🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟

Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁

Crossing the "Red Line"

Does Higher MPG Mean Higher Fatalities?
Automakers and key groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute point to what they say are basic physics: When two objects collide, the one with less mass will absorb more of the impact. But if you ask David Friedman, "There is nothing simple about the physics of a car accident." Friedman is an engineer and director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' vehicle program. He and his organization are trying to decouple the issues of weight and safety in the public's mind.

The Union of Concerned Scientists even designed a minivan, the Vanguard, which uses only existing market technology to achieve significantly higher fuel economy and lower greenhouse gasses without changing the weight of the vehicle. For this hypothetical van, the group cherry-picked a package of technologies (like cylinder deactivation, turbocharging, and tires with lower rolling resistance) that they say can be applied to vehicles of all kinds without major cost increases.

Car companies are insistent that raising CAFE will make cars lighter, smaller, or both, but all of the technologies on Friedman's drawing board, like better aerodynamics and variable valve lift and timing, have no impact on the size or weight of the car. He and others who support higher mileage standards declare how SUVs, once notorious for rollovers, roof collapse, and sluggish braking, have become much safer, not from beefing up on mass, but from better technology and engineering.

Making Cars Smarter, not Lighter


Schewel also argues that raising CAFE wouldn't mean "putting our cars on a diet." After the initial standards were introduced in the '70s, there was a dip in car weight, but car companies put their engineers to work and, she says, the average American vehicle is now 29 percent heavier than it was in the mid '80s.

"That's because American automakers historically have improved engines to meet CAFE standards, not reduced weight." To Schewel, carmakers may not want to improve their engines and transmissions to get higher gas mileage, but they certainly have proven that when they have to, they can.

But even if CAFE standards pushed cars to lose weight, Schewel says it could still be a good thing. To her, the "simple physics" argument doesn't hold up. "Cars are not simple objects colliding like billiard balls on a table. They are highly complex products engineered to protect you." Design and safety features make a huge difference when two cars collide. Schewel points out how a driver of a 1999-2002 Chevrolet Blazer is 26 times more likely to die in that vehicle than the driver of a similar model year Toyota 4Runner, even though both are midsize SUVs (the 4Runner is actually 200 lbs. less).

But while weight may not necessarily be your determining factor if you hit another car, heavier vehicles can put others at greater risk. "A Chevrolet Suburban is no more protective of its occupants than a much lighter 1999 Accord, but is 40 percent more likely to kill another road user." Schewel says if the new CAFE standards end up making the entire vehicle fleet lighter, this will ultimately save lives.

Looking for a Breakthrough
GM's Elliot Estes warned that CAFE standards would doom the American car fleet to squeeze into the mold of the Nova. Only a "significant technological breakthrough" could change that fate. But it didn't take long for Detroit to solve the puzzle and start building more efficient engines for safer
 
Meant to cutBenefits of Fuel Economy Standards


Oil Consumption: Nearly doubling the average fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks is the single biggest step our nation can take to reduce oil use. When taken together, the two phases of fuel economy standards will result in oil savings in 2030 of more than 3 million barrels per day. This is roughly equivalent to the U.S. imports from both the Persian Gulf and Venezuela combined.
 
I didn't plagiarize em

I flat out cut n pasted em

Dude doesn't believe facts condensed in paragraphs

So I copied em

Didn't actually mean to paste that one thing whole
 
Btw, historical data shows a 10% increase in efficiency results in a 1-2% increase in miles driven

Still, an 8-9% reduction in consumption/dependence on foreign oil/opec

There is a risk to driving

And living

People accept that

Rational people don't blame the government, or better fuel economy, for their decision to get in their cars and drive

That is a personal choice and responsibility

A "conservative" should get that concept
 
Funny thing, many more sources were cited in my links which you obviously decided didn't fit your narrative.

Wiki:

Effect on traffic safety

Historically, NHTSA has expressed concerns that automotive manufacturers will increase mileage by reducing vehicle weight, which might lead to weight disparities in the vehicle population and increased danger for occupants of lighter vehicles. However, vehicle safety ratings are now made available to consumers by NHTSA[sup][50][/sup] and by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.[sup][51][/sup] A National Research Council report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.[sup][12][/sup] A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to "2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year.[sup][52][/sup] The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG.[sup][53][/sup] Proponents of higher CAFE standards argue that it is the "Footprint" model of CAFE for trucks that encourages production of larger trucks with concomitant increases in vehicle weight disparities, and point out that some small cars such as the Mini Cooper and Toyota Matrix are four times safer than SUVs like the Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.[sup][53][/sup] They argue that the quality of the engineering design is the prime determinant of vehicular safety, not the vehicle's mass. In 2006, IIHS found that some of the smallest cars have good crash safety, while others do not, depending upon the engineering design.[sup][54][/sup] In a 2007 analysis, IIHS found that 50 percent of fatalities in small four-door vehicles were single vehicle crashes, compared to 83 percent in very large SUVs. The Mini Cooper had a fatality rate of 68 per million vehicle-years compared to 115 for the Ford Excursion. The analysis' conclusions include findings that death rates generally are higher in lighter vehicles, but cars almost always have lower death rates than SUVs or pickup trucks of comparable weight.[sup][53][/sup] A 2005 IIHS plot shows that in collisions between SUVs weighing 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) and cars, the car driver is more than 4X more likely to be killed, and if the SUV weighs over 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) the car driver is 9 times more likely to be killed, with 16 percent of deaths occurring in car-to-car crashes and 18 percent in car-to-truck crashes.[sup][55][/sup] Recent studies find about 75 percent of two-vehicle fatalities involve a truck, and about half these fatalities involve a side-impact crash. Risk to the driver of the other vehicle is almost 10 times higher when the vehicle is a one ton pickup compared to an imported car. And a 2003 Transportation Research Board study show greater safety disparities among vehicles of differing price, country of origin, and quality than among vehicles of different size and weight.[sup][56][/sup] These more recent studies tend to discount the importance of vehicle mass to traffic safety, pointing instead to the quality of engineering design as the primary factor.[sup][57][/sup]
 
You are still talking anout nig vehicle crushing small one, which I agreed is obvious, and about hypothetical studies citing a correlation between weight and lives or injuries

I am talking about actual historical data, specifically the rate of fatalaties per 100 m mtv

Really, I was talking, and the topic was, oil and the ME

CAFE standards have and will measurably reduce our dependence on OPEC. Thus lessening our need to be involved in policing an unpoliceable part of the world

That will save a few lives and improve our collective quality of life right there, as will the reduced emissions
 
You are still talking anout nig vehicle crushing small one, which I agreed is obvious, and about hypothetical studies citing a correlation between weight and lives or injuries

I am talking about actual historical data, specifically the rate of fatalaties per 100 m mtv

Really, I was talking, and the topic was, oil and the ME

CAFE standards have and will measurably reduce our dependence on OPEC. Thus lessening our need to be involved in policing an unpoliceable part of the world

That will save a few lives and improve our collective quality of life right there, as will the reduced emissions

You are wrong again.......topic is the use of chemical weapons in Syria.......and you went to great lengths to attempt to make me look ill informed when the topic was changed and you went for it. Now with facts you can't dispute, you try to change the narrative.
The articles I provided presented actual historical data if you looked.

Have a nice morning.
 
You are wrong again.......topic is the use of chemical weapons in Syria.......and you went to great lengths to attempt to make me look ill informed when the topic was changed and you went for it. Now with facts you can't dispute, you try to change the narrative.
The articles I provided presented actual historical data if you looked.

Have a nice morning.

"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said — unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder."

Ann Coulter
 
When did Congress declare war on Syria? I must have missed that tidbit. A policy of non intervention means we leave Syria to it's own devices. The decision to act further in Syria is just the Obama Regime using the situation to cause a distraction from all of the scandals large and small happening now. This man will put our sons and daughters in harms way just to save his political ass. Integrity? He can't even spell the word.
 
OH horse crap. If we needed a distraction there are plenty others locations in the world that would provide that without the level of risk. We are getting involved in Syria for the same reason we went int to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and the rest of the ME. To protect our vested interest in oil. We cannot survive without oil. A stable (relative term) ME means stable oil prices. No one in the US wants oil to go over $200 a barrel. The sooner we break our oil dependence the sooner we can get out of the ME.
 
OH horse crap. If we needed a distraction there are plenty others locations in the world that would provide that without the level of risk. We are getting involved in Syria for the same reason we went int to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and the rest of the ME. To protect our vested interest in oil. We cannot survive without oil. A stable (relative term) ME means stable oil prices. No one in the US wants oil to go over $200 a barrel. The sooner we break our oil dependence the sooner we can get out of the ME.
He's a THUG who thinks it's perfectly fine to have a government agency troll through your phone calls an electronic communication with out probable cause. You actually trust this man? WOW! I've got a cedar swamp here in NJ that I'll let you have cheap. Barack Obama represents everything that is wrong with having a government the size of the US Federal Government. Non Intervention will not affect the price of oil much. This man is a Bankster and crony Capitalist of the first order and will stop at nothing to further his agenda of enslavement of the US Citizen to his government.
 
We were not talking about government snooping but the ME. Try and stick with one topic at a time. So non intervention will affect oil some? Exactly what is some? What happened to oil prices when Iraq invaded Kuwait? What happened when Iran started messing in the Gulf? What happens every time there is a dust up in the ME?

As for Obama, he is the same as any other politician. You think the government snooping is unique to this administration? I'll sell you another cedar swamp to add to your collection.
 
Dell,

You derailed the topic with GW will be vindicated

Our interests in the ME, including Syria, are primarily defined by oil

The red line was use of chemical weapons

You neocons have accused the pres of not standing firm

When he does, exactly what you say he should do, it is still wrong

That is ideological dishonesty, or personality driven politics taking precedence over issues or principles based policy

I made an aside that the CAFE standards had lessened that dependence on oPEC

You jumped all over the small cars and coffins ideas

Facts are, I agreed that obviously, a fiat loses a war with a semi

That is using the extreme to illustrate the norm-something you do an awful lot of.

That ccan be an useful rhetorical tool, or trick, but it does not constitute a valid argument

Facts are, even with more smaller cars on the road, the fatality rate has gone down, dramatically and almost continously. For a multitude of reasons, driving has gotten safer.

That whole discussion was your deflection from Syria.

No... Nothing will vindicate dumbya's unholy screwup. It was wrong. He was wrong. His puppetmasters were wrong. Even his generals were wrong. Worse, they, and he sspecifically, lied directly to the American people about the supposed reasons for invading Iraq, and nearly as bad as that, he lied about the costs, then borrowed the lives, not to mention the $$ to pay for his little adventure in Ramboism.


If Syria turns into another Iraq, I will be equally critical. Hopefully the intelligence is correct. At least we didn't rush in with guns blazing at the first hint, and took the time to vet the information. Hopefully we don't arm the wrong bad guys, and hopefully, diplomatically, countries like Iran notice that there are red lines that can't be crossed without consequences.

Tho I too would prefer we separate oueselves from OPEC and the ME all together,,and stop trying to police unpoliceable parts of the world
 
We were not talking about government snooping but the ME. Try and stick with one topic at a time. So non intervention will affect oil some? Exactly what is some? What happened to oil prices when Iraq invaded Kuwait? What happened when Iran started messing in the Gulf? What happens every time there is a dust up in the ME?

As for Obama, he is the same as any other politician. You think the government snooping is unique to this administration? I'll sell you another cedar swamp to add to your collection.
Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that the US has now killed two of the Three Middle Eastern leaders whose countries would not value their oil in USD's? The only one left is Iran as Libya and Iraq have been "taken care of". So do you think the reason we have 43 bases surrounding Iran is because we fear a nuclear threat OR that we're trying to intimidate them into doing what we want on the world oil Market?
 
Back
Top