Business History Books » Small Business Consulting » July 2nd USA today article
July 2nd USA today article
Question:
>… sure there are laws of > physics, but the argument gets silly after awhile. Sure a Neon will lose > out in a crash with a LeSabre, but the LeSabre will likely lose against > an Explorer, which will lose against an Expedition, which will lose > against an Excursion. At this rate, in 2002 will we be driving Greyhound > buses just to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice?
Well, the bus would probably get better fuel economy than the Excursion… 
Drew Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
Sounds just like the "speed kills" bullsh*t. Too many factors are involved. (more like too many greedy politicians and corporations involved) — Dan Schneider "If it weren’t for the last minute, nothing would get done"
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details >the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs. > I read the article today, and remain unconvinced. It’s a typical > propaganda piece, written by someone who shows no familiarity with how > to do scientific research or statistical analysis. > The first thing that strikes one is that the author provides no > information on how the number 46,000 was arrived at. He quotes IIHS > numbers showing some 10,000 additional deaths, but does not explain > how they derived this. All the other projections are based on this > one number. Any time that numbers are presented this way, with no > background, a reader must be extremely skeptical. > A few moment’s thought raises numerous questions about the numbers, > questions which the article should have addressed. The most obvious > is that those who drive small cars may behave differently than those > who drive larger cars. They may drive more carelssly, thus causing > more accidents. They may drive faster, causing accidents to be more > severe. They may be less likely to wear seat belts, resulting in more > fatalities. Taking these drivers and putting them in larger cars will > not necessarily give them the same fatality rate as current drivers of > large cars. > On top of that, the article is completely faulty in blaming these > assumed additional fatalities on CAFE. This completely ignores the > issue of why people buy small cars. As I said in an earlier message, > many, possibly most, buyers of small cars buy them because they want > them. The American public began a switch to smaller cars at about the > same time CAFE went into effect. If you recall, that was the time > when imports made their first serious inroads to the U.S. market > because many buyers did not want the large, low mileage American cars. > Finally, look at the car market in every other developed country in > the world. I don’t know for sure which ones have CAFE-like > incentives, but I can tell you that virtually every one of them has > far more small cars on the road than the U.S. does. In fact, the > "small" cars sold in Europe and Asia are so small that most Americans > can’t begin to grasp their true size. Consumers want the option of > small (and yes, light) cars; CAFE did not create this market. > (remove "x" from address for email)
Response:
>Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details >the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs.
I read the article today, and remain unconvinced. It’s a typical propaganda piece, written by someone who shows no familiarity with how to do scientific research or statistical analysis. The first thing that strikes one is that the author provides no information on how the number 46,000 was arrived at. He quotes IIHS numbers showing some 10,000 additional deaths, but does not explain how they derived this. All the other projections are based on this one number. Any time that numbers are presented this way, with no background, a reader must be extremely skeptical. A few moment’s thought raises numerous questions about the numbers, questions which the article should have addressed. The most obvious is that those who drive small cars may behave differently than those who drive larger cars. They may drive more carelssly, thus causing more accidents. They may drive faster, causing accidents to be more severe. They may be less likely to wear seat belts, resulting in more fatalities. Taking these drivers and putting them in larger cars will not necessarily give them the same fatality rate as current drivers of large cars. On top of that, the article is completely faulty in blaming these assumed additional fatalities on CAFE. This completely ignores the issue of why people buy small cars. As I said in an earlier message, many, possibly most, buyers of small cars buy them because they want them. The American public began a switch to smaller cars at about the same time CAFE went into effect. If you recall, that was the time when imports made their first serious inroads to the U.S. market because many buyers did not want the large, low mileage American cars. Finally, look at the car market in every other developed country in the world. I don’t know for sure which ones have CAFE-like incentives, but I can tell you that virtually every one of them has far more small cars on the road than the U.S. does. In fact, the "small" cars sold in Europe and Asia are so small that most Americans can’t begin to grasp their true size. Consumers want the option of small (and yes, light) cars; CAFE did not create this market. (remove "x" from address for email)
Response:
: ——- : Lloyd, the facts are in the USA Today article of 7/2/99. You may also find the No, there are no facts. Any true statistician would throw up their hands and tell you that you can draw no conclusions from this data — no control group, too many confounding variables. : analysis on the Competitive Enterprise Institute website http://www.cei.org as I see. A pro-business, probably right-wing site that wants to preserve the "right" of the auto industry to make big, gas-guzzling vehicles. : they have been one of the groups that has successfully lobbied Congress to : prohibit NHTSA from spending any more money to increase CAFE to kill more : innocent Americans. Car and Driver has done several pieces on this as well. : All three groups have arrived at the same conclusions. By sheer speculation. : Congress seems to : agree, because they have tied NHTSA’s hands on this one for now. The Republicans hate government regulations of any type. This is the Congress that tried to repeal the Endangered Species Act and gut the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. : : WHY do you want to kill more people in the search to save a few more gallons of : fuel? And the added air pollution — how many people will that kill? The added greenhouse gases — how many might that kill in the future?
Response:
: : CAFE has been among the most deadly vehicle regulation systems ever imposed on : a gullible public. Opinion. : The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights : has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose. Opinion. Try some facts to support an argument. ——- Lloyd, the facts are in the USA Today article of 7/2/99. You may also find the analysis on the Competitive Enterprise Institute website http://www.cei.org as they have been one of the groups that has successfully lobbied Congress to prohibit NHTSA from spending any more money to increase CAFE to kill more innocent Americans. Car and Driver has done several pieces on this as well. All three groups have arrived at the same conclusions. Congress seems to agree, because they have tied NHTSA’s hands on this one for now. WHY do you want to kill more people in the search to save a few more gallons of fuel? I think life is more important than gasoline. Regards, Jim Walker >>
Response:
: : CAFE has been among the most deadly vehicle regulation systems ever imposed on : a gullible public. Opinion. : The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights : has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose. Opinion. Try some facts to support an argument.
Response:
> : > : : The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights > : has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose.
I also would like to see some facts to support this. I would also wonder what the SUV craze has done to inflate these numbers. While one category of vehicle has been made to confrom, the SUV market has not.
Response:
How? How do you attribute them? Who knows, without lighter cars CAFE brought about, maybe we wouldn’t have the responsive suspensions, steering, tires, etc., that we have that let people avoid accidents more. Certainly lighter cars, just from being lighter and smaller, are more maneuverable and can avoid accidents better. You just can’t say that. Too many confounding variables. It’s like saying, without World War II, the Nazis would still be in power, or without Gettysburg, the South would still be an independent nation. Sorry you do not understand the research, Lloyd, but many competent researchers have reached the same conclusions independently. These are all people with no axe to grind in the process, and no way to profit from their findings. CAFE has been among the most deadly vehicle regulation systems ever imposed on a gullible public. The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
: : : IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have : : skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors : — : : then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. : : : : But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which : : have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to : : show for the results. : : Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. : Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and : suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter : weight. >> : : Dear Lloyd, : : Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details : the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs. Without How? How do you attribute them? Who knows, without lighter cars CAFE brought about, maybe we wouldn’t have the responsive suspensions, steering, tires, etc., that we have that let people avoid accidents more. Certainly lighter cars, just from being lighter and smaller, are more maneuverable and can avoid accidents better. : CAFE, we would have had all the gains from brakes, tires, etc, that you : mentioned PLUS we would have about 46,000 fewer gravesites from CAFE. The USA : Today piece was the latest in a series of independent research projects that : have quantified the number of government required CAFE killings. They all : reached about the same numbers and for the same reasons. You just can’t say that. Too many confounding variables. It’s like saying, without World War II, the Nazis would still be in power, or without Gettysburg, the South would still be an independent nation.
Response:
Yep. And fatalities are WAY down on a per vehicle mile traveled basis, aren’t they? Drew > Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. > Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and > suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter > weight.
Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
: IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have : skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors — : then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. : : But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which : have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to : show for the results. Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter weight. >> Dear Lloyd, Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs. Without CAFE, we would have had all the gains from brakes, tires, etc, that you mentioned PLUS we would have about 46,000 fewer gravesites from CAFE. The USA Today piece was the latest in a series of independent research projects that have quantified the number of government required CAFE killings. They all reached about the same numbers and for the same reasons. Thanks, Congress and NHTSA. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
True, no one forces people to buy these greater number of newer small cars, but that is all many can afford (i.e., initial cost, fuel economy, insurance) or they can end up with a 10yr old larger car instead. Everyone has their own priorities. >> IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors — then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to show for the results. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
: : True, no one forces people to buy these greater number of newer small : cars, but that is all many can afford (i.e., initial cost, fuel economy, : insurance) or they can end up with a 10yr old larger car instead. : Everyone has their own priorities. : >> : : IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have : skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors — : then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. : : But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which : have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to : show for the results. Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter weight.
Response:
More newer cars using less fuel/car with greatly reduced tailpipe emissions/car have been positive beneifts of many government programs and mandates. The other side is that the cars are generally smaller to achieve these results. The newer vehicles absorb crash energy in the body structure before it gets to the passenger compartment (in frontal and rearward crash events). But when the crumple zone on a compact vehicle packed to capacity with parents, children, and grand parents (at Christmas time, for example) is in the side instead of the front or back, it does not make for a festive holiday season. I saw a Metro hatchback at the mall a few years ago full of family (3 generations) on a shopping trip. The distance between the outer door skin and the passenger was only a few inches–not much room for crumple inspite of government side impact regulations. Hopefully, the side structure (door frame) is strong enough that any significant impact will knock the car around instead of merely deforming inward. True, no one forces people to buy these greater number of newer small cars, but that is all many can afford (i.e., initial cost, fuel economy, insurance) or they can end up with a 10yr old larger car instead. Everyone has their own priorities. C-BODY
Response:
DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths.
Response:
: DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the : effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national : consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths. How can a fleet of cars that gets twice the mileage cars got before CAFE not have decreased gasoline consumption? Perhaps they’re considering the increased number of cars on the road; if so, consumption would be much worse without CAFE. And fatalities have fallen every year for the past couple of decades (and longer). Cars now have energy-absorbing crumple zones, side impact protection, air bags, better belts, ABS, etc. Sure, these might have come about anyway, but the problem is, with a declining fatality rate, you can’t say lightening cars has lead to more deaths — too many confounding variables. Plus, lightening wasn’t the only thing auto makers did to get better mileage. More efficient engines, fuel injection, computers, better tires, more efficient transmissions (more speeds, lock-up TCs), more aerodynamic — these have all helped too.
Response:
>: DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the >: effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national >: consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths. >How can a fleet of cars that gets twice the mileage cars got before CAFE >not have decreased gasoline consumption?
I haven’t seen the story, but I can make a guess. The problem with CAFE standards was that they did not apply to all vehicles, only to "passenger automobiles". After they went into effect, the American public made a massive swing toward buying "trucks", which did not have to meet the standards. This filled the roads with many small cars and many large trucks, which increased the likelihood of a major size mismatch between two vehicles in an accident. If the CAFE standards had been applied across the board, trucks would probably cost much more than they do now, so we would not have as many on the road, and the ones on the road would be lighter and would consume less fuel. (To reply via email, remove "x" from address.)
Response:
: : >: DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the : >: effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national : >: consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths. : > : >How can a fleet of cars that gets twice the mileage cars got before CAFE : >not have decreased gasoline consumption? : : I haven’t seen the story, but I can make a guess. The problem with CAFE : standards was that they did not apply to all vehicles, only to "passenger : automobiles". Actually, CAFE does apply to light trucks, but the CAFE standard is a lot lower. But I believe GM and Ford started downsizing before CAFE anyway, and Chrysler’s Omni/Horizon were before CAFE as well, if I remember correctly. So the trend towards making cars smaller and lighter was going to happen anyway, if this is what moved some to trucks.
Response:
No one was forced by CAFE to buy a lightweight vehicle. Those who believe that heavier is safer are still free to buy heavier. I’ve seen some counter that heavier costs more because of CAFE, but I don’t believe that’s true. CAFE has encouraged automakers to improve gas mileage in many ways other than reducing weight. That means that a car of a given weight now gets better gas mileage than it would have without CAFE. Why is this significant? Suppose you’re a consumer who thinks that 3,500 pounds is the magic weight that makes a vehicle safe. Without CAFE you would have been able to buy such a vehicle for a given price, but it would have gotten lousy gas mileage. After CAFE, you can still buy a 3,500 pound vehicle, but it will probably (but not necesssarily) cost you more because of CAFE. However, because of CAFE-encouraged improvements in electronice, combustion, tires, drivetrains, etc. it will get significantly better mileage than the pre-CAFE 3,500 pound vehicle. This improved fuel efficiency will save thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle. The net result is that the consumer can still afford a vehicle of whatever weight they want. The reality is that many of them are freely choosing to buy lighter vehicles. To blame this on CAFE is totally faulty. The truth is that most small-car buyers want a small car. Some simply prefer the feel of a small car. Some feel that small cars have better accident avoidance abilities, because they handle better and stop shorter. Some place a high prioity on saving natural resources, and specifically want a small car in order to save fuel. Everyone makes their own cost/benefit analysis and makes a choice. Many buyers feel that the chances of being in a serious accident are extremely small, as they in fact are. Most of us will never have this happen to us. Even if they believe that a heavier vehicle is safer, many are willing to put other priorities ahead of that. There are lots of reasons people make their choices, but CAFE is not to blame. I’m a perfect example of this. My car in the 70’s weighed 2,400 pounds. My next car, bought in ‘82 weighed 2,800 pounds. In the nineties I have bought three vehicles, weighing 3,300 to 3,800 pounds, all of which, in real dollars, had a purchase price lower than the two earlier vehicles. The actual gas mileage has been nearly constant over all of those vehicles. The only reason that I can drive a 3,600 pound vehicle now that gets the same mileage as a 2,400 pound vehicle from 1972 is CAFE. >> Virtually all of the fuel economy gains on large and medium sized cars came from emission control technology and overdrive transmissions. CAFE killed people, and continues to kill 2,000 to 3,000 people per year by forcing makers to make some very attractively priced small and light cars — to counterbalance the larger cars that do not get good enough economy. If you have to make 28.5 mpg, this is often done by selling 2 heavy cars at 22 mpg 6 light cars at 31 mpg The number of much lighter cars you must sell to cover some heavier ones terribly skewed the fleet weight average — down by about 500 pounds. Mix in the explosion of the light trucks and SUVs and add that to the above, and you get the loss of 2,000 to 3,000 lives per year. It is bloody, and wrong. Sorry if you do not get it, but the results were well known and predictable about 15 years ago. Congress is only now waking up to the deaths they caused and are refusing to let NHTSA multiply them even more. Thank heaven that Congress is a little bit awake on this tragedy. By the way, do you know that most standard tires are calibrated for CAFE, and not for braking distance and cornering limits? Putting performance tires on your car can be one of the simplest ways to add safety, but it costs a few tenths of a mpg, so makers do not dare give you the greater safety of better braking and risk CAFE fines when their fleets are so close to the edge of CAFE rules. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
>But, the skewing of the market by these rules really did cause cars to become >lighter than the market would otherwise have purchased and that has killed over >40,000 Americans.
No one was forced by CAFE to buy a lightweight vehicle. Those who believe that heavier is safer are still free to buy heavier. I’ve seen some counter that heavier costs more because of CAFE, but I don’t believe that’s true. CAFE has encouraged automakers to improve gas mileage in many ways other than reducing weight. That means that a car of a given weight now gets better gas mileage than it would have without CAFE. Why is this significant? Suppose you’re a consumer who thinks that 3,500 pounds is the magic weight that makes a vehicle safe. Without CAFE you would have been able to buy such a vehicle for a given price, but it would have gotten lousy gas mileage. After CAFE, you can still buy a 3,500 pound vehicle, but it will probably (but not necesssarily) cost you more because of CAFE. However, because of CAFE-encouraged improvements in electronice, combustion, tires, drivetrains, etc. it will get significantly better mileage than the pre-CAFE 3,500 pound vehicle. This improved fuel efficiency will save thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle. The net result is that the consumer can still afford a vehicle of whatever weight they want. The reality is that many of them are freely choosing to buy lighter vehicles. To blame this on CAFE is totally faulty. The truth is that most small-car buyers want a small car. Some simply prefer the feel of a small car. Some feel that small cars have better accident avoidance abilities, because they handle better and stop shorter. Some place a high prioity on saving natural resources, and specifically want a small car in order to save fuel. Everyone makes their own cost/benefit analysis and makes a choice. Many buyers feel that the chances of being in a serious accident are extremely small, as they in fact are. Most of us will never have this happen to us. Even if they believe that a heavier vehicle is safer, many are willing to put other priorities ahead of that. There are lots of reasons people make their choices, but CAFE is not to blame. I’m a perfect example of this. My car in the 70’s weighed 2,400 pounds. My next car, bought in ‘82 weighed 2,800 pounds. In the nineties I have bought three vehicles, weighing 3,300 to 3,800 pounds, all of which, in real dollars, had a purchase price lower than the two earlier vehicles. The actual gas mileage has been nearly constant over all of those vehicles. The only reason that I can drive a 3,600 pound vehicle now that gets the same mileage as a 2,400 pound vehicle from 1972 is CAFE. (remove "x" from address for email)
Response:
I thought it was a very sloppy article. It failed to mention the now universal application of airbags and the fact that there are more cars on the road now. Today’s cars are just vastly better, and auto deaths have gone down. As for the effects of size and weight on safety, sure there are laws of physics, but the argument gets silly after awhile. Sure a Neon will lose out in a crash with a LeSabre, but the LeSabre will likely lose against an Explorer, which will lose against an Expedition, which will lose against an Excursion. At this rate, in 2002 will we be driving Greyhound buses just to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the > effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national > consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths.
Response:
I’m afraid these numbers are highly questionable. The primary factor is that many people intentionally choose a lighter, more-efficient vehicle. These people would have bought a vehicle of that type regardless of the CAFE regulations. So to blame all small-car fatalities on CAFE is ridiculous. Second, there is no way to say that an observed change in average weight is "because of CAFE". A weight decrease might have happened anyway. Finally, our roads and vehicles are now safer than at any previous time in our history. Most fatalities that do occur are caused by human error such as failure to take safety precautions (wear a seat belt), impaired driving, inattentive driving, aggressive driving, etc. No matter what we do to the vehicles themselves, some people will die in accidents. >> Car and Driver magazine, USA Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, many other journalists, and various research arms of Congress have all come to the same conclusions on the deadly nature of the forced aspects of safety decreases from CAFE. Because Congress understands the nature of CAFE killings, and has ample data to back up the facts of those killings, they have frozen the rules and have de-funded NHTSA. NHTSA for several years now has been prohibted from legally spend a penny to work on enacting higher CAFE rules. Without these Congressional restrictions, NHTSA would have worked on increasing CAFE and killing more Americans for the sake of small fuel gains. I agree some will die in accidents, though fewer today than ever before. I agree some will buy smaller cars anyway and CAFE is NOT to blame for all small car deaths. But, the skewing of the market by these rules really did cause cars to become lighter than the market would otherwise have purchased and that has killed over 40,000 Americans. The problem is you have to sell a lot of really light vehicles to compensate for a smaller number of heavy ones. More and more people now deliberately buy heavy vehicles — strictly for the safety. If CAFE had not occurred, or had been more moderate in the requirements, then more vehicles would be more toward the center of the weight range, rather than on the extremes of light and heavy, and there would be a LOT fewer graves from this poorly crafted piece of deadly legislation. I find the trade off to be immoral and unacceptable for forced regulations, as do many other people and groups. The cost was too high for too little gain for our society. Unfortunately, NHTSA is willing to put quite a few Americans to death to achieve their political agendas. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
>Cars and trucks met different CAFE standards, but both groups suffered from an >artificial skewing of vehicle weights. Overall, vehicles became an average of >about 500 pounds lighter because of CAFE, and this has put over 40,000 >Americans to death by these poorly-crafted rules.
I’m afraid these numbers are highly questionable. The primary factor is that many people intentionally choose a lighter, more-efficient vehicle. These people would have bought a vehicle of that type regardless of the CAFE regulations. So to blame all small-car fatalities on CAFE is ridiculous. Second, there is no way to say that an observed change in average weight is "because of CAFE". A weight decrease might have happened anyway. Finally, our roads and vehicles are now safer than at any previous time in our history. Most fatalities that do occur are caused by human error such as failure to take safety precautions (wear a seat belt), impaired driving, inattentive driving, aggressive driving, etc. No matter what we do to the vehicles themselves, some people will die in accidents. (To reply via email, remove "x" from address.)
Response:
I haven’t seen the story, but I can make a guess. The problem with CAFE standards was that they did not apply to all vehicles, only to "passenger automobiles". After they went into effect, the American public made a massive swing toward buying "trucks", which did not have to meet the standards. This filled the roads with many small cars and many large trucks, which increased the likelihood of a major size mismatch between two vehicles in an accident. If the CAFE standards had been applied across the board, trucks would probably cost much more than they do now, so we would not have as many on the road, and the ones on the road would be lighter and would consume less fuel.>> Cars and trucks met different CAFE standards, but both groups suffered from an artificial skewing of vehicle weights. Overall, vehicles became an average of about 500 pounds lighter because of CAFE, and this has put over 40,000 Americans to death by these poorly-crafted rules. NHTSA is a political unit, not always interested in safety, as can be seen from their private political agendas in many areas. Ford could build profitable Explorers and Expeditions, IF they built enough small and light Rangers. GM could build profitable DeVilles and Park Avenues, if they built enough small and light Metros and Cavaliers. It was the skewing of the normal model mix, and the requirements of weight on the smallest ones to optimize the gains, that lead to the high numbers of killings. Many writers and researchers have documented the killing ratios and the reasons for the carnage, and Mr. Healey’s fine piece adds to the documentation that this has been a very DEADLY law that should be repealed. NHTSA, of course, wants to kill more people by tightening CAFE. Fortunately, Congress has refused to allow them to spend money to achieve this agenda. Congress should go further and end this law. My USA Today letter to the editor on the subject is shown below. It was published with minor changes. Regards, Jim Walker Mr. Healey carefully documents what everyone in the car business has known since the mid-1970’s, that CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rules would prove to be quite deadly to many innocent Americans. The death toll from this poorly crafted and outdated law is a national disgrace, and there is no excuse to continue killing so many innocent Americans to save a bit of fuel. With modern fuel injection, even fairly large cars and light trucks get fuel economy that far exceeds even medium sized vehicles averages in the 1970’s. It is time to sunset the CAFE rules as outdated and far too deadly to continue. Without CAFE rules, auto makers will tend to produce vehicles more toward the middle size range and the death toll from this deadly and outdated law will decrease over time. I believe that Congress should take these actions: 1. Under no circumstances whatsoever allow the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to increase CAFE requirements, we kill quite enough people already with this dangerous and unfortunate law. 2. Consider reducing CAFE requirements to encourage auto makers to make vehicles that are somewhat more uniform in size, to reduce the number of innocent Americans that are put to death by the dangerous CAFE regulations. Regards, James C. Walker JCW Consulting
Response:
>… sure there are laws of > physics, but the argument gets silly after awhile. Sure a Neon will lose > out in a crash with a LeSabre, but the LeSabre will likely lose against > an Explorer, which will lose against an Expedition, which will lose > against an Excursion. At this rate, in 2002 will we be driving Greyhound > buses just to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice?
Well, the bus would probably get better fuel economy than the Excursion… Drew Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
Sounds just like the "speed kills" bullsh*t. Too many factors are involved. (more like too many greedy politicians and corporations involved) — Dan Schneider "If it weren’t for the last minute, nothing would get done"
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details >the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs. > I read the article today, and remain unconvinced. It’s a typical > propaganda piece, written by someone who shows no familiarity with how > to do scientific research or statistical analysis. > The first thing that strikes one is that the author provides no > information on how the number 46,000 was arrived at. He quotes IIHS > numbers showing some 10,000 additional deaths, but does not explain > how they derived this. All the other projections are based on this > one number. Any time that numbers are presented this way, with no > background, a reader must be extremely skeptical. > A few moment’s thought raises numerous questions about the numbers, > questions which the article should have addressed. The most obvious > is that those who drive small cars may behave differently than those > who drive larger cars. They may drive more carelssly, thus causing > more accidents. They may drive faster, causing accidents to be more > severe. They may be less likely to wear seat belts, resulting in more > fatalities. Taking these drivers and putting them in larger cars will > not necessarily give them the same fatality rate as current drivers of > large cars. > On top of that, the article is completely faulty in blaming these > assumed additional fatalities on CAFE. This completely ignores the > issue of why people buy small cars. As I said in an earlier message, > many, possibly most, buyers of small cars buy them because they want > them. The American public began a switch to smaller cars at about the > same time CAFE went into effect. If you recall, that was the time > when imports made their first serious inroads to the U.S. market > because many buyers did not want the large, low mileage American cars. > Finally, look at the car market in every other developed country in > the world. I don’t know for sure which ones have CAFE-like > incentives, but I can tell you that virtually every one of them has > far more small cars on the road than the U.S. does. In fact, the > "small" cars sold in Europe and Asia are so small that most Americans > can’t begin to grasp their true size. Consumers want the option of > small (and yes, light) cars; CAFE did not create this market. > (remove "x" from address for email)
Response:
>Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details >the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs.
I read the article today, and remain unconvinced. It’s a typical propaganda piece, written by someone who shows no familiarity with how to do scientific research or statistical analysis. The first thing that strikes one is that the author provides no information on how the number 46,000 was arrived at. He quotes IIHS numbers showing some 10,000 additional deaths, but does not explain how they derived this. All the other projections are based on this one number. Any time that numbers are presented this way, with no background, a reader must be extremely skeptical. A few moment’s thought raises numerous questions about the numbers, questions which the article should have addressed. The most obvious is that those who drive small cars may behave differently than those who drive larger cars. They may drive more carelssly, thus causing more accidents. They may drive faster, causing accidents to be more severe. They may be less likely to wear seat belts, resulting in more fatalities. Taking these drivers and putting them in larger cars will not necessarily give them the same fatality rate as current drivers of large cars. On top of that, the article is completely faulty in blaming these assumed additional fatalities on CAFE. This completely ignores the issue of why people buy small cars. As I said in an earlier message, many, possibly most, buyers of small cars buy them because they want them. The American public began a switch to smaller cars at about the same time CAFE went into effect. If you recall, that was the time when imports made their first serious inroads to the U.S. market because many buyers did not want the large, low mileage American cars. Finally, look at the car market in every other developed country in the world. I don’t know for sure which ones have CAFE-like incentives, but I can tell you that virtually every one of them has far more small cars on the road than the U.S. does. In fact, the "small" cars sold in Europe and Asia are so small that most Americans can’t begin to grasp their true size. Consumers want the option of small (and yes, light) cars; CAFE did not create this market. (remove "x" from address for email)
Response:
: : : IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have : : skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors : — : : then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. : : : : But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which : : have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to : : show for the results. : : Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. : Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and : suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter : weight. >> : : Dear Lloyd, : : Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details : the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs. Without How? How do you attribute them? Who knows, without lighter cars CAFE brought about, maybe we wouldn’t have the responsive suspensions, steering, tires, etc., that we have that let people avoid accidents more. Certainly lighter cars, just from being lighter and smaller, are more maneuverable and can avoid accidents better. : CAFE, we would have had all the gains from brakes, tires, etc, that you : mentioned PLUS we would have about 46,000 fewer gravesites from CAFE. The USA : Today piece was the latest in a series of independent research projects that : have quantified the number of government required CAFE killings. They all : reached about the same numbers and for the same reasons. You just can’t say that. Too many confounding variables. It’s like saying, without World War II, the Nazis would still be in power, or without Gettysburg, the South would still be an independent nation.
Response:
How? How do you attribute them? Who knows, without lighter cars CAFE brought about, maybe we wouldn’t have the responsive suspensions, steering, tires, etc., that we have that let people avoid accidents more. Certainly lighter cars, just from being lighter and smaller, are more maneuverable and can avoid accidents better. You just can’t say that. Too many confounding variables. It’s like saying, without World War II, the Nazis would still be in power, or without Gettysburg, the South would still be an independent nation. Sorry you do not understand the research, Lloyd, but many competent researchers have reached the same conclusions independently. These are all people with no axe to grind in the process, and no way to profit from their findings. CAFE has been among the most deadly vehicle regulation systems ever imposed on a gullible public. The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
: : CAFE has been among the most deadly vehicle regulation systems ever imposed on : a gullible public. Opinion. : The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights : has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose. Opinion. Try some facts to support an argument.
Response:
> : > : : The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights > : has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose.
I also would like to see some facts to support this. I would also wonder what the SUV craze has done to inflate these numbers. While one category of vehicle has been made to confrom, the SUV market has not.
Response:
: : CAFE has been among the most deadly vehicle regulation systems ever imposed on : a gullible public. Opinion. : The roughly 500 pound reduction in overall vehicle weights : has killed some EXTRA 46,000 people — with no valid purpose. Opinion. Try some facts to support an argument. ——- Lloyd, the facts are in the USA Today article of 7/2/99. You may also find the analysis on the Competitive Enterprise Institute website http://www.cei.org as they have been one of the groups that has successfully lobbied Congress to prohibit NHTSA from spending any more money to increase CAFE to kill more innocent Americans. Car and Driver has done several pieces on this as well. All three groups have arrived at the same conclusions. Congress seems to agree, because they have tied NHTSA’s hands on this one for now. WHY do you want to kill more people in the search to save a few more gallons of fuel? I think life is more important than gasoline. Regards, Jim Walker >>
Response:
: ——- : Lloyd, the facts are in the USA Today article of 7/2/99. You may also find the No, there are no facts. Any true statistician would throw up their hands and tell you that you can draw no conclusions from this data — no control group, too many confounding variables. : analysis on the Competitive Enterprise Institute website http://www.cei.org as I see. A pro-business, probably right-wing site that wants to preserve the "right" of the auto industry to make big, gas-guzzling vehicles. : they have been one of the groups that has successfully lobbied Congress to : prohibit NHTSA from spending any more money to increase CAFE to kill more : innocent Americans. Car and Driver has done several pieces on this as well. : All three groups have arrived at the same conclusions. By sheer speculation. : Congress seems to : agree, because they have tied NHTSA’s hands on this one for now. The Republicans hate government regulations of any type. This is the Congress that tried to repeal the Endangered Species Act and gut the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. : : WHY do you want to kill more people in the search to save a few more gallons of : fuel? And the added air pollution — how many people will that kill? The added greenhouse gases — how many might that kill in the future?
Response:
: : True, no one forces people to buy these greater number of newer small : cars, but that is all many can afford (i.e., initial cost, fuel economy, : insurance) or they can end up with a 10yr old larger car instead. : Everyone has their own priorities. : >> : : IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have : skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors — : then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. : : But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which : have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to : show for the results. Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter weight.
Response:
Yep. And fatalities are WAY down on a per vehicle mile traveled basis, aren’t they? Drew > Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. > Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and > suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter > weight.
Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
: IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have : skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors — : then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. : : But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which : have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to : show for the results. Huh? Fatalities are DOWN from the 70s, when the downsizing trend started. Safety features like air bags, better brakes, ABS, better tires and suspensions, crumple zones, etc., have more than offset the lighter weight. >> Dear Lloyd, Go to the library and read the July 2 USA Today piece which carefully details the approx. 46,000 EXTRA deaths which are attributable to CAFE regs. Without CAFE, we would have had all the gains from brakes, tires, etc, that you mentioned PLUS we would have about 46,000 fewer gravesites from CAFE. The USA Today piece was the latest in a series of independent research projects that have quantified the number of government required CAFE killings. They all reached about the same numbers and for the same reasons. Thanks, Congress and NHTSA. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
True, no one forces people to buy these greater number of newer small cars, but that is all many can afford (i.e., initial cost, fuel economy, insurance) or they can end up with a 10yr old larger car instead. Everyone has their own priorities. >> IF people could make these choices, without the government mandates that have skewed the product content, product size, product pricing, and other factors — then the choice would be genuinely a free one for the consumer. But, it is not — because of the use of government force and mandates which have proven quite deadly in this area — with almost 50,000 extra graves to show for the results. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
More newer cars using less fuel/car with greatly reduced tailpipe emissions/car have been positive beneifts of many government programs and mandates. The other side is that the cars are generally smaller to achieve these results. The newer vehicles absorb crash energy in the body structure before it gets to the passenger compartment (in frontal and rearward crash events). But when the crumple zone on a compact vehicle packed to capacity with parents, children, and grand parents (at Christmas time, for example) is in the side instead of the front or back, it does not make for a festive holiday season. I saw a Metro hatchback at the mall a few years ago full of family (3 generations) on a shopping trip. The distance between the outer door skin and the passenger was only a few inches–not much room for crumple inspite of government side impact regulations. Hopefully, the side structure (door frame) is strong enough that any significant impact will knock the car around instead of merely deforming inward. True, no one forces people to buy these greater number of newer small cars, but that is all many can afford (i.e., initial cost, fuel economy, insurance) or they can end up with a 10yr old larger car instead. Everyone has their own priorities. C-BODY
Response:
No one was forced by CAFE to buy a lightweight vehicle. Those who believe that heavier is safer are still free to buy heavier. I’ve seen some counter that heavier costs more because of CAFE, but I don’t believe that’s true. CAFE has encouraged automakers to improve gas mileage in many ways other than reducing weight. That means that a car of a given weight now gets better gas mileage than it would have without CAFE. Why is this significant? Suppose you’re a consumer who thinks that 3,500 pounds is the magic weight that makes a vehicle safe. Without CAFE you would have been able to buy such a vehicle for a given price, but it would have gotten lousy gas mileage. After CAFE, you can still buy a 3,500 pound vehicle, but it will probably (but not necesssarily) cost you more because of CAFE. However, because of CAFE-encouraged improvements in electronice, combustion, tires, drivetrains, etc. it will get significantly better mileage than the pre-CAFE 3,500 pound vehicle. This improved fuel efficiency will save thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle. The net result is that the consumer can still afford a vehicle of whatever weight they want. The reality is that many of them are freely choosing to buy lighter vehicles. To blame this on CAFE is totally faulty. The truth is that most small-car buyers want a small car. Some simply prefer the feel of a small car. Some feel that small cars have better accident avoidance abilities, because they handle better and stop shorter. Some place a high prioity on saving natural resources, and specifically want a small car in order to save fuel. Everyone makes their own cost/benefit analysis and makes a choice. Many buyers feel that the chances of being in a serious accident are extremely small, as they in fact are. Most of us will never have this happen to us. Even if they believe that a heavier vehicle is safer, many are willing to put other priorities ahead of that. There are lots of reasons people make their choices, but CAFE is not to blame. I’m a perfect example of this. My car in the 70’s weighed 2,400 pounds. My next car, bought in ‘82 weighed 2,800 pounds. In the nineties I have bought three vehicles, weighing 3,300 to 3,800 pounds, all of which, in real dollars, had a purchase price lower than the two earlier vehicles. The actual gas mileage has been nearly constant over all of those vehicles. The only reason that I can drive a 3,600 pound vehicle now that gets the same mileage as a 2,400 pound vehicle from 1972 is CAFE. >> Virtually all of the fuel economy gains on large and medium sized cars came from emission control technology and overdrive transmissions. CAFE killed people, and continues to kill 2,000 to 3,000 people per year by forcing makers to make some very attractively priced small and light cars — to counterbalance the larger cars that do not get good enough economy. If you have to make 28.5 mpg, this is often done by selling 2 heavy cars at 22 mpg 6 light cars at 31 mpg The number of much lighter cars you must sell to cover some heavier ones terribly skewed the fleet weight average — down by about 500 pounds. Mix in the explosion of the light trucks and SUVs and add that to the above, and you get the loss of 2,000 to 3,000 lives per year. It is bloody, and wrong. Sorry if you do not get it, but the results were well known and predictable about 15 years ago. Congress is only now waking up to the deaths they caused and are refusing to let NHTSA multiply them even more. Thank heaven that Congress is a little bit awake on this tragedy. By the way, do you know that most standard tires are calibrated for CAFE, and not for braking distance and cornering limits? Putting performance tires on your car can be one of the simplest ways to add safety, but it costs a few tenths of a mpg, so makers do not dare give you the greater safety of better braking and risk CAFE fines when their fleets are so close to the edge of CAFE rules. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
I thought it was a very sloppy article. It failed to mention the now universal application of airbags and the fact that there are more cars on the road now. Today’s cars are just vastly better, and auto deaths have gone down. As for the effects of size and weight on safety, sure there are laws of physics, but the argument gets silly after awhile. Sure a Neon will lose out in a crash with a LeSabre, but the LeSabre will likely lose against an Explorer, which will lose against an Expedition, which will lose against an Excursion. At this rate, in 2002 will we be driving Greyhound buses just to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the > effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national > consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths.
Response:
>But, the skewing of the market by these rules really did cause cars to become >lighter than the market would otherwise have purchased and that has killed over >40,000 Americans.
No one was forced by CAFE to buy a lightweight vehicle. Those who believe that heavier is safer are still free to buy heavier. I’ve seen some counter that heavier costs more because of CAFE, but I don’t believe that’s true. CAFE has encouraged automakers to improve gas mileage in many ways other than reducing weight. That means that a car of a given weight now gets better gas mileage than it would have without CAFE. Why is this significant? Suppose you’re a consumer who thinks that 3,500 pounds is the magic weight that makes a vehicle safe. Without CAFE you would have been able to buy such a vehicle for a given price, but it would have gotten lousy gas mileage. After CAFE, you can still buy a 3,500 pound vehicle, but it will probably (but not necesssarily) cost you more because of CAFE. However, because of CAFE-encouraged improvements in electronice, combustion, tires, drivetrains, etc. it will get significantly better mileage than the pre-CAFE 3,500 pound vehicle. This improved fuel efficiency will save thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle. The net result is that the consumer can still afford a vehicle of whatever weight they want. The reality is that many of them are freely choosing to buy lighter vehicles. To blame this on CAFE is totally faulty. The truth is that most small-car buyers want a small car. Some simply prefer the feel of a small car. Some feel that small cars have better accident avoidance abilities, because they handle better and stop shorter. Some place a high prioity on saving natural resources, and specifically want a small car in order to save fuel. Everyone makes their own cost/benefit analysis and makes a choice. Many buyers feel that the chances of being in a serious accident are extremely small, as they in fact are. Most of us will never have this happen to us. Even if they believe that a heavier vehicle is safer, many are willing to put other priorities ahead of that. There are lots of reasons people make their choices, but CAFE is not to blame. I’m a perfect example of this. My car in the 70’s weighed 2,400 pounds. My next car, bought in ‘82 weighed 2,800 pounds. In the nineties I have bought three vehicles, weighing 3,300 to 3,800 pounds, all of which, in real dollars, had a purchase price lower than the two earlier vehicles. The actual gas mileage has been nearly constant over all of those vehicles. The only reason that I can drive a 3,600 pound vehicle now that gets the same mileage as a 2,400 pound vehicle from 1972 is CAFE. (remove "x" from address for email)
Response:
I’m afraid these numbers are highly questionable. The primary factor is that many people intentionally choose a lighter, more-efficient vehicle. These people would have bought a vehicle of that type regardless of the CAFE regulations. So to blame all small-car fatalities on CAFE is ridiculous. Second, there is no way to say that an observed change in average weight is "because of CAFE". A weight decrease might have happened anyway. Finally, our roads and vehicles are now safer than at any previous time in our history. Most fatalities that do occur are caused by human error such as failure to take safety precautions (wear a seat belt), impaired driving, inattentive driving, aggressive driving, etc. No matter what we do to the vehicles themselves, some people will die in accidents. >> Car and Driver magazine, USA Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, many other journalists, and various research arms of Congress have all come to the same conclusions on the deadly nature of the forced aspects of safety decreases from CAFE. Because Congress understands the nature of CAFE killings, and has ample data to back up the facts of those killings, they have frozen the rules and have de-funded NHTSA. NHTSA for several years now has been prohibted from legally spend a penny to work on enacting higher CAFE rules. Without these Congressional restrictions, NHTSA would have worked on increasing CAFE and killing more Americans for the sake of small fuel gains. I agree some will die in accidents, though fewer today than ever before. I agree some will buy smaller cars anyway and CAFE is NOT to blame for all small car deaths. But, the skewing of the market by these rules really did cause cars to become lighter than the market would otherwise have purchased and that has killed over 40,000 Americans. The problem is you have to sell a lot of really light vehicles to compensate for a smaller number of heavy ones. More and more people now deliberately buy heavy vehicles — strictly for the safety. If CAFE had not occurred, or had been more moderate in the requirements, then more vehicles would be more toward the center of the weight range, rather than on the extremes of light and heavy, and there would be a LOT fewer graves from this poorly crafted piece of deadly legislation. I find the trade off to be immoral and unacceptable for forced regulations, as do many other people and groups. The cost was too high for too little gain for our society. Unfortunately, NHTSA is willing to put quite a few Americans to death to achieve their political agendas. Regards, Jim Walker
Response:
>Cars and trucks met different CAFE standards, but both groups suffered from an >artificial skewing of vehicle weights. Overall, vehicles became an average of >about 500 pounds lighter because of CAFE, and this has put over 40,000 >Americans to death by these poorly-crafted rules.
I’m afraid these numbers are highly questionable. The primary factor is that many people intentionally choose a lighter, more-efficient vehicle. These people would have bought a vehicle of that type regardless of the CAFE regulations. So to blame all small-car fatalities on CAFE is ridiculous. Second, there is no way to say that an observed change in average weight is "because of CAFE". A weight decrease might have happened anyway. Finally, our roads and vehicles are now safer than at any previous time in our history. Most fatalities that do occur are caused by human error such as failure to take safety precautions (wear a seat belt), impaired driving, inattentive driving, aggressive driving, etc. No matter what we do to the vehicles themselves, some people will die in accidents. (To reply via email, remove "x" from address.)
Response:
I haven’t seen the story, but I can make a guess. The problem with CAFE standards was that they did not apply to all vehicles, only to "passenger automobiles". After they went into effect, the American public made a massive swing toward buying "trucks", which did not have to meet the standards. This filled the roads with many small cars and many large trucks, which increased the likelihood of a major size mismatch between two vehicles in an accident. If the CAFE standards had been applied across the board, trucks would probably cost much more than they do now, so we would not have as many on the road, and the ones on the road would be lighter and would consume less fuel.>> Cars and trucks met different CAFE standards, but both groups suffered from an artificial skewing of vehicle weights. Overall, vehicles became an average of about 500 pounds lighter because of CAFE, and this has put over 40,000 Americans to death by these poorly-crafted rules. NHTSA is a political unit, not always interested in safety, as can be seen from their private political agendas in many areas. Ford could build profitable Explorers and Expeditions, IF they built enough small and light Rangers. GM could build profitable DeVilles and Park Avenues, if they built enough small and light Metros and Cavaliers. It was the skewing of the normal model mix, and the requirements of weight on the smallest ones to optimize the gains, that lead to the high numbers of killings. Many writers and researchers have documented the killing ratios and the reasons for the carnage, and Mr. Healey’s fine piece adds to the documentation that this has been a very DEADLY law that should be repealed. NHTSA, of course, wants to kill more people by tightening CAFE. Fortunately, Congress has refused to allow them to spend money to achieve this agenda. Congress should go further and end this law. My USA Today letter to the editor on the subject is shown below. It was published with minor changes. Regards, Jim Walker Mr. Healey carefully documents what everyone in the car business has known since the mid-1970’s, that CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rules would prove to be quite deadly to many innocent Americans. The death toll from this poorly crafted and outdated law is a national disgrace, and there is no excuse to continue killing so many innocent Americans to save a bit of fuel. With modern fuel injection, even fairly large cars and light trucks get fuel economy that far exceeds even medium sized vehicles averages in the 1970’s. It is time to sunset the CAFE rules as outdated and far too deadly to continue. Without CAFE rules, auto makers will tend to produce vehicles more toward the middle size range and the death toll from this deadly and outdated law will decrease over time. I believe that Congress should take these actions: 1. Under no circumstances whatsoever allow the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to increase CAFE requirements, we kill quite enough people already with this dangerous and unfortunate law. 2. Consider reducing CAFE requirements to encourage auto makers to make vehicles that are somewhat more uniform in size, to reduce the number of innocent Americans that are put to death by the dangerous CAFE regulations. Regards, James C. Walker JCW Consulting
Response:
: : >: DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the : >: effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national : >: consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths. : > : >How can a fleet of cars that gets twice the mileage cars got before CAFE : >not have decreased gasoline consumption? : : I haven’t seen the story, but I can make a guess. The problem with CAFE : standards was that they did not apply to all vehicles, only to "passenger : automobiles". Actually, CAFE does apply to light trucks, but the CAFE standard is a lot lower. But I believe GM and Ford started downsizing before CAFE anyway, and Chrysler’s Omni/Horizon were before CAFE as well, if I remember correctly. So the trend towards making cars smaller and lighter was going to happen anyway, if this is what moved some to trucks.
Response:
>: DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the >: effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national >: consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths. >How can a fleet of cars that gets twice the mileage cars got before CAFE >not have decreased gasoline consumption?
I haven’t seen the story, but I can make a guess. The problem with CAFE standards was that they did not apply to all vehicles, only to "passenger automobiles". After they went into effect, the American public made a massive swing toward buying "trucks", which did not have to meet the standards. This filled the roads with many small cars and many large trucks, which increased the likelihood of a major size mismatch between two vehicles in an accident. If the CAFE standards had been applied across the board, trucks would probably cost much more than they do now, so we would not have as many on the road, and the ones on the road would be lighter and would consume less fuel. (To reply via email, remove "x" from address.)
Response:
DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths.
Response:
: DId anyone hear read it? It seemed a pretty damning story on the : effects of CAFE standards; how they never helped reduce the national : consumption of gasoline, yet they increased the amount of deaths. How can a fleet of cars that gets twice the mileage cars got before CAFE not have decreased gasoline consumption? Perhaps they’re considering the increased number of cars on the road; if so, consumption would be much worse without CAFE. And fatalities have fallen every year for the past couple of decades (and longer). Cars now have energy-absorbing crumple zones, side impact protection, air bags, better belts, ABS, etc. Sure, these might have come about anyway, but the problem is, with a declining fatality rate, you can’t say lightening cars has lead to more deaths — too many confounding variables. Plus, lightening wasn’t the only thing auto makers did to get better mileage. More efficient engines, fuel injection, computers, better tires, more efficient transmissions (more speeds, lock-up TCs), more aerodynamic — these have all helped too.