How Vehicle Safety Ratings Actually Affect Injury Severity in Real-World Crashes
Five stars. Top Safety Pick. Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Poor. We see these ratings on car commercials and dealership windows, but what do they actually tell us about how badly you’ll be hurt if someone runs a red light and hits your driver’s door?
The relationship between safety ratings and real-world injury outcomes is more complicated than the stickers suggest—and understanding this relationship matters both for vehicle buyers and for accident victims pursuing compensation.
How Safety Ratings Are Actually Determined
Two organizations dominate vehicle safety testing in the United States: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which assigns star ratings, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which uses descriptive categories.
Their testing methods differ significantly.
NHTSA’s Approach
NHTSA conducts frontal crash tests at 35 mph into a rigid barrier, side crash tests using a 3,015-pound barrier moving at 38.5 mph, and rollover resistance evaluations. They also assess crash avoidance technologies like automatic emergency braking.
The star ratings reflect how well the vehicle protects crash test dummies in these specific scenarios. Five stars means the test dummies experienced forces associated with a less than 10% probability of serious injury. But this only applies to the exact conditions tested.
IIHS Testing
The IIHS uses different crash configurations, including a small overlap frontal test that simulates hitting a pole or tree with just 25% of the vehicle’s width. This test revealed safety gaps that full-frontal tests missed entirely. Some vehicles that scored well in NHTSA testing performed poorly in small overlap scenarios.
IIHS also tests headlight performance, seat and head restraint geometry (important for whiplash prevention), and the effectiveness of crash avoidance systems. Their Top Safety Pick and Top Safety Pick+ designations require good performance across multiple criteria.
Where Ratings Meet Reality
Here’s what the testing organizations acknowledge but commercials don’t emphasize: real-world crashes rarely replicate test conditions.
Speed Matters Exponentially
Test crashes occur at controlled speeds—35 to 40 mph for most evaluations. But kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. A crash at 60 mph involves more than twice the energy of a crash at 40 mph; it involves roughly 2.25 times the energy.
A vehicle that performs excellently at test speeds may not provide the same level of protection at highway speeds. The physics simply overwhelm the engineering at some point.
Angle and Position Variables
Test crashes hit vehicles at precise angles and positions. Real accidents are chaotic. The other car might strike you at an oblique angle that concentrates force differently than any test scenario. You might be turning your head to check a mirror, changing how your body absorbs impact. Your seat might be positioned diferently than the test dummy’s.
These variables don’t make safety ratings useless—they make them one factor among many in predicting injury outcomes.
Vehicle Mismatch Problems
Safety tests evaluate vehicles in isolation or against standardized barriers. They don’t fully account for what happens when a compact car meets an SUV, or when a sedan is struck by a commercial truck.
Weight disparities dramatically affect injury outcomes. When a 3,000-pound car collides with a 6,000-pound truck, the physics favor the larger vehicle’s occupants. No safety rating can fully compensate for this imbalance.
What the Data Actually Shows
Despite these limitations, research consistently demonstrates that higher-rated vehicles do provide meaningful protection advantages.
Studies comparing injury rates across vehicle types find that occupants of Top Safety Pick vehicles experience fewer serious injuries than occupants of lower-rated vehicles in comparable crashes. The protection isn’t absolute, but the correlation is real and statistically significant.
Modern safety features—electronic stability control, side curtain airbags, automatic emergency braking—have measurably reduced fatality and injury rates. The Insurance Institute estimates that electronic stability control alone prevents thousands of fatal crashes annually.
The Age Factor
Vehicle age matters as much as ratings. A 15-year-old car, even one that was highly rated when new, lacks safety advances that are now standard. Side curtain airbags, advanced crumple zone designs, and crash avoidance technologies simply weren’t available in older vehicles.
This creates real disparities in injury outcomes. Studies show that occupants of older vehicles are significantly more likely to be seriously injured or killed in crashes than occupants of newer vehicles, independent of driver behavior.
How This Affects Accident Claims
When you’re injured in a Colorado car accident, your vehicle’s safety features—and any failures in those features—can become relevant to your claim.
Crashworthiness Claims
If your vehicle’s safety systems failed to perform as designed, you may have a product liability claim against the manufacturer in addition to your claim against the at-fault driver. Seatbelts that released during impact, airbags that didn’t deploy or deployed improperly, and seats that collapsed on impact have all formed the basis for crashworthiness claims.
These cases require expert analysis to determine whether the vehicle performed as designed and whether better performance would have reduced your injuries.
Damages and Vehicle Choice
Insurance adjusters sometimes argue that plaintiffs “assumed the risk” of greater injury by driving smaller or older vehicles. Colorado law doesn’t support this argument—the at-fault driver takes victims as they find them, regardless of vehicle choice.
However, documenting the full extent of your injuries and connecting them to the accident rather than vehicle factors requires proper medical evidence and sometimes expert testimony.
Making Informed Decisions
Safety ratings provide valuable comparative information, but they’re not guarantees. When buying a vehicle, consider ratings as one important factor alongside practical needs, budget, and driving patterns. Newer vehicles with current safety technologies generally provide better protection than older vehicles.
If you’ve been injured in an accident, your vehicle’s safety features—or lack thereof—may be relevant to your case. Understanding this relationship helps ensure you receive fair compensation.
Have questions about an accident claim? Call Flanagan Law at 720-928-9178 for a free consultation. We’ll help you understand all factors affecting your case and fight for the compensation you deserve.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does driving a safer car reduce my insurance rates?
Often, yes. Many insurers offer discounts for vehicles with advanced safety features, and some adjust rates based on safety ratings. The discounts reflect actuarial data showing these vehicles generate fewer and smaller injury claims.
Can I sue a car manufacturer if I’m injured despite good safety ratings?
Potentially, if the vehicle’s safety systems failed to perform as designed. Safety ratings reflect test performance, not guaranteed outcomes. If an airbag didn’t deploy or a seatbelt failed, you may have a product liability claim regardless of the vehicle’s overall rating.
How do SUVs and trucks compare to cars in crash safety?
It’s complicated. Larger vehicles generally protect their own occupants better due to mass advantages, but they pose greater risks to occupants of smaller vehicles they collide with. Rollover risk is also higher for SUVs, though electronic stability control has significantly reduced this danger.
Are older vehicles with good ratings still safe?
Relatively speaking, a well-rated older vehicle is safer than a poorly-rated older vehicle. But older vehicles lack safety technologies that are now standard. If you’re driving a car more than 10 years old, it likely doesn’t have side curtain airbags, electronic stability control, or crash avoidance features that meaningfully reduce injury risk.
