I feel totally safe, not because of the car but because I'm confident in my driving ability. I doubt I'll be going head on with another car at 40MPH or into a wall at 80MPH. I'd like to see them do a test of Fit vs. Fit. Like another poster already stated, what if we took a Hummer up against an accord type scenario.

 

EXACTLY!!! This is what I've been crowing about since yesterday. Where is the Ford Focus/Fusion and Chevy Aveo/Malibu tests? It's obviously conducted to defame "imports" in the hopes to bring back some prospective customers to the "American" showrooms.

I think Honda, Toyota and Mercedes need to respond in the spotlight about this so the general public will not misconstrue these stupid tests.

 

I think about it this way. If I am going 40mph and hit a bigger car at 40mph head on, I would be greatful to come out with a broken leg and broken arm. I LIVED!! Isn't that the point? People can't possibly expect to be in a collision that violent and walk away from it. Some people do, but you can't expect it. Christ, the Fit turns into a giant marshmellow inside with 6 airbags. What more could they expect? I think I will take my "chances" on getting into that accident while getting twice the MPGs as the other cars.

 

If you read the details concerning the test carefully...

The reason why the American mini or microcars were not tested were because they had no "Good" performers in the IIHS frontal offset program. The Aveo was rated acceptable. That is why it was not tested. The Ford Focus is techically defined as a "small car" not a micro or minicar. So it wasn't tested either. The only microcar DaimlerChrysler have is the Smart and that did perform poorly in this test.

So dont assume that the IIHS is in bed in the oil companies, conspiracy theory with the Big 3 yada, yada, ya. Fact is, many auto companies accused the IIHS of having "vested interests" or the like many times in the past, but data has emerged that the IIHS offset crash program and similar programs in other countries saves lives. The IIHS has nothing against smaller cars. They simply report the truth and even blasted SUVs many times before. Recently the IIHS found that many small SUVs have weak roofs that may not hold up in a rollover.

 

But nfbsk, read between my lines...how public is the Aveo "acceptable" rating, for instance? I didn't see that making headlines. Wouldn't that be more of a concern, a car that's not that safe? It's sensationalism. That's clear. Read the reader comments and you'll see that they are misconstruing the testing, just as I would predict. They now think that the Fit, Yaris and Smart are unsafe against any car, while Aveo, in their minds IS safe.

See what I mean?

 

The point of the test is simply to demonstrate that even though a car may get a "good" rating in one crash may not mean it provides good performance in another. Testing an "acceptable" rated car in this test is a moot point - it will likely fare even worse.

That said, the IIHS did not mention the Aveo in these tests, and so the IIHS did not say the Aveo is safe at all. Neither did the IIHS explicitly say any of these cars are now unsafe, but they did say micro and mini cars are now much safer than before.

As for the "sensationalism" you talk about, well whose fault is that? Blame the media outlets for twisting the story. This is nothing new.

 

I still think you are missing my point, but whatever.

 

That's pelosi! (pelosi=B.S.)

I don't care what you're driving, better to avoid than to engage.

My one-ton, at around 9,600 lbs GVW, could NOT out-maneuver a certain accident.

My Blazer, at 5350 lbs GVW, could NOT out-maneuver a certain crash.

My #1 son's Cavalier MIGHT out-steer a guaranteed accident.

Our Fits could, at 2614 lbs (including me), out maneuver an a-hole in an SUV, if you're paying attention and not "tinking" (token and/or drinking).

It brakes fast and steers quickly! Its fast enough off the line, too!

The 5-Star ratings don't get handed out just because you sleep with the NHTSA!

http://dreams.honda.com/#/video_la

 

IMO, A vast majority operate their daily lives under the illusion that they are in "control". The reality of life is that, we are NOT in control; circumstances will occur, out of your ability to control, which will result in an accident. If they didn't, there would be no need for airbags, crumple zones, & other safety improvements, because one could "control" events and such situations wouldn't occur....THAT would be a really weird world, I think!
'07 VBP Sport 5MT w/ minor appearnce & comfort mods!!

 

Maybe you hit the nail on the head.

OTOH, experience and awareness are two things that have you take your foot off of the brake pedal when you're sliding towards a forty foot cliff, in fresh snow, and your tires are skidding rather than grabbing as you attempt to steer away from it! (Ask me how I know. Ask me if I lived. )

 

Then you have altercations like this one:

Jalopnik - Chevy Tahoe Messes With Texas Mini Cooper, Pays Price - Mini Cooper

 

Also, be sure to read Motor Trend's blog post regarding the IIHS's results.

Remember: These tests are funded by the insurance companies.

Weight, Weight, Don't Tell Me...IIHS Wants the 55 Back | Car News Blog at Motor Trend

 

Those types of collisions represent 1% of the total accidents that happen. I am a good driver. I feel very safe.

 

Well, I can only afford one car, and this is the one I bought. So I just gotta hope for the best!

 

I dub this test the "Achilles's Heel Crash Test".

The Smart did very well in all the other safety tests it was given and it's the smallest one. The chances of getting into this type of accident they tested for is 1%. ONE PERCENT!

Ugh. If IIHS is gonna be this picky, they need to be picky equally. Lets have a mid-sized car go up against a bus or Semi. That's fair at least, and just as likely as the test they did involving small cars. (Perhaps more so... my parents almost got re-ended twice by Semi's in a mid-sized car. Both times were because the driver was falling asleep at the wheel.)

And of course, this is what it goes back to: It's not the speed limit or even safety features in a car that protect people. It's PEOPLE KNOWING HOW TO DRIVE that protect people and prevent accidents. Duh.

Seriously, if insurance companies are so worried about accidents, how about they require all their insurures to actually take driving lessons and tests every 5-10 years? How about putting people through driving tests and their scores will determine what their Insurance Quote will be? Because a smart driver is more likely to avoid an accident in an old car with no airbags than a dumb one in a car with all the latest features.

I'm just saying. :-/

 

If the likelihood of the event that these crashes occur is 1%, then the IIHS report is only 1% relevant. That they do not mention this in their press release is pure sensationalism at it's finest!

It's completely expected that this would not be mentioned by the sorry arse American media. If the safety organization was unbiased, then then expectation would be different.

That tells me, very clearly, that there is an agenda.

If you follow the money, I bet it might go something like this in a very simplistic form: Auto mfgs pay insurer lobbyists/PACs who are also funded by Insurers. Insurers fund the safety organization. The safety organization then sends out a report in line with the money flow. This whole thing is designed to convince consumers that they need to pay for "more = larger" and "better" safety. It's a win-win for both industries. The latter has primarily been dependent on bogus, gas guzzling large vehicles compared to their European and Asian counterparts.

 

And this is exactly why the American car companies are failing. They are trying to tell us what we want to drive instead listening to us tell them what we need. They just do it in a way that makes it seem like fuel efficient cars are unsafe. Scare tactics. It is no different than those commercials that use animations of big disgusting germs crawling on your counters and you must use their product to clean them and keep your children safe. It is sickening, really. And people believe this type of crap too. As far as I am concerned, every last one of those damn companies can go to hell. I don't even want one of their cars even if they made it reliable, fuel efficient, and cheap. They burned their bridges with me.

 

Again, I'll keep reiterating my beef with this test...Where are the "American" car crash tests? Hmm. Only "imports" are tested here.

OR

How 'bout showing a crash test between 2 SUVs...one significantly heavier than the other, and/or one that's better engineered for safety. I would imagine results similar to this IIHS test.

I just don't want the public to think that only these 3 cars are unsafe. But inevitably, most people will get this message just reading the IIHS test headlines...maddening.

Even on Temple of Vtec site, someone posted this title to his thread: "09 Fit not "fit" for real world crash?"

Misleading test, and only for the hopes of boosting the American auto industry as well as raising small car insurance rates.

 

^^^THAT'S a great video!

 

I wouldn't want to hit an SUV in our Fit. However, SUVs have their own problems. We drive the country interstates all winter long and see one SUV after another on their sides or upside down. The little cars just scoot on by.

I'm sure I'll be dead in the next fifty years anyway, so I think we'll take a chance and drive the Fit to Quincy and go out to eat tonight. Talk about throwing caution to the winds...