|
Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact
test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck injury also would be possible." Here is the URL: http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the optional side-impact air bags: "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request such a test." Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that it IS safe when the airbags are installed. Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... Tim |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Tim <anon@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. Why? To find out if there is any difference, so you don't have to wonder any more. The first year models are usually not the best. |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Tim <anon@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. Why? To find out if there is any difference, so you don't have to wonder any more. The first year models are usually not the best. |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Tim <anon@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. Why? To find out if there is any difference, so you don't have to wonder any more. The first year models are usually not the best. |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Tim <anon@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. Why? To find out if there is any difference, so you don't have to wonder any more. The first year models are usually not the best. |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another
excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA (Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a problem. If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. "Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.gigan ews.com... > The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact > test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. > > "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck > injury also would be possible." > > Here is the URL: > > http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm > > The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the > optional side-impact air bags: > > "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side > airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests > vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional > side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test > of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of > the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request > such a test." > > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. > > Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another
excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA (Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a problem. If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. "Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.gigan ews.com... > The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact > test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. > > "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck > injury also would be possible." > > Here is the URL: > > http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm > > The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the > optional side-impact air bags: > > "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side > airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests > vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional > side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test > of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of > the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request > such a test." > > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. > > Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another
excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA (Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a problem. If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. "Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.gigan ews.com... > The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact > test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. > > "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck > injury also would be possible." > > Here is the URL: > > http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm > > The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the > optional side-impact air bags: > > "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side > airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests > vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional > side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test > of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of > the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request > such a test." > > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. > > Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another
excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA (Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a problem. If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. "Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.gigan ews.com... > The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact > test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. > > "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck > injury also would be possible." > > Here is the URL: > > http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm > > The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the > optional side-impact air bags: > > "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side > airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests > vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional > side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test > of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of > the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request > such a test." > > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. > > Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
The NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/2385.html) makes this
remark about the Element: "During the side impact test, the head of the left rear passenger dummy struck the side upper interior structure, causing a high head acceleration. Head impact events resulting in high accelerations have a higher likelihood of serious head trauma." It's not clear whether the driver's side airbags were used in that NHTSA test, sparing the driver from similar injury. But in the Insurance Institute's side-impact test, where side airbag were not used, the driver crash dummy's head strikes the door window sill. ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm ) With respect to the Insurance Institute's objectivity which you seem to doubt; I'm inclined not to be cynical about the Insurance Institute. They don't pan small SUVs across the board but give the Subaru Forester, for example, good safety ratings. The Honda CRV gets good grades too except for the side-impact where it is only Marginal. Here's the URL to the SUV comparisons: ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...mary_smsuv_ove rall.htm#crv ) Most importantly, the IIHS tests of the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute, first without side airbags and then with them, show how side airbags can raise the side-impact test results from Poor to Good. Here's what the IIHS had to say about the side airbags in the Escape/Tribute: "DRIVER. The dummy's head [in the Tribute/Escape] was cushioned from impact with any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat." ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0310.htm ) So I come back to my original question for Honda: WHY DID HONDA NOT HAVE THE IIHS RUN THEIR TESTS ON THE ELEMENT A SECOND TIME USING SIDE AIRBAGS? Does the design of the Element's side airbag cause it to deploy too low relative to the driver's head to offer adequate protection? Would a second test with side airbag have shown that the design of those side airbags makes them relatively ineffective? What's stopping Honda from outfitting the Element (and the CRV) with a better side airbag, like that in the Escape/Tribute, "a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat" ? Tim In article <dPCVb.90713$IF6.2409799@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, nospam@nospam.ca writes... >Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another >excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA >(Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US >Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's >side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. > >The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. >But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a >problem. > >If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for >both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear >side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an >SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. > >"Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message >news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.giga news.com... >> The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact >> test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. >> >> "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck >> injury also would be possible." >> >> Here is the URL: >> >> http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm >> >> The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the >> optional side-impact air bags: >> >> "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side >> airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests >> vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional >> side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test >> of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of >> the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request >> such a test." >> >> Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH >> the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are >> really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes >> an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought >> to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that >> it IS safe when the airbags are installed. >> >> Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... >> >> Tim |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
The NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/2385.html) makes this
remark about the Element: "During the side impact test, the head of the left rear passenger dummy struck the side upper interior structure, causing a high head acceleration. Head impact events resulting in high accelerations have a higher likelihood of serious head trauma." It's not clear whether the driver's side airbags were used in that NHTSA test, sparing the driver from similar injury. But in the Insurance Institute's side-impact test, where side airbag were not used, the driver crash dummy's head strikes the door window sill. ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm ) With respect to the Insurance Institute's objectivity which you seem to doubt; I'm inclined not to be cynical about the Insurance Institute. They don't pan small SUVs across the board but give the Subaru Forester, for example, good safety ratings. The Honda CRV gets good grades too except for the side-impact where it is only Marginal. Here's the URL to the SUV comparisons: ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...mary_smsuv_ove rall.htm#crv ) Most importantly, the IIHS tests of the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute, first without side airbags and then with them, show how side airbags can raise the side-impact test results from Poor to Good. Here's what the IIHS had to say about the side airbags in the Escape/Tribute: "DRIVER. The dummy's head [in the Tribute/Escape] was cushioned from impact with any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat." ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0310.htm ) So I come back to my original question for Honda: WHY DID HONDA NOT HAVE THE IIHS RUN THEIR TESTS ON THE ELEMENT A SECOND TIME USING SIDE AIRBAGS? Does the design of the Element's side airbag cause it to deploy too low relative to the driver's head to offer adequate protection? Would a second test with side airbag have shown that the design of those side airbags makes them relatively ineffective? What's stopping Honda from outfitting the Element (and the CRV) with a better side airbag, like that in the Escape/Tribute, "a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat" ? Tim In article <dPCVb.90713$IF6.2409799@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, nospam@nospam.ca writes... >Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another >excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA >(Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US >Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's >side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. > >The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. >But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a >problem. > >If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for >both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear >side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an >SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. > >"Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message >news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.giga news.com... >> The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact >> test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. >> >> "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck >> injury also would be possible." >> >> Here is the URL: >> >> http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm >> >> The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the >> optional side-impact air bags: >> >> "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side >> airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests >> vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional >> side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test >> of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of >> the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request >> such a test." >> >> Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH >> the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are >> really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes >> an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought >> to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that >> it IS safe when the airbags are installed. >> >> Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... >> >> Tim |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
The NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/2385.html) makes this
remark about the Element: "During the side impact test, the head of the left rear passenger dummy struck the side upper interior structure, causing a high head acceleration. Head impact events resulting in high accelerations have a higher likelihood of serious head trauma." It's not clear whether the driver's side airbags were used in that NHTSA test, sparing the driver from similar injury. But in the Insurance Institute's side-impact test, where side airbag were not used, the driver crash dummy's head strikes the door window sill. ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm ) With respect to the Insurance Institute's objectivity which you seem to doubt; I'm inclined not to be cynical about the Insurance Institute. They don't pan small SUVs across the board but give the Subaru Forester, for example, good safety ratings. The Honda CRV gets good grades too except for the side-impact where it is only Marginal. Here's the URL to the SUV comparisons: ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...mary_smsuv_ove rall.htm#crv ) Most importantly, the IIHS tests of the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute, first without side airbags and then with them, show how side airbags can raise the side-impact test results from Poor to Good. Here's what the IIHS had to say about the side airbags in the Escape/Tribute: "DRIVER. The dummy's head [in the Tribute/Escape] was cushioned from impact with any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat." ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0310.htm ) So I come back to my original question for Honda: WHY DID HONDA NOT HAVE THE IIHS RUN THEIR TESTS ON THE ELEMENT A SECOND TIME USING SIDE AIRBAGS? Does the design of the Element's side airbag cause it to deploy too low relative to the driver's head to offer adequate protection? Would a second test with side airbag have shown that the design of those side airbags makes them relatively ineffective? What's stopping Honda from outfitting the Element (and the CRV) with a better side airbag, like that in the Escape/Tribute, "a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat" ? Tim In article <dPCVb.90713$IF6.2409799@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, nospam@nospam.ca writes... >Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another >excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA >(Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US >Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's >side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. > >The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. >But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a >problem. > >If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for >both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear >side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an >SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. > >"Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message >news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.giga news.com... >> The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact >> test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. >> >> "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck >> injury also would be possible." >> >> Here is the URL: >> >> http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm >> >> The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the >> optional side-impact air bags: >> >> "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side >> airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests >> vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional >> side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test >> of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of >> the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request >> such a test." >> >> Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH >> the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are >> really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes >> an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought >> to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that >> it IS safe when the airbags are installed. >> >> Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... >> >> Tim |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
The NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/2385.html) makes this
remark about the Element: "During the side impact test, the head of the left rear passenger dummy struck the side upper interior structure, causing a high head acceleration. Head impact events resulting in high accelerations have a higher likelihood of serious head trauma." It's not clear whether the driver's side airbags were used in that NHTSA test, sparing the driver from similar injury. But in the Insurance Institute's side-impact test, where side airbag were not used, the driver crash dummy's head strikes the door window sill. ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm ) With respect to the Insurance Institute's objectivity which you seem to doubt; I'm inclined not to be cynical about the Insurance Institute. They don't pan small SUVs across the board but give the Subaru Forester, for example, good safety ratings. The Honda CRV gets good grades too except for the side-impact where it is only Marginal. Here's the URL to the SUV comparisons: ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...mary_smsuv_ove rall.htm#crv ) Most importantly, the IIHS tests of the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute, first without side airbags and then with them, show how side airbags can raise the side-impact test results from Poor to Good. Here's what the IIHS had to say about the side airbags in the Escape/Tribute: "DRIVER. The dummy's head [in the Tribute/Escape] was cushioned from impact with any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat." ( http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0310.htm ) So I come back to my original question for Honda: WHY DID HONDA NOT HAVE THE IIHS RUN THEIR TESTS ON THE ELEMENT A SECOND TIME USING SIDE AIRBAGS? Does the design of the Element's side airbag cause it to deploy too low relative to the driver's head to offer adequate protection? Would a second test with side airbag have shown that the design of those side airbags makes them relatively ineffective? What's stopping Honda from outfitting the Element (and the CRV) with a better side airbag, like that in the Escape/Tribute, "a combination head/torso airbag that deployed from the side of the driver seat" ? Tim In article <dPCVb.90713$IF6.2409799@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, nospam@nospam.ca writes... >Yeah, they key words there being "Insurance Institute". Sounds like another >excuse to charge higher premiums for SUV owners. Funny how the NHTSA >(Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration) which is a branch of the US >Department of Transportation gave the 2003 Element 5 stars for the driver's >side impact. That's a better rating than the 2003 Accord which got 4 stars. > >The only score worthy of concern was the rollover test where it got 3 stars. >But come on, it's a SUV, drive it with that in mind and rollover is not a >problem. > >If you really want safety though, then get the CR-V. It got 5 stars for >both frontal driver and passenger collision and 5 stars for driver and rear >side impact. It's also got 3 stars rollover but as I said above, it's an >SUV. Drive it properly and this won't be a problem. > >"Tim" <anon@anonymous.com> wrote in message >news:MPG.1a902e7bb283f5dd989682@news.comcast.giga news.com... >> The Honda Element EX received a grade of "poor" on the side impact >> test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. >> >> "DRIVER ... major torso injuries would be likely ... Serious neck >> injury also would be possible." >> >> Here is the URL: >> >> http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...side/s0308.htm >> >> The IIHS Report notes that the tests were conducted *without* the >> optional side-impact air bags: >> >> "NOTE: The Element tested was not equipped with the optional side >> airbags. When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests >> vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer offering optional >> side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test >> of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of >> the vehicle, a second test is conducted. Honda did not request >> such a test." >> >> Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH >> the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are >> really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes >> an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought >> to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that >> it IS safe when the airbags are installed. >> >> Wanting to buy an Element, but waiting.... >> >> Tim |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
In article <1g8us9r.jyl97tg2f9i2N%SP@M.com>, SP@M.com (Bebop) wrote:
> Tim <anon@anonymous.com> wrote: > > > > > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. > > > Why? To find out if there is any difference, so you don't have to wonder > any more. > > The first year models are usually not the best. I agree that the first year models are not the best. I believe the best Honda vehicle is the last one in a series such as a 1997 Honda Accord. It was the last one in that series and I rarely have seen any negative things written about a 1997 Honda Accord in this newsgroup. I have seen lots of negative things written abut the 1998 Honda Accord which was the first model in that series. |
Re: Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
In article <1g8us9r.jyl97tg2f9i2N%SP@M.com>, SP@M.com (Bebop) wrote:
> Tim <anon@anonymous.com> wrote: > > > > > Why did Honda not request that the test be conducted again WITH > > the air bags? It makes me wonder whether the side airbags are > > really effective in protecting the driver. A company that promotes > > an image of its cars as being among the safest on the road ought > > to take steps to improve the vehicle's safety, or demonstrate that > > it IS safe when the airbags are installed. > > > Why? To find out if there is any difference, so you don't have to wonder > any more. > > The first year models are usually not the best. I agree that the first year models are not the best. I believe the best Honda vehicle is the last one in a series such as a 1997 Honda Accord. It was the last one in that series and I rarely have seen any negative things written about a 1997 Honda Accord in this newsgroup. I have seen lots of negative things written abut the 1998 Honda Accord which was the first model in that series. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:14 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands