considered part as a head-on.

Just wondering out loud.

[rrocket]

But the total of head-on fatalities only make up 10% of fatal accidents, IIRC.
Sent from my G3 using Tapatalk 4

How do they compute that again?
Are bystanders/passengers considered in the fatal accidents?
I always wondering if you can get into a fatal accident without at least one vehicle going forward (head-on).

If a a vehicles gets hit on the side from a vehicle moving head-on into it; likely the fatality would be the vehilce hit on the side.
But the CAUSE of the collision would be the vehicle moving head-on.

Is this classified as a head-on collision? In a way it should be considered a head-on collision AND the fatality considered part as a head-on.

Just wondering out loud.

It depends what their agenda is for that year.  I'm not kidding.

Just like if you are out canoeing, and have a shotgun in the canoe to protect yourself from bears in the area and you happen to drown, that can be marked down as a "Firearms Related Fatality".   

[Black Hatch]

Nope. i have nightmares all the time.
The 1% is quoted by you and Sir Osis yet there are "other" sources that say 25%.
I read 25% of car-related deaths are from the offset.

You read wrong. VERY wrong.  Per the IIHS , the 25% number of deaths is a percentage of total from FRONTAL car crash fatalities, not as a total of ALL car crashes.  From the IIHS own numbers from this story, offset crashes are responsible for ~2500 deaths per year in the USA.  There are generally ~35,000 car fatalities a year in the USA.  That would make the offset ~7% of ALL fatal crashes if you use the IIHS base numbers.  So yea, you read wrong.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1305_volvo_xc60_iihs_small_overlap_crash_test/viewall.html

Next, the study I read took a bunch of the crap out of the crashes.  Like if the driver was drunk.  Or speeding.  Or driving the wrong way down a road.  Clearly, the cause of death was not the structural integrity of the car in those cases...but being drunk...or driving in a manner that would kill you anyways.

The final number was around ~1-2% of fatalities.  ICBC traffic collision stats have heads on, in general, as 4.6% of total crashes, while single vehicle head ons at 3% (Tables 9.01, 9.02)  When you remove alcohol related crashes deaths from single vehicle ICBC stats crashes...you get right around 1-2%...like the other study I read.
http://www.icbc.com/road-safety/safety-research/traffic-coll-stats-2007.pdf

Maybe SirO can jump in and comment.

Yes I made the mistake of implying all crashes.
Its 25% of frontal collisions.

Well neither of us are right because its between 1% and 25%.
Doesn't matter its a new test by IIIHS and Toyota was less satisfactory than the other comparable compact cars.
And ultimately that was what my point was.

I never really want to make a big deal of it but you did.

[wing]

Don't crash.  Problem solved.  lol

[rrocket]

No....it's NOT 25% of ALL fatalities.  It's 25% of FRONTAL fatal crashes.  Which is, at best 7%.  Remove stupid mitigating factors, and the figure is much, much less.

It is a big deal IMO.  This test doesn't bring much to the table IMO...although having a safer car isn't a bad thing.  Just like the recent "Cell Phone Distracted Driving" campaign in the grand scheme of distracted driving crashes.  Or prior to that, the whole "Street Racing" thing.

Anyways....if you drive a car older than 2012..all will fail this test.  And that doesn't mean in the remotest sense that your car is unsafe. 

[Black Hatch]

No....it's NOT 25% of ALL fatalities.  It's 25% of FRONTAL fatal crashes.  Which is, at best 7%.  Remove stupid mitigating factors, and the figure is much, much less.

It is a big deal IMO.  This test doesn't bring much to the table IMO...although having a safer car isn't a bad thing.  Just like the recent "Cell Phone Distracted Driving" campaign in the grand scheme of distracted driving crashes.  Or prior to that, the whole "Street Racing" thing.

Anyways....if you drive a car older than 2012..all will fail this test.  And that doesn't mean in the remotest sense that your car is unsafe.

You make statistics however way you want them to be.  I'm going to correct my post so its all frontal crashes k?

Furthermore I'm not saying that the Corolla is bad at this crash test.
I'm saying the Corolla is bad compared to its competitors in this test.

Its obvious you don't like the test especially since Toyota (your manufacturer of choice) seems to be behind the 8-ball compared to its competitors which granted not all performed as well.
Toyota is near the bottom or mid-pack with all the small overlap tests when compared to vehicles in their class.

Also remember that Toyota had time to correct these failings before their models were introduced but choose not to.  (See RAV4)

[Frontier1]

Don't crash.  Problem solved.  lol

......or buy a Civic.

But really every single new Toyota failed! "marginal" to me is like getting 51 on a biology exam.

[Black Hatch]

Don't crash.  Problem solved.  lol

Easier said than done considering in its class it has mid or near the bottom
1. Horsepower and hence slower acceleration times
2. Drum brakes which may or may not be connected to long braking distance
3. Torsion beam rear (as opposed to independent) which may or may not help in agility
4. Lack of steering feel (subjective)
5. No other driving aids option like BSM, lane depature (could be wrong)

With that said, the Corolla perform well enough in the other iihs test to still get a top pick (just not a top pick+)

If I was Toyota and concerned for safety first thing I would do is make BSM standard and let the competitors folloiw.

Also
"During the 2014 Toyota Corolla's press launch, the automaker announced it had high expectations for safety test ratings of the redesigned Corolla, since it features a new driver's knee airbag and passenger-seat cushion airbag, which brought the total up to eight airbags. Toyota expected a Top Safety Pick+ rating, an executive said in a speech."
http://m.motortrend.com/wot/2014-toyota-corolla-rated-marginal-in-iihs-small-overlap-test-412863.html

[Ex-airbalancer]

Don't crash.  Problem solved.  lol

very true