Mark Levin Tirade against CAFE

In My Humble Opinion
1

Normally, Mark Levin has semi-reasonable opinions and analysis on talk radio
However, I thought his tirade against CAFE standards was a little over the top.

Short version of it is:

With the increase in CAFE requirements, it required vehicles to be smaller with more plastic and aluminum which he felt was causing an major increase in motor vehicle fatalities because the size mismatch.

He also had the point that with this increase, there would be many more hybrid vehicles which he doesn’t like either but that would be another topic.
Of course, he ignores that if all vehicles are smaller, the net effect is the same in terms of collision damage.

He is also ignoring the improved safety standards so that many of these lighter vehicles are actually much safer even if they are not as easily repairable as the older vehicles.

Actually, with all the current regulations, I am actually surprised that the automakers can build cars to satisfy most of the regulations (emission scandals not withstanding)

Any comments on his tirade. As mentioned, I thought he was a little off-base with that

2

Haven’t fatalities from car crashes been declining for years?

3

I think CAFE is back-asswards and dumb, but not for those reasons. #1, he’s totally wrong. Cars in general are not smaller and less safe than older cars. The highway fatality rate has been steadily dropping for decades, even as the number of cars on the road and miles driven go up and up.

modern cars are not smaller. Put a 2016 Honda Civic next to a 1986 Honda Civic, and the 2016 is a leviathan. Put a 2016 Mustang next to a 1966 Mustang, and the 2016 dwarfs the '66. The 1966 Mustang weighed about 2,500 lbs. The 2016 weighs a thousand lbs more.

modern cars are also not less safe. I think he’s falling into the trap of believing that old cars were somehow safer because of those enormous chrome bumpers and whatnot. Which is nonsense; those bumpers might have meant backing into someone in a parking lot meant little damage, but in a collision at any road speed they would fold up uselessly as the structure of the car collapsed and crushed you. Modern cars use crumple zones to dissipate as much energy from a collision as possible, then the rigid passenger cage tries to prevent any damage to the people inside.

In short, the industry at large has decided it’s better to let the car sacrifice itself to save the occupants. So what if a fender bender costs $2000 to fix. Insurers would rather cut a check for a couple grand to fix or replace a busted up car than to pay out tens of thousands to try to fix a busted up person.

so yeah, the guy is totally wrong.

4

Yes, I know that most Modern cars are larger when comparing Model to Model.

However, there are some very small cars out there (Smart Car, Volt, Prius) and even being smaller, they still do fairly well in collisions (Unless they hit a big truck):eek:

However, the point that cars are generally larger (and much safer) even though they may get a little banged up some more from a slow speed collision

However, there are quite a few people who think these older vehicles are safer and no amount of convincing is going to change their minds and some of these people are quite smart otherwise.

Thanks

5

the additional risk with a small car like that vs. a bigger vehicle is the smaller vehicle being sent skittering into a secondary collision.

However, the point that cars are generally larger (and much safer) even though they may get a little banged up some more from a slow speed collision

However, there are quite a few people who think these older vehicles are safer and no amount of convincing is going to change their minds and some of these people are quite smart otherwise.

Thanks
[/QUOTE]

you can’t reason people out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

6

The average age of a car on US roads is nine years. If the “improvement” curve is steep enough, there will be a large number of newer lighter cars colliding with older heavier ones. Also, if the safer cars are more expensive to repair, increasing numbers of motorists will be driving cars with neglected faulty safety equipment, rather than pay the h9gh cost of repairing a car of low value…

This is not to defend Levin overall, but to respond to some points of criticism of him.

7

This is where you lost me.

8

As of last year, this has increased to 11.5 years.

9

Small cars can even be safer than a large car in some ways. They are more manuverable and stop quicker, which means that they could avoid being in an accident at all. Being lower to the ground also means less effect from cross winds.

10

He is good when he talks about historical events and is quite knowledge about them

11

you can’t “neglect” the structural design of the car. we’re not talking about active equipment which needs maintenance, we’re talking about the way the vehicle is designed to protect the occupants. Old cars were basically built to hold together on the road, but when they hit something it was unpredictable how the body would deform and collapse.

this video has made its rounds several times, but I’ll dredge it up again:

look at the differences in what happens to both cars. The '59 Bel Air just folds up like aluminum foil. The floorpan and frame buckle, the seat tears free from its mounts, the A-pillar collapses nearly letting the door shear off, and the driver gets to eat the steering column while the dashboard smashes his legs. Were that a real person in that situation, he/she would most certainly be dead on the scene.

contrast that to the '09 Malibu. The front end of the car collapses in a controlled manner, then once the colliding Bel Air reaches the A-pillar (where the front of the door mounts) it stops. the dashboard barely moves inside the car, and the driver gets at most a faceful of pillow.

The “in a controlled manner” I emphasized above is the key. the “crumple zones” of modern cars aren’t just a certain amount of space. it’s how the stuff in front of and behind the cabin are designed to react in a collision. Here’s an example of the front end of the frame on a Ford Ranger:

it’s designed like that so if the truck collides with something, that section of the frame will collapse in a controlled manner, like the bellows of an accordion. When metal deforms that rapidly, it gets very hot. and that heat dissipates some of the energy of the crash, preventing it from being transferred to the occupants. It also reduces the shock “impulse” of the collision, further reducing the risk of injury. old cars didn’t really do any of that.

12

Is this the same guy that likes to make up childish names for people that he disagrees with? (Snowjob instead of Snow, etc…) Yeah, reasonable.
:rolleyes:

13

Well, the combination of half-baked sneering and whiny voice is a bit off-putting.

And my impression is that cars in general are significantly safer than in the olden days. If I had to be involved in a collision, I would much rather it be in a current sedan than in a 1950s or '60s model regardless of steel content.

14

They haven’t gotten Mark Levin yet either.

15

Here, I’ll help translate:

Normally, Mark Levin has semi-reasonable opinions and analysis [DEL]on[/DEL] for the crazytown that is talk radio.

As for CAFE standards degrading automotive safety, a cursory look shows that more cars have achieved four and five start NHTSA ratings in crash testing while both the measurement methods and crash safety requirements have become more rigorous, while the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety − Highway Loss Data Institute (IIHS−HLDI) has collected data on automotive accidents with greater fidelity and root cause assessment. Automobiles today may have less structural integrity to withstand a crash and continue to operate or be repairable to an operable condition, but that is a deliberate design choice to allow the vehicle structure to absorb the momentum of an impact and transfer it into controlled deformation of the frame and other structural elements rather than imparting it directly to the occupants, on the theory that automobiles are replaceable while occupants are not. Cars built to modern safety standards have both active systems for occupant protection such as front and side impact airbags, anti-whiplash systems, collapsing steering columns, et cetera, while also integrating systems which provide greater driver awareness and control (impact warnings, traction and stability control, high intensity lighting) as well as new functionality to actively prevent the driver from entering into or aggravating a hazardous situation (automatic braking, driver alertness detection, pedestrian detection, adaptive cruise control, cornering braking and control systems).

You are, roughly speaking, an order of magnitude more likely to survive a crash at sub-highway speeds (<45 mph) in an average car built in the last twenty years than one built in previous decades, and are vastly more likely to survive a high speed impact or rollover condition in a modern passenger car compared to older vehicles with no crumple zones, passenger protective measures, or stability recovery systems. Many of those older cars vaunted for their strength and mass will actually come apart like a cheap gold watch in a high speed or oblique impact, and will crush right down into the passenger compartment in rollover, while impaling the driver on the steering wheel and pitching passengers into hard surfaces or through the windshield.

Circa 1960, virtually no engineering effort was put into considerations for occupant safety, and the most that was really offered were (optional) lap seat belts that were likely more of a hazard than a protection; by 1980, cars were required to meet minimum safety and crashworthiness standards that have only improved while cars have become smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient. There are a number of reasons to critique the CAFE standards, but a negative impact on safety is not one of them.

Stranger

16

The only way to know for sure will be to have Mark Levin crash test them all.

He is obviously wrong for the reasons explained so far in the thread. And he is wrong because he (always) starts from the “Fact!” that all regulation is EVIL, and works backward to nonsense.

Dummy!

(all posts to this thread without childish name calling are invalid.)

17

Thanks.

You said it better than I could. I was trying to give him some credit before commenting on his tirade.