Where did you see the rear end results? The 06 MINI did very well in these tests but it does not mention rear end specifically.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=168 although head restraint fared well.

 

As I said earlier. They know who pays the bills. It's not Mini.

 

Funny how they never mention that they never mention the 01-04 Ford F150 Death trap. (The killing crumple zone was fixed by Ford when contrasted with an offset test involving a MINI Cooper. The MINI won)

Or the Straddling Lincoln Navigator

Or the Hummer and its 1-6mpg city

Not to mention the countless SUV drivers who believe they themselves are God and therefore invincible because they drive a Chevrolet Tahoe.

Also, let us completely disregard the fact that drivers of smaller cars have faster reaction times, are more experienced (In most instances), and have more control over their car's actions. But hey, support American autos and keep on buying Behemoths!

I'm surprised they didn't end the segment with:
"When you buy American, you're supporting our troops. When you buy foreign, you're a pinko commie"

 

I was flipping through the news channels the other day, so I didn't get the entire context of the interview, but the reporter was interviewing this guy about gas prices, and the interviewee basically said "You know, I think it's funny that when gas was three dollars a gallon, you had all these guys saying 'I'm gonna buy a hybrid, I'm gonna start carpooling, I'm gonna stop driving altogether...", but as soon as the gas prices dropped, they're right back to all of their old habits again."

 

One thing everyone seems to overlook when quoting the physics of a Mini getting rearended by a heavier vehicle. Chances are, the Mini isn't going to just be stationary and get crushed. It will be MOVED by the impact and some of the energy will be disappated. every crash test I have ever seen, there is an immovable object in the crash. In any real accident on the roads, both vehicles will move in some direction after impact.

 

CAUTION! The IIHS is an insurance industry public relations and lobbying organization that publishes politically motivated faux studies to support, and promote, its collective self–interest, not the people or the general welfare of the public.

Revelations from IIHS show that they may be a lead cause in the nations red–light running crisis and the associated high fatal accidents. They spearheaded a movement to shorten yellows causing more entries on red (collisions), this movement undermined sound engineering practices and benefited red light camera makers and the citation industry. Approximately 25 percent of this group’s sponsors income comes from citation surcharges. A report by congress showed that returning to sound engineering practices reduces accident rates and that these cameras are about money, not safety. Moreover, they are also a leading proponent of removing due process from automated traffic fine collection.

Its position papers, studies, reports and compiling methods rarely conform to, or meet accepted scientific and traffic engineering research practices or pass peer review verifications. Too often, IIHS conclusions express a publicity driven political agenda that is not supported by fact (teen driving, red light cameras, speed, dui, etc.).

Its crash test are of interest but its criteria does not reflect real world conditions nor does it represent a true picture of the vehicle’s overall safety design features (active and passive) or the testing done by its manufacturer examining all possible crash scenarios and safety concerns or its corresponding real world occupant safety record.

 

Follow the money?

 

Exactly, actually a few months ago I got to witness an MVA between a Ford Ranger and a MINI Cooper. Head on, about 65mph in the Ranger (He was speeding obv) and 40mph in the MINI. It was really a fantastic sight to see, and the reason why I say this is due to the fact that although the MINI was totalled, the occupants walked out to the Ranger and were trying to help out the dead occupants of the truck. It wasn't until my crew got there (Volunteer Fire) that they realized the true seriousness of the issue.

All in all:

MINI
Two occupants
Both survived, minor injuries (Scratches, bruise, etc)

Ford Ranger
Three occupants
Two DOA, one with compound fracture in both Femurs

I'd say THATS a real life testament that the MINI Cooper is pretty damn safe

 

:impatient Chicken Little Was Right

 

If you look at the IIHS data in detail, it doesn't even say what the media are reporting ... no surprise there!

My rant:
http://www.gbmini.net/mtblog/archive...amn_lies.shtml

 

After posting this yesterday, I never expected to see this much response. I was not trying to stir the pot or anything.
You all have had some really great responses. It is interesting to see how many of us feel very safe in our MINI. We can all point out examples of people who have walked away from serious collisions.
My mother recently got side swiped by a double trailer gravel truck while driving her Cadillac DeVille. She was tring to make a left hand turn and did not see the truck passing on the left at the intersection. She walked away as well. My dad asked me if I thought my MINI would have held up as well? My response was that the truck would have never been there to pass me. As I don't let gravel trucks get in front of me.

 

Read about it in the Los Angeles Times stating that Front crash is Good, Side is Acceptable and Rear is Marginal! per Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

 

Well, there goes my plan to reverse at speed into the next SUV I see....

 

I consider myself a seasoned driver, but a newbie driver of a mini vehicle.

With that being said, I have had my Mini for a couple of months and to date have had no reason to have fear because of it size.

Now I can't say the same for some of the folks driving on our roads.

I will continue to own and operate my Mini with safety as priority ONE for me, my family and other drivers on our roads.

Lets all do our share to keep our roads save.

 

LOL!

Man, anytime I picture someone reversing fast, it just cracks me up... I dunno why!!

 

Your excuse for driving a big truck is not legitimate. I hereby revoke your big-car-driving privilege. Surrender your keys.



As much as I dislike big cars and the morons who own them, I respect their right to put my life in danger. It's just one of thost things that you learn to deal with.
I think that it would be reasonable to require SUV and large truck owners to pass more strenuous diving tests in order the obtain a license for one of these large vehicles. Sure, drive a Hummer to pick up the kids, but at least learn HOW to drive it first.

 

I don't think that we should ban SUV's, Hummers, and other monstrosities, but I *do* think we should do away with the loophole that makes them exempt from CAFE fuel economy guidelines. Maybe once the automakers start getting penalized for making 8 MPG vehicles, they'll start heavily marketing more fuel-efficient cars to get their CAFE average back up.

If you hadn't heard, manufacturers have to average about 27 MPG for all of the cars they sell, and about 20 MPG for all light trucks. That means that for every vehicle they sell that gets worse mileage than that, they have to sell another vehicle that gets better mileage than that, to keep the average at or above the guidelines. The loophole? Vehicles that weigh over 8,500 pounds, like the Ford F-250, Ford Excursion, and Hummer H2, are competely exempt from the guidelines - they're not figured into the CAFE calculations at all. The exemption was originally intended for heavy equipment and farm machinery, but now we have SUVs being driven to the mall that fit in that category.

 

^good idea, but I think the big car companies will just come out with small junk to offset their low fuel mileage cars.

 

I think we should place a banner at next years MOTD that reads "Bite me ABC and IIHS".

 

It's not an idea, that is what is currently happening. That is also why all of the major (especially American) car companies make at least 2 super-crappy little compacts that no one buys. But hey, at least they're trying, right? Ha! The law is that they have to make them, not that they have to make them well.

 

They had an abbreviated report on the ABC evening news. It was such BS. They flat out said bigger IS better. What BS BS BS. The Mini wasn't even mentioned on a results level thay just showed images of it getting plowed from the side. Bigger can't maneuver out of harms way as well as smaller & when bigger flips over the massive weight of bigger tends to crush the roof in on the occupants of bigger.
uhhh I think I'll take my chances in my Mini

 

This topic makes me think of this thread. https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=66871

Took a hit at 55+mph. Looks like the MINI did its job. I know I feel safe in mine.

Nik

 

I was at my local dealer and saw a Mini with a lot of front end damage, the Service Manager said it was in a front on front end collision with a Ford F150, the Mini was being fixed the Ford was a write off.

 

Outmaneuver

 

I think the media is factually full of ****. This is all "if it bleeds it leads" bs. How many 7000lbs SUV are roaming out there? I think the Hum-Vee is probably the only one at 7000+. And then they of course fail to mention that any car of any weight is no match to a semi at 80,000lbs.

And like eveyrone has already said, they talk about high gas prices, and "gas guzzling cars" and then follow it up with, you better drive a big ugly car, because the little cute ones will kill you. Before you know it, they will want to but a warning label on all small cars about it's weight (or lack of it).

I was a little miffed at myself for missing the program last night, but from the sounds of it, I was glad that I did.