Interesting info from Lutz

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Geez Rick, why don't you lock yourself out.

Dude, can't I let loose for once?

In all seriousness, it's the same argument over and over from the same people and mine is a lively response contrary from my usual demeanor, to hammer my feelings into the wall.

I've grown weary of defending the safety of vehicles in the U.S. When you're out there on those occasions driving your F-150 instead of the Tempaz, I want the confidence that my new "Chevy Speck" sub-compact has a better safety profile than the model before it.

GM has unraveled itself over the last 30+ years and it's their fault. It's a shame that the employees have to suffer under such poor leadership.

Further, I'm tired of defending against false, opinion-based drivel that has little-to-no Scientific merit. So with that...

That's it. Consider me "Locked Out" if it makes everyone happy.

Have at it. I hope it's embodies everything you believe to be true.

[Frank Lee]

"De-evolve"? LOL

I ride bicycles and motorcycles. I drive little cars and on occasion a full-size pickup. I enjoy classic cars and drive a '59, a '60, a '66, a '71... and so on, and don't feel my safety is compromised in any of 'em. No disc brakes, no seat belts, no head rests, no padded dash, no ABS, no air bags, no side door beams, no 5 mph bumpers... no sweat! Anyone that swings a leg over a two-wheeler really should have no fear of any four-wheeler, no matter where it's imported from. Does anyone here break out in a cold sweat while in a Metro? Could Metros even be marketed new anymore due to new regs? If I should freak out about anything it should be slipping and falling in the shower or on my icy walk in the winter. Isn't that where, statistically, the most accidents happen?

I hardly think the Europeans or whoever are bent on killing their own via lack of adequate safety regulations. However I do believe the U.S. is a nation run by lawyers. Govt agencies, special interest groups, and litigation or the threat of it are driving what I believe to be excessive safety requirements. Cars are so safe now that motorists seem to think they no longer have any responsibility for their safety or that of others- they put it all on the car. Witness the battering ram mentality of virtually everyone in the U.S.- until gas hit $4 anyway.

As far as insurance costs go, we can blame that on insurance companies (how profitable are they anyway?) and style. Yes, style dictates a lot in how vehicles are constructed and much of the new stuff has much expensive componentry sitting out there where it's vulnerable. Lookit summa the "old school" stuff from the '80's: a good example would be an old Escort. I read- I believe consumer reports?- that the Escort could take a 5 mph hit and incur $0 damage, whereas much of the new stuff sustains hundreds (thousands?) of dollars of damage from the same hit. Thank fancy lighting and integrated bumpers. Basically, low-level impact resistance is not now a priority in design criteria.

In addition to having access to all sorts of cool stuff that we've been denied all these years, I'm thinking of all the wasted duplication of engineering effort expended to try to make a platform that satisfies disparate regulations. Really, what is being gained? Are there any legit regional differences in safety requirements?

I do agree that GM has unraveled itself though.

[dcb]

It is an interesting scenario that you paint Rick. As a dyed in the wool modder/experimenter, I rely on my wits to stay safe more than anything I'm working with or using. But I believe the general public does occasionally have a herd reaction when you bring up safety concerns and it is conceivable that marketers would usher in a second wave of tank-itis.

I do believe the roads would actually be safer if people felt less safe though.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by RH77

To hell with human life I guess (and insurance premiums). Let's de-evolve, sounds like a great ****ing plan to me.

Would you care to offer some evidence that US safety standards are in fact more effective than European ones? My impression is just the opposite: that once you correct for the higher population density in Europe, and the greater amount of travel on divided highways here, you find that it is in fact safer to be driving a European car than an American one.

[dcb]

Good point, per the table in Road traffic safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it looks like the UK is a significantly safer place to drive based on deaths per km, even more so if you want to factor in density.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Would you care to offer some evidence that US safety standards are in fact more effective than European ones? My impression is just the opposite: that once you correct for the higher population density in Europe, and the greater amount of travel on divided highways here, you find that it is in fact safer to be driving a European car than an American one.

Originally Posted by dcb

Good point, per the table in Road traffic safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it looks like the UK is a significantly safer place to drive based on deaths per km, even more so if you want to factor in density.

I wasn't going to continue participation in this discussion, but due to my unsavory comments earlier, I owe at least an intelligent discussion instead of an angry rant.

First off, I'm not saying that European vehicles are any less safe than ours.

*I'm offended that GM is asking to break the rules instead of engineering their way out of the problem. As we have seen, if you force a car company to advance (read CAFE over the last 30 years), then they will step-up R&D to develop the goal. Otherwise, they stagnate in favor of profit.

*The argument is that Lutz wants a moratorium on all crash testing of small cars for 3-years. Even if this is passed, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety will conduct their own tests and report the results (and adjust premiums accordingly across the board.) That means all of us would be subject to a rate hike.

So what are the differences in safety testing between the U.S. and the European Union?

*Ford's research shows of 43 tests, 11 are similar. Some of it comes down to simple items like amber rear turn signals instead of red. The biggest ones are the non-deformable barrier in frontal collision tests and protecting unbelted passengers with padded dashes and interior components (both U.S. requirements). Others include height differences of the crash test dummy and head restraints designs (EU).

*There is a 10-year goal to harmonize major components of the crash testing.

*The Mini Cooper and Smart Cars both underwent the proper re-designs for the US, but was re-re-designed for pedestrian impact safety for the EU.

The easy answer is to throw out the regs and produce what you want. We live in the United States (at least those of us in this discussion so far), so we have to follow the NHTSA's rules. I propose a push for a panel to harmonize the testing sooner, or temporarily adopt EU standards for certain car classes.

I would love to have these cars available here. I too have little doubt that they are as safe or safer than our regs suggest. Where I do have the problem is to halt crash testing, altogether.

Bottom line: I'm afraid GM would sneak in cost-cutting measures with the US-bound vehicles to skimp on all regs during this moratorium.

Inquiry: Where does Canada fit into the mix? I recall trying to import an Acura CSX (fancy Civic) a few years ago and the red-tape was a nightmare.

RH77

[cfg83]

jamesqf -

(written while RH77 was writing response #16)

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Would you care to offer some evidence that US safety standards are in fact more effective than European ones? My impression is just the opposite: that once you correct for the higher population density in Europe, and the greater amount of travel on divided highways here, you find that it is in fact safer to be driving a European car than an American one.

This sounds like a PhD thesis. You also have to account for the almost completely different built environment (aka legacy medieval roads), differing car culture, auto/weight density, auto vs stick, blah blah blah.

I think the make-up of cars in the USA is such that there is a higher % of SUVs, aka heavier cars. This means the EU designs would be in a context where they would be more likely to be squished.

Instead of waving the crash tests, just publish the results and allow 3 and 2 star cars into the USA. That way, we could make our own decisions. That would increase our auto insurance, but at least it would be an Eyes-Wide-Open venture. EU style Opel Corsas would have higher insurance anyway.

Wouldn't waving the crash tests just raise auto-insurance prices for all cars?

CarloSW2

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cfg83

This sounds like a PhD thesis. You also have to account for the almost completely different built environment (aka legacy medieval roads), differing car culture, auto/weight density, auto vs stick, blah blah blah.

To do an exhaustive study, sure. And not in my field, either :-) But the point I was trying to make is that European cars are not obviously less safe than US ones, despite the different standards. So why not allow cars that meet the European standards? And eventually have a common set?

Wouldn't waving the crash tests just raise auto-insurance prices for all cars?

Isn't that just another way of saying that European cars are less safe? A quick search for European auto insurance rates found this, from Britain: "As at 30/06/2008: 66% of our customers who purchased their car insurance from RAC Direct Insurance in the previous 12 months paid £350.00 or less." At current exchange rates, that's about $619, which doesn't seem markedly higher than US rates.

[Big Dave]

Whether the Euro-cars are more or less safe than US cars is completely beside the point. The lightweight Euro-cars simply will not pass the safety tests demanded by US regulatory agencies. Whether those tests have anything to do with real safty can be intensely debated. As you know my contempt for bureaucrats is fairly high.

But even that is irrelevant. If the lightweight, fuel efficient Euro-cars don't pass the crash tests, they don't legally get sold in the US. Period. End of story. Lutz is saying (between the lines) is that GM has also simmed out lightweight cars and found they would not meet crash safety standards.

The central question is: Since safety and MPG are mutually (and proportionally) exclusive, which is more important. If safety is more important, then shut up about MPG and drive your heavy cars. If MPG is more important, drive your 1,900 lb deathtrap and take your chances.

Same thing is true of enviro-regs. Which is more important?

[Frank Lee]

I'd drive this thing if it was legal: