Why The IIHS Says Bigger Is Not Always Better When It Comes To Auto Safety

Forbes - Feb 5th, 2025

A new report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) challenges the long-held belief that larger and heavier vehicles inherently offer better protection in crashes. The study reveals that while adding weight to vehicles under 4,000 pounds reduces occupant fatalities, increasing the size of already large vehicles significantly heightens the threat to occupants of smaller vehicles in collisions. This finding is particularly relevant to pickup trucks, which have dominated the market in recent years, comprising 97% of models sold between 2017-2022.

The study indicates that since 2009, design changes in large trucks and SUVs have improved their compatibility with smaller cars, reducing fatality risks in collisions. Despite these advances, larger vehicles remain responsible for more fatalities in crashes involving other vehicles. As passenger cars have become structurally stronger and heavier, the safety gap between them and larger vehicles has narrowed. This suggests that consumers don't necessarily need oversized vehicles for safety, although those with specific needs, like towing, may still prefer them.

Auto Safety Iihs Vehicle Size Crash Statistics Pickup Trucks Su Vs Sam Monfort

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-rounded and timely discussion on the relationship between vehicle size, weight, and safety, drawing on credible findings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It effectively balances the benefits and risks associated with larger vehicles, offering valuable insights for consumers and policymakers. The article is clear and accessible, making it suitable for a general audience interested in automotive safety.

However, the article could improve by incorporating a wider range of perspectives and providing more detailed explanations of the study's methodology and findings. Enhancing transparency and source diversity would strengthen the article's credibility and depth. Additionally, incorporating more interactive elements and exploring controversial aspects could increase reader engagement and provoke meaningful discussion.

Overall, the article is a valuable resource on vehicle safety, offering relevant information that can inform consumer choices and public policy debates. It effectively addresses a topic of public interest, but there is room for improvement in terms of source diversity, transparency, and engagement strategies.

Accuracy

The article presents a generally accurate overview of the relationship between vehicle size, weight, and safety, aligning with established principles of physics and findings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). For instance, it correctly states that larger and heavier vehicles tend to offer better protection to their occupants in crashes, a fact supported by numerous studies. However, the article also highlights the nuanced risks these vehicles pose to occupants of smaller vehicles, which is a critical aspect of the IIHS report.

The article's claim that increasing a vehicle's weight by 500 pounds decreases the risk of occupant fatalities by 17 deaths per million registered vehicle years is specific and needs verification for precision. Additionally, the assertion that automakers have redesigned larger vehicles to better align with smaller cars since 2009 is factual but would benefit from more detailed evidence or citations.

While the article accurately reflects the IIHS's findings about the reduced fatalities from large SUVs to passenger cars, it should be noted that the 90% to 20% reduction statistic needs verification for precision. Overall, the article is factually sound but would benefit from more direct citations to the IIHS study and other supporting data.

Balance

The article provides a balanced perspective on the topic by discussing both the safety benefits and drawbacks of larger vehicles. It acknowledges the protective advantages these vehicles offer their occupants while also addressing the increased risks they pose to smaller vehicles. This dual focus helps present a more comprehensive view of the issue.

However, the article could improve by incorporating more viewpoints, such as those from consumer safety advocates or representatives from the automotive industry, to provide a broader range of perspectives. Additionally, while the article mentions improvements in vehicle design to mitigate risks, it could delve deeper into the effectiveness of these measures from various stakeholders' perspectives.

Overall, the article maintains a reasonable level of balance but could be enhanced by including a wider array of viewpoints and more detailed discussions on the implications of the findings.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the main arguments and findings. The language used is straightforward, and the article logically progresses from discussing general principles of vehicle safety to specific findings from the IIHS study.

However, some sections could benefit from more detailed explanations or examples to enhance clarity. For instance, the discussion of vehicle weight and its impact on safety could be supported with additional context or visual aids to help readers better grasp the concepts.

Overall, the article is clear and accessible, but there is room for improvement in providing more detailed explanations and supporting information to enhance reader comprehension.

Source quality

The article primarily relies on data and findings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a reputable and authoritative source in the field of automotive safety. The IIHS is known for its rigorous research and testing, lending credibility to the article's claims.

However, the article could improve by incorporating additional sources to provide a more comprehensive view of the topic. For instance, including insights from automotive manufacturers, safety experts, or independent researchers could enhance the depth and reliability of the information presented.

While the reliance on a single primary source is not necessarily detrimental, diversifying the sources would strengthen the article's overall credibility and provide readers with a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

Transparency

The article does a fair job of presenting the main findings from the IIHS study but lacks transparency in terms of detailing the methodology and data sources used in the study. While it mentions the IIHS as the primary source, it does not provide direct references or links to the specific study or report, which could enhance transparency.

Additionally, the article could benefit from a clearer explanation of how the IIHS conducted its research, including the types of tests performed and the data collection methods used. This would help readers better understand the basis of the claims and the reliability of the findings.

Improving transparency by providing more detailed references and explanations of the study's methodology would enhance the article's credibility and allow readers to assess the validity of the information more effectively.