[traumer]

This article is as objective as SUVs impacted by a semi-truck...

[cksharks]

Does it pass at 30mph?

[KarlInOhio]

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety finds all current vehicles fail on the M-1 tank side-top-other side and the front-top-back impact tests.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm suspecting that all pedestrians fail the bicycle test. Quick, lets ban them too.

It's quite a stretch for me to worry about SUVs when the freeway is flooded with semi-trailer rigs all the time.

Someone has way too much time on their hands. Get a real job.

[MD_Willington_1976]

Everyone knows a deliberate driver side hit is immediate disqualification...Oh thats only in demolition derby..my bad..

http:www.crownnracing.com

Later

MD

[holyscroller]

I was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler double gasoline tanker who pulled into my lane (going 70 mph), and credit my Subaru Legacy station wagon with saving my life. The car was totaled, but all I got was a broken arm, and a few broken ribs. Most of my injuries came from the seatbelt. If you have to be in an accident, do it in a Subaru. In the case of a front end collision, the engine is designed to break away and slide under the car instead of coming back into your lap.

[holyscroller]

I was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler double gasoline tanker who pulled into my lane (going 70 mph), and credit my Subaru Legacy station wagon with saving my life. The car was totaled, but all I got was a broken arm, and a few broken ribs. Most of my injuries came from the seatbelt. If you have to be in an accident, do it in a Subaru. In the case of a front end collision, the engine is designed to break away and slide under the car instead of coming back into your lap.

[traumer]

scaring sheeple into buying more SUVs..

[Blood of Tyrants]

Incorrect. The test was SUPPOSED to be a mid-sized sedan impacted by an SUV. However instead of using a REAL SUV to do the impacting, they used a sled that was basically a 4000 lb sledge hammer traveling 30 mph. The damage to the sled was mostly cosmetic because the sled had absolutely zero give.

It was on NBC last night and I caught just a few minutes of it. Hardly a realistic test but not a word of questioning the realism from NBC.

[Tribune7]

Well, the experts have spoken. Don't drive small cars.

[Stonewall Jackson]

I was involved in a three-car wreck a few months ago with a Lincoln Towncar and a Cadillac Fleetwood. My Explorer was the only vehicle that drove away from the accident.

[wingster]

Come on! You guys aren't taking this seriously.

I think FR should support sensitivity training for SUVs!

[Arpege92]

"This article is as objective as SUV's impacted by a semi-truck..."

I hope you are right....I just bought a Sonata three months ago.

[Dr. Frank fan]

It's shocking just shocking that it's dangerous to be in a car and get hit at full speed from the side by another, larger car.

Next thing y'know they'll be saying that it's unsafe to be inside a car that has a boulder, meteor or small asteroid fall onto it from above. /sarcasm

I mean, ok I guess such experiments are valuable in that they do bring out the added safety that comes with these side airbag things, and I will say that I am a bit surprised by that. (From what I've seen of side airbags on TV, they look like they're designed to snap peoples' necks.) I guess what bothers me about stories like this is that, even though there's really nothing whatsoever surprising about the fact that getting smashed from the side is dangerous, they create the impression (and seem designed to create the impression) that Safety During A Side Collision is somehow just something that we should all expect as a right. In other words, before you know it people will be clamoring/regulating for side airbags to be Standard on all cars. This is the kind of thing that keeps the costs of cars skyhigh. Surely I'd like side airbags as much as the next guy if I can afford it, but to create an expectation of perfect safety for all cars in all situations seems to serve no useful purpose other than causing new cars to be out of the price range of many people.

Indeed sometimes I get the impression that the preceding IS the real purpose....

[The Great RJ]

Let's see a 6,000 lb Ford Explorer hits a 3,000 Suzuki in a side impact and they are SURPRISED that the smaller car doesn't do well. Apparently these experts have never taken a basic course in physics. Of course the government reaction will be to ban the larger vehicles so they don't run into the smallers ones.

[eggman]

...and the auto industry, under pressure, has agreed to design changes for pickups and SUVs that should make them less lethal in crashes with cars by 2008.

So, the evil SUVs and pickups must be modified because they are dangerous to innocent little cars.

The driver death rate in side crashes had declined 24% in 20 years, but the rate in front crashes has dropped more: 52%, IIHS says.

So, 20 years ago the evil SUVs and pickups must have been even more lethal, no?

They are building all vehicles safer than before but that is not good enough for the SUVs are evil crowd. There are a lot more SUVs and pickups on the road than there were 20 years ago yet fewer drivers are being killed in crashes. So, why do they need to be modified to make them less lethal?

[chainsaw]

This article is as objective as SUVs impacted by a semi-truck...

I would suspect that a side impact with any car going 30 miles per hour would result in a failed test.

[TexasRepublic]

The Environazi's influence the government to mandate greater fuel efficiency. The auto manufacturers respond in part by cutting weight, producing a flimsier vehicle. The number of potential passenger deaths resulting from such engineering is certainly a variable of this cynical equation.