Why automakers can’t solve old vehicle safety issues
A Detroit Free Press survey found that automakers have repaired their oldest models with safety issues, putting a growing group of vulnerable drivers at unnecessary risk.
- IIHS researchers tested the effectiveness of the seat belt through a head-on collision simulation, adding rear passengers for the first time.
- There are no Stellantis vehicles eligible for the highest safety award.
- Only two big pickups, the Rivian R1T and the Toyota Tundra, qualify under more stringent requirements
Minivans and pickups provide less protection for rear seat passengers than in the front seats, the insurance agency for highway safety, discovered after updating this year’s safety testing program.
Findings from the IIHS Top Safety Pick Awards showed that the risk of fatal injuries is higher for belted adults in the rear seats of new vehicles than in front.
IIHS has increased the requirements so that residents in the second row have the same level of protection provided by the advanced seat belts in the front row. As a result, fewer vehicles have won this year’s awards, with a total of 48, up from this time at 71 last year.
Small and medium-sized SUVs make up the majority of top performers. Of this year’s winners, 12 people won the “Top Safety Pick” and the rest reached “Top Safety Pick Plus” status.
Only two big picks, the Rivian R1T and the Toyota Tundra, met the higher standards set for the 2025 winners.
Enhanced safety requirements culled all vehicles produced by the Detroit 3 from the awardee circle, except three. The Ford Mustang Mach-E and Lincoln Nautilus reached the highest safety pick plus status, while the Chevrolet Rubbers made the best safety pick.
There are no Stellantis vehicles eligible for the highest safety award.
Detroit 3 was disappointed
IIHS President David Herkey said he was disappointed that more domestic vehicles didn’t make a list, and that they were advertised to their families, especially without the Stellantis, which sells the popular Chrysler Pacifica minivan.
“Some of the automakers behind vehicles advertised as family friendly need to step up and make improvements quickly,” he said.
Two technologies common in front seats are rarely visible on the rear seat belt, Harkey said: pre-tensioner belts and load limiters. The former pulls the passenger back into optimal position before a collision and tightens the belt to absorb the impact of the crash, while the latter activates the milliseconds after the collision occurs – the seat belt gently spools to relieve the person’s chest.
Similar to previous tests, IIHS researchers tested the effectiveness of seat belts through simulations of head-on collisions. Viable data occurred when the tested model attacked vehicles of equal size and weight at 40 mph, with 40% of the front width overlapping.
“It’s not that there’s a decline in the safety of the rear seats. We’re continuing to make all these advances in the front seats, leaving behind the rear seats,” Harkey said.
This year, the lab added a small, light test dummy “representing a small woman or a 12-year-old” behind the driver. The decision came after many studies on optimal changes to more accurately point out safety differences between different automaker models, Harkey said.
“There are two injuries we’ve seen and two things we’re trying to reduce. One is a chest injury that occurs as a result of high chest forces, and the load limiter works,” he said. “Other types of injuries seen, especially when residents are small, are what are called submarines, whose pelvis can slip under the belt and move into the abdomen, causing severe stomach trauma.”
Researchers also monitored “exploration” of passengers in the rear. Or how far the rear passenger heads crashed and moved. For example, did their heads hit the seat in front of them? That’s a disadvantage.
Regardless of the vehicle’s performance in the updated test, the IIHS maintains that the second row remains the safest place for children under the age of 13.
Along with the same two big picks eligible for the award and one small pick, it was also the only pick that got an acceptable or good rating in last year’s updated medium overlap test.
More strict standards
The shortage of three top-rated vehicles in Detroit is a chronic concern for the IIHS Top Safety Study, which the Institute has been conducting since 1995.
IIHS rated vehicles that are excellent, acceptable, marginal or poor in a variety of safety tests. Apart from seat belt safety, the vehicle must meet additional criteria and win the Top Safety Pick Award.
The vehicle should also obtain a good or acceptable rating in collision avoidance areas, including pedestrian front crash prevention technology tests for daytime and night driving, as well as headlights at all trim levels. This is because automakers can only provide certain safety features with specific bundled options of special features or equipment that can cost more than the basic package of the vehicle.
The stated goal of IIHS is to reach “safety equity” across the industry, where customers of a particular model can have access to safety features that are most likely to prevent injuries and crashes, regardless of the trim level they have purchased.
This year, two carmakers were holding their heads and shoulders up more than the other cars. Mazda-produced vehicle models had eight Top Safety Pick Plus winners out of the 36 in the best Safety Pick Plus category, but 10 models were represented by the Hyundai Motor Group, which sells the Kia, Hyundai and Genesis brands.
“If no other vehicles are shown on the list, it’s because the automakers can’t fully understand what the safety challenge is or can’t implement these safety features across the fleet,” Harkey said.
Jackie Charniga covers General Motors for the Free Press. I’ll reach her jcharniga@freepress.com.
