Robert Cohen

FRONTLINE, the often worthwhile NBC documentary tv program,

last night ran a piece on national insurance companies' testing of the impacts
of side collisions/crunches on various (mid-size?) makes/models

supposedly the hyundai sonata's side air bag protected the crash dummy's head,
but didn't do as well as one would hope in protecting its torso

the collision experiments were at something like 31 mph with a fake suv/truck

my humble reaction/comment:

well, damn , harsh reality as usual--on these kinds of testing matters, i
trust the insurance companies, because who would know better?

what can i do?

10. give up, because life sucks anyway
9. write a constructive note to hyundai, because they saw the same study
8. never leave the house, except for own funeral, after dying from chronic
boredom
7. think that the marketplace, such as it is, is full of such glitches, ugly
tricks & a zillion ing flaws; and it just can't get better according to k
marx
6. vote for nader, and lose-lose some more
5. don't endorse a car in a newsgroup or anywhere else
4. think that 31 mph is not really as fast as a car could smash my torso
3. not believe in the validity of the study--seek flaws--be in denial
2. think about adding some kind of extra cushioning to the sides of my little
cars, which i have been thinking about for a half-dozen years now
1. two words: nurf bar (nerf bar for cars)
0. apply ugly non-aero-dynamic water-bags
-1. huge plastic sheet bubble-cushionings car jacket
-2. don't worry/be happy
5.

hyundaitech

I'm going with option -2. I didn't see the report, so I can't compare with
other vehicles, but these are the things that spring quickly to mind:

1. 31 mph is actually rather fast for a collision
2. There is a significant weight and size disadvantage for the car.
3. A side impact is at pretty much point blank range (about 4-6 inches)
4. Exactly how much protection did you think you would get in such a
collision?

This test seems designed to put the car at a significant disadvantage. It
strikes me that the Insurance industry may have purposely constructed this
test in an effort to make vehicles perform poorly. If they want
improvements in passenger safety, this is one way to achieve it.

Old_Timer

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:49:26 -0400, "hyundaitech"
<howitsac@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm going with option -2. I didn't see the report, so I can't compare with
>other vehicles, but these are the things that spring quickly to mind:
>
>1. 31 mph is actually rather fast for a collision
>2. There is a significant weight and size disadvantage for the car.
>3. A side impact is at pretty much point blank range (about 4-6 inches)
>4. Exactly how much protection did you think you would get in such a
>collision?
>
>This test seems designed to put the car at a significant disadvantage. It
>strikes me that the Insurance industry may have purposely constructed this
>test in an effort to make vehicles perform poorly. If they want
>improvements in passenger safety, this is one way to achieve it.

The impression I got from this report is that some cars with side air
bags give better protection higher up the body than others. The
design of the Hyundai side air bag does not provide protection as high
up as some others that I beleive are referred to as Side Curtain Air
Bags..

Old_Timer

Neil

"hyundaitech" <howitsac@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10280bbef2535f812ac6bda2e9d01c18@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...

<snip>

> This test seems designed to put the car at a significant disadvantage. It
> strikes me that the Insurance industry may have purposely constructed this
> test in an effort to make vehicles perform poorly. If they want
> improvements in passenger safety, this is one way to achieve it.
>

Conspiracy theorists might say it was a joint effort between OPEC and the
Big Three to get us to buy more SUVs, and consequently more fuel.

It would be interesting to see 2 SUVs come together in a side-impact test.