Gauging Rollovers on a Track and Not Just on Paper
By DANNY HAKIM

Published: October 8, 2003

EAST LIBERTY, Ohio, Oct. 7

I have seen the video of the the 4Runner tests on local TV, over and over. Big news here in bubba land. What a difference between the 4th generation & 3rd generation!!!

The federal requirement for static testing of roof strength is frightening. How many roll-overs occur where the vehicle is carefully set on the roof by a crane? NONE!! I am glad Toyota has taken the risk of injury by roll-over seriously, and a lead in helping the feds understand real world testing. Maybe dynamic testing of roof strength will come next.

I would like to see information on the structural strength of the 4th generation in a roll-over. Maybe a video like that offered by Volvo with their XC90. I have seen way too many crushed A pillars on American trucks and SUVs, with the understanding that the collapsed roof means a dead or severly crippled driver.

"61 percent of fatalities among S.U.V. occupants and 45 percent in pickups were because of rollovers", and "rollovers represent less than 3 percent of all light-vehicle crashes ... they account for 33 percent of all occupant fatalities".

What I'd like to see added to 'journalism' like this are the numbers behind the numbers (ie: 90% of fatalities in rollovers occur to occupants NOT wearing a seatbelt) etc etc.

I'd seriously consider selling my 4Runner for something safer as it's a wife-and-kid daily driver if I were to find out that, say, seatbelts have no impact on survivability.

I would be willing to bet that in this age of numerous air bags, crumple zones, collapsable interiors (etc) it has become safer (not safe but safer) to encounter a standard wreck from front, side or rear without a belt and that all of those factors have lowered the death rate in accidents of that type. There has been no protection added for rollovers though except the belt.

I'm left wondering about what is left unsaid here though. Anyone out there have an idea as to what the *whole* story is on rollover statistics?

In the link provided in the article:

While the total number of highway fatalities has remained relatively stable over the past decade, the number of rollover deaths has risen substantially. According to NHTSA

I found it interesting that 78% of the people killed in rollover accidents were not wearing seatbelts. Not surprising, but interesting.

Of course it stands to mention that 83% of rollovers happened after the vehicles "left the roadway".

I also found it interesting that in "about 95%" of the cases, there was a "trip" that caused the vehicle to roll over (ie: "curbs, soft soil, pot holes, guard rails, and wheel rims digging into the pavement).

So I guess we should

1) wear our seatbelts,
2) keep the 4Runners on the road, and
3) avoid sliding sideways into curbs, guardrails, soft shoulders, potholes, etc

and our chances of suffering a rollover should be greatly diminished.

I feel much better now. Thanks PA

Cool, the new rollover tests confirm what i suspected: VSC is effective at preventing rollovers...so Volvo's claim does have some truth to it.

Just a note: 2001 and up 3rd gen 4runners have VSC and brake assist, just like the 4th gen 4runners. Prior to 2001, 4runners did not have such safety systems.

I've posted (my experience) in this forum the downside of VSC/traction control and how easy it makes getting the 2001+ 4Runners stuck in slippery conditions if you're not in 4WD. If I lived somewhere where it actually snowed I'd highly recommend a 2000 or earlier model for those in the hunt, or a full-time 4WD system (which I think the new 4Rs have).

My 2-cents.

Since 1999, 4runners can be driven in FULL-TIME 4WD. The only difference is that you can select 2wd. But, once you're in 4wd, it is FULL-TIME. And you can drive it on any surface.

So, basically, your '01 4runner is FULL-TIME when you're in 4wd, just like the 4th gen 4runner V8.