Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
They're After Your Freedom
You've undoubtedly read the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's report and seen the videos it released when the organization pitted sub-compacts against mid-size sedans (if not, one is posted below the fold). They really went after the safety of small cars, trying to scare consumers away from buying them.
The IIHS filmed head-on collisions between a Honda Fit and Accord, between a Toyota Camry and a Yaris, and between a Mercedes C-class and a Smart. Each vehicle was traveling at 40 mph, which is the equivalent of smashing into a parked car at 80 mph, and the results were predictable. The videos made the national news, especially the one of the Smart Fortwo bouncing and spinning backwards.
The IIHS has an ulterior motive in conducting these crashes. It's all part of its campaign to limit how much horsepower cars can have, and to lower the national highway speed limit to 55 mph.
____________________________________________________________________________________
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
First off, you have to realize that the IIHS is a lobbying group for the insurance industry. There's nothing wrong with that, but you should be aware of the source of this information, and what its motivations might be.
The conclusion the IIHS wants us to draw from these crashes is that traffic fatalities in the United States will go up as more Americans are forced to buy smaller cars due to fuel economy regulations. It equates small cars with poor safety. Remember, only two months ago, this was the same agency that reported full-size crew-cab pickup trucks are not safe enough.
The Insurance Institute claims that fatalities would go up even if everybody starts driving small cars. This, of course, ignores the fact that Western Europe has a better traffic safety record than the United States even though Europeans pretty much only drive small cars.
The Institute argues that the only way to protect the public is to limit how much horsepower cars can have and force them all to drive slower.
The IIHS says that lowering the speed limit to 55 miles an hour back in 1974 lead to lower fatalities. But it fails to point out that '74 was the year of the first oil embargo, when people had to stand in line to buy gasoline if they could get any at all, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) dropped dramatically. Safety experts have known for decades that VMT, which is the total number of miles driven in the United States in any one year, has the biggest impact on traffic fatalities. That's why safety experts measure fatalities on a 100 million miles driven basis. It gives a clearer picture of what's happening with traffic fatalities. And on this basis the United States is currently at the lowest traffic fatality level in history.
It's easy to scoff at the IIHS or to make fun of its recommendations. But this is no laughing matter. The Insurance Institute has enormous political clout. And even though its ideas are not gaining traction right now, it's not going to give up. It's going to keep beating this drum until other safety advocates start to join the cause, and they start to attract attention in Congress.
Make no mistake about it. This is a threat to all enthusiasts and the freedoms we enjoy with our mobility.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
You've undoubtedly read the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's report and seen the videos it released when the organization pitted sub-compacts against mid-size sedans (if not, one is posted below the fold). They really went after the safety of small cars, trying to scare consumers away from buying them.The IIHS filmed head-on collisions between a Honda Fit and Accord, between a Toyota Camry and a Yaris, and between a Mercedes C-class and a Smart. Each vehicle was traveling at 40 mph, which is the equivalent of smashing into a parked car at 80 mph, and the results were predictable. The videos made the national news, especially the one of the Smart Fortwo bouncing and spinning backwards.
The IIHS has an ulterior motive in conducting these crashes. It's all part of its campaign to limit how much horsepower cars can have, and to lower the national highway speed limit to 55 mph.
____________________________________________________________________________________
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
First off, you have to realize that the IIHS is a lobbying group for the insurance industry. There's nothing wrong with that, but you should be aware of the source of this information, and what its motivations might be.
The conclusion the IIHS wants us to draw from these crashes is that traffic fatalities in the United States will go up as more Americans are forced to buy smaller cars due to fuel economy regulations. It equates small cars with poor safety. Remember, only two months ago, this was the same agency that reported full-size crew-cab pickup trucks are not safe enough.
The Insurance Institute claims that fatalities would go up even if everybody starts driving small cars.
The Insurance Institute claims that fatalities would go up even if everybody starts driving small cars. This, of course, ignores the fact that Western Europe has a better traffic safety record than the United States even though Europeans pretty much only drive small cars.
The Institute argues that the only way to protect the public is to limit how much horsepower cars can have and force them all to drive slower.
The IIHS says that lowering the speed limit to 55 miles an hour back in 1974 lead to lower fatalities. But it fails to point out that '74 was the year of the first oil embargo, when people had to stand in line to buy gasoline if they could get any at all, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) dropped dramatically. Safety experts have known for decades that VMT, which is the total number of miles driven in the United States in any one year, has the biggest impact on traffic fatalities. That's why safety experts measure fatalities on a 100 million miles driven basis. It gives a clearer picture of what's happening with traffic fatalities. And on this basis the United States is currently at the lowest traffic fatality level in history.
The IIHS fails to point out that when the 55 mph speed limit was repealed, traffic fatalities went down.
What the IIHS also fails to point out is that when the 55 mph speed limit was repealed in 1995 and most states put it back at 70 mph, traffic fatalities also went down. A key reason is that when driving 55 mph you spend more time on the road, which leads to greater driver fatigue and distraction, which leads to accidents.It's easy to scoff at the IIHS or to make fun of its recommendations. But this is no laughing matter. The Insurance Institute has enormous political clout. And even though its ideas are not gaining traction right now, it's not going to give up. It's going to keep beating this drum until other safety advocates start to join the cause, and they start to attract attention in Congress.
Make no mistake about it. This is a threat to all enthusiasts and the freedoms we enjoy with our mobility.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Aprime 5:05PM (4/16/2009)
"First off, you have to realize that the IIHS is a lobbying group for the insurance industry. There's nothing wrong with that"
I stopped reading there. Everything's wrong with lobbying.
Reply
Jim 5:18PM (4/16/2009)
Lobbying is fine. It's the amount of influence that industry lobbyists have that is wrong.
Aprime 5:24PM (4/16/2009)
Your comment is self-defeating.
Aprime 5:29PM (4/16/2009)
(because you don't seem to grasp the concept of lobbying - and that lobbying, regardless of the levels of influence is wrong - it's made to favor groups of people or corporations while we should virtually all be equals to the eyes of the State, all on our own.
Rob 5:58PM (4/16/2009)
It's funny how these tests completely ignore the benefits of small cars; being more agile, nimble, and better handling than bloated larger siblings, they are more likely to AVOID an accident in the first place. Throw in less weight = less energy required to stop, and the braking performance is usually better too.
I'll drive my 89 Prelude without fear of dying, because I have a superior driving machine compared to a 2008 Camry.
Jim 7:28PM (4/16/2009)
"because you don't seem to grasp the concept of lobbying "
wow, you went right to insulting my intelligence. good show, old bunt.
Aprime 7:52PM (4/16/2009)
Well, you're saying that lobbying is alright provided it isn't done by people with too much influence.
That's pretty stupid reasoning to me, nobody should be getting any favors from Washington.
Fritz 8:08PM (4/16/2009)
It isn't necessarily a lobby that's the problem. If I go to DC and talk to my Congressman, tell him to quit being a tool, he's just been lobbied. It's when I take a few million dollars, a Ferrari, maybe a mansion in Martha's Vineyard and then tell him to stop being a tool that it becomes a bribe.
But even still, that's why a constitutional set of principles based on free markets needs to be enforced, and anyone neglecting their duties to uphold those principles be voted out. But Jane and John Q. Jackass keep voting the crooks back in...
Matt 5:15PM (4/16/2009)
Lol at the Benz badge flying off at 30 seconds.
But seriously lobbying blows.
Reply
Jim 5:17PM (4/16/2009)
I'm surprised the Smart held up as well as it did, given that *both* cars were moving at 40 mph.
"First off, you have to realize that the IIHS is a lobbying group for the insurance industry. There's nothing wrong with that"
I'd go a little further than that and say that the IIHS is just looking for ways to justify its own existence. Several years ago, it was their 40 mph offset-frontal crash test that was the big danger. Now that most/all modern cars are designed to protect the occupants in such a crash, they need to find another bogeyman to scare people.
Reply
wilbonnet 5:19PM (4/16/2009)
I love how these crashes are conducted as 40mph head on collisions and could prove fatal for the occupants. Yet they want to reduce the speed limit to 55.... why stop there? why not 35? That way no one would get hurt right? It's genius.
Reply
Rob 5:56PM (4/16/2009)
You mean 80mph. 40mph+40mph= 80mph.
jbuers 6:22PM (4/16/2009)
Rob, if you lower the speed limit to 35mph then the total drops all the way down to 70mph, 10mph less than their test and thereby "safer for everyone"!! Genius!!
What's next? Our entire lives recorded on CCTV? God damn you Orwell! Putting ideas into heads like that!
Jay MIller 5:21PM (4/16/2009)
Yes, friends pointed out the study as the Fit (a car I admire) did poorly also. Personally I don't expect to survive a head-on collision @ 40. And besides, driving a nice small car makes it that much harder for the drunk fool crossing into my lane to hit me.
Reply
Mr. Smith 5:35PM (4/16/2009)
Make that 80mph. Both cars were moving at 40mph. What I'd like to see now is Accord vs Accord at 80mph. I bet both cars would not do well.
Rob 5:42PM (4/16/2009)
You mean 80mph. At 40mph you'll probably be fine. This was two cars going at each other, each going 40mph. That means the same as 80mph.
Rich 7:27PM (4/16/2009)
Hey it happens. Just take one leading left turn, add in a few distractions, and you have two vehicles going close to 40 mph heading toward each other.
Changing speed limits won't help that situation: having fewer lanes and better road planning will. Don't push people through the same piece of road in opposite directions. How do you do that? Roundabouts. You might want to call them "traffic circles". And lose the bloody "stop" sign.
benzaholic 5:20PM (4/16/2009)
Yup. Their articles definitely made me wonder what they were trying to push. The stated position was just too in-your-face.
Your assumptions of their real goals make sense, and thanks for bringing in the stats, especially those around the end of the 55MPH limits.
It still feels like they're stumping for somebody or something else. Are small cars cheaper to insure because their average value is lower than larger cars? Are the insurance companies trying to scare people away from cars for which the insurance companies make smaller profits?
As to their methodology, I realize that they couldn't crash all combinations, and pitting each parent company's smallest car against their most popular model is a reasonable approach, but the results suggest that the Camry may have been the weakest of the larger cars. I wonder how the Fit and the fortwo would fare against a Camry.
Reply
BigMcLargeHuge 5:39PM (4/16/2009)
I think its more a matter of Insurance Companies make more money when people get traffic tickets.
Because most accidents do NOT happen at high speed. Nor are they a cause of 'high horsepower'. NHTSA stats verify this.
Most accidents happen at intersections or in traffic. A car moving freely at 70mph is far less of a danger than 3 cars moving in tandem at 55mph.
I they were really in it for safety, they'd focus on driver attentiveness, like phoning or texting.
But this is about money, not safety.
Tang 5:22PM (4/16/2009)
The fact that the Smart car bounced around after impact is technically a good sign, showing that all the force of the accident is not thrown into the collision... hence, it rebounds.
There's a more scientific approach to the explanation, but I don't have it.
Reply