Drill, baby, drill
05-07-2010
, 04:38 PM
Quote:
Hey dont forget how Nader was a government regulator when he wrote Unsafe @ Any Speed 
and how seatbelts and crumple zones were pooped out of washington to save us all, and without laws no one would have ever tied to make cars anything but rolling death traps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt
or how there are no negative externalities to thinking that keeping us safe is the job of government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect
and how seatbelts and crumple zones were pooped out of washington to save us all, and without laws no one would have ever tied to make cars anything but rolling death trapshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt
or how there are no negative externalities to thinking that keeping us safe is the job of government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect
Quote:
In 1950, the first factory-installed seatbelts in the U.S. appeared in the 1950 Nash Statesman and Ambassador models. This was nearly 20 years after U.S. physicians had begun urging auto manufacturers to provide seatbelts in cars.
...
The auto industry at the time believed that safety would not sell, and that an emphasis on a car's safety features would scare the public. Advertising instead generally focused on a car's comfort, style, and performance. At the same time, efforts to reduce traffic crashes never focused on the automobile, but rather on the driver or the road.
...
Despite a lack of industry and government attention to occupant safety, there was a small cadre of legislators, consumer safety advocates, and lawyers -- most prominently, Ralph Nader -- who felt that the automotive industry needed to do a better job of engineering safe cars. In addition to calling the government's attention to the issue, these activists brought auto safety into the public's eye. In May 6, 1966, a press release was issued reporting that between 1960 and 1966, 426 recall campaigns involving 8.7 million cars had been undertaken by auto manufacturers without any notification to consumers. (If a recalled car was brought into a dealer, the dealer would fix the defect without notifying the owner, but if cars were not brought in, no efforts were made by the manufacturer to locate or remedy the recalled cars.) After this and a few other events that caused embarrassment to auto manufacturers, government and public support was galvanized towards securing standards for automotive safety.
In 1966, the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act were passed, still the most substantial legislation to date regarding automotive industry standards. The legislation authorized the federal government to set and regulate motor vehicle and highway standards, and also created the National Highway Safety Bureau, which later became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The resulting improvements in auto design were significant and included head rests, energy absorbing steering wheels, shatter-resistant windshields, and mandated installation of seatbelts. By 1970, motor vehicle-related deaths were on the decline, both as measured by deaths per population and deaths per vehicle miles traveled.
...
The auto industry at the time believed that safety would not sell, and that an emphasis on a car's safety features would scare the public. Advertising instead generally focused on a car's comfort, style, and performance. At the same time, efforts to reduce traffic crashes never focused on the automobile, but rather on the driver or the road.
...
Despite a lack of industry and government attention to occupant safety, there was a small cadre of legislators, consumer safety advocates, and lawyers -- most prominently, Ralph Nader -- who felt that the automotive industry needed to do a better job of engineering safe cars. In addition to calling the government's attention to the issue, these activists brought auto safety into the public's eye. In May 6, 1966, a press release was issued reporting that between 1960 and 1966, 426 recall campaigns involving 8.7 million cars had been undertaken by auto manufacturers without any notification to consumers. (If a recalled car was brought into a dealer, the dealer would fix the defect without notifying the owner, but if cars were not brought in, no efforts were made by the manufacturer to locate or remedy the recalled cars.) After this and a few other events that caused embarrassment to auto manufacturers, government and public support was galvanized towards securing standards for automotive safety.
In 1966, the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act were passed, still the most substantial legislation to date regarding automotive industry standards. The legislation authorized the federal government to set and regulate motor vehicle and highway standards, and also created the National Highway Safety Bureau, which later became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The resulting improvements in auto design were significant and included head rests, energy absorbing steering wheels, shatter-resistant windshields, and mandated installation of seatbelts. By 1970, motor vehicle-related deaths were on the decline, both as measured by deaths per population and deaths per vehicle miles traveled.
05-07-2010
, 05:16 PM
Level 1 thinking indeed. It doesn't matter why it's not required, we HAVE regulation, and it's NOT required. Your proposed solution has already proven to be a failure.
QED.
05-07-2010
, 05:17 PM
[QUOTE=suzzer99;18749466]
It was already happening and continues to happen bigger and better than the law requires
right because there are no such things as lawsuits and injury setelments or consumer action
SWEET! so basically the laws got us seatbelts and crumple zones that were already being used or were being introduced. And the evil car that started it all was fine according to regulators.
again I am not an ACist... but I am against pointless government for the sake of government bull**** that solves nothing.
NO ... it doesnt mesh with logic or reason therefore it must be wrong.
Quote:
Despite a lack of industry and government attention to occupant safety, there was a small cadre of legislators, consumer safety advocates, and lawyers -- most prominently, Ralph Nader -- who felt that the automotive industry needed to do a better job of engineering safe cars. In addition to calling the government's attention to the issue, these activists brought auto safety into the public's eye. In May 6, 1966, a
Quote:
This was never going to happen with the auto industry alone, or it would have taken 10x as long.
Quote:
just bringing something to the public's attention with no threat of legislation/regulation is rather impotent.
Quote:
By most rational accounts, the auto safety acts of the late 60s were a big success.
Quote:
from wiki RE; unsafe @ any speed
According to an account attributed to U.S. author Bob Helt,[7] the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ran a series of comparative tests, in 1971, studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair against four contemporary cars, a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, Renault Dauphine and also a later 1967 Corvair (with a revised suspension design) was included for comparison. The account went on to describe some of the test details, which included a review of national accident data, and a review of GM internal files and documents, and quoted parts of the original NHTSA report.[8] The result of this test, according to Helt, was, "The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."
According to an account attributed to U.S. author Bob Helt,[7] the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ran a series of comparative tests, in 1971, studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair against four contemporary cars, a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, Renault Dauphine and also a later 1967 Corvair (with a revised suspension design) was included for comparison. The account went on to describe some of the test details, which included a review of national accident data, and a review of GM internal files and documents, and quoted parts of the original NHTSA report.[8] The result of this test, according to Helt, was, "The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."
Quote:
Obviously AC-ists think otherwise.
Quote:
It doesn't mesh with my worldview therefore it must be wrong.
05-07-2010
, 05:17 PM
05-07-2010
, 05:18 PM
05-07-2010
, 05:19 PM
05-07-2010
, 05:35 PM
Cool picture btw keep it up bro
05-07-2010
, 06:11 PM
05-07-2010
, 07:30 PM
05-07-2010
, 09:16 PM
05-07-2010
, 10:35 PM
05-07-2010
, 10:44 PM
05-08-2010
, 08:03 PM
