66 comments on Close the CAFE Loophole
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
66 comments on Close the CAFE Loophole
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
—Mark Twain
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Neither. It's about engineering and construction. See the scores for my 2006 Civic?
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=300
Actually, I think the IIHS ratings are based on vehicle size/class, so your Civic's "good" performance is relative to other small cars. An interesting tidbit from the IIHS website:
I think the IIHS is assuming that because most other vehicles are smaller that large SUVs, the other vehicle would probably bear the brunt of the momentum change in a collision. Too bad for the people in the smaller vehicle.
Does anyone know whether insurance companies take into account how much damage you're likely to do to the other vehicle (or people inside) when setting insurance rates?
Michael
Chevy Suburban 7200 lbs
In a head on collision, your civic will look like a crumpled up tin can. The surburban may have some dented sheet metal
Most of us think that S.U.V.s are much safer than sports cars. If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer. We feel that way because in the TrailBlazer our chances of surviving a collision with a hypothetical tractor-trailer in the other lane are greater than they are in the Porsche. What we forget, though, is that in the TrailBlazer you're also much more likely to hit the tractor-trailer because you can't get out of the way in time. In the parlance of the automobile world, the TrailBlazer is better at "passive safety. " The Boxster is better when it comes to "active safety," which is every bit as important.
Consider the set of safety statistics compiled by Tom Wenzel, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in California, and Marc Ross, a physicist at the University of Michigan. The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for drivers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit. (For example, in the first case, for every million Toyota Avalons on the road, forty Avalon drivers die in car accidents every year, and twenty people die in accidents involving Toyota Avalons. ) The numbers below have been rounded:
Make/Model Type Driver
Deaths Other
Deaths Total
Toyota Avalon
large 40 20 60
Chrysler Town & Country
minivan 31 36 67
Toyota Camry
mid-size 41 29 70
Volkswagen Jetta
subcompact 47 23 70
Ford Windstar
minivan 37 35 72
Nissan Maxima
mid-size 53 26 79
Honda Accord
mid-size 54 27 82
Chevrolet Venture
minivan 51
34
85
Buick Century
mid-size 70 23 93
Subaru Legacy/Outback
compact
74 24 98
Mazda 626
compact 70 29 99
Chevrolet Malibu
mid-size 71 34 105
Chevrolet Suburban
S.U.V. 46 59 105
Jeep Grand Cherokee
S.U.V. 61 44 106
Honda Civic
subcompact 84 25 109
Toyota Corolla
subcompact 81 29 110
Ford Expedition
S.U.V. 55 57 112
GMC Jimmy
S.U.V. 76 39 114
Ford Taurus
mid-size 78 39 117
Nissan Altima
compact 72 49 121
Mercury Marquis
large 80 43 123
Nissan Sentra
subcompact 95 34 129
Toyota 4Runner
S.U.V. 94 43 137
Chevrolet Tahoe
S.U.V. 68 74 141
Dodge Stratus
mid-size 103 40 143
Lincoln Town Car
large 100 47 147
Ford Explorer
S.U.V. 88 60 148
Pontiac Grand Am
compact 118 39 157
Toyota Tacoma
pickup 111 59 171
Chevrolet Cavalier
subcompact 146 41 186
Dodge Neon
subcompact 161 39 199
Pontiac Sunfire
subcompact 158 44 202
Ford F-Series
pickup 110 128 238
Are the best performers the biggest and heaviest vehicles on the road? Not at all. Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta. Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy. 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 way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits of 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.
All in all, my 1982 M-B 240D was about the safest (active & passive) car made when new. Now, it is still among the better ones, despite no airbag.
I have been in a number of salvage yards, and seen dozens of crushed W123 M-Bs. IMHO, the driver could have survived everyone with minimal injuries if belted in.
BTW, I get 31 mpg in the city with my manual transmission. This is the car IO chose to see me through Peak Oil.
In addition, cars then didn't have rear shoulder belts, so an additional risk is present if you have passengers.
Also anti-lock (ABS) brakes were invented later on. They make a big difference to collision avoidance, I believe.
Agree they were nice cars although if I can recall correctly they needed a lot of TLC (frequent oil changes etc.).
Chrysler actually found that by making the rear windows smaller they increased the feeling of safety of the car buyer. So they made the windows smaller.
SUV drivers, riding above the flow of traffic, think they are safer.
Following a flash winter storm on the freeway to the Toronto airport, I once watched a (mum with kids) SUV driver power past me on the on ramp. The road ahead was littered with fender benders-- 10 or 15 as far as the eye could see. There was very little traction for stopping (ice with a thin layer of snow on top).
But her 4 wheel drive and heavy axle loading gave her the power to nose past me (I was in a Lincoln Town Car). If she had to stop, she wouldn't have been able to.
The human brain will confuse traction accelerating with traction decelerating. She would have been horrified if I told her she was guilty of unsafe driving, but she was.
Of course, the biggest improvement would probably be to require all "light trucks" to have a maximum bumper height of 14" or so.
Your stopping distance rises linearly (I think) with the weight of the vehicle. Not sure of the friction equations (more than KE = 1/2 MV squared).
Also because an SUV is quieter, with less 'road feel', you tend to drive faster on average. The surrounding environment isn't giving you the same warning signals about speed.
A third factor is crumple zones. As Keith Bradsher points out in 'high and mighty' the original SUVs weren't built with the '3 box' crumple zones that sedans are-- the safety mandate is only '2 box'.
The result is in a head on collision the engine comes into the passenger compartment.
A fourth factor is I would bet (but don't know) that SUV (and pickup) drivers are less likely to wear seatbelts. Again because of the feeling of safety (in the former) plus the 'young, male, western, independent' personality type in the latter.
If you are in a non head-on collision, your air bag is of limited utility. Without the seat belt, you are toast.
http://www.malcolmgladwell.com/2001/2001_06_11_a_crash.htm
Let everyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt see the beginning of the film 'Dead Calm' (with Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman). I saw that film 20 years ago, and the scene still shakes me.
SUVs make the road more dangerous for other people, but not safer for their drivers.