Jump to content





Sign in to follow this  
ANTAUS

Bronco Sport Nabs Top Pick + Rating on IIHS

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tzach said:

The rest of them are apathetic and put no thought or care into how their actions effect anyone else.

 

This is systemic through out society...its partly due to not being held responsible for your actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 92merc said:

Here's the short question:  Where does it end?

 

When cars are completely autonomous and law is written in a way that protects the owner/operator of them from a lawsuit.

 

People fail to realize that fully autonomous cars are just another way of controlling someone and giving up freedoms to protect people from what if.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

When cars are completely autonomous and law is written in a way that protects the owner/operator of them from a lawsuit.

 

People fail to realize that fully autonomous cars are just another way of controlling someone and giving up freedoms to protect people from what if.  

I'm sure insurance companies will make it so expensive to insure a human driven car, or motorcycle for that matter, that we can't afford it any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 92merc said:

I'm sure insurance companies will make it so expensive to insure a human driven car, or motorcycle for that matter, that we can't afford it any longer.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

Hopefully fully autonomous vehicles are further off than we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

People fail to realize that fully autonomous cars are just another way of controlling someone and giving up freedoms to protect people from what if.  

 

The widespread deployment of fully autonomous cars has great potential for achieving the goal of zero roadway deaths by 2050. National Road to Zero, Traffic Safety Leaders Call on Biden Administration to Commit to Zero Deaths by 2050 | PAVE Campaign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, akirby said:

There is a point of diminishing returns where the real world improvement is so statistically small that it isn’t feasible.

 I think we’re either at that point or getting close.  Adding more tests don’t automatically equal real world results.

Not sure if there is any correlation, but people seem to be driving worse than ever.  My theory is safer cars are causing people to be more aggressive.  I would like to see info on property damage claims and not just lives saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slemke said:

Not sure if there is any correlation, but people seem to be driving worse than ever.  My theory is safer cars are causing people to be more aggressive.  I would like to see info on property damage claims and not just lives saved.

 

There's also driver education, or lack thereof.

 

Can you turn the wheel?  Can you push the gas and brake?  Here's you're license!  Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

There's also driver education, or lack thereof.

 

Can you turn the wheel?  Can you push the gas and brake?  Here's you're license!  Have fun!

I think you give them too much credit.  Pay the fee and walk off with a license.  Double yellow lines mean nothing around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

There's also driver education, or lack thereof.

 

IIHS summary of the impact of driver education programs on crash rate among young drivers. Teenagers (iihs.org)

 

Formal evaluations of U.S. high school driver education programs indicate little or no reduction in crashes per licensed driver (Lonero & Mayhew, 2010; Mayhew et al., 2014; Mayhew et al., 2017; Peck, 2011). Other school-based programs, such as those intended to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, have not been shown to be effective, at least in the short term (Williams, 1994).

Skid control training and other kinds of advanced skill training seem to increase crash risk, particularly among young males (Mayhew et al., 1998; Christie, 2001 Williams & Ferguson, 2004). A possible explanation is that young drivers trained in these skills may become overconfident, leading them to take unnecessary risks.

A study evaluating hazard perception training, which aims to change a driver's awareness and perception of potential risks while driving, did not find a significant overall effect on crashes among young drivers; however, males ages 16-18 who had taken the training had a 24 percent lower crash rate relative to males in the control group (Thomas et al., 2016).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason it’s called driver education and not training.

 

Germany has a far better system from what I’ve read and far better drivers as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 92merc said:

Here's the short question:  Where does it end?


When we hit 0 deaths on the roads. But reality it ends when science says until new science is discovered. In a way we're getting close to that in the frontal crash test until new materials can be developed. If you design for ultra high speed crashes now (80+), you make the structure so ridged that energy is passed in a way that can cause injury at lower speeds. It is why the focus now should be on Active safety and driving systems, AEB, Lane Keeping,  Side Collision intervention, amber rear turn signals,  side turn signal repeaters, Blind Spot Monitoring, Auto High beams, Better headlights all come into play that prevent the accident from happening or lessen the severity of the crash leading to fewer injuries. 

 

1 hour ago, akirby said:

 

Ok I have to apologize - I thought you were talking about the new moderate offset test not the new side impact test.  I can see a lot more benefit from improving side impacts and those are much easier to measure in the real world.   However, my point about diminishing returns is still applicable especially when you're talking about changing offset angles and speeds.

 

I'll just drop this by saying while I do believe in crash testing I don't necessarily agree with the way IIHS does it in all cases.


no worries,  I will say if NHTSA had progressed over the past 40 years IIHS wouldn't need to exist, but the lobbying and buying off of that has been done Auto, Trucking industries as well as Unions in those industries has all but stalled all safety related mandated safety requirements over that time. Short of the Rear view camera,  Explorer/Firestone TPMS and the ever popular kids locked in a trunk release handle, The politicians in just take the money and don't make any changes even though there are numerous studies that they have paid billions for that say what changes need to be necessary. It is where IIHS has created shame and NHTSA is starting to use the star system to help push that when Congress has their hands out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

The widespread deployment of fully autonomous cars has great potential for achieving the goal of zero roadway deaths by 2050. National Road to Zero, Traffic Safety Leaders Call on Biden Administration to Commit to Zero Deaths by 2050 | PAVE Campaign

Anyone that believes we can actually achieve zero roadway deaths is being extremely naive.  Can autonomous driving decrease roadway deaths?  Sure.  Can it get us to zero deaths by 2050?  No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, akirby said:


I get that part.  What doesn’t exist is real world data that said that type of crash happened x times last year with y injuries and z fatalities and this change will reduce that by n%.     Change the angle by a few degrees or the speed and it’s no longer applicable.

 

17 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Ok I have to apologize - I thought you were talking about the new moderate offset test not the new side impact test.  I can see a lot more benefit from improving side impacts and those are much easier to measure in the real world.   However, my point about diminishing returns is still applicable especially when you're talking about changing offset angles and speeds.

 

I'll just drop this by saying while I do believe in crash testing I don't necessarily agree with the way IIHS does it in all cases.

 

I don't know what your background is, but testing doesn't have to replicate exact situations.  They have crash data from thousands of accidents each year that they know speed and angle of impact.  They can then develop testing that simulates certain aspects of those collisions that when properly designed for will mitigate injury risk in real world collisions.  The testing though has to be standardized in order to provide verifiable and repeatable data.

 

Specifically the small overlap test was designed to test the intrusion into the driver's area from a concentrated impact to that main structure and the wheel.  Side benefit it test the ability of a vehicle to maintain itself upright on all 4 wheels which the Wrangler 4 door failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, akirby said:

There is a reason it’s called driver education and not training.

 

Whether it's called driver or education or training won't change its ineffectiveness in reducing crashes and deaths for young (age 16-18) drivers in the U.S. In fact, studies have indicated that young drivers who participate in "advanced driver skills" training have a higher crash risk than those who don't.

 

IIHS and other road safety experts recommend graduated driver licensing programs, which have been proven effective in reducing young driver crashes and collision claims not only in the U.S. but in other countries as well. Recommendations from IIHS. Graduated Licensing Calculator (iihs.org)

  • Minimum age for driver's permit eligibility no lower than 16 years
  • Minimum age for driver's license eligibility no lower than 17 years
  • Minimum 70 hours practice hours supervised by parent, guardian, or other experienced driver
  • No teenage passengers in vehicle
  • No driving at night between 8 PM and sunrise the next morning without supervision by parent, guardian, or other experienced driver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Whether it's called driver or education or training won't change its ineffectiveness in reducing crashes and deaths for young (age 16-18) drivers in the U.S. In fact, studies have indicated that young drivers who participate in "advanced driver skills" training have a higher crash risk than those who don't.

 

IIHS and other road safety experts recommend graduated driver licensing programs, which have been proven effective in reducing young driver crashes and collision claims not only in the U.S. but in other countries as well. Recommendations from IIHS. Graduated Licensing Calculator (iihs.org)

  • Minimum age for driver's permit eligibility no lower than 16 years
  • Minimum age for driver's license eligibility no lower than 17 years
  • Minimum 70 hours practice hours supervised by parent, guardian, or other experienced driver
  • No teenage passengers in vehicle
  • No driving at night between 8 PM and sunrise the next morning without supervision by parent, guardian, or other experienced driver

 

New Jersey implemented this a few years back (unfortunately an old neighbor of mine loss her teenage son in a car wreck prior to this-he was a passenger though) and I just looked it up...we have the lowest amount of deaths for teen drivers in the country, even though we have one of the biggest cohorts in that age category. 

 

1 hour ago, CurtisH said:

Anyone that believes we can actually achieve zero roadway deaths is being extremely naive.  Can autonomous driving decrease roadway deaths?  Sure.  Can it get us to zero deaths by 2050?  No.

 

That will be next to impossible to do...there are so many different scenarios out there that would involve basically a vehicle deciding to kill its passengers vs pedestrians or car with only one person vs one with a family in it that the legal precedence is just insane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combining the topics of Bronco Sport and young drivers. IIHS and Consumer Reports publish a list of used cars that represent "best choices" and "good choices" for teen drivers . The 2020 list includes 2015 & 2018-2019 Ford Escape and 2014-2015 Ford Edge as "good choices".

 

Complete list and criteria. Safe used vehicles for teens (iihs.org)

 

If Bronco Sport has above average reliability, the versions with the 1.5L engine may make the "best choices" list in a few years.

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

That will be next to impossible to do...there are so many different scenarios out there that would involve basically a vehicle deciding to kill its passengers vs pedestrians or car with only one person vs one with a family in it that the legal precedence is just insane. 


What is hard with that is it depends on culture as well.

Should a self-driving car kill the baby or the grandma? Depends on where you’re from. | MIT Technology Review

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

 

 

I don't know what your background is, but testing doesn't have to replicate exact situations.  They have crash data from thousands of accidents each year that they know speed and angle of impact.  They can then develop testing that simulates certain aspects of those collisions that when properly designed for will mitigate injury risk in real world collisions.  The testing though has to be standardized in order to provide verifiable and repeatable data.

 

Specifically the small overlap test was designed to test the intrusion into the driver's area from a concentrated impact to that main structure and the wheel.  Side benefit it test the ability of a vehicle to maintain itself upright on all 4 wheels which the Wrangler 4 door failed.

 

My background is IT architecture and software development so I understand root cause analysis, irreversible corrective actions, etc.  

 

I don't believe anyone has detailed accident parameters such as exact speed and angle - just estimates based on the damage after the fact.   The exact angle, speed, weight and height of the 2 vehicles can vary greatly and we've seen that even small changes in angle, speed or vehicle size and weight can make a dramatic change in results.  At some point changes made to pass one test could reduce performance on other tests.   You also have to consider impacts to cost and performance. 

 

If we had data that says this type of test represents X fatal accidents every year then it would be easier but there are simply too many variables and not enough actual data to say that.   And the only way to even guess at the effectiveness of a new crash test is to implement it and wait years and years and look at the overall death rate.  But even then there are too many other variables to say for sure whether it was effective or not.

 

We'll never get to zero deaths so we have to find a balance where things are as safe as we can reasonably make them.  I'm not willing to drive 35 mph everywhere or drive a tank just to reduce an already low death rate.  Right now the IIHS gets all the benefit but incurs none of the cost of added testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, akirby said:

 

My background is IT architecture and software development so I understand root cause analysis, irreversible corrective actions, etc.  

 

I don't believe anyone has detailed accident parameters such as exact speed and angle - just estimates based on the damage after the fact.   The exact angle, speed, weight and height of the 2 vehicles can vary greatly and we've seen that even small changes in angle, speed or vehicle size and weight can make a dramatic change in results.  At some point changes made to pass one test could reduce performance on other tests.   You also have to consider impacts to cost and performance. 

 

If we had data that says this type of test represents X fatal accidents every year then it would be easier but there are simply too many variables and not enough actual data to say that.   And the only way to even guess at the effectiveness of a new crash test is to implement it and wait years and years and look at the overall death rate.  But even then there are too many other variables to say for sure whether it was effective or not.

 

We'll never get to zero deaths so we have to find a balance where things are as safe as we can reasonably make them.  I'm not willing to drive 35 mph everywhere or drive a tank just to reduce an already low death rate.  Right now the IIHS gets all the benefit but incurs none of the cost of added testing.

I am in aviation, work in test and analysis, and support our accident investigators on occasion with data analysis.  It is pretty amazing how much data you can gleam from an accident.   

 

I will agree that IIHS bears none of the costs, but then again they are a industry group and not a regulator, so their tests aren't forced requirements and their sole duty is to their insurance industry sponsors.  Companies don't have to make their vehicles better.  However, the insurance industry will use those results to set rates and of course it has a competitive impact on sales.  The manufacturers can just pass those costs along to the consumer.  Yes, it takes time to realize the effects of updated crash tests and changes in vehicles, but you can measure statistically significant improvement by accounting for all other factors.

 

Vehicles are getting now to the point where aircraft got about 30 years ago (looking at the accident data) where design regulations pretty much all but eliminated mechanical/structural/systems failure from accidents, leaving only the weather, maintenance and pilot error causes, none of which can be regulated.  Now regulations are being designed to try to make systems robust to stupid human tricks.  This is easier to do on multi-million dollar airplanes, but not so easy with with vehicles costing $50 grand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Combining the topics of Bronco Sport and young drivers. IIHS and Consumer Reports publish a list of used cars that represent "best choices" and "good choices" for teen drivers . The 2020 list includes 2015 & 2018-2019 Ford Escape and 2014-2015 Ford Edge as "good choices".

 

Complete list and criteria. Safe used vehicles for teens (iihs.org)

 

If Bronco Sport has above average reliability, the versions with the 1.5L engine may make the "best choices" list in a few years.

 

Yeah, a used BS is a great pick for a young person. Easy to park, good visibility outwards, very safe, latest safety features, AWD, and cool looks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

Yeah, a used BS is a great pick for a young person. Easy to park, good visibility outwards, very safe, latest safety features, AWD, and cool looks. 

 

Yes sir FordBuyer, all of the Bronco Sport attributes you mentioned are well suited for young drivers. Plus, the 1.5L versions have the right amount of power for those drivers. More than adequate for daily driving, but not too much which could get those drivers into trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir FordBuyer, all of the Bronco Sport attributes you mentioned are well suited for young drivers. Plus, the 1.5L versions have the right amount of power for those drivers. More than adequate for daily driving, but not too much which could get those drivers into trouble.

 

Power is almost never the issue with young drivers.   They can get distracted or drive too fast with even the smallest engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

Vehicles are getting now to the point where aircraft got about 30 years ago (looking at the accident data) where design regulations pretty much all but eliminated mechanical/structural/systems failure from accidents, leaving only the weather, maintenance and pilot error causes, none of which can be regulated.  Now regulations are being designed to try to make systems robust to stupid human tricks.  This is easier to do on multi-million dollar airplanes, but not so easy with with vehicles costing $50 grand.

 

I love Air Disasters.   The most recent one was a smaller plane that stalled on approach and the main factor was that the autopilot was still engaged and the pilots didn't know it.  Apparently this was the ONLY model of that type of plane that did not disengage the autopilot based on manual control inputs.  And the indication that it was still on was a very small "AP" designation that was green instead of white.  Very very poor design.

 

But that's getting off topic.  I think it's great that BS did so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×