Why you can't buy a high mpg car....

[jtbo]

Those small particles are often used against diesel cars, what is not told at the same time is that gasoline cars emit much smaller particles, so small that particles actually can go trough your skin directly into blood stream and amounts are thousands of times more than those from diesel.

As usually most important is what is not told.


Crash safety is funny subject, how safe is motorcycle in a crash? You can still ride motorcycle same speeds as you can with cars, you can have passengers and even trailer too (albeit a small one), if safety is so important that cars need to have certain level of safety how they can allow motorcycles on roads?

Would it be any different if motorcycles would be used more widely? It is quite economical transportation and great at city where you can see much more and it would help greatly with traffic issues too if most vehicles were motorcycles.

Surely safety is good thing, but I think there is more about it than meets the eye.

Home accidents alone are hugely bigger killer, same for smoking and drinking, traffic is very small in comparision, but in traffic safety has been put on pedestal. There are probably some more than just safety that is reason for that.

There are so many illusions twisting our minds when it comes to safety that when you step back and look bigger picture it seems bit of funny how we are told to seek more safety from our cars and how there are even laws about it and especially how unsafe cars are made as killers, while kitchen knife at kitchen is far more deadly, probably welcome mat has worse record than those cars told to be 'unsafe'.

Modern day news and information is narrow sighted, relativity is forgotten and small things are broadcasted as huge things, which creates illusions, false views to our minds.

Safety is good thing of course, but how much is more than enough?

[minispeed]

Originally Posted by jtbo

Those small particles are often used against diesel cars, what is not told at the same time is that gasoline cars emit much smaller particles, so small that particles actually can go trough your skin directly into blood stream and amounts are thousands of times more than those from diesel.

As usually most important is what is not told.


Crash safety is funny subject, how safe is motorcycle in a crash? You can still ride motorcycle same speeds as you can with cars, you can have passengers and even trailer too (albeit a small one), if safety is so important that cars need to have certain level of safety how they can allow motorcycles on roads?

Would it be any different if motorcycles would be used more widely? It is quite economical transportation and great at city where you can see much more and it would help greatly with traffic issues too if most vehicles were motorcycles.

Surely safety is good thing, but I think there is more about it than meets the eye.

Home accidents alone are hugely bigger killer, same for smoking and drinking, traffic is very small in comparision, but in traffic safety has been put on pedestal. There are probably some more than just safety that is reason for that.

There are so many illusions twisting our minds when it comes to safety that when you step back and look bigger picture it seems bit of funny how we are told to seek more safety from our cars and how there are even laws about it and especially how unsafe cars are made as killers, while kitchen knife at kitchen is far more deadly, probably welcome mat has worse record than those cars told to be 'unsafe'.

Modern day news and information is narrow sighted, relativity is forgotten and small things are broadcasted as huge things, which creates illusions, false views to our minds.

Safety is good thing of course, but how much is more than enough?

Well I was surprised to find that car accidents are no longer the leading cause of accidental death as they have been for so many years. According to this article (yes it is 2009 so it may have changed a bit) it is now drugs....
Drugs Now Leading Accidental Death Cause : Discovery News

This now poses 2 very interesting questions, 1 not so relevant to our discussion. Are we over medicated without the proper controls? Then the more relevant one, has the crash standards and the safety features as marketing and bragging rights "my car has 10 air bags!" actually been a measurable good thing?

You mention kitchen knives, are you aware that in the UK there was a call to ban sharp pointed kitchen knives? There was also a stab resistant knife design proposed to be used by law.

Your point about motorcycles is good and they have typically been ignored with new safety laws because they are a small percentage of the vehicles and the perception that people accept the risk when they choose to ride. It's interesting that stability control is now mandatory on all cars but ABS isn't on bikes. Also they have always been around, I bet if there had never been motorcycles and someone invented one this year that the government would probably never allow them on the road for safety. Why can't we drive 4 wheel atvs around as city transportation? I'm trying to sell my bike now and one couple came to see it, they lived in downtown Toronto and wanted city transport, easy parking, no need to get an extra parking spot at the condo. He loved the bike, she was very concerned about dropping it. Can-Am has the trike that I think they should market as an urban vehicle.

The Japanese Kei cars are a good example of how to do things properly, they know they will not be able to pass all the same tests as a full size car, but there is value to having them so they create new standards for that class. The same has been done in the US with full size pick ups, there is a needed value for industry and business to have full size pick ups, there will be trade offs in fuel economy and safety but small business has to be able to have affordable options..... It's funny how it's easy to get exceptions to certain rules when you want to make fuel economy worse, but not better.

[Frank Lee]

Why can't we drive 4 wheel atvs around as city transportation?

They can in my town. Oh yes, those knobbys sound great on the street.

Minnesota just recorded the least traffic deaths since 1944. Any guesses on whether equipment levels and enforcement will go down, up, or stay the same?

[99metro]

The unwritten rule....all US cars must have a minimum of 100 hp or forget it. Also, a lot of Americans demand the biggest and baddest for "safety" sake. The bigger the vehicle, the safer they feel in the event of an accident. Eco cars just have no chance with that attitude.

My co-workers think I'm nuts I drive a Metro for a commuter. Yes, I might die in a head-on if both vehicles are traveling 75 mph. It would be a little worse than hitting a concrete wall at 150 mph, as I would be pushed instantly backwards. I also might die by eating a cherry.

[jtbo]

Oh yes, we have here bit over 5 million people in whole country, around 300 dies every year in traffic (most are drunk and large amount is pedestrians, also lately around 2/3rd have been older people), around 10 000 dies from smoking related reasons every year and smokers are minority these days.

Anyway there are around 6000 injuries from traffic accidents.

We have icy roads for half a year, more or less, typical possibility of icy condition is from october to april, but from november to march is typical ice season, which of course plays some part of the picture, but mostly it is alcohol or health issues that are reason for traffic deaths.

Here however traffic deaths are constantly in media and also constantly those are in discussion with politics, but smoking, drinking and accidents at home are here far larger group that end lives prematurely, accidents at home being largest group.

In other countries it can be of course different, but from my understanding at least in euro countries traffic is not as bad as it is given image of being.

Sadly I don't know things so well from US, but I have heard rumours about cars not needing inspection yearly at some states and driver license being almost a formality of putting name in papers at some states, which is bit weird, however if things are so it might have some impact to situation.


That UK knife ban was indeed rather ridiculous, but apparently some parties were serious about it, it is however some sort of nannying that is around here in my country too, put evil thing away and evil does not exists, here we have named it as flower hat lady issue. Problem is usually far more complex than people that like to do something about it like to accept and efforts are made to some visible thing however problem is pretty much ignored.

In traffic safety and also sometimes at traffic emissions there are similar trends, I think it is because trying to see whole picture is not as easy as biting the single aspect of issue, sadly sometimes those in charge make then choices like if they would wear narrow vision device that let's one see only that one aspect and nothing around it and then we get some not so good laws and decisions.


It is interesting that in US traffic deaths are so large part, there must be some reasons for that. If vehicle safety is demanded to be higher than ours by government , it would sound that there are some other reason for those deaths, understanding reason why, would then help to understand if modern vehicle technology even could do anything about it, perhaps some other means could be those that would give better results?

If it would be so, then traffic safety argument of not allowing economical vehicles would be busted.

For emissions, maybe way emissions are measured could be adjusted to reflect better to what emissions are on road. Here we use emissions per driven distance unit, which is kilometers, which is good in there that you can see which vehicle produces least emissions for your typical trip. Then one has to just see what kind use he has for vehicle and which vehicle type is that would do that job, after that is decided it is easy to see which vehicle is producing least emissions.

For me it sounds that if more economical vehicle is banned because of emissions, then method of evaluating emissions might not be best possible.

In US there are of course car industry to protect, lot of tax money and jobs are at stake and if US makers are not able to compete directly it is not impossible that government would try to help industry that is in US by setting such methods to calculate emissions that it keeps too good products out from market.
All countries do that one way or another, it is not really a secret or even conspiracy, however they will sell it to general public with some nice words that are easier to accept than raw reality.

It has always been so that for US market vehicles are sold with bigger engines, for some reason. Some japanese and german cars we here never saw with V6 engine and you never got small I4 engines that we had standard.

1.1 to 1.3 litres were typical engine size still at early 90's, 1.6 litres were big engine. These days I think 1.6 starts to be normal and 2.0 bigger option, anything with turbo is sport model, well except diesels, I think one big part of problem is that those car makers are also thinking that in US only big engines will sell, that might have been so, if things are changing perhaps some congressman might need to know about problem areas and maybe car makers would put some pressure if there would be more contacts from people demanding cars with smaller engines, who knows.


Anyway, any claim about safety and emissions are such that I highly suspect it being bottom of the subject, there is probably something else too.

Has Michael Moore been at it already? He is good at bringing subjects to wider discussion if nothing else :P

[minispeed]

Originally Posted by 99metro

The unwritten rule....all US cars must have a minimum of 100 hp or forget it. Also, a lot of Americans demand the biggest and baddest for "safety" sake. The bigger the vehicle, the safer they feel in the event of an accident. Eco cars just have no chance with that attitude.

My co-workers think I'm nuts I drive a Metro for a commuter. Yes, I might die in a head-on if both vehicles are traveling 75 mph. It would be a little worse than hitting a concrete wall at 150 mph, as I would be pushed instantly backwards. I also might die by eating a cherry.

My co workers made tons of jokes when I got my prius, and most of them want bigger is better, I have one that drives a Jeep wrangler V6 for about 1000miles a week. I just don't understand it, he claims it's safety because in the winters he won't get stuck. He also doesn't drive on winter tires. Funny thing is most of the vehicles I see stuck in the winter are SUVs. A subaru/audi/fusion/bmw/volvo or any of the other awd cars with a good set of winter tires can go on every road in the winter the jeep goes.

The safety thing reminds me of a story one of my old bosses told me, he was on the highway in an old ford LTD, late 70s, he looked up and saw a jumper off an overpass, the cars in front slamed on the brakes, he did too, he knew he was going to hit them and of coarse he had no seat belt, he leaned to his right into a tuck, after the accident he looked up and saw the hood had pushed straight back with minimal bending through the windshield and was resting right where his neck would have been.

[minispeed]

Originally Posted by jtbo

Oh yes, we have here bit over 5 million people in whole country, around 300 dies every year in traffic (most are drunk and large amount is pedestrians, also lately around 2/3rd have been older people), around 10 000 dies from smoking related reasons every year and smokers are minority these days.

Anyway there are around 6000 injuries from traffic accidents.

We have icy roads for half a year, more or less, typical possibility of icy condition is from october to april, but from november to march is typical ice season, which of course plays some part of the picture, but mostly it is alcohol or health issues that are reason for traffic deaths.

Here however traffic deaths are constantly in media and also constantly those are in discussion with politics, but smoking, drinking and accidents at home are here far larger group that end lives prematurely, accidents at home being largest group.

In other countries it can be of course different, but from my understanding at least in euro countries traffic is not as bad as it is given image of being.

Sadly I don't know things so well from US, but I have heard rumours about cars not needing inspection yearly at some states and driver license being almost a formality of putting name in papers at some states, which is bit weird, however if things are so it might have some impact to situation.


That UK knife ban was indeed rather ridiculous, but apparently some parties were serious about it, it is however some sort of nannying that is around here in my country too, put evil thing away and evil does not exists, here we have named it as flower hat lady issue. Problem is usually far more complex than people that like to do something about it like to accept and efforts are made to some visible thing however problem is pretty much ignored.

In traffic safety and also sometimes at traffic emissions there are similar trends, I think it is because trying to see whole picture is not as easy as biting the single aspect of issue, sadly sometimes those in charge make then choices like if they would wear narrow vision device that let's one see only that one aspect and nothing around it and then we get some not so good laws and decisions.


It is interesting that in US traffic deaths are so large part, there must be some reasons for that. If vehicle safety is demanded to be higher than ours by government , it would sound that there are some other reason for those deaths, understanding reason why, would then help to understand if modern vehicle technology even could do anything about it, perhaps some other means could be those that would give better results?

If it would be so, then traffic safety argument of not allowing economical vehicles would be busted.

For emissions, maybe way emissions are measured could be adjusted to reflect better to what emissions are on road. Here we use emissions per driven distance unit, which is kilometers, which is good in there that you can see which vehicle produces least emissions for your typical trip. Then one has to just see what kind use he has for vehicle and which vehicle type is that would do that job, after that is decided it is easy to see which vehicle is producing least emissions.

For me it sounds that if more economical vehicle is banned because of emissions, then method of evaluating emissions might not be best possible.

In US there are of course car industry to protect, lot of tax money and jobs are at stake and if US makers are not able to compete directly it is not impossible that government would try to help industry that is in US by setting such methods to calculate emissions that it keeps too good products out from market.
All countries do that one way or another, it is not really a secret or even conspiracy, however they will sell it to general public with some nice words that are easier to accept than raw reality.

It has always been so that for US market vehicles are sold with bigger engines, for some reason. Some japanese and german cars we here never saw with V6 engine and you never got small I4 engines that we had standard.

1.1 to 1.3 litres were typical engine size still at early 90's, 1.6 litres were big engine. These days I think 1.6 starts to be normal and 2.0 bigger option, anything with turbo is sport model, well except diesels, I think one big part of problem is that those car makers are also thinking that in US only big engines will sell, that might have been so, if things are changing perhaps some congressman might need to know about problem areas and maybe car makers would put some pressure if there would be more contacts from people demanding cars with smaller engines, who knows.


Anyway, any claim about safety and emissions are such that I highly suspect it being bottom of the subject, there is probably something else too.

Has Michael Moore been at it already? He is good at bringing subjects to wider discussion if nothing else :P

You bring up the point of pedestrian safety and it reminds me of the UK laws around that, a lot of that design is starting to trickle into other markets because it's easier than making 2 different front ends for the cars. If you open your hood and think "wow that engine is really low in there, there's a lot of space above it" That's probably because of the UK pedestrian impact laws, same reason Jag doesn't have the leaper anymore, and I think it was rolls that has designed a motor that will pull theirs down when it senses an impact.

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by 99metro

Yes, I might die in a head-on if both vehicles are traveling 75 mph. It would be a little worse than hitting a concrete wall at 150 mph, as I would be pushed instantly backwards. I also might die by eating a cherry.

Actually, it would be like hitting a wall at 75 mph. lol

I was up on this to about page 4 ish.

I am not one to care much for safety, I'm much more concerned about getting shot from an individual in a car than the car itself, be it me in one, or one at me. Although, my friends always used to laugh at those Smart car crash tests.

They'd always quote the guy "As you can see, the Smart car is in perfect condition other than the windows after the accident." Or something like that. They laughed because the occupants would be DOA, and the car would be structurally fine.

I don't like all the mandatory things. Such as break points on cars, the crumble spots, and all that added weight. I would prefer them to be optional. Less to go wrong, in my opinion.

But in the end, I think we are better off with them than without, regardless of mine, or anyone elses opinion.

[Varn]

Guess I will have to be happy with my 27 year old VW with it's technology. I don't think there is a computer on it any more. Last fill was 54 mpg US.

I don't have a budget for the new stuff.

[jtbo]

Originally Posted by minispeed

You bring up the point of pedestrian safety and it reminds me of the UK laws around that, a lot of that design is starting to trickle into other markets because it's easier than making 2 different front ends for the cars. If you open your hood and think "wow that engine is really low in there, there's a lot of space above it" That's probably because of the UK pedestrian impact laws, same reason Jag doesn't have the leaper anymore, and I think it was rolls that has designed a motor that will pull theirs down when it senses an impact.

I think that most of vehicles sold here have now flexible hood with some space below it because of those EU directives.

Here EU is bit like USA and different countries like UK are like states of USA in your place, still different but constantly moving more towards similar model.

So we have idea that if some vehicles is road legal in one eu country it should be legal in other countries, which in turn makes all those thing EU wide.

Euro NCAP here is which tests vehicles for crash safety, it might be interesting to compare result of our different systems, so here is link to VW Passat test results from 2010:
VW Passat | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating

Passat is quite large car here, don't know from that listing if there is any typical american market vehicle, but there is Jeep Compass which is SUV and which I read some car buyers consider safer as it is bigger or at least SUV.
Jeep Compass | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating

For me that looks like to be rather crap when compared to VW, but I would like to compare more similar cars, to understand better if safety indeed is total bull as reason for not having more economical cars there at US market.

Maybe you can spot some typical vehicle from list and compare to your traffic department's test results?

Passat 1.6D emissions, only CO2 seem to be mentioned as here nothing else seems to matter these days, but that is 113 grams for single kilometer and as CO2 is directly dependent from consumed fuel I doubt that that emission would be reason for not being sold there, maybe it would be possible to find out what emission is too much and how much it is and then compare to some other car that is allowed to market and there one could see if even that is reason or if poor emission measuring is reason, there it would be then easier to push things forward.