Car Safety

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...

Knee Airbags: Are Their Safety Claims A Bunch Of Hot Air?

<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Bonus! A rudimentary history of the airbag. </b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea of the airbag - a gas-inflated cushion to cushion the blow of major car accidents - is a great idea, by and large. Invented in 1952, technology was insufficient to make the airbag practical at the time. By the 1970s, the technology was there, and General Motors offered dual front, dual stage airbags from 1973-1976. Called ACRS, Air Cushion Restraint System, it was a great idea for the time, with a flaw - it was designed to work without, not with, seat belts. Then, in the early 1980s, Mercedes Benz came out with a system, called "SRS" for Supplemental Restraint System, that was designed to supplement the seat belt in a major crash. At first, it had only a driver airbag, but passenger airbags soon followed. Soon, luxury manufacturers began to adopt the bags, and news articles began to appear touting their safety benefits. Crash tests also proved the safety benefits of the airbags. By the early 1990s, airbags were irresistible. They were saving lives. By 1993, most new cars in the US had a driver airbag, and by 1995 most were equipped with dual airbag.</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Side airbags followed shortly thereafter. Pioneered by Volvo in 1994, most luxury cars offered them as standard by 1998, and even economy cars such as the Toyota Corolla could be had with them by then. By 2008, they were ubiquitous on new cars. Curtain airbags - pioneered by BMW in 1997 - also saw quick adoption. A stringent new crash test which simulates an SUV or a pickup striking the side of a vehicle was launched by the IIHS in 2003, and test after test proved that some sort of head protection was needed to get even a halfway decent score in the test. <a href="http://www.iihs.org/news/2003/iihs_news_082603.pdf">Real world data</a> also proved the curtains' amazing benefit: 45 percent reduction in driver deaths in driver side impacts was observed in a 2003 IIHS study. Today's curtains are far better at cushioning heads and blocking debris than the late 1990s-early 2000s curtains seen in that study, so the fatality reduction would be expected to be even greater. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Almost all cars sold since about 2009 (and most from a few years before then) come with a set of <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120904220853/http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/safety.aspx">6 airbags</a> standard. You get a driver front airbag, a passenger front airbag, a side airbag in each front seat, and side curtain airbags on each side. On top of this common set, knee airbags, rear seat side airbags, and even seat cushion airbags are cropping up in the race to cram more 'bags in our rides. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Knee airbags are the most common. A large percentage of cars, maybe half, have at least a driver knee airbag. Passenger knee airbags, fortunately, remain rare. While a driver knee airbag certainly doesn't hurt things, I've found that it offers limited benefits at best. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wha?!?! An airbag that doesn't help much?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Knee airbags are commonly touted to provide cushioning to the knees and legs, hence the term "knee airbag". The idea gives me a bit of heebie-jeebies, since I sit with next to no distance between my knees and the dash. (I'm 6' tall with fairly short legs for my height). But <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimmyyyy1992/sets/72157634537085099/">my car</a> doesn't have knee airbags - it has only the common six airbag system. So I wouldn't know the ergonomics of actually sitting behind a knee airbag. For all I know, they could have it set up so that it's more comfortable to sit with your knees farther back from the lower dash. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is the structure of the car that primarily determines what can happen to the legs and knees in a frontal crash, not the presence or absence of a knee airbag. The new IIHS small overlap is a gold mine for what can happen during structural collapse; there are a number of structural failures both with and without knee airbags. Some cars from Lexus, Toyota, Ford, GM, even Mercedes and BMW, equipped with knee airbags earned poor ratings for leg protection in the new test. That's not to say that all cars with knee airbags will crush your legs in a small overlap crash test - there were a few good performers equipped with them. And some cars did seem to show some benefit from the knee airbags, such as the 2012-present Toyota Camry, which suffered structural collapse but left the legs relatively uninjured.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, overall, knee airbags don't really help or hurt. And they generally don't make up for a bad structure. Six airbags are enough. </div>
</div>

Knee Airbags: Are Their Safety Claims A Bunch Of Hot Air?

Bonus! A rudimentary history of the airbag. The idea of the airbag - a gas-inflated cushion to cushion the blow of major car accid...

Old NHTSA Spotlight: The 1979 Peugeot 504

<div style="text-align: justify;">
When the 1979 Peugeot 504 went up against the NHTSA crash test barrier on that hot August 27, 1980, it was already a twelve year old design. In Europe, production had been scaled back at this time; the hot ticket and priority for Peugeot at this time was the 505, which had been introduced the year before. The reasoning for the 504's late testing - the individual car tested was almost two years old - has been lost to history.</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is known, however, is that the 504 performed worse than any other vehicle ever tested.  Let's take a look at the video:</div>
</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/O6_kR0RiFoI?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
History doesn't record what the test engineers said upon seeing the impact (go to 2:28 to see it, before that is preparation footage). They even look a bit shocked. They were used to seeing bad performances - this is 1980 after all, and the 43rd chronological NHTSA crash test - but none of the other 42 vehicles had suffered complete structural failure. Intrusion, jammed doors, nasty head impacts, yes. But this was clearly worse than any of those 42 vehicles had been. The low watermark set by this crash test endured for the remainder of the life of this crash test program*, nearly 30 more years.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The 504's front occupant compartment buckled severely in what can only be described as a horrifying display of structural failure. The doors jammed so tightly that even tools couldn't open them, and the dummies had to be removed through the side windows. The driver was pinned to the wheel</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(Read the full NHTSA report <a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/VSR/SearchMedia.aspx?database=v&tstno=219&mediatype=r&r_tstno=219">here</a>. I am not responsible for any nightmares. Make sure to read long before bed.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
HIC, or Head Injury Criterion, is a measure of the likelihood and severity of head injury an occupant may suffer. At the time, 1,000 was considered a "fail", with the likelihood of serious head injury or death. The average driver HIC was 1,219 (and passenger HIC 1,325) up to this point, showing the lousy state of car safety at this time. Fatality became possible at 1,300, and likely (over 50% chance) by 1,800. Particularly bad performances at this time had HICs exceeding 2,000. The 1980 Honda Prelude, the worst performance up to this point, managed "only" 3,063 for the driver the month before. Nearly a certain fatality. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The driver HIC was <b>4,611. </b>The driver dummy's head assaulted the steering wheel still moving at 34 mph, just one mile per hour short of the impact speed, dashing to the steering wheel in less than half the time it took most crash test dummies of the era. Most poor-performing vehicles' dummies hit the wheel at 15-25 mph - about half the force. <b>In short, it means that the seat belt did next to nothing to slow the dummy down, and was virtually useless.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This means that the Peugeot 504 was worse by a full 50.5%. The driver HIC alone was worse than the <b>combined </b>driver and passenger HICs of 41 of the 42 vehicles tested up to that point, and only 230 points better than the 42nd, that 1980 Honda Prelude.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(Even today, this HIC, <b>on its own, </b>would be fifth worst among combined driver and passenger HICs. Imagine that that 4,611 was split evenly among the driver and passenger. Their HICs would be 2,306 each, a likely fatality for each occupant, and fifth worst among combined driver and passenger HICs out of over 1,000 vehicles tested by NHTSA in 31 years). </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The passenger HIC was <b>2,535, </b>still placing it among the worst HICs recorded for an occupant in this type of crash test. The dummy's head hit the glove box, which opened. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The combined HIC of <b>7,146</b> is the worst combined HIC of any vehicle by quite a large margin. Next worst was 6,300.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 Even worse for safety, this is not a heavy vehicle. A van that performs poorly at least has the advantage of weight in most real life crashes. This vehicle weighs 3,526 pounds, 67 pounds <b>LESS than my 2011 Honda Accord V6, which is a midsize car. </b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*Note: The NHTSA crash test program was re-worked starting in 2011. </div>
</div>

Old NHTSA Spotlight: The 1979 Peugeot 504

When the 1979 Peugeot 504 went up against the NHTSA crash test barrier on that hot August 27, 1980, it was already a twelve year old design...

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 - ...

Curtain Airbags and the IIHS Moderate Overlap Offset, 2003-2013

<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the 2003 model year, the first vehicles to inflate curtain airbags in the IIHS offset came on the market, and since then, a good number of vehicles have blown the curtains to help keep the driver away from the side of the vehicle.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In cases of re-tested vehicles, only the final test, applicable to the majority of the production run, is used. All vehicles tested from each model year from 2003 to 2013 are included in the percentages, even those not including curtain airbags, but only for the tested year: for instance, the 2008 Honda Accord's test applies to the 2008-2012 models but is included under the 2008 model year as this is the year it was tested. Convertibles are not included as their design is incompatible with curtain airbags without special engineering techniques.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Interestingly, many of the earliest driver curtain deployments were in Nissan built vehicles, while many recent Nissans don't deploy a curtain.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2003 model year: 78% no curtain, 17% driver curtain only, 6% both curtains. 18 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2004 model year: 90% no curtain, 10% driver curtain only, 0% both curtains. 21 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2005 model year: 96% no curtain, 4% driver curtain only, 0% both curtains. 23 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2006 model year: 86% no curtain, 10% driver curtain only, 5% both curtains. 21 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2007 model year: 73% no curtain, 18% driver curtain only, 9% both curtains. 33 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2008 model year: 71% no curtain, 16% driver curtain only, 13% both curtains. 38 vehicles tested. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2009 model year: 45% no curtain, 45% driver curtain only, 10% both curtains. 31 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2010 model year: 75% no curtain, 25% driver curtain only, 0% both curtains. 24 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2011 model year: 31% no curtain, 56% driver curtain only, 13% both curtains. 32 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2012 model year: 44% no curtain, 56% driver curtain only, 0% both curtains. 25 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2013 model year: 27% no curtain, 70% driver curtain only, 3% both curtains. 30 vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
 2014 model year: 22% no curtain, 65% driver curtain only. 13% both curtains. 23* vehicles tested.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*Tests released on or before March 13, 2014.</div>

Curtain Airbags and the IIHS Moderate Overlap Offset, 2003-2013

In the 2003 model year, the first vehicles to inflate curtain airbags in the IIHS offset came on the market, and since then, a good number ...

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...