Should we just outlaw automobiles?

Watching the nightly news and the IIHS comes out with "new" impact data of the Cutesy Utility Vehicles. I mean really, on the surface, they all suck. Digging deeper, I just have to ask the question, should we just outlaw the automobile? Attempting to crash test everything to real world safety/conditions is asinine, IMO. No way in H-E-double hockey sticks can you get to that point without just making them so expensive until only a few can afford them or just not driving anymore.

Article: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr051613.html

Ranger50 wrote: Watching the nightly news and the IIHS comes out with "new" impact data of the Cutesy Utility Vehicles. I mean really, on the surface, they all suck. Digging deeper, I just have to ask the question, should we just outlaw the automobile? Attempting to crash test everything to real world safety/conditions is asinine, IMO. No way in H-E-double hockey sticks can you get to that point without just making them so expensive until only a few can afford them or just not driving anymore. Article: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr051613.html

I am well known as a government-hating libertarian. Everyone knows this. Even I have to acknowledge that cars have gotten MUCH safer and easier to drive in emergency situations (ever see the Murilee Martin 60-0 videos he dug up?). The Subaru Forester is one of the best tested, and it's not that expensive, and we can sell anything here, there isn't a "minimum" crash test really, even the sucky ones can still sell.

It really isn't that bad.

Now, if we all drove motorcycles instead, we'd all be just as safe, but that's not this country. As long as we're that way, I applaud the attention to crash test safety.

I can't believe I just wrote that, but it matters to me when I buy a family type car.

Yeah, outlaw automobiles.

Motorcycles and scooters are still ok, though.

I feel we're hitting diminishing returns. I've seen what happens when a late 90s Corolla gets hit in the B pillar at 60 mph, it isn't pretty, buts its totally survivable. Without 24 airbags or anything like that. Its a case of bureaucrats who met the necessary goals long ago protecting their jobs by cranking the numbers to unreasonable levels. Hence all these "safe" cars you cant see jack squat out of.

Ditto on emissions, but that's a different rant.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I feel we're hitting diminishing returns. I've seen what happens when a late 90s Corolla gets hit in the B pillar at 60 mph, it isn't pretty, buts its totally survivable. Without 24 airbags or anything like that. Its merely a case of bureaucrats who met the necessary goals long ago protecting their jobs by cranking the numbers to unreasonable levels. Ditto on emissions, but that's a different rant.

I could write a book on emissions, especially in the industrial gas turbine world.

As far as crash testing - I suspect you're right, but if the Forester, a relatively inexpensive, good performing vehicle in general, performs that much better than it's competitors in a crash test, that's worth knowing. It's up to the competitors to decide to raise the bar or not.

Q: How much of a hand did Subaru have in writing the rules?

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I feel we're hitting diminishing returns. I've seen what happens when a late 90s Corolla gets hit in the B pillar at 60 mph, it isn't pretty, buts its totally survivable. Without 24 airbags or anything like that. Its a case of bureaucrats who met the necessary goals long ago protecting their jobs by cranking the numbers to unreasonable levels. Hence all these "safe" cars you cant see jack squat out of. Ditto on emissions, but that's a different rant.

Yes and yes

Some very smart people wrote this - about emissions. It is closely related to automotive, and closely related to the crash testing diminishing returns you are speaking of.

Disclaimer: I don't work with these guys, I didn't write it.

GER 4172 Gas Turbine NOx Emissions Approaching Zero – Is it Worth the Price?

OK, tried it, it was a giant wall o' text, just search those terms.

No. We should start actually teaching people how to drive.

Grizz wrote: No. We should start actually teaching people how to drive.

Actually that may be the problem now. Have you seen how horrible the schools are?

moparman76_69 wrote:

Grizz wrote: No. We should start actually teaching people how to drive.

Actually that may be the problem now. Have you seen how horrible the schools are?

Yes. yes I have. I pay many thousands of dollars to make sure that isn't the case for my kids.

Hell, teenagers don't even want to drive now according to some news report I heard a couple months ago.

When I go down the highway these days, I'm nearly run over by all the people going 90mph in their "safer" cars. They don't seem to realize how much less control you have at that speed, and they're not afraid, because the car will save them.

moparman76_69 wrote:

Grizz wrote: No. We should start actually teaching people how to drive.

Actually that may be the problem now. Have you seen how horrible the schools are?

Yes actually. Barely any time spent on actual driving, all of the class is what the signs mean and then "don't drink and drive".

No "Hey nigga, yo E36 M3 has started to slide, what do?" "HEAVY RAIN, HOW TO GET HOME WITHOUT DYING" and the classic "DON"T DRIVE LIKE A DICKBRAIN", nope they don't need to know stuff like that.

It's worth noting that the IIHS is not a government agency as a lot of people incorrectly presume, it's a consortium of the insurance industry that exists mostly for scaremongering about vehicle safety and creating excuses to jack your insurance rates. It's pure, unadulterated capitalism at work (not that this is a bad thing). They have been remarkably effective at pressuring automakers to create safer cars, although (because?) they're relentlessly gloomy in their assessments.

racerfink wrote: When I go down the highway these days, I'm nearly run over by all the people going 90mph in their "safer" cars. They don't seem to realize how much less control you have at that speed, and they're not afraid, because the car will save them.

An honest question: We've always had the safest cars that technology could bring to market, at least since seat belts started to be a selling point. Collapsible steering columns! An air bag! Side intrusion beams! These new-for-1977 models are the safest ever! (and they really are, compared to the '55s)

But if I had to guess, I would suspect that people's tendency to drive ever faster has more to do with the reduced sensation of speed that comes with newer cars, better suspension and tires, better sound deadening and less wind noise.

When it comes down to it, people will drive as fast as feels safe, plus or minus some for their willingness to risk speeding tickets.

Anybody seen any studies on that?

There's a cycle that goes on here. They invent a new crash test, which initially most of the cars do poorly on. Automakers that that new test into consideration as they develop new car designs, and (unsurprisingly) the next generation do better on that test than the ones that weren't designed for it. The cars may or may not be better in the real world, but they'll definitely do better on that test!

As with anything else, you have to be careful what it is that you're measuring, and ensure that the results of the measurement correlate well with what it is that you actually want to get more of.

require a separate license for suv and truck driving, like what is required for motorcycles or a CDL, exempt people who bought their car before the law, in a few years problem solved. In less than 10 years there would be a drastic reduction in bro-trucks and suvs and everyone but bros and soccer moms would be happy.

DoctorBlade wrote: Q: How much of a hand did Subaru have in writing the rules?

http://forum.ih8mud.com/chit-chat/82685-why-jaws-life-will-never-work-subaru.html

Subie has been defeating the jaws of life for years. Saw it in my rally times as well. Stock for stock a subie is built like a tank vs a vw or ford.

moparman76_69 wrote:

Grizz wrote: No. We should start actually teaching people how to drive.

Actually that may be the problem now. Have you seen how horrible the schools are?

Unfortunately in the Garden State, it is mandatory that you use a professional driving school if you want to take "the early bird road" (which basically means get your lisence before retirement); $395. That's a season of auto crossing! My driving instructor absolutely insisted that I hold the wheel at 11:30 and 12:30; I'll never forget that.

Josh wrote: It's worth noting that the IIHS is not a government agency as a lot of people incorrectly presume, it's a consortium of the insurance industry that exists mostly for scaremongering about vehicle safety and creating excuses to jack your insurance rates. It's pure, unadulterated capitalism at work (not that this is a bad thing). They have been remarkably effective at pressuring automakers to create safer cars, although (because?) they're relentlessly gloomy in their assessments.

Do you have anything to back this up, or is this just the spitting out venom against insurance companies without any real knowledge of it? The IIHS is not just in existance so insurance companies can sit in some dark room and make a conspiracy on how to get more money. They see what happens when cars wreck in the real world, every day....oh and they're the ones who pay the huge bills as a result of them. So if anyone would be an expert on the subject, wouldn't you think they would be? No, you can't simulate all the factors involved in a real world accident, but they do their best to test the most "common" scenarios. Results are not iron clad gaurantees, but they're good predictors of what will happen to those cars in the real world.

Sorry, but the blind hate and uneducated rhetoric about how auto insurance companies are out to screw the world pisses me off. I don't have a problem at all with the IIHS tests. As has been pointed out by tuna, cars have gotten tremendously safer over the past several decades. A lot is due to technology advances, but a lot also has to do with real world and simulated crashes. I don't see the horror in driving a car that's safer than one built 20 years ago.

NHTSA is also kicking around the idea of mandating those automatic braking systems on all new cars.

At some point, can't we just start making people be responsible for their own actions?

Sky_Render wrote: NHTSA is also kicking around the idea of mandating those automatic braking systems on all new cars. At some point, can't we just start making people be *responsible* for their own actions?

But then what will government do, besides refusing to be transparent and not intrusive???

True, cars are much safer today But, if you go through life worrying about crashing You are going to become paranoid.

I have been driving for too many years. Only serious crash was in a 1941 Willys. Banged my knee. No air bag or seat belt.

Keep your head up and don't text.

iceracer wrote: Only serious crash was in a 1941 Willys. Banged my knee. No air bag or seat belt.

As they say around here, YMMV. Maybe you got amazingly lucky, who knows. The vast majority of people involved in a serious accident in an old car with no bags or belts don't fare so well.

But I 110% agree with your comment about keeping your head up and not texting. The best crash protection in the world is smart/responsible driving practices. I drive with my head on a swivel as well. But that doesn't necessarily gaurantee safety.