sr4512

Vol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010REPMUBHCTAMMSEILMPROBIS A LSTILs on repmunders. Bt a long-eb-rednryday fe in collisions, burules. eve ni collideith each otherrom the same srac dnp wthat Vs f Vs au sUUrhS Sec stptnapemmhwgned to egulations exem results: SUV bu in what ised ercars afederal remonstrate theuge repair billsntion ni pag standingte crash tests drs can lead to hhat’s not to me cac. TtituNew Insp with those ontop-and-go traffie uin sdon’t lininor collisions e mshould b2 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010the hassle of needing a tow and waiting on models, each composed of a small car and the body shop.small SUV from the same automaker. “SUVs and cars share the road,” says Joe Nolan, the Institute’s chief administrative of-“We picked vehicles from the same manu-ficer. “The problem is they don’t share the facturer because we think automakers should same bumper rules, and consumers end up at the least pay attention to bumper compati-paying the price.”bility across their own fleets,” Nolan explains. “The results show that many don’t.”A federal standard requires that all cars have bumpers that protect within a zone of 16 In the tests, an SUV going 10 mph struck to 20 inches from the ground. This means car the back of its paired car, which was bumpers line up reasonably well and are more stopped. Then the configuration was re-likely to engage during low-speed collisions to versed, with the car striking the back of its absorb energy and prevent damage. No bump-paired SUV. Results of these low-speed im-er requirements apply to SUVs, pickups, or pacts varied widely, from a total of $850 minivans, so when these vehicles have bump-damage to one vehicle to $6,015 damage to ers they often are flimsier and higher off the another. In some cases, the crash damage ground than bumpers on cars. Plus, SUVs and included major leaks from broken radiators pickups may not have bumpers at all.and cooling fans. If these collisions had hap-pened in the real world, the motorists In fender-benders with SUVs, cars often wouldn’t have been able to drive away. If end up with excessive damage to hoods, en-they did, their vehicles could overheat, and gine cooling systems, fenders, bumper cov-the engines could be ruined.ers, and safety equipment like lights. SUVs don’t always come out unscathed either, of-High cost of bumper mismatch: If bump-ten needing extensive work.ers don’t match up, they’ll bypass each oth-er when vehicles collide and the resulting The Institute first demonstrated this mis-crash energy will crumple the vehicle body. match in 2004 in a series of SUV-car crash That’s what happened when the Nissan tests at 10 mph (see Status Report, Sept. 13, Rogue struck the back of the Nissan Sentra 2004, and July 1, 2008; on the web at iihs.org). in the SUV-into-car test. The Rogue’s front The latest tests involved 7 pairs of 2010-11 bumper didn’t line up at (continues on p. 6)DAMAGE REPAIR COSTS IN 10 MPH FRONT-INTO-REAR CRASH TESTS SUV INTO CAR damage SUV damage Car damageTotal Honda CR-V into Honda Civic $1,721 $1,274 $2,995 Toyota RAV4 into Toyota Corolla $1,434 $2,327 $3,761 Hyundai Tucson into Kia Forte $850 $3,223 $4,073 Volkswagen Tiguan into Volkswagen Golf $2,329 $2,058 $4,387 Jeep Patriot into Dodge Caliber $1,415 $3,095 $4,510 Ford Escape into Ford Focus $1,470 $3,386 $4,856 Nissan Rogue into Nissan Sentra $2,884 $4,560 $7,444 CAR INTO SUV damage Car damage SUV damageTotal Kia Forte into Hyundai Tucson $1,510 $2,091 $3,601 Dodge Caliber into Jeep Patriot $2,559 $1,338 $3,897 Honda Civic into Honda CR-V $4,921 $1,053 $5,974 Volkswagen Golf into Volkswagen Tiguan $4,555 $1,872 $6,427 Nissan Sentra into Nissan Rogue $5,114 $1,428 $6,542 Ford Focus into Ford Escape $5,203 $2,208 $7,411 Toyota Corolla into Toyota RAV4 $3,852 $6,015 $9,867 N ote: The Ford Escape and Focus, Hyundai Tucson, and Volkswagen Golf and Tiguan are 2011 models. All other cars and SUVs are 2010s. Repair costs reflect November 2010 parts and labor prices.Nissan Sentra and Nissan RogueFord Focus and Ford EscapeFord Escape and Ford Focus Toyota RAV4 and Toyota Corolla Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010 3 NEHw SRIAPPEuR EyNEIL T’P RICNOD SREPBuMhiding yb mbletch proanents. mospimm oec tht sorbingbscureboa -syrs don’gmarce tedsnyne sar ins h bumpeny SUV the manaeor ma 10 mps renhehoc tvi sohnricw a s, trae bstice he Senper barious tht vThe plafmbrode thou ro bke sfc’vtoaoi bsr ,)nep theeftitiostruck ,444 ine’s bum oved (l7uethe posm$gu etogra oR shre Rs t e cove Nissan test, thsult waeheshrt a for theren chWith th edtr headdeWne ra.-etos, up were nade match Sentra’front-inm egarepairsamd.iator ddafterwarR a. relbpaiaveus e undriugond FocaR eptheaEsce Ford ht, not sneo hscrnai2 The bs than sel 386 in ,d3e$p spuaocoverle the Fraps o ty was hgrgeunoen ehe. Crasgs amade Focuht rear evoab trated necnits rear odcehsrur and cr-epmub. Bettedil knnd trubody acould srep bum. alignedike thisl egat damprevenNissan Sentra $4,560 rear damageFord Escape $1,470 front damage Ford Focus$3,386 rear damage MELBORP A SOI OHT C,TSAvMuSSI T MIH SRAC wHEN test, VUS-ot e car-in a newhdt endi eeecapus nding Eshe FociTr -.hVgUithe hthe Snders. rrefeo fd dnn8ua0 r, ,2ssed per slidand $2ndensea mropucay bcb g tneyino ththeioncus’s fr age forch, so -conditrnmii aa nd, as The Fo3tare tiren0hpa2gs,ih lt5 dd$se astoeun le, h up tear-morlappedd coverr enaddingsva’e pair o4hr t aV4boAV t rRA eeRegphad umr. Dam SUV. Tolla anreeonhhood, btCo ifece of tiaiot pd oknnyciooahcTt bire a e , and ais just rs on th truck thsrtes ehprpgaimlcmu dct the uBaebhet et o4hr nV,peA erhlR rila other wne. The Corollhood, go lesah’ teach o a4lhlVtiowor RAngage for thed the Ce e5oh1ts 0uh,rg6c $ou867 —end en,t9x$e re tire.td’aenplssa tedoot d anetal. Itailgatetm ts’eVeUhsSFord Focus $5,203 front damageToyota RAV4 $6,015 rear damage4 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010PuBLIC SEEkS STILL TAkES RISkSSAFER ROADS BuT Drivers are concerned about the dangers of the road but haven’t given up habits like speeding and cellphone use that they ac-knowledge are risky, a new poll by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety shows. The telephone survey of 2,000 US residents age 16 and older, conducted in the spring for the foundation’s third annual Traffic Safety Cul-ture Index (aaafoundation.org), found most people view highway safety as an important priority and look unfavorably on drinking and driving, drowsy driving, red light running, speeding in residential areas, and using cell-phones behind the wheel. But many people admit to doing some of those things anyway.While motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for people ages 3-34, fatalities have fallen to their lowest levels since 1950, thanks in large part to safer ve-hicles. Still, 52 percent of motorists say driv-ing feels less safe today than it did 5 years ago. Of those who say that, more than half cite cellphones, texting, or general distrac-tion as one of the reasons. Other common explanations include aggressive or impa-tient drivers and increased traffic.But when it comes to things like cellphone use and speeding, there’s a disconnect be-tween the large majorities that condemn the behaviors and the substantial minorities who say they’ve engaged in them. These groups clearly overlap, although it’s unclear to what extent. Only in the case of alcohol-impaired driving do few drivers admit to driving recent-ly while close to or over the limit.Cellphones: Of respondents who report-ed driving in the past 30 days, 92 percent said it was unacceptable to text or email while driving. At the same time, 24 percent reported texting or emailing at least once in the prior month. That’s more than admitted to it in a 2009 Institute survey in which 13 percent of drivers reported some texting and 6 percent reported emailing (see Status Re-port, Feb. 27, 2010; on the web at iihs.org). Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010 5When it comes to talking on cellphones, nearly Safety belt use: Eighty-six percent of drivers two-thirds of people surveyed by the AAA Foun-said it’s unacceptable not to use a safety belt. But dation said their own safety is very seriously nearly 1 in 4 reported having driven without one in threatened by drivers on the phone. But more the past month. Nearly 1 in 10 reported doing this than two-thirds said they had talked on the phone fairly often or regularly. Forty-nine percent of pas-at least once while driving in the previous month. senger vehicle drivers killed in 2009 were unbelted.Of those who reported doing so, most said they Alcohol: Virtually all drivers said it’s unaccept-don’t use a hands-free device.able for people to drive if they believe they’ve had ACTIONS By OTHERS THAT DRIvERS SEE AS THREATS TO THEIR SAFETy serious serious threat Very Somewhat Minor threatNot a Text messaging or emailing 88% 8% 2% 2%Driving after drinking alcohol 87% 9% 2% 1%Driving when too sleepy 70% 22% 7% 0%Talking on cellphones 62% 25% 10% 2%Driving aggressively 58% 30% 8% 3%Speeding 50% 31% 13% 4%RISky THINGS THAT DRIvERS ADMIT TO DOING wITHIN PAST 30 DAyS Never Just once Rarely Often RegularlyDrove without using safety belt 76% 4% 11% 4% 5% Read or sent text message while driving 76% 3% 14% 4% 2% Drove when it was hard to keep eyes open 73% 9% 15% 2% 1% Drove through light that just turned red 66% 10% 20% 3% 1% Drove 15 mph over speed limit on freeway 53% 5% 24% 10% 7%Talked on cellphone while driving 31% 10% 26% 18% 16%Source: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety’s 2010 Traffic Safety Culture Index Speeding: The public appears to recognize too much to drink, with 93 percent calling it com-that excessive speed, which plays a role in about pletely unacceptable. Eighty-three percent said one-third of fatal crashes, is dangerous. Two-they would lose some respect for a friend if they thirds of drivers in the survey said it’s not accept-found out the friend had done so.able to drive more than 15 mph over the speed limit on a freeway, but 46 percent reported doing About 11 percent of drivers said that on at it in the past 30 days.least one occasion in the past year they had driv-en when they thought their blood alcohol concen-Red light running: Ninety-three percent of tration was close to or possibly over the legal drivers said it’s unacceptable to go through a red limit. Of those, 15 percent said it happened within light if it’s possible to stop safely, but one-third the past month. The percentage of fatally injured reported having done so. Almost a quarter of driv-drivers with blood alcohol concentrations of 0.08 ers reported doing so more than once in the past percent or higher has held steady at about one-30 days. Nearly 700 people were killed in crashes third since the mid-1990s.that involved red light running in 2009.Highway safety: When asked to rank the im-Drowsy driving: Ninety-six percent of drivers portance of 3 public health issues — flu, food said it’s unacceptable for people to drive when contamination, and highway safety — half of all they are “so tired that they have a hard time keep-respondents said reducing the number of people ing their eyes open.” However, more than a quar-who die in motor vehicle crashes should be the ter of drivers said they’ve done it at least once highest priority. However, most people said they during the past 30 days, and 18 percent said would oppose a 10-cent per gallon gas tax to pay they’ve done it multiple times.for improvements to the most dangerous roads.6 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010TO REDuCE ROLLOvER INjuRIES

STRONGER ROOFS HELP

New research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration backs up the Insti-tute’s findings about the importance of roof strength in protecting vehicle occupants in rollover crashes.The study compares the results of roof strength tests of various vehicle models with real-world rollover crashes and finds a direct correlation between the test results and the number of centimeters a vehicle’s roof is pushed into the occupant area in an actual crash. Previous research by the agency showed a direct relationship between the amount of roof crush and the severity of injuries to the head, neck, and face. Taken together, the two studies confirm Institute research that shows injury risk in real-world rollovers goes down as roof strength measured in the laboratory goes up (see Status Report, March 24, 2009; on the web at iihs.org).Roof strength is measured by pushing a metal plate into the roof of a stationary vehicle. How much force the roof can withstand before it caves in 5 inches relative to the vehicle’s weight is the strength-to-weight ratio.The new study compared 38 roof strength test results to 931 real-world rollovers of similar vehicles. After controlling for the number of times the car flipped, whether the roof hit anything besides the ground, and whether other vehicles were involved, the re-searchers found that a 1-unit increase in strength-to-weight ratio translated into a 5.9-centimeter (2.3-inch) decrease in roof crush.Currently, federal rules require a roof-to-strength ratio of only 1.5 for vehicles with gross weight ratings up to 6,000 pounds (a gross weight rating is the vehicle’s weight when it has a full load of passengers and cargo).Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced it was doub-ling that requirement and mandating a ratio of 1.5 for vehicles with ratings from 6,000 to 10,000 pounds. The standards will be phased in beginning in 2012. The agency says 135 lives will be saved each year by the change. The Institute believes this is an underestimate because it excludes unbelted occupants and others at risk of ejection, who also are likely to benefit (see Status Report, June 11, 2009; on the web at iihs.org). Vehicles must have a roof strength-to-weight ratio of at least 4 in Institute tests to earn TOP SAFETY PICK. “Roof strength testing and real-world roof intrusion in rollovers” by R. Austin is avail-able at nhtsa.gov.(continued from p. 2) all with the Sentra’s rear bumper, and the resulting $4,560 rear damage tally for the Sentra was the highest among all the cars in this test. The impact crumpled the car’s bumper cover, trunk lid, and rear body. The Rogue ended up with a crushed and leaking radiator that kept the SUV from being driven after the test.Bumper height mismatch contributed to pricey damage when the Ford Escape struck the rear of the Ford Focus. Their bumpers overlapped less than 2 inches, not enough to protect the Focus’s rear body and trunk lid from $3,386 in repairs.The mismatch problem with the Ford pair was even worse when the Focus struck the back of the Escape. The front bumper on the car underrode the high-riding Escape’s rear bumper, which at 25 inches off the ground is the tallest among all the small SUVs evaluated this time around. Damage to the Focus came to $5,203 and included re-placing most of the sheet metal plus many parts in front of the engine.When the Toyota Corolla hit the rear of the Toyota RAV4 in the car-into-SUV test, damage amounted to nearly $10,000 for the pair — the highest combined test damage among all of the vehicle pairs the Institute evaluated. The RAV4 accounted for about $6,000 of the bill.“The RAV4’s so-called bumper is really just a stamped piece of sheet metal support-ing the bumper cover,” Nolan explains. “So instead of engaging a strong bumper, the striking Corolla hit the spare tire mounted on the RAV4’s tailgate. The spare isn’t designed to absorb crash energy, so it damaged the Corolla’s hood, grille, headlights, air condi-tioner, and radiator support and crushed the RAV4’s tailgate and rear body panels.”Compatible bumpers: Bumpers on Hon-da’s CR-V and Civic were the most compat-ible in the test in which an SUV strikes the rear of a car, and at $2,995 the pair had the lowest combined estimated damage in this crash test. The Civic’s $1,274 damage was the lowest among the cars. The CR-V is one of only 3 SUVs whose front bumpers over-lapped half of the rear bumpers on the cars they hit. Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010 7“The CR-V’s front bumper overlapped the Civic’s rear bumper by more than 2 inch-es. That may not sound like much, but it’s enough to allow the bumpers to do what they’re supposed to do,” Nolan says.When the Kia Forte struck the back of the Hyundai Tucson, their bumpers match-ed up well enough to keep the Forte from underriding the SUV, limiting damage to a combined $3,601 for both vehicles. The Forte’s $1,510 repair estimate was the low-est among cars in the car-into-SUV test.The Tucson-Forte pair’s bumpers also did a good job of lining up in the SUV-into-“This is a good example of why bumpers not only need to match up, they also need to be strong,” Nolan points out. When the Dodge Caliber struck the rear of the Jeep Patriot (both Chrysler products), their bumpers had less than half an inch of overlap. Normally this would mean the car’s bumper would slide under the SUV. That didn’t happen in this case because the Cali-ber has vertical extenders on both frame rails that prevented underride. The Caliber was the only car without hood damage.“Repair costs are influenced by many factors,” Nolan says. “In the Caliber’s case, comments on the petition but hasn’t moved forward with a rulemaking or a low-speed compliance test for bumpers.Regulators have long said that requiring light trucks to have bumpers would compro-mise off-road maneuverability and make it hard to use these kinds of vehicles at loading ramps. The Institute counters that very few SUVs and pickups are used off road. In addi-tion, bumpers aren’t the limiting factor in most vehicles’ approach and departure an-gles. Instead air dams, bumper covers, ex-haust pipes, and other trim mounted lower than the bumpers get in the way. SREPMuB GNIHECGTAAMMAD TIMIL PLHEHonda Civic and Honda CR-Vin the masi sih. Tned upto-car iln i-sVadU Son air of He in thepg asimhta ed rearn dtosa ssmerilta sbd test. taine4 in emper ssi7uuh2bts, 1ensi$he T’srsiclong cae Civicse vehhemTha t .gh so tsunsrooienawep o l,r reaseeshe was th 2 inch.he 6 ottVn -anRhatC h te e its jobhdorti dmtesty by mtbi ed hste whenerlappebing syundai rvyoo Hs sbreaeh-damagtyf mpe energmper oles’ buhucti b hdrenavae Theged, from the raehttgirnowe F pshed uperont of ter linerfp the bume01 for mh6ut, b3 gt$n nidopr fneee combige to Forte’s test, kaaa ViomUtK aSee-d ghotaTilee car-inirs, whing damhtati pnmeii rl nn ir front nd1oaf 9 lVTucso0l,iU2bS ire d $ve repa needeiding thirnsronesedcpnuu T exes. Thee leastlhcti he— v0both d $1,51ed.latot s testeterraocF eehhtll tmong aa egadamHonda Civic$1,274 rear damageHyundai Tucson and Kia ForteHyundai Tucson $2,091 rear damagecar test. The Tucson’s $850 damage esti-mate was better than the other SUVs, and it was the only SUV that didn’t have a dam-aged air-conditioning condenser.Despite bumpers that aligned, results for the Forte weren’t as good. The Forte had more than $3,000 rear damage because its bumper broke during impact. The car’s rear body panel also was damaged.tall frame rails helped compensate for mini-mal bumper overlap.”Regulate SUV bumpers: The Institute in July 2008 petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to regulate bumpers on SUVs and pickups, the same as cars, and require them to match up in a way that shields both vehicles from costly dam-age. The agency in June 2009 agreed to seek “Of the 7 car-SUV pairs we tested, we can’t point to a single one as a model of compatibility because combined damage estimates run into thousands of dollars for even the best performers,” Nolan says. “In the real world that money comes straight out of consumers’ wallets through deduct-ibles and insurance premiums. Regulating SUV bumpers would ease the burden.”1005 N. Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201 Phone 703/247-1500 Fax 247-1588Internet: www.iihs.orgVol. 45, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2010SUV and car bumpers underride and override each other in low-speed crash-es, contributing to pricey damage ........1Cost of repairing damage sustained in 10 mph front-into-rear impacts ............2Drivers say texting, speeding, and run-ning red lights are risky but admit to doing them anyway ...............................4Strong roofs help to reduce injury risk when vehicles roll over ........................6Contents may be republished with attribution. This publication is printed on recycled paper.The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, and property damage from crashes on the nation’s highways. The Institute is wholly supported by auto insurers:AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance GroupAAA Northern California, Nevada, and UtahACE Private Risk ServicesAffirmative InsuranceAgency Insurance Company of MarylandAlfa Alliance Insurance CorporationAlfa InsuranceAllstate Insurance GroupAmerican Family Mutual InsuranceAmerican National Property and Casualty CompanyAmeriprise Auto & HomeAmica Mutual Insurance CompanyAuto Club EnterprisesAuto Club GroupAuto Club South Insurance CompanyBituminous Insurance CompaniesBrotherhood Mutual Insurance CompanyCalifornia Casualty GroupCapital Insurance GroupChubb & SonColorado Farm Bureau Mutual insurance CompanyConcord Group Insurance CompaniesCotton States InsuranceCOUNTRY FinancialDirect General CorporationDiscovery Insurance CompanyErie Insurance GroupEsuranceFarm Bureau Financial ServicesFarm Bureau Insurance of MichiganFollow us on Twitter:http://twitter.com/IIHS_autosafetyFarm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of IdahoFarmers Insurance Group of CompaniesNorfolk & Dedham GroupFarmers Mutual of NebraskaNorth Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyFireman’s Fund Insurance CompanyOklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyFirst Acceptance CorporationOld American County Mutual Fire InsuranceFlorida Farm Bureau Insurance CompaniesOneBeacon InsuranceFrankenmuth InsuranceOregon Mutual InsuranceGainsco InsurancePalisades InsuranceGEICO GroupPekin InsuranceGeorgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyPEMCO InsuranceGMAC Personal Lines InsuranceProgressive CorporationGrange InsuranceRockingham GroupHanover Insurance GroupSafeco InsuranceThe HartfordSamsung Fire & Marine Insurance CompanyHaulers Insurance Company, Inc.SECURA InsuranceHigh Point Insurance GroupSentry InsuranceHomeowners of America Insurance CompanyShelter InsuranceICW GroupSompo Japan Insurance Company of AmericaImperial Fire & Casualty Insurance CompanySouth Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyInfinity Property & Casualty Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance CompanyKemper, A Unitrin BusinessState Auto Insurance CompaniesKentucky Farm Bureau InsuranceState FarmLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyTennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance CompanyLouisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyTokio Marine NichidoMarkel CorporationThe Travelers CompaniesMercury Insurance GroupUnited EducatorsMetLife Auto & HomeUnitrinMichigan Insurance CompanyUSAAMiddleOakViceroy Insurance CompanyMississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance CompanyVirginia Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceMMG InsuranceWest Bend Mutual Insurance CompanyMutual of Enumclaw Insurance CompanyZurich North AmericaNationwideNew Jersey Manufacturers Insurance GroupFUNDING ASSOCIATIONSNLC Insurance Companies, Inc.American Insurance AssociationNodak Mutual Insurance CompanyNational Association of Mutual Insurance CompaniesProperty Casualty Insurers Association of America