Competitive Enterprise Institute Digs Deeper Hole, Says CAFE Will Cost Lives
by Andrew Posner, Providence, Rhode Island on 01. 4.08
We've covered the Competitive Enterprise Institute's (CEI) hole-digging statements before, from their "CO2: We Call it Life" ads, to their "complaining about Al Gore flying everywhere to promote An Inconvenient Truth,", to an op-ed piece blaming Rachel Carson for the global malaria crisis. Now, they've dug an even deeper hole AND buried themselves in it by claiming that not only will the new CAFE standards be a waste of taxpayer money, they will actually result in people dying! Yes, that's right, according to their logic, the new standards will lead to vehicles that are "less crashworthy in the case of an accident" because more efficient cars will have to be lighter. Now, keep in mind this is the same group that in 1992 claimed that global warming “looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding — sounds to [us] like we’re moving to a more benign planet.” They also asserted that the atmosphere needs more, not less CO2 (PDF).
Of course CAFE will result in lighter cars--that's the point! Somehow, the CEI has concluded that only heavy cars are safe (perhaps that's because they are partially funded by Ford, and until recently, they were also funded by Exxon). Under this line of reasoning, cars would need to become increasingly large to assure safety, to the point that we would all be driving tanks. (Some argue that, in many ways, we already do) Amory Lovins, inventor of the hypercar concept, and many others, have argued and demonstrated that extremely light cars can be extremely safe; making other cars on the road lighter not only increases efficiency, but increases safety.
Not that we should spend too much time making a serious attempt at rebutting the CEI's ridiculous assertions. But for a good laugh, check out their press release titled "The Energy Bill with a Body Count."
Via: ::NY Times
See Also: ::Japan to Raise Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards, ::Why Do Cars Use So Much Fuel?, and ::The CEI Airs Its Dirty Laundry: Save the Inefficient Top-Loader or Thousands Will Die
ok, you drive the lighter car. I'm sticking with my 1994 Mercury Marquis, which gets 25 mpg highway. When you hit me, we'll see who fares better. Yeh, I see those "safe" light cars after headon collisions on I 50 all the time. Yeh. Safe. I'd put my kid in one. Yep. Not. EVER.
You go right ahead though. Free country, isn't it?
Sadly I am agreeing with them to a degree. In Snow you don't want a light car you'll either be stuck or sliding all over the place.
while tiny little cars may be good for southern states and places with congestion its just not worth it. What about trucks? are they going to have to be light too? are we allowed to carry a load in the truck now?
I care about the environment and all but dont assume everyone lives in the little hippy communities you tend to. Not everyone can bike to work or drive a toy car to
Sadly I am agreeing with them to a degree. In Snow you don't want a light car you'll either be stuck or sliding all over the place.
while tiny little cars may be good for southern states and places with congestion its just not worth it. What about trucks? are they going to have to be light too? are we allowed to carry a load in the truck now?
I care about the environment and all but dont assume everyone lives in the little hippy communities you tend to. Not everyone can bike to work or drive a toy car to
After reading this, I'm not sure how to react appropriately. Is laughing or crying the thing to do?
Rebecca, better not get out to cross the street. Just stay in your steel cage at all times and you'll be safe. But remember, theres always a bigger car (or truck) out there, watch out!
Julie, why are all the vehicles I see piled up in the ditch during a snow storm SUV's? 6000lbs of steel just makes it harder to change direction or stop. Contrary to popular belief, 4WD doesn't help you stop faster.
99.9% of the trucks I see are carrying one person and no load. For the 0.1%, of course they can drive a f-ing truck. The auto makers could be making them lighter and more efficient too (yes, with the same load capacity, Julie) if they wanted to.
"Not everyone can bike to work or drive a toy car"
Insert "light" for "electric" into this quote from "Who Killed the Electric Car":
"The electric vehicle is not for everybody; it could only meet the needs of ninety percent of the population."
Wash, rinse, repeat, then call me in the morning.
"Not everyone can bike to work or drive a toy car"
Insert "light" for "electric" into this quote from "Who Killed the Electric Car":
"The electric vehicle is not for everybody; it could only meet the needs of ninety percent of the population."
Wash, rinse, repeat, then call me in the morning.
Tear drop shaped bullet cars ... yeah BayBay !
If you run an internal combustion engine, lighter is better for mileage. I can see a point where carbon fiber and more aluminum make a difference.
If you run a highway capable electric car, it will be heavy, owing to the batteries. It will need infrastructure to carry the batteries. The batteries will need crash protection to avoid lightning bolts and bad chemicals going everywhere in an accident. I think the Suburbans and Escalades would make good electric vehicle conversions because of all the room for batteries and the suspensions to carry them.
Even though it held 2 people, the EV1 was no toy. Battery tech today would have made it more and more viable. The product line could have expanded to 4 doors and little wagons and somehting like Toyota's Rav4 EV. Such a shame those test beds were destroyed.
I think in some places, really light cars are registered as motorcycles. So much for crash protection.
Weight is not necessarily your friend in snow situations, it's ground clearance and proper tires. Also how you handle your vehicle. A lot of people just think they can leadfoot through rain and snow like it's the Arizona desert with no consequence... ignorant. What the SUV will do better is roll over.
Most SUVs today are designed as urban tanks, good luck on the beach or in snow with them.
Let them make the hyper mile cars ... just print out a warning labe that says you could be toast if you connect with a Hyundai Accent.
vsk
We sure will see what happens in the collision between my Mazda and your '94 Marquis. The reason that we see small cars totaled in relatively minor accidents is because they're designed to do that. It's called the crush zone, and it reflects the car absorbing the energy so the passengers don't. My car may well be toast. But I'd rather that than my brain bounce around like a ping-pong ball in a lotto drawing.
As for snow: on a visit to Utah this Christmas, my Toyota Matrix did just fine in five inches. My Mom's 2WD Explorer got stuck constantly. Weight is not necessarily your friend in snow.
it has been proven that a modern 5 star Ncap car s safer than an older station wagon (a huge volvo)..
they tested it on 5th gear.. you might be able to find the test on youtube somewhere... the small car (a renault modus, which is tiny andhas a 5 star rating) was totalled... but the passengers had only minor injuries... in the volvo (about 2 times alrger and heavier) the driver's legs would have to be cut free, and if he survived the head injuries, he would at least never be able to walk again, the engine had literally come into the footwell and crushed his feet and lower legs... small modern cars (at least the european and a couple of japanese ones) are way safer than old large cars, even if the large car was the safest car of it's day (as was the case with the volvo)...
here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
Oh look, Rebecca is opting to self-select out of the human race! Fantastic! Maybe do it in a fashion which does not involve others. Like running that piece of junk in the garage for spell...then go to sleep peacefully.
This would be good, since she feels that her car is safe to be in: http://www.automotive.com/1994/12/mercury/grand-marquis/safety/index.html
(That's just one link of many for her car.)
Umn...seems NOT.
She's also a bit too dim to understand that a small modern car is safer to drive and gets into less accidents than bigger vehicles, and of course us intelligent humans can understand that the safest accident is the one avoided.
Oh, and she's dimmer still in missing the bit of knowledge: vast majority of accidents are between vehicle and stationary object, not vehicle-vehicle, and head-on is even more rare.
My god, its amazing that these simps still wander the planet.
I think it should be legislated for heavy cars to have a 10mph lower speed limit than light vehicles on urban roads. Heavy cars going fast are more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclist and small cars. They can't stop or maneuver as quickly in case of emergencies. I know I would be more comfortable driving in small cars if I knew the large vehicles around me were going at a pace that is more appropriate for their size according to the laws of physics.
I think it should be legislated for heavy cars to have a 10mph lower speed limit than light vehicles on urban roads. Heavy cars going fast are more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclist and small cars. They can't stop or maneuver as quickly in case of emergencies. I know I would be more comfortable driving in small cars if I knew the large vehicles around me were going at a pace that is more appropriate for their size according to the laws of physics.
As a Ford stockholder, I am deeply ashamed. If Ford concentrated on making efficient cars and listening to the smart people in their European design bureaus, like GM is doing, I would look forward to not eating cat food during my retirement.
Note to Marquis driver. Your car has crappy maneuvering, acceerating, braking, and is, as a result, MORE likely to be in an accident than a safely-designed smaller car like a Ford Focus. Add in shock-transfer risk (ie whiplash), rollover danger, and the fact that you are capable of causing more serious damage to pediestrians, and you're likel to pay far higher insurance bills, which probably cost as much per annum as the replacement cost of your car.
I think it should be legislated for heavy cars to have a 10mph lower speed limit than light vehicles on urban roads. Heavy cars going fast are more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclist and small cars. They can't stop or maneuver as quickly in case of emergencies. I know I would be more comfortable driving in small cars if I knew the large vehicles around me were going at a pace that is more appropriate for their size according to the laws of physics.
Making autos massive does not make them safe. Good engineering does. Mini Coopers fare significantly better in 45 MPH impacts with a brick wall than do Ford F-150s in terms of driver safety.
If we're all moving towards lighter vehicles together, any arguments of "Let's see how your new Civic will stand up to my Maibatsu Monstrosity" are moot.
Compared with the rest of the world, Americans are making their cars ridiculously inefficient. This just takes the edge off of the madness.
*In general*, larger cars are safer, though a lot of it has to do with engineering as well. *In general*, a push towards more fuel efficient cars will result in a decrease in the average car size, though more expensive technologies can be employed instead. So yes, increasing CAFE will result in more deaths, because some people will not be willing to spend the extra money necessary to get an equally safe, yet more efficent vehicle. Just because most of us want higher fuel efficiency doesn't mean that we should pretend this isn't the case.
The new CAFE is kind of ridiculously underpowered anyway. Gas prices will be so high by the time its enacted that no one will be able to drive such low-efficiency cars. This is why they should have passed far stricter standards than they did.
CEI is rolling out the tripe chanted back when the last significant boost to CAFE occurred...after which, damage to humans went down because safety improvements happened to be implemented in parallel with environmental improvements, mostly with the Japanese leading the way.
The idea is to do both things at once, not just efficiency improvements.
Every time I see people claiming that the only way to be safe is to be in a huge SUV I wonder if these people have ever seen a Formula 1 race. These cars weigh a fraction of what an SUV weighs, travel 4 times as fast and when they crash, the majority of the time the pilot walks away. If safety is the thing that is stopping the US from catching up with the rest of the world in driving sensible cars, lets design cars with being both light and safe in mind.
On a lark, with the help of the interwebs, I decided to compare the traffic death toll in Europe (in which the small car dominates) with the traffic death toll in the US (King of the SUV).
In spite of Europe having more than twice the population of the US, they have less than 15% more traffic deaths.
Of course there could be other reasons for that besides smaller cars, but it is an interesting statistic.
Check out these photos of a Mini Cooper and an F150 crashed into an offset obstacle:
http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/
I know which one I would rather be in.
Interestingly the Mini Cooper is not even the best small car for safety. VW consistently does better.
The fac of the matter is, withoug inefficient, heavy SUV's driving around, the roads will be safer for everyone.
As a Canadian I am well aqainted to driving in snow.. Deep snow... I have had to push or dig out the giant trucks that ALL the oil workers around here seem to drive. And while heaving on these monstrousities, watched as the Smart car, weaved down the street over the ruts and casms without getting stuck or sinking in the slurry.
I watch these idiots racing around with thier four wheel drives (SUV's) and getting angry with people who are being safe.. It seems to me that they are actually the ones causing accidents. They fly up behind a car that is navigating the black ice thinking their four wheel drive will stop them in an instant.. and plow right into the ass end of the smart, calm, safe driver.
I ride my bike in the winter.. even in minus 20/ 30 celcius.. The only time I have any issues with it, is when the snow becomes like brown sugar and slides all over.. And when the damn trucks try and run me down cause they can't see anything but other giant trucks and SUV's.
Looks like Rebecca may have followed my advise about going to sleep. Let's hope. Might save a life or two.
As for the "cost" argument, that's absurd as well. Right now you tend to have to pay more for certain safety features. Why would that change? Dopey argument. If a consumer chooses to save a penny or two rather than get side impact airbags, great, Darwinism at work.
Being slightly less obnoxious in my argument: when standards are implemented system wide, no one company or product has an advantage. So there is no real economic impact.
I guess the confidence in American ingenuity is waning. Whatever happened the attitude that said "We *can* make cars both lighter AND safer!"
If we can put a man on a moon, we can cut automobile weight by 30% and still have them be safe.
This is an interesting idea, the heavier a car is, the more energy it brings into a crash, and when it hits an obstacle, that momentum may just as readily tear the large car apart as the small. If the small car has active safety (swerving to minimize impact) and crumple zones and cages, then the passengers could walk away, like in Formula 1 (Which is SO much more exciting that Nastycar.)
Julie and Rebecca: More dangerous than your big cars are your attitudes. The attitude that you are actually safer in a big car than a small car. I have seen that attitude before on the road: drivers of big cars taking more 'liberties' in their driving which endanger other cars. I assume that this has to do with that mindset that the two of you have just displayed: 'I'm safe in a big car, so I can drive more 'freely.' (As an interesting aside, for some reason whenever I notice big cars driving 'with liberty', the driver tends to be a woman; maybe it's just my personal experience.) As someone said, the safest car is one that is not in an accident. But thank you both nonetheless for doing what you can to try to make life safer for those of us who don't take the attitude that the biggest car on the road is the safest car on the road because I simply can not afford to buy a tank - literally.
Oh, and if CEI were really interested in car safety AND truly believed their nonsense about SUVs safety vs. smaller car safety, they would have added into their study a recommendation to ban all SUVs to reduce total annual car fatalities.
"If a consumer chooses to save a penny or two rather than get side impact airbags, great, Darwinism at work."
Great additude.
When I was looking at Mazda 3i's a year back, side airbags were an extra $400 - and the vast majority came out of the factory without that option. More than a few pennies, though it would have been worth it to me. ESC wasn't even an option (though they offer it on the version with the bigger engine). ESC still isn't offered on the Honda civics either, unless you go with the Si (the "boy racer" version). The consumer doesn't always have very good safety choices, especially in the smaller cars.
Uh...so don't buy the Mazda?
Or...$400, a lot of money when your brain/sentience is at stake????? (side impact casualty)
Darwin is the man. Thanks for proving my point. :(
FYI, very large chunk of Mazda owned by Ford. Subaru wholly owned by GM.
Definitely, there are small cars that do much better in a crash into a fixed barrier than many large SUVs.
However, when a large SUV crashes into a small car, conservation of momentum means the smaller vehicle is going to suffer the higher g-forces. So typically, the SUV will do better in this sort of collision.
So all these SUV drivers are buying bigger and bigger vehicles so they can feel safer on the road. As someone mentioned, if this is followed to its extreme, we'd all drive tanks.
Frankly, I'd like to see a max weight limitation for passenger and light trucks to stop this stupid arms race.
And even more interestingly, most SUVs are actually not safer for their occupents than small vehicles due to handling problems and rollovers. Yeah, the SUV will do better in a collision with a MiniCooper, but this safety advantage is canceled out by the single-vehicle crash problems ( rollovers, mostly) of the SUV.
So compared to smaller cars, SUVs are no more ( or even less) safe to its occupants and are a greater danger on the road to others. I wish insurance rates truly reflected the dangers of SUVs.
Many manufacturers are putting active-handling systems into SUVs to help overcome these handling problems. I'd rather they were just phased out.
As for snow - all cars have 4-wheel braking. You can't safely go any faster in a 4-wheel drive than you can with a 2-wheel drive - possibly less safe due to the poorer handling of most SUVs compared to typical small cars. 4-wheel drive does help get you going and keeps you from getting stuck ( also the high clearance helps keep you from getting stuck), so if you know what you are doing with 4-wheel drive you can drive more slowly without getting stuck than you can with 2-wheel drive and thus be safer. But from what I've seen, few owners of SUVs understand this. And you can get 4-wheel drive on small cars if you really need it.
Definitely, there are small cars that do much better in a crash into a fixed barrier than many large SUVs.
However, when a large SUV crashes into a small car, conservation of momentum means the smaller vehicle is going to suffer the higher g-forces. So typically, the SUV will do better in this sort of collision.
So all these SUV drivers are buying bigger and bigger vehicles so they can feel safer on the road. As someone mentioned, if this is followed to its extreme, we'd all drive tanks.
Frankly, I'd like to see a max weight limitation for passenger and light trucks to stop this stupid arms race.
And even more interestingly, most SUVs are actually not safer for their occupents than small vehicles due to handling problems and rollovers. Yeah, the SUV will do better in a collision with a MiniCooper, but this safety advantage is canceled out by the single-vehicle crash problems ( rollovers, mostly) of the SUV.
So compared to smaller cars, SUVs are no more ( or even less) safe to its occupants and are a greater danger on the road to others. I wish insurance rates truly reflected the dangers of SUVs.
Many manufacturers are putting active-handling systems into SUVs to help overcome these handling problems. I'd rather they were just phased out.
As for snow - all cars have 4-wheel braking. You can't safely go any faster in a 4-wheel drive than you can with a 2-wheel drive - possibly less safe due to the poorer handling of most SUVs compared to typical small cars. 4-wheel drive does help get you going and keeps you from getting stuck ( also the high clearance helps keep you from getting stuck), so if you know what you are doing with 4-wheel drive you can drive more slowly without getting stuck than you can with 2-wheel drive and thus be safer. But from what I've seen, few owners of SUVs understand this. And you can get 4-wheel drive on small cars if you really need it.
Safety can be an issue of weight, when two cars collide head on and one is substantially lighter than the other and is subject to a lot more g-force from the impact - I guess they were referring to it.
But in most other accident scenrious lighter car means less kinetic energy and less damage - so it's a two way street.
I still remember 11 years ago, when there was a nasty blizzard where I lived. Three feet of snow, and up to 6 foot drifts. My father and I were driving down the road in a very light, fuel efficient (Even now) '79 1.6 L Renault 12. I'll admit the pollution controls on those guys were awful compared to now, and crash standards were not what they are today; but they were on to something. Since the car was front-wheel drive, the weight of the engine made up for the low weight of the car. We happily drove down the snow-covered roads , passing all sorts of 4x4s and SUVs that thought they could plow through anything... while getting 40mpg out of a 5-seater Estate wagon. Instead of being crushed, that car was given to a collector for restoration.