How do cars do in out-of-sample crash testing? (2020)

Crash Tests vs. Real-World Safety

• Crash tests (IIHS, NCAP) are seen as valuable but incomplete; cars may be optimized for specific test conditions or specific trims.
• Example raised: Ford F-150 allegedly adding extra structure only on the most-tested configuration, which improved test scores but not necessarily all variants.
• IIHS is praised for pushing safety beyond government rules, but also blamed for nudging buyers toward larger vehicles with better scores but worse external impacts.

Fatality Data, Tesla, and Methodology Disputes

• A 2024 analysis cited in the article ranks Tesla, Kia, Buick, Dodge, and Hyundai as worst for fatalities per mile.
• Several commenters argue this is confounded by:
  • Who buys which cars (age, risk-taking, wealth).
  • Vehicle type mix (small cars, muscle cars, crossovers, etc.).
  • Usage patterns (fleet vs private, number of occupants).
• The underlying iSeeCars study is heavily criticized:
  • Uses proprietary mileage estimates from resale data, not official exposure data.
  • Yields suspiciously low average miles for some models (e.g., Model Y) and odd fleetwide ratios vs national fatality rates.
  • Possible bias for newer models whose high-mileage resales haven’t yet occurred.
• Other analyses of FARS data were mentioned that find Teslas roughly mid-pack or better when carefully normalized.
• Overall safety ranking of brands/models from this study is viewed as unclear.

Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety vs Vehicle Design and Behavior

• Strong concern that US testing and regulation underweight harms to pedestrians and cyclists.
• Evidence cited that taller, heavier, blunt-front SUVs and trucks:
  • Create large front blind zones.
  • Strike pedestrians higher on the body and are more lethal on impact.
• Others argue distracted driving (phones, in-car screens), lack of enforcement, and poor pedestrian infrastructure are primary drivers of rising deaths.
• European programs (Euro NCAP) explicitly test “vulnerable road user” protection; some cars add pedestrian airbags.
• Disagreement over how much vehicle shape vs behavior vs infrastructure contributes; relative importance is unclear.

Vehicle Size, Culture, and Policy

• US vehicles are larger than in Europe/Japan, attributed to:
  • Cheaper energy, longer distances, more suburban layouts, weaker transit.
  • Tax and regulatory structures (e.g., footprint-based fuel rules in the US, weight taxes in Japan).
• Many argue typical use (solo commuting, light family hauling) doesn’t justify full-size pickups/SUVs; others emphasize worst-case utility, rental hassle, and cost of multi-vehicle ownership.
• Pedestrian advocates call for:
  • Speed governors, stricter power/size licensing tiers, and road designs (narrow lanes, traffic calming) to reduce fatality risk.
• Opponents cite personal freedom, economic dependence on cars, and skepticism that high top speeds are a major causal factor in most urban fatalities.

Modern Safety Tech vs New Risks

• Some see newer cars as substantially safer due to:
  • AEB, lane-keeping, 360° cameras, blind-spot monitoring, better headlights, crash pre-tensioners, automatic emergency calling, and phone integration.
• Others note tradeoffs:
  • Poor direct visibility from thick pillars and high beltlines, reliance on cameras/sensors, distracting touchscreens, and very high repair costs.
• Net impact of modern tech vs new distraction and visibility issues is debated and not fully resolved in the thread.

Driver Distraction & Enforcement

• Widespread observation of drivers using phones or even watching video while driving.
• Proposals:
  • Driver-attention monitoring with escalating interventions.
  • Phone “lock-away” or seat-belt-style docking tied to infotainment.
• Strong pushback around privacy, technical feasibility, and “nanny state” concerns.

Other Technical Questions

• Questions raised about differing fatality rates for AWD vs 2WD versions of the same model.
• Some attribute this to confounding (buyer differences, use cases); others suggest possible real structural differences (e.g., added driveline components in crashes).
• No consensus; cause is unclear.