Safety crash ratings

[Jaff]

Agreed ldm....for what it's worth, I found out today that the VICC (vehicle information center of Canada) has rated the Model S a 1 out of 5 for the accident benefits section of the auto policy...this is the safest rating a car can score under this rating system.

The VICC borrows most of it's data from the IIHC...the IIHC will use actual crash data plus
(in the case of brand new models or substantially remodeled models) computer crash test modeling.

I would submit that based on the Model S scoring a 1 out of 5, that the IIHC thinks rather highly of the protection that the Models Service offers it's occupants.

I see it as a logical way to move the bar forward. The whole point of the Insurance Institute doing these tests is to see which vehicles are safest comparative to each other, which insurance companies can use to rank vehicles against each other in determining potential liability, and also to make the vehicles safer for passengers which reduces potential liability for insurance companies. The tests need to be hard enough to have separation between the best, decent, and poor. For instance, if any SAT score over 1000 just gave a grade of "Pass", it would do nothing to show how the majority of students compare to each other.

[AustinPowers]

... The whole point of the Insurance Institute doing these tests is to see which vehicles are safest comparative to each other, which insurance companies can use to rank vehicles against each other in determining potential liability, and also to make the vehicles safer for passengers which reduces potential liability for insurance companies. ...

Correction, the point is to find a new excuse for charging customers excessive insurance premiums!

The insurance industry is the last one interested in safety.
They are not on this planet to insure people, but to make money, like all companies. All they are interested in is charging high premiums and - in the event of an accident - trying to avoid payment! Sorry, but that's how it is.

Oh and something interesting about the IIHS from Wikipedia:

The IIHS has come under scrutiny on several occasions since the 1980s over what some consider unfair bias against certain vehicle types, namely some small pickups and certain types of motorcycles. Since the IIHS first-and-foremost represents the interests of the 80 insurance companies from which it receives its funding, critics such as the American Motorcyclist Association have suggested that the IIHS sometimes seeks to influence legislation aimed at making insurance companies more profitable, rather than benefitting the public interest.

[Justin]

Not sure if this is covered deeper in the thread, but I emailed the DOT about crash testing for the Tesla S and they replied they haven't tested it yet but expect to later this year and will have the report posted by early next year.

[Jaff]

These statements are your opinions, just as the Wiki post is someone posting some entity's spokeperson's opinion...posting one's opinion does not equate to fact.

My opinion is that you're mal-informed at best.

Correction, the point is to find a new excuse for charging customers excessive insurance premiums!

The insurance industry is the last one interested in safety.
They are not on this planet to insure people, but to make money, like all companies. All they are interested in is charging high premiums and - in the event of an accident - trying to avoid payment! Sorry, but that's how it is.

Oh and something interesting about the IIHS from Wikipedia:

[Doug_G]

Right, and all doctors aren't interested in saving anyone's lives... they just want the money for doing the procedure.

Astronauts, yeah, it's just a job.

AustinPowers, I think it would be best if you not insult the professions of other people on these forums.

[Robert.Boston]

The insurance industry has a strong incentive to see a downward trend in claims. Rates are set based on historical claims, while payouts are based on future claims. Increased safety causes a downward trend in claims, which in turn ensures that the insurance companies make a lot of money.

[AustinPowers]

AustinPowers, I think it would be best if you not insult the professions of other people on these forums.

Sorry, my bad. But I don't think I insulted anybody personally. Nor was that my intention. If someone here feels insulted because I heavily critized the insurance industry itself, I sincerely apologize to those persons.

(By the way, my profession is insulted every day nowadays. I guess I've just gotten used to it.)

But I'm stating what friends, colleagues, family and myself have experienced all their life when it comes to insurance companies, so those are facts for me.
True, that is not objective, but I even have colleagues here at work who have worked in insurance companies for decades before coming here, and even they state that insurance companies always try to find ever more ingenious ways to sell the products with the highest premiums while at the same time trying to pay as little claims as possible. So that makes it even more fact for me.

So I am sorry but these new tests - devised by an organisation that is funded solely from insurance companies - do seem to me to have a "gschmaeckle" as we say. (I don't know how to translate that though, not sure there is an Englisch equivalent). Especially as I can't concur with the supposed fact about how many accidents would happen that way. Can't say it is what one reads about accidents in the newspapers every day.

[AustinPowers]

The insurance industry has a strong incentive to see a downward trend in claims. Rates are set based on historical claims, while payouts are based on future claims.

I agree on the first statement. But what do you mean by "payouts are based on future claims"?
Payouts - if they do happen - are made based on what is in the contract. No?

Otoh, I think we are getting too far off-topic now. Sorry if I am responsible for that.

[Johan]

So I am sorry but these new tests - devised by an organisation that is funded solely from insurance companies - do seem to me to have a "gschmaeckle" as we say. I don't know how to translate that though, not sure there is an Englisch equivalent.

How about "something fishy" (going on)?

Is it jiddisch? Or Bavarian?

[KangarooAustralia]

So I am sorry but these new tests - devised by an organisation that is funded solely from insurance companies - do seem to me to have a "gschmaeckle" as we say. (I don't know how to translate that though, not sure there is an Englisch equivalent).

My German / English dictionary says gschmaeckle means: 'tasteless" or "in bad taste". Seems to fit
Oops! Sorry, that's the meaning of geschmacklos. Close.... but can't find gschmaeckle.