This whole thing is sensationalism because at the time the GE generation Fit was designed, this test did not exist at IIHS. In fact, the GE generation Fit still did quite well with the rollover and side impact tests.

From what I've read about the slight offset barrier crash, the impact forces are very severe--and very few cars have actually passed the test. The 2014 Honda Civic sedan did pass, mostly because when Honda developed the 2014 Civic they did all the interior structural changes to make the Civic pass this test.

It's very likely the 2015 Fit due in a few months will pass this test, since Honda had the time to properly engineer the entire safety structure properly and test it at Honda's world-renowned safety test facility at Tochigi Prefecture in Japan.

 

Yeah, but they don't have Becky.

 

With this bad crash test new I wonder if the resale value of our Fit's will go down the tube?

 

I'd be more bothered by it if I owned a 2012 Lexus ES 350. It did worse in the tests than the Fit GE. Click "small overlap front" for the details.

 

Yes, like that.

 

There's the instinctive reaction to avoid an obstacle but, really, it's better to just aim for it head-on. The car will do its best to protect you that way.

I'm not concerned about the new test because there will always be new tests that cars aren't designed to pass.

In the video it looked like the impact caused the steering column itself to pivot, making the steering wheel face the center console instead of the driver. It sounds like the Spark must have an angle to its unibody fender area that causes the car to be deflected.

 

I'm wondering - is there any chance that Honda could retrofit some type of fix for this - like a bar or strut added to the frame somewhere on pre-2015 models to help with this problem? Even if the problem has been solved with the 2015 model, they are going to be selling 2014s for quite a while before the switch. So maybe they might try for a fix? Or is it not solvable on an earlier-designed frame?

 

I'd say it's solvable, but the cost would be prohibitive. If they made a mid-year correction, they would piss off the dealers having pre-fix units in stock. Retrofitting a fix to already built Fits isn't going to happen unless there's a safety recall. No agency is going to call for a safety recall. The car is safe, just not as safe as later models will be.

Take some comfort that there are a lot of more expensive cars that did just as poorly or worse in this test, and that this type of accident in a Fit is very survivable, with the likelihood of some lower leg injury.

 

What about vehicles that fared worse than the Fit, vehicles that carry the stereotype of "safe", like:

Vehicle details

 

Let's just cut to the chase. You can die in a car accident. And there are a million different factors that can contribute to this. Drive safe, don't be distracted and good luck.

 

tell me how you really feel.

I share the same feel though.

 

Today there was an oncoming plow overlapping in my lane. Not plowing, it was a private ?Silverado? with a plow for driveways. The guy was poking at something on the console or passenger seat and making jerky steering overcorrections.

I'll take my chances in the Fit or on a CB750 while actually driving than any amount of protection (even a plow) while hurtling down the road with no-one driving.

It is my humble opinion that manual transmissions also help, just a little, to keep drivers driving. I won't say that people with automatics can't drive, but if they want to pay less attention then the transmission lets them pay less attention.

My CB750 probably wouldn't fare too well on this test. But the IIHS has dreamed up scares about motorcycles too. I have come to believe they work more on fearmongering than on helping drivers drive better.

Perhaps you can tell that I don't buy a car for its crash test results.

 

I think you have a good point Sprocket, re: people driving M/T pay more attention. I just bought my Fit a week ago, '13 w/ 5 speed M/T. Haven't driven a stick in like 14 years, so it's coming back to me. I notice that I am really paying attention to how I shift the car and where I'm at in relation to other cars on the road, especially going to & from work in traffic. Am still getting used to the Fit after driving Toyota Tacoma small truck w/ auto. A lot of times, I see people with auto trans cars just "kinda driving", cuz they are looking at cell phone or other mindless crap that's taking their attention off the road. I work at the county hospital here in Phoenix. You know how many traffic accidents we get in ER every day? arghhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

I red about this test and it seems it was inaugurated because of statistics relating to fatal head on collisions. It seems that an important percentage of fatal head on collisions are of this offset type, thus they are trying to compel car manufacturers to design for it. I'm all for this test and any other that might make cars safer.

 

Having a MT doesn't make you a more attentive driver, it adds a level of complexity to driving that takes away some of your concentration from other tasks. It's easy enough to drive an MT and not pay attention to the road- you're not shifting gears constantly.


The guy who crashed into me last year didn't do it because he wasn't shifting gears, he probably did it because he was on the phone, something you can do with any type of transmission.

 

I agree. Depending on the circumstance, it can require a certain amount of concentration to do the shifting itself, as opposed to paying attention to the road. For example, shifting from 5th to 3rd - not really hard, but requiring careful placement of the shifter, etc.

Although I do think that the ease of driving with an AT can lull you into inattention, I think it is hard to argue that something that requires you to do something extra in the car (shifting) actually makes your concentration on the road higher.

 

I think I said that if someone wants to not pay attention then the automatic helps them not pay attention. The people lurching around corners steering one-handed while talking would not be able to do that if they also had to shift while turning the corner. Enough interruptions in phone calls could make phone calls less attractive.

We may have to agree to disagree about shifting and attention. I need to shift based on what the car is doing in the moment and what the car is headed toward. Paying insufficient attention to the road and traffic around me will land me in the wrong gear. It may be different on the great plains, but around here there is usually a shift or two every minute or two -- steep hills and blind curves don't let me simply shift to 5th and zone out.

I am not against the new test. I'm not for it either.

Insulating people from the consequences of their negligence does not make roads safer. A spike in the middle of the steering wheel would make every driver pay strict attention to their driving. Yes it would put drivers at risk for the inattention of others. Driving instruction used to include "defensive driving" which was (then) about watching for idiots and staying out of their way. Now we're taught crash test ratings

There's a similar idea now current among some motorcycle riders: "I am 100% responsible for any collision in which I'm involved." You can quibble the numbers and tell about a car dropping off an overpass onto an innocent rider, but the idea is to watch for idiots and not put oneself into the places where "accidents" happen.

 

yeah, I agree that an automatic transmission is an enabler of poor driving habits. How often do you see people smoking and talking on their cell phone while eating an egg mcmuffin. But I'd draw the line at blaming the technology and saying a MT is safer. It's the driver, not the type of transmission.

France has a similar philosophy on safety. They make their roads less safe to require drivers to slow down, and be more safe. They put in traffic circles were none are needed. New higher speed divided roads (not autoroutes) are banked the opposite of what they should be. It's kinda like an extension of speed bumps. Oh and everyone there drives a MT.

 

You could also argue that looking in your rearview mirrors takes your concentration away from the road ahead. I was taught to always scan to actively maintain awareness of what's going on around me.

For me looking at the speedometer is more disruptive than shifting. Always. Shifting helps with visceral feedback about my speed and makes my awareness of what's going on much greater. And it doesn't require refocusing my eyes.

If shifting takes that much attention then perhaps more practice would help.

 

I've never driven a manual transmission (and I'm almost 40). I'd think that if you are an experienced driver your subconscious mind and muscle memory can do most of the work. Ever drive to work in the morning and then realize that you can't remember even driving the last two blocks because you spaced out?

Some of us choose to let things distract us (phone users, for example) and others do it unwillingly (squirrel!) and there seems to be an unknown amount of the task being done by our subconscious.

Back to the original subject: I realized that the video is meant to show the head trauma possible from this kind of crash, which is of the most importance to the driver. However, as was briefly touched on above, what kind of leg trauma was experienced by the dummy? Broken leg? Trapped leg? Amputation? Tough to speculate.

The video also shows the driver's experience. I'd think that passenger-side crashes like these are less common but safer because the airbag is in a fixed location inside the cabin. It would take more to contort its aim.