Is this accurate??? Bloomberg interprets IIHS results to say Toyota most unsafe!
11-23-06, 01:24 AM
#1
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Is this accurate??? Bloomberg interprets IIHS results to say Toyota most unsafe!
A headline caught my attention just now--and it's being picked up by other outlets. I believe it to be possibly misleading (see below):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed
The 'lowest ranked' implication contrasts with the ACTUAL IIHS News Release:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html
Based on this list, it appears that these Toyota vehicle and others "would have won 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK awards if their seat/head restraints also had earned good ratings." In other words, they have good results all around except for rear crash safety. They HAVE stability control, which not all cars have. But they are NOT "ranked at the bottom of a crash-protection study" -- rather, they are weak in one area. However they are not 'marginal' on other areas, etc.
It seems the Bloomberg reporter misread these findings to think that the 'also-rans' - second place - was the bottom when it was not.
Am I reading this right here? If I am correct, then the Bloomberg writer needs to retract this seriously misleading article.
Reporter: Greg Bensinger
gbensinger1@bloomberg.net
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed
Toyota models rank at bottom of crash-safety study
By Greg Bensinger
Bloomberg News
Published November 21, 2006, 11:13 AM CST
Toyota Motor Corp., whose vehicles earn top marks for buyer satisfaction, has more models than any other automaker ranked at the bottom of a crash-protection study.
Toyota and its Lexus division accounted for nine of 16 vehicles with ``acceptable,'' ``marginal'' or ``poor'' rear- impact protection, lowering their overall rating, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said today. Models included the Toyota Camry and the Lexus GS 350.
The institute tightened its rules this year, requiring electronic stability control as a standard or optional feature for vehicles to be a ``top safety pick.'' Thirteen models got that rating, led by three each from Honda Motor Co., including its Acura division, and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.'s Subaru.
``The lower-rated cars may turn off some buyers,'' said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts. Poor safety ratings are more likely than high rankings to sway buyers because ``people tend to think their cars are safe, unless they hear otherwise,'' she said.
The Saab 9-3 sedan, made by General Motors Corp., and Ford Motor Co.'s Volvo XC90 were the only models manufactured by U.S.-based automakers on the ``top safety pick'' list.
Toyota's performance in the crash-safety study contrasts with its industry-leading ranking on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index. The Toyota City, Japan-based company finished atop other automakers for the second year in a row in 2006.
``The Insurance Institute is looking for a certain type of headrest design and that's not what we have. But we think ours work just fine,'' Wade Hoyt, a Toyota spokesman, said in an interview. ``We're confident in the safety of our design.''
By Greg Bensinger
Bloomberg News
Published November 21, 2006, 11:13 AM CST
Toyota Motor Corp., whose vehicles earn top marks for buyer satisfaction, has more models than any other automaker ranked at the bottom of a crash-protection study.
Toyota and its Lexus division accounted for nine of 16 vehicles with ``acceptable,'' ``marginal'' or ``poor'' rear- impact protection, lowering their overall rating, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said today. Models included the Toyota Camry and the Lexus GS 350.
The institute tightened its rules this year, requiring electronic stability control as a standard or optional feature for vehicles to be a ``top safety pick.'' Thirteen models got that rating, led by three each from Honda Motor Co., including its Acura division, and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.'s Subaru.
``The lower-rated cars may turn off some buyers,'' said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts. Poor safety ratings are more likely than high rankings to sway buyers because ``people tend to think their cars are safe, unless they hear otherwise,'' she said.
The Saab 9-3 sedan, made by General Motors Corp., and Ford Motor Co.'s Volvo XC90 were the only models manufactured by U.S.-based automakers on the ``top safety pick'' list.
Toyota's performance in the crash-safety study contrasts with its industry-leading ranking on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index. The Toyota City, Japan-based company finished atop other automakers for the second year in a row in 2006.
``The Insurance Institute is looking for a certain type of headrest design and that's not what we have. But we think ours work just fine,'' Wade Hoyt, a Toyota spokesman, said in an interview. ``We're confident in the safety of our design.''
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html
WINNERS
Large car
Audi A6 manufactured in Dec. 2006 and later
Midsize cars
Audi A4
Saab 9-3
Subaru Legacy equipped with optional electronic stability control
Minivans
Hyundai Entourage
Kia Sedona
Luxury SUVs
Mercedes M class
Volvo XC90
Midsize SUVs
Acura RDX
Honda Pilot
Subaru B9 Tribeca
Small SUVs
Honda CR-V
Subaru Forester equipped with optional electronic stability control
ALSO-RANS
Rear protection isn't good
These vehicles earned good ratings in front and side crash tests. They have electronic stability control, standard or optional. They would have won 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK awards if their seat/head restraints also had earned good ratings. Instead rear crash protection is rated acceptable, marginal, or poor (Honda reports that the seat/head restraints in the only Civic model with electronic stability control wouldn’t be rated good).
Acceptable rear protection
Audi A3
BMW 3-series 4dr
Lexus IS 250/350
Marginal rear protection
Acura TL
Honda Odyssey
Lexus ES 350
Lexus GS 350
Toyota Camry
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Toyota Prius
Toyota RAV4
Poor rear protection
Honda Accord 4dr
Infiniti M35
Nissan Quest
Toyota Avalon
Toyota Sienna
Large car
Audi A6 manufactured in Dec. 2006 and later
Midsize cars
Audi A4
Saab 9-3
Subaru Legacy equipped with optional electronic stability control
Minivans
Hyundai Entourage
Kia Sedona
Luxury SUVs
Mercedes M class
Volvo XC90
Midsize SUVs
Acura RDX
Honda Pilot
Subaru B9 Tribeca
Small SUVs
Honda CR-V
Subaru Forester equipped with optional electronic stability control
ALSO-RANS
Rear protection isn't good
These vehicles earned good ratings in front and side crash tests. They have electronic stability control, standard or optional. They would have won 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK awards if their seat/head restraints also had earned good ratings. Instead rear crash protection is rated acceptable, marginal, or poor (Honda reports that the seat/head restraints in the only Civic model with electronic stability control wouldn’t be rated good).
Acceptable rear protection
Audi A3
BMW 3-series 4dr
Lexus IS 250/350
Marginal rear protection
Acura TL
Honda Odyssey
Lexus ES 350
Lexus GS 350
Toyota Camry
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Toyota Prius
Toyota RAV4
Poor rear protection
Honda Accord 4dr
Infiniti M35
Nissan Quest
Toyota Avalon
Toyota Sienna
It seems the Bloomberg reporter misread these findings to think that the 'also-rans' - second place - was the bottom when it was not.
Am I reading this right here? If I am correct, then the Bloomberg writer needs to retract this seriously misleading article.
Reporter: Greg Bensinger
gbensinger1@bloomberg.net
11-23-06, 02:13 PM
#2
right... they have top awards for front and side protection - notice toyota is most represented manufacturer in best front and side ratings...
obviously mistake by the writer, who probably knows little about what he is writing about...
obviously mistake by the writer, who probably knows little about what he is writing about...
11-23-06, 02:30 PM
#4
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
I sent a letter to the reporter:
At Auto_ they have agreed the article is misleading, and written incorrectly!
Dear Mr. Bensinger,
With regards to your recent article, titled by several outlets as "Toyota models rank at bottom of crash-safety study," I am writing to question your conclusion that Toyota models indeed trailed the competition in crash safety. The titling and statements in the article imply that Toyota models are the least safe, based on this study. This conclusion is highly misleading, because as the IIHS press release states regarding the 9 Toyota models mentioned:
(http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html)
"These vehicles earned good ratings in front and side crash tests. They have electronic stability control, standard or optional. They would have won 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK awards if their seat/head restraints also had earned good ratings."
In other words, these vehicles are runners-up ("Also-Rans"). They are not "at the bottom" of the survey as your article implies. On the contrary, these vehicles are highly rated in every other area--plus they all come with available stability control. What prevents them from reaching the top spot is the weakness in rear crash safety.
And furthermore, the Toyota vehicles are rated on a scale of 1-4 as mostly 2s and 3s. Not "at the bottom" -- but in the middle. Nor is Toyota trailing all the other makes.
Rear crash protection has been an Achilles heel for many car makes--Poor is the most common score. Take Buick for example:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...nts.aspx?buick
Or others:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res....aspx?Cadillac
If you compare Toyota and Chevrolet, you'll see that Toyota has fewer "Poor" rated vehicles, and overall better rated headrest design, than Chevrolet--one unit of GM:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...aspx?Chevrolet
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...ts.aspx?Toyota
Thus, there are many other vehicles that rank lower than the Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Nissan company cars placed on the "Also-Rans" list. Checking the IIHS ratings confirms this. Essentially, the title "Toyota Models Trail in Study of Vehicle-Crash Safety" is misleading. Based on the text of the article, and its reliance on the "Also Rans" list, a more accurate title would be:
"Toyota Models Trail the Very Best in Study of Vehicle Crash Safety"
or more specifically,
"Nine Toyota Models Score Near the Top Scorers in Study of Vehicle-Crash Safety."
Sincerely,
With regards to your recent article, titled by several outlets as "Toyota models rank at bottom of crash-safety study," I am writing to question your conclusion that Toyota models indeed trailed the competition in crash safety. The titling and statements in the article imply that Toyota models are the least safe, based on this study. This conclusion is highly misleading, because as the IIHS press release states regarding the 9 Toyota models mentioned:
(http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html)
"These vehicles earned good ratings in front and side crash tests. They have electronic stability control, standard or optional. They would have won 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK awards if their seat/head restraints also had earned good ratings."
In other words, these vehicles are runners-up ("Also-Rans"). They are not "at the bottom" of the survey as your article implies. On the contrary, these vehicles are highly rated in every other area--plus they all come with available stability control. What prevents them from reaching the top spot is the weakness in rear crash safety.
And furthermore, the Toyota vehicles are rated on a scale of 1-4 as mostly 2s and 3s. Not "at the bottom" -- but in the middle. Nor is Toyota trailing all the other makes.
Rear crash protection has been an Achilles heel for many car makes--Poor is the most common score. Take Buick for example:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...nts.aspx?buick
Or others:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res....aspx?Cadillac
If you compare Toyota and Chevrolet, you'll see that Toyota has fewer "Poor" rated vehicles, and overall better rated headrest design, than Chevrolet--one unit of GM:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...aspx?Chevrolet
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...ts.aspx?Toyota
Thus, there are many other vehicles that rank lower than the Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Nissan company cars placed on the "Also-Rans" list. Checking the IIHS ratings confirms this. Essentially, the title "Toyota Models Trail in Study of Vehicle-Crash Safety" is misleading. Based on the text of the article, and its reliance on the "Also Rans" list, a more accurate title would be:
"Toyota Models Trail the Very Best in Study of Vehicle Crash Safety"
or more specifically,
"Nine Toyota Models Score Near the Top Scorers in Study of Vehicle-Crash Safety."
Sincerely,
11-23-06, 02:59 PM
#6
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Good point, not to mention the IS just won top honors in the European safety tests.
But there's always room for improvement, I have frequented the IIHS site before, and found the rear impact protection lacking in nearly all models.
And the fact is, these results show 9 Toyota models near the top--2nd best.
The guys need to do better research before producing their articles!
But there's always room for improvement, I have frequented the IIHS site before, and found the rear impact protection lacking in nearly all models.
And the fact is, these results show 9 Toyota models near the top--2nd best.
The guys need to do better research before producing their articles!
Trending Topics
11-23-06, 04:53 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
This is why I take everything the IIHS with a huge grain of salt because not only to reporters misinterpret it, but IIHS is also 'interpreting' their data to promote themselves and make sensational headlines.
The safest vehicle is the one you don't get into an accident in the first place and that's a combination of driver competence / awareness, and vehicle capability. I don't care if a RWD rocket has 20 airbags, driven fast on ice you're going to have a crash. A 1980 Chevette with no airbags or any safety devices driven carefully and defensively will almost certainly not be involved in an accident.
The safest vehicle is the one you don't get into an accident in the first place and that's a combination of driver competence / awareness, and vehicle capability. I don't care if a RWD rocket has 20 airbags, driven fast on ice you're going to have a crash. A 1980 Chevette with no airbags or any safety devices driven carefully and defensively will almost certainly not be involved in an accident.
11-23-06, 10:16 PM
#9
That guy wrote it, intentionally leaving out stuff to get the "headlines"
It obviously worked cause it got your attention hahaha.
I'm not surprised that the 9-3 and XC90 got top for rear-impact protection because of their seat design and their whiplash injury reducing headrests. I'm surprised the RAV4 was only marginal because it's the only car that Toyota puts in its brochure with "WIL" (Whiplash Injury Lessening) seats.
It obviously worked cause it got your attention hahaha.
I'm not surprised that the 9-3 and XC90 got top for rear-impact protection because of their seat design and their whiplash injury reducing headrests. I'm surprised the RAV4 was only marginal because it's the only car that Toyota puts in its brochure with "WIL" (Whiplash Injury Lessening) seats.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
