THE GOODS : New Crash Tests Raise Questions on Safety
A new series of crash tests has turned up evidence that government safety ratings on specific car models may provide limited insight into how well the cars perform in real-world collisions.
The new tests, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, assessed damage in so-called offset frontal crashes, in which only one side of a car is crashed into a barrier rather than the entire front cross-section as is done in government-mandated tests.
The government’s tests were developed to measure how effectively seat belts and air bags prevent head and chest injuries, but they do a questionable job of predicting how well cars prevent leg and foot injuries, says Adrian Lund, senior vice president for research at the institute, a private group funded by the auto insurance industry.
Although head and chest injuries are clearly the most lethal in a car crash, leg and foot injuries are not minor. About half of people whose legs or feet are fractured in an accident do not return to work after a full year of recovery, according to studies at the University of Maryland.
In the past, crash tests were conducted by the auto industry under standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In front-end tests, the full widths of cars are crashed head-on into stationary barriers at 35 m.p.h.
“The full front crash tests do not tell the whole story,” Lund says.
The institute put 14 cars (of about 300 models manufactured) through offset tests, in which 40% of the car’s front was crashed into a barrier at 40 m.p.h. These crashes cause more deformation of the car body than the head-on crash test.
Among the cars that performed poorly were those in which the car’s structure was pushed far enough into the foot wells to break not only small foot and ankle bones but the large bones in the thigh. The Chrysler Cirrus, for example, sustained more than 14 inches of intrusion in the foot well.
The crash tests point up the need for more research into reinforcing the steel cages that surround passenger compartments, Lund says.
The study gave good ratings to the Lumina, Taurus and Volvo; acceptable ratings to the Toyota Camry, Subaru Legacy, Honda Accord and Mazda Millenia; marginal ratings to the Saab 900, and poor ratings to the Ford Contour, Volkswagen Passat, Chevrolet Cavalier, Mitsubishi Galant, Chrysler Cirrus and Nissan Maxima.
Auto makers are generally critical of the tests. A General Motors spokesman says his company conducts its own similar tests. He adds that designing a car to prevent injuries at 40 m.p.h. would create such stiff structures that those cars would be particularly lethal to other cars in accidents.
A Chrysler representative says the standards used in the insurance institute tests have not been accepted and that auto makers have never attempted to design cars to meet those crash standards.
* Vartabedian cannot answer mail personally but will attempt to respond in this column to automotive questions of general interest. Do not telephone. Write to Your Wheels, 1875 I St. N.W. 1100, Washington, D.C. 20006.
