The SAFEST Cars by IIHS Crash Test Institut 

Agreed!

Had to scroll way to far to find this type of comment

Absolutely. To see a mini van actually score high marks really says a lot. 5-10+ years ago, a mini van was a death trap. Lol

@@Miked1332 Yea man. Everything has come so far. Had a dude in a newer Mustang t-bone a big ass Suburban-ish SUV by my house 5-ish years ago at 55mph... After that, I had a dude try to beat a yellow in front of me in a newer little Cadillac...hit him basically head on. He wasn't even CLOSE to making it. I was in an older 90-something GT I bought at auction (there are videos on my channel about it if you're into that kind of thing. Search "auction car rehab".) and, despite wearing a seatbelt and going much slower, I smashed the top of my head off the A-pillar. 8 staples, and a few weeks of weirdness later and I was alright. (Shit gets real interesting when you hit your head, man...lol) Dude in the 2016-ish Mustang? Bruise on the arm. Hitting a massive SUV. At 50-ish. Anecdotal af, but everything really has come SO far. Want further proof? Check out the "old Malibu vs new Malibu" video on RU-vid...lol

@@rmp5s oh I 100% believe that. My wife got hit head on by a semi truck on the highway at full speed (60 mph) in her 2012 Ford Escape and did get injured, but walked away with cuts and bruises. Given it was a lot of luck, since if there had been a passenger, they’d be dead. But she walked away. Very scary. But if she had been in like a 1990 Pontiac or something, there would’ve been nothing left of that car. I’m very grateful for the advancements in safety features in cars. I think between 2009 and 2015 they have made a HUGE step forward in safety features. I’m also grateful for those companies that have made incredible improvements in safety and decided to NOT patent the technology and let the rest of the world copy the features to make all cars more safe. Volvo with seat belts and crash avoidance systems, Porsche with airbags and Fiat (and kinda Mercedes) with ABS.

@@Miked1332 100%!! Glad the wife's ok, man.

Dead people don't make good customers.

PC don't really matter

thatd be quite an experience

Intrusive thoughts I guess, or as Danni Devito once said o so eloquently "Suicide is badass"

Me in the dront

It's never a fair test because each car you hit different in weight in size in shape...... But concrete wall is kinda worst case scenario for the cars so it's best testing for maximum safety

@@TRX25EX exactly.

The vehicle they use to crash into the car simulates a modern day SUV

Energy from collision will always be matched no matter the circumstances only difference is the results in damage, but as far as the energy that both objects collide together with even one another out

Yes but it’s the same as running into a flat wall, if they use two of the same cars both traveling at the same speed, it’s the same as running into a flat wall, the forces are the same

Same I used to be a sports car guy but I’ve grown outta that

By burning 😀

Most EVs weigh ungodly amounts because of the weight of the batteries. So, when they impact a petrol vehicle, they do massive damage.

Got marginal in the updated side impact 💀

I think the idea is to keep seatbelts easy to put on so that people actually use them.

This has been my worry all day today.

Yes so true lol

Also the problem isn’t that cars fail, in fact it’s the opposite, most cars pass due to the fact that the government test was made for cars in the 70s. That’s why they run it at a rather low speed. The test is over 50 years old. Many unsafe cars pass because all they have to do is make there cars safer for the test, not real life. In real life you are very unlikely to run into a flat EVEN wall at 35 mph lol

Yeah

They break themselves in order to absorb the impact and keep the passengers safe, if they were rock solid you would take all of that impact force and immediately die

Just don't drive into a reinforced concrete wall

@@judah1276 OMG LOL🤣

No

@@conrado800 мать твоя

Man i was thinking something similar just look at that 🙍‍♂️

Pick up trucks are doing poorly for years particularly the extended cabin. Also consider if you were carrying a load in the back that’s all gonna crash into the back seat passengers. When you take the back bed off a pick up truck you can see it’s just a simple frame carrying a big passenger box sitting on top of the frame it’s not a safe design. A couple years back, not many, GM had to redesign it’s extended cab pick up mid year because it crumpled so much in the passenger compartment during off set frontal crash testing. Today pick up trucks are enormous and cause devastating damage to small compact passenger cars. Most topic safety pick luxury cars from years prior now fail side impact crash tests. Large SUVs and pick ups are higher so they’ve adapted the test to reflect raising impact hight. Consequently deadly intrusion into the best built luxury cars occurs.

The bed would crumple just like the front would, it wouldn’t cause anymore damage

@TD_TD-TD_TD or god forbid, if the RAM was carrying a load in the bed...

It’s not that they’re too bright, they just have too much glare..

It’s about angle and glare not brightness. Most high end cars have adaptive headlights that reduce glare on vehicles ahead.

Some of the new Ford trucks with those stacked headlights are ridiculous.

yeah same question 🤓

With batteries

Why would they take out the battery ......that's like taking out a engine

Defiantly with. These tests are suppose to demonstrate real world scenarios. Taking out the battery would make the car thousand pounds or so lighter which would not give an accurate test.

Why would you test without the battery….

Brightness has nothing to do with it, it's angle and glare, why do some people say it's brightness of the LED as if that's the problem ?