NHTSA Crash Standards to be Overhauled

[johnnyb82]

see, youve got me wrong, so in a nutshell...when is enough enough?...how long before we jump in a car and can fall asleep going to work? it is the relentless pursuit of making the driver less and less accountable for his/ her own ineptitude or bad judgement that offends me...THOSE issues deserve more effort...not ones that glaze over the crux of the matter....not all accidents are the result of bad driving, but I would guess that 90% most definitely are....so are the answers, 4 or 5 stars?, 42 airbags?, 16 crush zones?, lane swerving technology?, self braking cars?, accident avoidence controls? etc etc etc....are all these measures adressing the issue or are they ignoring a more pressing issue....

 

Even if you care little about protecting bad drivers, you ignore my point about those who are not bad drivers being protected. And besides the point, no one is a perfect driver and even the best drivers make mistakes.

[RichardJensen]

the REAL issue isnt being adressed enough...drivers education

You can't teach idiots.

[Deanh]

Even if you care little about protecting bad drivers, you ignore my point about those who are not bad drivers being protected. And besides the point, no one is a perfect driver and even the best drivers make mistakes.

not ignoring...i just dont think there is a single car manufactured today that I would NOT feel 100% safe in.....but then again like I said Put a moron in a safe car hes still a moron, and IMO a GOOD driver in say, a 15 year old car I beleive would have LESS chance of actually getting into an accident in the first place...and thus i think priorities are squewed....

[Deanh]

You can't teach idiots.

hey, the cattle prod helped me..

[Deanh]

Even if you care little about protecting bad drivers, you ignore my point about those who are not bad drivers being protected. And besides the point, no one is a perfect driver and even the best drivers make mistakes.

its not that I dont care ...I do, however I think they are safe enough in any current automobile....

Edited June 21, 2010 by Deanh

[Deanh]

You can't teach idiots.

then they shouldnt be able to get licences.....

[Deanh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNJdWWDkjOs

used to love that show....guy now writes a backpage Article for an Audio Visual magazine I beleive...Home Theatre....?

[RichardJensen]

thus i think priorities are squewed....

Intelligence can't be taught. Whatever intelligence is, it's inherent. You can't get through to idiots. You can't make them think. You can't convince them to consider the consequences of their actions.

 

As my landlord once described them to me, "They're not human. They're not like you and me. They don't think the way we think. They don't act the way we act. You can't get through to them."

 

They exist at all social strata, and at all income levels. They are the people on whom Jon Donne's "No Man is an Island" is ten different kinds of wasted effort. They are simply and utterly incapable of thinking about anything that is more than 5 seconds into the future, half an inch in front of their nose, or detrimental to anyone including themselves.

 

These are the people that smoke during pregnancy, that start fights in bars, that cross five lanes of traffic to make an exit because they couldn't POSSIBLY turn around at the next exit.

 

People who have made a career out of wasting the time of others. Inconsiderate oafs. People who live on tiny planets with a population of one and a surface area consisting of everything that they can see at any particular moment.

 

Women who have their boyfriend's kids because they think it will keep him around. Men who live with women on welfare because it's cheaper than working for a living. Executives who have found out that 'yes boss' is the quickest way to the top. Executives who consider brown-nosing the greatest single talent that any subordinate could possibly possess.

 

People that are miserable, despite spending their entire lives doing what they want. High school dropouts, college drop outs. People with degrees that are worthless because they didn't learn a damn thing---except how to shotgun a can of beer--or how to network their way into a job that they couldn't get based on their ability. Those who carry around a perpetual sense of ill-usage, those who are convinced that, for all their years of selfishness and self-centered conduct, the world still owes them something.

 

People who perpetually try to get more than they give. Abusive parents, abusive spouses that finish each episode of abuse with the line, "See what you made me do?"

 

People who say, "see what you made me do," period.

 

You aren't going to rid the world of these chumps through driver's ed. Dean. The best you can do is fasten your helmet (or better yet, buy a car), and keep an eye out for them because one thing you stake your life on: They sure as hell can't see you. Even when they're looking right at you.

Edited June 21, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Deanh]

Intelligence can't be taught. Whatever intelligence is, it's inherent. You can't get through to idiots. You can't make them think. You can't convince them to consider the consequences of their actions.

 

As my landlord once described them to me, "They're not human. They're not like you and me. They don't think the way we think. They don't act the way we act. You can't get through to them."

 

They exist at all social strata, and at all income levels. They are the people on whom Jon Donne's "No Man is an Island" is ten different kinds of wasted effort. They are simply and utterly incapable of thinking about anything that is more than 5 seconds into the future, half an inch in front of their nose, or detrimental to anyone including themselves.

 

These are the people that smoke during pregnancy, that start fights in bars, that cross five lanes of traffic to make an exit because they couldn't POSSIBLY turn around at the next exit.

 

People who have made a career out of wasting the time of others. Inconsiderate oafs. People who live on tiny planets with a population of one and a surface area consisting of everything that they can see at any particular moment.

 

Women who have their boyfriend's kids because they think it will keep him around. Men who live with women on welfare because it's cheaper than working for a living. Executives who have found out that 'yes boss' is the quickest way to the top. Executives who consider brown-nosing the greatest single talent that any subordinate could possibly possess.

 

People that are miserable, despite spending their entire lives doing what they want. High school dropouts, college drop outs. People with degrees that are worthless because they didn't learn a damn thing---except how to shotgun a can of beer--or how to network their way into a job that they couldn't get based on their ability. Those who carry around a perpetual sense of ill-usage, those who are convinced that, for all their years of selfishness and self-centered conduct, the world still owes them something.

 

People who perpetually try to get more than they give. Abusive parents, abusive spouses that finish each episode of abuse with the line, "See what you made me do?"

 

People who say, "see what you made me do," period.

 

You aren't going to rid the world of these chumps through driver's ed. Dean. The best you can do is fasten your helmet (or better yet, buy a car), and keep an eye out for them because one thing you stake your life on: They sure as hell can't see you. Even when they're looking right at you.

point taken, just makes me think getting a license should be 10 times tougher, and there should be two additional tests within the first 2 or three years, at which time if you have any tickets, the licence gets suspended and one starts from scratch again...think that would underline the cliche saying "Driving is a PRIVILIDGE"

[RichardJensen]

used to love that show....guy now writes a backpage Article for an Audio Visual magazine I beleive...Home Theatre....?

 

They've split up into Cinematic Titanic and RiffTrax. Check them out....

 

Fortunately, there was enough cast turnover to ensure that both ventures got a full set of riffers.

[RichardJensen]

point taken, just makes me think getting a license should be 10 times tougher

If you can figure out a way to separate idiots from normal people based on a standardized test, you will be able to buy a solid gold house, fifteen yachts, and all the cheese and crackers that you can possibly eat.

 

Consider your harrowing scenario. Most idiots are smart enough NOT to do that on a driving test.

 

Idiots KNOW what the rules are. That's not the problem. The problem is their habit of granting themselves exceptions to those rules whenever they want. They'll follow the rules to get the license and then openly flout them when nobody is looking.

[Deanh]

If you can figure out a way to separate idiots from normal people based on a standardized test, you will be able to buy a solid gold house, fifteen yachts, and all the cheese and crackers that you can possibly eat.

 

Consider your harrowing scenario. Most idiots are smart enough NOT to do that on a driving test.

 

Idiots KNOW what the rules are. That's not the problem. The problem is their habit of granting themselves exceptions to those rules whenever they want. They'll follow the rules to get the license and then openly flout them when nobody is looking.

unfortunately you are most likely correct......sigh...and the scenario doesnt just pertain to drivers either....human nature seems focused on sidestepping/ manipulating rules or being able to "play" them by either noting or being made aware of "loopholes"....referred commonly to milking the system...

[Edstock]

"People who say, "see what you made me do," period."

 

Ah, the highpoint of rational thought.

[OldZephyr]

If you can figure out a way to separate idiots from normal people based on a standardized test, you will be able to buy a solid gold house, fifteen yachts, and all the cheese and crackers that you can possibly eat.

 

Consider your harrowing scenario. Most idiots are smart enough NOT to do that on a driving test.

 

Idiots KNOW what the rules are. That's not the problem. The problem is their habit of granting themselves exceptions to those rules whenever they want. They'll follow the rules to get the license and then openly flout them when nobody is looking.

 

 

Very well put, Richard (as was your longer earlier post).

[BrewfanGRB]

A little stunned over here, Dean. Point very well made about the nanny state and how the safety regulations have negatively affected the driving dynamics of cars. But, frankly, I'm a little put off by how your rebuttal to each of Richard's points was "yeah, well, take away their license" or "yeah, well, they shouldn't driving".

 

All well and good...once my car runs on rainbows and sunshine. The point is: I can't sit around and WAIT for the government to revoke the license of everyone who cuts across five lanes of traffic. I can't WAIT for the government to impose stricter standards for licensing. I need to be protected from idiots NOW. I don't drive a "safe" car so I can drive more recklessly (or at least, I like to think that)...I have a long, mixed commute of rural area and busy, urban traffic. Hazards vary from drunk drivers on the wrong side of the road, to inattentive ding dongs in rush hour, to badly maintained roads in the winter, to deer who are narcissists---running around wherever they want without regard to my need to use the road.

 

Think of this: No matter how stringent the licensing standards may become, fatal crashes are going to continue to occur. Would it be great for a car to have the great safety features and still drive like a Lotus? You bet. But, I don't do much Lotus-oriented driving anyway, so why not maximize the safety for the 98% of the time I'm just trying to get to work?

 

Lastly, forget idiot drivers: What about idiot deer? VERY common around here. People die when they hit them (but mostly on motorcycles).

 

What about completely uncontrollable and unforeseeable situations? Pretty rare, sure. But again, since I'm not driving a Lotus, what's the harm in making the car safer? Making the licensing requirements strict and strictly enforcing the laws is the long-term solution to minimizing deaths. But right NOW, safer cars are the solution. Look at the number of deaths in absolute terms and the death rate per 100 million miles travelled in 1960 compared to today. Licensing has become stricter (graduated licensing for kids has very positive effects)....laws are stricter (every state has BAC at .08% and seatbelt use is at all-time high)...but cars are waaaay safer. No more dying because you hit your forehead on the radio knob.

[atvman]

flame me , but in my case the LAST thing I look at when buying a vehicle is safety ratings...as far as I'm concerned, because of the height of the standards i have NO issues driving absolutely ANYTHING produced today....if i like it of course....

I agree. My wife looked at safety ratings when she chose the Edge, but I didn't even glance at them when I bought my truck. Let's face it, the least safe car you can buy today is probably safer than anything you could buy in the mid 1990s. I'm really not too worried about it.

[jpd80]

see, youve got me wrong, so in a nutshell...when is enough enough?...how long before we jump in a car and can fall asleep going to work? it is the relentless pursuit of making the driver less and less accountable for his/ her own ineptitude or bad judgement that offends me...THOSE issues deserve more effort...not ones that glaze over the crux of the matter....not all accidents are the result of bad driving, but I would guess that 90% most definitely are....so are the answers, 4 or 5 stars?, 42 airbags?, 16 crush zones?, lane swerving technology?, self braking cars?, accident avoidence controls? etc etc etc....are all these measures adressing the issue or are they ignoring a more pressing issue....

Actually, random breath testing and drug swab testing would be a great start.

Don't know about the USA but in Australia in 1980 before RBT, 44% of all people

killed in Aussie road accidents were over 0.05% BAC.

 

The road toll in Australia has fallen dramatically over the past 40 years, in 1970 it was 3780 with around 4 million cars on the road, today the toll is down to approx 1500 with 13 million vehicles on the road mostly because of better designed vehicles, strong speed enforcement and Random Breath testing (Booze buses).

Edited June 22, 2010 by jpd80

[old_fairmont_wagon]

That is one thing that I'm quite firmly in support of, mandatory breathalizer ignition interlocks with mandatory incarcaration for anyone found to have aided a drunk driver in bypassing the device. I have known seveal people in my life (some that were quite close to me) that were either killed or maimed by drunk drivers. I want my family to be protected from those idiots deciding that they aren't all that drunk and can still drive from getting behind the wheel and turning their transportation device into a 1.5 ton death machine. The states will never do it, nor will the lawyers allow it. They make WAY too much money off of fining and defending the drunk drivers in court. The technology is there. Heck, I'd be willing to part with some other safety systems in my cars to make up for the cost of installation just due to the fundamentally reduced risk of there being drunk drivers out there.

 

As for the "idiots" that are behind the wheel out there, it's real smple to deal with them. Make the wreckless driving laws much stronger, including much stiffer fines for first offenses and jail time with license loss for repeated offenses. Again, they won't do that either because they make too much money off of fines.

 

Then there's the issue with the drivers that have reached a state of reduced abilitie due to advancing age. While I have sympathy for their needs (and most cities offer transportation services for them) there needs to be improved screening for them to continue to renew their licenses as well. I know AARP is going to fight that tooth and nail, but, from my driving experience, they are a bigger problem than drunk drivers simply due to their numbers (I see way more of them out on the roads making poor driving decisions that others have to compensate for than I see drivers that are obviously intoxicated).

 

Deal with those issues first, and then come back and talk to me about loading my vehicle down with more weighty and expensive safety gear.

[V8-X]

Problem is with everyone who simply want more or stricter laws set in place for violators are:

 

1) Who is going to enforce these road rules? The police are abusive of these laws themselves and allow many to occur right under their nose. Who's going to monitor them and ensure they are enforcing the newly created laws?

 

2) How are you going to enforce these new laws? There aren't nearly enough officers out there to catch each and every idiot. Heck, even the hot lines where you can report bad/aggressive driving don't carry much weight since it's your word against theirs. Also, practically everyone breaks a law on a daily basis, whether it be stopping in the crosswalk, not making a complete stop, not yielding to traffic that has the right of way and forcing your way in, speeding up to catch the yellow light, following to close, not using their blinker, etc. In that case, no one would have a license and we'd all be using public transportation.

 

3) Would these laws be at the federal, state or city level? A lot of dilemmas depending on which arm of the government is tasked with enforcing these requirements.

 

4) How are you going to educate all drivers?

 

Those are just some of the tip of the iceberg questions. You just can't implement laws or requirements without thorough investigation.

 

 

Dean, and to your point on bad drivers and your motorcycling. Sorry to hear you encounter these problems. You know the risks, just as much as you know the risks when you get behind the wheel of a car too. And please don't complain about just cars/trucks because you are a rider. Based on the percentages I've seen, the riders of motorcycles and bicycles typically break more laws daily on a per vehicle basis than do automobiles. Sure you see more automobiles breaking the law, but that is simply due to the sheer volume on the road in comparison to motorcycles and bikes. And more than their fair share of motorcycle/bicyclist accidents are caused by the failure of the rider to obey the rules of the road or put themselves in less than ideal locations.

 

Let's face it, the least safe car you can buy today is probably safer than anything you could buy in the mid 1990s. I'm really not too worried about it.

That's a lame excuse. Just because a car is safer today than is was a decade or so ago makes it all okay? Aren't we a society determined to constantly improve? So why not improve the safety of our vehicles which can save many lives. If the new requirements save just one life, even if it is one of these idiot drivers, they will be well worth it.

Edited June 22, 2010 by V8-X

[Deanh]

A little stunned over here, Dean. Point very well made about the nanny state and how the safety regulations have negatively affected the driving dynamics of cars. But, frankly, I'm a little put off by how your rebuttal to each of Richard's points was "yeah, well, take away their license" or "yeah, well, they shouldn't driving".

 

All well and good...once my car runs on rainbows and sunshine. The point is: I can't sit around and WAIT for the government to revoke the license of everyone who cuts across five lanes of traffic. I can't WAIT for the government to impose stricter standards for licensing. I need to be protected from idiots NOW. I don't drive a "safe" car so I can drive more recklessly (or at least, I like to think that)...I have a long, mixed commute of rural area and busy, urban traffic. Hazards vary from drunk drivers on the wrong side of the road, to inattentive ding dongs in rush hour, to badly maintained roads in the winter, to deer who are narcissists---running around wherever they want without regard to my need to use the road.

 

Think of this: No matter how stringent the licensing standards may become, fatal crashes are going to continue to occur. Would it be great for a car to have the great safety features and still drive like a Lotus? You bet. But, I don't do much Lotus-oriented driving anyway, so why not maximize the safety for the 98% of the time I'm just trying to get to work?

 

Lastly, forget idiot drivers: What about idiot deer? VERY common around here. People die when they hit them (but mostly on motorcycles).

 

What about completely uncontrollable and unforeseeable situations? Pretty rare, sure. But again, since I'm not driving a Lotus, what's the harm in making the car safer? Making the licensing requirements strict and strictly enforcing the laws is the long-term solution to minimizing deaths. But right NOW, safer cars are the solution. Look at the number of deaths in absolute terms and the death rate per 100 million miles travelled in 1960 compared to today. Licensing has become stricter (graduated licensing for kids has very positive effects)....laws are stricter (every state has BAC at .08% and seatbelt use is at all-time high)...but cars are waaaay safer. No more dying because you hit your forehead on the radio knob.

fact Brewfan...uncontrolable and unaccountable fatalities account for probablt less than 1/10 of 1% of vehicular accidents....my point is it seems to me the focus is on the lessor of two evils...plain and simple.....and riding a bike makes one even more aware of how many drivers do NOT deserve the responsibility of operating an item that at any given time, has the capacity of endangering or worst case scenario, ending ones or anothers life....

[BrewfanGRB]

fact Brewfan...uncontrolable and unaccountable fatalities account for probablt less than 1/10 of 1% of vehicular accidents....my point is it seems to me the focus is on the lessor of two evils...plain and simple.....and riding a bike makes one even more aware of how many drivers do NOT deserve the responsibility of operating an item that at any given time, has the capacity of endangering or worst case scenario, ending ones or anothers life....

 

I get that. But, to my point: While making the licensing standards more stringent and the laws more strictly enforced is ideal, it does little to fix the problem NOW--I mean RIGHT NOW. I have to drive to work tomorrow. My car is about as safe as it gets in its class. Deciding "hey, it should be harder to get a DL" isn't going to prevent an idiot on a cell phone from killing me tomorrow. Right NOW, only the car can do that. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

 

The most recent example of "stricter rules" is the advent of graduated licensing. It's shown statistically significant reductions in accidents involving teens and I applaud the effort. But the truth is, it took many, many years for states to begin implementing this...many, many years for them to fully take effect and of course, they only applied to new applicants to the process. Unless you advocate hauling every single licensed driver back into the DMV for Euro-style written and driving tests, stronger tests to just new applicants STILL doesn't solve the problem. And if you DO want to haul everyone back in, you need either 5 years (forget the public outcry and fight) to get it done or a magic wand to do it at once.

[joihan777]

Increased safety standards are great. My question is how will CAFE rules will play into the safety ratings.

 

Methinks large safe cars will start getting real expensive real quick to promote little cars.

[V8-X]

and riding a bike makes one even more aware of how many drivers do NOT deserve the responsibility of operating an item that at any given time, has the capacity of endangering or worst case scenario, ending ones or anothers life....

True, I've heard that before and it may be true. But again, based on the percentages I've seen bike and motorcycle riders more commonly break the road rules on a "per bike/motorcycle" basis than those driving cars on a "per automobile" basis. The difference being, there are so many more automobiles on the road, you notice these offenders much more often than the offenders of a much smaller population of motorcycle/bike riders. So just as much as drivers need to be more responsible, riders need to be even more so.

 

Sure, there are those idiot drivers that injure a motorcyclist or bicyclist. But more commonly I've seen these riders put themselves into the situation by believing the car/truck must obey rules that they do not.

 

Increased safety standards are great. My question is how will CAFE rules will play into the safety ratings.

 

Methinks large safe cars will start getting real expensive real quick to promote little cars.

Totally agree!