Honda Element IIHS Side Impact Test: POOR
02-08-2004, 11:32 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
02-08-2004, 09:08 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
> 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.
02-08-2004, 09:08 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
> 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.
02-08-2004, 09:08 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
> 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.
02-08-2004, 09:08 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
> 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.
02-08-2004, 10:06 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
02-08-2004, 10:06 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
02-08-2004, 10:06 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
02-08-2004, 10:06 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
02-09-2004, 08:14 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
02-09-2004, 08:14 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
02-09-2004, 08:14 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
02-09-2004, 08:14 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
02-09-2004, 07:19 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
02-09-2004, 07:19 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.