Car Safety: Crash Test

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...

Old NHTSA Crash Tests

<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've been working on a website since December 15th. I'd been working on it in 2012, but school and other things caused me to forget about it for a while. It has crash tests for 1979-1989 vehicles, as these results are unavailable on the main NHTSA site (they do 1990-2010). Dummy measurements and likelihood of severe injury are provided, along with a conversion to the 1994-2010 five star system of measurement. (This system can be retroactively applied for any 1979-1993 test, as the test format and procedure remained largely the same.) As of December 29, 2013 at 9:45 pm PST (11:45 pm CST) the website is nearly complete and I am targeting a December 31st (or 30th) date for completion. The test results were obtained from the publicly available NHTSA database. I am not affiliated in any way with the NHTSA.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, if you have an '80s car... here you go.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On this blog, some posts related to findings from these tests will be posted. The Old NHTSA blog is strictly for individual crash test posting (and a few updates...)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The tests are sobering to say the least. Some of the vehicles did downright horrendous (especially in the earlier years). Some of the vehicles, especially in the later years, did well even by modern standards. Most fell somewhere in the middle. The improvements seen were encouraging. Even better, many of the high selling cars of the era garnered good ratings, while many poor selling cars were at the bottom of the barrel. Of course, there were a good number of exceptions to this rule. Trucks and SUVs did worse on average than their contemporary cars. (Much of the improvement in their test results came in the 1990s, after this blog's coverage runs out).</div>

Old NHTSA Crash Tests

I've been working on a website since December 15th. I'd been working on it in 2012, but school and other things caused me to forget...

Motor Home Crash Tests

<div style="text-align: justify;">
More interesting stuff dug from NHTSA's history bin.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More crash tests - at 30 mph into a wall, a standard crash test in that era - on <i>Motor Homes. </i>These weren't full size RV's they tested, just class-C motorhomes (a motorhome built onto a truck or van chassis). These tests are from 1980, so their safety will not be as high as today's standards.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First up: the Odyssey Mini-lux motorhome, based on a 1980 Toyota truck.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Test date was Friday, February 22, 1980.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The 1980 Toyota truck was known for durability. As for safety in a high speed crash? Well, it is a Japanese vehicle from prior to the mid-1980s, so don't expect much. "Light trucks" (trucks, vans, and early SUVs) only had rudimentary safety standards. The occupant compartment is smashed both by the wall and by the camper RV area behind it. That being said, the driver does get very lucky on injury measures. HIC of 398 and chest G's of 39 make it look like a 5 star vehicle. But watch the structure at around 3:00 - 7:00. The steering wheel slams the driver's face. Around 8:15 - 8:45 will show you the passenger, who smashes into the windshield as his legs are forced upward by footwell intrusion. HIC of 1029 and 85 chest G's mean that this passenger would suffer serious head and severe to critical chest injury.</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/FvY2NsK7HHY?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Next, the Chinook Gazelle motorhome.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Test date was Thursday, March 27, 1980.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The occupant compartment is significantly damaged, although largely holding its shape. Forces on both dummies were decent, but not impressive: driver HIC of 857 with 49 chest G's, and passenger HIC of 797 with 34 chest G's make this a crash that would be survivable for both occupants without serious injury. Crash and post crash inspection starts at 2:46 on the video; slow motion shots from 4:52. (By the way, hope those engineers are still alive: this was 33 years ago - the engineers could be anywhere from their 50s to over 100 now)</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/pI7kWV0Id8Y?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Third and finally, the Champion Trans Van motorhome - based on a full size circa 1979 Dodge van</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Test date was Thursday, April 24, 1980.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Take a '70s Dodge van. No crumple zone, not much space ahead of the occupant compartment to slow down the van before the occupant compartment itself starts to collapse. Competing vans of the era were no safer. It was common to see vans' occupant compartments collapse - and the dummies experience very high forces - even in relatively modest front crash tests. What do you get when you add tons of weight behind an already badly overloaded front structure? A safety disaster. This is far worse than even the truck-based RVs. Driver: 1640 HIC, 79 chest G's. About a 50-50 chance of survival, with survival meaning severe to critical injury. Passenger: 1321 HIC, 96 chest G's, with severe head injury likely and chest injury likely to prove fatal. Just look at the video starting at 2:50 and the slow motion from 4:05. Two words: good grief.</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/Oow4ZsjR8uo?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first four lines of this article were written December 31, 2012, and the rest was written June 21-28, 2013.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The conclusion is: truck based RVs of the circa 1980 era were unsafe. Van based RVs were a disaster.</div>

Motor Home Crash Tests

More interesting stuff dug from NHTSA's history bin. More crash tests - at 30 mph into a wall, a standard crash test in that era - ...

The '70s were a great decade. But...

... we drove death traps. http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=423585 This article is a real PITA bec...

Is it a front crash test, or a side crash test?

<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is interesting. This test was conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on January 4, 2013, on a 2012 Honda Odyssey. This is a research test and was not used for vehicle evaluation.</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/QvBcVtiE__I?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This test seemed to hit at a critical angle, leaving the van "confused" as to how to protect the occupants. On the surface, it seems little different from an IIHS offset test. The IIHS test is at 40 miles per hour into a deformable barrier with 40% of the front end on the driver's side. This test is at 56 miles per hour, but only the barrier is moving; in terms of energy changed, it is more or less similar to the IIHS test. 35% of the front end is struck. But it's at a 15 degree angle.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The angle changes everything.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The IIHS test is primarily of a frontal nature; although vehicles do move to the side, and dummies move to the side inside (sometimes contacting a pillar or an inflated side airbag), this side movement often occurs later in the crash and doesn't affect the dummy's forward movement into the airbag very much. In the new small overlap test, where only 25% of the front end contacts the barrier, side movement is more severe, and if the inflated frontal airbag is too narrow or leaves too much room between the chest and the airbag, there can be undesirable movement that can lead to the head contacting hard objects. These tests only test driver front airbags, which limit lateral movement better than passenger front airbags. Driver airbags in most cars are closer to the occupant when inflated than passenger airbags - there is about half the space between the driver and the wheel as there is the passenger and the dash. Passengers can be all shapes and sizes - yes, even children, while drivers are typically within a certain range of height and weight. Hence, the driver cannot move as much and is contained in a smaller area. This is with little or no intrusion - intrusion can change the outcome dramatically. Most of the dummies missing the airbag in the IIHS small overlap test were due to intrusion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This test shows this effect dramatically. The side movement in this crash test is violent - far worse than the average IIHS test. Both dummies are propelled forward and at a roughly 30 degree angle to the left. The steering wheel is shoved slightly to the right, but the dummy is contained by and spends lots of time with the driver airbag, which leaves little thin air for the driver to move around in. In fact, the airbag actually hits the rib cage. (Don't go selling your Odysseys, because that airbag impact wouldn't even hurt a real person). The dummy's head has to move just a few inches to hit the airbag. The body never gets to gain much momentum and forces are low. Head injury criterion for 15 milliseconds (HIC-15) has a maximum safe limit of 700. The driver in this test got 96. Not 496, not 960 - just 96, two digits.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The passenger airbag inflates, but it stays about a foot from the dummy, and is quite narrow. The passenger has that foot of room to move out from behind the inflated airbag. The head glances the left side of the airbag and slams into the dashboard. The airbag does help enough that the impact wouldn't produce serious injury, but ouch! That's a sore head, maybe a concussion right there. HIC-15 was 622, close to but under the safe limit that shows a likelihood of serious injury.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I can see where the passenger airbag being narrow and thin would be a good thing. Recent updates to the NHTSA frontal crash test put a dummy the size of a 12 year old child in the passenger seat, with the seat all the way forward. This was the standard size male dummy. A thick passenger airbag would smother and cause dangerous impact to this dummy. I believe the airbag should be made wider instead. Since this is a "worst case scenario" test, for the vast majority of crashes this is a good passenger airbag. It scored 5 stars in the NHTSA passenger frontal crash test, a rare feat! Even this worst case scenario test led to no serious injury.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once again, another test proving Honda safety.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will say that Honda airbags are fairly thin compared to most. I see that as a good thing, because the airbag is less likely to cause injury. Crash test after crash test has proven them to provide excellent protection. I will, however, say that I sit fairly close to the wheel in my 2011 Honda Accord. Without a large, aggressive driver airbag to worry about, I can sit close enough to the wheel to give me ideal control - rather than have to compromise by moving back out of airbag fear. I am 6'1 and sit 12-13 inches from my wheel measured at the sternum to the hub.</div>

Is it a front crash test, or a side crash test?

This is interesting. This test was conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on January 4, 2013, on a 2012 Honda Odys...

Offset crash tests from 1990

<div style="text-align: justify;">
By now, many people know that a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g">1959 car cannot withstand an offset crash test</a>. And they know that car safety has been evolving rapidly. But... 1990? Any of us who are of driving age as of this post have been in at least one 1990 or earlier car in our lifetimes, and most of us have been in - or driven - or owned, something far older. But as it turns out, even these cars from less than twenty-five years ago may prove to be a death sentence in even a modest head-on collision.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The IIHS <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNRGvfMiZk">tests at 40 mph into a deformable concrete barrier with 40% of the front end</a>, intended to replicate hitting another car, driver to driver, at 40 mph each. These crash tests, conducted by the German magazine Auto, Motor, und Sport in summer 1990, were at just 34 mph - shaving off 28% of the kinetic energy - and with 50% of the front end. Today's cars have it bad.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A 1989-1996 BMW 5 Series, 1986-1995 Mercedes E Class, 1989-1994 Nissan Maxima, 1983-1992 Volvo 740, 1984-1992 Renault 25, 1986-1996 Fiat Croma, 1986-1990 Acura Legend, and 1987-1993 Opel Omega were put to the test. For the uninitiated, the Fiat, Opel, and Renault were models not sold in the US. Conveniently, this is also the performance order of the cars - from mediocre down to fatal.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was going to have to translate this from German, but I found a British article at the last minute that is quite well written and has good pictures:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21</a> - Page 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=20">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=20</a> - Page 2</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS3.jpg.html?sort=3&o=19">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS3.jpg.html?sort=3&o=19</a> - Page 3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS4.jpg.html?sort=3&o=18">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS4.jpg.html?sort=3&o=18</a> - Page 4</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS5.jpg.html?sort=3&o=13">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS5.jpg.html?sort=3&o=13</a> - Page 5</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS6.jpg.html?sort=3&o=17">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS6.jpg.html?sort=3&o=17</a> - Page 6</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS7a.jpg.html?sort=3&o=23">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS7a.jpg.html?sort=3&o=23</a> - Page 7</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS8a.jpg.html?sort=3&o=22">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS8a.jpg.html?sort=3&o=22</a> - Page 8</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS9.jpg.html?sort=3&o=15">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS9.jpg.html?sort=3&o=15</a> - Page 9</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS10.jpg.html?sort=3&o=14">http://s888.photobucket.com/user/ARB_01/media/AMS10.jpg.html?sort=3&o=14</a> - Page 10</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And video, with a 1992 Audi 100 at the end in the same test:</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/LQH6MLTSDZ4?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>

Offset crash tests from 1990

By now, many people know that a 1959 car cannot withstand an offset crash test . And they know that car safety has been evolving rapidly. B...

Top 5 Best and Worst IIHS Crash Tests!

<span style="font-size: large;"><b>5 Worst:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q5Fx_pgxzH8?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
The Bel Air simply proves to be worthless on safety, with the occupant compartment collapsing and instant death for the driver.<br />
<br />
1997-2004 GM Minivans:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z7gSxmk1kp0?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yeah, it has an airbag for the driver. But with a broken neck and crushed legs, looks like that airbag ain't helping out a lot, is it?</div>
<br />
1997-2003 Ford F-150:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Wb66PzljP8?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another vehicle where the structure doesn't do its job. Late airbag deployment too! Major head and neck injury on this one.</div>
<br />
1994-2001 Dodge Ram:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZCXWcrY-3V4?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another late airbag + structural collapse. It don't look as bad, but major head, neck, and leg injuries mean this one's a death trap too.</div>
<br />
1995-2005 Chevrolet Blazer / 1995-2001 GMC Jimmy<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oTbA0fhBark?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This one won't kill you, but ouch. The head could sustain serious injuries, but it's looking pretty good for the rest of the body. But look at the structure! That dummy was lucky.</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>5 Best:</b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I found crash tests that looked absolutely perfect - no flaws whatsoever. A lot of cars do good, but these are the best 5.</div>
<br />
2004-2011 Volvo S40<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pI6-VeAf27Q?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
Well, what'd you expect from a Volvo? Airbag deploys early, and the structure is pretty well intact.<br />
<br />
1998-2003 Toyota Sienna<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z9KAMX3iWZA?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This one is great today, better than most 2012s. But this crash test was conducted on December 17, 1997. That's extremely impressive.</div>
<br />
2005-present Acura RL<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wPewo8HWnXQ?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
The dummy goes into the airbag and doesn't even think about hitting anything hard.<br />
<br />
2006-2011 BMW 3<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5yNRGvfMiZk?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
Wow... airbags everywhere! But that dummy is going to be all right after this.<br />
<br />
2004-2008 Acura TL<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hVlYwk_Kppo?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
Pretty much the same story as the RL.

Top 5 Best and Worst IIHS Crash Tests!

5 Worst: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air: The Bel Air simply proves to be worthless on safety, with the occupant compartment collapsing and inst...

Volvo Crash Test 1979 with Lots of Video Footage

There is an insane amount of video footage. You see every detail.

Russia's Crash Test Program: ARCAP

Crash tests are identical to the IIHS, Euro NCAP, or ANCAP's 40 mph / 64 kph offset crash test. The webpage is in Russian, however my Go...

The Best and Worst Frontal Crash Test, by NHTSA

<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is one of two major American crash test agencies (the other being IIHS, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). In their 35 mph frontal crash test program, active since May 21, 1979, they've seen everything from no injury - to fatal injury. It's a very fortunate thing that the humanoid figures in the driver and passenger seat of each car are, in fact, only inanimate crash test dummies.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">This is the 1979 Peugeot 504. A very distinctive French car, it was well engineered in all but one regard: safety. Massive occupant compartment buckling and a very stiff dashboard led to head injury criteria on the driver of 4513 and 2498 for the passenger. This 16 second video sums up all that was wrong.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</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/U5xLOKN4zBc?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Modern cars (2000 and up) are far safer than older cars (pre 1988) with the 2009 Acura TSX being a shining example. The structure of the occupant compartment held up perfectly, and the doors could still be opened very easily after the crash. Inside, advanced airbags and pre-tensioned seatbelts allowed for forces so low that the driver and passenger would literally be uninjured - after coming to a dead stop from 35 mph! </span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UaXi6Xr2Sm0?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>

The Best and Worst Frontal Crash Test, by NHTSA

NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is one of two major American crash test agencies (the other being IIHS, the Insu...