Safety crash ratings

[Jaff]

Agreed ldm....for what it's worth, I found out today that the VICC (vehicle information center of Canada) has rated the Model S a 1 out of 5 for the accident benefits section of the auto policy...this is the safest rating a car can score under this rating system.

The VICC borrows most of it's data from the IIHC...the IIHC will use actual crash data plus
(in the case of brand new models or substantially remodeled models) computer crash test modeling.

I would submit that based on the Model S scoring a 1 out of 5, that the IIHC thinks rather highly of the protection that the Models Service offers it's occupants.

I see it as a logical way to move the bar forward. The whole point of the Insurance Institute doing these tests is to see which vehicles are safest comparative to each other, which insurance companies can use to rank vehicles against each other in determining potential liability, and also to make the vehicles safer for passengers which reduces potential liability for insurance companies. The tests need to be hard enough to have separation between the best, decent, and poor. For instance, if any SAT score over 1000 just gave a grade of "Pass", it would do nothing to show how the majority of students compare to each other.

 

[AustinPowers]

... The whole point of the Insurance Institute doing these tests is to see which vehicles are safest comparative to each other, which insurance companies can use to rank vehicles against each other in determining potential liability, and also to make the vehicles safer for passengers which reduces potential liability for insurance companies. ...

Correction, the point is to find a new excuse for charging customers excessive insurance premiums!

The insurance industry is the last one interested in safety.
They are not on this planet to insure people, but to make money, like all companies. All they are interested in is charging high premiums and - in the event of an accident - trying to avoid payment! Sorry, but that's how it is.

Oh and something interesting about the IIHS from Wikipedia:

The IIHS has come under scrutiny on several occasions since the 1980s over what some consider unfair bias against certain vehicle types, namely some small pickups and certain types of motorcycles. Since the IIHS first-and-foremost represents the interests of the 80 insurance companies from which it receives its funding, critics such as the American Motorcyclist Association have suggested that the IIHS sometimes seeks to influence legislation aimed at making insurance companies more profitable, rather than benefitting the public interest.

 

[Justin]

Not sure if this is covered deeper in the thread, but I emailed the DOT about crash testing for the Tesla S and they replied they haven't tested it yet but expect to later this year and will have the report posted by early next year.

 

[Jaff]

These statements are your opinions, just as the Wiki post is someone posting some entity's spokeperson's opinion...posting one's opinion does not equate to fact.

My opinion is that you're mal-informed at best.

Correction, the point is to find a new excuse for charging customers excessive insurance premiums!

The insurance industry is the last one interested in safety.
They are not on this planet to insure people, but to make money, like all companies. All they are interested in is charging high premiums and - in the event of an accident - trying to avoid payment! Sorry, but that's how it is.

Oh and something interesting about the IIHS from Wikipedia:

 

[Doug_G]

Right, and all doctors aren't interested in saving anyone's lives... they just want the money for doing the procedure.

Astronauts, yeah, it's just a job.

AustinPowers, I think it would be best if you not insult the professions of other people on these forums.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The insurance industry has a strong incentive to see a downward trend in claims. Rates are set based on historical claims, while payouts are based on future claims. Increased safety causes a downward trend in claims, which in turn ensures that the insurance companies make a lot of money.

 

[AustinPowers]

AustinPowers, I think it would be best if you not insult the professions of other people on these forums.

Sorry, my bad. But I don't think I insulted anybody personally. Nor was that my intention. If someone here feels insulted because I heavily critized the insurance industry itself, I sincerely apologize to those persons.

(By the way, my profession is insulted every day nowadays. I guess I've just gotten used to it.)

But I'm stating what friends, colleagues, family and myself have experienced all their life when it comes to insurance companies, so those are facts for me.
True, that is not objective, but I even have colleagues here at work who have worked in insurance companies for decades before coming here, and even they state that insurance companies always try to find ever more ingenious ways to sell the products with the highest premiums while at the same time trying to pay as little claims as possible. So that makes it even more fact for me.

So I am sorry but these new tests - devised by an organisation that is funded solely from insurance companies - do seem to me to have a "gschmaeckle" as we say. (I don't know how to translate that though, not sure there is an Englisch equivalent). Especially as I can't concur with the supposed fact about how many accidents would happen that way. Can't say it is what one reads about accidents in the newspapers every day.

 

[AustinPowers]

The insurance industry has a strong incentive to see a downward trend in claims. Rates are set based on historical claims, while payouts are based on future claims.

I agree on the first statement. But what do you mean by "payouts are based on future claims"?
Payouts - if they do happen - are made based on what is in the contract. No?

Otoh, I think we are getting too far off-topic now. Sorry if I am responsible for that.

 

[Johan]

So I am sorry but these new tests - devised by an organisation that is funded solely from insurance companies - do seem to me to have a "gschmaeckle" as we say. I don't know how to translate that though, not sure there is an Englisch equivalent.

How about "something fishy" (going on)?

Is it jiddisch? Or Bavarian?

 

[KangarooAustralia]

So I am sorry but these new tests - devised by an organisation that is funded solely from insurance companies - do seem to me to have a "gschmaeckle" as we say. (I don't know how to translate that though, not sure there is an Englisch equivalent).

My German / English dictionary says gschmaeckle means: 'tasteless" or "in bad taste". Seems to fit
Oops! Sorry, that's the meaning of geschmacklos. Close.... but can't find gschmaeckle.

 

[AustinPowers]

How about "something fishy" (going on)?

Is it jiddisch? Or Bavarian?

Neither. It's an expression from the Swabian dialect in Baden-Württemberg (the German state west of Bavaria).

Perhaps it could be translated as "leaves kind of a bad aftertaste" from the German "hat einen Beigeschmack" (which is kind of the high-German equivalent of Gschmäckle).


But to get this finally back on topic, I found that the most trustworthy test organisation I know of is the ADAC (German automobile club) along with their European partner organisations. They have repeatedly devised new (and realistic) tests with ever harsher criteria. They are also responsible for many initiatives to introduce new safety features into cars, preferably as standard equipment. They have had a lot of input into legislation to make advanced safety features mandatory in any new car.
If they took up the findings of the new IIHS test, for example commented on how sensible it was and possibly even included it in their lineup of standard tests as a consequence, that would persuade me.
Until then I remain kind of sceptical about the new test.

But if I helps to make cars safer in the end, why not. I'm still extremely curious about the final test results of the Model S, be it from the NHTSA, IIHS or eventually ADAC and other European test organisations.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I agree on the first statement. But what do you mean by "payouts are based on future claims"?
Payouts - if they do happen - are made based on what is in the contract. No?

The premium is set based on actuarial studies of historical outcomes. The actual cost of claims is based on outcomes during the term of the policy (which, of course, is in the future). So, if historical outcomes are worse than future outcomes because, say, cars are safer, then the "actuarially fair" premium will turn out to over-compensate the insurance company for the claims that actually materialize.

In any case, I'd still love to know how the Model S does on the new test.

 

[AustinPowers]

In any case, I'd still love to know how the Model S does on the new test.

As well as the "old" test, for we haven't really seen or heard a lot about those test results that would show how the Model S has performed there either, or have we? (Apart from the short clip of the crash test which doesn't really show much. Or is there a complete version available somewhere)

(Oh and thanks for explaining about the calculation method of the premiums. I am not sure they use the same math here, but interesting nonetheless).

 

[jerry33]

According to the reveal video they ran the old test at 60 mph instead of 35 mph and it still passed. I wouldn't worry too much about it passing the new test (at 35 mph).

 

[AustinPowers]

I'm not worried at all. I just wonder why they don't just release the complete footage.
If the car passed with flying colors, why not proudly present it? Can't do any harm or can it?

 

[raymond]

They have the stats, set the bar where it needs to be and manufacturers will respond to build a car better than their competitors.

I would hope that manufacturers would build safe(r) cars because that's what they should do from the start, not because some insurance club comes up with a rating system.

Not at all surprised that Volvo passed the test, btw.

 

[xhawk101]

safety in small overlap crash

online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621750379151234.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

I wonder how model s would fare in this new rating?

http:// http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621750379151234.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

 

[dsm363]

Is the link broken? I can't get either one to work. Thanks.

Maybe it is a subscription thing. I don't subscribe to the WSJ.

 

[xhawk101]

I fixed it now.

from my Samsung galaxy s3

 

[Robert.Boston]

There's an earlier discussion on this topic here: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/9704-Safety-crash-ratings