Are Car Manufacturers Compromising On Safety In Favor Of Style?

I think it has little to do with SAFETY and more to do with repair COST. Safety is still being improved but design is creating a more costly repair bill when it comes to minor fender benders. Which would you choose an 81 Ford Escort design or something current.

I agree. I think Agent009 assumed that safety is always relative to repair costs, but nowadays, I don't think that's the case. Your car can be nearly demolished on the exterior, but the cabin and passengers will often be alright. It does tell you something about the efficacy of modern car safety, however. We rely primarily on airbags than making a vehicle with true structural integrity.

Actually, these costs may be intentional. The elastic collision allowed for by crumple zones would be more beneficial to passenger safety (the crumple zones would absorb impact). Repairing these crumple zones is simply the price one must pay for safety. It's not often one gets in an accident, after all. Maybe they are merely tying active safety (prevention mechanisms such as ABS and Traction Control) with this passive safety. They are using active safety not only to protect passengers from injury but to protect the car owner from the innate high expenses of passive safety.

On another note, I know that manufacturers such as Honda are now focusing on transferring the energy from an accident around the entire frame in order to minimize damage, so it's a shock that the Accord has the highest costs.

No doubt the collision safety has improved over the years, but to shell out $1000 when someone barely bumps you is silly.

I would also say "Pedestrian Safety" is dictating the Deformation Levels of these Bumpers.

Im sure CarMakers would love to make their Vehicle Bumpers much Tougher however in europe at least i know new Regulations Dictate that All New Vehicle Designs have to include Pedestrian Frendly Bumpers and Bonnets (Hoods in America:-)

Accord has some serious costs lol and even the Sonata. Fusion, Camry, Mazda 6 and Galant are the cheapest. Gives you something to think about.

I think our whole society spends too much on safety. Scarce resources spent on safety are not a cost-efffective way to enhance our well-being. Safety nazis get a few stringent safety codes passed that cost an arm and a leg to implemnet for the sake of saving a few lives. Many more lives could be saved by allocating these resources to better nutrition and health care. I'd rather see car manufacturers focus on product reliability and durability in order to reduce the total life-cycle cost of car ownership.

This is just a mismatch of interpretations of bumper purpose. Do manufacturers really care about protecting the headlights, or the passengers inside them? The answer is the latter, ironically, partially because of the same IIHS that criticized the performance of models crashing into a brick wall at 40MPH. I commend them for that; there was a clear need to improve most makes, and cars at high speed are safer than ever; but to now go back and point out the "brilliance" of an ’81 Ford Escort bumper is both asinine and hypocritical. How well did that Escort do hitting a brick wall?

I understand the purpose of IIHS is more to determine insurance rates first, and protect the public second; though they like you to believe otherwise... and they’re probably right in stating style is giving way to repair cost; but does this really need to be the focus? Insurance companies should gather real world stats to determine the potential costs of 5 MPH crashes, and the IIHS should be spending their time on the "S" in their name as related to people, not headlights.

cause a Kia optima has so much style

Ill have the style and a good insurance plan.