Most small SUVs flunk updated insurance industry crash tests

This is an any hatchback with no boot/trunk problem. Imagine if a kei car was subjected to the rear ending test. There is no crumple zone at all.

Now, the risk of fatal injury is 46% higher for rear-seat passengers than drivers in the front, Harkey said.

Soon the risk of fatal injury for any person struck outside of one of these armored tanks(pedestrians/people on bikes) will be 4000x higher than the people inside.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Robbery has to change their test standards at regular intervals so vehicels that were passing their old tests now fail. Why? To maintain the outrage machine and justify higher insurance rates. It is the only way they stay relevant.

Soon the risk of fatal injury for any person struck outside of one of these armored tanks(pedestrians/people on bikes) will be 4000x higher than the people inside.

That's true, and full sized SUVs are getting ever higher at the front, making them even more likely to knock people down and then run them over. It should be noted here that sports cars stopped having pop-up headlights about 30 years ago specifically because they were too dangerous for pedestrians. Nobody seems to care how dangerous SUVs are to other people. After years of successful lobbying, people don't matter any more, only $$$$.

Just to repeat, the story is talking about "small SUVs" and how the proximity of their back seat to the rear hatch makes passengers vulnerable when the car is rear ended. This will apply to any hatchback, i.e., the vast majority of kei cars on the road in Japan. Any drivers out there should be warned before they put their loved ones in an N-Box, or Tanto, or whatever kei car. I would say your family's safety is more important than saving a little on car tax. If you want to buy a hatchback, buy one with a boot, like a Honda Fit.

This is an any hatchback with no boot/trunk problem. Imagine if a kei car was subjected to the rear ending test. There is no crumple zone at all.

While what KohakuEbisu writes is correct, especially for cars with three rows of seats, the test has not been updated to include a rear impact test. Nobody (NCAP, EuroNCAP, IIHS) performs such a test due to industry lobbying - they all know how badly their estates, SUVs and hatchbacks would do.

The article is merely pointing out that IIHS have started studying the effect of frontal impacts on rear seat passengers more rigorously.

Buy a Land Cruiser if you're worried about being hit from behind.