I want to see Cybertruck crash tests. 1. Cybertruck vs. pedestrian. Is it any worse than other trucks? Do the sharp edges make it worse? 2. Cybertruck head-on collision. Does it not have crumple zones? How does that affect people inside the Cybertruck. 3. Cybertruck vs. other cars. Does the stainless steel body harm other cars worse than conventional truck bodies?
@georgeh6856 👏👏👏👏 I'm European, and I also look forward to seeing these results, as it seems that this vehicle will never be allowed to be registered in Europe...
As well as compare the same results with similar trucks. Hopefully the preventative measures will make a distance; the old mantra "The best accident is no accident." :)
Not just the cybertruck, but every SUV and truck that is popular in America. There’s a reason why these cars aren’t sold elsewhere. They’re death machines.
It is amazing how much harder these test have become over the last 20 years with increased speeds and standards. Moderate Overlap Front Test (1995): The IIHS introduced the original moderate overlap front test. Side Crash Test (2021): In 2019, the IIHS modified the side crash test by using a heavier sled, changing the barrier design, and increasing the impact speed. 2024 Changes: For 2024, the IIHS combined day and night pedestrian front crash prevention evaluations into a single test. Additionally, the small overlap front crash test now considers both driver and passenger sides as a single category, with the lower of the two results determining the rating. 2025 Plans: In 2025, the IIHS will raise the bar further with more challenging criteria. The “plus” award will require a good rating in the updated moderate overlap crash test, while the regular Top Safety Pick will require an acceptable rating. They keep doing this so that fewer cars get the top rating as well as trying to compensate for the higher speeds people are driving at above the speed limit.
In the latest magazine, safest cars, you completely left out the Nissan Pathfinder for 3-row Midsized SUV. Common CR. Despite your ridiculous low scores, why wouldn’t this be included?
How about rear collisions. I see lot of rear end collisions, personally had 2 while waiting at the red light. Many vehicles with 3rd row seems to have the seats pretty close to the rear hatch and almost have no rear bumper or rear bumper seems to stay flat with the rear hatch.
I would like to see rear end collision testing. For example rear collision on minivans and how well rear end collision affects third row passengers kids in many cases. For example i see that current Toyota Sienna’s rear bumper does not extend from rear door, it seems that Toyota Sienna has no rear bumper! Why auto manufacturers design their vehicles lately that rear bumpers flushed with rear door/hatch????
Would love to see treats tests comparing pedestrian impacts from vehicle size and shape too. A 2024 F150 will hit real differently than a smaller truck or a sedan, and that's definitely something I'd consider when purchasing.
I’d like to see crash tests for 3rd row seat occupants in a rearend collision from 50+ mph. And roof strength for large SUV’s / Trucks like the Cadillac Escalade and the hummer EV
Totally agree. We carry 6 ppl frequently. But some 3 row vehicles barely have any crash space behind the 3rd row. And w lack of legroom in ghe 3rd row. I can’t see how it could be safe in a rear end crash.
If only the decrease in crashes actually helped lower the cost of insurance. Instead it raises the price of the car and the insurance bc the insurance company now says if you get into an accident fixing it is so much more expensive. Let the market decide how much they value their safety, if its worth it to them they'll pay. Forcing manufactures to provide something people are unwilling to pay for is bad for everyone.
This already occurs now. The IIHS just publishes crash test results, they dont regulate. This in turn allows cosumers to choose which car they would like to buy depending on their affinity for safety.
Left turn assist would be huge! Most of the motorcyclist fatalities that I read about occurred because a vehicle turned in front of a motorcycle. High-viz ATGATT people!
It would seem that some safety features available in new vehicles could also be made available in existing vehicles through software upgrades. For example, simple lane keeping assist could be replaced by lane centering through reprogramming. But it is in the interest of manufacturers not to do so because the fact that these features are available only in new cars, helps new car sales. Unfortunately, older cars are being kept longer which means new safety features take a long while to roll out.
Putting all these “safety” features as “standard equipment” as they say in the video will increase the prices of cars as it always does. Not to mention when your what used to be A simple bumper repaint now becomes thousands because of all the sensors built into it
if you know how to drive automatic breaking is a pain in the ass, it's an excuses to keep people from learning how to drive and be responsible. human error is always the problem, and chosen collective ignorance just grows.
People have managed to “not learn how to drive” since the day cars were invented. I’d much rather have a car not hit me and auto brake than have a bunch of ppl “who know how to drive”
Is there such thing as rising the bar for drivers to pay attention and to learn predictably of situations without mandating new and expensive tech....!? What is the limit how much the car can spy on drivers?
I appreciate and have followed closely what CR and IIHS has done to promote vehicle safety but there is a lot of room for improvement in both organizations. For example, I've noticed that CR sometimes repeats criticisms of a vehicle model year after year even after a car maker has taken corrective action. While it may not be practical to retest the same model year after year, it's not fair to car makers and consumers to repeat criticisms that are no longer valid. For the IIHS, headlight ratings do not come close to reflecting real world use. For example, headlights that may be acceptable or better when a vehicle is lightly loaded may be worthless to the driver and blinding to oncoming drivers when a vehicle is fully laden with passengers and luggage. Headlights should be tested with a variety of loads and especially when fully loaded to vehicle maximum allowed weights. And can't CR and IIHS do anything to persuade the NHTSA to approve the same adaptive high beam headlights that allowed in the rest of the world? Even Canada gave up on linking their headlight standards to the U.S. around 5 years ago. There no reason for the NHTSA to invent U.S. specific headlight standards which will likely fall short. If "rest of the world" headlights were permitted in the U.S., some car makers could have them in current U.S. market models within months if not within weeks.
Very relevant today is “safety for whom?” Inside the vehicle or outside the vehicle or both? When will we see reviews, scores, and laws that govern vehicle design and mass that affects anyone who is a victim of a crash?
Watch out with your somehow IGNORANT WORDS! “Life saving technology” you DID say? Depending on the quality of the hardware, and software, actual implementation, algorithms and testing done on this “saving” technology, FACT IS: it can and it DOES have put people at risk! Yes, yes, they continue to get better, but do acknowledge that it is NOT PERFECT! Plenty of reports, plus accidents created by the automatic breaking system when there was NOTHING dangerous or in front of the car!
Boring-I don’t plan to intend to get in a crash. New safety tech is strangling modern cars. Having grown up driving 1980”s cars everything now is massively safe and unless we bring in full self driving it is going to far.
