Car Industry "Buried Report Showing US Car Safety Flaws Over Fears For TTIP Deal"

schwit1 writes: The American auto industry has been accused of withholding a report that showed U.S. cars are substantially less safe than their European counterparts. It is alleged that releasing the study would hamper the drive to harmonize safety standards as part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal. The research was commissioned by the car industry to show that EU and US safety standards were similar, but the research actually showed that American models are much less safe when it comes to front-side collisions. András Bálint, Traffic Safety Analyst at Chalmers, told the Independent: “The results of our study indicate that there is currently a risk difference with respect to the risk of injury given a crash between EU specification cars and US models. Therefore, based on these results, immediate recognition of US vehicles in the EU could potentially result in a greater number of fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. The potential impact is difficult to quantify because it depends on a number of other parameters.”

Comments

Hmmmm

[w3woody]

Given that Volkswagen has already shown their willingness to tinker with the design of their cars in order to fake out car testing results, one wonders how big the gap really is.

Re:Hmmmm

[TWX]

I wouldn't worry at all. IIHS procedures are very cut and dry. They do 40% overlap and 20% overlap tests. The 20% had results all over the damn place from cars form all makers. If I remember right, Toyota fared the worst in that crash mode.

I actually like the IIHS. Their goal is to reduce the costs of insurance payments. That means they look at both the low-speed and the high-speed modes, low speed to minimize crash damage, and the high-speed to minimize passenger injuries. They're not beholden to the automakers and they're not government, so they can develop new tests whenever they want and the results of those tests push manufacturers to make their cars safer to try to avoid bad press.

It's one of the few instances where the private sector 'regulation' works better than public sector.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's one of the few instances where the private sector 'regulation' works better than public sector.

UL is another excellent example. There are many others. Health costs are kept lower by insurance companies refusing to pay exorbitant random hospital fees and instead nailing down set pricing head of time (unfortunately this method doesn't help consumers outside of health insurance).

Re:Hmmmm

[smooth wombat]

(unfortunately this method doesn't help consumers outside of health insurance).

Especially when people are forced to hand over their money to private companies whether they want to or not. Wouldn't want people to have a choice in how to spend their own money, would we?

Re:Hmmmm

[FuegoFuerte]

I believe you're confused about how insurance companies affect health costs, there. When you look at a health bill, it does appear that the insurance company is keeping rates low by refusing to pay part of the billed amount, but what allowed those billed amounts to skyrocket in the first place? At one point, most people in this country could afford a doctor (who would make a house call) when they needed it. Then insurance plans came around and became widespread, and because some company was obligated to pay for the health care instead of the patient, prices shot upwards. Also, people began seeing the doctor for more trivial issues, because they "didn't have to pay for it," it was all "covered by insurance." This has, over time, lead us to the present time, where we have some of the most expensive health care in the world. An overnight hospital stay for dehydration in Mexico cost me $274, complete with IV fluids, anti-nausea/anti-vomiting drugs, my own private room with air conditioning, TV, and attached bathroom/shower, and breakfast. In the US, you could probably expect to add a couple 0's to that number, and I almost certainly would've been in a shared room, without the ability to control the temperature to my liking, with a bathroom further down the hall than I could walk on my own. In Mexico, I had to pay cash when I left. Here in the US, I would have paid more in deductible.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

UL is another excellent example. There are many others. Health costs are kept lower by insurance companies refusing to pay exorbitant random hospital fees and instead nailing down set pricing head of time (unfortunately this method doesn't help consumers outside of health insurance).

How do you explain the US having one of the highest per capita (both in US$ and PPP)?

Re:Hmmmm

[Zontar The Mindless]

I had a very similar experience a couple of years ago at this hospital in China, and paid almost exactly the same amount as you did.

The facilities and the care I received there were just as good as anything I've seen in the US or Europe.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was any validity to your conclusions, all the single payer countries would have the highest possible healthcare prices, and yet, they often have the lowest.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has the highest per capita health costs by a factor of 2. Next in line is Denmark.

Re:Hmmmm

[kidsizedcoffin]

Under US federal law (Medicare/Medicaid), an individual hospital/doctor is required to bill patients the same amount for the same exact service, so you're also going to see them billing the most they're ever going to see out of any insurer at a minimum. This amount gets lowered significantly under what you referred to under the Contractual Obligation section you see on your insurance statement usually, unless you have some weird out of network rules. The Contractual Obligation is what the insurance company has bargained with the medical providers to pay for the service. Unfortunately this rule tends to hurt people without insurance, as they have to be billed the same amount initially as well too, although at least hospitals will often be willing to work with people and lower this amount afterward, as they'd rather get paid a lower amount than not at all.

Re:Hmmmm

[nnull]

UL is not an excellent example. UL standards are 20 years behind European IEC standards and a good 10 years behind most NFPA standards. You'll find the whole world now follows the IEC and European self-certification than UL because of UL's nonsense. They have no intention of fixing this and they have made it clear they don't want to work with Europe at all ever since UL went from non-profit to for-profit company and became UL LLC. UL also does not lower your insurance rates, at least all the insurance companies I deal with for my facility, they don't care. UL is mostly like a parasite within our government and OSHA. They've done more harm to the US market and safety in the past 10 years than they ever have.

Now, if you mentioned FM Global, then yes, they list products and they're also an insurance company, while lowering your rates if you use them.

Re:Hmmmm

[DuckDodgers]

I understand your point, but if you were in Mexico and didn't have any money, what then? I presume the answer is, "you're fucked".

So yes, we can drive the cost of our health system way down by cutting socialized and legally required health insurance. But the people at the bottom level will simply die. You may be happy with that, the rest of us are not.

And if you counter that people will not be refused at hospitals - that's only true because the hospital can offset the expenses from destitute patients with higher fees for everyone else. If you take that away with free market competition, the situation will turn south. The whole rest of the first world does not have socialized medicine because they're a bunch of looney communists.

Re:Hmmmm

[publiclurker]

well, I choose to not spend it on a bunch of self-important idiots that feel that they don't need insurance and then go leach off of everyone else when they get an owie and have to go to the emergency room.

Re:Hmmmm

[jeremyp]

The USA has higher healthcare costs per capita for worse outcomes than almost any other developed nation.

Re:Hmmmm

[smooth wombat]

Obviously the thought never occurred that some people are able to pay their own way and don't have to leech off someone else.

No, that can never be the case. Everyone should be dependent on the government to tell them how to spend their money, right?

Re:Hmmmm

[chriscappuccio]

Higher profits too!

Re:Hmmmm

[dl_sledding]

Of course this would be brought up.

The two incidents have NOTHING to do with each other. VW supposedly changed the way that their diesel engines ran (in a way that has not yet been determined: guilty before proof?) to fool emissions testing. This suppressed "scandal" (which will go NOWHERE, because the big three have way, way too much power over our government) has to do with passenger safety!

But since you bring it up, how is a scam on the EPA worthy of an 18 BILLION dollar fine, when GM knowingly (for a decade!!!) had faulty ignition switches in hundreds of thousands of cars, causing over 100 deaths and many many more injuries, and was only fined 900 million??? Scamming the EPA is worth 20 times what lost lives are??!!!

Apparently, because no one seems to be up in arms about these safety suppressions either. Lives don't matter, but pulling one over on the EPA (supposedly: no one yet has come out with how it was done!) is uber important.

This country is becoming more screwed up every day.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's one of the few instances where the private sector 'regulation' works better than public sector.

That's because it's not the automotive industry self-regulating, it's the insurance industry regulating the automotive industry. Quite honestly, I would trust the insurance industry to regulate most industries they insure - because insurance's goal is to minimize claims, both safety and crash resistance are valuable criteria.

Re:Hmmmm

[Rakarra]

Obviously the thought never occurred that some people are able to pay their own way and don't have to leech off someone else.

Without health insurance, a catastrophic injury or sickness can bankrupt anyone who isn't a millionaire. It can be phenomenally expensive. Many people who think they can pay their own way might think they can pay for a simple broken bone, and they probably can, but forget it if they come down with something worse.

Re:Hmmmm

[FuegoFuerte]

It probably depends on the hospital/clinic. Where I was, they asked for payment when I left. They didn't ask for evidence of my ability to pay when I arrived, about to collapse and puking on their floor. They treated me first (for a full day), then asked for payment. Contrast that with a trip to the ER I had in the US, where I had just been stabilized after anaphylaxis from an allergic reaction. While I was still being wheeled back, they were asking how I was going to be paying for that, if I had insurance, etc., trying to determine my ability to pay (presumably so they could determine what level of care to give me).

I would probably put both "individual pay" and "fully socialized" above our current system, or maybe a mixture, but one where there's true competition instead of the mess we have now.

Well, that was quick

[muecksteiner]

Retaliation for the whole emissions standard thing.

Not that either is ok: neither should VW have cheated, nor the U.S. automakers ever have been so lax w/r to crash safety.

Re:Well, that was quick

[gstoddart]

Hey, the US car makers bought de-regulation fair and square, and politicians keep telling us de-regulation leads to better products.

Why do you hate freedom?

If car makers had to adhere to real regulations that would be like communism.

The market will resolve this, right? People will choose the safer cars?

Oh, that's right .. they don't want us to know which are the safer cars. Why have a free market when you can simply suppress the information?

Re:Well, that was quick

[sosume]

The VW cheating resulted in two positive outcomes for the public. First, buyers have to pay far less environmental tax. Second, since the engine runs much more efficient in normal mode, resulting in lower diesel consumption. So they did most of their customers a favor while pissing off the authorities.
I'd say having a bad crash safety record is a lot worse than that.

Re:Well, that was quick

[0123456]

The market will resolve this, right? People will choose the safer cars?

Most drivers don't much care about safety, because they don't expect to be in a crash where it makes a difference... and most of those won't be. That doesn't mean they'll buy a car with a spke sticking out of the steering wheel, but cars became 'safe enough' long ago.

Re:Well, that was quick

[clonehappy]

Yeah, I'm not sure what everyone's so outraged about. I've never in my life considered buying a German car (I prefer Japanese), but after seeing VW give a big old middle finger to the dog-and-pony show that we call passenger vehicle emission regulations, I'll be giving them a second look.

I see this whole thing being "Good-Guy VW" myself.

Re:Well, that was quick

[njnnja]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that US automakers are so much more dangerous than European cars. In public crash testing by say IIHS and NHTSA, there are differences but nothing to be alarmed about. But in any particular study, if you run 20 tests, you are bound to find something alarming at the 5% level of statistical significance.

Re:Well, that was quick

[rogoshen1]

Not sure how true this is, but I've heard In the 50's and 60's, cars had those biiig steering wheels on a center spoke, and in the days where 'seat belt' meant 'lap belt', in a front end collision, that's exactly what would happen; the driver could easily be impaled on that center spoke, even in a low speed crash.

(my only frame of reference here was a 1966 merc comet that I drove in highschool, and that steering wheel seemed like a death trap.)

Re:Well, that was quick

[ageoffri]

Over regulation is always bad. Regulation can be a very good thing. How can anyone do research if there is no regulation and car manufactures could just put out what ever safety information they wanted? Your research would show that every car was absolutely amazing, yet hitting a snow flake would destroy it. Never mistake over-regulation like what most liberals want with regulation.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Solandri]

Based on the summary (I haven't read TFA), it's probably a consequences of NHTSA only testing direct frontal collisions - where two cars hit each other exactly head on. The insurance companies in the U.S. saw the folly of that decades ago, and run their own tests which include an offset frontal collision - where two cars hit each other head on but only the two drivers' sides (or passengers' sides) making contact.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a load of crap! Cars today I much, much lighter than they were 40 years ago, yet, much safer as well. The fact is that what makes a car safe is a rigid cabin and a malleable outer shell (the so called crumple zone).

You sound like an ex-coworker of mine that said the only way to keep a car planted on the ground is by making it heavier. Oh please, it's like we're in Redneck Engineering 101.

Re:Well, that was quick

[muecksteiner]

I didn't say anything about there not being a trade-off. All I said that these claims surfacing right now (of all possible times) is a pure tit-for-tat in a nice little trade war that has been going on for quite some time. With regard to the technical merit of the whole thing, you are spot in, IMHO.

Re:Well, that was quick

[muecksteiner]

Except that the emissions that VW has been cheating about are actually not that harmless. These particles are actually on the level of "why bother to force everyone to stop smoking, if cars go on emitting this other crap anyway?"

Re:Well, that was quick

[thegarbz]

Err no more mass is definitely not what is needed. All that does is reduce the effectiveness of crumple zones in absorbing the force. Airbags and safety features yet, but ultimately these are a pittance in emissions compared to say ... giving a fat person a lift to work.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Grishnakh]

You're an idiot, and the fact you're been modded "insightful" for what the other responder rightfully calls "Redneck Engineering" is proof that Slashdot is not "news for nerds" any more.

Airbags, brakes, and complex suspension doesn't add a large amount of mass to a car (longer crumple zones and sturdier roll cages do though). Modern, more complex suspensions are actually lighter than the shitty old live-axle suspensions vehicles used to have, and have much lower unsprung mass, but the reason they're used is to improve handling, not to make the car more crashworthy (though this does help avoid crashes). Better brakes do add more unsprung mass but again help avoid crashes.

Americans do spend more time in their cars, and accordingly, you'd think they'd want cars that allow them to survive crashes better. There's no conflict between comfort and crashworthiness; after all, Americans have no problem buying giant, gas-guzzling SUVs which certainly have a mass advantage. The engineering conflict with crashworthiness is with fuel economy, as extra mass works directly against that. However, European cars are obviously safer, even though fuel economy is a much bigger concern in Europe due to higher gas prices as well as higher taxes on vehicles with larger engines. But despite those factors, the Europeans seem to do a much better job engineering cars for crashes than Americans.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Grishnakh]

Actually, you're wrong about cars being lighter. Cars 40 (really more like 45: 40 years ago was just after the OPEC crisis when suddenly Honda Civics became all the rage) years ago were about the same weight as cars now--roughly 3000 pounds. Google it. Cars back then had somewhat heavier body panels and frames, but a lot less other stuff: interior parts, safety equipment, air conditioning, power steering, etc. Cars probably reached a minimum weight in the late 70s and 80s, and have been climbing back up in weight since then, though they've probably gone back down a bit in recent years thanks to higher use of aluminum and high-strength steels.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Zontar The Mindless]

How did such obvious complete horseshit get modded up as Insightful?

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

>The driver could easily be impaled on that center spoke

Either that or the protruding knobs on the radio and HVAC would pierce your skull. Or the non-safety glass slice you into about 5 X 10^3 pieces. Or the (Hot! Heavy! Sharp!) 351 cubic inch V-8 engine block crashed through the firewall and landed in your lap. Or the bench seat came loose from the floor and crushed you against the dashboard/windshield.

I kid you not; that kind lethal ornamentation, underdesigned fastening, or bad glass got designed OUT in the 1970s. Cars built before about 1970 or so would pretty much kill you in a minor crash from which the car could be driven away.

In high-speed collisions (anything over about 30 MPH), those old cars turned you into what my Dad, a forensic pathologist, called a "broken ketchup bottle".

Read "Unsafe At Any Speed" and then follow auto safety progress from lap belts to crumple zones and the rest. Be sure to read about Chrysler's Lee Iacocca getting caught on Nixon's tapes saying, "This safety stuff is killing us." Nice...

Drive Safe!

Re:Well, that was quick

[Zontar The Mindless]

I've seen an accident where that's exactly what happened. Not pretty.

The cops and EMTs told me that the driver hadn't even been going that fast, and if he'd been wearing a proper seatbelt, he likely would have simply walked away.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

In a world where we need a Pure Food and Drug act to frighten with jail or fines the craven who would otherwise use lead to enhance the whiteness of baby food (go look it up), we certainly DO need regulation.

In a world where we just saw the best and the brightest in the financial industry screw the pooch so hard they broke the tricycle (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but I kind of like it), even Greenspan (apologist for and initiator of much anti-regulatory idiocy) was forced to concede before Congress that self-regulation fails because people don't always act rationally or in their own long-term self interest (especially if they've already made their pile and gotten out, foisted the moral hazard on someone else, or simply don't care and want to keep piling up the money even if the market dies).

Take your Randian Objectivist madness and go away.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those good ole US cars from the 60s... Ford Fairlane with the metal dash and steering wheel. Get in a front end collision and you could just hose down the interior to clear the blood of the crash victims out of it and get back on the road.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

The market will correct errors, because they can be trusted, as VW has shown...

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, no. Smoking is several orders of magnitude worse than even living in the place with the highest NOx levels on Earth and the emission levels are not that high - comparable to a ten year old car. Also, while the emissions cheating might have led to higher NOx levels, it reduced all other pollutants.

Of course, they should not have cheated, but let's not pretend that any actual harm has been caused.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Add mass? Well that would certainly add energy to any resulting crash, though the velocity squared bit of the relevant equation indicates reducing vehicle speeds would be the best way to increase safety--20mph limits would result in a 90% pedestrian survival rate, much better than the insane speeds allowed at present on many city streets.

Now, given the 30,000+ slaughtered annually on American stroads, I am sure that those citizens who choose to (or are forced to) car sit will be quite happy to see the speed limits lowered and the streets properly engineered to realize a body count more in line with the deaths per VMT of modern, industrialized nations.

Re:Well, that was quick

[rjstanford]

let's not pretend that any actual harm has been caused.

Current estimate is on the order of ~4,000 deaths, using the standard actuarial life expectancy tables. But sure, lets go with "no actual harm" instead - it does sound a lot better in a soundbite.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Increased mass only contributes to safety in the delusions of conservatives - Libertarians and Republicans alike. Do you need a graph showing the mass of vehicles throughout automotive history and their relative safety?

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. If there are no standards there's nothing to cheat. Decriminalization and deregulation are very effective at reducing crime, let's not speak of what else happens though, it's not pretty in most cases.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not over regulation that caused them to cheat emission test, it was pure greed. They were the largest car manufacturer of the world, but they only had 2% in the biggest market of the world: the US.

In the middle of the 'green revolution', they wanted to take up the battle for market percentage against the hybrid Toyota by offering another 'green' alternative with high performance: the 2.0 TDI. They knew they had to offer high torque and high HP to convince Americans who are used to high performance cars. They had to stay within the test limits to keep the illusion of offering a 'green' car. They really wanted to take over the American market. It's pure greed and nothing else that made them cheat the tests.

It's really easy to point fingers at regulators, but those regulations are definitely needed. Some cities already have a system that detect and refuse old diesel cars because of the high pollution they cause. Many people do get sick from the pollution caused by diesel engines, especially younger kids. The high amount of lung diseases that are found with young children are because of the high percentage of Diesel engines in our cities. The regulations weren't set in place to annoy the poor car manufacturers, they were set in place to protect the people.

VW saw it's own future in the Diesel engine. They had no problem in controlling the governments and regulators in Europe and managed to promote their cars as the real solution to all our CO2 and smog problems. Although some national regulators had found problems with the Diesel engines and knew they were a lot more polluting than in the official test, they couldn't do anything about it in the EU. VW just cheated and bribed their way to the top. They thought that if they could get away with this in Europe, it would also work in the US, but unlike the divided Europe, the US has only one regulation, the federal regulator. When problems are found, it is that single regulator that rings the alarm bell. In Europe the national regulators alarm bells were muted in the European congress by the German politicians on demand of the German car industry. Nobody in the American congress would mute the alarm bells on behalf of a German car manufacturer. And that is what happened know. It is not only a problem for VW, but it's a problem for the entire German, maybe even European, car industry. And it are politicians who are to thank for covering up a lot of alarms triggers by smaller test centers.

It was just arrogance of VW that they thought they could get away with their cheating.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your are a bit wrong here. I've commuted by bike to work, but I'm forces to use the bike lane next to a busy street. I'm in an area in Europe where 80% of the cars are diesel engines, and the yellow diesel clouds you inhale are a lot worse than sitting next to someone who is smoking. I often had to stop when an old diesel passed me because of the irritation in my lungs. It is as if you're smoking your first cigarette. An immediate irritation of the lungs and heavy coughing was the result.
 
  Living next to a busy street can be compared to not living next to a busy street but smoking two packs of cigarette a day. And this is proven by several independent studies that never get any public attention because car manufactures are often biggest sponsors of media, and politicians wouldn't like to go against these high job creators.

Re:Well, that was quick

[JoeMerchant]

My 1980 Honda Civic (with comfortable seating for 4 6'2" adults) weighed something ridiculous like 1600lbs before the people got in it.

10 years later, a "super lightweight" Mazda Miata was tipping the scales around 2200lbs.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

If that estimate were even remotely accurate, lorries and buses have already killed far more people than are alive today.

Re:Well, that was quick

[0123456]

Either that or the protruding knobs on the radio and HVAC would pierce your skull.

Ah, yes. That was back in the days when the Jensen FF, the first road car with AWD and ABS, couldn't be sold in America because the US government didn't like the shape of the dashboard switches...

Re:Well, that was quick

[Dragonslicer]

How did such obvious complete horseshit get modded up as Insightful?

/me looks up at your User ID

Er, you must be new here?

Re:Well, that was quick

[0123456]

If that estimate were even remotely accurate, lorries and buses have already killed far more people than are alive today.

I presume this is like the often-quoted British study which showed that traffic pollution caused something like 20,000 deaths a year.

Except, when you actually read it, you found that the half of those deaths attributed to non-diesel vehicles was just a number pulled out of their butt because there was no actual valid data to base it on, and most of the 20,000 deaths were people who would were desperately sick and would have died soon anyway.

As you say, when you add up all these 'studies', you find that the entire human race must have died out centuries ago.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, AC, some of us in the industry know that what you said is completely true, whether or not the liberal downmod brigades here on slashdot will ever admit it.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Grishnakh]

Wow, another comment where the responder fails to read my whole comment before responding. I sure am seeing a lot of that these days.

Did you miss the part where I said "Cars probably reached a minimum weight in the late 70s and 80s"? 1980 is 35 years ago. I specified that cars 40+ years old (mainly before the OPEC crisis of '74) were heavier, and tended to be 3000 pounds or so. It was the OPEC crisis which drove fuel economy concerns and suddenly made 1600lb cars popular in the US.

The OP was contending that older (read: 60s--70s American cars, especially those from the "muscle car" era) cars were much heavier than modern cars, and this is actually a bit of a misconception. From what I've read, late 60s Mustangs weighed around 3000 lbs. According to Wikipedia, the 1960 Thunderbird weighed just shy of 4000 lbs. The 1972 T-bird was a pig at over 5000 lbs, but the 1977 cut that down to a bit over 4000. T-birds weren't exactly small cars, but these weights really aren't that out-of-line compared to modern large sedans, and the first-generation Mustang probably isn't any heavier than modern ones (though it is a bit smaller).

For an example of a smaller car, the infamous AMC Gremlin was only 2633 lbs, while the Pacer was 3000 lbs. Most small cars these days are right in that range.

But yes, the 1980s Japanese imports (and European ones too) were very lightweight. It took a while for Americans to try making lightweight cars, and they never made anything as light as the really lightweight Japanese or European small cars.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

I've commuted by bike to work, but I'm forces to use the bike lane next to a busy street. I'm in an area in Europe where 80% of the cars are diesel engines, and the yellow diesel clouds you inhale are a lot worse than sitting next to someone who is smoking.

I also live in Europe, I bike a lot and while the percentage may not be 80%, the majority of cars here are diesels. Yet I have never inhaled exhaust gases even remotely as disgusting as cigarette smoke. Not even mopeds are that bad. These days, car exhaust gases are usually barely noticeable, even on busy roads. A moped or a classic car can be nasty, but a smoking biker is far worse. However, these are easily passed.

Living next to a busy street can be compared to not living next to a busy street but smoking two packs of cigarette a day. And this is proven by several independent studies

Name one. It sounds very, very unlikely. Smoking on average reduces life expectancy by more than ten years and two packs a day is proably more than average. If what you claim were remotely true, there should be a huge (> 10 years) gap in life expectancy between urban and rural areas. There isn't.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

My 1973 was 2440 lbs loaded at the scales. A new Mini weighs more than that I think. A 20% hit on the rear of mine however would take off the gas tank (2 bolts at rear bumper) and filler neck, probably not good. And any hit on the side would probably make it to the OTHER side of the car :O Tends to make one shape up real fast on the road tho, I want NOTHING to do with another car on the road.

Daily driver is a Buick SUV at 4400 lbs. It does feel MUCH much much safer to drive...and to hell with the rest of you in the way! It feels like a brick wall would be a minor obstacle ;)

Still don't quite buy it. MAny new EU cars look rather small and light still. Which safety regs prevent many Euro cars from making it over here then?

Re:Well, that was quick

[JoeMerchant]

Wow, yet another /. poster who assumes that everybody is arguing with them... just throwing some data out there - facts are impartial, they aren't always thrown out there to make people look bad - these are facts from my life, not some crap I looked up on Wikipedia.

I thought I was agreeing with you, but, if you'd rather, take it as an argument and vent some more.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think controlled regulation is required but has to be done within the framework of the nation's politico-economic ethos.

Regulation IS required by any yardstick but only from public welfare angle. De-regularisation in many asian economies in 1990's has led to small car consumers developing foot problems after driving for a year or so.

Then there is a case of running shoes manufacturers specifically misusing deregularization to create havoc with public health.

I think "controlled" deregularization is perhaps a necessary evil in any open economy.

my two cents ..

Re:Well, that was quick

[thegarbz]

So you're simply prioritising one life over another. Now if the SUV had the same mass of a SMART car then both would have an equally improved chance of survival as crumple zones are able to absorb a larger portion of the total kinetic energy available.

The result for the people in the SMART car is the same, but if your SUV drove into for instance a tree they'd be worse off.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Vampo]

This is extremely short-sighted. Under TTIP, VW cars would not only be perfectly legal in the US but VW would be able to sue the US or the state for interfering with their sales.

Both stories could end up having a positive result for the average person but TTIP would ensure that nothing positive comes out of either.

Credit where credit is due

Re:Well, that was quick

[ray-auch]

Retaliation for the whole emissions standard thing.

Not that either is ok: neither should VW have cheated, nor the U.S. automakers ever have been so lax w/r to crash safety.

more likely the VW emissions thing was a pre-emptive strike designed to bury this news - and it mostly worked. There are rumours that various govts knew about the emissions test issues for years...

Either way politics and TTIP are behind it all

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I swear, if I ever killed in a lethal accident, the next car I'll buy will be a lot safer!

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

> regulators are complicit in pricing poor people out of the automobile market.

One has to be very very poor, sub-poverty poor to not be able to afford a used car in Europe. More like there are people who are not allowed to drive, due to bad eyes, bad ears (hearing/balance) or epilepsy, etc. Medical testing is quite stringent in most of Europe.

Anyhow, many european people are vary of driving great distances, even within a single country. E.g. italians own the most cars per capita in Europe, but he/she will take the bullet train from Turin to Naples or board RyanAir from Bergamo to Pescara.

> We drive 8-12 hours to go see family.

That's stupid. USA please take a look at India and start building an 1676mm wide gauge federal high-speed pax train network now! Speed of 155 mph (250km/h) is trivial and 188-200 mph (300-320km/h) is now routine. You can do that in a car, e.g. an Ferrari 612 for sure, but the tyres will wear away in just 15 mins and the gas tank will run dry even before that. As long as the catenary lasts, electric trainsets just keep pulling. Up to 1000km distance the HST now consistently beats jet airliners door to door. It is unlikely anybody could cover 1000km in less than 8 hours in a family car, where wife and kids regularly have to go peeing. I think 10 hours is more realistic. You could spend board a HST instead for 3 hours and watch DVD or use the laptop instead, with 1-1 hour of travel at either end in a rent car. You actually save 6-8 hours that way, arriving 3-5 hours sooner and also making use of your 3 hours spent on the train. In Europe many long distance trains actually have a kindergarten wagon, so children may occupy themselves.

My only advice is, avoid the legacy 1435mm "standard" gauge like plague for high-speed trains. Americans are "full sized" people, wo grow both tall and wide and that would be extremely cramped for them! The 1435mm gauge pax wagons are already cramped in the EU, maybe they are OK for the petite japanese people, but always a misery elsewhere. Use the indo-iberian railway gauge (1676mm) and you'll be able to provide 2ft wider wagons with aviation business class equivalent seating as base-class item in HST! Furthermore, a wider gauge means better stability at high speed and more space means easier to install very much horsepower for traction. USA needs no high speed rail inter-operability with the rest of the world, having oceans to the east and west, thus it is best to shave a clean start with really wide gauge.

In fact the original british railway had 2120mm (7 / seven ft !!!) gauge, but it was eliminated by the end of 19th century, being deemed too great for the unwashed masses by the degenerate english aristocracy. Hitler wanted to build a 4 meter gauge aryan pax mega-railway from Paris to Moscow for this imagined "1000 year Reich" and did the style design himself.

Re:Well, that was quick

[AK Marc]

When an SUV hits an SUV, the SUV passengers are more likely to die. It everyone was in a SMART, then everyone would be safer. The one guy in the SUV is safest, at the expense of the safety of everyone else.

It's a form of tragedy of the commons, but harder to explain because the resource isn't grass, but safety. Everyone in SUVs is the worst case for everyone. Everyone in SMART is best for everyone, but when everyone else is in a SMART, the lone defector will see an improvement.

Hmmm, perhaps more a prisoner's dilemma then. The defectors see a benefit over the non-defectors, but if everyone defects, then the defectors see a worse outcome than if nobody defects.

Re:Well, that was quick

[AK Marc]

Better brakes do add more unsprung mass but again help avoid crashes.

Well, better brakes can drop weight. Going from heavy drums to a lighter disk system can drop weight and improving braking at the same time, but most drum systems weren't heavy, they were pretty light and crappy. The 4-wheel drums on my VW bug were pretty light, but so was the car. My rear drums on my 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais were heavy and couldn't stop the car. The car would get noticeable brake fade in a single stop from highway speeds to a stop, especially in things like an off-ramp where it also dropped elevation with the stop.

the Europeans seem to do a much better job engineering cars for crashes than Americans.

I'd disagree with that. The engineers optimize to local regulations. The US has the car execs setting the regulations for NHTSA rules, though lesser for IIHS. So they engineer to their strengths. More realistic tests have always shown the US cars underperforming. That's why Volvo and such did so well in the '80s. There was a perception they were more crash worthy, despite no better crash test results. Oh, and US consumers don't care about rating. They think that they'll buy a bigger car and get safety through mass.

Little do they know that the S-class and A-class are designed in crash tests with each other. So the A-class will protect you as well against larger vehicles. What the US also fails at is bumper heights. The strong pickup lobby has prevented any bumper height unification for passenger vehicles, and the car/truck weight division has moved more people into trucks to avoid car regulations when the rules are applied to cars only.

It's not the engineers or car companies can't do it, but they've deliberately designed the rules themselves to make them incompatible with the rest of the world, to help prevent others from selling in the US, and then designed to those inferior rules.

Re:Well, that was quick

[AK Marc]

comparable to a ten year old car.

I once failed a visual inspection for emissions (they don't generally test tailpipe) and so they tested my tailpipe. The results were either poorly calibrated (it was the best machine of its kind in the state), or my 30 year old car met new-car standards. Still failed, as they found a part in the visual inspection that wasn't "approved" (there is no approval process, and the list of approved mods is zero, it's an anti-mod law, not an emissions law).

The myth of "old cars pollute" is false. Bad cars pollute. There's 1%-5% of cars that are bad. The smokers. They often have visible exhaust. They are like the economic 1%. They account for 80% of all pollution "wealth". A well kept car past about '60 is pretty clean.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Grishnakh]

That's why Volvo and such did so well in the '80s. There was a perception they were more crash worthy, despite no better crash test results.

They were much more crashworthy, it's just that the US tests sucked (and still do, for NHTSA tests).

Oh, and US consumers don't care about rating. They think that they'll buy a bigger car and get safety through mass.

A lot of US consumers are like this, but the Volvo buyers aren't, nor is anyone who pays attention to IIHS tests.

It's not the engineers or car companies can't do it, but they've deliberately designed the rules themselves to make them incompatible with the rest of the world, to help prevent others from selling in the US, and then designed to those inferior rules.

It doesn't seem to be working. Foreign cars seem to dominate auto sales.

I do wonder how much US rules are affecting car design worldwide though. Remember, up through the 80s carmakers who wanted to sell in the US were forced to use those horrible "sealed beam" headlight units because of US government rules, which prevented carmakers from using more stylish and better-performing headlights. When the US finally changed that rule, suddenly body styles changed completely. Over in Europe, they wanted to use more modern headlight housings for a long time but didn't because then they couldn't sell the cars here.

Re:Well, that was quick

[AK Marc]

A lot of US consumers are like this, but the Volvo buyers aren't, nor is anyone who pays attention to IIHS tests.

No, the Volvo buyers are more likely to buy safe so they drive unsafe. They don't need to drive safe, they have a safe car.

It doesn't seem to be working. Foreign cars seem to dominate auto sales.

I never said it was a good idea. I never said it worked. It worked for a while. But Toyota and others built here, and got around the rules and knocked the Big 2 off their perches. Well, that and bad management. Ford is thick with incompetent nepotism, and GM with bureaucrats that don't know anything about cars.

Re:Well, that was quick

[Zontar The Mindless]

Some days I wonder about that myself.

Re:Well, that was quick

[stoatwblr]

More to the point (if you're bringing up british studies), NOX and PM10 maps of british cities _pre_ NOX regulations going live in europe show that NOX levels are only a problem in urban (not suburban or rural) areas and that cars only accounted for half of it back then (it's about 1/3 now) with the rest coming from gas/oil heating and other stationary sources..

Britain doesn't have the inversion layers that pervade LA county or the CA central valley, but it's clear that "one size fits all" emissions regulations aren't wonderful. A car with a NOX sensor that switched to "low mode" when levels climbed too high or when it was in stop/start traffic might be the best compromise (and allowing higher NOX from petrol engines would allow better milage from those in areas where NOX isn't an issue - extreme lean burn can easily allow a car to improve milage by 25% or more.)

Re:Well, that was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't true; this was the actual reason:

The FF also suffered from a design problem, and not one easily cured: the system was set up for a driver in the right hand seat, and no considerations had been made to making it left-hand drive. In particular, the central transfer case and both propeller shafts protruded into the left-hand seat space. The steering gear and brake servo were fitted on the right-hand side, and there was no space for them on the left.[1] By the early 1970s, Jensen's primary markets were in overseas markets where cars were driven on the right hand side of the road (particularly the United States), and the FF could not be sold there.

-- Wikipedia

Re:Well, that was quick

[Smask]

The then American owned Volvo were told to shut the fuck up about some safety issues. Volvo found that when getting t-boned the roof could rip open. So they reinforced the roof and informed their owner (Ford) about their findings. Ford did nothing fix it at their end. Volvo went on banging on their drum about all safety features incorporated in the latest model (I think it it was the XC90) when Ford ordered Volvo to shut up about certain safety inventions because Ford was scared that it would be sued because fatal accidents were happening with Ford built SUVs.

Re:Well, that was quick

[dl_sledding]

And if anyone gets in the way of a semi or a train, even in an SUV, they're dead. So, by your logic, we should remove all semis from the roadways, and ensure that trains cannot physically come in contact with vehicles? Not arguing, just asking...

Re:Well, that was quick

[AK Marc]

We do. Semis aren't allowed on all streets, and there are more restrictions on them than cars. Trains are not even allowed to turn. The only cross streets when the street is closed. It's already acknowledged that those vehicles are more dangerous, and they are treated as such. You are seeing a logical contradiction that doesn't exist.

But yes, an SUV gives no added protection when involved in a crash with a tree, wall, or large commercial vehicle. To gain a perception of a tiny statistic advantage, they greatly increase the actual statistical harm of everyone around them. And yes, I worded it that way because it's proven that after a crash has happened, it's better to be in the larger vehicle than the smaller one, all else equal. The problem is that there is no practical way to study the liklihood of getting into that crash, nor ensure "all else equal" is true. So, for all we can prove, SUVs are less safe 100% of the time, and only increase the perception of safety.

Details

[Major Blud]

I read the article and I'm a little confused. The article sounds like the US cars met the US based-standards, but not the EU ones. In an effort to bring the US standards in line with the EU ones, a test was done to see if the current US models would pass the EU test, but they weren't able. Not only that, but that the US-produced models that are supposed to meet EU regulations weren't able as well, with US based models 33% more likely to be harmful to the passengers in a front-end collision. However, I assume that these vehicles still passed both EU and US regulations, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on EU roads?

And there's no link for the report itself to find out what was actually said.

Re:Details

[mrchaotica]

However, I assume that these vehicles still passed both EU and US regulations, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on EU roads?

My guess is that US models currently aren't allowed on EU roads (because they don't pass EU tests), but under TTIP Europe would be forced to allow them to be sold based on their passing of only the "lowest common denominator" of tests.

Re:Details

[gstoddart]

Go with the cynical view: the goal is to make the weaker US standards appear compliant with/equal to the stronger EU standards so the US makers could sell to Europe under a negotiated treaty.

Short version, "we're already risking American lives by having less safety, so why not risk EU lives and pretend the safety standards are the same".

This way instead of building one set to Euro-spec, and one to US-spec, you get the US-spec certified as "close enough". In the process you undermine the Euro-spec.

It's using a treaty to make an end-run around regulations, which is what most of these damned treaties seem to be doing lately.

Re:Details

[Major Blud]

The article has this to say:

"under current rules cars sold globally, such as the Ford Focus or Volkswagen Golf, must still be re-engineered multiple times - at considerable expense to manufacturers - to satisfy crash-test standards around the world."

I don't think current model of the Focus sold in Europe is fundamentally different than the one sold in the U.S. (?)

Re:Details

[Bremen24601]

It would cut both ways, as European cars probably don't meet US standards either.

The problem is safety is not a single variable. Improving one measure of safety might decrease another. EU and US regulators simply have different concerns about what is safe. EU regulators are concerned about pedestrian collisions, but making a car safer for pedestrians might make for worse accidents when you run into a Hummer.

There are other factors too, like US regulators test for what happens when people don't wear seatbelts, in the EU they just assume people do (because oddly Europeans actually use the things).

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

What's being negotiated isn't a "lowest common denominator" but a method to converge on a common standard. 1st major misconception is that the same mini is sold in the US as in England or Germany. Each country has differnet safety standards, so after desiginging the chassis, the manufacturers then tune the safety features several different ways to many different standards. American cars will be, in general, much safer in offset head on collisions, and not as safe in head on collisions than European models. Similarly, American will have lower CO2 but higher NOx emissions than European cars. Rollover standards are different, pedestrian safety standards are different, but American cars have a minimum acceleration profile that's much safer on American entrance ramps than European cras.

So, your mini is not the same as my mini, and that's okay, because I drive in a very different environment then you do.

Re:Details

[PRMan]

Building one vehicle worldwide would be a huge cost savings to the automakers. They should negotiate and reach a compromise. Oh, wait, that's probably what they are doing right now.

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the EU shouldn't relax it's standards to compromise. That's exactly the kind of things that proponents of TTIP said wouldn't happen. That it's not appeasement and fucking everyone over.

Re:Details

[whoever57]

The problem with US cars is side-impact protection. It would not require a fundamental change to the design to have different doors fitted to US and EU models, with the EU model doors having more protection.

Re: Details

[tandavanadesan]

On the flip side the USA would have to accept vats that passed the EU emissions tests, but FSK far short of the US laws.

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly? In most European countries if the driver or any passenger isn't wearing a belt both the driver and the passenger get fined, and the driver can use their license. Same applies to children not in child seats.

Re:Details

[jeremyp]

Come to Europe and look at the cars. You will see very few American cars and the ones that you do see will generally be niche models. Now it could be that most US cars are unable to pass European safety standards or it could be that the perception in Europe is that American cars are crap badly made gas guzzling turds that won't go round corners.

Re:Details

[AK Marc]

Nope. GM and Ford still want unique rules for the US. They believe it reduces competition. The makers are actively trying to drive up costs (As they've already sunk theirs). Capitalism at its finest.

Re:Details

[AK Marc]

It's not relaxing. It's compromise. You don't have different regulations for the UK, with more roundabouts, than Holland with more T intersections with lights. So they already compromise for a mix of use cases. The treaty is just saying that the US and EU should compromise across both markets for a single rule. It's not "relaxing" it's compromise. There's a difference. The US is more strict for some things, and less in others. Overall, they are similar for safety. They just need to unify those high standards into one as high or higher, no "relaxing" needed.

American vs. European 'safety'

[oneiros27]

My understanding is that the European safety standards also cover things like the car hitting a pedestrian -- do the American standards care about anything other than the occupants of the vehicles?

I guess the new requirements for backup cameras sort of cover pedestrian safety to some degree, but I suspect that the need for it has come from the shrinking of car windows to improve the vehicle crash performance.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Mr D from 63]

Cars in both places are very safe in general. There is always room for improvement, but if you meet the requirements, and don't make inaccurate claims, then what is the problem? This just looks like an attempt to capitalize on the current VW drama.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[MightyYar]

I thought the same thing, but in TFA:

Of particular concern to safety groups is the finding that passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a typical US model.

I suspect there is a bias towards driver safety in the US standards, since cars tend to have a single occupant.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

I agree that US cars are safe. I just think the safety laws in the USA aren't right. We have big time safety laws on cars which raise the price of the car thousands of dollars, but no real safety rules on motorcylists. It is the law to wear a seatbelt in a car, but a motocyclist doesn't have to wear a helmet. Part of me thinks this is just because we don't want cheap foreign cars competing with expensive brands.

I think safety is great and worth a premium. Maybe if we let cheap foreign cars in, people would have a lot less safety. So maybe its good where we have it. The problem I have is that we force people to wear a seatbelt, but we don't force motorcyclists to wear a helmet. The laws don't make sense.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[ArhcAngel]

Well that's only logical. In an EU model the passenger would be in the US driver's seat!

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Moof123]

The thick A columns in recent cars are quite the hazard. I find it very easy to not see a pedestrian coming towards me when I am turning left. Blind spots are growing as well due to the tiny windows, and so on. It certainly does start to feel like we are playing an odd game of increasing the number of crashes to get better crash survival.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Major Blud]

"but a motocyclist doesn't have to wear a helmet."

This is somewhat misleading. Almost every state in the U.S. has some type of motorcycle helmet law:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...

For the states with "partial" laws, this is usually the requirement that the rider maintain a $10,000 insurance policy, as well as an age requirement.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Midnight Thunder]

I thought the same thing, but in TFA:

Of particular concern to safety groups is the finding that passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a typical US model.

I suspect there is a bias towards driver safety in the US standards, since cars tend to have a single occupant.

This is part of the problem with the TTIP and other 'negotiated in secret' trade agreements. Populations in different cultures and populations have different priories for them, so a government is penalised for trying to be stricter on companies, than in another geography, there is a problem. The TTIP just encourages the lowest common dimonator to rule the board, since that is going to make it easier on corporations, rather than protecting the interests of citizens in a given location.

The only winners for TTIP and the sister trade agreements are US centric multinationals, at least from what I have read.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[mrbester]

European cars are left hand drive, just like US.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Nope. Nope.

In the UK, the passenger would be in the driver's seat. Elsewhere, not so much (unless things were getting 'sexytime' in there)

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting, thanks. In Utah, its under 18 has to helmet. No insurance requirement.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that the European safety standards also cover things like the car hitting a pedestrian -- do the American standards care about anything other than the occupants of the vehicles?

No, which is why mounting a battering ram on the front of your car makes your vehicle "safer" in US crash tests. It's not particularly safe for the other guys car though, which is why we have an arms race in terms of how big an SUV/"light truck" people feel a need to drive, alone, 70 miles to work in to downtown...

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[MightyYar]

This is true - it's a reversion from representative democracy. If we insist on globalizing trade, the institutions should resemble those of a parliament or congress. The members can be directly elected or not, depending on the member countries' preferences. I think the move to knocking down the dubious notion of the "state" is probably a good one, but not it if means replacing it with corporate-backed committees.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[TWX]

Cars in both places are very safe in general. There is always room for improvement, but if you meet the requirements, and don't make inaccurate claims, then what is the problem? This just looks like an attempt to capitalize on the current VW drama.

Probably. "Hey look, a duck!" seems to be a common reaction when something bad is brought up.

I expect it would be much harder to fake crash test results than to fake emissions results. Even if one could detect that a car was being crash-tested instead of being in a real-world crash, there would be no performance advantage to not performing just as well in real crashes as in tests. Besides, many testing entities procure cars through regular retail channels so that manufacturers can't tweak a particular car to get better results.

If the American cars in European markets didn't meet Europe's standards they wouldn't be sold there. EuroNCAP is voluntary, but if one looks at the Chinese offerings that failed spectacularly, those brands generally aren't found in Europe because no one wants to buy cars that are that dangerous. The American cars are safe enough for Europe's roads.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

Bumper cars. 100% crash survival rate, 25 crashes per minute.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, why bother? The average American couldn't find Europe on a fucking globe.

Expecting them to know that? Never gonna happen.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[JimSadler]

The 10,000 injury nonsense is nothing more than corruption whether it is in regard to a motorcycle or a car passenger or driver. A biker with a head injury will go through that $10,000 in the emergency room in less than 15 minutes. That will leave him out of luck on medical bills and loss of income for the rest of his life. In some states it is next to impossible to go beyond the limit of the other driver's policy no matter how dire the injury. On top of that there are places like Miami,Fl. where 40 percent of drivers have no license or insurance at all. The insurance industry is screwing the public completely and nothing is being done about it at all. Right now the only legitimate function of auto insurance is protecting the bank that actually owns your car in case the sheet metal gets beat up.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe and the US are very different in the way the law works. In the US traffic laws are based on state law, not federal. Current only 2 states have no helmet regulations (Iowa and Illinois), while 27 states require helmets if under a certain age (e.g. 21) and 19 states require helmets for all riders regardless of age. The federal government on the other hand does product safety. They make sure that if a user buys a product that they don't incur (unreasonable) risk from it. The states decide how much risk to allow the user themselves to take. In other words they decide wither rider should or shouldn't be allow to be an idiot.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Grishnakh]

I guess the new requirements for backup cameras sort of cover pedestrian safety to some degree, but I suspect that the need for it has come from the shrinking of car windows to improve the vehicle crash performance.

There's some truth to that, but only some. There's *never* been a car where you could see if there was a small child or dog or whatever right behind your rear bumper, while seated in the driver's seat. That's what these cameras are really for: they have fisheye lenses and let you see absolutely *everything* behind your car. I'd never had one before until I got my current car a few months ago, and it's a god-send. I can parallel park with skill I never had before, because I couldn't see well enough behind my car before to know how much room I had behind me, and having the camera makes it easy. And of course if there's anything behind me as I back up, I can easily see it. I don't even bother looking behind me now (though I do swing my head around to check the sides) as I back up, because the view with the camera is so excellent it's not worth looking in the rearview mirror (plus my rear window is tiny).

In short, we have the technology now so that instead of having a lot of glass (which sucks in collisions and makes your car less crashworthy), we can use cameras and sensors to get even better perception than we ever had with the old designs with larger windows, so why not use it? Even better, it's dirt cheap. Look on Ebay for "rearview camera": there's systems you can buy from China that cost $50 with free shipping from there. Maybe those aren't the greatest quality, but that should give you an idea of just how cheap it is for an automaker, with its huge economies of scale and buying power, to add such a system in at the factory. Considering how much an airbag for instance costs by comparison (even at automaker factory prices, it's a lot more than a rearview camera), and how much a new car costs, there's just no excuse to not have these things on all cars now. It's got to be one of the biggest bang-per-buck deals in auto safety there is. Lots of kids are still run over (usually by their own parents) every year in the US, and don't forget all the fender-benders; rearview cameras can eliminate all those for very little cost.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

And no A Columns!

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Grishnakh]

Blind spots are growing as well due to the tiny windows, and so on.

That's why you get a car with blind-spot monitors (radar systems in the back bumper which alert you when someone's in your blind spot).

That doesn't help with the A-pillars though. But you can still get around that by moving your head so you can see around the pillar. When you're turning left, this is something you should be able to do, since the car isn't moving. By contrast, vehicles in your blind spot is a problem when you're moving, usually at highway speeds since the problem is normally lane-changing, something that only happens on multi-lane roads. It's not so easy to shift your body and head around a bit to double-check things when you're moving at 70mph as when you're turning left out of a driveway.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

The state I'm in allows people of a certain age to not wear a helmet. I wasn't aware the other states did it much differently. We have a law here, but it is only for younger and inexperienced riders.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Grishnakh]

We have big time safety laws on cars which raise the price of the car thousands of dollars, but no real safety rules on motorcylists. It is the law to wear a seatbelt in a car, but a motocyclist doesn't have to wear a helmet. Part of me thinks this is just because we don't want cheap foreign cars competing with expensive brands.

What cheap foreign cars? Chinese cars? Tatas from India? Most foreign cars are more expensive than American cars; American cars are the cheap, crappy ones these days, and have been for a long time. You get a foreign car from Japan or Germany because you want a car that's better engineered, higher quality, will protect you better in a crash, has better fuel economy, will last a lot longer, and has better resale value. Some of these factors have diminished since the 80s (a lot of American cars actually have comparable fuel economy now), but most of this has been the general case for quite a while. How many 20-year old Japanese cars do you still see driving around, compared to 20-year-old Chryslers and Chevys?

The reason we have lots of safety laws for cars is because the vast majority of Americans drive cars (or trucks/SUVs) the vast majority of the time. Very few people drive motorcycles, and many of those only ride on weekends. It's perfectly normal for a government to focus regulation on things that have the greatest impact, or "bang for the buck". Why spend a lot of time and money working on legislation to improve safety for something that very, very few people do, when you can focus your effort on something that hundreds of millions do?

And finally, all decent states DO require helmets.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I have is that we force people to wear a seatbelt, but we don't force motorcyclists to wear a helmet. The laws don't make sense.

If you think that doesn't make sense, try this once. Put on a motorcycle helmet and drive around in your car for a while. See just how long it takes before some helpful policeman pulls you over and writes you a ticket for obstructed and impaired vision and hearing. You *will* get a ticket for that, it has been done before. But when you contest it in court, the case will be tossed out every time too. No judge wants to set the legal precedent that a helmet impairs vision or hearing which would invalidate the helmet laws right there.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[PPH]

mounting a battering ram on the front of your car

Those bull bars got their start in rural areas and places like the Australian outback. To keep livestock from going through your radiator in a collision. In the USA, they have become popular due to Idaho Stops.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

The thick A pillars are a result of 'safety' mandates.
1. The DOT recently increased the rollover protection weight to 2.5x the vehicle's weight.
2. More cars have airbags in the A pillars making them thicker.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

mounting a battering ram on the front of your car

Those bull bars got their start in rural areas and places like the Australian outback. To keep livestock from going through your radiator in a collision. In the USA, they have become popular due to Idaho Stops.

Actually they got their start in the good ol'e US of A. On the Iron Horse. They were just adapted for cars later.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

YAY, another American who knows nothing outside of the USA.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[myowntrueself]

"but a motocyclist doesn't have to wear a helmet."

This is somewhat misleading. Almost every state in the U.S. has some type of motorcycle helmet law:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...

For the states with "partial" laws, this is usually the requirement that the rider maintain a $10,000 insurance policy, as well as an age requirement.

The helmets I've seen people riding around with, on motorbikes, here in Canada are typically pathetic and wouldn't protect your head any better than a baseball cap. Just padded beanies.

You rarely see people wearing a helmet that would be legal in Europe or, for that matter, riding a motorbike thats better than a toy.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[thegreatbob]

I envision a future in which the pillars are made effectively transparent by way of some fancy sciencey stuff that was probably mentioned on this site back when it was cool to post news for nerds. Seriously though, a periscope of sorts shouldn't be impossible to come up with; I see no need for anything electronic. Visual distortion within some reasonable bounds seems acceptable as well. The main thing is that the ability to exercise our binocular depth perception be possible. I don't even like the stupid window sticker(s) states force people to display for registration/inspection; the less crap up at that height the better. In Texas, this is finally being reduced to one sticker. Reassuring, perhaps, that Texas gets a little bit less backwards every now and again.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[hackertourist]

No. Front-side collisions generally happen on the driver's side.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[MightyYar]

Right, but the article specifically says "passengers".

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[Anonymous Coward]

So... the insurance companies are screwing everyone over because the government won't mandate a higher policy minimum for motorcyclists? You don't think that might have anything to do with the dudes that ride motorcycles that don't want to wear helmets?

And the insurance companies are screwing everyone over because some giant percent of drivers in Miami don't have license or insurance? Isn't that more likely the fact that Miami is a safe haven city? Just exactly how do you think things work in safe havens?

This logic is astounding.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[AK Marc]

Yes. Flip headlights were effectively made illegal in the US in about 2000 because of pedestrian safety standards.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[AK Marc]

In most states, a properly insured adult motorcyclist is not required to wear a helmet. I find your correction to be irrelevant.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[AK Marc]

A seat belt is proven to improve safety. The same can't be said for helmets. I've driven an '67 VW. I was going to a soccer game, and thus, had on soccer shorts. They are shiny and baggy. The vinyl seats on the car are slippery. I managed to take a left turn at a normal speed, but the grip between my seat and the seat were less than normal. I ended up steering while facing backwards, sitting in the passenger footwell.. A seat belt would have helped. Seatbelts were required, but the grandfather law forgave cars that weren't fitted with them at the factory.

The state of Texas, doing a study to "prove" helmets saved money measured the hospital bills of people in motorcycle crashes. The finding was that helmeted riders cost more to the health care system than unhelmeted riders. The helmeted riders were more likely to survive worse crashes, leading to greater injuries and higher bills. The unhelmeted riders were more likely to be attended by coroners, rather than hospitals, thus didn't count against the hospital bills. The study didn't measure "total cost" but selected an easy to measure metric, hospital bills. And it found the opposite of the intended result.

So the reasoning against helmets isn't nearly as strong. What compelling reason is there to require them?

Disclaimer: I'm a motorcyclist who is against helmet laws for riders (but for them for passengers), and have never ridden without a helmet, aside from a few times to see what it was like. We should have the choice, and everyone should choose to wear it.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[AK Marc]

Not true. The B-pillar can take all the weight. The mix of aeridynamics, weight, crash protection and such make for the shapes. The more sloped angles (from aerodynamics) lead to thicker A-pillars (for safety). You can hide a whole person in the spot, even if you move your head. At least in a few of the cars I opted to not buy, I found that the case. But if your windshield is vertical, the pillar can be tiny. So it's not the crash worthiness that forces it.

Also, the airbags are usually not in the a pillars. THey are too far from anyone to do any good. The side-bags are in the ceiling and B-pillar.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[AK Marc]

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/23... But applied to the A-pillar, so you see what's on the other side.

Re:American vs. European 'safety'

[stoatwblr]

"It's not so easy to shift your body and head around a bit to double-check things when you're moving at 70mph as when you're turning left out of a driveway."

In a lot of countries if you don't do so at 70mph, you will _fail_ your driving test.

In American cars' defense

[NotDrWho]

The Volkswagen computers are only safe in testing mode.

Re:In American cars' defense

[gnupun]

What's worse, bad frontal crash safety or 4x more NOx fumes? I think it is the former (crash safety). So when are we going to see an $18 billion fine for the unsafe cars?

Re:In American cars' defense

[Anonymous Coward]

That may not be true. Check out:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244463.php

Air quality is a much more important issue in any city these days, although there are a lot of sparsely populated areas in USA where you'd expect car safety to be a bigger issue.

Re:In American cars' defense

[njnnja]

I think a reasonable possibility is that if they cheat on one test, they might be cheating on other tests. Maybe American carmakers just aren't as good at gaming the test.

Re:In American cars' defense

[rjstanford]

I think a reasonable possibility is that if they cheat on one test, they might be cheating on other tests. Maybe American carmakers just aren't as good at gaming the test.

Admittedly, its a lot harder to reprogram your car to fare better when smashed into a wall during a test than it will in real life.

Re:In American cars' defense

[Anonymous Coward]

It really depends on how many deaths will be caused by the crash safety issue. Even if the car will just spontaneously shoot a spike into the driver's head at random, if it only happens 12 times out of half a million cars, that's far fewer lives lost than half a million cars pumping out 20x the amount of air pollution and causing cancers, lung disease, and just plain increased death rates.

Re:In American cars' defense

[gnupun]

It really depends on how many deaths will be caused by the crash safety issue.

Now be honest. Even if no accident actually occurs, won't you be scared as hell driving an unsafe car?

So it depends on more than just the number of deaths and injuries caused by accidents. An unsafe car is only slightly better than a motorbike.

Re:In American cars' defense

[njnnja]

It's obviously not a programming issue but if the test always hits at,say, exactly 4 inches off center then I could imagine a company designing a car to do very well when hit at exactly 4 inches off center even at the expense of say a 3 inch off center collision. IIRC, the Swedish automakers used to do a ton of "real world" crash testing and were generally considered to be the safest cars on the road even if they didn't score as high on standardized tests as other automakers. That would seem to imply that others were "teaching to the test" to some degree.

Re:In American cars' defense

[jeremyp]

When a car manufacturer finds a way to cheat on the safety tests.

Re:In American cars' defense

[AK Marc]

But there are no unsafe cars referenced in this article. The summary wouldn't have gotten any hits if they said "Crash tests incompatible across markets, EU cars tested in US fare worse than in EU tests. US cars tested in EU tests fare worse than in US tests."

That's common sense. But the media inflates everything to drive hits, views, and thus revenue.

Trade war

[phantomfive]

So now are we going to see a trade war, where each side tries to make the other side look worse?
Trade wars generally don't end well.

Re:Trade war

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Trade war

[thegreatbob]

(insert possible vague allusion to saving humanity (or at least an economy) with video games, a la Ender's Game) Furthermore, your name. In loving memory of a better time.

Re:Trade war

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Furthermore, your name. In loving memory of a better time.

Indeed. RIP ./

Re:Trade war

[AK Marc]

So, no change then. We've had a trade cold war with everyone since the 1950's. But now that we are being overtaken, others are in a position to fire back.

Report - brought to you proudly by VW

[Anonymous Coward]

all without commercial interruptions. You are welcome comrades.

Good, I hope this sinks TTIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Good riddance.

Re:Good, I hope this sinks TTIP

[marienf]

Consider it sunken, but if you want to help:

http://www.newsletter-webversi...

Hypocrites

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

You know all those European and Asian cars that we can't get here because they're "not as safe as American cars"? Well, we can't get them because they're safer than American cars.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just wrong.

There are a host of differences manufacturers deem too expensive when deciding to "Federalize" a car to satisfy the FMVSS.

For instance, take the 5 mph bumper requirement in the US versus the EU. That could require significant changes to the chassis to pass the test.

Headlamps and lighting requirements are different as well.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

It never was about safety, but about protecting captive markets. People who are willing to buy a car made across the globe are typically willing to pay more for it, since they are already doing something that is more difficult. Manufacturers capitalize on this by selling essentially the same vehicle as an export, but disallow exporting the domestic market vehicles by use of different safety rules - thus protecting their markup.

There's an argument to be made that products should be offered for the same price regardless of their market, but while people generally agree on this they typically don't agree when the product is human capitol.

Re:Hypocrites

[Grishnakh]

Huh? Citation needed.

Usually, if there's some foreign car you can't get here in the US, it's because the manufacturer doesn't want to pay all the money needed to put it through US government crash tests. This usually happens with very expensive, low-volume cars, like the famous Porsche 959 that Bill Gates tried importing and couldn't get licensed to drive on American roads, so it sat in storage for decades. When the carmaker only makes a handful of that kind of car, they're not going to build 5 extra just so they can be crash-tested, unless they really think Americans are going to buy enough of them to make it worthwhile (which for a lot of cars, is a poor bet).

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Your story sounded fake, I had to look it up. I know a guy that bought 4 Bugatti Veyrons (Yes, I meant 4 and know how ridiculous it sounds) and he was driving one within a month of them finishing building it. Turns out they changed the law allowing a small number of types of cars in with a loophole.

story

Amusing thing about that story, the guy I know owns/owned about half the cars on the list. I thought he picked them based on what he suspected would go up in value, but it looks like he picked based on what he could import easier.

Re:Hypocrites

[PPH]

For instance, take the 5 mph bumper requirement in the US versus the EU.

Why does that even exist? Because the US insurance industry doesn't like paying for morons who bump into things. Just label an EU car as non-compliant in this category and let the insurance companies add a surcharge to the premium. And leave it up to the consumer.

Should I be happy or sad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we don't know what's in TTIP anyway, how am I supposed to know whether this is good or bad news?

Different standards, different results ... shocker

[enjar]

So a report showed that US spec cars don't do well under a different testing regimen. OK, fine. That's data, and likely highly repeatable since I assume that there are likely a series of standard procedures and testing regimens that are used to set the standards. Ostensibly, these map to real-world scenarios like frontal collision, side collision, rear ending, etc. The automakers design appropriately to these standards. So If the testing regimen for the US is different, you will get different (likely poor) results. The fact that models like the Golf or Focus need different engineering for different markets suggests that automakers already did this, and figured out it was cheaper to spend the money to have two different models for the markets rather than try and engineer one model that would pass both standards. That would likely be expensive and add weight, compromising fuel economy and not adding much customer value -- customers would likely care a lot more that their safety standards were met. Questions could follow:

If a European spec car was tested under the US testing regimen, how do they fare?

Were un-altered US spec cards sold in Europe as meeting European safety standards?

What are the actual numerical differences in the results? How far off are the standards? Is a US made car 10% worse, 20% worse, 100% worse?

How do the test results correlate with real-world crash results?

But you know, the above questions are actual things an engineer might ask if given the task of "making the US and Euro standards uniform" as a project. Unfortunately, it's the lawyers and politicians who are writing these laws.

Re:American vs. European 'sanity'

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the US, one can be fined for driving while not wearing a seatbelt; unless, that is, they are riding a motorcycle. Admittedly, compelling bikers to wear seatbelts would be grotesque, but that's not the point. If I can ride a fucking motorcycle, why can't I drive a car without a fucking seatbelt?

Planet Money covered the difference between US/EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been a long time since I listened to it but IIRC some of the differences are:

Seatbelts - US has to assume that they aren't being used, EU assumes they are

Collisions with pedestrians - EU takes this into consideration, US is minimal

Emissions - All kinds of different

Wipers - US requires bigger ones

I vaguely remember thinking that none of the difference were contradictory though, been a year.

http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

Re:American vs. European 'sanity'

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can ride a fucking motorcycle, why can't I drive a car without a fucking seatbelt?

That's why they make you wear a helmet, moron! Besides, somebody's got to clean up the mess your splattered brains make, why not be kind and keep them in a bucket to minimize the cleanup job?

Re:American vs. European 'sanity'

[dierdorf]

The reason why riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a good idea is that, when you die in a crash, only your head is destroyed and all your body organs are probably available for transplants. OTOH, if you die in an automobile crash while not wearing a seatbelt, then you have probably messed up your internal organs and have lost your chance to do SOMETHING for society. Therefore, seatbelts are mandatory while helmets are not.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"Buried"

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight from the article, "However none of the car lobby giants published a response to the findings, which have now been quietly posted on the University of Michigan’s website."

From the UM report

[Anonymous Coward]

"EU models predicted lower risk in front/side impacts, but higher risk in rollovers. For front/side crashes, the largest risk differences were seen in near side crashes, occupant ages from 31-70, and unbelted occupants. For rollovers, both belted and unbelted occupants were at lower estimated risk in US vehicles compared to EU vehicles, but the difference was largest for unbelted occupants. Similarly, both ejected and unejected occupants in US vehicles were at lower risk compared to those in EU vehicles, but the difference was largest for ejected occupants."

"Buried" at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/112977/103199.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

It's a moot point. TTIP will not happen

[marienf]

> It is alleged that releasing the study would hamper the drive to
> harmonize safety standards as part of the Transatlantic Trade
> and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal.

It is a moot point, since we will not allow TTIP to happen, and will not respect it if it does happen, and will sabotage it with everything we have, at every point, if it is forced down our throats:

http://www.newsletter-webversi...

Overlooking one fact

[Anonymous Coward]

TPP is bad. People are going on about cars (and it's not even a car analogy) and forgetting about the evil that is the TPP.

Re:Overlooking one fact

[marienf]

Then please help stop it:

http://www.newsletter-webversi...

Well, no laws were broken on crash safety, so...

[Brannon]

it seems like you are just generally confused.

Re:Planet Money covered the difference between US/

[PPH]

Collisions with pedestrians - EU takes this into consideration, US is minimal

I think this is backwards. The NPR podcast went through a bunch of EU testing for pedestrian safety issues. But in Europe, every nation requires a front license plate. In the USA, its up to each state. And some states, realizing that mounting a sharp, sheet metal blade to the front of a car is bad for pedestrians, they make them optional.

Re:Planet Money covered the difference between US/

[Cederic]

Instead of using a different material for the number plate?

Mine are plastic.

Obvious solution is obvious

[undefinedreference]

Make US regs match EU regs, along with an agreement to change regulations together in unison. The problem with the US has always been that our regulations were far behind, incompatible with others, and enshrined strange requirements (literally over a century of cruft). The list is immense: Headlights (sealed beam lights were required for decades after the industry moved on in every other country), the corner reflectors we still have that nobody else requires (you probably don't realize they are there, but they require design changes just for the US on many cars), the weird lighting rules (red signal indicators, for example), bumpers (they have learned to hide them with enormous fake grilles), and the list goes on... All these weird regulation differences make cars more expensive for everybody.

Re:Planet Money covered the difference between US/

[PPH]

Mine are plastic.

What state/contry are you in? I don't think I've ever seen a plastic plate in the USA.

One problem I can see with plastic (I even have this with metal plates) is that the front plate won't last very long under harsh conditions. A few good whacks driving off road and my metal plate is bent to shit. After a few months, it's gone.

Re:American vs. European 'sanity'

[thegreatbob]

Suppose you doze off/are distracted/something something and drift against a curved dividing wall at highway speed. This event can be somewhat violent, and you could be displaced from your seat. You then stand a chance to become an uncontrolled mass veering in the direction opposite of the wall. I guarantee (and can attest from my own experiences) that someone wearing their seatbelt in such a circumstance would have a vastly greater chance of regaining control of the vehicle before a second collision occurred. It only takes thinking one single extra step ahead to see why seatbelts are not unwise.

You are not the only one that stands to be harmed from not wearing one; the (unspoken, but seemingly implied) logic behind your notion being reasonable is fallacious or non-existent. Other such fun that can put you out of your seat, or cause unintentional control inputs to the accelerator pedal, brakes, steering, gear shifter,etc.:

Being rear-ended under any circumstance
Departing the roadway onto a rough shoulder or ditch
Speed humps
Dips, for traffic control or due to road degradation
Actions of an unruly or malicious passenger
Abrupt changes in road grade
Striking a cow, moose, elk, exceptionally large deer, horse, gorilla, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, refrigerator, jacuzzi, pallet of canned goods, motorcycle, small aircraft, etc.

Running over any of the following, in anything save for the heftiest of vehicles:
A wheel/tire assembly laying in the middle of the road
4x4, 4x6, etc. and larger lumber
Logs, other natural debris
Driving over a curb
The remains of a previously destroyed cow, moose, elk, exceptionally large deer, horse, gorilla, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, refrigerator, jacuzzi, pallet of canned goods, motorcycle, small aircraft, etc.
Pretty much anything thicker than a few inches, and not physically compliant

This "why can't i drive without a seatbelt" crap needs to vanish along with the turds that find it acceptable to plow through stop signs without so much as a tap on the brakes.
The same applies to motorcycles, to a lesser extent; in the scenarios I could come up with, all revolve around being suddenly blinded by debris or various other unfortunate interactions between your head and foreign objects. It's fortunate, I suppose, that the casualties your arrogant asshattery can cause (under any reasonable circumstance) are far lower than what a larger machine can do. Sounds like a bicycle might be a safer bet for these sorts. Better still, just walk. Every bit of stress experienced by people that get fined under these laws is well deserved.

Re:Planet Money covered the difference between US/

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem I can see with plastic (I even have this with metal plates) is that the front plate won't last very long under harsh conditions. A few good whacks driving off road and my metal plate is bent to shit. After a few months, it's gone.

You hit fewer pedestrians if you stay off of the sidewalk. :)

It has different body (I work in automotive)

[Kartu]

I work in IT, but here is what I got from the colleagues from engineering.
The reason the same models (e.g. VW Passat, Mazda 3, Ford Focus.... pretty much any car out there) have different bodies in EU/USA is that they are optimized for market specific crash tests.

As simple as that.

It's not like you'd score 0 stars in one market and 5 in the other, most likely it would be 5 to 4, but even 4 stars is a major problem for sales.

Universal body that would get excellent scores in all markets would be:
a) significantly more expensive
b) significantly heavier

Re:It has different body (I work in automotive)

[AK Marc]

There are often actually conflicting requirements. One market cares more about side impact protection, and another cares more about funcional doors after a specific crash. So if you stiffen the doors to meet the one market, you'll fail the other. You *can't* meet both under current design constraints. So you'd have to fundamentally re-design the doors to be able to support a collision, while still being quick-release after a crash. The treaties are supposed to get regulators from both sides in the same room to unify regulations so there can be agreement on whether side impact or door opening is better.

And I disagree with the wording of the article. It isn't a US car problem. It's a US market problem. When you say US car, people think Big 3. But VW (And others) are represented in the issue. VW builds the "inferior" car for the US. So it's a standards problem. The US probably tests at higher front (flat) tests, because of the higher drive speeds, and the EU tests for more front-side crashes. The tests are different, so the builds are differnt, to optimize for the tests. Unify, come to a single suite of tests for all markets, and all cars will meet them in the next design cycle. It's not hard. But this is politics to try to pressure one side into giving more in negotiations. The US market cars are worse in a non-US test, but there was no mention of how the EU cars perform on the US tests. I heard the real reason the Mercedes A-class isn't sold in the US isn't that it's small, but that it can't pass the tests. Send a few over and let the NHTSA and IIHS test them and compare them to the cars that passed.

Oh, no, that's not how it worked. There's a memo that recognized changes would be needed to meet both markets, and that's being spun as "US cars unsafe".

Re:Planet Money covered the difference between US/

[jeremyp]

Try mounting the plates vertically so they don't hit the pedestrian end on. Makes them easier to read from a distance too.

car safty

[Anonymous Coward]

Truck driver who seen a lot of the aftermath of real accidents. Lots of American cars make you feel safe when you are in them like pick up trucks but when you see one with no tro parts of the body left connected you think buy I dont want to drive one of those.

But then you know what 80,000 lbs can do to any car.

Re:American vs. European 'sanity'

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Righteous Cunt,

I am guessing that you'd (given the chance) advocate outlawing motorcycles, since the wondrous safety mechanism of the seatbelt doesn't exist? Or would you sincerely say that a rogue 1500cc Honda Valkyrie poses no comparable threat to those you have listed? On the same principle you've argued, motorcycles should be outlawed either until some means of fixing the operator to the vehicle is implemented (fail), or their displacement is capped beneath a certain cc (maybe). Given the choice between being struck by a rogue Smart Car vs 1800cc Goldwing ridden by a 300lb maniac, I'd simply opt for despair. Under the examples you've cited, many drivers could easily not be spared the loss of control by a seatbelt alone, e.g., the elderly, infirm. Maybe alter your unreasonable argument by recommending mandatory seatbelt usage only beyond specific speeds, e.g., under 35mph = not required, etc. Or, prohibit large motorcycles from exceeding a certain speed. As for your use of "assahattery", reserve some usage for your self, until you sort out your argument more thoroughly.

Affectionately,

Hippopotamus Jacuzzi Pallet

What bullcrap

[ebvwfbw]

I know that Mercedes cars have to have a bunch of steel welded in to meet American standards. Otherwise, they're not allowed on US streets. Too unsafe.
BTW, there is nothing better or magical about European cars. Mercedes is like Chevrolet or Ford over here. Check out the repair records. If I took the names off of taxi repair records, put them into a bag and mixed them up, you wouldn't be able to tell which one was the mercedes. I've owned some mercedes, very close to the same parts wearing out as the GM or Ford parts.

Chrystler, you're on your own. From what I've seen, their a POS.

Re:What bullcrap

[Anonymous Coward]

Welding in more steel does not make a car more safe. US standards are different, partly because they serve different objectives, but mostly for protectionist reasons.

Re:American vs. European 'sanity'

[wyHunter]

In some states, helmets are mandatory.