| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:41445 Activity:low |
1/19 Current US fleet average MPG is 21
<DEAD>www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s05001.htm<DEAD>
John Claybrook issued a NHTSA directive
requiring a CAFE fleet average of 48 MPG in 1981:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-11.htm
(Yes, the source is Ralph Nader but it is still accurate)
US oil consumption is 21M BBL/day:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec11_7.pdf
Imports at 9.5 M BBL/day:
http://csua.org/u/ep1 (DOE)
Gasoline consumption at 400 M gal/day:
http://csua.org/u/ep0 (Conoco Phillips)
400 M gal/day = 9.5 M BBL/day
21/48 * 9.5 M BBL/day = 4.1 M BBL/day
(9.5-4.1)/21 = 26% of US overall oil consumption or
5.4/9.9 = 55% of US overall oil imports
Here is a single URL that pulls all this together, but without
references:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
They claim that 40% of US oil is used by cars and trucks, so they
get a 20% reduction instead of my 26%, but the number is similar
either way. I don't know how you can seriously dispute all this.
You can quibble about the exact numbers, but not the overall result.
\_ "requiring a CAFE fleet average of 48 MPG in 1981". You mean
when Reagan was president? Ronnie's da man! Now what does this
have to do with Carter setting Cafe standard? Sounds like you
should be a Reaganite.
\_ Do you look as stupid as you are?
\_ Be careful doing simplistic math like this. You're talking about
human behavior which is dynamic and not easily predicted. If gas
prices were to skyrocket to $15/gallon over night, you'd see the
total miles driven drop to the baseline driving people *must* do
to survive (work, buy food, etc). If gas dropped to 5 cents/gal,
people would be driving more than they do now. Same thing with
mpg. If I got 500 mpg, I'd be doing a lot more driving for fun
than if I got 5mpg. Increasing average mpg isn't necessarily going
to reduce overall gas consumption by that amount. It won't and it
can't. People aren't like that. Also, taking a single giant
number like "current fleet average" is going to change as people's
tastes change. Since light trucks, SUVs, etc, get lower mpg, that
has had an impact on SUV sales causing more people to buy lighter
vehicles and push up the average over time as those vehicles are
phased out. Also, there is another cost to lighter vehicles no
one has mentioned yet, which is the estimated 1300-2600 additional
fatalities per year (I couldn't find injury stats, only death) due
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 _/
uhh, no. Look at those numbers. The safest cars FOR THE DRIVERS have
little to no relation to the size of the car.
to CAFE standards forcing more light vehicles on the road. Nothing
good comes free in life. More traffic deaths is one of the trade
offs for having CAFE. Note that I'm not disputing any of the
original raw data you're providing but the interpretation of that
data which says we'll save x% of gas if we increase mpg average
by y% is not realistic.
\_ Okay, I will not argue with any of this. Perhaps increased
fuel economy would encourage people to drive more, etc. The
main point is that there was and *is* still a relatively
effective tool we could use to massively decrease our dependence
on foreign oil, we just refuse to use it.
\_ Could you provide a reference which shows that people whose
cars get better mileage drive more? Because observationally
that's definitely not true. And it's certainly not true that
vehicles which get better gas mileage have more fatalities;
SUVs cause more fatalities than smaller cars. -tom
\_ The death #s are in one of the pdf links I posted earlier
from a government CAFE study published in 2001. Do you have
a link showing SUVs cause more fatalities? I believe the
same study also have a lengthy bit about driving habits, but
common sense should convince one that higher $/mile will
reduce driving by some amount X, and lower $/mile will
increase driving by some other amount Y. If gas was free do
you honestly believe people wouldn't drive more? If gas
cost $25/gallon do you honestly believe they wouldn't drive
less? It's late, I'm going home. The 2001 CAFE study link
is on the motd somewhere.
\_ If gas was significantly more expensive I would drive
a lot less, however if it was significantly less
expensive I wouldn't drive any more than I do now.
I don't take public transportation for money, I take
it for quality of life.
\_ So your driving habits are directly changed by the
price of gas, which is exactly what I was saying.
Pricing is relative, there is only a sliding scale.
\_
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
Besides the object lesson, the stats there show that SUVs
kill more non-occupants than smaller cars, and that the
likelihood of occupant fatality is related to the quality,
not the size of the vehicle.
I think you can go to the 580/680 interchange and count SUVs
headed to San Francisco in the morning if you want proof that
people's gas mileage isn't a major factor in their decision
to drive. -tom
\_ The CAFE thing was originally a minor side point about
Carter. I'm satisfied that we hashed that one out
pretty much. I don't see a point in discussing fatality
and usage statistics or anything else with anyone who
uses "go to the 580/680 interchange and count SUVs" as a
way to determine nationwide behaviour re: gas usage, SUV
sales numbers and pricing, yet who starts off asking for
links in the same post they say something like, "because
observationally that's definitely not true". The CAFE
thing was heated but mostly civil (especially for the motd).
I don't see this headed that way. You "win" if you want
to think of it that way.
\_ translation: "I have no evidence for my position."
OK, thanks for letting us know. -tom
\_ The link is there. You choose not to read it.
Talking with others has been interesting and
educational. That's so rarely the case with you
that there's no point. "YOU WIN! YAY! CONGRATS!"
\_ If cars actually produced energy, there were no traffic
ever so I could drive at 100 miles an hour all the time,
and they gave orgasms to all the women one passed, I'd
still ride my bike. I will never drive. I believe slightly
more people of our generation feel this way than our
parents' generation, and that this trend will continue.
\_ You're a very silly person.
\_ You can call my silly all day long--just don't make
\_ You can call me silly all day long--just don't make
me drive to work.
\_ LOL, okay, fair enough. :P |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-11.htm org Spinning Wheels - Our Continual Refusal to Raise CAFE Standards by Ralph Nader TS Elliot once wrote, "April is the cruelest month. " He wasn't referring to the unfilled promise of The New York Auto Show - which is featuring "advances" in automotive engineering this week at the Javits Convention Center in New York City. But anyone who has visited this event knows - the distance between the potential of fuel efficiency and the reality of fuel efficiency is as vast as it is cruel. The "Energy Policy Conservation Act," (EPCA) was enacted into law in 1975 and established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The goal of the EPCA was to double fuel economy by model year 1985. The CAFE standards started at a shamefully low level in 1978 when auto companies selling cars in the United States were first required to meet a meager 18 mile per gallon (mpg) auto fleet standard. In 1981 Joan Claybrook, now the President of Public Citizen, was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As the administration of President Jimmy Carter was winding down, Claybrook advanced a NHTSA notice that called for fuel efficiency standards to reach 48 mpg by 1995. Interestingly the notice pointed out that the auto industry itself said it could reach in excess of 30 mpg fuel economy by 1985 with GM saying it could do 33 mpg. The Reagan Administration didn't waste any time and withdrew the NHTSA notice just three months after it was issued. There was no improvement in the CAFE standards underthe Clinton Administration. The Bush/Cheney Energy plan of 2001 put off raising CAFE standards. In 2002, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), and John McCain (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the "National Fuel Savings and Security Act of 2002". The amendment called for fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, beginning with model year 2005, to reach a combined average fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon by 2015. The pork barrel energy bill of 2003, didn't improve the fuel efficiency standards and was too offensive to consumer and environmental and taxpayer groups to even make it out of Congress. NHTSA has advocated raising fuel economy standards for sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, and pickup trucks a whopping 15 mpg by 2007. But, the average fleet efficiency levels in new vehicles have slipped to the lowest level since 1980. Is the price of gasoline so low consumers don't mind driving gas guzzlers? At this price even the least frugal consumers have a real incentive to want fuel efficient automobiles. Does our country lack the engineering talent to produce fuel efficient vehicles? There are, after all, only 185 engineering schools with doctoral programs and only about 330 colleges and universities that offer bachelor's degree programs in engineering in the United States. Could it be that auto fuel efficiency is too small an item in our nation's energy mix? Not according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy - they note transportation accounts for 28 percent of US energy consumption and "over three-quarters of transportation energy use is by highway vehicles--60 percent by cars and light trucks (including minivans and sport utility vehicles)." Fuel efficiency standards are stuck in the mud because the auto industry is obstinate and because our elected officials are docile. For years, the US auto industry, and the government, have produced "promising prototype" cars which have gone nowhere. Toyota and Honda are starting to make inroads with their gas/electric Hybrid cars. It is time to update the CAFE standards, improve air pollution requirements and spark competition in the marketplace to stimulate the production of cars with greatly reduced environmental impacts. Congress should require the CAFE standard be raised to at least 45 mpg for cars and 35 mpg for light trucks, to be phased in over five years. The auto industry has had almost 20 years to gear up for this schedule, given their bragging about their Research & Development programs. Consumers will save money at the pump, the air we breathe will be cleaner, and the amount of oil we import will decrease. E-Mail This Article FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. |
| csua.org/u/ep1 -> www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Company Level Imports > Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries November 2005 Import Highlights: Released on January 13, 2006 Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in November 2005 has been released and it shows that two countries have exported more than 15 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of four countries exported over 10 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). Total crude oil imports averaged 9924 million barrels per day in November, which is an increase of 0544 million barrels per day from October. The top five exporting countries accounted for 68 percent of United States crude oil imports in November and the top ten sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of all US crude oil imports. |
| csua.org/u/ep0 -> www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/gasoline.htm Gasoline Prices Follow Crude Oil Prices Gasoline prices reached peak levels in September of last year in the aftermath of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. Despite its higher price, gasoline costs less today than many years ago after adjusting for inflation. For example, in March 1981, gasoline reached the equivalent of nearly $3 a gallon in today's dollars. Prices on the West Coast are typically higher than the national average because of taxes and higher refining costs associated with regional environmental requirements. Many factors propel the ups and downs in gasoline prices, with the cost of crude oil being the major influence. For the last two years, the cost of crude oil - the principal raw material for US refineries - rose steadily, peaking in September, 2005. The average price of crude oil in 2005 was nearly 40 percent more than in 2004. Crude oil is an internationally traded commodity, and events and developments in both oil-producing countries and oil-consuming nations can have effects throughout the world. Some of the major factors influencing prices today include: Strong Demand. Consumption of gasoline and other oil products is growing around the world, especially in rapidly developing countries such as China and India. For example, global petroleum demand grew by 32 percent in 2004 - or by more than a 100 million gallons a day - and continued to climb in 2005. US gasoline demand in August of last year averaged nearly 400 million gallons a day - a record high. In the past, a supply disruption in one area of the world has been softened by the ability of major oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia to increase output to make up the difference. Typically, these producers could produce as much as an additional 2 million barrels of oil a day to meet supply shortfalls. Now, much of that reserve capacity has been soaked up by increased demand, with the supply cushion now estimated to be around a million barrels a day in a world that every day is using nearly 84 million barrels (or 35 billion gallons) of oil products. The August and September hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico caused unprecedented damage to offshore oil production facilities, coastal refineries and pipelines and other important energy-related infrastructure. Full restoration of production as well as repairs to refineries and other facilities are continuing. As for early January, more than a quarter of the oil production from federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico remained shut-in. About 100 oil and gas platforms in federal waters of the Gulf are still out of service. The US Mineral Management Service estimates that cumulative production losses from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita so far amount to more than 110 million barrels of crude oil from federal leases in the Gulf, which represents more than 20 percent of annual production. In addition, a significant amount of oil production from state waters in Louisiana remains shut-in because of hurricane damage. Geopolitical Uncertainties: Periods of civil unrest in Nigeria have raised concerns that oil production from the world's sixth largest oil exporter may be curtailed. In the Middle East, ongoing sabotage of pipelines and related facilities in Iraq have made it difficult to sustain the country's oil exports at pre-war levels. US refiners must provide 18 new gasoline formulations to replace the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), which has been banned in several states including California and New York, where there is heavy gasoline consumption. These formulations are in addition to numerous other so-called "boutique" gasoline blends that are required in various parts of the country in order to meet air emission requirements. The proliferation of these specially formulated motor fuels makes it difficult for the refining industry to move supplies from one area to another in order to meet surges in demand or other unusual circumstances. The result can be a temporary tightening of supplies, sometimes accompanied by higher prices. Short Term Energy Outlook, the latest report by the US Energy Information Administration that outlines the federal government's price and supply predictions for gasoline, natural gas, heating oil and other fuels. top How has the situation in Iraq affected gasoline prices? Iraq Map The unrest in Iraq continues to inhibit its ability to export oil and contributes to the restriction in world oil supplies, resulting in upward pressure on prices. At the start of the war in March 2003, Iraq exported about 2 million barrels a day of oil, most of it under the United Nations' Oil for Food program. Some of those exports came to the United States, making up about 2 percent of total US petroleum supply. Vandalism and sabotage to Iraqi petroleum facilities have slowed the resumption of Iraqi oil exports. Under current conditions, the country has an estimated export capacity of up to 25 million barrels of oil a day, but production has been erratic because of frequent insurgent attacks on pipelines and other critical infrastructure. In December 2005, oil production was estimated at 19 million barrels a day. Currently thousands of troops, mostly Iraqi nationals, are guarding the country's pipelines and other critical oil infrastructure. It's estimated that Iraq could export as much as 6 million barrels of oil per day, but first hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs and renovations will be required. Gasoline Costs Less Than Spring Water Gasoline may seem expensive, but compared with most other processed liquids, this versatile fuel remains a bargain. A recent study by the research firm John S Herold puts gasoline prices in perspective. Stated another way, the current price of gasoline, after adjusting for inflation, is close to what it was more than 50 years ago. Federal, state and local taxes make up a big chunk of the price at the pump, averaging about a third of the cost of every gallon of gasoline you purchase. Federal taxes add about 18 cents to every gallon, while state taxes of various kinds add an average of more than 27 cents a gallon. Gasoline also appears to be a bargain when you consider what it takes to create it. The crude oil used to make gasoline could have been produced from beneath Norway's North Sea, transported thousands of miles by ocean tanker, subjected to complex manufacturing processes in a Gulf Coast refinery, moved across several states by underground pipeline and trucked more miles to a service station or convenience store before finally entering your vehicle's tank as liquid energy. World and national events, including disasters such as the recent Gulf Coast hurricanes, can drive significant changes in gasoline prices, as the chart indicates. For example, gasoline prices rose in 1990-91 when Middle East oil supplies were disrupted during the Gulf War. Oil prices rose again when OPEC, which controls 40 percent of world oil supplies, began a series of production cutbacks in 1999. Conversely, gasoline prices dropped dramatically when the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 greatly reduced economic activity in that region of the world, causing a surplus of oil. The Gulf Coast hurricanes of August and September, closed down both offshore oil production facilities as well as dozens of major coastal refineries, resulting in disruptions to petroleum product supplies throughout the United States. Major Events Drive Crude Oil Prices Changes in gasoline specifications because of environmental regulations and seasonal changes also can affect the price at the pump. Federally required reformulated gasoline (RFG), introduced in smog-prone areas of the nation beginning in 1995, added significant refining costs. Refiners attempted to recover their added costs through higher wholesale prices. A second phase of the federal RFG program that went into effect in June 2000 added further to refining costs and put upward pressure on gasoline prices. Overall, gasoline -- like all commodities -- undergoes price fluctuations caused by the interaction of supply and demand. For example, a poor coffee bean harvest in South America may drive up prices for several months until additional supplies come on the ma... |
| www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp TAKE ACTION Break the Chain: Help end our dependence on oil. With Americans paying high prices at the gas pump, it is worth reflecting on the root cause of the problem and considering the consequences of our nation's dangerous addiction to foreign oil. America Must Lead the Way America's oil habit not only pinches our pockets and fuels OPEC's rising profits, but it also threatens our economy, national security and environment. According to the Department of Energy, the United States currently uses nearly 20 million barrels of oil a day, importing 55 percent of it. We spend more than $20 billion each year on oil from the Middle East. This heavy reliance on foreign oil makes America increasingly dependent on some of the least stable, undemocratic countries in the world. But we are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, and our creativity must now be aimed at energy independence. High Gasoline Prices Caused by High Demand The root cause of high gasoline prices is soaring demand, caused in large part by increasingly fuel-inefficient cars and trucks. Of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed each day, 40 percent is used by passenger vehicles, 24 percent by industry, 12 percent by commercial and freight trucks, 7 percent by aircraft, and 6 percent in residential and commercial buildings. Figure 1 Graph of fuel economy by model year While in real terms oil prices are not as high as in 1981, the current price tag of $40 per barrel of oil is the highest since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The United States, with just 2 percent of world oil reserves, relies on the Middle East for one-fifth of our oil imports (see Table 1). Table 1 US Imports in 2003 from Persian Gulf Countries (million barrels per day) Country Imports Iraq 0470 Kuwait 0205 Saudi Arabia 1724 United Arab Emirates 0010 Total 2409 Source: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, March 2004. Extremely low stockpiles add to world oil market anxiety. Stockpiles in the 26 western countries that make up the International Energy Administration equal about 100 days of their imported-oil needs -- or just 10 days of trading volume in oil markets. World oil consumption is expected to rise more than 50 percent by 2025 to 121 million barrels per day, driven largely by the 3 percent annual growth in demand in the developing countries of Asia. Figure 2 Graph: US Demand is Growing While Production is Declining Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2004, figure 99 America Cannot Drill Its Way to Energy Independence The Bush administration and their industry allies claim that the way to ease the oil demand crunch is to expand drilling on public lands, even in pristine wilderness areas, and to speed up the process by relaxing environmental protections. Not only does this approach threaten the environment and public health, a "drill first, ask questions later" strategy is not an effective, sustainable solution. First of all, increased domestic oil production cannot significantly reduce our reliance on imported oil. Domestic production peaked in 1970 at 964 million barrels per day and has since declined by 40 percent. That amounts to only a six-month supply of oil, based on US consumption. Simply put, there is not enough new oil recoverable from domestic sources at reasonable cost to influence the world price for oil or to substantially displace imports. Rolling back pollution protections, as some advocate, to allow refinery expansions is also not the answer. Although refinery capacity is a factor in today's higher gasoline prices, environmental regulations are not the reason for tight refinery capacity, according to the DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Accounting Office, and even oil industry executives. Consider the market fundamentals: refiners reap higher profits when capacity is tight, so they actually have a disincentive to significantly expand production. In fact, oil executives have stated that the reason they did not expand refining capacity in the 1990s is that the low profitability of the business did not justify the investment. However, oil refiners themselves insisted on the current menu of formulation requirements as an alternative to a unified national standard. And in spite of loud complaints, the number of fuel requirements is often exaggerated. For example, in 2001 when ExxonMobil created a map to advocate against clean fuel requirements, it showed 48 different requirements. However, the company multiplied requirements by three, claiming that this accounts for low-grade, mid-grade and high-octane gas. This conveniently ignores the fact that most companies create their mid-grade gas by mixing the other two. In addition, it is important to keep refining costs in context. In 2002, refining costs and profits were just 13 percent of the total average cost of gasoline, while 87 percent went to distribution, marketing and federal and state gas taxes, with the biggest slice (43 percent) going to pay for crude oil. The Fuel Efficiency Success Story: Breaking OPEC's Grip According to the US DOE, monthly average gasoline prices hit an all-time high in March 1981, when prices in today's dollars peaked at almost $3 per gallon (see Figure 4). The primary cause of that price peak was the war between Iran and Iraq, which removed large amounts of oil from the world oil market along with OPEC's ability at that time to enforce price and production quotas. In response, the United States and other oil importing nations radically reduced their demand for OPEC oil through fuel efficiency, fuel switching and new production. In response, the total demand for OPEC oil fell by 13 million barrels per day, or 43 percent, between 1979 and 1983. Figure 4 Graph of historical gasoline prices Fuel efficiency standards had a profound impact on US oil demand. In 1975, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), with the goal of saving 2 million barrels per day by roughly doubling the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. But OPEC prices started going up in early December of 2003. OPEC's decision to tighten production then helped drive up prices to today's $40 per barrel. This suggests that cartel leaders have decided that higher prices can be sustained without inducing oil importing countries to start getting serious about reducing demand. But just as we did in the 1970s, America can break OPEC's grip on the oil market by using well-known technologies and policies. The most crucial step on the path to independence is to raise the bar on energy efficiency of our cars, pickups, minivans and SUVs. By 2015, increased fuel efficiency would save 2 million barrels of oil each day (see Figure 5, below) -- about equal to current daily imports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (see Table 1). This goal is achievable using technology already on the road today, including new, more powerful hybrid versions of Ford, Toyota and Lexus SUVs hitting showrooms later this year, as well as simple improvements in conventional drive train design. Other measures include: * Mass-producing gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, which get double the mileage of today's cars. Toyota and Honda already have hybrids on the road, and more are coming. Lawmakers should provide consumer tax credits to support the transition to this new technology. A renewable fuels standard ramping up to 5 billion gallons per year would save 175,000 barrels of oil per day by 2013. Selecting the proper grade of motor oil and using motor oils with additives that reduce friction may increase a vehicle's fuel economy by 1 percent to 2 percent. There are simple measures that together could produce additional oil savings in these sectors. Specifically, NRDC recommends that the United States: * Reduce heavy duty truck idling. Reducing truck idling at overnight truck stops by providing electrical hookups or fitting trucks with fuel cell auxiliary power units could save 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Oil-heated homes are generally older and are often not well insulated. One study found that weatherization of houses heated by fuel oil produced average net savings of 18 percent. If all oil-heated homes achieved this level of savings by 2... |
| www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 Both of these vehicles hit the exact same off-set barrier at 40mph. Now there's no question what would win in a head-on collesion between th e two but then again the majority of accidents involve only a single car . All you have to do is look at the dummy's legs and you can get an idea of what would happen if you hit a wall in either car. The MINI had almo st no intrusion which "indicates that the driver's survival space was ma intained very well" - the F150 on the other hand had "Major collapse of the occupant compartment that left little survival space for the driver. " I'm interested in how a company could create a modern vehicle that could perform so badly on this test. Furthermore Ford had lots of space to wor k with to make this a safe vehicle. For BMW/MINI to do the job in 1/4 th e space is what engineering is all about. Broken Window Keep in mind also this is the best selling vehicle in the US. One would t hink that Ford, knowing this, would have put more effort into the engine ering of this truck. this platform is also the basis of b oth the Ford Expedition and to some extent the Ford Excursion. Both are marketed to be tough, safe, go anywhere SUVs and are sold as family tran sportation. Why are they more interested in 5mph bumper tests - shouldn't this be front page news somewhere? article in t he New Yorker with some interesting information. The statistics were compiled by Tom Wenzel, a scientist at Lawrence Berke ley National Laboratory, in California, and Marc Ross, a physicist at th e University of Michigan. The information comes form a recent article in teh New Yorker: "The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for driv ers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit." Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyot a Camry and the Honda Accord. Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta. Drivers of the tiny Jett a die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same ra nge as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular SUV models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jim my. In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a w ay to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits o f being nimble--of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble--are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big." Now granted this doesn't change t he fact that Ford designed and released the previous generation of F150s knowing there were safety concerns. Further it doesn't change any of th e statistics showing larger vehicles cause more havoc on the roads. But it does show that Ford clearly understood the issues with the previous g eneration and worked hard to alleviate them. I think the government is willing to look th e other way on a lot of things because the economy is tight. Maybe because they all drive thes e ridiculous vehicles? org) quote: "Why can't I compare vehicles from different categories? The kinetic ener gy a vehicle must absorb in a crash test increases with vehicle weight, so offset tests are more demanding of heavier vehicles. But people in he avier vehicles in real-world, 2-vehicle crashes typically fare better th an people in lighter vehicles (in many single-vehicle crashes, weight of fers no safety advantage). This is why test results shouldnt be compared among vehicles with large weight differences. "Now there's no question what would win in a head-on colles ion between the two but then again the majority of accidents involve onl y a single car" My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a col lision with each other. Since most accidents involve only one car my poi nt is I was comparing the results of the off-set crash tests themselves. This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company spe nt designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's ba cked up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are m ore dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as w ell. If identical tests are performed o n vehicles, the results can, and should, be compared. That the vehicles are from different classes doesn't make the dummy in the pickup any less dead. Permalink Where is the data that proves that "most crashes involve same-class vehic les or a single vehicle only"? I just can't imagine that a Mini driver i s going to coincidentally have an accident with a VW GTI or Honda Civic, when, in fact, our roadways are crowded with Jeep Grand Cherokees and F ord Explorers. BTW, a handful of popular SUVs have a better crash rating than the Mini. Ford GM, Mercedes and others are run by bean coun ters and they sell steel, plastic and glass by the pound. Their customer s are the share holders, not the person that buys the car. Why would a bean counter make an F-150 safer when they sell at a better p rofit margin without the extra work? The vehicle that is for sale is not the one they could build but the one the bean counters think you will buy. Ford engineers are no different than others and could build something bet ter if.... Permalink Larry - I guess that begs the question: Does Ford think so little of us? Why do BMW, Mercedes, and others engineer this safety into their cars fo r the mass market? Several Euro automakers even have teams that go out a nd investigate crashes on site right after they happen then take them ba ck to the lab for further study. Ford ma kes much more profit on a totally loaded F150 than BMW makes on a 32,000 325i. I don't think there's much questi on that a Mini would not fare so well in a collision with a pickup. Howe ver, don't you think that the occupants of an automobile ought to have d ecent chances of survival if they were to run off the road? I certainly wouldn't want to be in a collision between a tree and an F150. Yes the MINI is small - it has what's call ed active safety built in. Because it's incredibly agile and can allow p eople to get out of bad situations before they get into them. Most peopl e forget about the idea of active safety - but it's probably the most im portant part of the equation. this (thank s Azwed) National Center for Statistics and Analysis Study. Even though there are more cars on the road trucks are almost 25% more likely to be involved in fatal crashes. Permalink Raymi - please read the above comments before posting. If you did you'd s ee the point you were trying to make was discussed before. "My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a collision with each other." Since most accidents involve only one car my point is to compare the results of the off-set crash tests themselve s This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company s pent designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's backed up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don 't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are more dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as well. Permalink Thanks for the great pictures showing so clearly that bigger does not nec essarily mean better. Accident a voidence capability (good handling, steering, brakes) has been an import ant car purchase criteria for years, and my current modern Mini is one o f a series stretching back to Austin Minis. Permalink I think this shows that people may think the SUV's and bigger vehicals ar e the answer to safer driving, but really a smaller car gives you a safe r compartment in a head on collision. That F150 picture makes me never w ant to get into a truck again. This article isnt comparing the two vehicals hit ting eachother, it is comparing the saftey compartment! My Dad has been concerned abo ut the size of the Mini and he drives a truck. If a MINI hits a brick wall at 40mph, th e driver lives - if he does the same thing in the Ford, he's toast. However, I've seen LOTS of photo's of wrecked MINI's - and I've... |