The American Spectator : Safety Inefficiency

Text Size

Safety Inefficiency

By Eric Peters on 3.9.09 @ 6:07AM

Before government developed its safety fetish, American economy cars were genuinely efficient -- and affordable.

(Page 2 of 2)

Merely suspend federal bumper impact and "passive" (air bag) safety requirements. Let the automakers build 2,000 pound, 50 mpg cars that cost $10k -- which they could easily do, if allowed.

But such cars would be unsafe!

Well, that depends on how you define "safe." And how much safety you think the government should be forcing people to buy. The '70s and '80s -- an era of genuinely economical cars -- were not a time of mass carnage. True, if you wrecked an '82 Omni your chances of being hurt -- or even killed -- would be greater than would be the case if you'd been driving a 2009 (and federally approved) Toyota Yaris. If you wrecked. But maybe -- probably -- you'll never have a serious accident. Most people don't. Some of us -- many of us -- stand a good chance of never being involved in more than a minor fender-bender.

Perhaps the very real everyday fuel savings (and up-front savings on the car itself) are worth more to you than the theoretical "what if?" safety advantages of the modern, government-approved car?

The key phrase in the last sentence being "worth more to you." Shouldn't it be your decision, not Uncle Sam's? Why can't we -- like the eggheads running the government -- weigh the pros and cons of something and come to a conclusion that best meets our particular needs? And does anyone doubt that what America -- what the car industry -- needs very much right now is affordable, very high-mileage cars?

In a single stroke -- and with not one cent spent -- President Obama could resuscitate the U.S. car industry and massively decrease the nation's annual fuel consumption. Smaller, lighter cars would have another good effect, too. Our highways would take less of a beating -- and need fixing less often.

In so many ways, we're being forced to confront reality, economic and otherwise. It should be no different when it comes to the cars we're allowed to buy. The plain truth is out of work and financially struggling people cannot afford $25,000 hybrids. (GM's pending Volt electric car will be closer to $35k.)

Nor should they be told by know-it-all (and invariably very rich) D.C. politicos that they must have "x" and "y" -- invariably at their expense. The principle behind this has always been obnoxious. But now, it is unaffordable.

We can have uber-safe cars that cost $15k. Or we can have cars that get 50-plus MPG and cost $10k. We can't have both.

Whose choice -- whose business -- should it be?

Page: < 12

topics:
Automakers, Fuel Efficiency

About the Author

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (23) | Leave a comment

Motown Mike| 3.9.09 @ 8:06AM

One of the best cars I ever had was from that era: Plymouth Champ. Got 38 mpg and was fun to drive.

stu.b.con| 3.9.09 @ 8:39AM

1978 Mustang II- 35 miles to the gallon, 4 speek stick and shag carpeting $9800. Awesome

V-Dub Ed| 3.9.09 @ 9:13AM

1965 VW Bug. Drove it practically forever. Good milage and would float if need be.

Jerry Dunleavy| 3.9.09 @ 10:11AM

This brief little article sums things up quite nicely

Whenever I hear someone discussing the MPG that their Toyota Hybrid gets, I note that I regularly got over 40 MPG in my 1979 Plymouth Horizon with a 4 speed and a normally aspirated engine. I note that the car cost a small fraction of a hybrid. Then I add that my little Horizon could have, from the line, literally blown the doors off of the hybrid and practically any other economy car on the market today.

And, it was NOT that great a car; which REALLY puts the auto industry today into perspective.

Liv Driver| 3.9.09 @ 10:35AM

And remember, our gas back then was not watered down with MBTE or Ethanol.

Pecos Pete| 3.9.09 @ 11:14AM

And, how much weight with how many safety features will be allowed in an all electric car? Betcha the government loosens restrictions on the little suckers.

I drove a 1963 VW bug until it literally fell apart. Cost = $1,900. The oil plug vibrated loose while driving on a brick paved road and the engine blew out the back.

Paul Milenkovic| 3.9.09 @ 12:44PM

Two factors. One is that back in the day, even though no one was paying attention to the 55 MPH speed limit, it was a 55 MPH limit we were disregarding, not a 65, 70, or perhaps even higher limit in some places. Like the substitute school teacher who asked the class "to keep it down to a dull roar," the lower speed limits meant lower speeds because there is only a certain amount people will go over the limit. So we were driving slower in the Disco Age.

The other thing is that a 32 MPG EPA does not translate to a 32 MPG EPA from back in the day. The EPA test procedure has stayed the same because otherwise that would be changing the rules in mid game for the CAFE standards.

The window sticker EPA numbers, have been adjusted downward twice in relation to the actual tests, once in the mid 1980's and once recently. The idea is that the average person driving whatever-the-cops-allow over the 65 limit is not going to get the EPA highway numbers. Those numbers are based on travel on a California freeway during the day in off rush hour traffic levels, and the average speed on that test is 50 MPH.

Were a person to find a level section of road on a calm wind day and put the cruise control at 52 MPH with creating a road rage incident, oh, and fill the tank with non-ethanol summer-season blend of gas, and were that person to hook up that Scan Gauge device that plugs into the smog-inspection connector, that person would see gas mileage numbers much higher than the current EPA sticker, numbers very close to the "raw" EPA numbers you can find by digging around the EPA Web site for that car, and gas mileage much higher than experienced in everyday highway driving.

Mustang Blue 44| 3.9.09 @ 12:48PM

My brother wrecked my parents Dodge Omni when he and 3 of his "friends" went out drinking and driving. Two guys walked away with scrapes, my brother nearly lost his eye, but otherwise only has a few scars, and a girl was in a coma for a few days but recovered . The car itself was completely totalled: the rear axel was torn free, all the windows were broken, and they have to use the "jaws of life" to open it up to get everyone out.

Sure it was a serious crash, but I don't think that car did much worse than a more modern vehicle would have in a similar situation.

Peter| 3.9.09 @ 1:04PM

While Mr. Peters makes a compelling case, this idea is a pipe dream without a massive overhaul of product liability law. The fact that the safety technology is available and deliberately not chosen to be implemented in this hypothetical (regardless of how educated the consumer's choice) would be a boon to the plaintiff's bar.

Good luck on achieving a product liability law overhaul in this political environment.

JOE| 3.9.09 @ 1:08PM

I have a question for Mr. Peters. Does the gasoine we are required to buy now with so much ethenol more fuel efficient? This is another Gov't mandate.

marty howard| 3.9.09 @ 2:01PM

I was driving a 1989 (in 2003/4) Honda CRX that consistently gave me over 40 mpg.

Seymour Glass| 3.9.09 @ 3:25PM

V-Dub Ed: right you are. To steal from the old Lampoon, just think how things would be if Teddy K had been driving a (floating) Beetle in the summer of '69...

Ryan| 3.9.09 @ 4:14PM

The article fails to note that such cars are STILL available in EUROPE. Anything large is rarely seen, unless it's a Benz. They also have highly efficient diesel motors that won't meet emission standards over here as well.

Matt| 3.9.09 @ 5:02PM

It should also be pointed out that heavier cars aren't necessarily safer cars. More mass, equals more momentum and higher energy crashes at the same speed.

DaveS| 3.9.09 @ 8:09PM

When my daughter asked me what methanol (in gasoline) was, I merely said it was kind of a pre-burned gas (i.e. it has less BTU/gallon than gasoline because it has oxygen in it already) that foisted upon us by the government. Also, my carburetor-Corolla (1.8L 1980, 5-speed, 2250 lb) got 40 mpg with the air conditioning on. A Prius today is rated 48/45. So what?

rich| 3.9.09 @ 8:51PM

In answer to the ethanol question, the BTU content of a fuel (sorry, not octane) determines how much energy it contains and therefore what kind of mileage it will get. Most references give gasoline a value of 125,000 - 133,000 BTU/gal while ethanol has only a content of 76,000 to 81,000 BTU/gal. Do the math. With my own car (normally getting 29 mpg) I noticed a loss of 2 mpg when I went to 10% ethanol gas. Funny thing about the BTU values - my older textbooks gave higher values for gasoline and lower values for ethanol than the "greenest" web sites. I included them above - that explains the range. Oh, yeah, diesel fuel is 139,200 - 143,000.

John B.| 3.9.09 @ 9:06PM

I had a Mercury Lynx. Best I did was 46 MPG on a 2 day trip.
By the way, the "smart car" European version gets mch better mileage because it is lighter. Can't be sold here, of course.

Bruce| 3.9.09 @ 9:10PM

The Europeans have, for years, had tiny little that got great gas mileage with minimal safety equipment. It doesn't seem that the Europeans are dying en masse in auto accidents. If the current administration wants to emulate the European model, here's a place to start!

Chuck Horn| 3.9.09 @ 10:31PM

This was not JUST the Government. 40 years ago when I was Mayor of Kettering, Ohio I said while having dinner with the then Vice Chair of the GM Board, " I would really like to buy an AMERICAN fuel efficient small car" His reply, "Buy a foreign car, we do not care, America will NEVER go for these small cars" Right!

Carcrash| 3.11.09 @ 1:43AM

Jeezus, thank god you people have shut up. You would have people just fucking dying to prove your shitty little point. Thank God you fucking losers are done. Don't even try to pretend that this hasnt been your bread and butter for years.

hillbilly| 3.14.09 @ 9:13AM

Everyone in the 70's knew they could be injured in a car crash,therefore defensive driving was the norm.Very few 5000+ pound vehicles and no 4 ounce distraction (cell phone/text etc.)were on the highways.
Only problem is,who will assume responsibility?You know everything that happens is someone elses fault,and just as soon as a suit hits the courts we'll be back in our gas guzzlers.
Many problems need solved that's for sure,and something needs to be done.

uytuyt| 11.26.09 @ 9:58PM

Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows

new suv car| 6.8.11 @ 8:35AM

This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job, indeed. Hybrid Car Specifications