IIHS Questions the Safety of Electric Vehicles on Others

Ken Zino of AutoInformed.com on Crash Course – Euro NCAP on 2022 Safety Tests

EV crash compatibility with other vehicles and their effect on people or pedestrians is a valid concern.

In a piece just released this morning by Raul Arbelaez the Vice President, Vehicle Research Center at IIHS, asked: “How safe are electric vehicles? It’s a question that keeps coming up in different ways in my role overseeing our vehicle crashworthiness evaluations.” Based on IIHS’s 55 crash tests of EVs starting in 2011, Arbelaez outlined his current concerns, some of which are cited below.

This is just the latest discussion on the expanding concerns about EV safety  and their societal impact. In AutoInformed’s view these issues need to be worked on. They mirror an earlier problem with large pickup trucks and their crash compatibility with other vehicles, which the industry did partially address. See below for relevant stories*

“Assuming the new generation of heavy EVs is designed to perform well in our crash tests, there is no reason they can’t provide good protection to their occupants. In fact, their extra weight will afford them greater protection in a multi-vehicle crash. Unfortunately, given the way these vehicles are currently designed, this increased protection comes at the expense of people in other vehicles,” Arbelaez said.

“The extra weight may also present a threat to pedestrians and bicyclists, though the danger for them is not as straightforward. The weight differential between a person and any type of passenger vehicle is already so enormous that the additional weight from an EV battery would make little difference in most cases. (Large vehicles do represent a bigger threat to pedestrians and bicyclists, but that is due mostly to their height and shape, which affect both visibility and whether a person is knocked to the ground when struck.) However, it’s not clear that all EVs have braking performance that matches their additional mass. If the extra weight leads to longer stopping distances, that will likely lead to an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths, which already have been on the rise in recent years,” Arbelaez said.

AutoInformed.com on: Night Testing Scores of Pedestrian Automatic Braking Poor;  “National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data show that more than 6200 pedestrians and 891 bicyclists and riders of two-wheel, non-motorized vehicles, tricycles, and unicycles died during traffic crashes in 2020. Preliminary data for 2021 show crashes involving pedestrians and pedal cyclists continues to rise. NHTSA data show that most of the pedestrian fatalities (76%) and bicyclist fatalities (50%) happened during darkness between 6 pm to 8:59 pm,” – Ken Zino.)

The Bottom Line – Arbelaez’s Points and Call to Action

  • If the present trend toward ever-heavier, more powerful EVs continues, there will be a big increase in the number of super-heavy, high-acceleration machines all around us, including in residential neighborhoods. That will make a collision involving a huge weight disparity much more likely.
  • We don’t need to put the brakes on electrification — there are good reasons for it — and we’re not doomed to reverse all the safety gains of recent decades. But the development will require some new thinking about the kinds of vehicles we want on our roads.
  • For one thing, as a society, we should consider how much mass individuals should be driving around for the daily commute and around town. There are EVs with more reasonable weights. (Remember that Leaf?) The heaviest of the new EVs are heavier because they are bigger, but also because larger batteries afford them longer range and higher horsepower.
  • The ability to travel 400 miles on a charge is convenient but unnecessary for most commutes. As charging speed and infrastructure improves, it will arguably be less important for road trips too. As for horsepower, is the kind of rapid acceleration the new models boast really important or even a good idea? Vehicles with extreme levels of power simply encourage more speeding, which leads to more fatal crashes.
  • If substantially reducing EVs’ weight is not an option, automakers should consider other design changes to improve crash compatibility. Heavier vehicles could be built with additional crush space in their front ends to help compensate for the effect of their extra weight in a crash with another vehicle. While we usually think about crumple zones as important for protecting a vehicle’s own occupants, additional space would also protect people in other, lighter vehicles. With no engine taking up space in the front of the vehicle, there may also be more flexibility to design front ends that are less likely to injure pedestrians and bicyclists.
  • In addition, I’m hopeful that expected improvements in battery technology will help by allowing smaller batteries to store more energy and that an expanding network of fast public chargers will take away some of the need for long ranges.
  • In the meantime, we need to double down on existing solutions. Manufacturers should equip all new vehicles with high-performing crash avoidance systems that recognize and brake for pedestrians and bicyclists, in addition to other vehicles, and good headlights that allow drivers to react quickly at night. States and local governments should consider lowering speed limits, factoring in the increased danger from weight disparities, and backing them up with increased enforcement.

“Electric vehicles are here to stay, but we can choose what that means for safety,” Arbelaez concludes.

AutoInformed on

This entry was posted in AutoInformed Editorial, electric vehicles, insurance, safety and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *