Posted on 03/13/2002 4:13:23 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
In the 24 years since a landmark law to conserve fuel, big cars have shrunk to less-safe sizes and small cars have poured onto roads. As a result, 46,000 people have died in crashes they would have survived in bigger, heavier cars, according to USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was passed.
The law and the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards it imposed have improved fuel efficiency. The average of passenger vehicles on U.S. roads is 20 miles per gallon vs. 14 mpg in 1975. But the cost has been roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained, the analysis shows.
"We have a small-car problem. If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute, supported by auto insurers, crash-tests more vehicles, more violently, than all but the federal government. Little cars have big disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside have to."
Tellingly, most small-car crash deaths involve only small cars - 56% in 1997, from the latest government data. They run into something else, such as a tree, or into one another.
In contrast, just 1% of small-car deaths - 136 people - occurred in crashes with midsize or big sport-utility vehicles in '97, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that enforces safety and fuel-efficiency rules. NHTSA does not routinely publish that information. It performed special data calculations at USA Today's request.
Champions of small cars like to point out that even when the SUV threat is unmasked, other big trucks remain a nemesis. NHTSA data shows, however, that while crashes with pickups, vans and commercial trucks accounted for 28% of small-car deaths in '97, such crashes also accounted for 36% of large-car deaths.
Others argue that small cars attract young, inexperienced drivers. There's some truth there, but not enough to explain small cars' out-of-proportion deaths. About 36% of small-car drivers involved in fatal crashes in 1997 were younger than 25; and 25% of the drivers of all vehicles involved in fatal wrecks were that age, according to NHTSA data.
Questionable results. CAFE and its small cars have not reduced overall U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel consumption as hoped. A strong economy and growing population have increased consumption. The U.S. imports more oil now than when the standards were imposed.
Although federal anti-pollution regulations require that big cars emit no more pollution per mile than small cars, environmental activists seize on this: Small engines typical of small cars burn less fuel, so they emit less carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a naturally occurring gas that's not considered a pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates auto pollution. But those worried about global warming say CO{-2} is a culprit and should be regulated via tougher CAFE rules...
"Car-buying expert Bragg - author of Car Buyer's and Leaser's Negotiating Bible - says few customers even ask about small cars. Small-car sales are half what they were in their mid-'80s heyday. Just 7% of new-vehicle shoppers say they'll consider a small car, according to a 1999 study by California-based auto industry consultant AutoPacific.
"That would cut small-car sales in half. Those who have small cars want out: 82% won't buy another. To Bragg, the reasons are obvious: "People need a back seat that holds more than a six-pack and a pizza. And, there's the safety issue."
It is a 1962 Dodge M37B1 military 3/4 ton pickup truck. It weighs 5917 lbs, and gets 7.5 mpg. The flathead six puts out only 60 hp, but the weight and the 5.86 gears make it like the fuel.
As to safety features...there are none (well, the waterproof ignition could come in handy in a flood). However, in a head-on with one of these high end SUV yuppie mobiles, your last thought as you are impaled on the steering column and your skull is caved in by the bullet proof steel dash will be that the driver of the other vehicle got his too, even with air bags, crush zones, leather and all.
Regards
J.R.
This is very true. Despite close to 30 years of promises, Congress has failed miserably to improve our energy self-sufficiency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Crude Oil Production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Petroleum Imports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one thing that COULD be done to reduce our dependency on petroleum would be to construct modern, efficient, electricly powered mass-transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas.
High-speed ground transportation (HSGT)-- a family of technologies ranging from upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles-- is a passenger transportation option that can best link cities lying about 100-500 miles apart. Common in Europe ( http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/home.htm) and Japan (http://www.japanrail.com),HSGT in the United States already exists in the Northeast Corridor (http://www.amtrak.com/news/pr/atk9936.html) between New York and Washington, D.C. and will soon serve travelers between New York and Boston.
HSGT is self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation that is time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. This is market-based, not a speed based definition. It recognizes that the opportunities and requirements for HSGT differ markedly among different pairs of cities. High-speed ground transportation (HSGT) is a family of technologies ranging from upgraded steel-wheel-on-rail railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles.The Federal Railroad Administration has designated a variety of high density transportation corridors within our nation for development of HSGT:
For more information, please visit the Federal Railroad Administrations (FRAs) High Speed Ground Transportation Website
What are these morons telling us? More MPG and more deaths? What is it that they want? The damn bugs we step on are more important than our energy dependency!
Heh, there were two drunks in a Mercedes sedan that were going westbound in the eastbound lanes of I-80 in November of 1981. I was driving a 78 Peterbilt at the time. For some reason, drunks like to aim for oncoming headlights. Anyway, I got it slowed down to about 40 when we hit. They pushed the steering axle back to the fuel tanks. At the time I was permitted for 105,500 lbs but was probably loaded closer to 103,500. There was a lot of noise and excitement, but I didnt get bounced around much. They got the short end of the stick that morning and got to experience a twelve cylinder Detroit sitting in their lap(s). Airbags made no difference...
Regards
J.R.
Three years ago I was shopping around for a family car. SUVs were out of my budget. Didn't really need 4WD. I found a slightly-used full-size conversion van for the same cost as a new mini-van. The van is built on a truck frame, gets decent milage, comfortably seats 7, has built-in TV for long trips with the kids. For $18.5K, I decided it wasn't bad. And if a drunk driver crashes into it, it will be HIM that gets messed up
If an SUV isn't in your budget for your kid, consider a pickup truck, slightly used.
thats not nice
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.