(first posted 11/30/2015) We drive phenomenally safe cars today. Safety factors into just about every aspect of car design and engineering. The number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles driven in the US has dropped by 80% since 1965, from 5.30 to 1.11 in 2013. That is an astounding drop, and one that reflects roughly 125,000 lives saved per year, or millions over the decades.
Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe At Any Speed”, which appeared 50 years ago today, was the catalyst for the sea change in automobile safety that followed. Undoubtedly, automobile safety would have worked itself onto the agenda of the 60s or 70s eventually, but Ralph Nader gets the credit for affecting the changer sooner and swifter. Yet he gets pilloried endlessly by car enthusiasts.
photo by Andrew Sullivan for NYT
That’s probably in substantial part to a misunderstanding. Despite the fact that this red Corvair behind him is a central display in his new Museum Of American Tort Law in Winstead, Conn., Nader did not “kill the Corvair”. He rightfully gets the credit/blame for many things, including the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, but he didn’t “kill the Corvair”. Only the first chapter of the book was about the early (1960-1963) Corvair’s potentially dangerous oversteer, due to its heavy rear engine, swing axles, dependence on variable front/rear tire pressures, and the regrettable omission of a few cheap suspension parts that could have avoided its rep for instability at the limit and rolling over.
photo by Andrew Sullivan for NYT
By the time “Unsafe At Any Speed” came out in late 1965, the Corvair was already mortally wounded, thanks to the Mustang. It was also into its second year of production with a new rear suspension that addressed the specific issues in the book. But 1966 sales were already way off, even before “Unsafe At Any Speed” made the best seller list in the spring of 1966. In fact, GM only kept the Corvair in production all the way through 1969 specifically to counter the impression that Nader had influenced the Corvair’s demise.
Yes, after the publication of the book and the resulting Congressional hearings that resulted in the creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the early Corvair was pilloried. But thta was all after the fact; the real damage was to GM’s reputation overall. The 1960 Ford Falcon made it clear that the Corvair had no future as an economy car, causing Chevrolet to rush out its Falcon-clone Chevy II in 1962. Meanwhile,the Corvair was re-positioned as a bucket-seat floor-shift sporty car, in the form of the 1960.5 Monza coupe. It was the first of its kind, it sold quite well, and directly led to Ford responding with its Mustang.
I’ve covered the issue of the Corvair’s intrinsic stability challenges due to its design, which were exacerbated by penny-pinching shortcuts by GM. And I’ve also waxed eloquently about the Corvair, from the perspective of having owned a four-speed Monza as my first car. It’s a car that has inspired passions on both sides.
In a NYT article on Nader’s book anniversary, David Cole, the former director of the University of Michigan Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation and currently the chairman of the nonprofit AutoHarvest Foundation, and the son of the Corvair’s daddy, Ed Cole, had this to say about being given a Corvair to drive: “I don’t think he would ever had me driving a 1960 Corvair if he had any inclination there was a safety issue.” What else would he say about his father’s baby? Ed Cole had a thing for rear-engines going way back, and was apparently determined to prove that…big, heavy rear engines are not a good idea. Meanwhile, a number of GM executives were directly affected by the Corvair, including the death of the son of Cadillac General Manager Cal Werner, and the critically-injured son of Exec. VP Cy Osborne. And John DeLorean at Pontiac refused to build a version of it because of its rear engine design and handling issues. The Corvair was a controversial car, from GM’s 14th floor to Congress.
Who said I would never get into a Corvair?
And GM made a bad situation much worse when it hired private investigators to follow Nader in the hopes of digging up some dirt on him. If they’d known what an ascetic’s life he lived, they wouldn’t have bothered, and it backfired. GM was forced to issue a public apology. How often does that happen?
Enough about GM and the Corvair. The rest of the book was about all of the other blatant safety shortcomings of Detroit’s cars in general, such as the lack of proper restraints (seat/shoulder belts), dangerous interior design, inconsistent automatic transmission shift quadrants, and more. The final chapter was a call for the government to step in and regulate automobile safety, as the industry obviously was not serious about it.
Nader charged that the industry annually spent 23 cents per car on safety research and $700 per car on the then-obligatory annual model change, which was mostly styling. Yes, Ford made some effort to “sell safety” in their mid-50s cars, but they were mostly extra-cost options. Americans in the 50s would rather spend their precious dollars on whitewalls, a V8 and more chrome trim. The simple fact is that humans don’t often act in their best long-term self interests, unless forced to. That applies as much or more to the issue of climate change today as it did to automobile safety in the 50s and 60s.
There’s no doubt the relationship of Detroit and the American public regarding safety was largely a co-dependent one; everyone looked the other way, except when one encountered dead bodies on the highway, not an uncommon experience back then. I saw several myself as a child. Denial was the overarching theme regarding the over 50,000 Americans that were dying every year, smashing their faces into hard steel dash boards studded with pointy chrome spears, impaled by rigid steering columns, or being ejected. Or all three.
But the times the were a-changing’. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring”, on the widespread impact of DDT on wildlife, is considered the book that kick-started the modern environmental movement. Nader was inspired by it, and had spent some years researching the issue of auto safety. By 1965, he had completed much of it.
But his book almost didn’t get published; publishers felt that the American public wouldn’t want to read about such a downer subject. The first sentence in the book is: “For over half a century the automobile has brought death, injury and the most inestimable sorrow and deprivation to millions of people.” Who wants to hear that? Ignorance is bliss, behind the wheel, as elsewhere.
Of course Nader wasn’t the first to critique the car industry. I just finished reading John Keats’ “The Insolent Chariots” from 1958, which takes on the general state of American cars in 1958, hardly a high point. It critiques the design, weight, handling and lack of safety of cars, as well as the marketing and unsavory sales practices so rampant at the time. Keats bemoans the lack of a modern Model T, so obviously he’s a spartan, and a bit stuck in that regard.
But he rightly called out the Edsel, which had just come out some months before this book was published, for being nothing more than a tarted-up Ford or Mercury. And he correctly predicted its failure. With a massive pre-launch marketing campaign, Ford had set up Americans for a truly new car, and in 1958, a recession year, that would have been sometime very different.
Keats writes on safety: “…because our automobiles are so poorly designed as to be unsafe at any speed…” Is this the source of Nader’s book title?
Some may not like his personality or his style, but Ralph Nader changed the American automobile in terms of safety at least as much or more than the energy crises did in terms of efficiency and the Japanese in terms of quality. Unfortunately, both the NHTSA and the EPA have been caught sleeping at the wheel in recent years; the NHTSA with the GM ignition lock fiasco, and the EPA with VW diesel emissions. It always seems to take a crisis to wake folks up before they run into a tree or something. At least nowadays there are air bags and seat belts, thanks in no small part to Ralph Nader.
And what is Nader concerned about today, regarding automobile safety? Self-driving cars.
(from autonews.com) He thinks manufacturers are rushing in too quickly, and that it’s going to be used as an imperfect BandAid for distracted driving. “There are definite benefits of collision-avoidance systems,” Nader said. “But the problem is once the auto companies get on to something, they don’t know when to stop. And so they are turning the automobile into an ever more complicated computer on wheels. Which means that the driver is losing control to the software, and the more the driver loses control to the software, the less the driver is going to be able to control the car down the road.”
Food for thought, and discussion.
Related CC reading: 1960-1963 Corvair: GM’s deadliest Sin Ever?
I remember reading Unsafe At Any Speed when first it came out , I always liked Corvairs and owned a 1961 Coupe that was fine .
He had a whole chapter on how dangerous VW’s swing axles were , they weren’t at all .
-Nate
There’s no chapter about VW’s swing axles in that book.
And they were plenty dangerous, just not quite as bad as the Corvair’s, because the VW had quite a bit less weight over its rear wheels than the Corvair.
I don’t know about you, but stories of rolled VWs were very common back then. I knew several guys that had done it. And one could often see one still on the road that had been rolled, in a soft ditch. Rolled VWs were rampant in junk yards, which helped fuel the dune buggy fad. just unbolt the damaged body, and it’s ready to go.
I recall a chapter called ‘ before the crash ~ VW’s erratic dance .’
Maybe a different book ? .(sorry about the never ending parade of fuzzy memories)
I know VW’s rolled but almost always because of under inflated tires ~ everyone I knew back in the 1960’s had VW’s and many drove them flat out _stupidly_ , smacking curbs @ 50 MPH side ways and so on , and never rolled one although I had plenty of rolled one come through my VW Shop , I’d buy them cheaply and break for parts .
-Nate
Nate, you may be remembering a different book put out by Nader’s Center for Auto Safety specifically on VW in 1972:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/center-auto-safety/small-on-safety/
That is from another Nader book, ‘Small – On Safety’
Thanx ! .
-Nate
In 1977 I was driving home around 2:00 am Halloween night. as I rounded a corner on the freeway I saw 2 headlights, one on top of each other. As I slowed I saw a young woman wearing black in the middle of the freeway lying face up in a pool of blood from the back of her head. She was thrown out through the driver’s door window. I stopped and put my flashers on, and stopped the next car and asked the driver to call an ambulance. The 62 Beetle was laying on it’s side, and you could see the tire marks up the side of the dirt embankment where the car drove up and then rolled back down to the pavement. After she was taken away, 3 of us pushed the VW back up on it’s wheels. The car could have been driven away. I have no doubt a fastened seat belt would have made this a minor event instead of this sad result.
As a child, my father would never let me ride in a VW. The tricky handling, stories of them rolling, and the front-mounted fuel tank made them a deathtrap to his mind.
The one time I did ride in a VW, I was carsick when the driver (my friend’s dad) made the tail wag. I’ve never been carsick in any other car.
Hate to burst your bubble but The VW beetle is the easiest car to roll over on a S type bend ever made their direction change behaviour is lethal.
There is an old joke:
“Why do VW’s have two exhaust pipes?”
“So you can use them to roll the car back onto its wheels”
As usual,you are wrong.If you knew how to drive,you would not have any problems.I drove swing axle bugs for thirty years,and never had a mishap due to oversteer or tuck-under.Any car can be made to roll over,and the under steer of American cars can be very,very dangerous.Joe.
Actually, Ralph Nader and his Center for Auto Safety did target Volkswagen for safety problems. They devoted not just a chapter, but an entire book to the topic. “Small – On Safety” charged that the Beetle (Type I) had caused “the deaths and injuries of thousands of people” and that the Type II microbus was even worse — “by a wide margin the most dangerous four-wheel vehicle of any type designed for highway use and sold in significant numbers.” Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view), the book was not published until September 1972, six years after “Unsafe at Any Speed”. By that point, Volkswagen had already made a couple of major improvements to the Beetle’s rear suspension, first by installing Z-bars to tame the swing axles and then going with double-jointed axle shafts in 1968 or thereabouts. Furthermore, Volkswagen was getting ready to make the switch to front wheel drive, so beating on the Beetle was not as sensational as beating on the Corvair.
Witnessed a VW bus laying on its side at a quiet neighborhood corner around 1965. Don’t know how badly injured the driver & passengers were, they were taken away by the time 5 y.o. me walked down to see it close up. There just weren’t any other one-vehicle crashes in those places. Some two car crashes as folks ignored the idea that cross traffic didn’t have a stop sign either.
Is that the book where Nader and his entourage, in a rear – end crash test ,purposely set a bug on fire after it penetrated the other cars fuel tank and still wouldn’ t catch fire?
???? I think your confusing this with the NBC Dateline show where they rigged a Chevy pickup to explode to illustrate the safety defect of their side saddle gas tank.
I too read the book in 1966. It was prescient. I’ve always considered Nader to be incredibly brave, incorruptible, a hero even, well, the 2000 election notwithstanding.
@ Randerson :
There _were_ some really good complaints, the tubeless rims for example, didn’t have a little raised ridge around the outer sealing edge so if you slid sideways into a curb (or anything else as you were out of control) the tire’s bead easily slipped off and *instantly* deflated the tire ~ *very* bad on those swing axles and with the crappy bias-ply tires .
OTOH, I’ve been riding in, working on and driving swing axle VW’s since 1955 and have had and witnessed more than a few horrific crashes and so far I’ve managed to bend a few wheels beyond imagine but not explosively deflated one yet .
I still drive my old Beetle as fast as it’ll go (not very) in the canyons and mountains whenever there’s no other traffic, on radial tires of course but never a spin out or flip .
I don’t get many repeat passengers .
-Nate
Political proselytizing does not add value to this forum.
Do you even know the meaning of that word? I’m talking about things that happened 50 years ago; I’m not trying to convert you a certain belief or political opinion. If you’re anti-safety legislation, you’re 50 years too late.
Obviously very late to the game here, but john may have been referring to this statement:
“The simple fact is that humans don’t often act in their best long-term self interests, unless forced to. That applies as much or more to the issue of climate change today….”
John has obviously missed the point of the article but I (and others) cannot but observe how a lot of well-meaning (and just) early 60s movements have been hijacked by a certain political stream to be used as nation-dividing tools. This – generally – was not the original intention. But I’d better stop here.
Hey that pic of Nader in the Corvair doesn’t count, I want to see him in a Gen I with swing axles!
I read the book probably 15 years ago thereabouts during a summer vacation cross country trip (appropriately enough). I was previously made aware of it by a Corvair club meet my Mom took me to one year and the cars all had Nader stickers with a slash through them, one car even had a license plate reading F NADER. Was one of my favorite car shows I ever went to, but I digress. I didn’t disagree with all of it but there were more subsequent factors than just car design that led to the drop in vehicular fatality rates than the car designs themselves, and really from the beginnings of the automobile up to the point that book was written the fatality rate was already sharply declined. The general shift to interstate travel and the modernization of formerly narrow rural highways with blind hills and curves helped a ton as well, not to mention the crackdowns on drinking and driving. The chapters I didn’t care for in particular were the ones whining about tailfins and ornamentation – well look at cars today, soft edged ped friendly blobs – yay safety, boo liberty. Everyone *here* knows the Corvair was doomed for other reasons and Nader is just a scapegoat, but there is plenty about that book that bears further criticism that just unwravling the effects of the Corvair chapter doesn’t undo.
I’m with him 100% on autonomous cars though.
Umm; that is a gen1 Corvair; a 1962 to be specific.
Oops, I stand corrected, I should have looked closer at the windshield frame, the bodyline on the low res black body looked more like the subtle crease of the 65 body.
The autonomous cars discussion is a huge one. The end game has become very clear, as effective autonomous vehicles will one day definitely rule the earth, for many sound reasons. On their everyday commute, most people would rather be on Facebook than driving, driverless delivery vans have obvious economic benefits and many (particularly elderly) people will gain much needed independence. It will happen, and the current technology is getting there.
However, in the short/medium term the introduction is going to be messy. Current cars require there to be an alert human available to take control as needed, which just won’t happen consistently in the real world. There will be much upheaval as the first generation take to the road and mistakes are made. Media will love all “Autonomous car kills” stories and much will get blown up out of proportion.
I kinda think this is a necessary stage though. The car companies could spend 50 years trialing and developing, but the cars still won’t be right. 10 years of real world humans abusing autonomous cars will be worth 50 years of simulations and tests. I won’t be in the first generation of autonomous car buyers, but I’m expecting that if I make it to my 80s (I’m currently 46), I’ll probably have one as my faculties fail.
I’ve read “Unsafe at Any Speed”, and I agree with *some* of the things it criticises about cars of the time, including the Corvair, but not *everything.* A car is only as safe as the driver behind the wheel. If you’re drunk, you’re suicidal, you’re homicidal, or just plain stupid, a car can become a lethal weapon. The problem with people like Ralph Nader is that they only look at the car and quickly assume that the car is too dangerous to drive. They don’t look at the driver and their behaviour while driving the car. I’ve never driven a Corvair, but I did get to drive a rear-engine VW Beetle, and while its handling is different, I found it to be quite safe to drive.
I think you’re missing a key point. Until we can eliminate drunks and inattentive drivers with autonomous cars, they’re here, a reality, unless you have a solution to them. So what kind of car would you rather be in when you get hit by a drunk or texting driver? One built to current safety standards, or one built to 1965 standards?
Drunks could certainly be reduced with on-board breath analysis – and some jurisdictions do just that with repeat offenders.
I don’t advocate universal installation – I have a personal one drink limit that I rarely exercise before driving. I don’t want to do breath analysis 600 times a year when I may start a car with one beer in me twice a year.
But, for the bar hopping crowd, an expensive device you could buy at Target, and a popular campaign to support it – along with promotion by the liquor industry in bars – could be the next logical step.
That’s not going to happen.
Most 1965 cars were death traps in a serious collision, but the safety equipment of 1980s cars is just fine by me. (In fact I was in a horrendous accident in an ’84 Volvo years ago and walked without a scratch.) I’m not interested in potentially lethal air bags or electronic “driver aids” that will break down out of warranty and cost a fortune to repair. (I’m not interested in autonomous cars either.)
I agree. How a car is built is very important. If you can walk away from an accident relatively unscathed, that’s the kind of car you want to be driving.
My plan is to avoid the collision because I’m in a reasonably responsive vehicle and there is no radio blaring or digital controls to fiddle with or screaming kids and the cell phone is in my pocket and I’m aware that when I’m behind the wheel my job is DRIVING thus I need to maintain situational awareness. It’s not the huge stretch it sounds like it might be because I do those things already on bicycles, motorcycles, and in airplanes.
In response to another post, people DO change their priorities over time and that can be clearly seen by the widespread disdain towards safety and emissions equipment up to… oh, sometime in the ’70s which has now totally reversed with people now considering crashworthiness and other safety and emissions equipment near the top of their must-have lists.
That said, it’s apparent to me that nowadays motorists expect the vehicle to do ALL the work in keeping its’ occupants “safe” because of all the rampant distracted driving, and lack of ability to control the vehicle i.e. can’t handle adversity because the ABS, traction control, cornering control, distance sensing cc, etc., etc., are supposed to do it all for them. People drive too fast and carelessly and they prefer to do it surrounded by 2 1/2 Tons of excess steel and plastic.
I do the same thing. Unfortunately, there are situations where that may well not be enough. I read the fatal local accident reports, and all too many happen on our two-lane highways in the hills and mountains, when one car suddenly crosses the middle line. On these roads there’s often no big shoulder or other escape route.
I agree that people’s attitudes change, but attitudes are different than behaviors. There’s always been too many drivers that drive drunk, or inattentively, or just with poor judgement, then and now.
I’ll always remember when I did my basic motorcycle training, the instructor said to us “Are you planning to ride through the winter?”.
Some said yes, and he said “Fair enough, I don’t, but just consider that even if you can control the bike with snow or ice around, you have to remember all the idiots in cars who might go careening through a junction and just take you out.”
Clearly, if you’re in a well-built car, you don’t have to be quite so concerned about those idiots.
Exactly!
The Corvair wrapped abound the pole is the ’61 Lakewood wagon that comic genius Ernie Kovacs perished in. It always pains me to see that shot.
“But the problem is once the auto companies get on to something, they don’t know when to stop. And so they are turning the automobile into an ever more complicated computer on wheels.”
I’m not a Nader fan, but there is a lot of truth there. I had an uncle who was overwhelmed by the electronics in his new Buick. My mom is also struggling with her new Edge. I have to admit I don’t understand how everything works on our Town & Country either after 3 weeks of ownership. The thing I don’t get is the brands and models that typically have targeted the older crowd are the ones that are getting to be the hardest to acclimate to because they tack on everything they can think of.
I like gadgets, but give me 3 dials for climate control and physical buttons and knobs for the stereo please.
I like gadgets, but give me 3 dials for climate control and physical buttons and knobs for the stereo please.
This is one of the things that gets me with all the new car designs everyone tells me I should bow down and submit to. The electronic interfaces on 99% of them are total shit. You’ve got touchscreens for some(the worst), others there’s a million button arrangement, splayed out to make some goofy shape to compliment the dash, and others that do use a rotary knob use just ONE knob, on the console, and requires a sequence to do everything.
I grew up and came of age when 3 knob climate controls were the norm, and the absolute worst one can find wrong about them was that they looked boring, but that was more a fault of 90-00s interior design/materials than that timeless arrangement.
That’s why I prefer cars from the late ’90s and early ’00s. They are just as safe and in most cases get as good if not better mileage than their new counterparts, and they’re so much simpler without giving up anything that matters. You can still buy very well maintained, low mileage examples or maintain one that you’ve had since then for next to nothing, and they’ll get you there in comfort just like a new one. The biggest difference in 2016 cars vs.late ’90s or early ’00s cars aside from aesthetics is “gee whiz” gadgets, buttons, cute little lights, computers, GPS, and other “OMG!!! What if something happens????” crap that I don’t need. I can afford brand new cars, but I’ll hang onto my well maintained, everything works, no-nonsense, drives-like-new 15 – 20 year old vehicles as long as possible.
+1
My 2012 F-150 has mostly common sense controls with designs dating to the 1970s. Even so, it has some extras that are too hard and distracting to use on the road. Apparently, I have the final year where you could get a deluxe trim like the Lariat without the touch screen and menu driven controls.
It just blows my mind that with all the discussion of distracted driving that we are literally manufacturing distractions into vehicles – most of which will be ungodly expensive to repair when they begin to fail.
“It just blows my mind that with all the discussion of distracted driving that we are literally manufacturing distractions into vehicles – most of which will be ungodly expensive to repair when they begin to fail.”
Amen.
X2
I can’t understand what is wrong with 3 rotary knobs for HVAC control. It’s true, distraction has been engineered into modern vehicles. Our new Mazda3 has the dual zone climate control, and after 8 months I’ve yet to master the complexity of this system, I’m either too warm or cold. You change a setting with one button, and another is mysteriously changed as well. Of course, the entry level model has the 3 rotary knob controls, but it’s her car and she wanted to go up market a bit.
I like the set up on my 300, it has the knobs and an automatic function that works rather well. You can screw around with the screen too, but you don’t have to.
I feel for you, Ohwonesten. I still have troubles with the climate controls in Jane’s ’00 Diamante. We’ve owned that since new. I just dial the temp up or down and ignore the rest. My ’05 Mazda 3 has the basic 3 dial system, which I like – along with lousy A/C and poor ventilation, which I loathe. It might be outta here soon.
Anyway, she got a new Mini last week – won it in a competition. Just a standard Cooper with no tech upgrades. The guy at the dealership spent an hour with her going over how things worked. He said he could spend more time but she wouldn’t be able to take it all in, but just to play with the menus and controls until she got used to them. That’s in a standard Cooper.
I think that’s the key – familiarity with the functions you need. But does it have to be so difficult? We generally keep a car until it wears out, so that’s not so much of a problem for us. We have plenty of time to learn. But for folk who trade their car every few years – do they ever learn how all their car’s tech stuff works?
Pete, I wish turning that temperature dial up or down gave me the response I’m accustomed to. Adjusting the heater dial in the ’03 Matrix gives immediate response and easy modulation. We keep ’em for a long time like you, so hopefully we’ll learn the Mazda. Hope Jane enjoys her Mini, it was on our short list of finalists.
Heh… Another Mazda 3 owner here. I have accepted that I am not likely to master all the functions available in that car until I sell it, but have managed to find a compromise which allows me to drive it without dangerously distracting myself.
See though, just because a climate control interface isn’t of the 3-knob variety, doesn’t mean it’s lousy. For example, look at the automatic climate control installed in millions of Ford products from the early 90’s through the early part of this decade. It’s not rotary knobs, but instead it has about 10 buttons and one thumbwheel. All are clearly labeled and not tiny, and it lets you do the simple thing I want to do–set it to a temperature, turn it on auto, and forget about it. It irks me to no end to be continually fiddling with those 3 knobs to avoid being too hot, too cold, the windshield fogging. I just want to set it to 72 and drive.
*This can be done with knobs though if you’re dead-set against a buttons/lcd display interface. Witness the Volvo automatic system used in the 760 and 780 in the late 80’s/early 90’s.
When Buick first put a (monochrome CRT!) touchscreen in the Riviera in the ’80s Click and Clack referred to it as the Sir Edmund Hillary school of car design – they did it because they could.
I think just the increase in seat belt usage accounted for a significant drop in fatalities in the last 50 years. Seat belts were required in 1965 cars in the US, and my Father had them installed in our cars years before that. When I started working and driving my employer’s vehicles in 1971, the seat belts were usually stuffed behind the seats, and though they were filthy and disgusting, I dug them out and wore them anyway. I was the only one who cared to wear them in spite of a noticeable decal on the dashboard admonishing employees to wear them, and my co-workers didn’t say anything but I sensed they thought I was a pain in the rear to dig them out before we went on our way. I thought I read at that time that seat belt usage was at an astonishing 12% of vehicle occupants. People would rather express righteous indignation about the lack of a camber compensator or a missing shield near a fuel tank spout (though valid concerns) than fasten a seat belt. Hence, now we have air bags.
About 1996 I bought a well-preserved 68 Newport sedan. Other than the two shoulder belts mounted on the ceiling, it had no seat belts. I knew they should have been there, and was preparing to find some to install. Then I took out the back seat to take a look at the anchor points, and lo – there they were, all neatly folded up under the seat cushion. I re-installed them all immediately.
My mother always insisted that we buckle up whenever we got into a car, and this was in the early to mid 60s.
I have almost the reverse story on a ’68 New Yorker I bought from my neighbor. The shoulder belts had been cut off with a knife, the end still bolted in place. Found black ones in the junkyard for $5.00. The belts in the car were green so the car had 2 tone shoulder belts after that.
Along with equipment upgrades there was also a culture change along the way. I believe 1972 was the first year a weight sensor was used in front passenger seats. When my Dad brought home our new 1972 Matador wagon it was very quickly decided that the seatbelt warning light and buzzer were too annoying and inconvenient to deal with particularly when carrying heavy items on the front seat. The front seatbelts were buckled and stuffed down between the seat bottoms and backs and I remember as a little kid sliding off the vinyl seat in panic stops a couple of times. Fortunately I never experienced the discomfort of my face smacking the metal glove box door. Those seatbelts were never used until I pulled them out after taking over the car 15 years later. It was really kind of weird seeing the light come on and hearing the buzzer sound after having been silent for all those years.
Well balanced article. I think popular perception is that Nadar wrote a Corvair book – certainly a devoted chapter appearing as chapter one is part of that.
I would agree that without Nadar, a safety movement was inevitable, and appropriate. Shortly after WWII, automobile ownership became nearly universal within families, those cars could go much faster, the opportunity for high speed crashes much more likely. So, the roots of concern were built.
Likewise crash response became different. Now nearly always involving law enforcement and insurance companies – these groups undoubtedly became aware of trends in how people were injured and killed in cars. Data began to be collected and shared.
I would imagine the timing and popularity of Nadar’s book was a driver in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Some direct impacts, generally on the 1968 model year – from Wikipedia:
“Vehicles (agent of injury) were built with new safety features, including head rests, energy-absorbing steering wheels, shatter-resistant windshields, and safety belts[3][4] Roads (environment) were improved by better delineation of curves (edge and center line stripes and reflectors), use of breakaway sign and utility poles, improved illumination, addition of barriers separating oncoming traffic lanes, and guardrails.[4][5] The results were rapid. By 1970, motor-vehicle-related death rates were decreasing by both the public health measure (deaths per 100,000 population) and the traffic safety indicator (deaths per VMT).”
Nadar’s comments about things going overboard with autonomous cars are worth taking heed. The efforts to legislate anything can get out of hand – witness the mess with 5 MPH bumper standards and the reduced safety of door mounted seat belts and the risks from motorized seat belts – caught hair, fingers, (my neck – literally), and the cost of repairing such items. Air bags still have their controversial moments.
Yet, at times common sense can take forever. All those damn door mounted seat belts in the 1980s, yet it took until about 1990 for outboard rear seats to get shoulder belts, and another dozen years for middle seat passengers to get shoulder belts. The modern three point belt became universal in American cars in front outboard positions in 1975, how on earth did it take 30 years to make them universal in almost all positions?
GM still does that crap. The Lambdas and pickups don’t have middle seat head restraints. The Lambdas are supposedly minivan alternatives for families, and in the pickups it means the passenger’s head will go through the rear window.
Unbelievable, really.
I’ll be damned, you are quite correct. I went to the Chevy website, and pulled a photo of the 2015 Silverado interior.
That explains why my last two purchases have been Fords. Head rests and middle seat shoulder belts have been on my requirements list as I have three kids.
Really, GM?………………….
Ford went to middle headrests and shoulder belts on its pickup bench seats starting in 2011. I had always assumed this was because of some new law mandating whiplash protection for all occupants, but apparently not.
Yep, my ’06 F-150 does not have one either, which is why I’ll replace it in 3 years when my youngest is out of a booster seat regardless of what condition it is in. I never even noticed when I bought it, but now with 3 kids I sure do. My ’00 4Runner didn’t have a center head restraint or shoulder belt, so it’s a fairly recent thing.
The ’11 and up F-150s not only have a head restraint for the middle back passenger, they also have a head restraint and shoulder belt in the front middle jump seat.
I don’t consider myself a safety nanny, but if given a simple yet effective and unobtrusive choice like a center head restraint, I want the head restraint 10 out of 10 times.
No kids myself, I took out the rear headrests (3 of ’em, 2008 Toyota Yaris) and stuffed them in the rear footwells on the theory that anyone who needs the legroom could also use the headrest.
And I can understand why you guys would’nt want to play “Which Kid Gets The Whiplash” !
Yeah, that’s just it nlpnt. I can understand why some people wouldn’t want them to block visibility. But in our Town & Country they flip down into the seat when not in use, and most others are removable (in some cars I have had to remove them to properly fit the child seats in). So there is really no excuse not to include them. They should be mandatory for every seating position IMO. Especially in a pickup where the back of your head is so close to the rear window.
And the worst part is, you would think that consumer watchdogs like Consumer Reports, IIHS, or even the regular magazines would mention that in their reviews. But evidently they are too busy counting cupholders and touching soft touch materials to bother.
You do realize that the center rear shoulder belt is the one in the middle of the seat, and the head restraint pulls up above the center armrest?
You would think that is true, given the seams in the photo. However, in reality, there is no adjustment possible — so there is no center rear head restraint. IIRC, the current Cadillac CTS has the same type of center rear seatback.
A few years ago in Australia Wheels magazine went on a crusade to have a head restraint for every seating position. They said any car not so equipped would immediately be eliminated from contention in their Car of the Year award. That’s a big thing here, since the award’s been going since 1964.
It didn’t take long for the manufacturers to wise up.
They also eliminate cars that have only lap belts for rear centre passenger, don’t they?
The insurance industry just got tired of paying out claims on teenagers who bought what were essentially street-legal dragsters and wrapped them around trees soon after purchase.
Nader sure had to put some money on the hood to gain his influence. Look at that cover was $5.95, now $1.00. I used to own a used book store that priced at half cover. That book would have driven me up the wall.
I am definitely not a fan of the litigiousness that gripped America in Nader’s wake. It is hard to argue however with the numbers saved.
I’ve never read this book through, just excerpts, but I have to admit that apparently the changes made to the car over the years has been for the better, but fixed rear seat side glass in coupes? C’mon, now! That’s just going too far, and Ralph doesn’t even mention that subject.
My opinion is that fixed quarter glass was not a safety feature. It was a “cheap-out” designed solely to take out cost. No one can convince me that a 1974 Thunderbird is safer than a 1972 Thunderbird simply because a clipboard sized piece of glass with a 20 gauge weather-strip rail doesn’t move on the latter.
The ’74 has extra re-enforcement in the sail panel to meet ’76 rollover standards, this precluded the window opening. Remember, the window on that bird, like concurrent Torino-Montegos, slides rearward into the roof, not down like most cars.
Thanks for the clarification Roger. That’ll give me something to look for next time I see one in the bone yard (if I ever do). Still a shame though that American cars lost this feature when some imports continued having opening quarter glass well into the 80s and beyond.
I recall many Japanese cars retaining flip-open coupe rear windows well into the 90s – my Mazda had them – but even those seem to have fallen off the wayside
Extended cab pickups had them until they started going to power rear windows with the 2002 Ram. Midsize extended cab pickups still have pop-open windows.
I was just being silly about the fixed glass thing, but I wouldn’t trade all the safety stuff for anything.
I do wish that somehow a pillarless hardtop coupe could be manufactured at a reasonable cost with the same margin of side-impact safety as a post sedan. Mercedes is the only pillarless hardtop available in this country, and is much too expensive for me, plus it’s just not my style.
For some reason that shot of Nader in a Corvair reminded me on Fonzie on his motorcycle. I don’t think Nader has ever had a drivers license, and Winkler couldn’t ride. All he did was…. sit on it.
My Grandfather nearly perished in a VW van crash, and I just about got my head whiplashed off by getting rear ended in a car with low back bucket seats so I’m very appreciative of modern vehicle safety. That being said I ride a motorcycle – verryyy carefully.
I think I read Unsafe at Any Speed back in University – it was in the library. Is it still a decent read today?
Doug ;
Motocycle riding is inherently unsafe .
I was very nearly killed (I’m crippled for life and have to use a cane now) but I still ride whenever I can ~ that’s life : you don’t let it beat you down .
Sorry I don’t have a pic. of my cane thing on this computer .
-Nate
It appears that Nader eventually got a driver’s license:
From the Toronto Star, 8/19/2013:
More legend than reality, wrote the Washington Post’s Marc Fisher: “A lot of what you thought about Ralph Nader is wrong . . . He follows the NBA. He is not humourless, far from it. He does have a driver’s licence and even occasionally gets behind the wheel. He does not live in an $80-a-month room near downtown. He is not nearly as interested in car safety as he is in the total restructuring of the American economy and society.”
I recently re-read Unsafe at any Speed and thoroughly enjoyed it. Much of the book just seems like common sense today. I’m sure there were plenty of engineers and others behind the scenes that agreed with many of its conclusions at a time when stylists and marketing folks more often got their way.
While I love the cars of the 50’s and 60’s, there is no way I would want to drive one in today’s traffic. A week or so ago while putting gas in the car late at night, I watched a young family (children in the back seat) enter the Santa Monica Freeway in a beautiful old 1955 Ford Country Squire. It really gave me a bad feeling to think of how that car (and its passengers) would hold up in a bad crash vs. a current model.
I remember reading it in primary school. Though the book was fairly new at the time, it was already known as ‘the Corvair book’. I was surprised to find what a small proportion of the book related to the Corvair.
Did anyone ever write a book subtitled “The Designed-in Dangers of the American DRIVER”?
Disclaimer, I never read the book, only the later “Small On Safety”.
The problem is that it’s nigh-near impossible to change human patterns of behavior, whereas it’s much easier to change machines to compensate for that.
Until Nader, the emphasis in the auto-safety movement had ALL been focused on the driver (guess where the money came from)
Nlpnt: From where does the IIHS crash research money come from? Insurance companies. Money derived from not paying claims, your insurance premiums. They, too, have a vested interest in paying out as little as possible. They’re not any more noble than any other organization.
Focusing on the driver made sense at the time as they driver was the primary user of the car. They simply didn’t take it far enough at the time.
Indeed – I recall much more time and money being spent on driver education in the ’60s and ’70s than today. I was amongst the last generation in my area to get decent high-school driver ed – we had a classroom full of simulators (which seemed incredibly high tech in that pre-videogame era) with wheels and gauges right off big Detroit sedans, on-the-road training with knowledgeable instructors, braking and cornering exercises on a test track, and plenty of classroom time. Most of that was abolished for cost-cutting reasons just years after I passed through them.
You’re absolutely right, Paul and nlplt — talk is cheap about improving the driver, but it’s very hard to do in practice. All those ads in the 50s about “driving safely” were useless, and we know today that “high-performance driver training” doesn’t keep drivers from crashing.
To answer Lawrence Wright’s question, there was a book written not very long after Nader’s called “Licensed to Kill — The Incompetent American Driver and How He Got that Way” (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t find it on Google), by Andrew Weir. It’s written from bitter and grief-stricken view, as the author had recently lost his parents and one in-law (whose spouse was seriously injured) when their car was side-impacted by a drunk driver on a Sunday morning.
Fifty year on, Nader’s book still resonates, while Weir’s is mostly forgotten.
I question how effective autonomous cars would be for improving safety, when the roads are filled with an overwhelming majority of driver-operated cars. I think some people would become too lax in on-road hazard vigilance and die via inattention to a threat. Our culture seems to love technology too much over practicality and ease of use at times. Car manufacturers need to offer a “simplicity package” for people who want to get down to the serious business of driving instead of fiddling with toys that can make a car unsafe and generally, difficult to enjoy driving. Another concern for me regarding technology in cars today, is vulnerability to hacking. I would rather drive the 1966 Corvair Monza I used to have, then let some nut (or perhaps the government) with a wi-fi laptop take control away from me for reasons unknown.
Museum of American Tort Law? Really?
I’ve practiced law for 20 years and . . . seriously?
I’ve never read Unsafe at Any Speed and so have no opinion about it as a book, though it’s influence – both bad and good – cannot be denied.
One thing about the whole situation around the book and the Corvair that has always bothered me is that sub-title: “The Designed in Dangers of the American Automobile.”
Why did Nader not include foreign cars (such as the VW, or M-B’s legendarily scary swing axle cars)? I always wondered about that, and whether it was evidence of an inherent – nay, dare I say it, even political – bias against possibly the most symbolic of products produced by the most capitalistic of nations.
Not trying to get political, but just wondering.
It could just be an example of an American tendency to looking inward.
Also, the vast majority of cars on the road would have been domestic, and (especially in the 1960s) it must have been a lot easier to research a book on locally-based corporations.
I’d argue it was (at least partially) because at the time, foreign cars like the M-B or any Japanese car were anywhere between uncommon and nonexistent outside the coasts; even the VW could be a rare find in certain areas of the Midwest. But a Chevrolet could be found absolutely everywhere.
EDIT: Tonito added words to this effect as I was typing this very comment.
hehehe. Wonder if they’ll display anything from the OJ civil case(s?).
Ralph Nader, the beginning of our nation’s turn into a pack of mewling little cowards, afraid to get in a car unless it has at least a dozen airbags, or get on a bicycle without wearing a helmet, or afraid to eat unless the gluten content of our next meal is carefully measured. As a society, we’re unwilling to take a risk at all.
Yet, nearly fifty years ago, we were able to risk everything to put a man on the moon. And bring him back.
Today? We’ve barely got the guts to walk out of our houses without protection all around us. Thank you, Mr. Nader.
Yet, nearly fifty years ago, we were able to risk everything to put a man on the moon. And bring him back.
Risk everything? A certain amount of the federal budget and a few apparently disposable astronauts. And just exactly what did we gain?
So what’s the value of taking the risk of getting killed in a car without passive safety equipment by a driver that crosses the center line? Your macho ego? It ain’t worth much when you’re dead.
Life has always been about risk management. Evolution made sure of that. Why do you think armor was invented? And fortification? Driving is not dissimilar: there’s folks out there who are willing to take you down with them.
Humans will intrinsically keep reducing risks to their health and life, as they have been doing forever. Glorifying the greater risks people were forced to take in the past is not really being honest. They didn’t have a choice.
But even then they made choices to feel safer. families bought two-door cars because they (rightly) worried about kids falling out. I can assure you that if folks were offered the cars we have today in the 50s, they’s grab them in a heartbeat. People knew how dangerous it was to drive, but there wasn’t really much of a choice in the matter, so they suppressed their anxieties and got on with it, and hoped for the best.
My family stopped at the church to pray before every family vacation trip. We knew we were very vulnerable in the cars of the time. Praying was the only option, and not a very good one at that.
I’m very grateful for the safety features in the late model cars my wife and I drive. Especially in my neck of the woods – the Ozark mountains in NW Arkansas. Most of our driving is on two lane highways with no shoulders and few guardrails. Almost everyday we encounter one or more distracted drivers heading our way over the yellow line. Our most used safety feature? The horn. It has saved our lives more times than I can count. Most of the drivers look up from their laps – texting? reading? Who knows. I hope I never have to rely on crush zones, door, beams, air bags, abs, etc. but I’m sure glad I’ve got them. The only thing I would like to see in new cars are larger windows – like were in the neue klasse BMWs or the 140 series Volvos (which did very well in rollovers). Better visibility is always appreciated.
“Praying was the only option, and not a very good one at that.”
You have described your father’s driving abilities to us. Perhaps it worked better than you imagine. 🙂
Ha ha, good one!
Why did I know you were going to comment on that line? 🙂
Agreed, Mr. Niedermeyer. I do not understand people who see basic risk reduction as “wimpiness”. There is no good reason for life to be a continuous game of Russian roulette.
Hey, I take risks all the time but do what I can to minimise avoidable risk.
Three years ago I was driving along a major suburban road at 11.00pm doing approx 35 MPH, when I had to swerve to avoid running over a teenager who all of a sudden decided running across the road, at night and wearing dark clothes, right in front of a moving car was a great idea. I managed to avid him but in so doing I drove straight into a very substantial power pole. The passenger side front took the hit – a classic ‘frontal overlap’ accident. One of the worst kinds of impact as it turns out.
I actually saw the pole approaching and then the bonnet fold up as the crumpling began. In the blink of an eye, I was pulling my face out of the now discharged airbag. The music was still going and I thought there was a fire as the cabin was full of smoke, It wasn’t – that was actually the powder in which they pack the airbag. I then unbuckled and got out of the car and noted that the front passenger side headlight was now about 10 inches in front of the A pillar on the same side.
Within minutes an unmarked police car arrived and they asked me ‘do you know where the driver is?’ – I told them that was me and they seemed reluctant to believe me, commenting that usually after a hit like that, the driver can’t get out of the car. Further discussion revealed that this is how many people become paraplegics. It was only then that I realised I had emerged from a major accident without any injury at all. Looking inside the car I saw that the front windows were down a few centimeters all round and the sunroof was tilted open – yet they had been closed. The car did that, to prevent burst eardrums when the airbags discharged. Speaking of airbags, in addition to the steering wheel airbag, another located under the wheel had discharged, to prevent injury to my knees. I noticed that the pedals were flat to the floor – the car does that so as to minimise the chances of getting feet trapped under the pedals. The headrest was further forward that how I had it set, again an automatic action to reduce whiplash. The only adverse effect on me was a slight pain in the chest from the seat belt – and that quickly subsided. Such was the strength of the car that I could open all windows and doors.
I then realised that a whole suite of technologies combined in a slit second to literally save my life and that was after the cars quick steering response saved the little blighter who ran in front of me causing the whole accident in the first place.
If Nader had anything to do with introducing these safety measures that good luck to him!
I like old classic cars and own several, but the facts are that if I had been in a 1960’s era car and had that accident, there is no doubt that I would have been impaled on the steering column and left a bloody mess in a wreck. Anything that contributes to safety is a good thing and if it adds cost so be it.
By the way, the car was a 2103 Mercedes E 350 and it was a write-off. I replaced it wit, you guessed it, another E Class immediately. Once bitten….
I completely agree with Nader’s current concern on self driving cars. The implications are terrifying.. as a recent conversation I had clearly demonstrates.
I caught up with a friend of mine this weekend, who had recently purchased his “midlife crisis” car, a Tesla Model S. Dr. Joe is a pediatric dentist in my town, so he has a short commute, and therefore I could understand how the electric car could work for him. So when I saw him, I asked how he was enjoying the car. His answer would have almost been comical if it wasn’t so scary. Here’s a synopsis:
His son plays hockey with a league, so they travel all over the midwest and northeast for tournaments. Dr. Joe has started taking the Tesla for these trips, which can be up to 300 or 400 miles each way, usually at terrible times in the wee hours of the morning.
First crazy point, both coming and going, he has to stop multiple times, often for hours at a time, to make sure he has enough juice. So what would be a 5 to 6 hour trip is suddenly 8 or 9 hours. When he takes their Honda Pilot he can just go, fill-up as needed, and make great time in safety and comfort, with a highway MPG of 25 and a driving range of ~475 miles. But the Pilot isn’t cool and he can’t show off how he’s saving the planet in his family SUV.
But here is the scary part: his favorite feature of the car is the self-driving software. He loves it because when he falls asleep at the wheel on these trips (!!!!!!!!) he knows the car is in control. OMG!!! He says the car makes a lot of noise and really grabs his attention when it needs him to do something. Otherwise he can be absolutely oblivious. “Isn’t that just so cool?” he asked me with a completely straight face. All I could say was “wow.”
This kind of automated driving is a ridiculously bad idea, and I can see the day when these “Skynet” cars (from Tesla or anyone else) turn into a rolling disaster.
I see it as your civic duty to give that man a slap.
I read the book back in the late 70s. At the time, my reaction was “I don’t see the problem, if everyone would just be more careful everything would be better.”
As I have gotten older and wiser, I can see that vehicle design was far from optimum for safety before the 1970s. What UAAS did was to pick the low-hanging fruit of safety. Once we got seatbelts for every passenger (especially 3 point belts), door guard beams and safety door latches, an awful lot of the problem had been solved. Safety has continued to be a big item in design, and air bags and designed-in passenger compartment crash integrity have also been huge.
But I fear that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. Mandatory tire pressure monitor systems? Mandatory backup cameras/alerts? Electronic stability control? These are very expensive to install/repair and certainly prevent some injury, but they also make newer, safer cars less affordable to some.
As much as I love old cars, I would much rather be in an accident in a newer one.
“As much as I love old cars, I would much rather be in an accident in a newer one.”
+1 on that.
I learnt to drive in a 1977 Fiesta and now drive a 2011 Fiesta. It’s no contest.
I have been very fortunate – the two fairly severe crashes I have been in were in an 83 Colt sedan (I will never forget the sensation of being held by that 3 point belt) and in a 96 Odyssey (nor will I ever forget the sensation immediately after air bags went off). I drove a several cars many years with lap belts only, and a few cars occasionally with no belts at all (29 Model A, 61 TBird, 63 F-100). I am certain that either of my crashes would have messed me up had I been driving of those beltless cars. Even the lap belt cars would have left me with a faceful of steering wheel.
I remember when people complained that mandatory back-up lights were increasing the cost of cars. I also remember as a child when our neighbors backed over one of their children in the driveway – she died. Bring on mandatory back-up cameras and sensors. As Paul’s recent analysis shows, cars today are less expensive than decades ago – and they are much safer.
“But I fear that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. Mandatory tire pressure monitor systems? Mandatory backup cameras/alerts? Electronic stability control? These are very expensive to install/repair and certainly prevent some injury, but they also make newer, safer cars less affordable to some.”
I’m in complete agreement. But, I do understand how regulators and lawyers can get wound up in these things.
Here are fours true statements, none of which is a perfect outcome:
*Modern 3 point belts in the five typically used seating positions as a requirement in 1975 would have saved a lot of lives. It would have been leaps and bounds better than the passive restraint law that kept Rube Goldberg employed for 30 years.
*Proper 3 point belts properly used make air bags only marginally useful.
*Air bags have saved lives.
*Air bags have killed people.
35 years ago I’d have said no to air bags. Today, I’m probably begrudgingly on the side for air bags. Now that I have aging air bags in my fleet, I’m worried that old parts could cause mayhem.
My 2012 vehicle has most of the features you list, and they have ups and downs.
*The back-up cam gets dirty, and never should be solely relied upon.
*The back-up alerts are a distraction when backing a trailer. You can disable it, but it turns back on once you shift out of reverse. It has been a total distraction when working at boat ramps.
*A recent magazine review for a 2015 Jeep said that the collision avoidance system was braking the vehicle when snugging up near a pillar in a parking garage. Unexpected and unnecessary “self driving” behavior from vehicles will be a source of problems. What if it is necessary to quickly back your vehicle to avoid a problem, and the vehicle debates the wisdom of your decision?
My Cruze has a backup cam and I almost have to rely on it because other than the side mirrors, I cannot see back there, period. It has the beeper alert too, but it took me a long time to learn to trust it and the camera. And a recent snowstorm rendered the camera useless, as it was fogged over.
I’m not sure that I really trust the beeper alerts or cams.
My 2005 Ford has beeper alert only – and I’ve scuffed up the bumper cover twice on it. I’m still not sure if I’ve become lazy in scouting the land behind me due to the beeper, or if “stuff happens.”
The beeper failed me twice. Once in a dark parking lot there was a brown painted divider designed like a low style wood rail ranch fence. Neither I, nor the beeper could see the fence. We were on vacation in a cabin resort area that I’d never been to before.
The second incident was me backing out of my rental property driveway. I had a concrete conctractor there, and I could see his truck up the street a ways. I failed to account for the long, low, black trailer he had to haul his backhoe. The beeper also could not see this long object with minimal side surface area, and sharp points on the trailer fender made a mess of my bumper cover.
Is the beeper making me less aware of my my responsibilities?
The back-up cam on my truck is great at times, but literally becomes useless minutes after cleaning it when driving in sloppy, melty, winter driving conditions. This can mean the cam is useless for days at a time, or requires a quick cleaning before each attempt to back-up.
Personally I think backup cameras should be banned all medium size and larger vehicles are fitted with side mirrors for reversing or checking blindspots use em or take the bus.
@ Bryce :
I hear you but some modern vehicles have poor rearward vision .
I remember when farm trucks only had 4″ round mirror on long stalks, not much fun when you had a huge oversize load on….
SWMBO’s 2016 Honda Civic has blind spots and a backup camera, I don’t like the camera and neither does she but I think maybe it’s just because we’re used to swiveling our heads a lot when backing .
-Nate
Seems to be at a point now where cameras, beepers, and auto stop are being required to correct the vision loss the latest crash standards have created. Cage construction, 3 point belts and headrests for all, crush zones, even ABS are all things that should be standard. Agree on the “low hanging fruit”. Now it’s seems to have evolved into searching for “hemorrhoids on a gnat’s ass”. imho.
I think the “vision loss” is caused by having the back window 20′ away from the driver in ginormous SUVs and tall pickups that people have to literally climb up into. Just about any ’80s sedan or coupe (think Rabbit, Skylark, etc.) has windows and driver’s sightlines that actually allowed the driver to see out quite well.
I understand what you mean to say, but I think it’s erroneous to pin the blame on “having the back window 20′ away.” Exaggeration aside, that would mean that old wagons (which were the same length as, or even longer than, a modern-day Suburban) would’ve had terrible rear visibility solely because of their length.
Frank, it’s not a big cars problem, my Mazda 3 is like an armored car in so far as rear visibility is concerned with. It’s modern styling, a lot of which is safety-related (airbag placement, safety cell etc.).
So do we need to legislate minimum visibility standards? I’m thinking we do. Safety in a serious crash is great, but surely part of safety is being able to see what’s around you so you can sense approaching danger and take avoidance measures.
I rumble through town back and forth to the local port in a truck pulling a trailer it is a maze of blind spots far worse than any car but it makes you very aware of the surrounding traffic especially as that traffic is is often a tourist lost creeping along hunting a parking space or just steps out from the footpath in front of 44 tonnes of vehicle without bothering to look, clear sightlines I’m sure should help car drivers but few of them seem to be paying any attention or they’d notice a 20 meter long 2.5 meter wide truck.
I had always been quick to blame rollover standards etc. for terrible rear visibility, but Subaru seems to have proven you can make a safe modern car (Forester) without shrinking the windows to portholes. I remain convinced that if they really wanted to (that is, if the average consumer cared enough), other manufacturers could do the same.
The current Honda Accord has relatively good visibility.
All new Hondas I’ve sat in have good visibility for their respective segments.
“We drive phenomenally safe cars today” Quote
You may think this, Paul, but I think todays’ cars are idiot-proof rather than safe – certainly the ones sold in the British Isles.
They are loaded with airbags, so that you can have big accidents without hurting yourself. Obviously your vision is impaired by the thick roof pillars that conceal these airbags and help the car get 5 NCAP stars, but it doesn’t matter if you hit the odd pedestrian or cyclist, as long as you’re all OK in the car.With ABS and stability control now universal, idiots just drive closer to the limit, because they don’t realise where the limit is ! I spent 40 years driving cars with no airbags, no ABS, but good visibility and ergonomics ( rare today) so I don’t really feel the need for so much complication and all the compromises that relate.
I understand you don’t feel the need for them. But obviously others do, as the accident statistics prove.
Drivers used to be more conscious of what was around them and the inherent dangers of operating a motor vehicle. I remember not being allowed to talk in the car because it would distract the driver.
Nowadays driving is so commonplace, people don’t even think twice about it, and think they can do all sorts of other things while they drive. Cars might have changed, but people haven’t. With the seeming decline in common sense, maybe they’ve even got dumber. Can technology compensate for that? It’s trying.
Actually, IQ has only been going up in recent years.
Common sense and IQ do not necessarily go hand in hand, and I believe we in the West have lost a lot of the 1st commodity. To me it is how you APPLY yourself to a given situation, and believe me there a lot of people with over 130 IQ who have absolutely no common sense whatsoever.
This isn’t the place for me to rant about how completely bogus “IQ tests” are, but suffice to say that (1) the whole idea of reducing something as complex and multifaceted as intelligence to a single number is absurd, and (2) most of the commonly-used IQ tests use normalized scores which ensure the average IQ remains 100. I read a great study a few years back that removed the normalization from IQ test scores from the last 60 years and discovered that IQ scores had become significantly higher over that time. What’s more, the changes varied significantly when demographics were factored in – apparently black people are *way* smarter than they were 60 years ago based on their IQ tests, though whites only slightly so. Of course, the truth here is not that there’s been a unprecedented jump in human evolution as regards to intelligence in a very short time, but rather that minority access to decent education is much greater today than in the 1950s. And that is what IQ tests (and many standardized tests including the SAT) mostly pick up on – how educated you are, not how smart you are.
Old Pete,
Speaking of distracting the driver, my gripe against cell phones while driving is based on two people being in the same car carrying on a conversation. If a situation arises, the conversation immediately stops. It’s just human nature. Not so on a cell phone conversation. The person on the other end of the line doesn’t know the situation has suddenly turned critical and continues to blab. Definitely an unneeded distraction in a critical situation. Add into the equation that some people don’t wan’t to appear rude regardless of the situation so they try to maintain a conversation while they should be focusing 100% of their attention on the road.
Just like every drunk driver who can handle it, until they can’t.
Paul’s absolutely right to highlight that car safety has improved in the last 50 or so, years and that it needed to. In the UK, road deaths are down something like 75% over 50 years, with vastly increased traffic, but we still kill 3000 people a year.
Whether Ralph Nader kick started this process single handed, went for the Corvair unfairly or has been quoted out of context subsequently is an interesting discussion, but perhaps the big takeaway for today’s designers, regulators and users is that we have made huge progress, and a lot of it has been from low hanging fruit. Seat belts, crash helmets for motorcyclists, head restraints, door beams, airbags, anti lock brakes, laminated glass, decent lights, better tyres, better signage and junction design are all contributors and each is essentially a simple idea.
Better driver training and (harder to achieve) better driver, cyclist and pedestrian discipline are valid areas to look at, but perhaps the next big step will have to be autonomous driving in urban areas and on the motorway.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but numerous studies show that more advanced driver training does not lead to better outcomes. It’s very easy to learn to drive; but teaching drivers not to drink, to stay attentive, not text and talk, and simply use good judgement is essentially impossible. If drivers simply used those qualities, the problem would be mostly solved.
The UK government seems to have done a reasonable job in convincing people that drink-driving is socially unacceptable over the last 40 years or so.
I was amazed how much more prevalent it was when I lived in Australia, and to a certain extent I find a more relaxed attitude to it on my visits to Minnesota.
Some people will never be convinced to do the right thing, but I think the right publicity campaign/training program can make a significant dent in these problems. I’m not suggesting teaching better car control, just shocking people into facing up to the reality of what they are doing.
If the media can convince people to vote for all kinds of ludicrous political candidates completely against their own self interest, how hard can it be to convince people to do something perfectly rational? OK, maybe not…
The government has done a good job, and is still doing so. The take up of sensible drinking when driving is increasing. Groups that used to have a driver who would only have one or two now more than likely has a non-drinker, and peer pressure (and bravado) to abuse this has reduced a lot also.
Various tools have been used, principality a lot of advertising, as well as the effective right to random breath tests. Random testing per se is not permitted, but an officer can test you if he has reasonable cause. Being a witness to an accident at 10am has been known to be enough.
I beg to differ. The longer driving courses one has to take in Europe are useful given the driving environment one has here which is generally traffic heavy and intense. A new driver does not have the luxury of slowly developing road awareness as would be the case in rural USA. The aim is at to at least make sure they are aware of the basic traffic rules. I realize you only were in Tirol and South Tirol when you visited earlier this year but the next time come to Vienna, we could go on a lap of the Tangente and the Gürtel for amusement if you wish, you’ll see what I mean.
If we are talking on advanced driving as in road track course I would agree this could be counter productive for the wrong kind of person, as some people get a sense of infallibility after taking these. But depends on each individual’s character.
You’re right that experience is important, and there’s only one way to get it
Roger, if this was directed at me, yes of course. But the first steps on the road have to be rammed into new drivers’ heads so that you at least have some consistency to their actions – you need to have some basic expectations you can rely on. The Gilbert boys from the Little House on the Prairie who never got that basic training have none of this and experience on other people’s accounts and to everyone’s detriment. Fine when traffic is light and you can see the road ahead of you for miles, extremely dangerous on the crowded roads we have in Europe.
T.Turtle: If you think Europe has a monopoly on crowded roads, I think you need to come to the US sometime and I’ll give you a few destinations to drive through. The US is not just how it looks in the movies.
I haven’t read Unsafe at Any Speed, but I will say that as a young observer, Nader’s impact brought in a lot of things. Some were good, some were bad. Some were smart ideas that helped save lives, others were over-reactionary quick-fixes designed to appease over-reactionary safety nuts. Some of his findings have led to cars that are safer in most cases, others have led to design flaws that lead to them being less safe. Some have led to people being much better driver’s and being more aware, others have led to Government intervention that can seem over-bearing and hypocritical.
I guess what there is to say is, that Nader and what he championed for has brought a lot of things to this world. I won’t deny that some things changed for the better, but I’m also not going to chug the Kool-Aid and act like every car sold new is a paragon of safety and virtue despite some flaws that I would be more than happy to point out and argue. Ralph Nader, for better or worse, changed the automotive landscape, and its not a total black and white issue as to what his impact has done. It’s just the world we live in today, and that’s all I can say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/an-open-letter-to-janet-yellen.com
All of these reasons and more are why I ordered my 2013 Challenger specifically without U-Connect. I do question the balance between roof crush characteristics and visibility. I’ve seen a lot older cars that have overturned and in nearly all of them there was no intrusion into the passenger compartment. ‘Back in the day’ salvage yards I frequented would stack cars three and four high and the roof of the bottom one usually wasn’t even stressed. I personally would feel safer being able to see everything clearly than sitting under a roof with front pillars thick enough to withstand ten times the car’s weight. I never thought I would drive a car with worse visibility than my 1971 Challenger.
I am very interested in seeing photos of these “unstressed” stacked cars. Every result I find for searching “junkyard stacked cars” or something similar shows them with greenhouses flattened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2JEShddBCQ
Note that this is a car that was designed in the 1960s.
Alas, I was able to find them stacked only two high from my own travels but I did find a couple stacked higher on the net. I remember in the premier episode of ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ there is a chase scene through a junkyard stacked several high. If I remember correctly the Duke boys knocked a couple stacks over or off the top of a stack to foil ‘ol Roscoe. I wasn’t able, unfortunately, to find an image of that.
2 stack.
Higher
Highest
Neat.
Cute , these old pix of cars stacked on high but the fact remains that the inertia in any collision where the roof is smacked greatly exceeds that of gently stacking them up with a forklift….
A little reality check here as I’ve spent 50 + years in Junk Yards and seem many results of roofs old and new being caved in .
I did enjoy the photos tho’ =8-) .
Here’s one of my riding with my cane after surviving a fatal Moto collision in 2008 .
-Nate
Nice photos, but +1 to Nate that impact loading on the roof in a rollover is completely different than stacking.
Nice cane system Nate, what is that you’re riding?
Thanx Doug ;
It’s my 2010 Ural Solo sT , it’s a custom built to order Russian copy of an old BMW Twin . 750 CC’s . carburated .
I was recovering from hopefully my last Neurosurgery and was looking at it OnLine when SWMBO peered over my shoulder and said if I was gonna stare at it all week long , I might as well buy it , I deserved it after all the Moto related heartaches I’ve had .
How often does the Missus say to go buy a new motor vehicle ? .
I loaded it up with goodies and had to wait a whole year before I was able to go pick it up .
-Nate
Nate, great to see you are not letting life’s adversitys prevent you from enjoying what you like to do!
Me Too Dave !
(dijo gabacho Y se fue intre la milpa =8-))
I’m ever so pleased to still be alive , less pleased I have to sleep sitting rather than next to my red hot Sweetie but life goes on…..
Any time spent with tools , handlebars or steering wheel in my hands is good time .
-Nate
NIC CARBORENDUM ILLIGITIMI ! .
Amongst the advertising blurb for the 71 HQ Holdens was a picture of seven stacked up on one to prove how strong the new slim A pillars were, they also dropped one upside down onto its roof 21 feet with no real damage.
Was it necessary to include a photo of a deceased accident victim? We’d get the idea without it. Saying this as a big fan of this website.
Humans don’t “get the idea”. Even the most pessimistic person is actually insanely optimistic when asked what the likelihood is that they will have a certain type of accident or contract a serious illness.
We don’t face the realities of these things (because otherwise we’d be crippled by depression) but sometimes we need to.
Nonetheless, it strikes me as more trashy, exploitative and sensationalistic than anything else. Quite beneath the usual standards we’re accustomed to here. Not to mention that sort of thing falls under the NSFW category, as far as I’m concerned. Sorry, I say this as a fan, don’t get me wrong.
I read Unsafe at Any Speed not so long ago and agreed with every word of it. Some of it seems so self evident now, yet it was so out there at the time.
Especially telling was the motor industry’s attempts to deflect criticism of the safety of it’s products by pushing the ‘nut behind the wheel’ mantra.
Road safety experts divide things into 3 categories: Road environment safety, driver safety and vehicle safety. All 3 are important, and there is no reason to neglect any of them. As long as the ‘nut behind the wheel’ remains human then we’ll need to pay heed to environment and vehicle safety.
Re. Dr. Joe, the pediatric dentist in a Tesla. Google ‘Risk compensation’. This is why people drive carefully on ‘dangerous looking’ roads, without killing themselves, and why we still have crashes on safe, high standard roads.
Great piece Paul. I read Unsafe many years and was utterly impressed with Nader’s feat. This was a period when I was discovering the heights of the US’ conspiracy age; The Parallax View, Howard Hughes, Woodward and Bernstein, American Tabloid. Nader almost singlehandedly changed the way the automotive industry had to think. For the better. GM’s attempts to find or fabricate a weak spot in Nader’s life played into the very ugly truth of Watergate and the hubris of the military/industrial complex. An inspiring man, despite my opinion that automotive styling is the worse for his influence (although it’s not all his fault).
Read The Falcon and the Scarecrow, Don an insight into regime change in Australia and how it was done.
Read this years ago, a couple of years after it came out. I was 9 or 10. Would be interesting to read it again with a 50 year perspective and 44 years as an automobile driver.
Since I began driving I have never gotten behind the wheel without fastening the belts, snugly, before I start off. I got my permit at 14 [ Iowa law at the time ] and had read all the teen driver Henry Gregor Felsen books before I ever took to the road, so always had a sense of responsibility to treat driving as a potentially dangerous act.
Even my 63 Valiant has belts and I’ve used them the entire 35 years I’ve owned it.
I have to mention, though, that the IIHS [or NHTSA, can’t remember] and AAA both claim that fifty percent [closer to 60 according to AAA] of automotive deaths still occur because of unbelted drivers and passengers. I find it pretty ironic, but not surprising that all the passive safety devices in the world can’t fix stupid.
In addition to belts, a driver increases his safety and that of his passengers by staying off the frigging phone, not driving drunk, using mirrors, eating, effing with the radio, maintaining safe speeds in inclement weather and on the freeway, don’t tailgate and use signals.
Driving IS multi-tasking. Doing anything else is distracted driving.
Texting while driving is intentionally pre-occupied driving. That people have suggested we need legislation for such blatant stupidity amazes me that it’s even necessary. People think they can multi-task… until they can’t.
AZ has the sixth worst ranking for careless drivers. Add in all the texting and jawboning and tailgating, I’m not sure even what I see as common sense precautions and relatively new [05] vehicle are enough protection in this environment. Maybe a used Hummer is in order.
As an aside though, the two accidents I have been in were rearenders while the cars were stopped at red lights.
One of the worst features of old cars were the metal glovebox lids, which would spring open in an accident and chop you off at the knees.
Safe driving is all a matter of perception. When I ride a motorcycle I’m incredibly aware of everything around me. As motorcyclists discovered, the most dangerous drivers were in Volvos because they felt so safe. The safer you make the car the worst the driving becomes as Teslas self driving cars demonstrate.
You can change driver behaviour, it just takes rigorous enforcement. In the UK it’s very rare for people to drive without using seatbelts, speed excessively or to drink drive. Again it’s about perception of danger. If there’s a good chance of losing your license then you conform.
.
My father wouldn’t wear seatbelts for years because his cousin drowned wearing them, but he had two put in the ’56 Olds we kids drove in HS in the 70’s. That over-powered boat did teach us some prudence, and without major collisions. My sister did bend the back bumper on a bollard.
The Plaintiffs Bar, which funded Nader’s Raiders and PIRG (hence the Tort Law Museum), has certainly had a huge impact on the US even when they weren’t targeting something in particular, like hot coffee and cigarettes. Something I noticed immediately but no commentator mentioned was the lack of a guardrail in the tunnel where Princess Di died. That pillar would have been protected in the US.
“…the lack of a guardrail in the tunnel where Princess Di died. ”
She wasn’t wearing a seatbelt
I know we are all focused on what car companies did to make their products safer, but easily half of the lives saved over the past 50 years has been due to road improvements. Roads 50 years ago were far more deadly than today. We have better signage, standardized signage and designs, wider roadways, better designed barriers, and a better knowledge on traffic flows. All of these have had as great an impact on auto safety, as the cars themselves.
Finally, let’s also not forget how much better we are at saving crash victims. EMT technologies, medicines and hospitals have also reduced traffic deaths by more than a little.
So kudos to Nader for reporting on a very real danger common in America a half century ago. The government solution wasn’t optimal, but an improvement, and safety awareness is now expected in all auto design, road design and in traffic studies today.
I recall a traffic safety engineer saying that, for every segment of every road, someone will eventually collide with whatever features are present. I drive some back-wood 2-lanes, and it is amazing how many segments of the fences lining parts of the roads are taken out by cars leaving the road, and then replaced. The replaced stretches look different, and, over time, much of the fencing is the replaced materials.
I sit with a window facing a major roadway, and I see thousands upon thousands of cars pass by. What concerns me today is how comfortable today’s drivers in their safety designed cars, on safety designed roads, SPEED.
Speed negates so many of the safety designs that we have put into place over the past 50 years. A vehicle that is in more danger today because of this is motorcycles. Human beings have not changed significantly in biological design over the past 50 years so people hit on motorcycles are as badly hurt today, as they were decades ago. I believe one of the reasons we are seeing a downturn in motorcycle ownership is due to the dangers presented by today’s motorists. None of my kids are interested in having a motorcycle and they all cite safety as a reason they don’t want one.
Thanks to improvements in auto design and road design, highway speeds are noticeably higher than 50 years ago. Cars on interstates easily travel 10-15 mph over the speed limit, and often drive just as fast in town. Consequently, it seems the next revolution we may witness regarding auto safety will be in controlling speed. I do expect to see sometime in my life, a means of doing this through computer technology. Just as we have cameras everywhere, I believe that we will be driving cars that will have speed limiting technologies depending on the roads. I expect to have a future where I cannot drive over 75 mph on an interstate or 40 in town, due to computer technologies. Naturally, emergency vehicles would be exempt from this.
Forces from a collision increase by a multiple of the speed. An extra ten or fifteen mph can double or triple the forces in an accident.
Consider this—driving on an undivided highway at 65 mph, while the traffic going the other way is doing the same. The closing speed is 130 mph! A collision created by someone crossing over the center line could be the equivalent of your running into a barricade at 130 mph. Those kinds of accidents are often not centered, typically striking the driver’s side of the car, which are the most dangerous and difficult collisions to protect against.
Defensive driving is well and good, but there is only so much you can do to avoid the driving mistakes of others. I try never to drive those 2-lanes after dark. Not because of the dark, but because of the higher likelihood of encountering dangerously impaired drivers.
I agree with you and Vanilla Dude. Speed is a real problem and those 2-lane rural highways are the deadliest.
One error though (and it’s quite common): In your example, the closing speed is indeed 130 mph, but the impact force is equivalent (assuming each car is of equal weight) to each car hitting a rigid barrier at 65 mph (not 130 mph).
This is because in a head-on crash between 2 cars of equal weight, both cars crush at their fronts; not so for the barrier, which by definition does not crush.
Focusing on interstate highway speeds is a waste of time and resources. Three major interstate highways – I-76 (Pennsylvania Turnpike), I-81 and I-83 – converge in southcentral Pennsylvania region. Much local travel is thus conducted on interstate highways.
A few years ago, the local paper analyzed area traffic fatalities. The deadliest roads are local, two-lane country roads. The typical fatal accident involves a single vehicle, traveling at 55-60 mph, after 11 p.m. Alcohol and failure to wear safety belts are key factors. (Most of the drivers are males under the age of 40.) The drivers loafing along at 80 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike are not the problem.
We’ve argued this endlessly here and in other forums, but higher travel speeds in and of themselves do lead to more deaths and injuries. Please see here: https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed.
You’re right though that the deadliest roads are high-speed 2-lane rural highways, and it’s also true that fatal crashes on these roads typically involve a single vehicle running off the pavement at night hitting a fixed object or rolling over, with an impaired younger male driver not wearing a seatbelt.
The problem is that there is also plenty of research that shows that changes in the speed limit have negligible effects on the actual speeds at which people drive. With that key fact, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. So, no, that research is not necessarily the final say on the matter.
And “speed related” fatalities include everything from driving 50 mph in an ice storm to someone crashing while intoxicated, and exceeding the speed limit while doing so. Here in Harrisburg, three people were killed when a tractor trailer driver plowed into a row of stopped traffic while going faster than the posted limit (55 mph on this particular road). He was also stoned on marijuana and legally drunk. Lowering the speed limit to 50 mph wouldn’t have prevented that fatal accident.
Il know that it’s hard for the IIHS, given that the failure of its predictions of a bloodbath in the wake of the repeal of the national 65 mph speed limit in late 1994 left it with egg on its face. The fatality rate per 100 million miles driven continued to decline. It’s perfectly safe to drive modern passenger cars and light trucks at 80 mph on rural limited access highways. If that reduces the ability of local governments to write tickets, and insurance companies to tack surcharges on to policies (and let’s not deny that happens – I can show you my policy where this is spelled out), that’s too bad. We’re not going to toddle along at 55 mph in 2021. Then again, we never really did, even when the limit was 55 mph, so…
I chuckle when a sensational news report describes that a freeway police chase reached speeds of up to 90 mph. Meanwhile everyday freeway traffic is routinely tearing along at 80-85 (about 10 over) and no doubt some at 90 plus.
I wonder why 90 is called out so often? Of itself, 90mph on open freeway is not going to make any spectacular chase footage.
My (not supported by data) hunch is that a typical “runner” would have no qualms with pushing it to 100+ or whatever that slug will do. However, for some reason, it seems like the reporting likes to cap it at 90.
Greg, I knew you would respond because you always do! This is a rebuttal, not so much to you personally, but to others who will read this fine article by Paul and the numerous comments. I’d like to set the record straight.
You said, “The problem is that there is also plenty of research that shows that changes in the speed limit have negligible effects on the actual speeds at which people drive. With that key fact, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.” Obviously, you dismissed the link I provided to the IIHS on the topic of speed. Here’s a key section and the final paragraph from the original link: https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#effects-of-speed-limits-on-safety
“An IIHS study examined longer-term changes [of posted speed limits]. During 1993-2017, a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 3 percent increase on other roads (Farmer, 2019). In total, there were an estimated 37,000 more traffic fatalities during these years than would have been expected if maximum speed limits in 1993 had remained in place. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1,900 additional deaths.”
What “research” are you referring to? If you mean so-called studies from Car and Driver, Road and Track, or the National Motorists Association, they are not published in peer-reviewed journals, as those of the IIHS always are. The problem is that driving enthusiasts bend themselves into pretzels to “prove” that driving fast (however “fast” is defined) is never the problem in and of itself. Rather, the problem is speed variation between vehicles, driving too fast for conditions, impairment, distraction or some other factor, as you cited in your putative and anecdotal examples. After all, driving faster is fun and usually gets you to your destination sooner. The situation is analogous to today’s anti-vaxxers who want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary, that playing Russian roulette with Covid is safer than getting the jab.
About that predicted “bloodbath” in 1995, the IIHS never said that because it does not speak in hyperbole. Rather, it was Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen and Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety who used such terminology. Interestingly, both of these organizations were founded by Ralph Nader.
Last, you make an oblique reference to the canard that the IIHS conspires with the insurance industry to have speed limits lowered so that higher rates can be charged to convicted speeders, resulting in more profits for the industry (and more funding for the IIHS). This is patent nonsense. Yes, IIHS is sponsored solely by property and casualty insurance companies. However, funding is voluntary based on the market share of each insurance company; no company is forced to contribute. The IIHS makes no recommendations regarding premium rates charged by the companies. Rather, each insurer’s own actuaries set the rates (and surcharges) with approval by state regulators.
The IIHS is a scientific and educational organization and has been since its reconstitution in 1969 under the leadership of William Haddon, Jr., one of the early pioneers in the scientific study of highway and auto safety and the first administer of the agency that would become NHTSA. As is stated on its website, IIHS is “dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries and property damage from motor vehicle crashes through research and evaluation and through education of consumers, policymakers and safety professionals.”
Mr. Nader’s allegations regarding the handling characteristics of 1960 to 1963 Corvairs were based on information he gathered from lawsuits litigated by other attorneys. But he failed to acknowledge the outcome of cases that were brought to trial. The plaintiff’s claims were based on evidence that was soft at best. This was proven by the outcome of jury trials and the NHTSA investigation into the handling and safety of those early-series Corvairs.
Consider this: In total, there were 294 cases alleging defective design. GM’s first reaction was to settle them out of court. That this was a foolish move was made evident when the settlements were leaked to the press. Then, GM began to fight back. Ten cases went to trial. Eight resulted in verdicts in favor of G.M.
In the other two cases, the juries sided with the plaintiffs. But in one of them, the verdict was thrown out by the judge. He described the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness as… “Perhaps the most incomprehensible gibberish that this court has ever heard.”
In the other case, the jury concluded that GM was twelve percent culpable, even though two witnesses testified that the driver had been at a bar for two and a half hours, drinking before he hopped into his Corvair and wrapped it around a tree, almost killing one of his four passengers.
Not sure, Alan, that court cases for liability were/are much of a measure of the defectiveness (or otherwise) of the Corvair. They’re concerned with process, with admissibility, quantum, and causation’s almost last, and difficult to this day to divide up between the fault of the machine and the operator. He and Moynihan (in the articles mentioned below) acknowledge the great difficulty of proof in such a David and Goliath contest anyway, especially in the absence of some unified standards for safety in the first place. Very hard, say, to prove a beam axle is probably safer for most folk than a swing axle, for example, (ie: less safe? no, but more different, so to speak!)
Nader doesn’t necessarily attack the Corvair as such – even saying there’s something to be said for its trying new ideas, and that it was liked by the enthusiasts, from vague memory – but more the process of design and execution. And in that, he was quite right, IMHO, particu;arl;y the awful decisions about the super-cheap suspension bits miserably left off, “proved” if you like, by their quiet inclusion by ’63.
Btw, for clarity, I say all this as a fan of the car, as I’m aware you also most definitely are!
Sorry, but it doesn’t matter, what matters is the outcome of his work. We have lots of flawed work having immense impact on us. The fact that it flawed doesn’t lessen the impact.
Some interesting facts:
Ralph Nader staked his claim to fame by authoring the best-selling book, “Unsafe at Any Speed”. In it, he tore into the Corvair. It was the focus of the first chapter in his book. But the book had eight chapters in which he took on just about every sector of the automotive establishment as it then existed, piece by piece.
You may think Ralph Nader is an ambulance chaser, but that’s not really true. During the early to mid-1960s, Mr. Nader’s forte was legal research. “Unsafe at Any Speed” was based on research he performed while working for the federal government. In that role, he ferreted out information from lawsuits brought by other attorneys. One of his sources was David M. Harney, a Los Angeles attorney who filed 30 lawsuits against General Motors over the safety of the Corvair. Nader’s only lawsuit against GM was for invasion of privacy.
Nader’s penchant for legal research came to the attention of men in high places, particularly in the Kennedy administration. After Daniel Patrick Moynihan became Assistant Secretary of Labor in 1963, he hired Nader as a paid consultant on or about May 16, 1964 to write a report on automotive safety. It was through Moynihan that Nader became acquainted with Senator Abraham Ribicoff who chaired the now-famous Senate automotive safety hearings on Capitol Hill in 1966.
Nader’s report for Moynihan was never entered into the public record, but Ribicoff and Bobby Kennedy used information Nader prepared to cross-examine auto industry witnesses who came before the Ribicoff committee. They included James M. Roche, then President of General Motors.
By the time “Unsafe at Any Speed” was published, the federal government was well on its way to imposing safety regulations on the auto industry. On March 8, 1965, almost nine months before “Unsafe at Any Speed” was published, the federal General Services Administration (GSA) included seventeen safety standards, including impact-absorbing steering wheels and dual braking systems, in its vehicle procurement specifications. These became effective on September 28, 1966.
Recognizing that the GSA purchases a huge number of cars every year, and perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, the industry adopted them across the board for all cars starting with model year 1967. It was a wise decision. On September 9, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act gave the federal government the power to mandate safety standards for all cars sold in the United States. This all happened before Unsafe at Any Speed was published.
Nader had published on potential for auto makers to be liable for safety design defects while still at Harvard Law, and wrote “The Safe Far You Can’t Buy” for The Nation in April ’59 (which told of the existence of many of the known ways to reduce injury in design since used). Moynihan also published an article in The Reporter in April ’59, “The Epidemic On The Highways” on the broader topic of not only what was known about safe design (a lot) but also the limits on driver ed/admonition, on the actual CAUSE of death/injury (the design of the car, door locks, etc) and the need for national regulation. (Of that last, it’s fascinating – if a bit depressing in the modern fractured world – that one important driver of such a move was an Alabama Democrat, that is ,old school Southern Dem, so, conservative in many ways and strongly State’s rightist, but that’s to digress).
Nader signed up to write Unsafe in ’64 and Moynihan employed him on a contract at Labour at about the same time, so there’s no doubt his work (and Unsafe) helped lead to legislation: the actual legislative requirements on auto makers (as opposed to indirect pressure through GSA purchasing) definitely came AFTER the book was published. Perhaps it helped beat a public path that made it easier for LBJ to do so?
Both the articles above can be found online, and Moynihan’s “Epidemic” one is especially fascinating. It’s awful what was known, and resisted, for so long.
Nader and these numerous others took on a super-powerful behemoth, and won, and have saved countless lives since. And, dare I say it, part of the environment we are able to continue to breathe, too.
Funny how the manufacturers still skimp on the safety features to this day, namely rear amber turn signal indicators in the US and medicore halogen headlamps (as compared to the latest technology). Ditto for the headlamp cover or lens that gradually get jaundiced or develop cataract due to the UV and heat exposure. Same for the immovable external rear-view mirrors that break away or disintegrate upon the impact und are unrepairable afterwards.
Some manufacturers chose to offer the medicore headlamps on the base trim level and better HID, LED, or laser headlamps on the higher trim levels or as an extra-cost options or as the mandatory combination with other packages.
I find it baffling that German manufacturers, selling their vehicles in the United States, choose the moronic least-common-denominator taillamps that function as brake lamps, turn signal indicators, and night illumination depending on the driver’s intentions. Of course, some amber turn signal indicators might not comply with FMVSS 108 due to the minimum size allowable per bulb, yet I’ve seen many LED turn signal indicators that flash amber or yellow on the domestic vehicles such as Cadillac Escalado and current-generation RAM trucks.
What’s so funny is how much the manufacturers would spend so much money on the features or creature comforts that have nothing to do with the safety. Installing the rear amber-colour turn signal indicators, flexible mirrors, and superior material for headlamp lens or cover shouldn’t cost too much money. Of course, “as long as they’re not mandated, we don’t have to do that.”
What a huge sell-out…
I could have sworn I commented previously on this post, but apparently not.
I read all the car books they had at my local library growing up. It was the only way to learn about cars in other countries.
I read “Unsafe” when I was maybe 11 or 12. I found it interesting because I hadn’t ever heard of anything about car safety before.
It opened my mind to another way of looking at cars. Whether fair or not, it did tarnish my opinion if the Corvair which was a rare but beautiful car to me as a kid. And now still.
I suddenly saw pointy steel dashboards and tail fins as being kind of ridiculous. But I never liked tail fins anyway. Except the small ones on the Mercedes that the old Nazi drove through NYC in “Marathon Man” before he hit the tanker.
Yep, I was a pretty cool kid. Nader books and dentist-torture movies. I wonder why the girls didn’t flock to me.
I could not agree more with Naders comments on self-driving cars. A recent commercial, made by idiots for idiots who should never drive, shows a “driver” gleefully clapping his hands to music while looking at his passengers and passing a vehicle with a trailer. Also, I come from a family of mechanics and have maintained and repaired my own vehicles for close to 50 years, and my experience shows me that today’s high tech electronics fail at a much higher rate than the electrical or mechanical devices of the last 30 years or so. Yes, you can find some decent stuff out there but build quality is much worse for many of the products available. I have no faith in today’s electronics to keep me safe.
Why shouldn’t they? It’s not like the so-called regulatory agency can or will make them!
For years their go-to argument against these was “Those aren’t cost-effective”. Now it’s “We don’t need better rear turn signals because we’re voluntarily phasing in automatic emergency braking on most vehicles over the coming years”. Which is a non-sequitur, especially since there will be a huge number of vehicles without AEB on the roads for the foreseeable future.
They do this for a bunch of very un-baffling reasons:
• the rest-of-world amber turn signal is too small and/or too dim to meet US regulations, so they just flash the brake light because that’s equally legal here;
• the rest-of-world amber turn signal is big enough and bright enough, but it’s cheaper to delete the amber LEDs and flash the brake light because that’s equally legal here;
• the rest-of-world amber turn signal is big enough and bright enough on some of their models, but not on others, and they want all their cars to have the same-colour rear turn signal, so they either replace the amber LEDs with red ones or they just flash the brake light (yes, I have actually heard this lame excuse from relevant people at major German automakers)
• they, like, totally did this, like, informal office survey? And, like, most of the people say all-red taillights look, like, way smoother and stuff? »snaps gum« (I’m not making this one up, either; see last paragraph at link)
These kinds of shortcomings run in both directions. Automakers don’t put on real rear turn signals here, and the turn signals they do put on can only be seen from the front or rear, not from the side? Yep, and automakers put on uselessly small, dim brake lights and rear turn signals in the rest of the world, and they don’t put side marker lights and reflectors—equally sore omissions, all for the same reason: they can do it the right way if they want, but it’s not legally required.
In 2012 Volvo came out with a clever pedestrian airbag under the hood. I envision similar active safety devices like bumpers that extend upward to double or triple crash surface area. That could help resolve the car versus SUV (or any larger vehicle) bumper height mismatches. Tesla’s use of radar (amongst many other technologies) caused a sea change that basically forced other automakers to follow. I firmly believe a proactive driver will always be paramount. Human behavior can only benefit from these technologies.
Many makers put these what are generically called “active hoods” on their cars. Chrysler put an active hood on their Voyager minivan…in Europe, where the auto regulations include pedestrian-protection provisions. Those parts are left off the North American models, because there’s no requirement here.
The practice of omitting various safety items from certain markets is practiced worldwide The Japanese were particularly adept at it only noticed when ex JDM used cars appear outside their home market side intrusion beams, Subaru put large stickers on their NZ assembled cars advertising their presence my 93 had that on the rear window JDM version nope no side intrusion beams saves weight and yen, immobilisers on late model Mazda Demios nope most commonly stolen cars are imported Demios there are hundreds of other cheapskate examples so its not just US car makers being ignorant but I do wish the IS had proper lighting regulations the Sterling truck Im driving has worse headlights than a 6v beetle I drove years ago.
Your Sterling truck’s headlamps may very well be lousy, but that’s not on account of US headlamp regulations, which are not recognised in New Zealand.
I think the Beetle had sticking voltage regulator contacts so it actually had “high intensity” 9V lamps.
lol
@ Jim Dandy :
VW’s began life with a 130 watt generator and feeble 25 watt headlamps .
It took until…..1962 (? maybe) to get the 19 watt 6 volt generator , this helps a lot a sealed beam lamps sucked up more power, Mr. Stern will correct my vague details here .
In any case, the two pole voltage regulator was easily adjusted to make it so at speed you cranked out 7 volt D.C. and that helped brighten up the headlamps greatly .
This rest of this thread about Corvairs is good if maybe not quite accurate .
I too owned and drove a Corvair, a 1961 base model two door coupe that was fun to drive quickly .
I never spun it out, not once but I vividly remember the 1960’s when Joe or Jane Average American would spin these out on most in town corners if there was _any_ water or leaves , sand etc. in the corner .
Fiats, Renaults , Porches and VW’s didn’t so this unless severely provoked so don’t claim they did .
I liked my Corvair but didn’t like that it required premium pump gasoline thanx to the California “Motor Fuel” crap we’re stuck with .
At that time it broke my budget so off the car went, after of course, I’d fixed all the oil weeps and seeps installed a radio and the rest of the old car into daily driver fettling .
I agree Mr, Nader might have been a strange man but he did American citizens a great thing by making safety close to impossible to ignore .
-Nate
I wouldn’t mind self-driving if I’m sitting in stop and go traffic, but I don’t see how it can see several cars ahead like I can. I’ve had cruise control for 33 years but rarely use it.
Biggest little thing a driver can do on a car that may tend to oversteer is observe the recommended tire inflation levels or at least be mindful of them. Worked at a service station back when Corvairs and VW beetles were common. Most would uniformly inflate their tires. Not good. Fronts would generally take less pressure on a car like this. Check what the manufacture suggests – it’s important.
Unfortunately this is still a problem today. I like my local tire shop. But if they ever replace or service the tires or alignment on my Corvair I always get it back with 30lbs of tire pressure in all 4 tires, even when I ask them not to do that. So it’s a gingerly ride home to readjust the tire pressure. I typically run 24 to 26 lb in front, 34 lb in the rear.
Man, the whinges about Nader are just boring, and nearly all of them anecdotal or just foolish.
He played a role, a big role, in making just about the biggest industry in America change its ways. It fiercely did not want to, despite its engineers and even bean counters knowing better. Hell, the blissfully ignorant public itself did not want it to, especially as that industry produced arguably THE greatest personal freedom/expression device that seemed (and seems still) to be inseparable from the freedom of the Republic itself. And the Complex tried dastardly means to destroy him for his trouble, though in their darkness and hubris, fired only upon themselves.
We drive cars today that are faster and more economical and less polluting than anything available then, yet literally millions of lives have been saved since. Don’t thank carmakers. Thank science, and Ralph.
Or Saint Ralph. I’ve said before on this site, I doubt old Ralphie would be one to have a wild night out over too many beers – though apparently, the dull-monk image is far from correct in private either – and I can’t forgive him his wrecker role in the 2000 election, but still the man deserves secular sainthood. So I declare it to be, right here and now.
I deem him Saint Ralph – patron saint of the non-dead and the uninjured.
Don’t forget to thank the car makers who, despite initial resistance, developed much of the technology that made those safety and pollution control devices possible. Governments can mandate anything, and advocates who never designed anything can push for the moon, but technology has to be developed that makes the standards feasible, and works in the real world, and at a price the customer can afford.
I have a smartphone, updated with the latest software, it’s the crème de la crème of modern technological living. It corrects words that don’t need correcting, apps occasionally lock up, the screen brightness will flutter in sunlight and it’ll simply say it’s too hot to do anything because it was in my pocket with the sun hitting my leg. All minor temporary inconvenient glitches I can overlook. Glitches in a hunk of metal hurling down an interstate at 80mph I have a hard time overlooking.
I’m way too much of a cynic to take it as a given self driving will be automatically safer than flesh drivers if they simply pay attention to the damn road. If automakers were truly pursuing autonomous cars as a humanitarian technology to save lives they’d build cars that block cell and wifi signals, not interface with them.
I think automakers are in fear of the growing age of the fleet and the ever more public knowledge that a 10 year old car doesn’t really give up much to a brand new one as far as content, we’ve largely hit a point in diminishing returns in old time selling points like performance, style, practicallity, reliability efficiency and safety. Obviously EVs are fresh and new for the public and have some way to continue going in the range and charge time component before mainstream acceptance but they probably will get there sooner or later. That “new and improved” showroom draw is a struggle and autonomous driving with its “levels” of it to come just strike me as the new opportunity for the old marketing ploy to keep em coming and trading up for the promise of “the future” that may or may not pan out.
“I’m way too much of a cynic to take it as a given self driving will be automatically safer than flesh drivers if they simply pay attention to the damn road. If automakers were truly pursuing autonomous cars as a humanitarian technology to save lives they’d build cars that block cell and wifi signals, not interface with them.”
Damn right!
I own a Corvair, so I am not an unbiased commentator. Mine is a ’64, which is essentially the car that Nader says GM should have built on day one. It still has swing axles, but their drawbacks are counteracted by a rear transverse camber compensator spring, and a front sway bar.
That being said, the ’60 Corvair is probably better handling than its contemporary rear engined competition (Beetle, Dauphine, Simca, Fiat 500/600).
That’s not to say the Corvair has no safety issues, but they were issues common to many cars of the time. The photo of the Corvair wagon wrapped around a pole is of the accident in which comedian Ernie Kovacs died. Setting aside the various factors that may or may not have been involved in causing the accident, what killed Kovacs was the lack of any side impact protection, common to most cars of the time, especially unibody cars, and the lack of seat belts. Kovacs was thrown across the seat headfirst by the impact, and his head probably hit the passenger door.
Although NHTSA ultimately determined that the Corvair should not have been singled out, Nader was right that cars needed to be improved.
About Kovacs’ crash, he would have been thrown to the left initially and it’s quite possible his head struck the pole. Then he would have rebounded to the right. But the first impact is probably what killed him.
The title says “…dangers of American automobile…” as if imports back then were “much safer”?
Above post lists many causes of deaths in “good old days”, [“issues common to many cars of the time”] lack of seat belts mainly, and side impact protection.
Ernie Kovacs death hit hard and then the pitchforks came out, Corvair was “enemy #1”.
“Dangers of the American automobile” because imports did not yet have all that much of a presence in the US market (other than Volkswagen) at the time. The Japanese invasion was mostly still in the future, and GM utterly dominated with about half of the market in 1965.
Yeah, American makers had the lion’s share of the American market at that time. Moreover, the system of uniform vehicle technical standards had existed in Europe since 1958.
Since the beginning of when it looked like the Feds would become involved in highway safety there’s been a steady grumbling of which is the most significant contributing factor: driver, vehicle, roadway?
Posted in another CC topic were “real time” letters-to-the-editor circa 1965, underscoring the debate.
My long strongly held opinion is that it’s mostly on the driver. Some didn’t like that and so the CC tar kettle was being fired up while the procurement process for feathers began. lol
I feel that it’s no longer up for debate because the results are now trickling in from a recent months-long nationwide actual test of the theory.
Namely, in 2020, with generally no significant changes to vehicles, roadways, nor the pool of drivers, vehicles traffic volume was reduced significantly.
With that, one’d expect serious crashes to plummet, yes?
But no! What actually happened during the COVID slowdown? Serious crashes of the type that cause deaths skyrocketed.
This is not per miles driven or any such corrective data analysis. Preliminary data shows that deaths just plain old skyrocketed. Miles driven down (some -13%) while crash deaths up (some +7%) through the roof.
However, I’m no traffic safety expert. Feel free to explain how the cause of the spike should not be planted squarely on driver behavior? And, why it wouldn’t be logical and fair to presume that it’s been the driver all along?
Jim, when it comes to mechanics and old trucks and such, you’re a real whiz. But when it comes to something like this, you’re obviously out of your element. You seem to have totally missed the point of what Nader and the government did, in drastically improving the car crash fatality rate per million miles driven over the decades, regardless of this recent uptick.
No one in their right mind would suggest anything other than human error/poor judgment for being the cause of the overwhelming percentage of car crashes/fatalities. NHTSA puts the number at between 94-96%. What else would be the cause of car crashes? A wheel falling off? Sudden total brake failure?
Modern cars are extremely reliable mechanically, and handle very safely, thanks to decades of improvements and of course modern developments like advanced braking systems and electronic stability control.
The increase in crashes and fatalities since the pandemic started are the result of drivers speeding and driving recklessly, as well as other poor choices.
There’s no good stats readily at hand to suggest what the percentage (human caused crashes) was say in 1960. Undoubtedly it was also very high, but it’s safe to assume it was somewhat lower, as brakes really did fail sometimes, tires did so much more often, and the handling of cars in demanding/tricky circumstances was a lot less benign than today.
Of course one could rightly say that a very cautious and highly skilled driver could have handled those kind of failures or edge case without crashing. But realistically, many drivers couldn’t, or didn’t.
But even if that percentage of human cause crashes was lower then, say maybe 85 or 90% instead of 94%, the problem was two fold: There was an opportunity to lower crashes caused by non-human error, by making cars handle better. This is what Nader was going after, in terms of the Corvair and such.
But he knew perfectly well that car crashes weren’t going to end, or even be reduced significantly by making cars handle safer. Crashes were inevitably going to happen, because it’s essentially impossible to make humans stop exercising poor judgment behind the wheel. Crashes are absolutely inevitable, so Nader focused mostly on improving the likelihood of surviving a crash, by making cars “safer” in the ways we acquainted with (no need to list them all here). These were mandated by the government, and have made a huge impact; a massive decline in deaths per million miles driven since they were first instituted. These regulations have saved millions of lives, not because they kept cashes from happening, but because they made surviving a crash so much more likely.
Note that Nader and the government have never seriously attempted to prevent crashes by changing human behavior. MADD did create a significant change in laws and attitudes about driving while under the influence. But there’s only so much that can be done: people are going to do stupid things behind the wheel.
Here’s a key statistic: 47% of the persons killed in car crashes were not wearing a seat belt. One half! Is there not the technology available so that a car won’t move unless everyone is properly belted in? Undoubtedly.
28% of all car fatalities involved alcohol. There’s technology available (interlocks) to keep folks from driving drunk, but they haven’t been mandated either, except on a few limited cases for recurring DUIs.
There’s technology readily available to make cell phones to not work in cars, but it’s not mandated, and it would never pass muster, as everyone in including lawmakers does it.
The point is: almost all car crashes are the result of human error of one kind or anther. The problem is that without drastic measures like the interlocks I mentioned above for alcohol, seat belts and cell phones, the absolute number (as well as the percentage) isn’t going to come down.
There is absolutely no way to mandate good judgment and attention. It’s essentially impossible. If it were possible, why wouldn’t Nader and/or the government and/or other interest groups lobby for it?
Of course “it’s been the driver all along”. Who ever said otherwise? So the obvious solution is to make cars safer, in terms of surviving the inevitable crashes.
That’s what Nader did, and that’s what the government has done. Because they know you can’t change human behavior, except possibly to some extent with interlocks that simply won’t be accepted by the public. But even if that were done, there would still be plenty of crashes, almost all of them human caused.
Got it?
PS: of course making roads “safer” has also been a factor, and one worth pursuing. Divided highways clearly have a lower crash rate than undivided highways. Etc. Etc. But no matter how much you improve roads and cars, it’s always going to still be poor human judgment that actually causes crashes.
Got it.
Just pointing out that when I previously had the audacity to suggest same without having data to support my strong hunch (this was before the 2020 real-world test data began trickling in) the pitchforks and tar kettle were being readied for me. Lol
Remember, data didn’t support my hunch?
By the way data now shows that the “not supported by data” hunch was right on the ongoing bicycle crash epidemic. If those old topics go undead one day we can revisit that. Meanwhile let’s just enjoy this crow.
By the way, I usually don’t keep such close tabs on crash data but I thought I was finally going to get the stick away from big insurance and deliver them a beating at renewal time, after what I was sure would wind up a rosey 2020. With a (knock on wood) safety record that has never caused nor collected even a cent of pay-out, it’s maddening to keep paying more and more in premiums to cover for those that do. What a disappointment that against all odds (redacted) actually managed to raise insurance losses. lol
Peace