Topic: Feature: Unsafe at Any Speed, 50 Years Later

[Autos_Editor]

The more things change...
Read More...

[safristi]

He was a man for the times and I applaud (Applauded) him.

 Now there are dozens of agencies and institutes both private and public....why not one
or two that focus on getting the vehicles right before testing them on the masses, nothing made by man is inherently safe from the get go...at least now we recognise and monitor that sometimes to the extreme..Hey Billion dollar fines attract PREDATORS ..says one who drives an ULTRA SAFE LOTUS ELAN...no recalls EFFER..it even has a NADER DETECTOR BUILT IN....

[tooscoops]

my god saf... that first bit was oddly easy to understand... and even stranger.. to agree with! ha! nice. to err is human (and to arrgh is pirate)

people who are a pain in the butt are often the ones who get things done. was nader always right? no... but more often than not, his mind was in the right place and there was always some truth to what he said.

while i also applaud nader for all he has done, the current market is so entitled (and clueless) that they think they deserve all the safety and security... at a cheaper price, yet still retain the style and fun of the other vehicles and be more reliable. unfortunately, some things come at a cost, and from what i see on a daily basis, i rarely come across anyone willing to shell out their own money to get it.

[sacrat]

while i also applaud nader for all he has done, the current market is so entitled (and clueless) that they think they deserve all the safety and security... at a cheaper price, yet still retain the style and fun of the other vehicles and be more reliable.  unfortunately, some things come at a cost, and from what i see on a daily basis, i rarely come across anyone willing to shell out their own money to get it.

From what I've seen the consumer has no choice but to pay for safety. You can no longer pass on six airbags (at least), ABS, and stability control on even the lowliest vehicles. This, of course, is a good thing. If I want to go out as something REALLY scary on Halloween, I'd dress up as a Ford Pinto...

[SKYMTL]

Funny, the second I read "Unsafe at any speed" I was brought back to my test drive of a 2015 Camaro.  Visibility anyone? 

[X-Traction]

My older brother's reaction to "Unsafe at any Speed" was to make a comparison to a hammer. You can use a hammer to do something useful like drive in a nail, or mess up and mash your finger.  Thus, he, a professional engineer, sided with those who decried Nader as a foolish quack.  Everyone who heard my brother's comment thought he was very astute indeed.

If this forum existed at the time Nader's book came out, I can just see the usual suspects calling Nader and his concerns idiotic.

[tenpenny]

If the hammer was made out of brittle cast iron, so that when you hit a nail it fractured and metal fragments lodged in your eye and blinded you, what would you say then?


Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[tooscoops]

true enough... but in a free market society, someone will make a better hammer and the customer can always buy that...

as long as people don't lie about what their product is, fine by me! that is the bigger issue in my opinion... companies that lie, cheat, and blatantly misrepresent what they are flogging.... add in bribe (or even lobby) to have others state any claims and therein lies my issue.

if it is only that good safe products should exist, close the dollarstores! no one is paying a buck for that hammer and expecting it to be equal to an estwing... but they don't try to tell us it should be.

[PJ]

If the hammer was made out of brittle cast iron, so that when you hit a nail it fractured and metal fragments lodged in your eye and blinded you, what would you say then?


Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

I'd say you should have been wearing your safety glasses.

It is a good point though especially in Naders day but now every car on the road is extremely safe.  I'd be surprised if even 1 % of accidents are caused by the car.  Now ( actually long over due) it's time to focus on the real problem.  Bad drivers.   Every car old or new is safe if you don't crash.

[Noto]

my god saf... that first bit was oddly easy to understand... and even stranger.. to agree with!

Yeah, I'm starting to think this 'returned' Saf is not actually him, but someone impersonating him! 

while i also applaud nader for all he has done, the current market is so entitled (and clueless) that they think they deserve all the safety and security... at a cheaper price, yet still retain the style and fun of the other vehicles and be more reliable. unfortunately, some things come at a cost,

It's the cost of doing business.  How is it that the 2015 Corolla offers SO m more than the 2010 (see the article), yet MSRP has risen by less than $1,000 despite inflation, etc?  Is Toyota now losing money per unit?  Not a chance.

Heck, even you say it:

true enough... but in a free market society, someone will make a better hammer and the customer can always buy that...

The market will dictate what is required to stay competitive.  It's not as simple as "adding a backup camera costs $, and therefore consumers must pay that exact $ amount for it...plus a little markup, just 'cuz"

Yes, the market can be a needy little b!tch sometimes, asking for what seems to be "the world."  Cars should be more powerful, yet more fuel efficient.  They should be larger, yet lighter.  They should be safer, yet have more glass and less materials.  They should be more complex, but cheaper.

Somehow, manufacturers make these tradeoffs happen (thanks, Engineers!) without massive price jumps.  If cars all of a sudden became that much more expensive, the general population wouldn't be able to afford them in similar volumes, and overall profits would decrease.

Jacob, what's it like in Aussieland where cars are hella expensive compared to the relatively strong AUD?

If this forum existed at the time Nader's book came out, I can just see the usual suspects calling Nader and his concerns idiotic.

Ain't that the bloody truth, and +1 to you for bringing it up.  For all of you who still say backup cameras/driver's aids aren't useful,

I like Nader, by the way...

As a young lawyer with a social conscience and an interest in tort law, Mr. NaderShapiro found his calling.

[tpl]

Could it be that both Saf AND JohngenX are Apps?   Or worse, just remote terminals to IBM's Watson testing out some AI software.

[johngenx]

Nadar was an awesome guy.  He championed consumer protection laws and made a big difference to a lot of people.

[tooscoops]

rather than quote ya nosan (and make a big wall of grey), i'll just comment on it...

while you are right that they aren't losing money per unit... the costs go somewhere... maybe a few people making less... maybe profits being a bit smaller... maybe parts contracts being a little lighter. just those three little things can decrease quality. lower the quality (and increase warranty claims, lower consumer happiness/demand) plus have less cash flow and it is not a great thing... i blame a lot of that type of thing on these latest recalls. not only does that practice (paying less to the lowest bidder) cause the faults, but less money in the coffers makes the manufacturer less eager to do things right, or put out a recall early... better to hold off as long as you can and hope the problem goes away (until the golden parachute comes!)

just something that i feel anyway... small changes have big impacts.

[Cord]

while i also applaud nader for all he has done, the current market is so entitled (and clueless) that they think they deserve all the safety and security... at a cheaper price, yet still retain the style and fun of the other vehicles and be more reliable.  unfortunately, some things come at a cost, and from what i see on a daily basis, i rarely come across anyone willing to shell out their own money to get it.

From what I've seen the consumer has no choice but to pay for safety. You can no longer pass on six airbags (at least), ABS, and stability control on even the lowliest vehicles. This, of course, is a good thing. If I want to go out as something REALLY scary on Halloween, I'd dress up as a Ford Pinto...

Don't believe everything in the Fight Club script. 

http://www.perishablepundit.com/docs/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

[mixmanmash]

while i also applaud nader for all he has done, the current market is so entitled (and clueless) that they think they deserve all the safety and security... at a cheaper price, yet still retain the style and fun of the other vehicles and be more reliable.  unfortunately, some things come at a cost, and from what i see on a daily basis, i rarely come across anyone willing to shell out their own money to get it.

From what I've seen the consumer has no choice but to pay for safety. You can no longer pass on six airbags (at least), ABS, and stability control on even the lowliest vehicles. This, of course, is a good thing. If I want to go out as something REALLY scary on Halloween, I'd dress up as a Ford Pinto...

Don't believe everything in the Fight Club script. 

http://www.perishablepundit.com/docs/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

Coles Notes version?

[Cord]

^^
From the article's conclusion:

... as for safety the Pinto was a car that was neither admirable nor despicable. Its overall fatality rate was roughly in the middle of the subcompact range; its record was better than the subcompact average with respect to fatalities-with-fire; yet for the quite small category of fatalities-with-rear-end-fire, its design features apparently gave it a worse than average record.

Fatalities per Million Vehicles

                           1975  1976
AMC Gremlin          274    315
Chev Vega             288     310
Datsun1200/210   392     418
Datsun 510           294     340
Ford Pinto              298     322
Toyota Corolla        333     293
VW Beetle              378     370

The commonly held idea is that the Pinto rear fires resulted in thousands of deaths and this was due to much innaccurate, irresponsible, and sensational reporting at the time. In 1977 the magazine Mother Jones ran the first article about the Pinto and at the press conference to announce it, the author was accompanied by Ralph Nader (just to get us back on topic with the OP). According to the article, between 500 and 900 people had been killed in fires attributable to the Pinto's gas tank design. In a subsequent 60 Minutes segment, Mike Wallace commented about Ford "buying 2000 deaths and 10,000 injuries."

The NHTSA had records of 27 deaths and 24 injuries from 38 instances of rear end fires. However, the NHTSA did not differentiate between fires that were due to the Pinto's design and fires that would've occurred with a state of the art fuel system (e.g. due to high speed impacts). Later data showed that the Pinto did suffer higher than average rear end fires (the Gremlin was still worse). However, the "fire trap" labels assigned in popular culture did not match the actual fatality numbers.

The "Fight Club" reference was in regard to the now quoted-as-fact statement that Pinto fires happened because Ford decided that it was cheaper to deal with death lawsuits than it was to add an $11 part to each car. This is due to a misinterpretation of a Ford document introduced at one of the early Pinto trials. The document in question had nothing to do with Pinto gas tanks and was regarding pending NHTSA roll-over requirements. It's contents have been misconstrued and misreported for decades now.

There is no doubt that in modern terms of safety the Pinto was junk, as were its contemporary sub-compact competitors. However, the pop culture "truth" of the exploding Pinto gas tanks is based more in myth than in fact.

[tooscoops]

thanks for the rundown!

... and to add to the 1975ish issues, the pacer was brutal for accidents... get it in a spin and it just kept going... the footprint was nearly square, so it never wanted to stop....