The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Moderate Overlap crash test has taken another victim. And no, I’m not talking about the crash test dummy in the driver’s seat. I’m actually talking about the crash test dummy in the rear passenger seat. The test doll positioned behind the driver’s seat didn’t fare so well in the IIHS’s latest test of the Ford F-150 Lightning, resulting in a “Poor” rating from the organization.
The electric pickup is the latest in a line of vehicles that have flunked out of the Moderate Overlap test after the IIHS started adding a rear passenger dummy, sized to represent a small woman or 12-year-old child, earlier this year. The results mean the Lightning has failed to obtain one of the most important accolades in the industry: The IIHS’s Top Safety Pick Award.
Up until recently, the IIHS only monitored potential injuries for front passengers in its Moderate Overlap test. And to the Lightning’s credit, it protected the driver dummy well, with “Good” scores—the highest rating available—for the head/neck, chest, and thigh/hip areas. It also got a Good rating for the seat belt’s ability to keep the dummy in place during an impact. The only place where the Lightning didn’t ace the driver’s section is the leg/foot area, where it scored an “Acceptable” rating, the second-highest score available.
The IIHS, inspired by a study of fatal crashes involving rear-seat passengers, wanted to make sure occupants in the back are being afforded the same protections. Many vehicles that were previously Top Safety Pick award winners are now getting Poor or Marginal ratings. My colleague David Tracy did a whole deep dive on how this updated Moderate Overlap test has upended the rankings; it’s worth a read.
In the case of the F-150 Lightning, the test pulled no punches. While the driver dummy did just fine, the rear dummy had far less desirable results, scoring a Poor or Marginal rating in every category, save for the thigh area, where it scored a rating of Good. The worst areas, going by the IIHS’s review of the crash, were the chest and the neck areas. From the results:
Rear passenger dummy injury values indicate a moderate risk of injury to the head or neck and a likelihood of injury to the chest. During the crash, the shoulder belt moved too far upward toward the dummy’s neck, compromising the effectiveness of the rear restraint system.
The abdomen area didn’t seem to fare much better:
The rear passenger dummy’s lap belt moved from the ideal position on the pelvis onto the abdomen, increasing the risk of abdominal injuries.
And, scarily, the side curtain airbag momentarily got caught on a piece of the B-pillar trim on its way out, causing a “temporary restriction.”
The Poor crash rating means the Lightning has no chance of getting onto the IIHS’s Top Safety Pick list for 2025. As the IIHS notes, the electric truck wouldn’t have made it onto the list either way, since it would still have to undergo two more crash tests (the Small Overlap Front and the Side tests). At least it won’t be alone in its sorrow. Two other EVs, the Nissan Ariya and the Chevy Blazer EV, were subjected to all three crash tests, but neither managed to snag a Top Safety Pick award.
The only pickup truck that currently holds a 2025 Top Safety Pick award is the Toyota Tundra. But even that might change soon, depending on how it performs according to the IIHS’s latest standards. Just last week, the organization announced yet another update to how it determines Top Safety Picks. To obtain the award, vehicles will soon be required to include technology that detects driver impairment and “risky behavior,” including speeding. From the announcement:
Various methods exist to detect impairment. In recent years, work has progressed on a system that analyzes the driver’s exhalations from normal breathing to determine BAC and on a touch-based system that analyzes the skin.
Other possibilities include analyzing a driver’s eye movement or driving behavior for signs of impairment. An advantage of such approaches is that they could detect impairment from any cause, not just alcohol.
Technologies addressing other forms of risky behavior are even further along. Intelligent speed assistance (ISA) detects when drivers exceed the speed limit and can issue warnings or actively intervene. Warning systems are common in today’s vehicles, and many fleets use active forms of ISA. Automakers are also starting to offer driver attention systems to guard against distraction or drowsiness.
This type of speed alert tech is already mandatory in Europe, so it probably wouldn’t take much for some automakers to bring it Stateside, even though studies show most people will certainly hate it (as they do in Europe). With the IIHS now incentivizing manufacturers, it’s a matter of if, not when, chimes that alert you for exceeding the speed limit will arrive in the U.S.
Top graphic images: IIHS
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
One minor correction. The article says the Tundra is the only pickup truck designated as an IIHS Top Safety Pick. The Tundra was awarded Top Safety Pick+. The Rivian R1T is the only pickup truck to be selected as an IIHS Top Safety Pick (no plus).
I love seeing modern cars in crash tests, and comparing them to my fleet of shitboxes
So the single cab version is a-ok then?
I will never understand the outcry from the public or enthusiasts when the IIHS creates new studies or recommendations over safety. I feel like this needs to be said for the umpteenth time, but the vast vast majority of car buyers, especially NEW car buyers, deeply care about vehicle safety. These tests matter a LOT to them, because guess what, if you’re buying a new or slightly used car, one of the factors is often safety, because people want themselves and those they care about to survive.
Furthermore, this isn’t just “another test made to screw over automakers” this is a study and test created specifically in response to a myriad of road deaths. Put it this way, the small overlap front test had to be created because Automakers got really really good at studying to the test, not to learn, in that they made cars to pass the tests, and nothing more. The goal post have to be moved regularly in order to ensure that vehicles are truly safe in a wide range of scenarios, and not just a few specific tests.
The most common criticism I see is “why don’t they consider XYZ impact/scenario?” and It’s a fair question. The reality is the real world is chaotic and unpredictable, and crash testing is expensive. Even the well-funded IIHS has space, time, and financial limits, so they have to use what they have as efficiently and intentionally as possible. If they introduce a new test criteria for an accolade, it’s for a very very good reason. I’m just sick of survivorship bias in “well I drove a 90’s shitbox and I survived XYZ crash so this is stupid and pointless grumble grumble grumble.” That’s just not how the world works, and IIHS works on data. Like they say, rules are often written in blood.
I’m crushed.
I’m 68 effing years old and never been in a crash.
I’m driving around in a car far safer than what I started off in the mid-70s.
Should I even care about F-150s, which I hated during my time in Texas because of their headlights.
Considering that would almost assuredly destroy JD Power survey ratings for the first company to do it, I’m not sure.
I had my 2023 Lightning totaled by a deer hit at 70mph. The estimate was $26,000 with no frame damage, no airbag deployment.
(The truck was going 70mph, not the deer)
I once heard of a deer causing over $50k damage to a semi. Damn thing relocated the radiator and cracked the oil pan. (Fiberglass oil pan)
Deer in Europe are equiped with collision-sensing airbags
At this point, you might as well let the general public have actual tanks and infantry fighting vehicles as daily drivers, because that’s what the IIHS wants, an impenetrable steel box on wheels.
I actually disagree with your point for this particular test update, because it seems like the problem isn’t the vehicle’s structure but the design of the seats and seatbelts. Tweaking the design of rear passenger seatbelts (like just positioning them a bit different or changing the tensioner profile) is far less problematic than other crash tests which require significant upgrades to chassis strength and thus significant increases in weight.
Sucks that automakers wouldn’t do the relatively simple work of making those changes on their own. (“Well they don’t test for it so we’re not going to worry much about back seat survivability.”)
If anything, it shows the necessity of these tests and their continued evolution.
I doubt that. Those impenetrable steel boxes on wheels cause a lot more damage to things outside the vehicle, especially people.
I imagine the IIHS’s effect world would be one where people bought JUST enough vehicle for their actual, physical tranportation needs, not ego soothers or monuments to vanity.
Frankly these tests seem irrelevant to me. For the most part accidents are vehicles hitting vehicles or at an angle. These straight on tests are for people trying to commit puppies hugging bunnies end of life. No longer relevant. Have you seen all the accidents of bikers hitting cars at 60+mph and walking away? We need relevant testing situations IMHO
It was the moderate overlap test, though, not a straight on test.
If any biker – whether motorcyclist or bicyclist – walks away from a 60 mph collision with anything, it’s because of sheer luck.
Usually they survive because they weren’t wearing seatbelts and were thrown clear of the vehicles…
…maybe?
I may regret this, but do you have links of bikers walking away from 60 mph crashes? I can’t say I’ve seen any and am having trouble imagining how that could be possible (aside from spectacular luck…sure maybe 1 out of 500 will walk away, but that’s not really helpful or relevant for those worried about survivability).
Yeah, who could ever care if a woman or child were mortally injured?!?! Personally, I’ve never cared for another human being in my life and I’ll be GOD DAMNED if the IIHS will make me care!!