Car Safety

Correlation of IIHS Moderate Overlap Offset Rating with 2011-Present NHTSA Injury Risk Score, Over Time

<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note: I am not affiliated with the NHTSA or IIHS, or am even an engineer. I am a 22 year old with Asperger's Syndrome who is very interested in car safety.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This post is not intended to endorse one rating system over the other.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Explanations of tests and injury criteria:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The IIHS moderate overlap offset test, introduced in 1995, involves crashing a vehicle into a deformable offset barrier at 40 mph, with 40% of the front end on the driver's side, using a Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy (about 5'10 and 180 lbs) belted into the driver's seat. Vehicles are rated on six categories; structure/safety cage (how much the occupant compartment collapsed), restraints/dummy kinematics (how well the seat belts, airbags, and other vehicle parts controlled dummy movement), and four injury subsections: head/neck, chest, left leg/foot, and right leg/foot. The entire body from head to toe is effectively covered. Each of these six categories gets a rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor, and these ratings are <a href="http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/technical-information/moderate-overlap-frontal-calculator">combined</a> into a rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
NHTSA crash tests vehicles into a flat wall at 35 mph. Vehicles get a rating of 1-5 stars on each side, with the rating being strictly on injury risk to the head, neck, chest, and femur (in effect, the entire body except for the lower legs). The current system, introduced on October 5, 2010 for 2011 model vehicles, uses a formula to determine the risk of serious injury to a real life occupant. It's comprehensive, and it adds up. As an example, the 2011 Honda Accord got a 9.8% risk of driver injury in the NHTSA full frontal test, giving it 5 stars. But that 9.8% is divided into a 0.0% risk of head injury, a 6.6% risk of neck injury, a 2.7% risk of chest injury, and a 0.8% risk of femur injury. The total does not add up to 9.8% because there is a slight chance that multiple body regions could sustain serious injury.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In late 2010, when the first results for the new NHTSA test results came out, I downloaded a copy of a spreadsheet with the NHTSA tests up to that point. The dummies in the driver's seat of the new NHTSA tests are the same as the dummies in the IIHS offset tests, and all applicable injury measures are in the technical information. (HIC 15, Nij, Neck Tension in newtons, Chest Deflection in millimeters, and femur forces in newtons on each side). On the IIHS website, they give the newtons in kilonewtons; for instance, I put in 1.4 kilonewtons as 1,400 newtons. NHTSA also records neck compression, but it would take extreme values of neck compression to make a difference to the rating, and Nij (neck injury criterion) tends to take care of that factor, anyway.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Results are given for all tests done during a particular model year. For instance, the 2011 Honda Accord's crash test applies to 2008-2012 models, but is included under the 2008 model year because the tested car was a 2008. Similarly, the 1998 Ford F-150's crash test applies to 1997-2003 models, but is included under the 2001 model year as the tested truck was a 2001.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
9.9% or less = 5 stars</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
10.0%-14.9% = 4 stars</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
15.0%-19.9% = 3 stars</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
20.0%-39.9% = 2 stars</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
40.0% or more = 1 star</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For more information, visit</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/technical-information/technical-protocols">IIHS technical info</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+FAQ#thirteen">NHTSA technical info</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The formula for the injury risk calculation is at (It is an advanced calculus formula)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0322.pdf">http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0322.pdf</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Data</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Avg injury risk - all vehicles tested during the model year:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1995: 19.3%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1996: 23.7%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1997: 25.7%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1998: 19.7%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1999: 20.6%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2000: 19.8%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2001: 26.1%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2002: 18.3%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2003: 16.0%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2004: 15.0%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2005: 15.4%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2006: 16.2%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2007: 15.2%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2008: 17.4%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2009: 13.4%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2010: 14.9%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2011: 12.6%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2012: 13.3%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2013: 12.1%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2014: 11.7%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2015: 10.8%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Average risk, 1995-1997: 23.2%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1995-97 Poor: 26.7%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1995-97 Marginal: 21.0%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1995-97 Accept.: 23.9%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1995-97 Good: 17.3%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Poor-Good improvement: 36% lower risk</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Average risk, 1998-2000: 20.1%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1998-2000 Poor: 27.8%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1998-2000 Marginal: 26.5%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1998-2000 Accept.: 18.9%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1998-2000 Good: 15.2%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Poor-Good improvement: 45% lower risk</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Average risk, 2001-2003: 20.1%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2001-2003 Poor: 58.6%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2001-2003 Marg.: 28.5%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2001-2003 Accept.: 18.8%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2001-2003 Good: 16.1%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Poor-Good improvement: 73% lower risk</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Average risk, 2004-2006: 15.6%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2004-2006 Accept.: 19.1%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2004-2006 Good: 14.8%</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusions</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The correlation between IIHS rating and NHTSA injury risk score was strong. Good rated vehicles had a much lower risk than Poor rated vehicles, with Marginal and Acceptable being intermediate steps. Due to the low number of non-Good rated vehicles from 2004 and later model years, the comparison was for 1995-2003 vehicles. 94% of vehicles from 2004-present are rated Good. Some caveats to the comparison are the much higher risk on the 2001-2003 Poor rated vehicles than the 1995-2000 Poor rated vehicles. This is due to the small sample size (only 4 different models). However, these four models (the 1997-2003 Ford F-150, the 1994-2001 Dodge Ram, the 2001-2003 Hyundai Elantra, and the 2001 Dodge Caravan) were all high-selling models.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also of note was the rather sudden improvement pattern seen from around 2010 on. On pre-2009 vehicles, the average risk for Good vehicles stayed around the 15-17% range. Improvements during these years were largely due to the improvements in the IIHS ratings. With Good ratings nearly ubiquitous since the late 2000s, the improvements seen in the post-2010 period represent major improvements in Good rated vehicles. The 2013-2015 vehicles (all of which have been rated Good thus far) have a 21% lower risk on average than the Good-rated 2004-2006 rated vehicles. (11.7% vs 14.8%). These recent improvements may be due to restraint changes stemming from the implementation of the new 2011-present NHTSA rating system, which is far more stringent than the 1979-2010 system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the correlation was strong, it was not total: the best Poor vehicle got an 11.0% risk, and the worst Good got a 32.1% risk. 23% of vehicles rated Poor got a risk under 20%. Part of this reason is that the NHTSA rating system does not cover tibia injuries, structure, or restraints. That 11.0% risk Poor vehicle (the 1997 Cadillac Seville) is a poster child of this. The structure of this vehicle collapsed, and dummy movement was poorly controlled, leading to Poor ratings on both of those factors. High forces on the right tibia lead to a Poor rating for the right leg. Many of the "low-risk" Poor rated vehicles suffered from a combination of tibia injury risk, structure, and restraint problems. Some vehicles had high head accelerations from the head hitting the steering wheel through the airbag or hitting the roof or pillar on rebound. In many cases, these high accelerations are of very short duration, so they do not result in a high HIC. Life threatening injuries would be unlikely, but these hard contacts can cause less severe head injuries including concussions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another factor is that IIHS does injury ratings "piecemeal"; there are certain force limits that are considered to be "likely" to cause certain levels of injury. If, for instance, a vehicle got Good on all injury ratings but the force levels were all "borderline", i.e. HIC, Nij, neck tension, chest compression, and both femur loads were just under the Good/Acceptable boundary, the injury risk would be high, over 45%. In practice, however, this would never occur. Also, theoretically, a vehicle could have a risk under 10% and get a Poor rating if structure and restraints were Poor and tibia loads were high, but head, neck, chest, and femur forces were all low. This nearly happened, but is extremely unlikely as structural collapse usually imparts higher upper body loads through the restraint system or airbag bottoming out, and dashboard movement often causes higher femur loads.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some stock can be put to the risks, especially in Good rated vehicles. For instance, a Good rated vehicle with a risk of 10% is probably safer than one with 20%. But a low "risk" does not a safe vehicle make. Regardless of the risk, the IIHS rating is the best indicator of how well a vehicle will do in an offset crash. It was specifically designed for the crash scenario.</div>

Correlation of IIHS Moderate Overlap Offset Rating with 2011-Present NHTSA Injury Risk Score, Over Time

Note: I am not affiliated with the NHTSA or IIHS, or am even an engineer. I am a 22 year old with Asperger's Syndrome who is very inter...

Why the calculated NHTSA injury risk for an IIHS crash test is not the end all be all

I have looked at 531 IIHS moderate overlap frontal offset tests, and put the injury data into a calculator that puts out the risk of AIS 3+...

Trends in HIC, Chest G and injury risk, NHTSA crash tests, 1979-2010

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9DCbG6iVLNeCOJfhXYtZbpwPJeSF8pcmlJOth5fck4QZlvbLdizPJ8AJljiMoYjg2L1MkVkPk4dz5AQcsXEFmDWQmC1mjHmgGd2OCvVC5R1iW6-tWV7WvKGUDW5fiXB9l9TozBwk3eXD5/s1600/charts+for+csd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9DCbG6iVLNeCOJfhXYtZbpwPJeSF8pcmlJOth5fck4QZlvbLdizPJ8AJljiMoYjg2L1MkVkPk4dz5AQcsXEFmDWQmC1mjHmgGd2OCvVC5R1iW6-tWV7WvKGUDW5fiXB9l9TozBwk3eXD5/s1600/charts+for+csd.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The top chart shows average HIC for each model year of NHTSA crash testing between 1979 and 2010. The improvement is crystal clear, but there are some notes. The early years, specifically 1981-1984, showed a sharp drop in average HIC values for the tests as car companies strove to compete with each other on safety. 1985 saw a spike in HIC, especially for the driver; a large number of light trucks (pickups, SUVs, and vans) were tested this year, and their lower safety standards at the time skewed the results. The second major drop occurred from 1988-1994 for drivers, due chiefly to air bags. The introduction of passenger air bags did not result in a sudden drop in HICs, but gradual improvement continued. HIC improvement was gradual during the 1995-2004 period, followed by a near leveling out from 2005-2010. The leveling out of good results led to the replacement of this test.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the very beginning of the test program, passenger HICs were slightly higher, on average; during the 1980s, driver HICs were often significantly higher, likely due to improved seat belt systems and better structures but the continuance of steering column problems. Air bags briefly gave driver HICs the advantage, but passenger air bags caused passenger HICs to become lower again during the 1995-2002 period. Less aggressive driver airbags gave driver HICs the advantage from 2003-2010.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Chest measures aren't quite as clear cut. The sharp 1981-1982 drop was likely due to improved structures and seat belts, but chest measures rose modestly, plateauing during the 1985-1999 period for drivers, despite the introduction of air bags. Passenger chest measures rose during the 1986-1996 period, despite the widespread introduction of air bags during this time period. A possible explanation is that early air bags were "firmer" and more aggressive than today's airbags, and seat belt pretensioners and load limiters came along in the late 1990s. Chest measures fell during the 2000-2004 period, but leveled out from 2005-2010.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Injury measures is another odd one. I took the average HIC and Chest G for each side for each model year, and translated that into the injury risk for the "average" vehicle. <b>Your vehicle may vary. </b></div>

Trends in HIC, Chest G and injury risk, NHTSA crash tests, 1979-2010

The top chart shows average HIC for each model year of NHTSA crash testing between 1979 and 2010. The improvement is crystal clear, but t...

NHTSA Testing 1979-2010: Cars vs. Trucks, Vans, and SUVs

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlMMZIuZzTnTjjt9AYHGUgMbH5z6WnSKlgg1T2O2khEx6SstRdOycyCNVzYuZJuKgHZxOdIvF8mwmRq-mxJVA5U9tp5E8e3ZZP_NRWfBbLg9k2bpcxlyq2aW46tSxeXNj95F3cD-ykcxgx/s1600/eddy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlMMZIuZzTnTjjt9AYHGUgMbH5z6WnSKlgg1T2O2khEx6SstRdOycyCNVzYuZJuKgHZxOdIvF8mwmRq-mxJVA5U9tp5E8e3ZZP_NRWfBbLg9k2bpcxlyq2aW46tSxeXNj95F3cD-ykcxgx/s1600/eddy.png" width="486" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a chart of average HIC (head injury criterion) for cars and LTVs (a category encompassing pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs) for each testing year between 1979 and 2010. Before 1983, no LTVs were tested by NHTSA. Interesting trends emerge. A limited number of LTVs were tested each year during the early years; the number of LTVs tested increased as the market share and model range increased.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Performance for LTVs was bad in the 1980s and early 1990s. Due to the limited number (typically 12 or fewer) tested during these years, results vary wildly from year to year, but it is still clear that LTVs lagged their car counterparts badly. (1984 was a "fluke" year). Starting in 1992, the gap began to close, but LTVs still lagged by a noticeable - if not severe - margin through 2000. Around 2001, LTV HICs reached levels near that of cars.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMVdl-GYDVih01d5CVvpvjHpmW0HeHgQFCQzLIbwT5COMNd7d1KRqBP_MJIMZTpDQCYA7mexIXZ4vWMCdZ_OPwOdCaz9RbqF3L0GEPT4pHLddVKc-Tyssf3OYTTSn34sI78_fANbeRqXzR/s1600/ed.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMVdl-GYDVih01d5CVvpvjHpmW0HeHgQFCQzLIbwT5COMNd7d1KRqBP_MJIMZTpDQCYA7mexIXZ4vWMCdZ_OPwOdCaz9RbqF3L0GEPT4pHLddVKc-Tyssf3OYTTSn34sI78_fANbeRqXzR/s1600/ed.png" width="542" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 Chest G's here are pretty cut and dry - bad in the 1980s, pretty close to that of cars from 1994 on.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwEXOTZrNNXODKuBKFIDlI-2qtXYYinnrFfecRSNfyDlgxV6sjjLru7n-H1aealD22qajvrSbGBbFBwQNW2CHPsgcigSe_OZh3at0ena7w7-vS3_67fgV_W9ziB6UwcswKlIxNgpPOnm6E/s1600/edd.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwEXOTZrNNXODKuBKFIDlI-2qtXYYinnrFfecRSNfyDlgxV6sjjLru7n-H1aealD22qajvrSbGBbFBwQNW2CHPsgcigSe_OZh3at0ena7w7-vS3_67fgV_W9ziB6UwcswKlIxNgpPOnm6E/s1600/edd.png" width="542" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the most important chart - average injury risk. Note that this chart is not created by taking the average risk of each vehicle, but rather by taking the average HIC and Chest G for each model year and finding the risk for that. For instance, 1980 passengers in cars had an average HIC of 1,364 and chest G of 51. The risk of severe injury for that HIC and chest G is 51%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cars started at a bad level - about 50% risk for both driver and passenger - when testing began in 1979. When LTV testing started in 1983, their average risk was even worse than cars had been four years earlier. By 1983, with cars having improved dramatically from their starting point, the gap was even more critical. While passenger risk had a major drop, driver risk simply "bounced around" in the 40-77% range between 1983 and 1991. By 1991, the average LTV was no safer for a driver than a 1979 car in this collision scenario.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Risk for both occupants dropped precipitously for LTVs between 1992 and 1994, and by the mid 1990s LTV passengers had reached near parity with car passengers - drivers were still doing moderately worse. The gap finally closed around 2001.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's clear that there was once a major safety gap between cars and LTVs, and this gap narrowed and eventually closed. A major reason is safety standards - safety standards were significantly relaxed on LTVs until the 1990s. It's clear that once LTVs had to meet the same safety standards as cars, their performance approached that of cars. The market share of LTVs grew immensely. In the 1980s, only about 20% of models tested were LTVs; by the 2000s, over half were. Minivans and crossover SUVs were introduced during this time period and became very popular, while traditional SUV popularity greatly increased. LTV marketing and purposes changed greatly between 1983 and 2010. In 1983, most LTVs were considered utilitarian vehicles that did not compete with cars. In the intervening years, minivans were introduced and cut into the market share for full size vans, SUVs added more creature comforts and were marketed as passenger vehicles, and the crossover SUV arose. By 2010, most LTVs were not strictly "utilitarian" vehicles. They competed with cars. The family sedan had, in many instances, been replaced by the family minivan or SUV. Even crew cab trucks became used by some like cars with extra utility.</div>

NHTSA Testing 1979-2010: Cars vs. Trucks, Vans, and SUVs

This is a chart of average HIC (head injury criterion) for cars and LTVs (a category encompassing pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs) for each...

The First Airbag

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQd9AvpCgoSB02IdCTf1KY3BQWzTH4m40HUrGY3Vvc-g_bjmc1usguaqFEU042k3oUqDNuPCWQ0HQCp7nHQ9UNJjd3lIkaRpApTsc1IR2t1eHk_lw5BK5u_xtpxi83pwUKV8d4kTKnM7Kl/s1600/acrs.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQd9AvpCgoSB02IdCTf1KY3BQWzTH4m40HUrGY3Vvc-g_bjmc1usguaqFEU042k3oUqDNuPCWQ0HQCp7nHQ9UNJjd3lIkaRpApTsc1IR2t1eHk_lw5BK5u_xtpxi83pwUKV8d4kTKnM7Kl/s320/acrs.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>Testing for the first ever airbag system to be put in a production vehicle.</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
In the early 1990s, we were bombarded with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SwAFoMxY-s">ads</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN6Z_gZTI2A"> touting</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHJOXhABpH4"> driver</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5gNZ88oj7A"> airbags</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT32cuoG9IM"> in</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqybR5NLvU0"> cars.</a> The airbag was touted as an innovation in car safety, and it was; widespread introduction of airbags began in the late 1980s. Like most safety technologies, luxury cars had them first. But while widespread airbag introduction didn't start until the late 1980s, cars were sold with them earlier - you could get a Mercedes Benz with a driver airbag in Europe as early as 1980! (The American market had to wait until 1983). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The Mercedes Benz system was the first airbag designed as a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS), which is designed to work as an integral system with a three point seatbelt, and is the ideal that all airbags have followed since. Even the ones that don't say "SRS" are still designed to be used as a supplement to seatbelts. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But this wasn't the first airbag system. It was General Motors that first put an airbag in a production vehicle, in 1973! This system was called the "Air Cushion Restraint System" (ACRS) and had <i>dual </i>airbags. The option cost $225 ($1,079 in 2015 dollars) and could be ordered as a standalone option on most Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac models. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The ACRS system was initially marketed as a convenience feature as well as a safety feature. In the 1974 model year, there was a short-lived mandate that required cars to be featured with an "ignition interlock" system that prevented a car from being started unless seat belts were fastened. This was an effort to increase seat belt use, which was below 15 percent in the 1970s. Fitting of "passive restraints" could circumvent this requirement, but the ACRS system was the only system that ever did this. In fact, the ACRS-equipped cars were equipped with only lap belts, as opposed to the three point belts then required on cars without passive restraints. The system was marketed as a substitute for shoulder belts. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The passenger airbag on ACRS equipped vehicles was dual stage. It deployed with less force in more minor frontal impacts and more force in more severe frontal impact. This feature would not reappear in any other car until almost 25 years later. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Obviously, ACRS has some flaws when looked at by today's standards. The biggest flaw was the deletion of the shoulder seat belt (but this could be remedied by retrofitting one). The bags were also large by today's standards; the passenger airbag was large enough to hit the driver. But for an airbag system of over 40 years ago, it was very good and provided great benefit to the safety of cars it was fitted on. </div>

The First Airbag

Testing for the first ever airbag system to be put in a production vehicle. In the early 1990s, we were bombarded with ads touting ...

NHTSA Trends, 1979-2010

<div style="text-align: justify;">
The next series of posts on CSD will focus on trends in the NHTSA crash test series between 1979-2010. There are currently 1,168 frontal crash tests that I know about between May 21, 1979 and January 20, 2010. This first post is on the test program in general, and trends over time. Later, we will be comparing cars to SUVs, trucks, and vans and imports to domestics. This posts has been made before, but there is lots of missing data that is now known, including six missing crash tests.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Threshold for likely serious injury is 1,000 HIC and/or 60 Chest G. Positions with less than these values "passed", and positions with a value exceeding these "failed".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1979 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 1,256 HIC, 55 Chest G. Range 547-4,611 HIC, 38-93 Chest G. 38% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 1,308 HIC, 49 Chest G. Range 429-2,535 HIC, 33-92 Chest G. 40% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
28% of vehicles passed both sides. 52% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
30 vehicles were tested this year. One has missing data for the driver. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1980 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 1,330 HIC, 59 Chest G. Range 622-3,063 HIC, 41-101 Chest G. 23% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg.  1,363 HIC, 51 Chest G. Range 523-2,858 HIC, 34-108 Chest G. 32% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
22% of vehicles passed both sides. 68% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
22 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1981 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 1,187 HIC, 52 Chest G. Range 606-2,634 HIC, 41-69 Chest G. 50% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg.  1,034 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 492-1,747 HIC,  32-58 Chest G. 50% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
29% of vehicles passed both sides. 29% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
14 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1982 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 1,055 HIC, 47 Chest G. Range 478-3,768 HIC, 31-74 Chest G. 61% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg.  935 HIC, 40 Chest G. Range 381-2,484 HIC, 22-50 Chest G. 64% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
50% of vehicles passed both sides. 18% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
28 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1983 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 968 HIC, 55 Chest G. Range 408-1,744 HIC, 34-82 Chest G. 52% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 1,035 HIC, 46 Chest G. Range 376-1,934 HIC, 32-71 Chest G. 43% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
30% of vehicles passed both sides. 35% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
23 vehicles were tested this year. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1984 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 983 HIC, 48 Chest G. Range 309-2,955 HIC, 31-87 Chest G. 66% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 960 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 356-2,721 HIC, 28-67 Chest G. 50% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
45% of vehicles passed both sides. 29% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
38 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1985 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 1,281 HIC, 50 Chest G. Range 621-2,202 HIC, 33-70 Chest G. 37% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 1,070 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 262-2,678 HIC, 27-61 Chest G. 57% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
27% of vehicles passed both sides. 33% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
30 vehicles were tested this year. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1986 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 973 HIC, 50 Chest G. Range 552-2,179 HIC, 36-73 Chest G. 59% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg.  959 HIC, 40 Chest G. Range  430-2,662 HIC, 27-55 Chest G. 70% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
52% of vehicles passed both sides. 22% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
27 vehicles were tested this year. One has missing chest data for the passenger.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1987 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 1,069 HIC, 51 Chest G. Range 405-2,034 HIC, 35-70 Chest G. 54% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg.   816 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 301-2,140 HIC,  34-81 Chest G. 69% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
50% of vehicles passed both sides. 25% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
37 vehicles were tested this year. One has missing head data for the passenger.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1988 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 1,083 HIC, 52 Chest G. Range 273-3,665 HIC, 37-97 Chest G. 50% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 738 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 359-1,457 HIC, 31-63 Chest G. 83% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
47% of vehicles passed both sides. 14% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
36 vehicles were tested this year. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1989 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 961 HIC, 52 Chest G. Range 185-1,983 HIC, 35-73 Chest G. 56% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 908 HIC, 46 Chest G. Range 297-2,482 HIC, 31-77 Chest G. 75% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
56% of vehicles passed both sides. 19% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
36 vehicles were tested this year.One driver and passenger each have missing chest data.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1990 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 948 HIC, 51 Chest G. Range 298-2,613 HIC, 35-74 Chest G. 55% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 873 HIC, 47 Chest G. Range 419-2,132 HIC,  32-64 Chest G. 75% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
48% of vehicles passed both sides. 16% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
34 vehicles were tested this year. 1 driver and 2 passengers each have missing head data.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1991 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 808 HIC, 52 Chest G. Range 343-1,434 HIC, 37-74 Chest G. 66% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 771 HIC, 47 Chest G. Range  258-2,017 HIC,  35-71 Chest G. 77% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
54% of vehicles passed both sides. 15% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
32 vehicles were tested this year.<b> 6 passengers have missing data, </b>two head only.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1992 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 832 HIC, 51 Chest G. Range 282-2,065 HIC, 37-70 Chest G. 74% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 801 HIC, 45 Chest G. Range 331-1,815 HIC, 34-68 Chest G. 78% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
66% of vehicles passed both sides. 14% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
36 vehicles were tested this year.One driver has missing head data.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1993 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 754 HIC, 50 Chest G. Range 273-1,459 HIC, 32-62 Chest G. 74% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 697 HIC, 47 Chest G. Range 290-1,512 HIC, 37-61 Chest G. 87% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
72% of vehicles passed both sides. 10% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
39 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 1994 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 610 HIC, 49 Chest G. Range 238-1,260 HIC, 34-61 Chest G. 88% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 756 HIC, 49 Chest G. Range 300-2,044 HIC,  35-63 Chest G. 76% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
70% of vehicles passed both sides. 6% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
35 vehicles were tested this year.One driver has missing chest data, and one passenger has missing data.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1995 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 706 HIC, 51 Chest G. Range 394-1,474 HIC, 39-67 Chest G. 88% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 652 HIC, 50 Chest G. Range 186-1,874 HIC, 35-60 Chest G. 91% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
85% of vehicles passed both sides. 4% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
48 vehicles were tested this year. 2 passengers have missing data, one chest only. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1996 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 664 HIC, 51 Chest G. Range 216-1,107 HIC, 37-68 Chest G. 88% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg.  592 HIC, 52 Chest G. Range 128-1,236 HIC, 41-69 Chest G. 78% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
75% of vehicles passed both sides. 6% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
32 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1997 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 691 HIC, 50 Chest G. Range 314-1,411 HIC, 37-69 Chest G. 91% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 649 HIC, 50 Chest G. Range 252-1,525 HIC, 39-63 Chest G. 85% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
79% of vehicles passed both sides. 3% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
34 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1998 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 620 HIC, 49 Chest G. Range 258-1,026 HIC, 37-62 Chest G. 96% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 585 HIC, 49 Chest G. Range 227-1,139 HIC,  37-64 Chest G. 90% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
88% of vehicles passed both sides. 2% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
52 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1999 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 609 HIC, 50 Chest G. Range 309-1,008 HIC, 32-71 Chest G. 86% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 587 HIC, 48 Chest G. Range 248-1,163 HIC, 36-65 Chest G. 91% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
80% of vehicles passed both sides. 3% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
35 vehicles were tested this year. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2000 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 575 HIC, 48 Chest G. Range 322-852 HIC, 37-67 Chest G. 89% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 556 HIC, 47 Chest G. Range 307-878 HIC,  37-61 Chest G. 96% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
89% of vehicles passed both sides. 4% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
28 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2001 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 562 HIC, 47 Chest G. Range 256-1,079 HIC, 31-61 Chest G. 97% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 525 HIC, 45 Chest G. Range 249-941 HIC, 32-59 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
97% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
61 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2002 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 531 HIC,  48 Chest G. Range 265-969 HIC, 36-75 Chest G. 96% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 506 HIC, 46 Chest G. Range 241-941 HIC,  36-58 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
96% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
49 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2003 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 492 HIC, 46 Chest G. Range 245-894 HIC, 38-58 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 516 HIC, 46 Chest G. Range  241-990 HIC, 35-55 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
100% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
40 vehicles were tested this year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2004 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 430 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 217-778 HIC, 32-59 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 444 HIC, 45 Chest G. Range 214-892 HIC, 31-56 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
100% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
49 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
  </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2005 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 430 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 211-788 HIC, 32-64 Chest G. 96% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 448 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 241-1,106 HIC,  32-56 Chest G. 98% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
94% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
49 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2006 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 428 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 169-863 HIC, 32-56 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 446 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 262-760 HIC, 32-57 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
100% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
38 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2007 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 411 HIC, 41 Chest G. Range 176-617 HIC, 28-49 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 439 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 282-852 HIC, 31-54 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
100% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
44 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2008 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 432 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 221-732 HIC, 33-61 Chest G. 98% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 486 HIC, 43 Chest G. Range 177-1,329 HIC, 33-59 Chest G. 98% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
96% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
47 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2009 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 381 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 186-885 HIC, 35-54 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 435 HIC, 41 Chest G. Range 234-757 HIC, 34-49 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
100% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
32 vehicles were tested this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2010 model year</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Driver avg. 402 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 212-661 HIC, 34-53 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pass. avg. 422 HIC, 42 Chest G. Range 258-835 HIC,  29-52 Chest G. 100% passed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
100% of vehicles passed both sides. 0% of vehicles failed both sides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
32 vehicles were tested this year. </div>

NHTSA Trends, 1979-2010

The next series of posts on CSD will focus on trends in the NHTSA crash test series between 1979-2010. There are currently 1,168 frontal cr...

Bus vs. Wall - Parts 1 and 2

<div style="text-align: justify;">
On December 14, 2007, NHTSA took a city bus - a 2000 MCI 54 passenger motorcoach - and slammed it into a wall at 30 mph. There were 13 rows of seats.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7n1kXEqtwgY?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The driver's seat and the front two rows of seats were thrown forward into the front area / windshield. The front three rows of seats did not have dummies. It can be assumed that the driver and at least 50% of the passengers on the first two seat rows would be fatally injured if they were real people. Even the third row was dislodged.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For head injury criterion: (Note, these are rough guides and will not apply to every occupant in every crash)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
0 - 399: No injury</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
400 - 699: Minor injury</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
700 - 999: Moderate injury</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1,000 - 1,299: Serious injury</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1,300 - 1,499: Severe injury</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1,500 - 1,799: Critical injury</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1,800 or higher: Fatal injury</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=6294">Injury Data - 30 mph Crash</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Chest and leg injury was not a major concern for any occupant in the 4th to 12th rows, but some occupants, especially unbelted occupants, would suffer serious head injury from being tossed around and slammed into stiff structures, in addition to numerous cuts, bruises, and abrasions. One unbelted dummy in the 12th row suffered fatal injury levels.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On November 16, 2009, a second, more violent crash test took place. This one was on a 1999 MCI motorcoach and took place at 35 mph. Despite the modest increase in crash speed, there was 36% more kinetic energy. The front three rows were removed. This was a 12 row bus.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2gvuGeRNHMU?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Injury measures are with the video on You Tube. Even though they are belted, the fourth row occupants, who are just behind the wreckage, risk serious injury. The first three rows, if they had occupants, would be fatalities; the 4th - 6th rows get pelted by debris, and the interior falls apart. The video says it all. This is a terrifying crash. Some of the belted occupants in the more rearward (8th - 12th) rows get off easy; they are in customized, non-standard bus seats being used for research.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Both tests proved that unbelted occupants, regardless of the location, are at high risk for serious and even fatal injury. It is a good thing that buses are so large.</div>

Bus vs. Wall - Parts 1 and 2

On December 14, 2007, NHTSA took a city bus - a 2000 MCI 54 passenger motorcoach - and slammed it into a wall at 30 mph. There were 13 rows...