What killed the fuel efficient auto in America? The Nanny State, government regulations regarding vehicle safety.
Government decided at some point that too many people were dying or being injured in automobile crashes. Instead of looking at the abysmal state of driver education, they decided the problem was the vehicles.
They brought in legislation to force the Motor Industry to include passive restraint systems, as many as six airbags, and revised crumple zones. All these items add something else besides safety, and that is weight. Weight of course, not only affects fuel economy, it affects performance.
The American consumer always demanding performance forced the auto manufactures to increase the size of the engine, meaning still more weight and even less fuel economy.
Now we have arrived at the point where the majority of motorists drive what I view as obscenely large vehicles that give the driver a false sense of security, which in turn leads to even worse driving habits. Bigger vehicles increase congestion on our freeways and city streets, and congestion doesn’t help the safety issue either.
Whether cars have become safer for the occupants is debatable, they have certainly become increasingly dangerous for other more vulnerable road users, like the people who choose to ride motorcycles, drive smaller more fuel efficient cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Couple this with deteriorating driving standards, like the increase in cell phone use, and we may see the situation get worse before it gets better. Around 42,000 people die on US roads each year; people should be outraged at this kind of carnage.
Has the government failed miserably with its “Nanny” safety regulations? The answer is not a simple one, the government can place as many regulations as it wishes on the auto industry, but the problem is clearly not with the vehicles we drive, it is with the people driving them. Placing restrictions on people is not so easy.
The American culture is one of freedom for the individual and government has a harder time passing legislation that would restrict the individual’s driving habits. For example many countries mandate that a new driver have 100 hours driving experience before being granted a driving license. In the US it is something like 6 hours.
Washington wants no part of traffic laws and regulations; this is left to the individual states. Half the states do not allow police to stop drivers solely for not using a seat belt. And I have just learned that New Hampshire still does not have a seat belt law. I find it interesting that their state slogan is, “Live free or die.”
The problem with a “Live Free or Die” attitude is this. It is not those given the freedom to drive in any manner they wish, that are necessarily the ones who are dying. The loss of one’s life as I see it is the ultimate loss of freedom.
More on fuel efficient cars, and The New York Times on the safety issue
Government decided at some point that too many people were dying or being injured in automobile crashes. Instead of looking at the abysmal state of driver education, they decided the problem was the vehicles.
They brought in legislation to force the Motor Industry to include passive restraint systems, as many as six airbags, and revised crumple zones. All these items add something else besides safety, and that is weight. Weight of course, not only affects fuel economy, it affects performance.
The American consumer always demanding performance forced the auto manufactures to increase the size of the engine, meaning still more weight and even less fuel economy.
Now we have arrived at the point where the majority of motorists drive what I view as obscenely large vehicles that give the driver a false sense of security, which in turn leads to even worse driving habits. Bigger vehicles increase congestion on our freeways and city streets, and congestion doesn’t help the safety issue either.
Whether cars have become safer for the occupants is debatable, they have certainly become increasingly dangerous for other more vulnerable road users, like the people who choose to ride motorcycles, drive smaller more fuel efficient cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Couple this with deteriorating driving standards, like the increase in cell phone use, and we may see the situation get worse before it gets better. Around 42,000 people die on US roads each year; people should be outraged at this kind of carnage.
Has the government failed miserably with its “Nanny” safety regulations? The answer is not a simple one, the government can place as many regulations as it wishes on the auto industry, but the problem is clearly not with the vehicles we drive, it is with the people driving them. Placing restrictions on people is not so easy.
The American culture is one of freedom for the individual and government has a harder time passing legislation that would restrict the individual’s driving habits. For example many countries mandate that a new driver have 100 hours driving experience before being granted a driving license. In the US it is something like 6 hours.
Washington wants no part of traffic laws and regulations; this is left to the individual states. Half the states do not allow police to stop drivers solely for not using a seat belt. And I have just learned that New Hampshire still does not have a seat belt law. I find it interesting that their state slogan is, “Live free or die.”
The problem with a “Live Free or Die” attitude is this. It is not those given the freedom to drive in any manner they wish, that are necessarily the ones who are dying. The loss of one’s life as I see it is the ultimate loss of freedom.
More on fuel efficient cars, and The New York Times on the safety issue