Originally published September 28 2005
Many minivans fail head restraint safety test
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
In simulated crash tests, several minivans, including versions of the 2004-2006 model years of the Dodge Grand Caravan and four General Motors minivans from the 2005-2006 model years, did not have head restraints that provided adequate protection to victims of a rear-end collision, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Head restraints in several minivans inadequately protect people against whiplash in rear-end crashes, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says.
An edition of the Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country with adjustable lumbar and head restraints got the second-highest rating, or acceptable.
The 2005-2006 Honda Odyssey received the second-lowest, or marginal.
"It's disappointing that so many minivan seats are rated poor for rear impact protection," said Adrian Lund, the institute's chief operating officer.
The minivans were tested on a crash simulation sled.
It replicates the forces in a stationary vehicle that is struck in the rear by a similar vehicle at 20 mph.
The institute's David Zuby told correspondent Thalia Assuras that the type of crash simulated for the tests is "very, very common in the kinds of traffic and crashes that we have in everyday life."
Vehicles got a higher rating if the head restraint contacted the dummy's head quickly and the forces on the dummy's neck and the acceleration of the torso were low.
But, Zuby says, in many cases, "The seat back pushed too hard against the dummy's back and the head was fairly late in contacting the head restraint."
"No single test, including the new rear impact test developed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, can determine a vehicle's overall safety performance," Gates said.
A Toyota spokeswoman, Allison Takahashi, said Toyota conducts extensive internal testing of the head restraint system.
GM spokesman Alan Adler said the automaker's head restraints are engineered to offer high levels of safety.
Models that received poor or marginal scores for the restraint design were given poor overall marks because they could not be positioned to protect many motorists, the institute said.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml