70's NHTSA experimental Safety Cars Scam

[Unregistered]

Hello, all. I am a regular poster at a general message board (www.gamefaqs.com War on Terrorism board) and we go off topic alot, we were debating CAFE laws being skirted by SUV's and many misconceptions were being bandied about by younger users (I'm 41) regarding safer VS. heavier cars. (they seem to think seat belts came about accidentally, and I have been educating them as much as I can regarding NHTSA, etc.)
Trying to get across a message that if you legislate the voter's desire for safe cars, they WILL be built. ANYWAY have any of you seen a link to those cars the NHTSA built under contract around 1975- there were, oh, about a dozen made, they looked a bit like the AMC Pacer X'd with a Chevy Monza. Car was an experiment using existing technology to prove to automakers you could build a car that got 25MPG, have the occupants walk away unscathed from hitting a solid object at 50 or 60 MPH, (using what appeared to be simply crumple zones, and extensive interior cage and padding- NO airbags, I believe) AND be affordable.
Last I heard about 2 years ago the guy at the NHTSA , now retired, who was responsible for the project was furious because they had secretly given the cars to a university and destroyed (test crashed) them but recorded no data. Apparantly since way back in '75 or '76, they had to cover up the damn thing lest the public know that a car like this was doable, saving tens of thousands of lives a year... that the manufacturers refused to even consider. The place I saw this at on the net even had a crash test Mpeg. from the original tests. It's legit. I've searched google with all kinds of words, but nada.
I'm not posting to stir up a can of worms here, but would LOVE to show these kids that you can demand safety and get it. I will check here daily for info, or e-mail me at batvette@cox.net
TIA, J. Lucier, San Diego

 

[Unregistered]

Congress does not have the background required to make effective decisions about the direction of auto safety in general.

Your post seems to miss a point. You say "if you legislate the voter's desire for safe cars, they WILL be built". If the voter's have desires for "safe" cars, there are many to choose from. You would expect the market to reflect buyers desires and thus, 'they WILL be built'. Congressional mandate is not required.

 

[SafeDad]

Hi-

I don't have any information about your prototype vehicles, unfortunately. During the Carter administration, NHTSA have a very good leader in Joan Claybrook, now of Public Citizen (www.citizen.org). Later chiefs of the NHTSA did cater a lot to Detroit and looked the other way about SUVs, since they have generated most of Detroit's profits for the last 25 years.

Though not about your question, this report has some interesting background:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/

As you may know, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) is now proposing new CAFE requirements that would NOT exempt SUVs. Of course, this is likely to make SUVs less powerful and possibly more expensive. This will not make a lot of suburban dad's very happy, as they need 350HP to haul their kids to soccer practice and get groceries..

Many of today's cars are very safe, and would protect passengers much better than those from 25 years ago. One of the biggest problems is the mismatch between smaller cars and large SUVs. If all vehicles were more similar in size, weight and construction, there would be many less fatalities.

Heavier is safer in a multi-vehicle head-on crash, to a point. Even with the wide spread of vehicle masses on the road, the IIHS finds this point to be around 4000 pounds with respect to increasing fatalities. Above that, you are simply adding more mass and energy to a crash, which is never good for occupants of one or both vehicles. Plus, the large stiff frames of large trucks and SUVs are also not ideal. Less crushing means more forces from the crash are transferred to the occupants.

It's nice to think that free market forces would lead to safer cars. Unfortunately, while people say they are interested in safety, it's usually another factor that makes the decision. Price, color choices, engine size, triple zone climate control, DVD systems and other frills are often higher on the list for many people. If many of the current safety systems on autos were left as options, you can be sure that most people would rather save $1000 than have a better chance to survive a crash. Most people think it will never happen to them, and don't know that motor vehicle crashes are the #1 cause of death for age groups 1-34. The question really comes down to having laws to protect citizens from themselves, or let Darwin's theory solve the problem for them. I don't have an answer for that debate.

We have some more links on safe family vehicles here-

http://www.car-safety.org/family.html

If you find the information you are seeking about that prototype vehicle, please post it for us!

 

[Unregistered]

re: NHTSA experimental cars

It's indeed sad that no trace can be found of them, I doubt any "conspiracy" is the culprit. As you say the cupholders and interior luxuries sell the vehicle. The report I saw said an estimated 20,000 lives could have been saved based on 1975 stats. (I'm one to talk, owning a Corvette- but I've had it for 16 years, bough it when I was 25 and heard the handling was great, and it has been the last of a string of sports cars I was in the bad habit of wrecking. Though VS. and SUV I'd lose for certain.)

What spurred our topic there was as usual, politics, (oil dependence in this case) and I expressed dismay at the powers that be telling us lead acid batteries and their limitations are why we don't have proliferation of electric vehicles... NASA engineers maintain that the moon rover they left there in the 70's could still go for miles... and the Hubble Telescope runs for decades (est) on solar panels and batteries. I use NiMh rechargeables in all my consumer electronics, (not like the old Nicads, these are the best!)

We rightfully should have the technology that we have already paid for in an electric car you drive to work, reccharges in the parking lot through glass roof panels and newer high output solar cells, and the trip home would be free! (the electric car would have many less parts-) the whole thing spells doom for a couple of industries, me thinks-

Sadly with loopholes like the SUV situation, the very people who can afford the most wasteful offenders don't have to have the threat of a gas guzzler tax on the vehicle that a Corvette, or even a subcompact would. And we lose in a collision.

In skirting CAFE they now spend the money in the marketing department to convince you that none of us can live without a 6000lb behemoth- rather than put the same money into engineering the better SUV, they drive away the demographic group that would buy subcompacts or sports cars, thus the demise of the Camaro, and others.

I saw your 4000 lb theory on weight vs. survivability, that was good info. I would surmise the extra 2000lbs isn't too favorable in a single car collision on icy roads..... in fact that ton might just allow inertia to take the SUV through a guardrail and over an embankment, who knows?

If I ever find the info on those NHTSA vehicles I'll post it here first. Though if you take crash safety seriously, it's likely to be upsetting, with the thought that it was handed to the big three, it was viable, the taxpayers footed the research bill, and they JUST WALKED AWAY which prevented thousands from doing the same..... Happy Motoring, of course.