Great - another scam to actually do nothing and claim they're doing something. Gotta like the fear-mongering about "dangerous light cars", too.

Lighter vehicles of the same size as their heavier counterparts can easily be just as safe for the occupants and result in vehicles safer for those in the other vehicle.

No the point is with the old way many compnaies disign deathtraps to pull thier fleet average up while still being able to sell very safe heavy trucks to luxury markets.

By changing the standard you prevent that and can fine toon the milage reqs for each size of car.

Good example a large car can stand to loose more weight and keep its safety then a small car.

CAFE is proof, as if any were needed, that no policy can fail badly enough to be abandonded by politicians.

CAFE is proof, as if any were needed, that no policy can fail badly enough to be abandonded by politicians.

Nothing wrong with fuel economy standards. What is wrong is when you start monkeying with them by having two categories, exempting some vehicles entirely, then splitting the two categories into subcategories.

Don't blame the idea because the people who implement it do it with malintent.

The cafe system was a pile a festering crap from the start as it didnt take into concideration the lineup the company sold. It treated each company the same.. it was the same as if you made one stupid nitwit moronfest of a group come up with a sengle standard for calulators rhought to high end pcs. Think thats silly.. well guess what awhile back some morons tried to do just that and they were just that damn clueless.

I can understand conserns for decreasing weight of small passenger cars - there are and will be too much 2-ton begemoths on American roads. But opposing weight reductuin of killer-heavyweight "light" trucks - how stupid this government and nation could be?

heavy cars are more dangerous for everyone else on the road. car companies should be incentivised to reduce weight. a single uniform fuel efficieny standard for anything using public roads would be safest for all of humanity, instead of diferentially protecting people in trucks while increasing risk to people who choose lighter vehicles

Gotta agree with the first post, from Joseph... another "do nothing" scam from the White House. But they need to give it a good name like, "Freedom Standards", or "Clean Standards", or maybe something like, "Righteous Standards".

There is one obvious thing the lawmakers could to to save gas, and lower everyones fuel bill. It was implemented in the early seventies. Its the national 55 mph speed limit. I am no proponent of it, but it appears that everyone wants to be regulated into saving gas, and lowering their expenses, and not doing it on their own. This 55 speed limit would be one way. Although I dont know how it would be enforced. With our deteriorating interstate system, this would kinda of fit, as alot of times I feel I am going too fast for the road I am driving on, due to the road being too rough or unsafe.

As a followup to my earlier national 55 mph speed limit post, it would be one way for George Bush and the republicans to show the democrats and the world that it is doing something about high fuel costs. Everyone seems to think they are doing nothing but conforming to big oil. The president cannot just snap his fingers, and we all have low fuel/energy costs. These things have to be developed. But everyone should form their own opinion about what is being done. You cannot regulate inspiration.

At a time when we are experiencing a perceived crisis in gas prices, the administration wants to make our standards even laxer. If so called death traps are a concern, let's do everything we can to minimize the number of large vehicles, not small vehicles.

If they are so concerned about death traps, then why aren't they banning all those SUVs which have a tendency to rollover.

Mark A:

You have to understand that the Bush administration has never asked for a single sacrifice from Americans. Going to war? Let's lower taxes for the first time in wartime history! Cheney laughed off conservation as a strategy years ago.

I agree that lowering highway speed limits would have an immediate, effective impact. However, it would involve asking people to sacrifice for the common good, and that's something that this administration isn't willing to do.

The reason the 55 law was repealed is alot of places its dangerous very dangerous. It also didnt save fuel and cost lives.

Generaly speaking those roads rated 65 mph are rated that because its the right speed to eb going on that road.

Also alot of cars even today preform better and get BETTER fuel econ at 65 then they do at 55 because of the overdrive gear.

Andrey, I guess we should build 18 wheelers like tin cans too?

Reform doesn't happen overnight people. When's the last time any of you checked your tire pressure? Unfortunately this is often the most overlooked thing with maintaining a car, that can significantly affect gas mileage.

I get better gas mileage and lower emmissions out of my 1990 Mustang LX 5.0L "gas guzzler" than many people get out of their 4 cylinder econoboxes that claim to be earth friendly. My emmissions are better than my wife's 2003 Camry and gas mileage is only marginally less.

".. alot of cars even today preform better and get BETTER fuel econ at 65 then they do at 55 because of the overdrive gear."

Keep dreaming.

Mark H... I think you might be wrong. An engine is going to perform best at it's most efficient powerband range. Often this is between 1800-2000 RPM. All depending upon vehicle gearing, a vehicle could be more efficient at 65 than 55.

"I get better gas mileage and lower emmissions out of my 1990 Mustang LX 5.0L "gas guzzler" than many people get out of their 4 cylinder econoboxes that claim to be earth friendly. My emmissions are better than my wife's 2003 Camry and gas mileage is only marginally less."

From fueleconomy.gov:
1990 Ford Mustang 8 cyl, 4.9 L, epa 17/25 mpg,
9.2 emission tons vs.
2003 Toyota Camry 4 cyl, 2.4 L, epa 23/32 mpg,
6.9 emission tons

ed, it looks like that extra gas guzzler CO2 is lodged between your ears- nevertheless, you can always reward yourself with a burnout..

"Mark H... I think you might be wrong. An engine is going to perform best at it's most efficient powerband range. Often this is between 1800-2000 RPM. All depending upon vehicle gearing, a vehicle could be more efficient at 65 than 55."

Yes, I might be wrong, I'll allow that.

This 'gearing' issue seems to imply that there is a gear that you can use at 65 that you can't use at 55. "Gee, I'd like to shift into 'overdrive' but I'm going too slow. Guess I'll have to speed up to save some gas."

Concrete, real-world examples, please.

The "safer at 65 than 55" is nonsense. It was raised then, and debunked then.

The argument is that driving at 55 results in boredom, and hence an increased probability of getting into an accident. Additionally, since some people speed, the differential between the speeders and the law-abiders is increased, thereby increasing the probability and danger of an accident.

The first claim is simply wrong. Debunked. The second one is easily solved: start writing speeding tickets. Hell, take the extra revenue generated, and after using it to pay for the extra time from State Troopers and the sign replacement, invest it in more fuel saving measures!

The president cannot just snap his fingers, and we all have low fuel/energy costs.

Well, actually he could. He could do a ton of things he isn't doing.

The fuel-economy loss that drivers face when cruising at faster speeds is caused by two factors: 1. Missing the optimum engine powerband. 2. Wind resistance.

Depending on engine and transmission characteristics, the first factor might in fact be optimized at a higher speed, perhaps somewhere around 65 mph instead of around 55 mph. I don't know how each particular car model stacks up, nor do I even know if there was/is an industry regulation making manufacturers set their overdrive-gear optimum point at 55 mph. This is usually the less important factor, however.

Wind resistance is a function of the shape of the car (swoopy designs like the Prius and the old EV1 have particularly low drag coefficients) and a function of the square of the speed.

That is: (Fd) = (0.5)x(p)x(Cd)x(A)x(v^2), where Fd is force of drag, p is density of the fluid, Cd is the coefficient of drag (a dimensionless constant which depends of the shape of the vehicle), A is the cross-sectional surface area of the vehicle (again, tied to the specific design of the car) and v is the velocity of the vehicle. Basically, if you do the math, you'll find that crusing at 65 mph creates 39% more drag than cruising at 55 mph. No matter how well-tweaked your gearing ratios are, that's a lot of extra resistance to overcome, and a big drag on fuel economy. That's why a moderate cruising speed is such a simple yet effective fuel economy measure.

See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml for a generalized graph of fuel economy vs. cruising speed, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_resistance for a discussion of air resistance.

"In terms of overall deaths, removing the lightest vehicles is a significantly more beneficial option than removing the heavier vehicles, and 'putting occupants of heavier cars into lighter cars would actually lead to more deaths' (p5). They conclude that more effort needs to be made in protecting vehicle occupants in all types of vehicles rather than focussing on vehicle incompatibility issues. This improves the outcome for occupants in most crashes, including single-vehicle crashes."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_200303/ai_n9232928/pg_9

Putting weight into CAFE only mandates weight. If the concern is higher mileage cars are less safe why not mandate safety & higher mileage together?

Eliminating CAFE also solves the problem... by putting the burden on consumers. They will either drive less or sell/buy their cars more often in search of higher efficiency.

2001 Honda Civic
Curb weight = 2,504 lbs
Death rate (per million registered vehicle years) = 67

2001 Ford Excursion
Curb weight = 6,649 lbs
Death rate (per million registered vehicle years) = 107

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4003.pdf

Thanks for the data on civic vs. excursion. Perhaps the tendency to drive excursions is self correcting. Maybe evolution will solve the problem.

interesting.

You choose to compair the honda with one of the lowest death rates in its class to the ford which is in its own class due to its size.

Note that the top 10 vehicles have death rates from 10 to 29.

In the article I poseted they also note that there execptions to the general trend of smaller = less safe
and site the civic as one of them.

Small cars that fair worse than the Ford.

Saturn SL 1999-2002 108
Chevrolet Prizm 1999-2002 128
Dodge Neon 2000-02 154
Ford Escort 1999-2002 158
Pontiac Sunfire 1999-2002 160
Chevrolet Cavalier 1999-2002 162

Also there are some odd things going on
Ford Crown Victoria 1999-2002 53
Mercury Grand Marquis 1999-2002 83

They are the same vehicle appart from a the name tag and features.
But the mercury has higher production numbers,exposing them to a higher number of crashes.

There are also a number of suv's that do better in death rates than the civic ... mostly in the midsize and up clases.

Read the article and draw your own conclusions.

interesting. You choose to compair the honda with one of the lowest death rates in its class to the ford which is in its own class due to its size

I took a very popular small vehicle and compared it with the biggest personal vehicle on the road. The point is that "lighter is more dangerous" is false. It's going to depend on engineering and the people who drive the vehicles - such that a car can weigh 3 times as much and still be more dangerous to its driver.

Naturally, if all cars were smaller and lighter it would be safer for everyone. One of the prime drivers of SUV popularity was an arms race (ie vicious cycle) of people trying to get bigger and higher than the other vehicles around them. Despite this, the Civic is still safer than the Excursion.

A person who cared about safety would look to why that's so and then employ the lessons learned from it.

Small cars that fair worse than the Ford.

Saturn SL 1999-2002 108
Chevrolet Prizm 1999-2002 128
Dodge Neon 2000-02 154
Ford Escort 1999-2002 158
Pontiac Sunfire 1999-2002 160
Chevrolet Cavalier 1999-2002 162

That also happens to be a list of cheap, crappy cars that aren't as well-engineered for safety as a Civic is. You're making my point for me.

To add to the fuel efficiency at various speeds debate above:

at 65mph rolling resistance will be greater from the friction interaction between tire and road despite the slight lift caused by the greater speed of 65 vs. 55mph.

Bigger is not allways better.... agreed.

A well engineered vehicle will fair better than a poorly engineered vehicle. ... agreed

"The point is that "lighter is more dangerous" is false."

Not according to page 10 of the pdf you provided.

They list death rate for each vehicle class and death rate witin a weigh range.

For cars, suv's and trucks, as weigh goes up death rate goes down ...

Cars of the same weight tended to have lower death rates than suv's, trucks.

If you want to argue that cars are safer than suv's these numbers would tend to support that.

If you want to argue that making a vehicle lighter will not make it less safe these numbers do not support that theory. As higher weight is associated with lower death rates.

The concern noted in posts by others is that higher MPG requirements on light trucks would result in lighter vehicles with worse safety specs.

This not to say that a vehicle can not be made both lighter and safer, high strength steel would be one way to obtain these goals ... but perhaps at a higher cost than mild steel.

"CAFE is proof, as if any were needed, that no policy can fail badly enough to be abandonded by politicians"

The CAFE level hasn't been raised in 21 years. 21 F*ing YEAR!
Thank the GOP for that!

If you want to argue that making a vehicle lighter will not make it less safe these numbers do not support that theory. As higher weight is associated with lower death rates.

It may be "associated with" it, but that's a result of design choices. The bottom line is that lighter weight does not always mean less safety. The averages of past empirical data by weight class mean nothing when the issue is a policy prescription. If the Feds were actually concerned about safety (instead of trying to scare people into buying bigger vehicles which consume more gas, contrary to what they're trying to portay about their intent), then they'd simply dictate safety standards for smaller vehicles to meet those being used in a car like the Civic. Simple.

And as I said, the more mass you pull of the road (and also reducing average vehicle height) is going to make a huge improvement in overall safety stats.

The CAFE level hasn't been raised in 21 years. 21 F*ing YEAR!

Exclusive of the recent subcategorization of the light truck standard, the overall standard for light trucks last went up from 1995 to 1996. For automobiles, it last went up between 1989 and 1990.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter04.pdf

Research by State Farm Insurance showed that children are 50% more likely to be injured in an SUV than in smaller cars.

Intersting data provided by the pdf.

for arguments sake, let's study death rates involving Civics vs 18-wheelers and compare that to death rates involving F-Excursions vs 18-wheelers and see how that comes out?

of course noone wants to tangle with an 18-wheeler because you're probably going to loose, but i like my chances in the Excursion. Now if we could just get it to run on ethonal!

for arguments sake, let's study death rates involving Civics vs 18-wheelers and compare that to death rates involving F-Excursions vs 18-wheelers and see how that comes out?

For argument sake, we'd need actual data, which I doubt exists at that level of specificity. Since we don't live in a world where every other vehicle other than ours is a semi, the fatality rates I showed are going to give a good sense of actual overall risk.

but i like my chances in the Excursion

T-boned or frontal, you're dead no matter what you're driving.

Turns out 59% of the time someone gets killed in a collision with a semi, it is either frontal or t-boning. Another 18% of the time it's someone hitting the truck from behind. Again, you're hosed no matter what you're driving in those scenarios (ie, 77% of the time).

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809907.pdf (see Table 3)

The insurance institute for highway safety suggests that motorists stay away from the lightest cars, as they are often unsafe, while acknowledging that a lot depends on the crashworthiness of any given model.

That being said, they also found, in general, that weight-to-fatality rates were "left-shifted" in cars, relative to pickups and SUVs. That is, for any given weight, a car was statistically safer than an SUV or pickup truck. A 3,500 pound car was, on average, safer than anything else on the road -- even more massive SUVs could not match it. See: http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/sfsc.pdf.

As it happens, the new Ford Five Hundred clocks in at around 3,600 pounds and, when equipped with side-impact airbags (helps in case an SUV hits from the side), earned the highest safety category. It also gets almost decent fuel economy of 21/29 mpg. For all those soccer moms out there buying on safety, this beats any SUV on most measures, and gets better mileage too. For hybrid buffs, the Prius came in with very respectable results as well. Or just get a used Buick Park Avenue.

This suggests a few policy prescriptions, if we are really serious about safety.

1. Get all nonessential individuals out of SUVs and pickup trucks. Some users will continue to require these vehicles -- workmen, residents of particularly inhospitable terrain, people who do a lot of towing and hauling -- but for the vast majority of uses, lower riding cars and station wagons should be encouraged.

2. Encourage design improvements, particularly for low-weight cars and pickup trucks. Side-impact airbags have quickly proven themselves very useful. Good overall engineering is a must. If the Civic can be safe, the Ranger can be made better too.

If you are concerned about safety, the first thing you will do is swear off all SUVs and pickup trucks. Then, you will buy either a reasonably large car or an unusually well designed small car. Or a Prius.

My guess is that doing this would result in both safer roadways and lower overall fuel consumption, relative to the present condition. I will also observe that this tendency towards weight as well (for safety, comfort, whatever) as well as CARB restrictions on diesel are probably the main reasons why hybrids are getting there start here in America, while the European response to energy prices has traditionally been really tiny cars, followed by really tiny diesel powered cars.

My wife has a little tiny Miata Convertible. She drives it like an absolute manic. If she came up on a simi blocking the road, she would just breeze around it at 100 mph.

Last time she did it with me in the car, I peed in my pants.

"..workmen, residents of particularly inhospitable terrain, people who do a lot of towing and hauling.."

Thank you at least someone understands that a prius can't be the answer for everything.

So for arguments sake say I have a 2001 jeep cherokee for reasons above.

It is epa rated at 16 city 20 hw, meets CA LEV emissions and tips the scales at about 3300 lbs and some change.

It has seating for 5, a hitch for towing up to 5000 lbs and full time 4x4 with low range.

I'm open to suggestions, find me a vehicle that weighs the same or less can tow 5000 lbs has, full time 4x4 with low range, but gets better mpg.

Gasoline would be better than diesel as it remains non-frozen / gelled / wax clouded even at -25 F. (see #1 above "particularly inhospitable")

You don't have to worry about people driving suv's that don't need them ... why you ask.
The suv's that are being produced are suv's in name but they lack any utilty.
Many new suv's are just crappy cars.

You don't have to worry about people driving suv's that don't need them ... why you ask.
The suv's that are being produced are suv's in name but they lack any utilty.
Many new suv's are just crappy cars.

Sort of a meaningless semantic distinction, because they sure as heck get the crappy mileage of something with "utility", ride high (which is dangerous in terms of restricting visibility of and having crash incompatibility with automobiles), and are more massive than need be.

I think everyone who has a so-called light truck believes they "need" it.

First of all while it is possible for a car to get better mpg at 65 then 55 it would almost have to be designed to do that and I dont know of ANY car that does. Mostly because it would have to be designed to get bad mpg at 55 to make that possible. I have a Mustang and it gets about 2mpg worse at 65 then at 55. It also gets higher mpg then the epa rating on the highway at steady state 65mph.

As recent crash tests show cars with side airbags are much safer then cars without. This is more important than size in many cases. I would rather be in a Prius with side airbags in a side crash then a Malibu without.

Our old van got 15 mpg if it was kept at some strange speed just above 65 mph something like 67 68 somewhere in that range. It got 10 mpg at 55 and got 8 at 35.

It had 2 overdrive dears and when the final one kicked in you couldnt even hear the engine anymore it was running so slow. All yu could hear was the road and the wind.

But that van was designed for economical cross country FAMILY touring had 2 26.5 gallon tanks and was sold on its massive touring ability and ability to go massive distances between fillups.

The ammount of energy needed to keep a car going 50-60 mph is tiny compared to the amount of energy that was needed to get there.

Thats why a 20 hp engine can get a car or even a truck to 65 mph.. eventualy.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter04.pdf

The CAFE standard started at 18 mpg in 1978, when up to 27.5 in 1985.
Today the standard is...... 27.5mpg !!

Thank the Grand Oil Party

would the people who run this web site please change the name from GREENCARCONGRESS to SAFECARCONGRESS because some people only want to talk about how safe a given car is. i'm selling my hummer tomorrow cos its not safe enough, i'm gonna get a tank does any one know which one is the safest, don't worry about mpg i want SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE, USA USA USA

The reason people around where I live care first and foremost about safety is we are in the middle of a massive truck route and the mass of heavy haul trucks going by us is amazing. Most any accident you have going to or from work around here will involve someone getting rear ended or rear ending a heavy haul truck.

If not for our heavy cars my entire family would be dead already. And our current heavy cars get 30 mpg. So eat worms and die if you think I give a damn what you think about em.

I wont drive an unsafe car no matter what you wish.

If not for our heavy cars my entire family would be dead already.

Really? How do you know this?

Back a long while we were backed into by a semi when the driver got lost. We were told by the police that we were damn lucky are car was a sturdy as it was because the last car that happened to.. right in the same spot in fact the truck didnt push it back instead running it over. The car was still totaled. I was in the paassenger seat and the back right tires of the semi were headed straight for me and if we had been any shorter they would have stopped right where I was sitting.

Then there was the time someone tailgated us and we had to take a turn too quick... we had a choice of hitting a set of security poles or running a security guard and some kids down. We chose the pole. I had never realy notices all the bits of car around that pole before.... I was told most times someone gets rushed to the hospital when they hit that pole.. we had sprained wrists and such. The pole wound up UNDER where I sit. If not for being in a very tall riding van id be dead 100% certain.

And most recently my sister got rearended by a semi when someone ahead of her did something stupid. Sandwitch city and she now has a metal rod in her leg.

Point blank if her car had been even a little lighter and weaker she would not be walking at the very least.

And as we speak somewhere anouther truck with our name on it is rumbling around waiting for our get together date. Almost happened a few weeks back.. they hit someone else instead....small car... body bits everywhere.

The USA sounds like a pretty deangerues place if you ask me. I dont get how anyone dear to drive under those conditions...

Pleasure to meet you Johannes of Norway.

It is not all that bad ... at least that is what we have to tell ourselves as we don't have much choice.

The USA is very automobile centric ... many places do not have high population density. There are states over half as large as Norway with a population of only 500,000
http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1274.shtml

Train, bus, air service are slow (tains and busses) and limited to larger cities, there are many places that if you need to go there driving is about the only option.

You may find it funny that in the USA you can drive at a younger age than you can drink.
Some states you can get a restricted permit to drive at 14 yrs old but you can't drink till 21.

Historically cheap gas prices, an interstate highway system, limited rail service, low population density ...
These are just a few of the reasons why the USA is the way it is.

It is a strange place but if it is all you have ever known it seems "normal" to you.

One of my old friends had grown up in a town where only a few people had cars as most everyone was living where they worked or very near it.

But it was a small valley town and he was rather old even back when I met him.

On the one hand it might be nice to live there.. On the other hand do they have malted milk balls and its its? I cant live without malted milk balls and its its.