Free market car companies making us safer

[shanek]

In several threads, I've pointed out how the safety features we all enjoy in our automobiles were voluntarily offered by car companies without government intervention (the one exception being air bags, which ended up killing people).

Now, Honda and Toyota are working to make us even safer!

The system is called "Collision Mitigation System (CMS)" and it works thusly:

rear-end collisions and assists brake operation to reduce impact on occupants and vehicle damage. This system determines the likelihood of a collision based on driving conditions, distance to the vehicle ahead, and relative speeds, and uses visual and audio warnings to prompt the driver to take preventative action. It can also initiate braking to reduce the vehicle's speed. The new system will be installed in the new Inspire scheduled for release in June of this year, in combination with the "E-Pretensioner," which retracts the seatbelt in anticipation of impact.

http://world.honda.com/news/2003/4030520.html

Theoretical? For a limited time only? Any catch at all? No:

There are no plans to export the feature or the Inspire so far, but Japan’s No. 2 automaker hopes the anti-collision system will some day become standard on all Honda models.

Honda is in good company:

Japan’s biggest automaker, Toyota Motor Corp., recently came out with a similar crash warning system, which is offered as an option for a luxury model sold only in Japan. Sales have been limited with less than 90 sold so far.
The Toyota system, which brakes and tightens the seat belt ahead of a crash, does not go on until the driver first steps on the brakes.
Honda’s system is unique in working even before the driver responds.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/928159.asp?0cv=TB10&cp1=1

Free market's idea of safety: Develop and roll out over a feasible period of time products that actually work and make us safer. Government's idea of safety: Making you run your shoes through the airport's X-Ray machine.

How is it even any contest?

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by shanek
How is it even any contest? I'm not sure what contest or absence of a contest this question refers to, but I felt like using a quote as a handle. I guess the implication to be taken from it is that all government-mandated safety features are ineffectual if not fatal, but that consumer safety is consideration number one throughout corporate America. And of course, anyone who's followed any of Shanek's threads knows that this is his point of view. (Maybe it's product quality number one and safety number two.) As far as cars go, I've long thought that federal regs require seat belts and stop lights and turn signals and emission controls, etc., and that these features help out a lot. I expect we could even find some folks whose lives were spared by an air bag.

This new stuff you're touting today may work great, but I won't laud it too much till I see how it does on the road. Since it's coming from Japanese mfrs, it'll probably be ok. Now, if we can get U.S. carmakers to be as interested in safety innovations, or just in safety. The auto problem nagging us here in Dallas is Ford's persistent refusal to accept that the fuel tanks in their police cruisers tend to blow up when the cars are rear-ended. I think they probably know by now that the vehicles could be made safer, but it's apparently cheaper for them to pay off survivors of incinerated officers than to put puncture-proof fuel cells in the vehicles. Over the years, they've sold a hell of a lot of them to PD's all over the country, and if they improved the new model, they'd be admitting the flaw, and then they'd be expected to retrofit the existing cars, etc. I guess their argument is that the cruisers are no more likely to explode than any other Ford. Next year, I expect to see a lot of Chryslers in PD livery again, although they may be no safer than Fords.

[Malachi151]

How is it even any contest?

Its not a contest. Are you implying that government safetly requirements somehow make cars less safe? The governmet allows car companies to do whatever they want, but they also put minimum requirements in place that they must meet. Its never been government's job in America to develop new technology for the private sector, why are you trying to imply that it is?

Don't forget, the auto industry fought against mandatory seat-belts in cars, Ford said that seat-belts hurt the car's image of being safe by implying that such a device was even needed.

Do you know nothing about bean counters? I mean I thought that everyone was aware of the auto industries long and documented history of choosing profits over safety.

The short anwser here is that if it is deemed profitable then companies will persue safety, if it is not then they don't.

Minimum standards for safety imposed by the government have gone a long way in making cars safer. People are more concered with safety today so companies promote safety on thier own more today, however where we are today is a result of the actions of the past 100 years in the car industry, where much of that involved the government puching the car industry, kicking and screaming, into providing safer products.

It is not supposed to be, private industry VS government, i.e. public intrests, its supposd to be cooeration between the two, so to suggeswt that there is even a contest at hand is absurd, the two are not in competition.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
I'm not sure what contest or absence of a contest this question refers to,

It was a bit of a joke. But it does illustrate the difference between the intrusive safety measures of government and the voluntary safety measures of the free market. (But they really are making you run your shoes through the X-Ray at airports now; I wasn't kidding about that.)

I guess the implication to be taken from it is that all government-mandated safety features are ineffectual if not fatal, but that consumer safety is consideration number one throughout corporate America.

That's the humorous exaggeration version. The real version is, voluntary safety measures tend to work better than forced safety measures. Again, I refer back to the air bags, when the government mandates not only delayed their introduction by 5-10 years but also mandated so strong a force they killed many children and shorter adults, which is exactly what the car companies warned them would happen.

As far as cars go, I've long thought that federal regs require seat belts

Seat belts were standard in all model cars before any federal mandates.

and stop lights

Your car has stop lights?? :confused:

(Or, do you mean brake lights? The gov't predicted a 50% drop in rear-end collisions after the imposition of brake lights; in reality, it was more like 5%, according to a 1998 NHTSA study.)

and turn signals

Again, the NHTSA found that turn signals weren't really all that effective (mostly because people don't use them properly, or even at all).

and emission controls,

Emission controls are a safety feature? :confused:

I expect we could even find some folks whose lives were spared by an air bag.

There were a lot of people whose lives were spared by an air bag. But I'm unaware of anyone showing that anyone was saved due to the extra force mandated who wouldn't have been saved at the levels government mandated, and however many they may be they certainly aren't as many as were killed.

And let's not also forget that there were a lot of people during the 5-10 year delay whose lives would have been saved by air bags, but weren't because the government wouldn't allow them in just yet.

This new stuff you're touting today may work great, but I won't laud it too much till I see how it does on the road.

And notice, Honda and Toyota aren't, either. Time will tell. If it works, expect to see it standard in all of their cars (and from other manufacturers, as well). If it doesn't, it doesn't. They'll just try something else.

This is in stark contrast to government mandates. Look at how long it's taken the government to reform the air bag laws. Look at how much resistance there was to installing a simple switch that would allow people to turn them off, or to reducing the amount of deployment force.

Actually, Saturn found a great solution: Have the steering column detach in a front-end collision. Not only does this reduce the likelihood of a pin-in, since the steering wheel is moving away from the driver at the time the air bag actually hits them with less force. (No help for the passenger, though.) Amazing how the free market finds solutions...

Now, if we can get U.S. carmakers to be as interested in safety innovations, or just in safety.

Saturn's a US manufacturer, and they're tops in safety. And the safety measures that Saturn, Honda, and the others introduce in their cars get introduced into other manufacturers' cars in a few years, if they turn out to be any good.

The auto problem nagging us here in Dallas is Ford's persistent refusal to accept that the fuel tanks in their police cruisers tend to blow up when the cars are rear-ended.

I'm unaware of this effect, so I can't comment. The only time I was exposed to it was a Dateline exposé, when it turns out the Dateline people packed the car with explosives!

I guess their argument is that the cruisers are no more likely to explode than any other Ford.

Any statistics on any of this?

Next year, I expect to see a lot of Chryslers in PD livery again, although they may be no safer than Fords.

And that's the market in action. In fact, if Chrysler wants to increase sales to PDs, they'll be touting the safety of their cars (assuming they are, in fact, any safer).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Its not a contest. Are you implying that government safetly requirements somehow make cars less safe?

It did in the case of air bags. And that was the only safety feature government mandated.

Its never been government's job in America to develop new technology for the private sector, why are you trying to imply that it is?

When did I imply thus? I mentioned Honda and Toyota, which are Japanese car companies!

Don't forget, the auto industry fought against mandatory seat-belts in cars,

According to the NHTSA, seat belts were offered as standard equipment before the Federal mandates.

What you have to understand (and I have posted figures here in the past showing this) is that regulations drastically increase the cost of doing business, even if you were already doing what the regulations said! The increased paperwork, inspections, etc. all add to the cost, and of course companies don't want unnecessary costs added in.

This is usually the point of contention when companies resist a new regulation. Of course, the anti-corporate types jump on it as saying how corporations want to kill us for profit etc., when that just isn't the case.

Ford said that seat-belts hurt the car's image of being safe by implying that such a device was even needed.

They were already standard equipment in all Fords when the Federal mandates came through. Try again.

The short anwser here is that if it is deemed profitable then companies will persue safety, if it is not then they don't.

And usually it's profitable, because people want safety.

Minimum standards for safety imposed by the government have gone a long way in making cars safer.

Examples (with references)?

People are more concered with safety today so companies promote safety on thier own more today, however where we are today is a result of the actions of the past 100 years in the car industry, where much of that involved the government puching the car industry, kicking and screaming, into providing safer products.

Baloney. Every feature of cars designed to protect you in an accident or to prevent an accident—seat belts, side-impact beams, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, traction control, all-wheel drive, etc., except for air bags (covered above), were introduced into consumer cars voluntarily by the car companies.

It is not supposed to be, private industry VS government, i.e. public intrests, its supposd to be cooeration between the two, so to suggeswt that there is even a contest at hand is absurd, the two are not in competition.

What you don't seem to understand is that government doesn't cooperate with anyone. Government is a tool of force. Every single government law, regulation, or program is backed up, sooner or later, by men with guns. If the car companies had resisted meeting the air bag requirements because of the danger, then sooner or later the government would have sent in men with guns. Unless at some point along the way they agreed to implement them, pay a fine, or whatever, if they resist long enough, out come the guns.

That's no kind of cooperation at all.

[Thanz]

Malachi151 -

While I agree with much of what you say, especially the part about bean counters and how industry and government should work together for safety, I have to disagree with what you say here: Originally posted by Malachi151
Don't forget, the auto industry fought against mandatory seat-belts in cars, Ford said that seat-belts hurt the car's image of being safe by implying that such a device was even needed.

I remembered hearing something about this as well, so I did some searching. Thinking back, I think this comment (about the image of cars re safety) was made in the movie "Tucker".

Anyway, I looked for a history of seatbelts and found this:
http://www.seatbeltdefects.com/history/Default.htm

According to this chronology, Ford introduced seatbelts in 1956 and had a 2 year ad campaign based on safety, with an emphasis on seatbelts. The first mandatory seat belt law was in 1961. Unless you have another source of information on this, I'd say you are incorrect here.

shanek - cough cough *pinto* cough cough

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Thanz
Malachi151 -

While I agree with much of what you say, especially the part about bean counters and how industry and government should work together for safety, I have to disagree with what you say here:
I remembered hearing something about this as well, so I did some searching. Thinking back, I think this comment (about the image of cars re safety) was made in the movie "Tucker".

Anyway, I looked for a history of seatbelts and found this:
http://www.seatbeltdefects.com/history/Default.htm

According to this chronology, Ford introduced seatbelts in 1956 and had a 2 year ad campaign based on safety, with an emphasis on seatbelts. The first mandatory seat belt law was in 1961. Unless you have another source of information on this, I'd say you are incorrect here.

shanek - cough cough *pinto* cough cough

Yes, Tucker did bring up the issue. No I don't have any other sources, so I'll have to go with this.

There is a difference between bringing a technology to market, and making it a standard though, which is where regualtions come in.

The govt obviously does not focus on designing features for private industry, but when a feature is developed that is seen as promoting safety significantly the govt then steps in an requires that all products adhear to at least X or Y standard.

The fact that private industry develops the technology has nothing against government at all, its not the governments job to develop the technolgy so of course the technolgoy will be developed by private industry.

Where govt can play a role is in tax breaks and incentives for cerian type of research. For example, do we know in this case that the Japanse govt does to reward companies in some way for developing new safety technology and bringing it to market? The Japaense govt is highly involved with industry actually, I'm not sure if its still the case but for along time Japanese iundustry was partially funded by the Japanese govt.

There are always some cars that do not meet govt crach test standards and have to be redesigned. Its reasonable to assume then that w/o these standards that these cars would be on the road.

Apparently shanek thinks that the removal of all standards would somehow make things safer. There are all kinds of standards, emission standards, ride height standards, placement of headlight standards, crash test standards, rollover standards, etc. These standards are especially useful in protecting us from foreign car makers who may not have these standards in their own country but have to make their products fit our standards in order to be sold in the US.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
shanek - cough cough *pinto* cough cough

Thanz - cough cough *already covered* cough cough

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Its reasonable to assume then that w/o these standards that these cars would be on the road.

Why is it reasonable to assume this?

And why, for example, were there no measureable deleterious effects in the ~7 years since South Carolina stopped vehicle inspections, if all of this works so well and is needed for our safety?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


Thanz - cough cough *already covered* cough cough
cough cough *not really. you never provided any source, article or whatever that even suggested that government regs were even partly to blame for ford's decision to sell an exploding car* cough cough

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek


Why is it reasonable to assume this?

And why, for example, were there no measureable deleterious effects in the ~7 years since South Carolina stopped vehicle inspections, if all of this works so well and is needed for our safety?

Dude vehical inspections have nothing at all to do with manufacturing standards.

Cars that fail federal crash tests are cars that were deemed by the comany as ready for market.

[eli54]

Does it really matter? I ride a motorcycle!

I think everyone that get a driver's licence should have to spend a year on a motorcycle. Darwinism anyone?:D

[Cain]

How many of these topics do we need? I mean really... Someone missed their calling as a Jehovah's witness.

In all these threads on the wonders of the free-market you're completely discounting the *threat* of government regulation.

Others have pointed out the cost-benefit calculation that goes into recalls. External costs -- like people dying -- are not factored. I believe the movie "Fight Club" had a humorous little scene on this.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
This is usually the point of contention when companies resist a new
regulation. Of course, the anti-corporate types jump on it as saying
how corporations want to kill us for profit etc., when that just isn't the case.

What you don't seem to understand is that government doesn't cooperate
with anyone. Government is a tool of force. Every single government law,
regulation, or program is backed up, sooner or later, by men with guns.

Wait a minute, aren't corporations government made? (http://www.ratical.org/corporations/index.html)
:confused:

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Wait a minute, aren't corporations government made? (http://www.ratical.org/corporations/index.html)
:confused:

http://www.corporatewatch.org/

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/corporations.html

[Fade]

10 years ago I was driving a friends Accord (I think, it was a 4 door sedan) when a drunk driver rear ended me. He was only going maybe 15 miles an hour. Enough to dent, but alone it would have barely jarred me.

However, the air bag came screaming out, which basically slapped me back into the seat. It was jarring, and extremely painful.

For the record, I am a 6'2'' tall man. Air bags are bad, bad things in their current state.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Fade
10 years ago I was driving a friends Accord (I think, it was a 4 door sedan) when a drunk driver rear ended me. He was only going maybe 15 miles an hour. Enough to dent, but alone it would have barely jarred me.

However, the air bag came screaming out, which basically slapped me back into the seat. It was jarring, and extremely painful.

For the record, I am a 6'2'' tall man. Air bags are bad, bad things in their current state.

I don't like airbags either, and I also never wear a seatbelt, however I do know that these things save more lives than not. Seatbelts can cause deaths too actually. I think that last stat I saw on that was that in about 15% of accidents the person is better off without the seatbelt on.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Dude vehical inspections have nothing at all to do with manufacturing standards.

Doesn't matter—it still speaks to your assertion that without these government regulations, cars wouldn't be as safe. Well, SC removed one such regulation, and cars aren't any more dangerous.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Wait a minute, aren't corporations government made? (http://www.ratical.org/corporations/index.html)
:confused:

In a sense, yes. If you want to start a company you have to get the government's permission. Believe me, I could rail against that all day...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.corporatewatch.org/

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/corporations.html

:rolleyes:

I don't ever want to hear anyone else in this thread accuse me of using biased sources after Malachi deigned to post this crap. This is not the watchdog organization they claim to be; they're completely politically motivated anti-corporation types, who, according to their own website, have to use "alternative media" (which they call "the more courageous radical thinkers and grassroots groups around the world"), to support their ridiculous and unfounded notions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I don't like airbags either, and I also never wear a seatbelt, however I do know that these things save more lives than not.

But you're still ignoring the fact that air bags didn't have to kill all those people, and only did so because of GOVERNMENT.

Seatbelts can cause deaths too actually.

Yes, but car manufacturers—completely on their own— have worked to make them safer and safer. In fact, this thread started with an example of just that.

As far as the law is concerned, there's no reason why it couldn't just be the old-style shoulder/lap belts that just attached and adjusted some way. But manufacturers started making the shoulder belts give a bit before locking in order to coushion the blow a bit. My Saturn will actually lock the steering wheel when you step on the brakes hard enough and the shoulder belt has a bit of tension to keep you from accelerating forward as much in the first place.

My Saturn (and many other cars) also has a release at the top of the shoulder belt so that, if I am in an accident, rescue workers can get me out more quickly. That saves lives, too.

I think that last stat I saw on that was that in about 15% of accidents the person is better off without the seatbelt on.

And that figure was much higher before the manufacturers made the above-mentioned improvements.

[Luke T.]

If you take a car manufactured in Japan for use in Japan and decide to ship it here, what modifications do you have to make to it?

If you take a car manufactured in the USA for use in the USA and decide to ship it to Japan, what modifications do you have to make to it?

How about Germany, France, Italy or England, aside from the steering wheel on the left or right?

The reason I ask is because not all safety/environmental features are put there because the auto manufacturers were motivated to do so.

I thought of this too late for the Food and Drug topic you started shanek. I've travelled around the world and I can tell you I felt like I was taking my life in my hands in other countries when I ate their food.....

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
If you take a car manufactured in Japan for use in Japan and decide to ship it here, what modifications do you have to make to it?

None that I'm aware of, although I haven't researched the subject. As long as you have it licensed in America, you should be fine. I'm unaware of any laws mandating what side of the car the steering wheel is on, for example. In fact, mail carriers, some pizza deliverers, etc. often have cars with a right-hand steering wheel just because it makes their jobs easier.

There may be a problem selling the car in the US. I know in its later years VW couldn't sell the Beetle in the US because of the emissions and fuel economy standards. It was one of the things that killed the car. But I don't think there was anything preventing someone from buying the car overseas and bringing it back home.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Doesn't matter—it still speaks to your assertion that without these government regulations, cars wouldn't be as safe. Well, SC removed one such regulation, and cars aren't any more dangerous.

They would be making the cars to a national standard as well. That is, it really doesn't make sense to have the states making the standards, it makes more sense to have national ones. As it is, you could probably have most of the states drop their own requirements, and car manufacturers would keep on doing exactly what they do now, targetting their biggest markets.

[Malachi151]

The funny part about all this is that Japan is not a free-market economy. The Japanese government is more involved in industry than the American government is :D

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Anyway, I looked for a history of seatbelts and found this:
http://www.seatbeltdefects.com/history/Default.htm

According to this chronology, Ford introduced seatbelts in 1956 and had a 2 year ad campaign based on safety, with an emphasis on seatbelts. The first mandatory seat belt law was in 1961. Unless you have another source of information on this, I'd say you are incorrect here. [re: manufacturers dragging their feet on making seatbelts standard equipment]

Check the chronology again. The car manufacturers didn't start making seatbelts standard equipment until various states started requiring them; and even then, they only installed lap belts. The federal standard in 1967 was for lap and shoulder belts.

Also from that site:
In 1967, a Ford engineer wrote in a confidential memo that:

"the 3-point, diagonal shoulder belt system has been demonstrated to offer much greater protection to the vehicle occupant than does a single lap belt alone, since it prevents injuries from jackknifing...Injuries...involving 3-point systems would all have probably been much worse had the individuals been wearing ...a lap belt only...Our conclusion...is that a properly worn, 3-point system clearly protects the occupant better than a lap belt only system." With this knowledge one could only believe that automakers would quickly remedy this deadly situation, but instead they fought being required to include shoulder belts as standard equipment. In fact, even after shoulder belts were required for front seated outboard occupants, the manufacturers continued their fight against shoulder belts for the rear occupants through the 1987 model year.

According to government studies, the failure to have shoulder belts in rear seats may have caused as many as 6,000 deaths and serious injuries per year. (my emphasis)

From another article:
A Drive for Safety (http://www.courier-journal.com/foryourinfo/021802/021802.html)
At first, American automakers didn’t want to include seatbelts. Executives from Ford, General Motors and Chrysler testified in Congress against requiring seatbelts in 1957 and 1959. But so many people wanted seatbelts that, by 1964, American cars came with lap belts in the front seats – but not straps across the chest.

In 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued 19 safety standards – including a requirement for the three-point safety belt. The three American car companies complained.

This article goes into greater detail:
A Half Century of Attempts to Resolve Vehicle Occupant Safety: Understanding Seatbelt and Airbag Technology (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/esv/16/98S6W24.PDF) PDF file
Prior to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards they argued that the public would not wear seatbelts, and that making them mandatory would ruin the styling of their vehicles and reduce sales. Auto makers further argued that Americans were not ready for seatbelts and would resent having something they did not want, and the costs for it, imposed upon them. The manufacturers claimed to have an interest in safety, but insisted that it could be better achieved through improved highways and driver education-not federally imposed standards.
As the auto makers predicted, people did not like or wear seat belts. A historical perspective suggests, however, that the automobile manufacturers in the United States themselves played a large role in making their own prophesy come true. The evidence presented below indicates that through making seatbelts especially ugly and uncomfortable, publicly raising concerns about price increases, and desperately arguing the (minute) potential dangers of belts, they made the arrival of the seatbelt era in America more cumbersome, controversial, and difficult than it needed to be.
In the press manufacturers told Americans that no conclusive evidence existed on the benefits of safety belts and that adding them and other design modifications to automobiles would raise prices significantly.
Manufacturers also called attention to the minor injuries that seatbelts cause (neglecting to mention that this was while saving one’s life), and asserted that insufficient data existed to warrant their widespread use. They especially attacked shoulder harnesses for the abrasions they let? on the necks of people in accidents (again ignoring the lifesaving that went on in the process). If people wanted an excuse for not taking the trouble to buckle their seatbelts, the manufacturers gave it to them.
Here is another timeline (http://www.autoworld.com/static/hottips/changes.asp?frame=aw):
1954 The American Medical Association recommends that automakers install safety belts.

1955 Standard safety features include tubeless tires, sealed-beam headlights, better handling, and sometimes fewer projections and hard surfaces. Still, no manufacturer has made "the slightest gesture toward the installation of seat belts, even as an extra-cost option," Consumer Reports says.

1956 Twenty-six of 39 brands of safety belt fail Consumer Reports' durability test.

1957 Ford cars, advertised to the safety-conscious, sell poorly, prompting the expression, "Ford sold safety while Chevy sold cars." Safety belts are optional in most new cars.

1961 Only 3 percent of the nation's cars have safety belts

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

Check the chronology again. The car manufacturers didn't start making seatbelts standard equipment until various states started requiring them; and even then, they only installed lap belts. The federal standard in 1967 was for lap and shoulder belts.

But by 1967, every major auto manufacturer was offering shoulder belts. Volvo started offering them in 1957, and by 1967 they were all offering them as standard equipment and even putting lap belts in the back seat, which wasn't mandated by the government.

And the state requirements you mentioned were mostly just the anchorages, which had been standard equipment for a long time.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
But by 1967, every major auto manufacturer was offering shoulder belts. Volvo started offering them in 1957, and by 1967 they were all offering them as standard equipment and even putting lap belts in the back seat, which wasn't mandated by the government.

And the state requirements you mentioned were mostly just the anchorages, which had been standard equipment for a long time.

This doesn't quite jive with the sources I have seen. What sources are you using?

Seat Belt History (http://www.stnonline.com/stn/occupantrestraint/seatbelthistory/)
1930's
Several U.S. physicians equip their own cars with lap belts and begin urging manufacturers to provide them in all new cars

1957
Special Subcommittee on Traffic Safety, U.S. House of Representatives, opens hearings on effectiveness of seat belts in automobiles

1961
New York requires seat belt anchors at front outboard seat positions (effective January 1, 1962)

Wisconsin requires seat belts in front outboard seat positions

1962
Six U.S. States require front outboard seat belt anchors

U.S. manufacturers provide seat belt anchors in front outboard as standard

1963
Volvo introduces 3-point belt in front as standard, in USA

Some U.S. manufacturers provide lap belts in front outboard positions (23 States have laws to requires belts in front, most effective 1/64)

1964
About half the U.S. States require seat belt anchorages at front outboard

Most U.S. manufactures provide lap belts at front outboard seat positions

1965
U.S. Commerce Dept. issues first seat belt standard (adopted SAE standard)

All U.S. manufacturers providing lap belts in front outboard positions by this time

1966
U.S. Commerce Dept. issues revised seat belt standard (SAE j4c)

1967
U.S. manufacturers provide lap belts at rear outboard positions (MY 1967)

NHSB issues initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208, 209, setting standards for lap and shoulder belts in front outboard positions, lap belts in all other positions (to take effect 1/1/68 and 3/67, respectively)

Volvo introduces 3-point belt in rear as standard, certain markets


Volvo was far ahead of everyone else on this issue, and didn't need govermnent regs to do the right thing (unlike the US manufacturers who complained bitterly about the requirements).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
This doesn't quite jive with the sources I have seen. What sources are you using?

I'll have to dig it up. I'm in Florida for the week on business.

Seat Belt History (http://www.stnonline.com/stn/occupantrestraint/seatbelthistory/)

This source doesn't say at all when the 3-point system in the front seat was offered as standard by anyone but Volvo.

Volvo was far ahead of everyone else on this issue,

Mostly because it was their engineer who designed the 3-point system. Other manufacturers had to wait because of patent issues.

(unlike the US manufacturers who complained bitterly about the requirements).

Again, they complained about the regulations, even as they were offering seat belts as standard. It wasn't that they didn't want to provide seat belts—the history plainly shows otherwise. They didn't want to have to incur the cost of regulatory compliance.

I really wish people would stop siezing upon opposition to regulations as meaning opposition to safety. The two are completely different things.

[Malachi151]

Great posts Jeeves.

This points to another advantage of regulations.

Often when things are left up to the free market competition may prevent something from happening, or may force companies to make decisions that they don't really like. When regulations are put in place, it creates a level playing field.

For example, Ford sold seatbelt, Chevy did not.

Ford may have put off seatbelts for longer then they wanted to because of the cost of design and implimentation, and they knew that if they did it first it would hurt their ability to compete with Chevy in the short term as they spent resources doing that.

By making eveyone do it then no one is at a disadvantage, because they all have to do it so they all have to spend resources on it, so competition in that regard is taken out of the picture.

Now, lets look how that also works. Let's say that some company starts advertising cigarettes to minors. The other companies don't want to do it, but the company that is doing starts becoming more and more successful, and as they become successful they have more money to expand and ake other markets too, soon the other companies start doing worse.

Then the other companies are forced to advertise to childen also to keep up with the competition.

By putting in a rule that says that's off limits to everyone, then it takes that element out of competition.

This is how rules are used to regulate and guide competative forces.

Its like how in Japan they have a regulation on maxium horsepower for cars. In Japan the max HP for cars is 280 HP. They also have regualtions about cars having to have backseats too.

By doing this the Japanese have focused competition into the 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder and fuel effency direction instead of like America in the Horsepower direction.

As I said, the Japanese auto industry is anything but free marketr, its highly regulated, which is perhaps one reason Japanese cars are better than American cars.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Free market's idea of safety: Develop and roll out over a feasible period of time products that actually work and make us safer. Government's idea of safety: Making you run your shoes through the airport's X-Ray machine.

How is it even any contest?

Oh how soon we forget. The reason they are x-raying shoes is be cause back on 9-11 the FREE MARKET profit driven airport security let a bunch of box cutting kooks slip by and swipe a couple of planes.

Free market is big on safety as long as its profitable. Anyone remember the Pinto?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Often when things are left up to the free market competition may prevent something from happening, or may force companies to make decisions that they don't really like. When regulations are put in place, it creates a level playing field.

For example, Ford sold seatbelt, Chevy did not.

How is that at all indicative of what you're saying? Competition by no means prevented seat belts from happening. And your claim of a "level playing field" is absurd, since there was absolutely nothing stopping Chevrolet (really GM) from implementing seat belts in their cars (and they did a few years later—due to competition).

And notice that GM was the big innovator with air bags, while at the same time being the most outspoken against the insane air bag regulations that ended up killing people.

Ford may have put off seatbelts for longer then they wanted to because of the cost of design and implimentation, and they knew that if they did it first it would hurt their ability to compete with Chevy in the short term as they spent resources doing that.

You have absolutely no idea how the market works, do you? The competition was what was putting pressure on Ford to put the seat belts in, and by being one of the first, they had a great marketing angle, which they took full advantage of starting in 1956.

By making eveyone do it then no one is at a disadvantage, because they all have to do it so they all have to spend resources on it, so competition in that regard is taken out of the picture.

This is absolutely f*cking amazing...Whenever a company doesn't do a thing, it's an example of how regulations are necessary, and when a company does do something, it's an example of how regulations are necessary. Unbelievable!

They also have regualtions about cars having to have backseats too.

I'm focusing on this one sentence because it proves everything you're saying is bullsh*t. So, if all these regulations are responsible for these innovations, which include the hybrid electric cars, then why was the very first hybrid electric car (the Honda Insight) made without a back seat??????

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Oh how soon we forget. The reason they are x-raying shoes is be cause back on 9-11 the FREE MARKET profit driven airport security let a bunch of box cutting kooks slip by and swipe a couple of planes.

Where are you getting this sh*t??? The airport security at the time was GOVERNMENT RUN!!!! Just because it wasn't federally run doesn't mean it was free market!

Oh, and by the way, much of Europe and Israel in the 1990s privatized their airport security and security breaches dropped as a result!

Free market is big on safety as long as its profitable. Anyone remember the Pinto?

Geez, how many times are you people going to make me rebut the Pinto? :mad:

[shanek]

Hey, it's a tangent, but let's look at some of the things this wonderful Federally-run airport security has done:

About a year ago, in an airport in El Paso, Texas, the head of the local DEA office was stopped at airport security. He was carrying a 9mm pistol. But that wasn't the problem; any Federal employee authorized to carry a gun is authorized to carry it on a plane. So, they let him go in with a gun...but not before they took away his toenail clippers! In a similar incident, in Oklahoma, one of Governor Keening's bodyguards was allowed to get on the plane with his gun, but they took his corkscrew. Only government can think this way.

This past March, Federal security officials shut down the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport for 40 minutes. No one was allowed to enter or leave, and no planes were allowed to take off. The reason was because a child tried to go through security wearing a belt buckle that had a picture of a toy gun on it!!!

These are the people who are protecting us from terrorism. And Tmy says it was necessary because the old security system "let a bunch of box cutting kooks slip by and swipe a couple of planes," all the while ignoring the fact that there hadn't been a successful hijacking with that system in something like 15 years.

Was the old security system bad and needed upgrading? Absolutely. But the Federal solution is nothing more than an exaggerated version of the failed FAA security policies. How is doing even more of what failed before any kind of solution?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I don't like airbags either, and I also never wear a seatbelt, however I do know that these things save more lives than not. Seatbelts can cause deaths too actually. I think that last stat I saw on that was that in about 15% of accidents the person is better off without the seatbelt on.

I have no dog in this fight, but this confuses me a bit:

(1) I doubt your 15% number;
(2) If your number is right, I still doubt the wisdom of not wearing a seat belt; and
(2) If you don't even find a seatbelt useful enough to use, why on God's green earth (if you'll all pardon the expression) are you complaining about when cars got seatbelts or who is responsible for putting them in cars??

"Thank goodness the government mandated seat belts. No, I never use mine; I just like to look at it from time to time and admire the wisdom of the NTSB."

?? Huh ??

NA

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
This source doesn't say at all when the 3-point system in the front seat was offered as standard by anyone but Volvo. That's true, but look at what it does say:
1965 - All U.S. manufacturers providing lap belts in front outboard positions by this time
1966 - U.S. Commerce Dept. issues revised seat belt standard (SAE j4c)
1967 - NHSB issues initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208, 209, setting standards for lap and shoulder belts in front outboard positions, lap belts in all other positions

I would be very surprised if most manufacturers switched from lap belts to lap + shoulder between 1965 and 1967, especially when you look at the pace they were moving on this issue.

Originally posted by shanek
Mostly because it was their engineer who designed the 3-point system. Other manufacturers had to wait because of patent issues.
I was under the impression that Volvo never charged any royalties for licensing the 3-point belt system, but I can't find any information to that effect. However, the inventor went on a speaking tour to convince the "reluctant" US manufacturers to adopt the 3-point system.
A Celebration of Self-Evident Safety (http://www.swedespeed.com/news/1999/03_99/03_09_99_10.html)
Despite its life-saving properties, it proved necessary for Bohlin and Dr. Bertil Aldman, who was in charge of the Swedish belt testing and approval authority, to undertake a long lecture tour in the USA in conjunction with the introduction of the three-point belt in North America.

The purpose of this trip was to explain Volvo's safety philosophy and the advantages of the three-point belt, both to a negative auto industry and an equally negative car-buying public. Most people thought it was bad enough having a lap belt in the way in the car - so a three-point belt would be even worse. In many ways, Bohlin and Volvo were ahead of their time when it came to insight into the benefits of the three-point belt.

True acceptance of the three-point belt took a while longer, therefore, particularly in the USA. At the Stapp Conference in the USA in 1967, however, Volvo and Nils Bohlin presented the pioneering "28,000-accident report" which was based on all collisions involving a Volvo in Sweden during one year. The report clearly indicated the effectiveness of the belt - it reduced injuries by about 50-60%.

Belt Law

The Volvo report was just what many belt proponents had been waiting for. The NHSB (now the NHTSA traffic safety authority) now had fuel for its fire and the following year, 1968, the USA passed its first three-point belt legislation, despite opposition in the industry. [my emphasis]

Originally posted by shanek
Again, they complained about the regulations, even as they were offering seat belts as standard. It wasn't that they didn't want to provide seat belts—the history plainly shows otherwise. They didn't want to have to incur the cost of regulatory compliance.
If you read my other sources you'll see that the auto manufacturers complained before, during and after the standards were set. Nash (http://members.aol.com/carleyware/library/timeline.htm) offered seat belts in 1950. In 1954, the AMA voted in favor of supporting installation of lap belts in all cars. In 1957, the US House of Representatives Special Subcommittee on Traffic Safety held hearings on the effectiveness of seat belts -- the car companies balked at making them standard. What exactly were they waiting for?
A Half Century of Attempts to Resolve Vehicle Occupant Safety: Understanding Seatbelt and Airbag Technology (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/esv/16/98S6W24.PDF) PDF file
Executives publicly bemoaned the ugliness of the belts and how they detracted from the car’s appearance. One likened them to “spaghetti” while another to the “vines” in “Tarzan’s cave."
While Volkswagon and Volvo promoted the safety features (including belts) on their vehicles in their advertising and public relations, the US auto makers complained that seatbelts ruined the car’s aesthetic appeal and raised prices
The car companies stonewalled until 1987 against making 3-point belts standard equipment for rear seats!! History shows that car makers fought against both seat belts and regulations.
I really wish people would stop siezing upon opposition to regulations as meaning opposition to safety. The two are completely different things.
In this case it seems they were opposed to both. It didn't dawn on them until the 1990s that safety sells.

[Thanz]

Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Your posts just go to show that I should have read more of the page I was referencing. Thank you for posts, and doing the work I should have done in the first place. Sorry for being a doofus.


Originally posted by shanek
Geez, how many times are you people going to make me rebut the Pinto? :mad:
Just once, if you had any sources or anything at all to back up your assertion that somehow government regs were to blame for the Pinto. So far, you have provided nothing.

So, please shanek, either rebut the Pinto with actual sources or admit that you can't rebut the Pinto example.

Edited to add:
I suggest that you give this article a read:http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO77/dowie.html

It sets out a lot of information about the Pinto and is quite damning of Ford.

It also mentions price and weight limits - but not as government mandated, but as a top down directive from Lee Iacocca himself. Here is the paragraph: Heightening the anti-safety pressure on Pinto engineers was an important goal set by Iacocca known as "the limits of 2,000." The Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not to cost a cent over $2,000. "Iacocca enforced these limits with an iron hand," recalls the engineer quoted earlier. So, even when a crash test showed that that one-pound, one-dollar piece of plastic stopped the puncture of the gas tank, it was thrown out as extra cost and extra weight.

People shopping for subcompacts are watching every dollar. "You have to keep in mind," the engineer explained, "that the price elasticity on these subcompacts is extremely tight. You can price yourself right out of the market by adding $25 to the production cost of the model. And nobody understands that better than Iacocca." (emphasis added)
It certainly looks like it was all marketing/profit driven - not government regulation driven. You like to say that the government regulations were the ONLY reason the safer tank wasn't put on. Read the entire article - it shows your contention to be completely false. For example: Asked about the Pinto gas tank, another Ford engineer admitted: "That's all true. But you miss the point entirely. You see, safety isn't the issue, trunk space is. You have no idea how stiff the competition is over trunk space. Do you realize that if we put a Capri-type tank in the Pinto you could only get one set of golf clubs in the trunk?"

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by Thanz
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Your posts just go to show that I should have read more of the page I was referencing. Thank you for posts, and doing the work I should have done in the first place. Sorry for being a doofus.

No need to apologize; I don't think you were being a doofus. I didn't mean to single out your post, but it was a good departure point for the information I had on hand.

[Skeptic]

The discussion here is biased. OF COURSE government--that is, politicians--are better ON PAPER in proposing safety devices and "caring for the people".

That's because "improving safety" is a very popular thing with politicians: it costs them nothing (the poor slobs who actually make the cars will have to redesign them at their own expense), and is always a hit with the voters. Mr. Voter tends not to recognize that the safety device makes their next car cost $3000 more until after the elections.

The fact that industry usually resists government in this case makes industry look bad as "putting profits before people"--which it often does--but if it DIDN'T resist such demands, there will be no end of demands for more and more regulations to make everything and anything perfectly safe, no matter what the cost, or how impracticle it is to implement.

It is the interplay BETWEEN government and industry--one overemphasizing safety irregardless of costs, the other overemphasizing cutting costs irregardless of safety--that leads to a middle ground that is usually more or less reasonable. Without government regulations, cars would have had no seatbelts today. However, without industry resistance, all cars would probably have seventeed anti-collision devices, ejection seats, and titanium bodies--and would cost $500,000 and up to make, with predictable consequences.

The question is, WHERE is the rational cutoff between safety and costs. In potentially dangerous areas where the temptation to "cut corners" by industry is storngest--say, drug approval, or skimping on safety in cars--the bar should be set high in favor of safety. In areas where danger of bodily harm is less and temptation to cut corners not as strong--say, in the manufacture of furnitures or computers--the regualtions should be much less (at least safety-wise).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
[big snip]

After all these posts, you're still not getting it.

I never excused Ford for this. They deserved what they got. In fact, IMO they deserved a lot worse.

I never denied that profit was their motive for doing so—in fact, I directly and explicitly said that it was!

The point that you keep ignoring was that it was largely the actions of government that made the move profitable to begin with. And after presenting everything I had, you still demanded more, making it clear that nothing short of the amount of research necessary for finding a handful of very specific regulations dating back over thirty years (a Herculean task, to say the least) would convince you—even as you yourself never offered such levels of evidence for your side.

I also never said that these were the only reasons, just that, without those reasons, there would have been much less of a chance that they would have installed the more dangerous gas tank,

After all of this behavior I've been experiencing, how can any rational person blame me for not being to willing to take the literally hours of personal time it would take to dig up the evidence you demand, expecially when you won't even properly acknowledge what I am arguing?

Also, why do people always jump on the Pinto? Is this the only example? No matter what you do, you're never going to stop people from endagering others. The most you can do is to minimize it, and that can only be done by a) removing the incentives for doing so while gaining incentives to do otherwise and b) holding responsible those who do. That is my position, and I have never said otherwise.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Without government regulations, cars would have had no seatbelts today.

I think this argument has been soundly thrashed by now...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


After all these posts, you're still not getting it.

I never excused Ford for this. They deserved what they got. In fact, IMO they deserved a lot worse.

I never denied that profit was their motive for doing so—in fact, I directly and explicitly said that it was!

The point that you keep ignoring was that it was largely the actions of government that made the move profitable to begin with. And after presenting everything I had, you still demanded more, making it clear that nothing short of the amount of research necessary for finding a handful of very specific regulations dating back over thirty years (a Herculean task, to say the least) would convince you—even as you yourself never offered such levels of evidence for your side.

I also never said that these were the only reasons, just that, without those reasons, there would have been much less of a chance that they would have installed the more dangerous gas tank,

After all of this behavior I've been experiencing, how can any rational person blame me for not being to willing to take the literally hours of personal time it would take to dig up the evidence you demand, expecially when you won't even properly acknowledge what I am arguing?

Also, why do people always jump on the Pinto? Is this the only example? No matter what you do, you're never going to stop people from endagering others. The most you can do is to minimize it, and that can only be done by a) removing the incentives for doing so while gaining incentives to do otherwise and b) holding responsible those who do. That is my position, and I have never said otherwise.

How can a government make a private company do what Ford did with the Pinto. And you are accepting that companies can put profits ahead of safety.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
After all these posts, you're still not getting it.

I never excused Ford for this. They deserved what they got. In fact, IMO they deserved a lot worse.

I never denied that profit was their motive for doing so—in fact, I directly and explicitly said that it was!

The point that you keep ignoring was that it was largely the actions of government that made the move profitable to begin with. And after presenting everything I had, you still demanded more, making it clear that nothing short of the amount of research necessary for finding a handful of very specific regulations dating back over thirty years (a Herculean task, to say the least) would convince you—even as you yourself never offered such levels of evidence for your side.
You offered nothing except your bald assertions that there was a classification scheme and if Ford had put the safer tank on, it would be in a different classification. You provided absolutely zero back-up for this assertion. If this is "everything you had", then you had very little indeed. This idea of a classification scheme and its role in the Pinto debacle must have come from somewhere. But you didn't even provide an article, source or anything. You could have provided something - I did not demand that you did up all the regulations, but I did ask for something to back up your assertions.

Your assertion about the pinto is, I think, best summarized in this exchange in the downsize dc - FDA thread:
But again, without the aforementioned weight and cost restrictions, Ford could have used the other gas tank WHICH THEY ALREADY HAD PATENTED and the Pinto would have been safe. As it was, their choice was: 1) Release the Pinto with the faulty gas tank; 2) Don't release it at all; or 3) Release it with the safer gas tank but push the Pinto up into the next class of automobile. #1 was the option which gave them the biggest profits, whereas without this classification scheme it would likely have been #3.
The problem is, the article I posted shows that your position is false. First, the weight and price restrictions appear to have been imposed by Lee Iaccoca, not the government. There were also several other reasons that Ford did not put on the safer tank, including the fact that the development time was rushed, so there was not time for adequate sfety testing before the plant had to get tooled up and the safer tank would have killed the trunk space.

Also, as pointed out, they could have pu a one pound, one dollar piece of plastic on and significantly reduced the risk. Read the article I linked to. Ford wanted a subcompact on the market fast, so:it rushed the development; knew it had an unsafe design and had several options of making it safer, but rejected them all; fought with the government who wanted to impose safer gas tank regulations; and based it's analysis on a "bean counter" approach.

How a reasonable individual could read the article I linked to, and then place any responsibility at all on a government classification scheme for cars (if it existed) is beyond belief.

But, shanek, if you want to play the "levels of proof" game, I have posted an article from a reputable source that backs up my position completely. You have posted no source for your assertions at all. I think that the article proves that your assertion that without the classification scheme Ford would have put on the safer tank is false.

Also, why do people always jump on the Pinto? Is this the only example? No matter what you do, you're never going to stop people from endagering others. The most you can do is to minimize it, and that can only be done by a) removing the incentives for doing so while gaining incentives to do otherwise and b) holding responsible those who do. That is my position, and I have never said otherwise.
I disagree. Ford knew that there would be lawsuits (and that they would be held responsible) but they did it anyway. If Ford had not fought so hard against the safer tank regulations, there may not have been as many explosions.

There is a third way to minimize endangering others: requiring the proper behaviour upfront. IF government regulations were in place prior to the Pinto re: gas tanks, people would not have been blown up. And that would certainly have minimized the danger.

The incentive for Ford to put out the unsafe car was profit. Do you really want to remove this incentive?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
How can a government make a private company do what Ford did with the Pinto.

They can't make them do that; but they can make it more profitable for them to do so. The cost of legislative compliance forces companies to cut costs in other areas, including safety—even when the regulations they're complying with are safety regulations!

And you are accepting that companies can put profits ahead of safety.

Who ever denied that? I'm saying, on the balance, it's more profitable to be safe than not, as long as they government stays out of it, and only holds responsible those who actually cause the problems.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
First, the weight and price restrictions appear to have been imposed by Lee Iaccoca, not the government.

I'm checking on this...It's possible I was mistaken, but it's also possible that Iaccoca did this in response to the vehicle classification schemes. I'll let you know.

There is a third way to minimize endangering others: requiring the proper behaviour upfront.

Except that that doesn't work. You end up punishing everybody, including those who were behaving properly to begin with! And now those who are behaving improperly merely find a way to continue doing so while keeping to the letter of the law, while those who were behaving properly now have to deal with the extraordinary costs of legislative compliance and, as I said above, have to respond by cutting costs in other areas, including safety!

The incentive for Ford to put out the unsafe car was profit. Do you really want to remove this incentive?

Did I say I did? Are you saying you do?

[Gem]

I think what Shanek is implying in this thread is that car companies can make their car safers with a profit incentive, rather than government regulation.

Is that what you're trying to say?

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
I think what Shanek is implying in this thread is that car companies can make their car safers with a profit incentive, rather than government regulation.

Is that what you're trying to say?

Absolutely! Someone finally gets it! Thank you!!!

And this is certainly not to say that they would always behave properly, always put safety first, and never release dangerous products. But that's a pipe dream that can never come true anyway. Voluntary industry standards work a lot better than government regulation. Witness the success of UL.

[Gem]

Absolutely! Someone finally gets it! Thank you!!!

And this is certainly not to say that they would always behave properly, always put safety first, and never release dangerous products. But that's a pipe dream that can never come true anyway. Voluntary industry standards work a lot better than government regulation. Witness the success of UL.

Yes, it is foolish to think they will always behave nicely. Since you're a liberterian, shanek, what should be done when companies do not have a profit incentive to add safety measures on their cars? Would FTC ratings (not standards) work?

Gem

Edited to add: PS: I took one year of economy, macro and micro, I know what you're talking about.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Yes, it is foolish to think they will always behave nicely. Since you're a liberterian, shanek, what should be done when companies do not have a profit incentive to add safety measures on their cars?

What you have to understand is that, since people want safety, it will always be, to some degree, profitable. And that has always been the case as long as there is both competition and nothing that artificially raises costs.

Would FTC ratings (not standards) work?

Given that I can't think of a single case where government standards have worked, I'd have to say no. And again, I point you to the enormous and undeniable success of private bodies like UL, ICANN, and others. I think we're definitely better off with private standards.

Edited to add: PS: I took one year of economy, macro and micro, I know what you're talking about.

:cool:

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
What you have to understand is that, since people want safety, it will always be, to some degree, profitable. And that has always been the case as long as there is both competition and nothing that artificially raises costs.

Given that I can't think of a single case where government standards have worked, I'd have to say no.
Seat belt standards worked. Here's the condensed version:

Seat Belt History (http://www.stnonline.com/stn/occupantrestraint/seatbelthistory/)
1930's
Several U.S. physicians equip their own cars with lap belts and begin urging manufacturers to provide them in all new cars
.
.
1957
Special Subcommittee on Traffic Safety, U.S. House of Representatives, opens hearings on effectiveness of seat belts in automobiles
.
.
1963
Some U.S. manufacturers provide lap belts in front outboard positions (23 States have laws to requires belts in front, most effective 1/64)
.
.
1965
All U.S. manufacturers providing lap belts in front outboard positions by this time
.
.
1967
NHSB issues initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208, 209, setting standards for lap and shoulder belts in front outboard positions, lap belts in all other positions (to take effect 1/1/68 and 3/67, respectively)


Originally posted by shanek
And again, I point you to the enormous and undeniable success of private bodies like UL, ICANN, and others. I think we're definitely better off with private standards.

I think the UL is a good example of a private entity partnering with the governmet (in this case the CPSC). ICANN doesn't even believe that ICANN has been a success, and is now looking to form a similar partnership:
President's Report: ICANN -- The Case for Reform (http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm)
I am now convinced that the original desire to avoid a totally governmental takeover of the IANA functions led to an overreaction – the choice of a totally private model. With three years' experience, it is clear that model is simply not workable. It is not workable because it leaves ICANN isolated from the real-world institutions – governments – whose backing and support are essential for any effective global coordinating body to accomplish its assigned tasks. ICANN currently has an advisory committee to channel governmental input, but that mechanism has not effectively integrated the views or the influence of governments; we must find a better way.

Though many in the traditional Internet community react strongly against the very mention of governments, it is simply unrealistic to believe that global coordination of the DNS can succeed without more active involvement of governments. Indeed, it has been for decades a bedrock principle of the Internet that technical managers should stick to what they know and do best, and leave to other organizations what they in turn do best. Governments play a unique role in representing the broad public interests of their populations. So far, ICANN's existing structures have not engaged the attention, commitment, and support of governments to the necessary degree. [emphasis added because I thought it was funny]

[Gem]

What you have to understand is that, since people want safety, it will always be, to some degree, profitable. And that has always been the case as long as there is both competition and nothing that artificially raises costs.

You have heard of assymetric information, right? In a market with assymetric information, either buy or seller has important information that the other side does not. For example, a chemical factory increases the risk of some sort of cancer. Only they know it. The supply of labor for that factory will be higher if workers are not told and therefore, more labor at cheaper price than normally would. If the information was shown to workers, the supply curve would "shift" to the left, and there would be less worker, at higher price.

What does that have to do with car safety?

You've heard of tests stateting that SUVs have a low grade for turnovers? (when the SUV makes wide turns, it can flip over) Now considering that not every SUV buyer follows these tests, there is an assymetric market of SUVs. If a large percent of SUV buyers are not aware of these low test grades, the demand for SUV is greater than normal. Under these circumstances, SUV makers are NOT under market pressure to make their product safer, since demand is not 'demanding' safer SUVs (by not excersizing their "dollar votes" of not buying what they can consider an unsafe car).

Assume we want to solve this problem. Now, let's say that government wants to increase SUV safety. An economic socialist like myself would want federal standards. A liberterian like you would not want government standards, as it raises beaurocratic costs as well as safety costs.

What would you advise government to do about the situation? Wouldn't a "laissez-faire" attitude to the problem not solve it? After all, companies would be under no pressure, demand-wise or government wise, to make SUV safers.

I can't wait to hear your output on this.:cool:

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

Seat belt standards worked.

We went over that in another thread. The government was just taking credit for a trend that already existed with the automotive companies, who (including the much-maligned-on-these-forums Ford) were installing seat belts and advertising their safety up to ten years before any government regulation on the matter.

I think the UL is a good example of a private entity partnering with the governmet (in this case the CPSC).

1) The CPSC is just one of many partners in the UL, and doesn't really weild any special powers that the others don't have; and 2) I never said that private-government partnerships couldn't work. In fact, in many other threads I used examples like water and power deregulation to show the benefits of public-private partnerships over total government control.

ICANN doesn't even believe that ICANN has been a success, and is now looking to form a similar partnership:

If you'll read your own source, you'll see that that's due to many countries wanting to assert government control over their part of the Internet.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
You have heard of assymetric information, right? In a market with assymetric information, either buy or seller has important information that the other side does not. For example, a chemical factory increases the risk of some sort of cancer. Only they know it. The supply of labor for that factory will be higher if workers are not told and therefore, more labor at cheaper price than normally would. If the information was shown to workers, the supply curve would "shift" to the left, and there would be less worker, at higher price.

But the information is going to come out sooner or later. When it does, the company is going to be facing intense liability payments and other forms of punishment, especially when it comes out that they knew about the problem all along. The trick is to make sure the punishments they'd face outweigh any profits they'd make as a result.

This is exactly what's not happening right now. That's why Martha Stewart, whose actions harmed no one at all, is facing forty years in prison while that Enron guy (don't remember his name) is just getting a slap on the wrist.

You've heard of tests stateting that SUVs have a low grade for turnovers?

Not only have I heard of it, I saw a government newsreel made for the military in the 1940's that talked about the problems with turnovers, and tire blowouts as well. Of course, the government made out like it was this big surprise when they started happening, and kept blaming Ford and/or Firestone, when all along this has been a problem with negligent driving.

Now considering that not every SUV buyer follows these tests, there is an assymetric market of SUVs.

Oh, come on! It's not like this information was ever unavailable! In you example above, the company was the only ones who had the information. In this case, the problem has been known and available for sixty years!

Under these circumstances, SUV makers are NOT under market pressure to make their product safer,

Then why are they constantly doing so?

What would you advise government to do about the situation? Wouldn't a "laissez-faire" attitude to the problem not solve it? After all, companies would be under no pressure, demand-wise or government wise, to make SUV safers.

Except that they obviously are, since they're doing so, contrary to your assertion. Now, SUVs are actually safer in collisions than sedan cars, as well as operating more safely in inclement conditions such as snow and ice. The handling problem you mentioned is far from secret; in fact, in every SUV I've seen, it's clearly labelled right inside the driver's compartment! You'd have to be willfully ignorant not to know of it! Bottom line: SUVs only roll over in the hands of stupid drivers.

By the way, the government is now wanting to make these labels mandatory. Isn't it great how the government acts to increase our safety when the private sector refuses to? :rolleyes: