[RahulNagaraj]

As per the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), rear-seat passengers are at a higher risk of injury during an accident, compared to the front driver and passengers. This isn't because the rear seat is getting dangerous, but due to the fact that the safety advancements happening at the front aren't extending to the seats in the back.

As per IIHS's recent study, only 4 out of 13 midsize SUVs managed to pass their crash-testing protocol for rear-seat passengers. This included the Ford Explorer, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Subaru Ascent and Tesla Model Y. Among the other midsize crossovers in the list, the Chevrolet Traverse, Toyota Highlander & Volkswagen Atlas received "marginal" results, while the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Mazda CX-9 & Nissan Murano got "poor" ratings.



Reports stated:

“All these vehicles provide excellent protection for the driver,” IIHS President David Harkey said. “But only a handful extend that level of safety to the back seat.”

The risk of fatal injury is 46 per cent higher for belted occupants in the rear seat in vehicles model year 2007 and beyond simply because restraint technologies have improved in the front seat only, a release said. IIHS updated its test after seeing back seat safety improvements trail behind those for front-seat occupants.

The back seat isn’t getting more dangerous, but rather safety advancements haven’t kept up with front-seat advances, Arbelaez said.

The new test uses a dummy that represents a small woman or 12-year-old to focus on avoiding injuries typically seen in back seat occupants.

To earn a good rating, sensors must not indicate excessive risk of head, neck, chest, abdomen or thigh injury. Video footage and grease paint on the dummy’s head are used to showcase that restraints prevent the head from hitting the interior or the front seat. Restraints must also prevent the body from sliding underneath the lap seat belt. Pressure sensors monitor the belt on the dummy’s torso to gauge chest injury risk.

Source: Automotive News

Link to Team-BHP news

[supermax]

Definitely interesting. The Swedish transport administration follows recommendations from both NCAP and the Swedish state owned insurance agency, in formulating safety directives. As per them, for children, rear facing car seats are the safest. Their use in the front seat (passenger seat) requires the airbag to be turned off, but the directives note that the highest safety for children is if they are placed in a rear-facing child seat in the back.

[mygodbole]

Curious. Most crash test videos that I have seen have the dummy facing front. My personal experience is that folks in the second/third row, rarely 'look front'.

People sitting in the back seats/third row usually chit-chat, at least in my experience. Or else, they nod off, if it is a long drive.

And in many cases, the rear seat occupants are busy with their screens (phone/laptop/tablet).

In each scenario, the people are rarely looking straight up front. The crash-test dummies are almost always facing front.

Have these crash tests evaluated these side/down-facing situations? Are the results likely to differ and will the evaluation change?

Just aware of the safety aspects, NOT an expert, so asking those that know about these things to educate us.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by supermax

directives note that the highest safety for children is if they are placed in a rear-facing child seat in the back.

The IIHS tests had a 5th percentile female adult in the rear seat, not a child.

[McLaren Rulez]

The front passengers have airbags ahead of them, the rear ones don't. Not that surprising, although quantifying the additional risk to be 46% is nice I guess...