"duurtlang" (duurtlang)
09/24/2015 at 09:30 • Filed to: tips
6
15|
"duurtlang" (duurtlang)
09/24/2015 at 09:30 • Filed to: tips | 6
| 15 |
The major study was commissioned by the car industry to show that existing EU and US safety standards were broadly similar. But the research actually established that American models are much less safe when it comes to front-side collisions , a common cause of accidents that often result in serious injuries.
The more important part of an article in British newspaper The Independent.
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
to the whole article. I considered this interesting, as you read a lot about the supposed lack of safety of non-USDM vehicles as the main reason they aren’t allowed in.
I always assumed the regulations were mostly different , as evidenced by the airbag/seatbelt requirements. If I remember correctly the US requires a manufacturer to design an airbag safe for people who both do and don’t wear a seatbelt, while the EU market just requires this for people who do wear their seatbelt. Result: a US market car will be safer for those who don’t wear a seatbelt while the EU market car will be safer for those who do wear a seatbelt due to optimization, and not having to take unbelted people into account.
Anyway, due to this whole diesel gate I suspect this story will be buried. How much of it will be true?
!!! UNKNOWN HEADER TYPE (MULTI-LINE BREAK?) !!!
The results suggest that when controlling for differences in environment and exposure, vehicles meeting EU standards offer reduced risk of serious injury in frontal/side crashes and have driver-side mirrors that reduce risk in lane-change crashes better, while vehicles meeting US standards provide a lower risk of injury in rollovers and have headlamps that make pedestrians more conspicuous.
LongbowMkII
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 09:38 |
|
I think since seatbelts are now mandatory across the country that the safety standards should be updated to optimize safety for those who wear them. Let Darwin sort out the rest.
jariten1781
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 09:43 |
|
Is there a link to the actual results buried in there somewhere. News organizations don’t do a very good job interpreting studies and rely on statements from 'experts' who typically have an agenda.
|
duurtlang
> jariten1781
09/24/2015 at 09:51 |
|
It’s supposedly “
been quietly posted on the University of Michigan’s website.”
I haven’t found it yet though.
I pasted it at the bottom.
Party-vi
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 09:52 |
|
The main reason non-USDM vehicles are not allowed to be imported is because Mercedes wouldn’t sell their good models here in the 1980s (Emissions regulations), and the US buyers imported them through other channels. Mercedes lost enough money through grey-market import sales cannibalization that they lobbied Congress and got the Motor Vehicle Safety Compliance Act passed in 1988 even though no testimony was presented stating foreign cars or engines were any less safe than their domestic counterparts. Fuck Mercedes.
TheHondaBro
> Party-vi
09/24/2015 at 10:02 |
|
Mercedes: the reason we can’t all have R34 GTRs.
Matvei
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 10:27 |
|
This shouldn’t really be surprising. US testing is based on self-certification, whereas in the EU you have to submit models for testing by Euro NCAP. Also the DOT/NHTSA tend to be dysfunctional and slow to adopt new regulations, which is why FMVSS is almost constantly outdated compared to the UN standards. The best thing they could do would be to drop it and become a party to the UN agreement, but it won’t happen because that would amount to admitting that the NHTSA/DOT is stupid.
The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!)
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 10:39 |
|
I’m not sure how much the crash safety comparison can be made using the data they have available. The much higher percentages of trucks and SUVs in the US market is likely to increase the severity of injury for individuals in accidents involving those large vehicles. This is especially true if there is a disparity in size between the vehicles in the accident - such as a F-150 crashing into a Honda Civic. Now, I didn’t read every bit of their methodology explanations, but I’m not sure if the data they have available has the detail available to effectively control for differing rates of vehicle size disparity in accidents between the EU and US. I think crashing US market and EU market vehicles in each others standard testing is the only true way to compare to the safety of one market’s vehicles to another’s.
The other differences are more easily explained by differences in regulation - FMVSS standards for lighting, mirrors, and the demand that airbags and other safety equipment be designed to accomodate un-belted vehicle occupants. The rollover rates are an oddball though.
Did the US mandate stability control sooner than the EU (or did US market manufacturers make it more commonly available sooner)?
BigBlock440
> Matvei
09/24/2015 at 10:53 |
|
But then we’d get less rollover protection and less pedestrian lighting headlights
davedave1111
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 11:16 |
|
Do note that’s an incredibly dishonest article by the Independent - they really are scraping the barrel these days in desperate support of their pet causes, thanks to serious financial problems. They don’t like the TTIP because it’ll a) help poor people in Africa and Asia, and b) make it illegal for governments to ‘nationalise without compensation’, or ‘steal’ as we normally call it.
From the unattributed ‘quote’ in the headline - it’s not in the article anywhere - to the false claims about a cover-up - the paper’s only just been published - to the absurdly incorrect numerical/calculation errors - 33% higher risk?! - the entire thing is a work of fiction.
Anyway, that little bit of nonsense put to bed, let’s have a look at the actual findings. They do in fact show what was expected, which is that while there are some minor differences, broadly the safety standards are the same.
AMC/Renauledge
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 11:18 |
|
The main reason US safety standards include those for unbelted occupants is that seatbelt laws are implemented by the states. New Hampshire doesn’t have a seatbelt law.
Therefore, American standards must account for perfectly legal unbelted folks in vehicles in NH.
Santiago of Escuderia Boricua
> Matvei
09/24/2015 at 11:27 |
|
FMVSS is self certify, but those are mostly bare minimum requirements. NCAP ratings also update more frequently, as recently as a few years ago. Plus the IIHS rates stuff themselves.
RallyWrench
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 12:57 |
|
The US headlamp claim is dubious. Our lights have been below European standards for decades. And given the premium US buyers place on the safety ratings, and the IIHS’ propensity to invent new and difficult tests to pass, I’m not sure how much different the US and Euro market cars really are.
Klaus Schmoll
> duurtlang
09/24/2015 at 13:49 |
|
My buddy at BMW R&D swears that USDM Bimmers are cheaper due to less stiff bodies and suspension, which give a more comfortable ride. I can’t really believe it, but who am I to doubt one of their engineers.
|
Matvei
> Santiago of Escuderia Boricua
09/24/2015 at 22:17 |
|
If they can get most of the standards to be recognized as “equivalent” then no one will make cars to FMVSS standards anymore because it isn’t economical compared to making cars to UN standard and then converting the one or two things left that aren’t equivalent.
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> duurtlang
09/25/2015 at 00:15 |
|
A way it was explained to me by my engineering professor was using a pareto chart. US crash testes more focused on worst case situation (hitting a wall head on), where 100% of energy is directed forward and 100% of the secondary inside collision. The European tests were more focused on “more likely to occur accidents” (glancing blow). Thus it becomes a discussion of (low occurrence, high risk) vs medium occurrence, medium risk.