NHTSA delays stricter crash test standards
It seems that every new vehicle receives a "Five Star" rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) these days. In fact, a whopping 98% of all 2007 and 2008 models achieved four or five stars. NHTSA is planning a new ratings system that will make it more difficult to achieve top scores and the new standards were scheduled to take effect for the 2010 model year. But the agency has decided to delay the new testing standards until 2011, giving automakers another year to plan for the test while providing consumers additional time to understand the new rating system. The delay is welcome news for automakers, concerned that the new standards would cause more financial headaches as they attempt to weather the economic downturn. However, NHTSA critic Public Citizen is unhappy with the postponement, saying that it will make the situation tougher for consumers in the long run.
[Source: Azstarnet]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Colin 8:47AM (12/22/2008)
Ugh... why can't the US and Europe use the same standards? Perfect example of government red tape costing billions of dollars and, ultimately hurting the consumer.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 12:06PM (12/22/2008)
Good idea. Now tell the EU they have to subjugate to the US. Or vice-versa.
I'm sure that'll go well.
Stratojet 10:42AM (12/22/2008)
Bunch of idiots: soon we will have to wear a helmet to go for a walk in the park. This nonsense of going overboard cost consumers and companies quite a bundle. My father passes away at 86 and nothing that bad happen to him while he was driving in the 50-70 era.
This whole thing is ridiculous. Learn how to drive and get the incompetent or addicts off the street.
Reply
catgirlshyla 9:03AM (12/22/2008)
"However, NHTSA critic Public Citizen is unhappy with the postponement, saying that it will make the situation tougher for consumers in the long run."
Yeah, cause god help us if we can't benefit from fuel sipping econocars and diesel.
Reply
mmstowes 9:42AM (12/22/2008)
Cars today are far safer than they've been in the past (with exception to Chrysler). Perhaps Public Citizen should be whining...I mean, fighting for better drivers....
Frank 11:24AM (12/22/2008)
mmstowes:
"Cars today are far safer than they've been in the past (with exception to Chrysler)."
Just thought you might like to know that from 2007 to date the Center for Auto Safety reported 419 recalls by Chrysler LLC, 678 recalls by Ford Motor Co, and a whopping 1,410 recalls by General Motors Corp.
happy_penguin 2:47PM (12/22/2008)
a) Chrysler is hardly the lone exception and I'm quite sure they're not suffering safety issues across their entire line. "Safer" is a subjective term often referring to things such as head restraints but ignoring actual crash data in certain situations.
b) Recalls may or may not have anything to do with safety and recalls aren't necessarily bad things. 'Tis better to recall than sweep it under the rug the way Mitsubishi was caught doing.
GenoMalice 3:12PM (12/22/2008)
@Frank
...uhmm your recall figures are slightly skewed. You have to remember that when you say GM has a whopping total 1,140 recalls, that you actually mean if you add the recall figures of Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Hummer, Pontiac, Saab, & Saturn you would have a whopping total of 1,410 recalls versus Ford Motor Co.'s Lincoln, Mercury & Ford's total of 678 and Chrysler LLC's Dodge, Jeep & Chrysler 419 recalls.
If you take the total number of brands the recall figures GM's recall figures are slightly lower than Ford
GM: 1,410 over 8 brands = average of 176.25 recalls per brand
Ford: 678 over 3 brands= average of 226 recalls per brand
Chrysler: 419 over 3 brands= average of 104.75 recalls per brand
P.S. Ford's other brands are usually represented with their own individual data.. Example Jaguar would have X amount and Aston Martin would have X amount individualized from Ford's Total.. The same way sales data is done. That's why GM's other brands (Vauxhall, Holden) weren't included either.
Conundrum 9:06AM (12/22/2008)
I'm all for knowing how the car's structure holds up and protects occupants when striking a tree, a pole, a concrete wall, or another car. But please don't make the "nannie" items like stability control and ABS a requirement to recieve a five star rating. I don't want to know how many systems are going to take over in the car, I just want to know how bad I'm going to be maimed if me or the other guy fail to maintain control. For those who do not want to take the time and effort to actually drive thier car skillfully, they should choose to live near public transportation.
Reply
K Ryan Hasse 9:26AM (12/22/2008)
As a Libertarian, to tell you the truth, I sometimes struggle with the intellectual arguments associated with NHTSA standards (far less so with CAFE standards, which are B.S.). One wonders if Detroit would make safe cars (read: not the Corvair) w/o such standards.
Then I think about Toyota, Mercedes, and Volvo. These are car manufacturers that have a reputation for solid, reliable, and safe engineering. Given the competitive advantage in marketing and selling a safe car (or mommymobile minivan) verses a non-safe car, isn't it possible that the Big Three would have made their cars more safe without NHTSA tests?
What if Consumer Reports was the standard for reporting, or another 3rd party with an even more rigorous and detailed crash safety system had been developed because the public demanded it (if the public doesn't demand it, aka nobody wants it, nobody cares, why bother?)? This would be a for profit crash testing and reporting company whose reputation for honestly would demand that it be non-corruptable, non-biased, and non-political (can you say this about government?). Competition in the crash testing space would ensure honesty.
Don't get me wrong. Typically do-gooders who push for government regulation are wrought with good intent. Many times, they're good people with a big heart. All I'm putting out here is that government isn't always the answer, even when the safety of cars (we're in no way forced to buy) is at stake.
Of course, given the levity and scope of today's bailout frenzy, a guy like me can feel like the last Adam Smith, Laisse Faire, free-marketer left. Oh wait. Since my dollars were forceably removed from me (via income taxes) to pay GM and Chrysler, I guess I am forced to buy.
...And the path to Hell is paved with stones of Good Intent...
Read: Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Locke.
Reply
Ross 10:29AM (12/22/2008)
"What if ... another 3rd party with an even more rigorous and detailed crash safety system had been developed because the public demanded it?"
See IIHS.
Todd 12:43PM (12/22/2008)
K Ryan: You're aren't completely alone. I'm in favor of abolishing the government mandates too.
happy_penguin 3:03PM (12/22/2008)
Consumer Reports loves to pretend that they are unbiased. Everyone has an agenda. Obviously the IIHS is the perfect solution. The IIHS also has an agenda because lack of safety costs them money. That's the kind of agenda I can stand behind.
Think again 9:38AM (12/22/2008)
I obviously all for safe cars but isnt the main reason cars are so HEAVY these days is due to weight added by safety related structure and equipment? Cars are getting more and more obese which forces them to have bigger engines and less efficiency.
AND NOW THEY WANT TO INCREASE THE STANDARDS??!!
Reply
AZMike 10:06AM (12/22/2008)
amen to that. it wasn't that many years ago that a subcompact was "porky" if it weighed 2,200 pounds. now, that same "porky" is 1,000 pounds more than that...and we get really excited if our newly purchased teeny little car gets 32 MPG. news flash folks: that same make and model of the teeny little car you just bought got another 10-15 MPG MORE ten or fifteen years ago. in the meantime, it has grown another foot (or more) in length, seven inches in width, and really packed on the pounds.
of course, I'm really glad to know that if I'm ever being towed by a cable at exactly 41MPH inside a building, on a glass-smooth floor (no ice, snow, or potholes) and crash into a fixed barrier, I'll be just fine. of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with reality in the real world.
I've never seen fixed barriers that miraculously hit the car in exactly the same spot in the real world. I HAVE seen lifted 4WD trucks with winches sticking out of the front bumpers, crash head-on into subcompact cars, or even worse, t-bone them. where is the test for this?
these tests that are held as "the gospel truth" are absolutely worthless in the real world.
AZMike
cdwrx 11:46AM (12/22/2008)
There is nothing here that even suggests new or more stringent *regulations*, only that the *ratings system* is adjusted to make it more difficult to get a high rating. If the manufacturers want to make the case to sell a one-star crash rated car with great economy (and probably higher insurance rates,) they are free to do so. Seems to me your issue is with the consumers' demand (or perceived demand by manufacturers) for safer vehicles.
The NHTSA is doing the right thing by increasing its ratings system. It is not providing information to consumers if there is little or no differentiation between the safety of different vehicles.
Judy Zik 9:58AM (12/22/2008)
@K Ryan Hasse
Funny how Toyota always has this undeserved halo. The domestics often do better than Toyota in crash testing. In fact Ford has more "best picks" than anyone. Toyota has been catching flack for years for poor head restraints that still haven't been fixed. Honda is more committed to safety than Toyota. They have been offering their "Safety for Everyone" on their vehicles for years now. Basically making all the safety features standard even on basic models.
The problem with higher testing standards is to compensate automakers will have to build even heavier vehicles that consume more fuel. This is why we are getting about the same fuel economy as we did in the 80's. The added weight will also make them manoeuvrable. So we need to make a choice. Do we want vehicles to get 35mpg or built like foam padded tanks.
Reply
K. Ryan Hasse 10:46AM (12/22/2008)
Judy,
You make good points, all. But I was referring to a manufacturer's reputation, not only for safety itself, but for "solid, reliable, and safe engineering". A reputation has to be earned; it cannot be bought. Toyota has earned this reputation.
You're right about Ford too. I've been impressed with Ford of late (post-Pinto). In fact, I own one, a 525hp 2005 Mustang GT convertible w/ Kenne Bell S/C, which I love. In fact, I'm not going to boycott Ford, because (so far) it seems they've not bought into the socialist bailout bate. Time will tell, though, as it's got to be incredibly hard to resist unearned billions...
kballs 12:43PM (12/22/2008)
Honda has not made all its safety equipment standard on base models. For example, the current Fit has stability control ONLY if you buy the expensive navigation system. The same went for side airbags, etc. in the past.
More safety != more weight. Sometimes it adds a little, but everyone exaggerates. Stronger frame = high-tensile steel = lighter weight than regular steel but stronger. ABS sensors and airbags don't weigh much. Not even luxury items like sound deadening weigh very much. The number 1 cause of weight gain of a given model has been a vast increase in size. You can't say "a Honda Civic from 20 years ago was lighter and got better gas mileage because it lacked safety features". It was vastly tinier than the current model, so most of the weight gain is just more car, you can't single out some safety devices or stronger frame design... what we now call "sub-compacts" would be called mid-size cars 20 years ago. Current Civic is bigger than 5-10 year old Accord. Current Corolla is bigger than 5-10 year old Camry. Every car gets bigger every redesign. Super size me!
Rob 10:04AM (12/22/2008)
Great. Why do they keep increasing standards? Traffic deaths are at an ALL TIME LOW, which means cars are SAFE ENOUGH. Quit making them safer, it only makes them more expensive, and more importantly, HEAVIER. This is why I dislike new cars: They're all FAT. I'll stick to driving my 2500lb 1989 Hondas. They're actually fun to drive, safety be damned.
Reply