Wicked rear passenger head impact!! Updated JL crash test. Where is the rear side curtain?

[Gvsukids]

What about the dogs?

We're at seven pages, now, that will ultimately accomplish nothing. If you don't think the Jeep is safe enough, don't buy one. If you think it should be changed, go lobby Jeep Corporate. Ranting about it here, and telling people they don't care about their children because they don't agree with you, makes you no friends.

Freedom of open forums.

Sponsored

 

[Higher_Ground]

Never thought I'd see people arguing against airbags.

Oh well, if that's your starting point I don't think even the most gifted orator could change your mind.

Perhaps a bad accident would, though.

 

[NachoRuby]

Great find... The "iT's RaTeD gOoD tHouGh" argument kind of crumbles when the literal data for rear passengers (what we've been talking about) is presented.

The mental gymnastics in this thread...

I was just looking at the rating. I'm all about science based data, so I appreciate that insight as well, and I am in no way doing mental gymnastics. If you wish to engage in civil discourse, I'm all for it. I'm also all for safety, and I'm not anti-airbag.

Question, though, if what the Wrangler got still warranted a "good" rating for injuries, what would make it go down to "marginal" or "poor"?

Many people are just going to look at the good, poor, marginal here, and conclude since the Wrangler got good across the board, and many others did not, that the Wrangler is a safe choice.

The Wrangler, while still rated "good" ,was, upon looking at the empirical data, less "good" than the others in that category. I do still stand by my thought that I'd be more comfortable with a vehicle with across the board "good" ratings for injuries over one which faired less well in the injuries category. That said, the safest vehicles rated here, at least for side impact, are the Mazda and VW, which are the only ones to get good in every conceivable category.

I'm not opposed to safety, and I'd laud Jeep for adding those rear airbags. I was simply stating that in its current form, it still earned a "good" rating for injuries. That apparently doesn't mean it was as good as the others though. Perhaps a more detailed scale is in order. Like 1-5 stars, to make it clear just how good.

I'm not trying to be rude or do mental gymnastics. I just saw a good score, which to me, meant just that: "good". Apparently, there is more nuance there, which leads me to wonder: What does a less than "good" rating look like?

 

[sharpsicle]

With all the personal attacks going on in this thread, I feel like everyone needs this:

You can always ask and desire for more from a company. But for anyone to ever think that this discussion means that buying a Jeep is saying you don't care about your family's health is asinine. Accusations on both sides are uncalled-for.

 

[brewerydad]

I would be surprised if side curtain airbags show up on Gladiators and Wranglers before the next generations are produced.

 

[Mister Lamb]

I was just looking at the rating. I'm all about science based data, so I appreciate that insight as well, and I am in no way doing mental gymnastics. If you wish to engage in civil discourse, I'm all for it. I'm also all for safety, and I'm not anti-airbag.

Question, though, if what the Wrangler got still warranted a "good" rating for injuries, what would make it go down to "marginal" or "poor"?

Many people are just going to look at the good, poor, marginal here, and conclude since the Wrangler got good across the board, and many others did not, that the Wrangler is a safe choice.

The Wrangler, while still rated "good" ,was, upon looking at the empirical data, less "good" than the others in that category. I do still stand by my thought that I'd be more comfortable with a vehicle with across the board "good" ratings for injuries over one which faired less well in the injuries category. That said, the safest vehicles rated here, at least for side impact, are the Mazda and VW, which are the only ones to get good in every conceivable category.

I'm not opposed to safety, and I'd laud Jeep for adding those rear airbags. I was simply stating that in its current form, it still earned a "good" rating for injuries. That apparently doesn't mean it was as good as the others though. Perhaps a more detailed scale is in order. Like 1-5 stars, to make it clear just how good.

I'm not trying to be rude or do mental gymnastics. I just saw a good score, which to me, meant just that: "good". Apparently, there is more nuance there, which leads me to wonder: What does a less than "good" rating look like?

The comment was more geared towards those in the thread that believe adding rear airbags is some sort of impossible task that's too complex for modern day engineers to implement. In regard to their scoring metric, it's evident their definition of 'Good' is not the up to snuff when compared to the rest of society. Call me a cynic, but based on how our politics work ($), I have a hard time believing major car manufacturers don't have a say in how metrics (and their ranges) are at a minimum titled. If head trauma can be overshadowed and still be capable of being called 'Good,' something isn't kosher...

 

[scoobycarolanNC]

This is the stupidest fucking thread I’ve ever read on a Jeep board.

Sponsored