Insurance Institute for Highway Safety vs Toyota

IIHS simply has to be clear that not recommended can mean either not tested or failed test. Anything else is spin.

 

Insurance Institute: How to you spell "Self serving".

You see, if the insurance lobby can force manufacturers to make cars bullet proof ... crash proof ... indestructible ... a perfect haven of injury free existence ... then THEY get to CHARGE you GIANT PREMIUMS, with virtually NO RISK. And THAT is what this is all about. The corporate level of insurance is vile. Think back to various huricanes ... and how policy after policy was denied ... forcing matters into courts, where the insurance industry hoped to wear the plaintiffs down ... winning by attritian. Think back to major CA earthquakes, where the industry as a WHOLE chose to simply file for bankruptcy, rather than pay out damage claims ... ending up wealthier than prior to entering bko. The state had to sue the industry to force them to pay. I watched a birthing video of a baby doctor carelessly slicing through the umbilical cord, and RIGHT through the baby's face ... dividing the cheek into two halves. The solution that the insurance carrier (malpractice policy) suggested was to prohibit parents from video taping births. (no evidence to show a jury). Then there's the whole medical insurance affordabililty issue. This is a multi trillion dollar industry that sets the rules, and there is NO stopping them.
Can you tell this is my hot button?

 

I would simply say that the 2010 Prius, along with a number of other 2010 cars, earned a 2009 TSP but not a 2010 TSP. Here is a copy of my post elsewhere:

Prior to this news release, a number of other 2010 models had earned 2009 Top Safety Pick awards. Here is what I can glean from the IIHS News Archives (excluding repeats on today's 2010 TSP award list):

September 24, 2009: ... and 2010 Nissan Versa earn Top Safety Pick award

September 18, 2009: 3 midsize SUVs earn Top Safety Pick award
The 2010 Cadillac SRX and the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox, also sold as the GMC Terrain, are the Institute's newest Top Safety Pick award winners.

September 10, 2009: 3 vehicles earn Top Safety Pick award
2010 models of the Dodge Journey, Lincoln MKT, and Mazda 3 are the Institute's newest Top Safety Pick award winners.

August 13, 2009: 3 small cars earn Top Safety Pick award
The 2010 Honda Insight, 2010 Kia Soul, and 2010 Toyota Prius are the Institute's newest Top Safety Pick award winners.

June 15, 2009: ... and Lexus RX earn Top Safety Pick award
The ... and the 2010 Lexus RX, a midsize luxury SUV, are the Institute's newest 2009 Top Safety Pick award winners.

 

I have a feeling that this brouhaha is about the Corolla and Prius.



As you noted Toyota only submitted 3 vehicles for testing..

• a 2010 Camry which got the top ranking of GOOD
• a 2010 RAV which got the 2nd ranking of ACCEPTABLE
• a 2010 Yaris which also got ACCEPTABLE

When looking at the competitors...

• the Accord was also tested but it did not get a GOOD rating
• neither did the Fusion nor the Altima
• the Civic & Insight II were tested; both got a top ranking of GOOD

The Corolla and the Prius were not tested...do the statements from the IIHS mean to indict the not tested vehicles?

The Camry doesn't suffer by comparison with its main competitors.

However the Corolla and Prius might be considered to be suffering by comparison to the Civic and Insight II. YES and NO. The article seems to be implying that. But looking at the IIHS segment comparo all it says is [ not tested ]. In looking at the whole picture it doesn't tell much at this time.

IIHS-HLDI: Small cars - Current Models

The IIHS can do whatever it wishes IMO, it's a private organization. Toyota can respond however it wishes for the same reason. I wonder if it's simply a matter of timing in that Toyota didn't get enough vehicles to them or whether Toyota was actually blindsided by a new stipulation - especially in the case of the Gen3 Prius - that it hadn't considered during the redesign.

At the moment I think it's too early to tell.

 

Sounds like Mr. Rader is asking the manufacturers to provide free cars for testing.
In the down economic condition, every company is cutting back expenses, so both sides refuse to pay and stalemate resulted with no testing.

 

I wondered about that too, bedrock8x. But sending 30 cars to be smashed is chump change in the scheme of things for Toyota in search of good publicity. Heck, they spend that on a couple of commercials.

For all I know, IIHS asked for a car + 100 million for testing.

Second guessing based on inadequate information is not productive. As I posted earlier, I think all we can reasonably expect is for IIHS to report clearly -- and not let their PR blurbs leave the impression that Toyota's fleet failed the new testing.

 

Cars need good roof strength even with stability control because you never know when this is going to happen to you.

Or this

 

A further thought. The IIHS being a private group can do and say anything it wishes within the law to promote its own agenda. That agenda is to minimize loss payments that the insurance companies have to pay. These loss payments ( claims ) are the negative parts of their respective income statements.

They can't mandate anything, they have no power. They do have the option though of going on every talk show and publish in every paper the list of vehicles that it wants the public to drive and to ride inside. But it can't force anything.

It's worst nightmare is being ignored.

By calling out Toyota in the press release it's goading the top automaker in the world to provide more vehicles for testing...specifically the high volume vehicles; Corolla, Prius, Sienna and Highlander all of which thus far have not been provided to the IIHS.

 

Go with IIHS vs. car manufacturers or US government. Car mfgs have too much influence on the NHTSA testing. US government has admitted that IIHS tests are more accurate and more real world. NHTSA changed US head on crash tests to offset head on crash test based on IIHS stats and testing. One great example.

Always check out your car for its safety rating on IIHS website before buying.

If IIHS says Toyota has to up its safety design game than that is the fact of the matter.

As far as interpretations or reports of IIHS ratings, best to simply visit the IIHS Website and get the straight information.

 

How do you spell tin foil hat?

The "no risk" is that you and your family are not injured in serious car crashes, one of the leading causes of death and serious injury.

You are railing against building safe cars. That's nuts.

 

Bob, thanks for bringing up the article about IIHS' changes. I was going to make a separate post for that... or perhaps there really should be a separate thread since the new harsher test isn't just targeted at Toyota.

BTW, I don't think the IS 250 is related at all to the now dead HS 250h. IS 250 is RWD and AWD, isn't available in hybrid form and predates the HS.

HS is FWD and IIRC, is related to the Avensis. HS also had a cheaper JDM-only version called the Toyota Sai. I saw both of those at Tokyo Motor Show.

 

Oh...like this?

 

I started a separate thread about at Many Cars Fail In New, Tougher IIHS Crash Test & Tougher IIHS Crash Test Could Mean Fewer Top Safety | PriusChat.