4 ms·
It looks to me like Consumer Reports did an awful lot of cherry-picking of the data in that video. First, it looks to me like they made the collision happen at
by cjensen 11y ago
It looks to me like Consumer Reports did an awful lot of cherry-picking of the data in that video.
First, it looks to me like they made the collision happen at the max speed the Malibu could tolerate without collapsing the Malibu's passenger compartment. A slower collision might have been less catastrophic to the antique. A higher speed might have been catastrophic to the Malibu.
Second, they picked an old car built before seatbelt introduction and emphasized that aspect.
Third, they picked an accident type -- frontal offset -- which recent modern cars have been specifically engineered to handle.
Fourth, note how carefully the video is edited so that you cannot see the right side of the antique post-crash either overhead or from the side. The editors didn't want to show anything that would detract from their chosen message.
Modern cars really are a lot safer and way more reliable than cars when I was a kid, and I'm grateful for it. When my wife got pregnant, the first thing I did was sell my 69 Chevy Nova because I felt that to be responsible for my child, I needed to take care of my life by driving a safer car. All that said, it irks me that Consumer Reports treated the production and editing of this film as a propaganda exercise instead of a straight-up tell-the-facts documentary.
- Aloha 11y agoIt's also a surprisingly common accident type, and the speeds picked are typical for this accident type too - you may not see it because you live in a city, but in rural places with lots of two-lane roads its surprisingly common for a high-speed frontal offset collision to happen.
- robwilliams 11y ago>Second, they picked an old car built before seatbelt introduction and emphasized that aspect. How is that cherry picking? Seat belts are a huge safety improvement and it's a difference that applies to all old/new car comparisons, not just the specific old car they chose. >Third, they picked an accident type -- frontal offset -- which recent modern cars have been specifically engineered to handle. Why do you think they were specifically engineered to handle those accident types? They must be common enough to warrant the engineering expense to protect against it.
- rtkwe 11y ago1) All the tests they do happen at a defined speed, for the front overlap it's 40 MPH [1] which it looks like the video was doing. Can't really fault them for using their standard tests. 2) It was to show how much better cars have gotten in the 50 years (1959 to 2009 when the video was produced) seat belts didn't even appear as a standard fitting on a car until 1958 on a Saab. 3) New cars are engineered to handle all the types of crashes that the IIHS tests for. I don't see your point. 4) The newer car had basically no damage on the opposite side and I doubt the older car did better than the 2009. It's not shocking at all that the non involved side of the car wouldn't take much damage. They don't even track the movement on that side of the car during their tests. [1] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-...