Adrian Lund Quotes (51 Quotes)

The institute's side-impact test mimics a real-world crash in which a pickup or SUV runs a red light or stop sign and strikes a vehicle in the side, ... The A6's double best-pick performance, especially, is the kind we hope to see every time we test a vehicle.

It's disappointing because the 2002 Explorer is a whole new design. Ford had every opportunity to design the bumpers to do a better job of reducing damage.

More manufacturers are requesting tests when they have new designs they expect to perform well. We encourage this because it means the test results will be released earlier, as consumers are beginning to shop for new models. When we do conduct tests early, the automakers provide reimbursement for the cost of the vehicles.

Subaru was one of the manufacturers that last year asked us to delay side testing because of vehicle design changes that were in progress. It's not uncommon for us to grant such requests as long as the design changes will be made in production models within a reasonable time. The goal of our crash test program is to encourage these kinds of improvements to reduce injury risk in real-world crashes.

Usually when an automaker doesn't ask for the optional test, we presume it means the side airbags wouldn't help much to improve the car's rating. But now Ford has requested a second test, so the Fusion with side airbags may earn a better rating than poor. We'll conduct the test and report the result.

The result is disappointing for two reasons. One is that the Focus is a brand-new design, so Ford had every opportunity to design the bumpers to do a better job of reducing damage. The other reason is that the predecessor model, the Escort, had an illustrious early history of bumper performance.

Results for (the Rav4) show manufacturers can provide good protection for occupants in the two most common kinds of serious crashes,

The curtain airbag did a good job of cushioning the heads of both the driver and rear passenger dummies. Plus, injury measures recorded on the neck, torso, pelvis, and left leg of the dummies all were low. Saab can still make improvements to the 9-3's structure, but in all other areas this was very good performance.

The four-point harness would be protective, but not as big a benefit as it would have been before airbags.

Now we will be able to focus more of our attention on our side impact test program and our rear impact test program as well as look at other areas where we can improve occupant protection.

Manufacturer advertising often emphasizes the rugged image of SUVs and pickups.

Results for the BMW and Lexus show that manufacturers can design cars to protect people in the three most common kinds of crashes that lead to injuries.

The federal rules should be changed to make SUVs and cars more compatible, ... The manufacturers already are working on this for high-speed collisions, and they ought to be doing it for low-speed impacts like these tests.

The key to reducing neck injury risk is to keep the head and torso moving together. To ensure this happens, a seat and head restraint have to work in concert to support the head, accelerating it with the torso as the vehicle is driven forward in a rear impact. This means the geometry of a head restraint has to be adequate, and so do the stiffness characteristics of the vehicle seat and head restraint.

Now almost every vehicle we test offers good protection.

However, the institute's evaluations show seats and head restraints in many models wouldn't do a good job of protecting most people in typical rear impact in everyday commuter traffic.

The sled test simulates the kind of crash that frequently occurs when one vehicle rear ends another in commuter traffic. People think of head restraints as head rests, but they're not. They're important safety devices. You're more likely to need the protection of a good head restraint in a collision than you are to need other safety devices because rear-end crashes are so common.

Side airbags can protect the head, but if the vehicle structure doesn't hold up well then serious injuries to other body regions still can occur. With better structures along with the side airbags, the performances of these vehicles would improve.

This new research confirms what the dummies have been telling us. The dummies say there is a big difference in how well cars protect you. What we see in this real-world data is the dummies don't lie.

SUVs can have the same utility they do today and still be equipped with decent bumper systems that extend down to where they match up with those on cars, ... Until then, motorists who bump into mismatched vehicles, even at very low speeds, will have no choice but to open their wallets.

Audi and Infiniti are ahead of many of their competitors in side-impact protection, ... They engineered the new models to do well in both of the Institute's tests, and they want to get the results out more quickly to demonstrate to buyers their cars' state-of-the-art crashworthiness.

If a seat is too stiff, without enough 'give' to it so a person sinks into it during a crash, then the head restraint can move back and away from the head. This can lead to higher forces on the neck, and whiplash injury is more likely.

Automakers are improving the geometry of their head restraints, compared with the last time we evaluated them. Still, in this group of minivans the Fords are the only models with good dynamic performance for all of their seat designs. Many of the seathead restraints we evaluated didn't even get to the testing stage because of marginal or poor geometry. These cannot begin to protect most people in rear-end crashes.

It's attracting a lot of attention for distinctive styling, ... but the bumpers aren't praiseworthy.

Ford has done a good job of designing its newest vehicles to better protect occupants in frontal crashes.

It used to be that unless you were short you'd have trouble finding a vehicle with head restraints that extended high enough to protect you, ... Now automakers are making improvements so that in many vehicles even taller people can position the head restraints where they need to be to protect the neck from being injured in a rear-end crash.

In the past, cars from Hyundai often didn't perform as well as many competitors in our safety tests. Structure is the key to providing good protection in a frontal crash because if the occupant compartment buckles or crumples, the safety belts and airbags

The heads of both dummies were protected from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding test barrier. Side airbags, especially those designed to protect the head, are key in reducing risks to people in side impacts. The Institute's test represents a crash in which the striking vehicle has a tall front end like a pickup or SUV, so head protection is critical.

We're not getting much new information from the tests, and have been looking for a way to do more side crashes, so we have side-crash data for all the vehicles we have frontal results for.

Ford could have used this opportunity to design better bumpers. A bumper should be tough enough to prevent major damage in a minor collision at a fast-walking speed.

use crash test results with much more confidence.

But good head restraint geometry by itself isn't sufficient. A seat has to be designed so it doesn't move backward and away from the head during a rear impact. A seat also needs to 'give' so an occupant will sink into it, moving the head closer to the restraint.

We think that the rear crash protection could be a little better, and there, we're looking at the risk of neck injury when you're hit in the rear, (say, if) you're stopped innocently at a traffic light and somebody bangs into you from behind.

We would have preferred for Ford to go back to this performance level for bumpers on the Focus instead of equipping the new model with even flimsier bumpers than those on the recent model Escorts it replaces.

This fix didn't work in our test. Forces recorded on the dummy's right leg were high, and a metal pin broke in the dummy's ankle. Ford is doing more research to find a solution and has indicated it will ask the Institute to retest the Fusion for frontal crash performance later this year.

Manufacturers should follow the lead of Honda, Nissan and Toyota in making head-protecting side air bags standard in their minivans. Important safety equipment like this shouldn't be optional.

Whenever you make it easier to see, that helps. But I don't know of many crashes caused (by a driver's) inability to see, as opposed to the fact that someone forgot to look.

In the frontal test, the driver's side of the vehicle needs to absorb the energy of the crash and keep the occupant compartment intact. The Freestyle's performance is what we like to see. A driver in a real-world crash of this severity would be likely to sustain only minor injuries. The Freestyle is a good performer and a 'best pick' in the frontal test.

Earning a 'double best pick' is a rare achievement, ... The only other vehicle to have done this is the Toyota RAV4, a small SUV, and then only when it was equipped with optional side airbags.

The Fusion is a disappointment because it's a brand new design.

The laws of physics say you're going to be at a disadvantage. But small cars don't automatically mean you're at a severe risk.

Look at the crash test ratings and go for a car that is rated 'good,' rather the one rated 'poor.'

In each of the top-performing minivans, the curtain airbags did a good job of keeping the dummies' heads from being struck by the intruding barrier. This is important because head injuries are factors in many serious side impact crashes, especially when the striking vehicle is a pickup or SUV with a tall front end.

People think of head restraints as headrests, but they're not. They're important safety devices. You're more likely to need the protection of a good head restraint in a collision than the other safety devices in your vehicle because rear-end collisions are so common.

Nearly every car now earns good ratings in our frontal test. The Fusion is acceptable, which isn't a bad result, but it's not competitive with other cars in its class. Based on this car's side and rear evaluations along with its acceptable frontal rating, the Fusion is the lowest rated moderately priced midsize car we've evaluated.

We're seeing auto manufacturers beginning to do this just to get good ratings in our test. But what we want to see manufacturers putting on their cars are bumper systems that will resist damage in a wide range of low-speed crashes.

It's encouraging that only 12 of the 58 seathead restraint combinations we evaluated didn't make it to the testing stage because of marginal or poor geometry. The auto manufacturers have been working to improve this aspect of head restraint design.

They don't provide seats with head restraints that provide the kind of protection we're looking for in rear crashes.

Ford has been doing a good job with some of its recent seat designs such as those in the Freestyle SUV and Five Hundred sedan. But the new Ranger head restraint is more than three inches below the top of the head of an average-size man. This means it won't begin to provide adequate protection for many taller people in rear-end crashes. It's puzzling why Ford decided that buyers of the new Ranger should get less protection against whiplash than people in some of its other vehicles.

The frontal offset crash tests aren't providing consumers with much useful information anymore.