Unsafe at Any Speed(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Unsafe at Any Speed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
80 comments
> Is this behavior somehow specific to automakers or are they just the only ones we hear about engaging in it?
No. Not unique at all. Just usually the people complaining about come off as consipiracy nuts. That's because the campaings are that effective. Great, now I sound like one of those people.
No. Not unique at all. Just usually the people complaining about come off as consipiracy nuts. That's because the campaings are that effective. Great, now I sound like one of those people.
Not only that, but in a similar case, see the McDonald's Coffee Scandal[0].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
What GM did to Nader ~50 years ago is nothing compared to what Chevron did to Steven Donziger recently: https://www.democracynow.org/2021/10/27/steven_donziger_judi...
"In an unusual legal twist, the judge appointed a private law firm with ties to Chevron to prosecute Donziger after federal prosecutors declined to bring charges."
Not being a lawyer or other legal minded type, WTF is this? Is this judge just so into their vendetta to do something crazy, or is this something that is allowed for in legal manuevering? How is it not judicial activisim AF?
Not being a lawyer or other legal minded type, WTF is this? Is this judge just so into their vendetta to do something crazy, or is this something that is allowed for in legal manuevering? How is it not judicial activisim AF?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dm8bx/leaked-amazon-memo-de...
Pretty sure I've heard of Facebook trying something as well.
Pretty sure I've heard of Facebook trying something as well.
From what I read in the news, it seems like almost every company does this almost every day to almost every journalist who has ever written something unflattering about them.
Troll army raiders add swatting to the list.
Troll army raiders add swatting to the list.
There was the recent case of ebay management stalking and harassing a critic.
This video of a crash test between a 2009 Chevy Malibu and 1959 Bel Air is a good illustration of the improvements that have been made in car safety https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
There is still much to be improved.
US crash safety tests only use dummies in the size and shape of adult males. Crash safety for women and children is not tested.
Safety for other road users: other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, is also completely unconsidered in US testing, directly contributing to the trends of wall-frontend pickups and SUVs that are now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm.
US crash safety tests only use dummies in the size and shape of adult males. Crash safety for women and children is not tested.
Safety for other road users: other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, is also completely unconsidered in US testing, directly contributing to the trends of wall-frontend pickups and SUVs that are now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm.
> US crash safety tests only use dummies in the size and shape of adult males. Crash safety for women and children is not tested.
I think this is false. Under the NHTSA's "crash test dummies currently in service", they use dummies with the size and weight of men, women, children, and infants.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsas-crash-test-dummies
I think this is false. Under the NHTSA's "crash test dummies currently in service", they use dummies with the size and weight of men, women, children, and infants.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsas-crash-test-dummies
> it took until 2003 for NHTSA to put [a female dummy] in the car.
> female dummy either rides as a passenger or doesn’t participate in the test at all
> Currently, there is no physical crash test dummy that represents an average adult female anywhere in the world.
A thorough article on it: https://news.yahoo.com/crash-test-bias-male-focused-14022684...
> female dummy either rides as a passenger or doesn’t participate in the test at all
> Currently, there is no physical crash test dummy that represents an average adult female anywhere in the world.
A thorough article on it: https://news.yahoo.com/crash-test-bias-male-focused-14022684...
"Size" is dubious, "shape" is outright wrong. All of the dummies have the exact same shape: the adult male dummy re-scaled to various sizes. Meaning they are testing the weight distribution, muscle strength, and body shape of men, just at different scales.
And the scale is totally unrealistic: the "woman" dummy is 4'11" and 100 pounds, smaller than 95% of women in the world, and it is never tested in the driver seat.
And the scale is totally unrealistic: the "woman" dummy is 4'11" and 100 pounds, smaller than 95% of women in the world, and it is never tested in the driver seat.
" smaller than 95% of women in the world,"
No, smaller than a majority (don't wish to state 95%) of USA women, sure. But of the world, no.
https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php
No, smaller than a majority (don't wish to state 95%) of USA women, sure. But of the world, no.
https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php
> All of the dummies have the exact same shape: the adult male dummy re-scaled to various sizes.
No. You can confirm this by clicking on my link. The 3-year-old child's head is vastly larger in proportion to its body than the adult male's.
No. You can confirm this by clicking on my link. The 3-year-old child's head is vastly larger in proportion to its body than the adult male's.
> now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm.
I think you are taking a pretty biased reading into the commercials you've referenced. Nearly every example provided in the subthreads is promoting the idea of the car representing performance and aggression, which are standard rhetoric for marketing high-performance/sports vehicles, which tend to be bought by men and tend to be bought by people who modify them for off-road (race track) usage.
There is definitely a fair argument to be made that these advertisements are inappropriate since they show people doing things on public streets which would be illegal if it weren't a closed course, and a fine print disclaimer isn't really sufficient. But to claim that they are /designed/ and advertised for their /ability to cause harm/ is a bit far based on the examples provided.
The reality is that vehicles are definitely categorized and marketed for different purposes and driver personality profiles, and that one of those profiles is definitely a masculine profile, and the mere existence of this is not harmful to non-masculine people which seems to be the argument you are making. There are just as many (actually much more popular) vehicles marketed to non-masculine profiles. In fact, one of the things I like to do with my partner is to discuss whether a commercial was targeted at me or them when we get commercials on Hulu. A lot of the commercials are for cars, despite neither of us looking to buy a car anytime soon.
I think you are taking a pretty biased reading into the commercials you've referenced. Nearly every example provided in the subthreads is promoting the idea of the car representing performance and aggression, which are standard rhetoric for marketing high-performance/sports vehicles, which tend to be bought by men and tend to be bought by people who modify them for off-road (race track) usage.
There is definitely a fair argument to be made that these advertisements are inappropriate since they show people doing things on public streets which would be illegal if it weren't a closed course, and a fine print disclaimer isn't really sufficient. But to claim that they are /designed/ and advertised for their /ability to cause harm/ is a bit far based on the examples provided.
The reality is that vehicles are definitely categorized and marketed for different purposes and driver personality profiles, and that one of those profiles is definitely a masculine profile, and the mere existence of this is not harmful to non-masculine people which seems to be the argument you are making. There are just as many (actually much more popular) vehicles marketed to non-masculine profiles. In fact, one of the things I like to do with my partner is to discuss whether a commercial was targeted at me or them when we get commercials on Hulu. A lot of the commercials are for cars, despite neither of us looking to buy a car anytime soon.
> people who modify them for off-road (race track) usage.
LOL! Surely you don't actually think that, right? There are far, FAR more "performance" vehicles on the road than on race tracks.
LOL! Surely you don't actually think that, right? There are far, FAR more "performance" vehicles on the road than on race tracks.
> standard rhetoric for marketing high-performance/sports vehicles, which tend to be bought by men and tend to be bought by people who modify them for off-road (race track) usage.
The number of people tracking vehicles is so incredibly small that I don't think you can say any vehicle in mass production "tends to be" bought by those who would do it.
The number of people tracking vehicles is so incredibly small that I don't think you can say any vehicle in mass production "tends to be" bought by those who would do it.
Depends on what you mean by "mass production". Most of these high performance vehicles are small volume production for major brands and are sold often at a loss as halo cars to improve brand image so they don't appear boring. Look at the Toyota 86 as an example, there are multiple entire spec series and spec classes built around this chassis in different racing organizations around the world. At the same time, this car that's been produced since 2012 and is still in production has a total global sales volume over its entire lifespan and its siblings (FRS, BRZ) that is less than 1/10th of the the sales volume of Camry for a single calendar year just in the US. But unlike Camry, I would hazard the guess that at least 1/4th of all the FRS/86/BRZ sold will see track time before they end up in a scrap yard (maybe not with the original owner, though).
I'm pretty sure I've seen the IIHS use child size/shape dummies with/without booster seats in plenty of new crash tests.
Whilst the IIHS isn't the NHTSA, it's certainly still used for safety tests when searching and looking for vehicles to purchase.
Whilst the IIHS isn't the NHTSA, it's certainly still used for safety tests when searching and looking for vehicles to purchase.
Size, but not shape. The IIHS use the same adult male body shape as the NHSTA, just scaled down to supposedly represent women (and it's scaled down way too far, it's actually more representative of a 12-year-old girl than an adult woman), and it is never placed in a driver seat.
Being scaled down too far is a good thing, based on the assumption that a larger female is better represented by the male dummy than a smaller female would be. IOW an average female is probably well protected as long as both the small female dummy and average male dummy are. If we used an average female dummy, then any female smaller than average isn't covered by the test.
[deleted]
> now often deliberately designed and advertised for their ability to cause harm.
Whattttt? Can you provide some examples?
Whattttt? Can you provide some examples?
"What do you get when you have a 603 horsepower v8 bi-turbo engine? You get the fuck out of the way" - footage of pedestrian running in fear from the car being advertised
That's the only example from this article [1] that I had saved for containing a list of egregious examples of aggressively dangerous car advertisements that is still online. The dangers of relying on youtube embeds of the things you wish to criticize.
1. https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/31/21115593/super-bowl-wor...
That's the only example from this article [1] that I had saved for containing a list of egregious examples of aggressively dangerous car advertisements that is still online. The dangers of relying on youtube embeds of the things you wish to criticize.
1. https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/31/21115593/super-bowl-wor...
So, video presents following vehicles next to each other: luxury sport-sedan, some lambo-styled ultra-car, quarter-mile redneck classic, Tron-inspired super bike, drag-racer(!) and Formula One car.
This is a clear fantasy.
Are you mistaking this fantasy for reality? Or are you against the fantasy itself?
Is this the way you react to Hulk going green?
This is a clear fantasy.
Are you mistaking this fantasy for reality? Or are you against the fantasy itself?
Is this the way you react to Hulk going green?
They are selling this car to people who want to make others to "get out of the way".
This is not a fantasy, it's an advertisement. You don't put something unless an ad unless it resonates with your target audience.
This is not a fantasy, it's an advertisement. You don't put something unless an ad unless it resonates with your target audience.
Mercedes is a car for aging rich liberal men and women. There are tons of cars with way more masculine, aggressive vibe to them. BMW and Audi, for instance, have took over this market in EU - nobody is buying Mercedes anymore. People perceive Mercedes as "satiated" and "lazy". So, even if authors of this advert are trying to do that, they are failing.
Would you accept such a violent and criminal fantasy for literally any other product?
A gunman stands in a hallway, aiming down sights. "What do you get when you buy an AR-15 chambered in 5.56 with a full bump stock and 500nm laser sight?", a laser dot appears on a child's crying face, it explodes into a ball of confetti. "You get the fuck out of the way" A cop enters, is rapidly shot eight times in the chest while he fumbles with his holster, he falls to the ground. Superman appears, the gunman quick-swaps to a kryptonite mag and draws an S of bullet holes on his chest.
subtitle: [professional shooter on closed range, do not attempt]
Smith and Wesson: Empowering Americans since 1852
A gunman stands in a hallway, aiming down sights. "What do you get when you buy an AR-15 chambered in 5.56 with a full bump stock and 500nm laser sight?", a laser dot appears on a child's crying face, it explodes into a ball of confetti. "You get the fuck out of the way" A cop enters, is rapidly shot eight times in the chest while he fumbles with his holster, he falls to the ground. Superman appears, the gunman quick-swaps to a kryptonite mag and draws an S of bullet holes on his chest.
subtitle: [professional shooter on closed range, do not attempt]
Smith and Wesson: Empowering Americans since 1852
Your example is basically describing every action movie where an off-duty cop needs to save the world.
Movies aren't the same as advertisements.
Do you think it would be totally normal and tasteful for such an action movie to end with instructions and a limited time offer on how to purchase the guns that were used by the terrorists and vigilantes in the movie?
Do you think it would be totally normal and tasteful for such an action movie to end with instructions and a limited time offer on how to purchase the guns that were used by the terrorists and vigilantes in the movie?
Please... A 10 second search on the internet will tell you where to get those guns.
I guess action movies don't make any profit from promoting violent behavior. I forgot that movie studios are non profits who donate their money to charity.
Do you also think that Doom and other video games are making kids violent and making them shoot up schools?
Do you think rap music will turn everybody into a violent gang member?
Will watching Elvis shake his hips on TV turn you into a sexual deviant?
I think what it comes down to is, you don't like cars because it's trendy these days to say cars are evil. But you like action movies, and video games, so it's all good.
I guess action movies don't make any profit from promoting violent behavior. I forgot that movie studios are non profits who donate their money to charity.
Do you also think that Doom and other video games are making kids violent and making them shoot up schools?
Do you think rap music will turn everybody into a violent gang member?
Will watching Elvis shake his hips on TV turn you into a sexual deviant?
I think what it comes down to is, you don't like cars because it's trendy these days to say cars are evil. But you like action movies, and video games, so it's all good.
Advertisements are not the same as fiction media. The entire point of an advertisement is to display the product and make it appealing to the consumer, and they you do that is by demonstrating its use. If you don't want people to use your car for street racing, you don't show tens of millions of people your car street racing as an incentive to get them to buy it.
What other product category advertises with felonious lawbreaking in the same way that car ads do?
What other product category advertises with felonious lawbreaking in the same way that car ads do?
Movies aren't the same as advertisements.
There's an entire industry devoted to product placement and promotional consideration. Evolution was an ad for shampoo. Fast and the Furious was an ad for cars. Independence Day was an ad for computers.
Beyond direct product placement, movies are vehicles for inculturation and promoting or demoting certain values.
There's an entire industry devoted to product placement and promotional consideration. Evolution was an ad for shampoo. Fast and the Furious was an ad for cars. Independence Day was an ad for computers.
Beyond direct product placement, movies are vehicles for inculturation and promoting or demoting certain values.
Product placement in a movie is not the same as advertisement.
Vin Diesel doing stunts in a Dodge in a movie is not comparable to a Dodge ad that interrupts your TV show or football game extolling you to UNLEASH THE DEMON showing their car breaking 100mph and doing donuts on city streets, totally demolishing a "share the road" sign, buy now!
Vin Diesel doing stunts in a Dodge in a movie is not comparable to a Dodge ad that interrupts your TV show or football game extolling you to UNLEASH THE DEMON showing their car breaking 100mph and doing donuts on city streets, totally demolishing a "share the road" sign, buy now!
>Would you accept such a violent and criminal fantasy for literally any other product?
It seems like you jumped a step. The fantasy wasn't a driver mowing down people. I want pedestrians to get out from in front of my vehicle in just about every setting.
It seems like you jumped a step. The fantasy wasn't a driver mowing down people. I want pedestrians to get out from in front of my vehicle in just about every setting.
So as long as it's street racing, drifting through intersections, breaking 100mph in crowded downtowns, and revving your engine loudly in order to menace pedestrians without ever hitting them, then it's fine?
For real: what other product is regularly portrayed in advertisements being used in such criminally reckless ways?
For real: what other product is regularly portrayed in advertisements being used in such criminally reckless ways?
>What other product is regularly portrayed in advertisements being used in such criminally reckless ways
I would say that this is common in advertising for movies and video games. Both regularly depict fantasy behavior that would be illegal if anyone did it in real life.
I would say that this is common in advertising for movies and video games. Both regularly depict fantasy behavior that would be illegal if anyone did it in real life.
I didn't ask for movies and video games that have crimes in them, I asked for advertisements, pieces of media that intrude into people's lives whose sole purpose is to tell people to buy and use a product, which demonstrate the use of that product exclusively by depicting criminal (and often violent) behavior.
So I went back and rewatched the video and didn't see anything violent or illegal at all. I guess some of the vehicles depicted like the drag car are not street legal.
If you exclude product placement in fiction then I can't think of any commercials with illegal Behavior.
What is the central point that you are trying to make? You don't like cars that go fast or the depiction of them in commercials?
If you exclude product placement in fiction then I can't think of any commercials with illegal Behavior.
What is the central point that you are trying to make? You don't like cars that go fast or the depiction of them in commercials?
Somewhat offtopic: That ad makes me want the motorcycle.
This ad was a oh my WTF moment. This would never fly in Germany. Oh hey, wait. Were does this company originate?
I was absolutely blown away by this.
I was absolutely blown away by this.
Badass. I love it.
They do pedestrian safety testing too?
This seems like disinformation.
This seems like disinformation.
Europe does. The US doesn't, which is why so many American cars are so aggressivly dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers.
This is false. Pedestrian safety regulations exist in the US as well.
Oh god yeah, as a city-dweller who walks everywhere, that's a terrifying thing to promote. Good example.
Don't worry, pedestrians will defend themselves with their guns.
Joke aside, anyone thinking these ads depict acceptable behavior is nuts, and will find ways to harm others even if they never drive. Any thinking adult knows this is fantasy.
Joke aside, anyone thinking these ads depict acceptable behavior is nuts, and will find ways to harm others even if they never drive. Any thinking adult knows this is fantasy.
This one gets pretty close I think re: advertising: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1pi4RrMtumI
Note the "share the road" sign flying off the road. Yeah, nice visual there for anyone who might be outside that car.
Or maybe this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoJEj2X8NMI
Note the "share the road" sign flying off the road. Yeah, nice visual there for anyone who might be outside that car.
Or maybe this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoJEj2X8NMI
I might be in the wrong, but these ads were hilarious. Any adult who confuses them with reality or role models might as well think Harry Potter was a historical figure. These ads in no way compel me to buy their products, but they're funny.
The one time I saw something like that sign scene was Carmageddon, but that game was quite self-conscious in its humor, whereas in this ad it's worryingly out of place.
For anyone not familiar with it:
The 1960 Corvair suspension design (swing axle) is shared with many older European cars, the most popular being the VW Beetle (with which it also shared the rear engine position). It was no more unsafe than most other cars on the road, and Nader is generally considered to be incorrect on this specific point in the book.
I can't speak to the rest, as that is the point that I'm most familiar with.
Also, the second generation Corvair is one of the most beautiful cars ever built IMO [0], and shares it's suspension design with the Corvette (unequal A-Arms at all four corners). Interestingly it's design study is what was used to do the first generation Camaro/Firebird as GM had nothing ready to compete with the Mustang.
To get even more interesting about the Corvair (I grew up around someone who had 12+ of them...): the engine is one of only three families that spins "backwards": The Corvair, The Renault (correction from comment: Citroën!) 2CV, and the Honda D/B/H series. This was due to the transmission being a standard GM transmission thrown in a different case with the rearend attached, and a jackshaft going back to the engine, making the reverse rotation necessary. A couple of people have actually installed Honda B series engines on these [1], which surprisingly works quite well on the old transmission since they make little torque and rev very high. It's also why there were kits to put a V8 in the back seat by removing the jackshaft and mounting it to the normal GM transmission input.
[0]: https://www.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2012/03/hrdp-1202-19...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t493sSD-V80
The 1960 Corvair suspension design (swing axle) is shared with many older European cars, the most popular being the VW Beetle (with which it also shared the rear engine position). It was no more unsafe than most other cars on the road, and Nader is generally considered to be incorrect on this specific point in the book.
I can't speak to the rest, as that is the point that I'm most familiar with.
Also, the second generation Corvair is one of the most beautiful cars ever built IMO [0], and shares it's suspension design with the Corvette (unequal A-Arms at all four corners). Interestingly it's design study is what was used to do the first generation Camaro/Firebird as GM had nothing ready to compete with the Mustang.
To get even more interesting about the Corvair (I grew up around someone who had 12+ of them...): the engine is one of only three families that spins "backwards": The Corvair, The Renault (correction from comment: Citroën!) 2CV, and the Honda D/B/H series. This was due to the transmission being a standard GM transmission thrown in a different case with the rearend attached, and a jackshaft going back to the engine, making the reverse rotation necessary. A couple of people have actually installed Honda B series engines on these [1], which surprisingly works quite well on the old transmission since they make little torque and rev very high. It's also why there were kits to put a V8 in the back seat by removing the jackshaft and mounting it to the normal GM transmission input.
[0]: https://www.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2012/03/hrdp-1202-19...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t493sSD-V80
>... the engine is one of only three families that spins "backwards" ...
Yes and no, I believe there are more than three, here is a fourth one:
The FIAT 100 engine[0] (in it's latest incarnation actually 903 cc that was derived from the original FIAT 600 was originally 600, then 750 and 850) was rear mounted on the 850[1] (and was spinning in one direction) the following series of cars (FIAT 127 [2], Autobianchi A112[3]) used the same engine but front mounted and it was spinning in the opposite direction).
But most probably there are more examples in lesser known brands around the time they all moved from rear wheel traction to front wheel (roughly end of '60's begin of '70's).
[0] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_FIAT_100 [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_850 [2] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_127 [3] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobianchi_A112
Yes and no, I believe there are more than three, here is a fourth one:
The FIAT 100 engine[0] (in it's latest incarnation actually 903 cc that was derived from the original FIAT 600 was originally 600, then 750 and 850) was rear mounted on the 850[1] (and was spinning in one direction) the following series of cars (FIAT 127 [2], Autobianchi A112[3]) used the same engine but front mounted and it was spinning in the opposite direction).
But most probably there are more examples in lesser known brands around the time they all moved from rear wheel traction to front wheel (roughly end of '60's begin of '70's).
[0] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_FIAT_100 [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_850 [2] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_127 [3] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobianchi_A112
I wasn’t aware of that, oddly since I am familiar (if only slightly) with the Fiat 127.
Thanks!
Thanks!
You are welcome, BTW, it is the 850 only that has the engine spinning "opposite", the previous 600 and 750 were "right" (like the 127), so - in theory - you can mount a 903 cc from a 127 on a 600 but not on a 850 (unless you change the camshaft and don't know what other parts, probably the water pump ).
> The Renault 2CV
Do you mean the Citroën 2CV or the Renault 4CV? I assume the former, because I recall something about the reverse spinning of its engine.
Do you mean the Citroën 2CV or the Renault 4CV? I assume the former, because I recall something about the reverse spinning of its engine.
Wow, you are absolutely right. I'll edit the comment if that's alright!
One day this book will be written about software and programming languages. Almost none of them were designed and developed with security in mind. Many popular ones originated in a pre-internet age, in trusting, cooperative (often academic) environments. Companies prefer to insure themselves against losses rather than supporting research, development and adoption of languages and standards in this area. And as long as security doesn't become easy and economically viable, the digital world will continue to be built on unsafe foundations.
So was the 1960 Corvair dangerous? I notice the engineers all say performs comparable to other cars, but not weather that was a good or bad thing. Four other dangerous models doesn't make one of the dangerous models less dangerous.
More or less all 1960 cars are objectively dangerous compared with modern automobiles.
Yes, and I would thank Ralph Nader for pushing the industry in the right direction.
Arguably though, the pendulum may have swung too far to the point that cars sold in the U.S. are boxed in by the crash-test requirements. I have seen where, for example, small, efficient commuter vehicles are only viable in the U.S. if they are 3-wheeled since, curiously, they are considered "motorcycles" then and are therefore exempt from many safety requirements.
Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"?
Arguably though, the pendulum may have swung too far to the point that cars sold in the U.S. are boxed in by the crash-test requirements. I have seen where, for example, small, efficient commuter vehicles are only viable in the U.S. if they are 3-wheeled since, curiously, they are considered "motorcycles" then and are therefore exempt from many safety requirements.
Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"?
Not to forget the U.S. mentality that 'Bigger vehicle is better, and therefore safer'.
That's pretty common in other countries - there's loads of Chelsea tractors (SUVS and 4wd) used on the school run in the UK for the height and perceived safety.
The biggest issue IMO is that the safety standards more or less only seem to account for the driver/passengers. The EU equivalent has a pedestrian safety rating, that would be a good start.
The category for 4-wheeled vehicles with reduced safety requirements is the "kit car". IOW, you have to put it together yourself for it to qualify.
Interesting.
>Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"?
Not for use on public roads because "people are stupid and need to be saved from themselves" or something along those lines.
Not for use on public roads because "people are stupid and need to be saved from themselves" or something along those lines.
The occupants of a vehicle are also not necessarily the person who voluntarily purchased it.
We have Smart cars, so it can't be that onerous.
FWIW, the 2014 smart fortwo and smart forfour got 4/5 stars in Euro NCAP. It actually gets a better score than the 2017 Ford Mustang, where the safety rating for adult occupants is rated higher in the smart.
https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc doesn't look all that bad.
https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc doesn't look all that bad.
My friend had a Smart car and I was surprised to learn that it got about the same fuel efficiency as my 4 door Ford Focus. With a full cars I was getting over double the fuel efficiency per person and we were much more comfortable in my car. What's the point?
The smart fortwo is so small that you can feasibly "parallel" park the car by driving directly into it. And if you live in a densily packed city, the ability to squeeze your car into tiny spaces can be great.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_pa...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_pa...
Still you think it would get better gas mileage than a Sedan.
Dangerous? meh. They were fun as hell. I learned to drive in a 1964 Corvair 2-door convertable. My dad bought it brand new, drove it for a year, then put it in storage where it sat until I turned 15. The stories my dad would tell me about the things they would do tinkering with them were pretty out there. He wound up putting cement bags in the trunk to keep the front end down when he would hit certain speeds. Got pulled over racing a GTO, and winning, but the cop gave no tickets. He was just interested in seeing what was done to the Corvair that it was out running a GTO. Oh the 60s!
I've never driven a Corvair, but I've owned a 1965 Triumph Spitfire that has a very similar transverse leaf spring swing axle rear suspension setup. Most of the time its fine, but when pushing the car, the setup definitely could cause snap oversteer that, if you're not expecting it, could be dangerous. But its not like other suspension setups can't do the same thing, and the addition of a camber compensator makes the issue pretty much go away.
I own and drive a 1960 Corvair.
Most Corvair fans will tell you it's not any more dangerous than any other 1960 car if you set it up right. (I'll elaborate later) The manual tells you specific tire pressures to run: 22psi in front, 32psi in back. That differential tire pressure is critical to compensate for the swingaxles and rear weight.
The problem was that this spec is different from other cars people were used to, and like today, no one read the manual. Especially mechanics. So you'd take it to a shop for something, they'd notice your front tires were a little low, and "fill" them up with air for you. And you didn't know.
I think there's some willful misinformation on both sides of this argument. There's a lawsuit between Chevrolet and National Highway Traffic Safety Admin that resolved in 1972 (3 years after the last Corvair was made) that settled saying that the 1963 Corvair (the one being tested) wasn't any worse than other small cars at the time.
Early Corvairs, however, have more and more safety features added in over the years. There's an early 1960 (mine) and a later 1960 model, and there were significant suspension changes between 1961, '62, '63, and '64. After that, the Corvair had a full redesign and was honestly a different car (still rear-engined, air cooled, unibody, but a different model). Each model year for early Corvairs the car was refined and made much better, so that '64s are really nice, pretty damn safe cars for the era.
I suspect the '60 definitely has some rollover issues if you drive it hard. "Spirited driving" was the term they used back in the day. I don't - I baby mine and keep it slow and easy. I'm not great with driving a manual yet anyway.
Most Corvair fans will tell you it's not any more dangerous than any other 1960 car if you set it up right. (I'll elaborate later) The manual tells you specific tire pressures to run: 22psi in front, 32psi in back. That differential tire pressure is critical to compensate for the swingaxles and rear weight.
The problem was that this spec is different from other cars people were used to, and like today, no one read the manual. Especially mechanics. So you'd take it to a shop for something, they'd notice your front tires were a little low, and "fill" them up with air for you. And you didn't know.
I think there's some willful misinformation on both sides of this argument. There's a lawsuit between Chevrolet and National Highway Traffic Safety Admin that resolved in 1972 (3 years after the last Corvair was made) that settled saying that the 1963 Corvair (the one being tested) wasn't any worse than other small cars at the time.
Early Corvairs, however, have more and more safety features added in over the years. There's an early 1960 (mine) and a later 1960 model, and there were significant suspension changes between 1961, '62, '63, and '64. After that, the Corvair had a full redesign and was honestly a different car (still rear-engined, air cooled, unibody, but a different model). Each model year for early Corvairs the car was refined and made much better, so that '64s are really nice, pretty damn safe cars for the era.
I suspect the '60 definitely has some rollover issues if you drive it hard. "Spirited driving" was the term they used back in the day. I don't - I baby mine and keep it slow and easy. I'm not great with driving a manual yet anyway.
Was expecting the US tendency to have different rules for tricks to feature
Wow I had no idea, that's kind of scary how far they went. Wasn't there something similar recently with a Nissan harassment campaign? Is this behavior somehow specific to automakers or are they just the only ones we hear about engaging in it?