Hubbry Logo
Side collisionSide collisionMain
Open search
Side collision
Community hub
Side collision
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Side collision
Side collision
Side collision
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A crash test by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows the damage to a compact Ford Focus struck by a Ford Explorer SUV
Side impact NCAP test of a 2007 Saturn Outlook.
This NHTSA collision test shows what happens when a Volkswagen New Beetle slides sideways into a utility pole or a tree.
Two cars are involved in a side collision at an intersection in Tokyo, Japan

A side collision, also called a T-bone accident, is a vehicle crash where the side of one or more vehicles is impacted. These crashes typically occur at intersections, in parking lots, and when two vehicles pass on a multi-lane roadway.

Occurrences and effects

[edit]

A 2016 study found that, in the EU, side impact collisions were significantly less common than frontal impact collisions, at rates of 22-29% and 61-69% respectively.[1] However, they tend to be much more dangerous. Another report commissioned by the EU in 2015 found that side impacts accounted for roughly 35-40% of passenger fatality and serious injury, as opposed to 55% attributed to head-on collisions. [2] A likely contributor to this fact is the amount of protection offered by the struck vehicle. Even when equipped with the safest cars on the road, these casualties occurred at much lower speeds than in head-on collisions, with passenger fatality and serious injury typically occurring at 50 km/h (~31 mph) in side impact collisions, as opposed to 70 km/h (~43 mph) for frontal impacts.[2] Additionally, side impacts tend to affect more vulnerable areas of the body. While front and rear impacts typically produced the most serious injuries in the lower extremities (legs and feet), side impacts typically resulted in most serious injuries in the head and chest regions.[1]

In 2008, a total of 5,265 (22%) out of 23,888 people were killed in vehicles which were struck in the side in the United States.[3]

For European motorcyclists, side impact is the second most frequent location of impact.[1]

For European cyclists, thorax injuries are associated with side-impact injuries in urban areas and/or at junctions.[1]

In several European countries, such as the UK, Sweden, and France, around one quarter of traffic injuries are produced by side collisions, but accounted for 29 to 38% of injuries which were fatal.[4]

In European vehicle side impact, 60% of casualties were "struck side", while 40% were "non struck side", in 2018.[4]

Fatal casualties count as 50% and 67% in UK and in France, in 2010[4]

Also, side collision are not well managed with child restraints which are not enough taking into account the movement of the child's head and prevent contact with the car's interior.[4]

For light vans and minibuses in 2000 in UK and Germany, between 14% and 26% of accidents with passenger cars were side impacts.[4]

In Shanghai, in China, 23% of the 1097 serious accidents occurred between June 2005 and March 2013 are side impact accidents, there the leading collision mode, according to the Shanghai United Road Traffic Safety Scientific Research Center (SHUFO) database.[5] The head and neck are involved in around 64% of the casualties.[5]

Testing

[edit]

Euro NCAP, IIHS and NHTSA test side impacts in different ways. As of 2015, they all test vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts,[6][7] where heavier vehicles have lower fatality rates than lighter vehicles.[8]

NHTSA and Euro NCAP also test the more severe vehicle-into-pole side impacts,[9] where smaller vehicles have the same fatality rate as larger vehicles.[8]

Newer cars have improved safety in case of front crashes, but side impacts can also be deadly; about 9,700 people were killed in side impacts in the US in 2004.[10] Side airbags became mandatory in 2009 in the US, saving an estimated 1,000 lives per year. [11] Research indicates that the vehicle's underbody is the best place to reinforce structures to reduce intrusion by the pole. [12]

General list of side impacts

[edit]
A side collision in Toronto

These are lists of cars with notable aspects of side impact.

List of cars after 2011

[edit]

The NHTSA results are evaluated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration using Office of Crashworthiness Standards, New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Side Impact Laboratory Test Procedure[13] and Side Impact Rigid Pole Laboratory Test Procedure[14] to display a simple star-rating. The "primary purpose of the NCAP side impact program is to provide comparative vehicle side protection information to assist consumers in making vehicle purchase decisions, thereby providing an incentive for vehicle manufacturers to design safer vehicles."[14]

The IIHS results are evaluated by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety using their protocols.[15][16]

This list shows the most notable of newer tested vehicles tested via NHTSA and IIHS. Some provide good protection, some less so, and some developed improved safety in response to a low result (Dodge Ram and Fiat 500). Some are common examples of their type.

Sorted roughly by rating, Head injury criterion (HIC) and Crush.

Side impact safety of newer cars (from 2011–present), by NHTSA and IIHS. Click <> to sort by parameter.
Year
[N 1] 		Manufacturer Model Type Number
produced
[N 2] 		Impactor (MDB)
into Vehicle[N 3] 		Vehicle
into pole 		Comment
 IIHS
side
rating 		Euro NCAP
side
rating
Maximum
Crush[N 4]		 HIC
[N 5]		 Rating
[N 6]		 Maximum
Crush		 HIC RLSA[N 7] Rating
2014 Jeep Wrangler SUV 1 million[17] mm N/a[18] mm g N/a Poor[19][20] N/a
2012 Chrysler 200[21] Mid 202 mm [22] StarStarStarStarStar 392 mm 1987 51 g[23] Star Head injury criterion above threshold. Good[24] N/a
2015 Toyota Hilux/Tacoma[25] Truck 5+ million[26] 305 mm 125+292[27] StarStarStarStar 516 mm 451 57 g[28] StarStarStar
2013 Fiat 500[29] Supermini 1+ million[30] 164 mm 166+382[31] StarStarStarStarStar 354 mm 224 54 g[32] StarStarStar MDB: Pelvic force and pax RLSA within threshold. Good[33] N/a
2012 Fiat 500[34] Supermini 160 mm 127+410[35] StarStarStar 354 mm 224 54 g[32] StarStarStar MDB: Pax pelvic force over threshold, and RLSA near.
2013 Dodge Ram 1500[36] Truck 365 mm 16+30[37] StarStarStarStarStar 603 mm 483 48 g[38] StarStarStarStarStar All parameters within limits. N/a[39] N/a
2011 Dodge Ram 1500[40] Truck mm StarStarStarStarStar 462 mm 519 87 g[41] Star Pole Test: Pelvic force and RLSA over threshold.
2014 Mercedes-Benz E-Class[42] Sedan 129 mm 92+244[43] StarStarStarStarStar 343 mm 492 53 g[44] StarStarStar Pole Test: Pelvic force 4770 N of a threshold of 5525 N
2012 Chrysler Town & Country[45] Minivan 298 mm 51+135[46] StarStarStarStarStar 389 mm 294 47 g[47] StarStarStarStarStar Pole Test: Pelvic force 3503 N of a threshold of 5525 N Good[48] N/a
2014 Audi Q5[49] CUV 188 mm 59+166[50] StarStarStarStarStar 467 mm 253 54 g[51] StarStarStarStarStar
2011 Volvo XC60[52] CUV ½ million[53] 170 mm 60+231[54] StarStarStarStarStar 462 mm 242 45 g[55] StarStarStarStarStar
  1. ^ Model Year of car crash-tested, not year of Overall Rating. Older crash tests usually carry over to newer car models; easily checked by comparing ratings and document numbers for different years.
  2. ^ Number of cars produced of this model.
  3. ^ Also known as Moving Deformable Barrier.
  4. ^ Free space left after impact.
  5. ^ Head Injury Criteria (HIC36) has a threshold of 1000; lower is better. MDB HIC shows front+rear seat of impact side.
  6. ^ Side Barrier Rating, combines front and rear seats.
  7. ^ RLSA=Resultant Lower Spine Acceleration, measured in g-force. Detract rating over 50g. Threshold is 82g.

Limits are:[13][14]
Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB): HIC max. 1000, Chest injury max. 44mm, abdominal injury max. 2500 Newton, pelvis injury max. 6000 N. There are additional limits for passenger similar to pole test.
Rigid Pole: HIC max. 1000, Lower Spine acceleration max. 82g, Pelvis sum max. 5525 N

List of cars before 2011

[edit]

Sorted roughly by rating.

Side impact safety of older cars (before 2011) by NHTSA, IIHS and Euro NCAP.
Click <> to sort by parameter.
Year
[M 1] 		Manufacturer Model Type Number
produced
[M 2] 		NHTSA
rating 		IIHS
side
rating 		Euro NCAP
side
rating 		Comment
2003-2006 Ford Crown Victoria Full-size StarStarStarStarHalf star[56] Poor[57][10] N/a Structure rated "Poor"
2008-2015 Jeep Wrangler SUV 1 million[17] N/a[18] Poor[19][20] N/a Structure rated "Acceptable"
2004 Mitsubishi Galant Sedan StarStarStarStarHalf star[58] Poor[59] 2005 with airbag is Good at IIHS
Year Manufacturer Model Type Produced StarStarStarStarHalf star Good StarStarStarStarStar N/a
  1. ^ Model Year of car crash-tested, not year of Overall Rating. Older crash tests usually carry over to newer car models; easily checked by comparing ratings and document numbers for different years.
  2. ^ Number of cars produced of this model.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Side collision

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A side collision, commonly referred to as a side-impact or T-bone crash, is a in which the side of one is struck by or rear of another, often resulting in or angled contact at intersections. These incidents are classified under "" crashes in crash reporting systems, where the initial point of impact occurs on the left or right side of the affected . Side collisions pose significant risks due to the limited and structural reinforcement on vehicle sides compared to frontal or rear impacts, leading to higher rates of severe injuries and fatalities. In 2023, crashes, which predominantly involve side impacts, accounted for the greatest number of fatalities in motor vehicle-to-motor vehicle collisions, totaling approximately 8,700 fatalities (based on NHTSA data). Among passenger cars in 2022, left-side impacts resulted in 1,708 fatalities and right-side impacts in 1,323, while similar patterns held for trucks and vans with 1,675 and 1,333 fatalities, respectively. Common contributing factors include failure to yield at intersections, running red s or stop signs, and , with these crashes frequently occurring in urban areas where traffic density is high, as well as in rural areas at crossroads with stop signs, where lower traffic density but higher speeds contribute to risks, often resulting in T-bone collisions when a vehicle on the minor road strikes the driver's side of a vehicle on the priority through road due to failure to yield right of way. To mitigate risks, modern vehicles incorporate side-impact airbags, reinforced door beams, and advanced safety features like . Side airbags with head protection have been shown to reduce driver death risk in side crashes by 37% for passenger cars and 52% for SUVs, while ESC reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes (which can involve side impacts) by up to 50%. Regulatory bodies such as the (NHTSA) and the (IIHS) conduct rigorous side-impact crash tests, simulating T-bone scenarios at speeds up to 38.5 mph to evaluate occupant protection. Despite these advancements, side collisions remain a leading cause of injury, underscoring the importance of driver awareness and adherence to traffic laws.

Definition and Types

Definition

A side collision occurs when the side of one is struck by the front, rear, or side of another or a fixed object, typically involving a or near- angle of impact that generates significant lateral forces on the struck . These crashes are distinct from frontal or rear-end collisions due to the 's side structure, which provides limited energy absorption capabilities compared to the engineered at the front and rear. Key characteristics of side collisions include the minimal deformation space available on the vehicle's doors and pillars, resulting in greater potential for cabin intrusion and direct transmission of impact to occupants. Occupants are at higher risk because they sit in close proximity to the impact site, often with only inches of door panel separating them from the colliding object, unlike the greater distance in frontal crashes. Common scenarios encompass intersections where one vehicle fails to yield, improper changes on highways, or low-speed incidents in parking lots, though variations like T-bone crashes exemplify the lateral force dynamics (see Common Types for classifications).

Common Types

Side collisions, as a subset of lateral impacts, can be classified into several common types based on the nature of contact, impact , and resulting . These variants differ significantly in their biomechanical implications for occupants—such as the distribution of forces on the body—and structural challenges to , including the extent of side panel deformation and absorption. The broadside, or T-bone, collision occurs when one vehicle strikes the side of another at approximately a 90-degree , typically at intersections, forming a "T" shape upon impact. This type represents a high-energy that challenges the vehicle's side structure, which generally offers less compared to frontal areas. Biomechanically, the direct lateral loading transmits high forces to the , , and lower extremities of occupants on the struck side, increasing risks of fractures, organ injuries, and pelvic disruptions due to minimal before occupant contact. Sideswipe collisions involve a glancing or grazing contact along the side of one or both vehicles, commonly during lane changes on multi-lane roads or when vehicles pass too closely. Comprising around 36.1% of same-direction side impacts and 4.6% of opposite-direction ones, these events typically generate lower severity forces with tangential shear rather than direct intrusion, resulting in structural damage like scraped panels or minor door deformations rather than deep cabin penetration. From a biomechanical perspective, the forces induce rotational or sliding motions in occupants, potentially leading to whiplash-like effects or strains, though the reduced delta-V (change in ) often limits severe skeletal or visceral trauma compared to more orthogonal impacts. Pole or fixed-object side impacts happen when a vehicle's side collides with a stationary narrow object, such as a , , or guardrail, simulating concentrated intrusion over a small contact area. These crashes account for approximately one-third of fatalities in fixed-object collisions overall, with the narrow profile causing localized structural failure, such as B-pillar collapse or door intrusion up to 30-50% of the vehicle's width in severe cases. Biomechanically, the focused force creates high peak accelerations on the impacted body regions, heightening risks of head, thoracic, and abdominal injuries from direct compression, as the is not distributed across a broader surface like in vehicle-to-vehicle contacts. Rollover-initiated side collisions begin with a lateral impact that imparts sufficient to cause the to tip and roll, often involving initial side contact with another or object. Occurring in about 2.4% of side crashes, these events feature unique dynamics where the initial side force transitions into multi-axis rotation, stressing the 's and side structures through repeated ground contacts rather than a single impact. Biomechanically, occupants experience combined lateral deceleration and centrifugal forces during the rollover phase, which can exacerbate injuries through ejection or secondary impacts inside , differing from static side hits by introducing prolonged exposure to g-forces and potential crush effects.

Causes and Risk Factors

Primary Causes

failures, particularly when drivers run red lights or fail to stop at stop signs, are among the leading immediate triggers of side collisions, often resulting in perpendicular or T-bone impacts. These incidents typically occur at controlled where one vehicle enters the path of cross-traffic without yielding. This includes common T-bone collisions at rural crossroads with stop signs, where a vehicle on the minor road strikes the driver's side of a vehicle on the priority through road broadside, often due to failure to yield right of way. According to an analysis of National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) data from 2011–2014, crashes—predominantly at —account for 45.6% of side impact crashes involving rear-seated adults. Based on 2004 General Estimates System data, running stop sign scenarios, which frequently result in such T-bone impacts, accounted for approximately 48,000 police-reported crashes. Unintentional lane departure represents another primary cause, where vehicles drift into adjacent lanes due to distraction, , or inattention, potentially leading to sideswipe or offset frontal-side collisions. Such drifts are exacerbated on multi-lane roadways or during highway travel, where corrective actions may be delayed. The (IIHS) indicates that lane departure contributes to approximately 23% of fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles, highlighting its role in severe side-impact scenarios. Merging errors, including improper yielding on on-ramps or during changes, frequently initiate side collisions by placing a vehicle directly in the path of adjacent traffic. These maneuvers often involve misjudged gaps or failure to signal intentions, resulting in abrupt evasive actions by other drivers. Data from the (NHTSA) shows that pre-crash change or merge scenarios represent about 8.7% of all police-reported crashes annually, with many escalating to side impacts. Parking maneuvers, such as reversing from a or pulling out into traffic without adequately checking blind spots, commonly cause low-speed side collisions in lots or garages. These events arise from limited visibility and the assumption of clear paths, leading to unexpected contacts with passing vehicles or structures. Studies estimate that about 20% of all reported vehicle crashes occur in parking lots, where side impacts during such maneuvers are prevalent.

Contributing Factors

Driver-related factors significantly contribute to the likelihood of side collisions. from cellphone use remains a significant factor, though observed rates of handheld use have decreased to about 2.1% as of 2023 due to laws and awareness campaigns, exacerbating risks during maneuvers like lane changes that can lead to side impacts. Impairment from alcohol or drugs further heightens vulnerability, as alcohol-impaired drivers are involved in 30% of all traffic fatalities, including those from side collisions where reaction times are critically impaired. Inexperienced drivers, such as aged 16-19, face nearly four times the crash rate per mile driven compared to adults over 20, often due to poor judgment in high-risk scenarios like intersections. Road and weather conditions amplify side collision risks by reducing control and visibility. and create slippery surfaces and poor sightlines, contributing to 74% of weather-related crashes occurring on wet pavement, which promotes hydroplaning and sideswipe incidents during turns or merging. Urban intersections with high density pose additional dangers, as converging vehicles in congested areas account for about one-third of all fatalities, often involving side impacts from failure to yield. Vehicle design elements, particularly in larger models, play a key role in predisposing side collisions. SUVs and trucks suffer from expanded blind spots, with forward visibility in some modern SUVs dropping by up to 58% compared to pre-2000 models, increasing the chance of undetected vehicles in adjacent lanes. Older vehicles manufactured before the 2000s, lacking side airbags—which became standard in many models post-2000—offer inadequate protection and contribute to higher injury severity in side impacts, as these systems reduce driver death risk by 37%. Systemic infrastructure deficiencies, including inadequate and at intersections, elevate side collision probabilities by confusing drivers and obscuring hazards. Poorly lit intersections correlate with higher nighttime crash rates, particularly for turning vehicles where side impacts are common due to reduced visibility. Inadequate , such as unclear yield or markers, can lead to red-light violations and side crashes in or complex zones. As of 2025, the integration of autonomous vehicles shows promise in mitigating these risks, with studies reporting significantly lower crash rates—up to 85% reduction in some scenarios—compared to -driven vehicles, though factors in mixed persist.

Effects and Consequences

Vehicle Damage

In side collisions, the structural integrity of the vehicle is severely compromised primarily through , where the side doors crumple inward under the force of impact, substantially reducing the occupant survival space. Analysis of early (NCAP) side impact tests shows door intrusion depths ranging from 6.6 cm to 24.9 cm across various vehicles, with higher values in less protected models indicating greater deformation in unmitigated scenarios. This inward deformation occurs as the impacting object or vehicle compresses the door structure, often at speeds of 50-60 km/h in standardized tests, leading to of the side frame. Component failures exacerbate the damage, with door beams designed to absorb energy frequently bending or fracturing under high loads, while B-pillars—the vertical supports between doors—can collapse entirely in severe impacts, allowing further intrusion into the cabin. In simulations of side pole impacts, significant B-pillar deformation and foundational beam collapse have been observed, highlighting vulnerabilities in the side structure. Fuel system leaks, which can occur if lines or tanks are ruptured by this deformation, pose an additional risk of post-crash , though compliance tests show low failure rates with only 1 out of 43 vehicles exceeding leakage criteria in side impacts. Severity of vehicle damage in side collisions is graded from minor to major based on the impact type and extent of deformation. Minor damage, common in sideswipe scenarios, typically involves surface-level dents and scratches to the door panels or fenders with minimal structural involvement. In contrast, major damage from T-bone collisions often results in frame distortion, extensive panel replacement, and potential chassis misalignment. Repairing major side collision damage typically requires specialized labor and parts. The evolution of vehicle side structures has dramatically mitigated these damage patterns over time. Pre-1990s vehicles generally lacked dedicated side impact reinforcements, relying on basic low-strength doors that offered little resistance to intrusion. Post-2010 models, incorporating advanced high-strength in doors, pillars, and sills, have achieved substantial reductions in deformation, with standards like FMVSS 214 contributing to an average intrusion decrease of about 4.7 cm in severe crashes compared to pre-standard designs. This material shift, combined with optimized energy absorption, results in up to 50% less overall intrusion in modern vehicles during equivalent impacts. Recent advancements as of 2023 show further reductions in door intrusion by up to 30% in vehicles with advanced high-strength and optimized designs, according to NHTSA evaluations.

Injuries and Fatalities

Side collisions often result in severe thoracic and abdominal trauma due to door intrusion, which compresses the occupant's torso against the vehicle's side structure. Common injuries include multiple rib fractures accompanied by hemothorax or pneumothorax, as well as lung contusions and lacerations, with a mean Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 4.2 in such cases. Abdominal injuries frequently involve organ lacerations from similar intrusion forces, contributing to 41% of maximum AIS 3+ (MAIS 3+) harm in belted occupants during far-side planar crashes. Head injuries, such as concussions or traumatic brain injuries from lateral whiplash, account for 42% of MAIS 3+ harm in belted far-side occupants, often resulting from contact with the instrument panel, roof, or door. Fatality risks in side collisions are elevated compared to frontal crashes primarily because vehicles have less padding and crush space on the sides to absorb . Side impacts accounted for 22% of passenger vehicle occupant deaths in the United States as of 2023, despite comprising a smaller share of total crashes. Pelvic and fractures occur frequently in these events, with the being one of the most commonly injured regions; for instance, 8% of side impact collisions result in major pelvic injuries, often involving sacral, pubic rami, or acetabular fractures with a mean AIS of 3.1. In moderate side impacts, pelvic fractures affect a notable proportion of occupants, exacerbated by panel intrusion averaging 24.9 cm at delta-Vs around 36 kph. Certain groups face heightened vulnerability in side collisions. Occupants on the struck side, particularly side passengers, experience greater risk of direct impact to the and due to minimal protective barriers, leading to increased rates of extremity and trunk injuries compared to non-struck side occupants. Children are especially susceptible, though proper use of belt-positioning booster seats reduces injury risk by 68% in near-side impacts and 82% in far-side impacts for ages 4-8, demonstrating significant protection despite baseline elevations in side crash scenarios. Long-term effects of side collision injuries can be profound, including spinal cord damage from vertebral fractures or whiplash-induced instability, which may cause partial or . Psychological sequelae, such as (PTSD), are more prevalent among survivors with injuries from crashes, with rates significantly higher than in the general population due to the trauma's intensity. In electric vehicles involved in side collisions during the , battery fires have occasionally occurred, potentially complicating extrication, though overall fire rates remain lower than in vehicles.

Prevention and Safety Features

Vehicle Design Innovations

Vehicle manufacturers have incorporated side-impact airbags as a key passive safety feature to protect occupants during lateral crashes. These systems include torso bags, which deploy from the seat or door to shield the chest and , and curtain airbags, which extend along the roofline to safeguard the head and neck. Deployment occurs rapidly, typically within 10-20 milliseconds of impact detection, allowing the bags to inflate and provide a cushioning barrier before the occupant contacts intruding structures. According to the (IIHS), head-protecting side airbags reduce driver death risk in driver-side collisions by 37 percent, while torso-only bags achieve a 26 percent reduction. Structural reinforcements in side structures enhance crash by resisting intrusion and distributing forces away from occupants. Ultra-high-strength s, often hot-formed to achieve tensile strengths exceeding 1,500 MPa, are commonly applied in B-pillars, beams, and side sills to maintain occupant compartment during side impacts. For instance, these materials stiffen the side profile, limiting deformation in barrier tests compared to conventional mild . Complementing these are energy-absorbing materials, such as expanded (EPP) integrated into panels and side trims, which deform controllably to dissipate and reduce peak forces transmitted to the body. In recent models, including those from 2025, automakers like Hyundai employ such foams in conjunction with high-strength reinforcements to meet evolving side-impact standards. Active safety systems further mitigate side collision risks by intervening to prevent or lessen impacts. (ESC) uses sensors to detect yaw and lateral acceleration, applying selective braking to individual wheels to counteract skids and maintain directional control, thereby reducing the likelihood of lane departures that lead to side impacts. IIHS data indicates ESC cuts fatal single-vehicle crash risk by approximately 50 percent for passenger cars and SUVs, with broader reductions in loss-of-control incidents by 41 percent. Blind-spot monitoring with automatic braking, available in many premium vehicles, employs or cameras to detect vehicles in adjacent lanes during maneuvers, issuing warnings and, if necessary, applying brakes or corrections to avert collisions. This technology has been shown to lower lane-change crash rates by 14 percent overall. Emerging technologies address side threats through advanced automation and EV-specific adaptations. Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems with detection scan for crossing traffic, pedestrians, or cyclists at junctions, automatically braking to avoid or mitigate impacts that constitute many side collisions. Studies demonstrate these systems can reduce accidents by up to 70 percent when including AEB. For electric vehicles introduced post-2020, reinforced battery packs incorporate ultra-high-strength enclosures and compartmentalized designs to shield lithium-ion cells from side-pole intrusions, preventing or fire propagation. Hyundai's E-GMP platform, for example, uses hot-stamped battery supports that enhance lateral crash resistance while maintaining underbody protection. As of 2025, NHTSA has updated side-impact standards for heavier vehicles, incorporating enhanced EV battery protection requirements.

Driver and Road Safety Practices

Drivers should cultivate habits such as regularly checking side and rearview mirrors every 5-8 seconds and performing shoulder checks to scan blind spots before or merging, which helps detect adjacent vehicles and prevents side-swipe or broadside impacts. Adhering to posted speed limits at is crucial, as lower speeds can reduce the severity of side collisions by allowing more reaction time and decreasing impact forces; studies indicate that speed reductions in urban areas lower injury risk in intersection crashes. These practices address common risk factors like by promoting constant vigilance without relying on alone. Defensive driving courses emphasize vigilance, teaching drivers to anticipate cross-traffic, yield appropriately, and maintain safe following distances to avoid T-bone collisions. Such training has been shown to improve hazard perception. As of 2025, mobile apps like Drivemode and Cellcontrol provide alerts by silencing notifications and detecting phone handling while , helping maintain focus during high-risk maneuvers such as turns. Infrastructure improvements play a key role in supporting safe driving; for instance, installing roundabouts at signalized intersections can reduce T-bone side collisions by approximately 40% compared to traditional setups, due to slower entry speeds and elimination of perpendicular crossings. Enhanced lighting at high-risk areas, such as unlit rural intersections, improves visibility and has been linked to 30-40% fewer nighttime crashes, including side impacts. Clear, reflective in these zones further aids driver awareness by highlighting hazards like merging traffic. Policy measures, such as incorporating mandatory modules on side-collision prevention into driver licensing curricula, aim to build foundational awareness from the outset; states like Washington require traffic safety education that covers collision avoidance techniques as part of obtaining a . These updates fill gaps in traditional training by focusing on non-vehicle-based strategies, ensuring new drivers understand behavioral countermeasures to risks.

Testing and Evaluation

Crash Testing Protocols

Crash testing protocols for side collisions involve standardized simulations to evaluate vehicle structural integrity and occupant protection under controlled conditions. These tests replicate real-world T-bone intersections and narrow-object strikes, using instrumented vehicles and anthropomorphic test devices to quantify injury risks and deformation patterns. Key protocols are established by organizations such as the (NHTSA) and the (IIHS), focusing on dynamic impacts to assess energy absorption and restraint system performance. The moving deformable barrier (MDB) test simulates a side impact, typically representing a T-bone collision between two vehicles. In NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, the MDB—a 3,000-pound (1,361 kg) cart with a deformable face—weighs the equivalent of a and strikes the test vehicle at 33.5 mph (54 km/h) for compliance testing; NHTSA's (NCAP) uses a higher speed of 38.5 mph (62 km/h). IIHS protocols use a heavier 4,200-pound (1,905 kg) MDB at 37 mph (60 km/h) to mimic modern SUVs, while employs a mobile progressive deformable barrier where both the test vehicle and barrier move at 50 km/h (31 mph), yielding a relative closing speed of 62 mph (100 km/h). These tests measure door intrusion into the occupant compartment and peak deceleration forces, such as approximately 20g on the , to evaluate chest compression and rib deflection risks. The side pole test addresses impacts with narrow, rigid objects like trees or utility poles, which account for a significant portion of side-impact fatalities. Mandated by NHTSA in 2007 under FMVSS No. 214, the test involves propelling the vehicle sideways into a 12-inch (305 mm) rigid pole at 20 mph (32 km/h) with a 75-degree oblique angle to simulate realistic yaw and rotation. This setup evaluates far-side occupant excursion and head protection from side curtain airbags. IIHS incorporates a similar pole test at the same speed following the MDB impact. Test procedures employ anthropomorphic dummies, such as the SID-IIs (small female) or WorldSID (mid-size male), equipped with accelerometers, load cells, and displacement sensors to measure biomechanical responses. The (HIC) calculates head acceleration over time, with limits set at 1,000 for 15 ms to prevent severe brain injury, while thoracic metrics assess compression via rib deflection up to 52 mm and viscous criterion (VC) below 1.0 m/s. High-speed cameras, operating at 1,000 frames per second, capture vehicle deformation, dummy , and airbag deployment for post-test analysis of intrusion velocities and energy dissipation. Protocols have evolved to address limitations in earlier tests, particularly for higher-speed and angled crashes. In 2021, IIHS updated its side test by increasing MDB mass and energy to better replicate real-world SUV-to-car intersections, revealing gaps in protection for smaller vehicles. Recent 2020s research incorporates oblique crash simulations, using finite element models to predict far-side injuries in non-perpendicular impacts, enhancing protocols beyond traditional 90-degree MDB strikes. NHTSA's ongoing validations integrate these simulations with physical tests for improved accuracy.

Performance Standards and Ratings

In the United States, the (NHTSA) enforces Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, with a final rule issued in 2007 upgrading requirements for dynamic side impact protection; the phase-in began on September 1, 2009, with full compliance required by September 1, 2012, to reduce serious and fatal injuries from lateral crashes. Under NHTSA's (NCAP), vehicles receive a 5-star overall safety rating, with side impact performance specifically evaluated using injury risk scores derived from anthropomorphic test device () measurements for head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis injuries during barrier and pole tests; a 5-star rating indicates a less than 10% risk of serious injury to occupants. As part of the 2024-2028 NCAP Roadmap, NHTSA plans to introduce the WorldSID-50M in side MDB tests to better assess mid-size male occupant injuries. In Europe, the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) assigns 1- to 5-star ratings based on four categories, including adult occupant protection where side impacts—via moving deformable barrier and pole tests—contribute significantly to the score, emphasizing chest, abdomen, and head protection; the 2023 protocol updates, carried into 2025 assessments, increased test severity for far-side impacts and integrated child occupant protection in side scenarios using 1.5-year and 3-year-old dummies. Similarly, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) rates side crashworthiness on a scale from Good to Poor, with the updated 2021 test (applied in 2025 evaluations) simulating a higher-speed SUV-to-vehicle collision at 37 mph to better assess rear passenger safety; vehicles earning a Good rating in this test qualify for IIHS Top Safety Pick awards, which also incorporate pedestrian crash prevention evaluations involving side impacts. Globally, standards vary by region. Japan's New Car Assessment Program (JNCAP), administered by the National Agency for Automotive Safety & Victims' Aid (NASVA), prioritizes side collision tests that reflect urban driving conditions prevalent in Japan, such as narrow streets and frequent perpendicular impacts, using moving deformable barrier and pole scenarios to evaluate occupant protection with a focus on thoracic and pelvic injuries. In contrast, China's C-NCAP program includes side impact testing with a 60 km/h moving deformable barrier and 32 km/h pole strike, similar to early Euro NCAP protocols, but lags in rigor by omitting dedicated far-side assessments and advanced child restraint evaluations in lateral crashes, resulting in less comprehensive coverage of multi-occupant urban scenarios compared to Euro or U.S. standards. Compliance with side impact standards has improved markedly worldwide. In the U.S., nearly all new vehicles (over 95%) achieve 4- or 5-star side ratings in NHTSA NCAP by 2025, up from approximately 70% in 2011, driven by mandatory FMVSS 214 adherence and airbag advancements that have reduced side crash fatalities by 20-30% since the standard's implementation. Globally, similar trends show increased adoption, with Euro NCAP reporting that 90% of tested models earn 4-5 stars in adult side protection by 2025, reflecting harmonization efforts under UN ECE regulations and manufacturer incentives for high ratings.

Statistics and Case Studies

Occurrence Data

Side collisions, also known as side-impact or T-bone crashes, account for approximately 25-30% of police-reported crashes in the United States, making them one of the most common crash types alongside frontal and rear-end collisions. Globally, while comprehensive data on side impacts specifically is limited, road traffic crashes as a whole result in about 1.19 million deaths annually, with low- and middle-income countries bearing 93% of these fatalities; side impacts are estimated to contribute in the 25-40% range observed in high-income countries for overall crash incidence. In the U.S., side impacts were responsible for roughly 22% of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2023, equating to approximately 5,300 deaths out of 24,100 passenger vehicle occupant fatalities that year. Epidemiological trends indicate a decline in side collision fatalities and severity since 2015, attributed in part to advancements in vehicle safety technologies such as side airbags and . For instance, U.S. passenger deaths in multiple-vehicle side impacts dropped from 3,800 in 2015 to lower rates by 2023, reflecting a broader 15-20% reduction in side-related fatalities amid overall death fluctuations. Recent data through shows a continued decline, with total fatalities dropping 4.3% from 2023 to 39,345, aligning with pre-2025 projections of modest reductions. Urban areas exhibit higher incidence rates compared to rural ones, with 59% of all U.S. fatalities occurring in urban settings in 2022, driven by denser and more intersection-related side impacts; rural fatalities, while declining proportionally since 2000, remain elevated per mile traveled due to higher speeds. Demographic data reveals that males aged 18-34 face the highest risk of involvement in side collisions, comprising a disproportionate share of drivers and victims due to higher mileage, risk-taking behaviors, and nighttime patterns. This group accounts for peaks in both crashes and fatalities, with males overall representing about 70% of deaths across all types. Seasonal patterns show elevated occurrence in winter months, particularly through , linked to adverse weather conditions like and that increase collision risks by up to 20-30% compared to summer baselines. Recent data through 2024 shows a continued decline in overall fatalities, supporting projections of modest reductions in side collision rates, bolstered by increasing adoption of advanced assistance systems; the emergence of autonomous could further reduce incidents by 40% in tested fleets, though widespread impact remains limited until 2030 due to low penetration rates.

Notable Examples

One notable historical example is the 1972 (NHTSA) side impact test involving a 1972 striking the side of a 1970 at 20 mph. The test revealed severe door deformation and cabin intrusion, resulting in simulated occupant injuries that exceeded acceptable thresholds, including high thoracic and pelvic loads on the side-impact dummy. This demonstration of vulnerability in early vehicle designs directly influenced the strengthening of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214, which requires side door beams to resist intrusion and reduce ejection risks in side collisions. In 2018, NHTSA crash testing of the in a side barrier impact at 38.5 mph highlighted the vehicle's battery safety features. The test showed the structural remaining intact with no risk or significant damage, despite substantial deformation to the vehicle's side, protecting the dummy occupants with low measures across all body regions. This performance, part of the Model 3's overall five-star rating, underscored advancements in design, such as integrated battery enclosures that double as structural elements to absorb side impact energy without compromising powertrain integrity. Pre-2008 Ford Focus models demonstrated high intrusion risks in side impact evaluations by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). In barrier tests at 31 mph, these vehicles experienced excessive door and B-pillar deformation, leading to marginal overall ratings and elevated head and risks for occupants. These results prompted Ford to redesign the side structure for the 2008 model year, incorporating stronger rails and energy-absorbing materials that improved ratings to "good" and reduced intrusion by over 30% in subsequent tests. A 2023 multi-vehicle pileup on a Hungarian highway involved dozens of cars colliding in chain-reaction side and rear impacts due to poor visibility from a , resulting in 36 injuries, one fatality, and several vehicles catching fire from impact damage. The incident emphasized the compounded risks of side collisions in dense traffic, influencing European discussions on enhanced intersection signaling and vehicle-to-vehicle communication standards to mitigate such events. Post-2020 electric vehicles like the have exhibited superior side protection in rigorous testing. In IIHS's updated 37 mph side crash , the R1T achieved a "good" rating with minimal cabin intrusion—less than 10 inches at the door—and low injury criteria for both front and rear occupants, including strong performance for the second-row dummy's head and pelvis. This success stems from the vehicle's skateboard chassis architecture, where the provides inherent rigidity, leading to broader adoption of such designs in electric trucks for enhanced occupant survival in T-bone scenarios. In 2024, a notable side-impact crash in involved a colliding with a semi-truck at an intersection, highlighting limitations of current ADAS in detecting large vehicles; the incident resulted in minor injuries but prompted NHTSA investigations into side detection improvements.

References

  1. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests/side
  2. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813656.pdf
  3. https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/air-bags
  4. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/type-of-crash/
  5. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/810682
  6. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813599
  7. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/airbags
  8. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/810794
  9. https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings
  10. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/159/6/556.full.pdf
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437509001017
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3400193/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5045916/
  14. https://martinezlawcenter.com/injuries-from-side-impact-collision/
  15. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811147.pdf
  16. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/nprm_208.pdf
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3217499/
  18. https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/rollover-crashworthiness-research
  19. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/pre-crash_scenario_typology-final_pdf_version_5-2-07.pdf
  20. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/fewer-drivers-are-opting-out-of-lane-departure-prevention
  21. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/NCAP-ADAS-RFC-03-03-2022-web.pdf
  22. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/parking-lot-safety/
  23. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/distracted-driving
  24. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813713
  25. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/teenagers
  26. https://www.mayorlaw.com/top-10-tips-driving-safely-bad-weather-conditions/
  27. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/intersection-safety/about
  28. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-iihs-measurement-technique-points-to-growth-in-vehicle-blind-zones
  29. https://vtrc.virginia.gov/media/vtrc/vtrc-pdf/vtrc-pdf/20-R31.pdf
  30. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15389588.2025.2499887
  31. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv16/98s11o12.pdf
  32. https://www.euroncap.com/media/85828/euro-ncap-protocol-crash-protection-side-impact-v10.pdf
  33. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812038
  34. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/805661
  35. https://www.automotivemanufacturingsolutions.com/press-and-body/the-evolution-of-steel/523269
  36. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-008829-0001.pdf
  37. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/0504seattle_sd.pdf
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3217448/
  39. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/passenger-vehicle-occupants
  40. https://legacy.sae.org/gsdownload/?prodCd=962419
  41. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/124/5/1281/72162/Effectiveness-of-Belt-Positioning-Booster-Seats-An
  42. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/spinal-cord-injury/symptoms-causes/syc-20377890
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9320050/
  44. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot
  45. https://www.iihs.org/topics/airbags
  46. https://www.malmanlaw.com/malman-law-injury-blog/what-speed-do-airbags-deploy/
  47. https://ahssinsights.org/about/rationale/current-vehicle-examples/
  48. https://i-car.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/general-technical-info-advanced-high-strength-steels-july-aug-2006.pdf
  49. https://www.engineeredfoamproducts.com/products/side-impact-protection/
  50. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/life-saving-benefits-of-esc-continue-to-accrue
  51. https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/driver-assistance-technologies
  52. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/stay-within-the-lines-lane-departure-warning-blind-spot-detection-help-drivers-avoid-trouble
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457518301295
  54. https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2020/12/09/hyundai-describes-crash-safety-elements-on-new-e-gmp-electric-vehicle-platform/
  55. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44291-025-00099-2
  56. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-issues-final-rule-require-side-impact-protection-heavier-vehicles
  57. https://www.nsc.org/safety-training/defensive-driving
  58. https://www.iihs.org/topics/roundabouts
  59. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_7/nighttime_visibility.cfm
  60. https://dol.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/washington-traffic-safety-education-standards.pdf
  61. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.214
  62. https://www.euroncap.com/en/about-euro-ncap/timeline/euro-ncap-introduces-new-crash-tests-the-mobile-progressive-deformable-barrier-and-far-side-impact/
  63. https://www.iihs.org/media/0027a26d-8dd2-4de4-affc-0eb98338c6ba/U2c89A/Ratings/Protocols/archive/test_protocol_side-2.0.pdf
  64. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/09/11/07-4360/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-occupant-protection-in-interior-impact-side-impact-protection
  65. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/tp214p-01.pdf
  66. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811994-sideimpcttest-chrestraintdecelsled_pt1.pdf
  67. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/12/14/06-9554/anthropomorphic-test-devices-es-2re-side-impact-crash-test-dummy-50th-percentile-adult-male
  68. https://www.iihs.org/media/020f855e-79e2-4f5c-b560-3ccc991bdfb2/0tCvYA/Ratings/Protocols/current/twg_final_procedures.pdf
  69. https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-simulation-vehicle-models
  70. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-11/NCAP-Roadmap-11182024-web.pdf
  71. https://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engineers/protocols/
  72. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks
  73. https://www.nasva.go.jp/mamoru/en/assessment_car/crackup_test.html
  74. https://leddartech.com/white-paper-a-comprehensive-overview-of-c-ncap-2024-regulations/
  75. https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ratings/
  76. https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/global/index.html
  77. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/passenger-vehicle-occupants
  78. https://lsdyna.ansys.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/iihs-side-impact-parametric-study-using-ls-dyna-r.pdf
  79. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/ESV/Proceedings/25/25ESV-000083.pdf
  80. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-estimates-39345-traffic-fatalities-2024
  81. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12126095_Age_and_gender_patterns_in_motor_vehicle_crash_injuries_Importance_of_type_of_crash_and_occupant_role
  83. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females
  84. https://www.fulmersill.com/blog/what-time-of-year-do-most-car-accidents-occur-an/
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282410327_Effects_of_winter_precipitation_on_automobile_collisions_injuries_and_fatalities_in_the_United_States
  86. https://assets.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/64/2023/12/WHO-Global-status-report-on-road-safety-2023.pdf
  87. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics
  88. https://motorwatt.com/ev-blog/trends/autonomous-vehicle-safety-systems-2025
  89. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNC0_TSsTRU
  90. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/802341
  91. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1118898_nhtsa-gives-2018-tesla-model-3-perfect-marks-for-crash-safety
  92. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
  93. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/ford/focus-4-door-hatchback/2007
  94. https://www.voanews.com/a/vehicles-involved-in-highway-pileup-in-hungary-/7000947.html
  95. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/rivian/r1t-crew-cab-pickup/2024
  96. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/strong-back-seat-protection-boosts-rivian-r1t-to-top-safety-pick-
  97. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-opens-engineering-analysis-2024-tesla-model-3-and-model-y
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.