May 20, 2009

Worse Than Preening

Hatched by Dafydd

My fave blogger at my fave blog found occasion to publish a post on the contrast between Barack H. Obama's extraordinary concern that three admitted terrorists may have been questioned harshly -- with the president's complete uninterest in the statistical certainty that his new fuel standards, enacted "with a stroke of the pen" via executive order, will result in thousands of innocents dying in automobile accidents.

(The key is that the only way to significantly increase mileage -- barring a breakthrough like, oh, a high-temperature ceramic engine -- is to reduce weight, which means manufacturing flimsier cars... which in turn means more people killed in accidents that would not kill someone in a stronger, heavier vehicle.)

John Hinderaker ends his short post thus:

The contrast in Obama's priorities is striking, to say the least. I would submit that this is what happens when you substitute preening for intelligent policy-making.

Alas, I think John is being a bit obtuse, missing the boat. I don't believe the most serious problem here is moral preening, though that certainly is a hallmark of leftists in general and this president in particular. Rather, it's much worse than that.

The more disturbing conclusion is that Obama, for all his protestations of Protestant religiosity, acts as if he were an atheist. That is, he appears to see no value in an individual's existence except as an insignificant cog in the giant machine of the revolution of the new progressive man. He sees us not as cardinals, numbers interesting for their own sake, but as mere ordinals, numbers interesting only in their place or rank in an ordered set.

(The distinction is easy to grasp. Consider height; a cardinal is the measurement itself: "Bill is five-foot eleven." But an ordinal is a ranking: "Bill is the third tallest man on the team.")

I believe that Obama sees people, other than those he personally knows, as very like cockroaches; if you kill a few, so what? You can always break another few thousand out of the hatchery. He has not the slightest sense of empathy for people of other tribes; and his only concerns about those of his own tribe are propinquity and loyalty: He needs people around him to elevate his importance, and if some critical player dies, that leaves a hole in the line-up.

In this case, the deaths of thousands of strangers, while statistically certain, is to Barack Obama statistically meaningless. He fails to think about it not because he is distracted, by preening or any other of his unsavory habits, but because the deaths and inuries are just "white noise" to him. "Can't make an omlet without breaking a few legs."

It may be neither policially correct or politically wise to say so, but I believe Obama is the coldest hearted sociopath to have occupied the Oval Office in my lifetime -- or possibly ever. Your life or death literally means nothing to him, except insofar as it could affect his reelection chances in 2012. I almost wonder whether he is an out and out solipsist.

This is symptomatic of graver moral sickness (or crime) than mere "preening."

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 20, 2009, at the time of 10:30 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3647

Comments

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

You are not looking at this problem correctly. The objective of this decree is to make it impossible to manufacture automobiles that someone would want to buy. Automobiles will disappear. No CO2, no accidents, and the auto companies still keep paying the UAW workers.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2009 9:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Lizard in chief,

While I agree with you most of the time, this whole "more people are going to die because of higher fuel standards" nonsense has got to stop.

Okay, one way to get more miles per gallon is lighter cars. In the past such cars have been more more prone to causing death and dismemberment to the passengers. I get that, but it is so simplistic. Consider:

1) If all cars are lighter, doesn't that mean fewer deaths overall(the cumulative kinetic energy of a big/small car collision is more than a small car/small car collision). Therefore if we ALL have smaller cars, wouldn't the fatality rate, ahem, go down?

2) You presume that light does not equal strong. Carbon fiber anyone? Yes I know, expensive. But costs have a funny way of decreasing once there are no other choices.

3) Screw global warming. What about people having more money in their pockets because they spend less on transportation? Won't those people have more money for...I dunno...nutrition? Health care? Bus passes?

4) More people walking and on bikes is a bad thing from a health perspective?

5) What about the health savings from depriving terrorists, dictators, and other oil rich nasties of income?

6) Better mileage = less fuel burned = less air pollution = last I checked a significant percentage of cancers are attributable to motor vehicle exhaust. Check out http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419

So where does that leave us? Obama is an idiot, and he is probably doing this for all the wrong reasons, and he probably does look at you, me, and everyone else as cockroaches, or better yet pieces on a chessboard that can be sacrificed to win the game. yes, yes yes.

But he has inadvertently bumbled into exactly the policy we need. More fuel efficient cars does not necessarily translate into higher traffic deaths, or if it does, it may be more than compensated by fewer deaths elsewhere in the mortality formula.


The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2009 6:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

Geoman,

I think the most succinct way to describe this principle is to take a look at some NASA allegory.

NASA went to the moon in a series of missing based around the Apollo system, including the LEM and other components. Over time, the system was expanded to meet further mission needs, constraints, etc. Unfortunately, after a time the system was maxed out for it's given configuration. The law of diminishing returns took hold. It became more efficient to completely redesign the system than it would be to continually modify the base structure.

We are approaching that point with internal combustion engines. There is only so much fuel that can be gained from an internal combustion engine. Not only are the finite limitations in the energy contained in gasoline and diesel, there are inherent limitations built into the Otto (four stroke) and Diesel cycles. Even if we make massive leaps in efficiency, they would only approach 50% efficiency.

There's only so much juice we can squeeze from this rock. Clearly if he mandated 100 mpg from every vehicle there would be difficulties, if not impossibilities, associated with meeting the objective. I think 39 mpg is approaching the barrier of impossibility for cars as we know them.

We don't need this policy, whether the net utility is positive or negative. Government is not here to legislate morality by free market fiat.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2009 8:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Geoman:

While I agree with you most of the time, this whole "more people are going to die because of higher fuel standards" nonsense has got to stop.

All right; let's examine this "nonsense."

1) If all cars are lighter, doesn't that mean fewer deaths overall(the cumulative kinetic energy of a big/small car collision is more than a small car/small car collision). Therefore if we ALL have smaller cars, wouldn't the fatality rate, ahem, go down?

Not necessarily; small car + small car can still be more dangerous than big car + big car.

But this is a moot point, because we're not "all" going to have smaller cars; only those people who can afford to rush out and buy new (much more expensive) cars will have the smaller, lighter, flimsier, higher mileage cars.

The rest of us will buy used (bigger, heavier) cars, or keep the bigger, heavier cars we already have for another few years.

And don't forget all the big rigs on the road... are you going to lighten them up, too?

2) You presume that light does not equal strong. Carbon fiber anyone? Yes I know, expensive. But costs have a funny way of decreasing once there are no other choices.

Carbon fiber? In a Toyota Corolla? Sure, maybe in a German or Italian supercar... but if that's the direction ordinary cars go, then we'll have even fewer people buying those nifty new high-mpg cars -- and even more people sticking to their beat-up old smog-spewing, gas-gulping Pontiacs.

As for costs decreasing on items that are (a) technolgically sophisticated and hard to manufacture, and (b) mandated by the government, well, perhaps you trust the State to fund all its mandates; I certainly don't.

3) Screw global warming. What about people having more money in their pockets because they spend less on transportation?

Do they really spend less? All things considered? They may spend a little less on fuel because they get a few more miles per gallon; but how much more do they spend on purchase, maintenance, and repairs (flimsy, non-carbon-fiber vehicles dent more easily), not to mention medical costs?

When I was young and cars were steel, if you got a dent, you could literally "hammer it out." Today, if I bump into a concrete pole in a carpark, I'll probably have to R&R an entire new right front quarter panel. Instead of $150 labor, I'll have to pay $850 for the panel -- plus $500 labor. Do you really believe newer cars have lower maintenance and repair costs?

4) More people walking and on bikes is a bad thing from a health perspective?

If they get hit by cars, yes. But do you really think the purpose of government is to deprive as many people as possible of efficient and timely transportation? Sachi works 60 miles from our home. Do we need to move to the gawdawful city where she works, away from the lovely city we live in now?

Thanks, pal.

5) What about the health savings from depriving terrorists, dictators, and other oil rich nasties of income?

One word, Geoman: China and India. They will suck up every available drop of oil and then some. "Terrorists, dictators, and other oil rich nasties" will have just as much income as they ever did. (Rather, their income will be dictated by market forces, not Obamic decree.)

6) Better mileage = less fuel burned = less air pollution = last I checked a significant percentage of cancers are attributable to motor vehicle exhaust.

Again, by raising the cost of new cars -- which this will do, trust me on this -- you actually increase the percent of old, untuned klunkers in the American fleet. You will more than likely burn more fuel, not less, because people will have less ability to switch to new, more energy efficient cars because of expensive government mandates.

But [Obama] has inadvertently bumbled into exactly the policy we need.

So bypassing the market and jumping directly to government diktat on the basis of the whim of a loony leftie is "exactly the policy we need?" Jesus Crispie!

As Medved puts it, all this means is that Detroit (and even foreign manufacturers who build or sell cars here) will be forced to offer more and more vehicles that Americans don't want to buy. What a great policy!

But hey, at least Barack H. Obama and family can still ride in the hugely expensive and terrible mileage presidential limousine, fly in Air Force One and Marine One, and tour all the European capitals, burning as much carbon-based fuel as he desires (and polluting the White House with his cigarette smoke).

He won't ever have to worry about driving one of those neon-colored golf carts I see on the roads today, and being crushed by an 18-wheeler whose driver has been on Speed for the last two thousand miles.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2009 8:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Dafdd,

You assume that higher mileage cars are inherently more expensive, smaller, lighter, flimsier, less safe. But that is not remotely correct.

Last I checked, smaller cars are significantly cheaper than big cars. Isn't that why we even buy them? I mean, all things being equal, I'd rather drive a Dodge Durango than a Toyota Corolla. But all things are most definitely not equal. The Corolla's base cost is $15,300 (35 MPG) and the Dodge base cost is $28,000 (20 MPG). So the Dodge is much more expensive to buy and drive. But safer, and more roomy.

Higher mileage cars usually cost more when they are the same size as big cars. A perfect example is the Toyota Camry which costs $19,395 (22/33 MPG). A Camry hybrid costs $26,150 (33/34 MPG).

So, high mileage cars can either be small, but cheap, or more expensive but the same size. The are almost always not both.

Are 30+ MPG cars hard to invent, with exotic, expensive technologies? There are several dozen such cars in the U.S. right now, and in Europe such cars are considered middle of the road regarding mileage. There are plenty of options and prices to suit any taste.

As to the rest of your responses...well, they are constructed on a foundation of sand:

1)to paraphrase: "We won't have small cars for most people because they will be too expensive....so those with small cars will get killed." Huh? Either we have more small cars or we don't. If they are too expensive, and we keep the big cars, then the safety issue is irrelevant. If they are not too expensive then we have more small car/small car collisions, which result in fewer injuries. My point is that it is not a zero sum equation as you seem to assume.

2) A completely non-serious response. I'm saying that lighter does not equal flimsy, as evidenced by carbon fiber, titanium, etc. I'm not suggesting a carbon fiber Corolla, which you use to ridicule the concept. Once again, you equate a number of things (expensive, lighter, flimsier) that rarely, if ever, go together.

3) I think I already demolished this one completely. Smaller and flimsier is almost always cheaper. In cars as with most everything else in the world.

4) Sheesh. No one is going to make Sacci walk to work, or you to sell your home. This is too silly to discuss further.

5) "One word, Geoman: China and India" Well snark aside (that's actually three words), so? As you say, price is based on demand, so if the U.S. lowers demand, won't the price be lower than it would otherwise be? My argument was LESS money for dictators and terrorists, not that there would be NO money for such.

6) Higher mileage = Less exhaust = more people live. This directly contradicts your argument that higher mileage = smaller cars = more people die, and I noticed you don't bother even trying to refute the relationship between higher mileage, air pollution, and respiratory illness. Your assumption that higher mileage cars are inherently more expensive doesn't exist, which means your subsequent argument that more smog spewing clunkers will be on the road also doesn't exist.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2009 1:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd, Geoman, et al-

A word from a conservative heretic (OK, Dafydd, mostly conservative): I happen to LIKE small cars, but I DON’T like flimsy cars. The two concepts are not necessarily in conflict. In our family, we’re partial to German cars. The closest one to “flimsy” is our daughter’s Jetta -- but it’s solid as a rock and drives like it’s on rails.

Where I live, there are lots of people like us. That’s what keeps the BMW and Mercedes dealers in business -- there are lots more 3-Series and C-Class cars on the road than 7-Series and S-Class. (The former are small, the latter large.) I’m sure some people buy these small cars just for the prestige of the logo and would buy a larger model if they could afford it. But it’s certainly not true of all buyers -- that’s one reason they build performance models of the smaller cars.

OK, so here is my main point: Are small cars really more dangerous than large ones? It’s undoubtedly true that in a head-on collision occupants of a Suburban will likely fare better than those in a Corolla. But I would much rather avoid accident an accident altogether rather than be concerned mainly with survival in the event of an accident that you might think is unavoidable. If accident survivability were the main concern we’d all be driving Abrams tanks or 18-wheelers.

I have avoided several accidents over the years by braking or otherwise maneuvering a small car out of harm’s way. Could I have avoided trouble equally as well in a large car? I can’t say for sure, but I know I feel much more confident of vehicle control in a small car. Again, not just any small car -- I never drove either, but I understand the old Falcons and Corvairs were disasters from a control standpoint. And today’s “Smart” car is reputed to handle very poorly. (The latter suffers from the same problem as SUV’s and vans: A high center of gravity. In my neck of the cornfield most of the vehicles that go wheels-up in slippery winter conditions are SUV’s and other big vehicles that people feel “safer” in, thus drive too fast for conditions. But that’s another story.) (Another disaster was the Citroën 2CV I drove in France. Terrible suspension, skinny tires [=small tire patch], lousy steering, questionable brakes -- I could go on. It was a t**d on wheels. And it wasn’t even the economy model: It had upholstered seats instead of the el cheapo canvas slings. Small, light cars can indeed be very dangerous.)

Of all the cars I have ever driven, all but the very flimsiest of small ones were better handling, thus better at accident avoidance, than any contemporary large vehicle. The SUV’s were the worst of the lot. That includes a Jeep Cherokee, a BMW X5 and a Mercedes M Class. Yes, I consider those big. They all drove like trucks.

My wife is alive today because, after being essentially T-boned into oncoming traffic, she was able to steer her then-new Honda Accord back into her own lane. In an Impala a head-on collision would have been unavoidable. And that Accord’s steering and suspension were primitive compared to cars of today. Newton’s laws have not changed, however: Greater weight equals greater inertia. (Yes, it’s true for both accident damage and for accident avoidance. I prefer the latter.)

So, does anyone have actual statistics showing that small cars are really involved in more fatal or serious injury accidents PER MILE DRIVEN than large cars? (Since I’m more concerned about accident avoidance, I’d rather know this than the obvious statistics about “when accidents happen you’re safer in a Ford/Chrysler/GM Behemoth.”) And if these statistics exist, can one tease out of them the serious accident frequency of high quality small cars -- the ones that clearly aren’t flimsy?

Having said all that, I still think Obama’s new CAFE standards are a bad idea for traditional conservative reasons: Economics, personal liberty, government control, etc. And they still haven’t said how they’re going to include plug-ins in the calculations. It’s gonna be a long four years.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2009 10:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

You chaps are manfully making good points; alas, each of you has got the wrong end of the stick (a different wrong end each).

Dick E

Yes, you are correct that a small car can have better handling than a big one. For example, a Porsche 911 Carrera handles better than a Winnebago. But that's less a function of raw weight than the fact that the former was designed from the ground up to be better handling.

Let's start with Reality 101. When the government jacks up Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards from 27 mpg (today) to the 40 mpg liberals demand, there are two ways to pull this off; most manufacturers will use a combination of both, but lean heavily towards number two for the bulk of their compliance:

  1. You can invest a bunch of time and money into designing exotic vehicles that just naturally get better mileage (e.g., hybrids). But this generally takes too long, and the deadlines for full implementation of new CAFE standards loom. Ergo...
  2. You can hit the standards by the quick and dirty method of simply shaving steel off your vehicles and replacing it with aluminum, plastic, rubber, or composite materials.

(Note that even the latter method entails significant retooling costs, which the manufacturer must amortize by passing along its cost to customers in the form of increased prices. 2 is cheap-er than 1, but it's not cost-free... it's still an unfunded mandate.)

Very few people will spend the huge amounts of money to buy the exotics; hence, since the car companies don't want to go broke -- well, broker than they already are -- trying to sell cars nobody wants to buy, they will rely primarily on cutting weight from existing model designs.

However, reducing the weight by itself does not increase handling; in fact, it probably reduces handling. For example, it may screw up the car's balance, if some heavy engine part on one side of the car is replaced by a lighter version, and there is no comparable reduction on the other side.

If the engine is made overall lighter, that reduces weight on the front (steering) wheels... which reduces grip, further damaging the handling. (Grip is why many race cars have upside-down airplane wings on them: to push them into the ground.)

And a prime way to reduce weight -- as you can see by looking around next time you drive -- is to make the wheels smaller and narrower; this also reduces handling.

So yes, a 911 handles better than a motor home. But a 911 that has been stripped of 15% of its weight in a fast-as-you-can, hack-and-slash manner, in order to comply with federally mandated fuel-economy standards, is very unlikely to handle better than the original, carefully designed model. In fact, it will almost certainly handle markedly worse.

That is the "hope and change" we're talking about here: Not transitioning people from Lincoln Continentals to Triumph Spitfires, but taking a chainsaw to vehicles to reduce their overall weight by any means necessary.

Geoman:

You give us many creative theories why reducing the weight of a car doesn't have to result in more fatalities. But that's not the question, is it? The question is not whether it must cause such an increase, but whether it does in real life.

According to H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis, both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and researchers at Harvard and the Brookings Institution say that it has already done so, to the tune of 322 extra deaths per year per 100 lbs reduction (according to the NHTSA), or between 440 and 780 deaths per year, per 100 pounds (the Harvard-Brookings team).

Yes, it's true that the NCPA is a conservative think tank partially funded by the Scaifs; and it's true that People for the American Way have repeatedly characterized it as "right wing." And it's also true that some of this may be mitigated by improvements in emergency-room medical care (assuming the Obama administration is unable to get its dream of government-controlled health care).

But my point is this: There is no evidence Barack H. Obama even troubled to consider the possibility of increased deaths. He made no counterargument; he has released no contrary statistics; he didn't even discuss it. Obama is indifferent to the likelihood that higher CAFE standards will kill people.

If it mattered to him, wouldn't he at least investigate it before announcing his plan? And if it mattered to him, and if he investigated and found evidence that it wouldn't increase traffic fatalities, wouldn't he make a point of telling us so?

Instead, it appears that he either never considered the possiblitity -- the arrogance of liberals' belief in their own superiority -- or else he heard about it... but since confounding evidence doesn't help him politically, he simply ignored it. And to hell with the little people who may get smushed. After all, dead people may tell no tales... but they sure as heck can still vote Democratic! (Even if they never did in their corruptable, mortal state.)

That is the point of this post: Not whether it's possible to increase fuel efficiency without killing people, but (a) whether that is what's going to happen (no, it's not), and (b) whether BO gives a damn (no, he doesn't).

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2009 12:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

You forgot about option 3: Toyota makes more Corollas and fewer Lexus LS’s; Chevy makes more Aveos and fewer Suburbans; etc. Selling them is another matter, of course.

I know nothing about the quality, handling, fuel economy or anything else concerning these vehicles. It’s just that the small ones clearly have better fuel economy than the large ones. Moving consumers to smaller iron will be job one for the manufacturers under tighter CAFE standards.

It would be silly for GM to keep the Suburban the same size and try to get it to do 40 MPG by making it out of cardboard.

Cars have definitely gotten smaller over the past 40 years. That is at least in part due to CAFE. (Average vehicle size is another matter altogether. That’s because “trucks” -- SUV’s, vans, pickups, etc. -- are excluded from existing CAFE standards.)

Obama is no doubt counting on history to repeat itself, but in spades. I think he’s dreaming to believe that overall fuel economy for passenger vehicles, including those now excluded as trucks, will reach the levels he desires. It will take a tremendous amount of downsizing -- and a total change in consumer preferences -- to get to his nirvana. But the use of tinfoil will be much more common in White House staffers’ hats than it will be in automobile construction.

(Actually, we could achieve a significant increase in overall fuel economy by following the model used extensively elsewhere in the world: Jack up gasoline taxes. Of course, it’s much more politically expedient to beat up on the car manufacturers -- THEY are the ones responsible for poor gas mileage, so we punish them with CAFE. I don’t favor either alternative, but if I had to choose, I’d rather use the European system and force people to pay through the nose for gas.)

(And speaking of tinfoil hats, maybe they’ll count the fuel economy of plug-ins as infinite. That’ll sure help the numbers.)

Oh, and on the safety issue, don’t forget there are government standards to meet there, too. Not that I like those either …

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2009 5:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

As to your other points:

For example, a Porsche 911 Carrera handles better than a Winnebago. But that's less a function of raw weight than the fact that the former was designed from the ground up to be better handling.

Wrong, your Lizardship. Even that ghastly Citroën I talked about handled better than a Winnebago or anything else approaching its size. As the lady said, size matters. Formula 1 (and, I assume, Indy, NASCAR and all other major racing organizations) specify minimum weight restrictions, not maximums. Why is that? Because handling is inversely related to weight. The lighter the better. But when it comes to competition, people will try for every edge they can get, so the minimums avoid cars made of cardboard or other such craziness.

I haven’t checked the stats on either vehicle, but I’d bet that a Corolla -- not exactly a performance car -- would beat a Suburban in a slalom race hands down. (The Corolla’s probably better at braking, too.) Then set up the cones so that a Winnebago can make the turns, and I’m absolutely certain the Corolla would beat the Winne. (Braking? Hah.)

However, reducing the weight by itself does not increase handling; in fact, it probably reduces handling.

No, reducing weight by itself does improve handling, unless the engineers doing the redesign are complete morons. You know that a weight reduction in one part of a car must be balanced with other changes. Don’t you think that just about any schlub with an engineering degree might also have an inkling of this?

It’s not that hard. (Well, it probably is, but the basic principle is pretty simple.) Let’s see, I’m going to reduce the front bumper weight by 3 pounds; maybe I should offset this by cutting something out of the tail lights and the rear deck trim. Oh yeah, I’d better tweak the suspension too.

Time pressure might force manufacturers to cut corners, but at least they’ll know what corners they are cutting. Handling should not be significantly compromised -- especially since lighter weight equals better handling, unless you screw up badly.

And a prime way to reduce weight -- as you can see by looking around next time you drive -- is to make the wheels smaller and narrower; this also reduces handling.

That’s the one valid point you make, but not for the reason you give. While weight is a factor, the bigger issue in fuel economy is rolling resistance.

So yes, a 911 handles better than a motor home. But a 911 that has been stripped of 15% of its weight … (etc, etc.)

Not at all necessary. All Dr. Ferry Porsche’s heirs would have to do is reduce horsepower a smidge. A computer program change, less fuel/air mixture reaching the cylinders and, voila, better mileage. That would at least buy them an extra year or two if they think redesign is necessary.

The same strategy could be applied to many other vehicles. In case you haven’t noticed, horsepower has been going up overall in recent years -- at least in middle-to-higher priced cars.

Doesn’t the computer program change give you enough mileage boost? Slap in a smaller engine. It’s not that big a deal. Manufacturers have been offering the same cars with different engines (and different engine weights) for as long as I can remember. Porsche (and just about everybody else) has off-the-shelf engine models -- probably currently in use, but maybe in smaller numbers -- that they can ramp up to higher production without breaking a sweat.

None of the above is intended to say that meeting the ultimate CAFE standards will be easy or that the whole CAFE idea makes sense. It’s just that I don’t foresee the panic-driven disaster you fear.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2009 12:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E.:

You're still talking theory; I'm telling you that both the NHTSA and a study group at Harvard/Brookings estimated that each 100 lbs of weight reduction costs between 320 and 780 extra deaths per year.

If you want to dispute that, get the reports, get the figures, redo their calculations, and tell us why they're wrong. (One might note that neither the administration nor certainly Harvard University or the Brookings Institution are conservative organizations.)

But you still say, No, no, in theory it can all be done without compromising safety. But I'm saying, Regardless of that fact (correct or not), it's not being done that way; and there is no reason to suppose that automobile companies will suddenly start doing it that way. They must have a reason to do it the way they do, and I would guess that reason is "cost."

So the fact remains that under the Obama plan, car weights will be cut; they will be cut the way they have been cut in the past; and that will cause hundreds or thousands of extra highway fatalities and many more highway injuries.

And Barack Obama doesn't give a hoot. Those deaths mean absolutely nothing to him.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2009 1:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

You're still talking theory; I'm telling you that both the NHTSA and a study group at Harvard/Brookings estimated that each 100 lbs of weight reduction costs between 320 and 780 extra deaths per year.
The part of your most recent post addressed to me said nothing about safety. It was all about the perils of panicked manufacturers making changes to downsize vhicles -- damn the torpedoes, willy-nilly, tout suite, op cit and e pluribus Unum. That’s what I responded to.


The part about safety, you addressed to Geoman, so I left it to Geoman to respond. Now you want me to say something, so I will.

The reference you link to gives absolutely no supporting references as to where their information came from. The graph in the link is a complete joke. A totally straight line? Gimme a break. (If it were just an illustration they could have gone without the numbers on the X and Y axes. This is designed to look like real data.)

That’s it. An assertion that some independent scientific bodies came up with some damning data. Mind you, it’s not the bodies themselves making assertions. It’s someone with an ax to grind (NCPA). The document you quote is an editorial.

So I’ll tell you what. You respond to my request for data (remember?):

So, does anyone have actual statistics showing that small cars are really involved in more fatal or serious injury accidents PER MILE DRIVEN than large cars? (Since I’m more concerned about accident avoidance, I’d rather know this than the obvious statistics about “when accidents happen you’re safer in a Ford/Chrysler/GM Behemoth.”) And if these statistics exist, can one tease out of them the serious accident frequency of high quality small cars -- the ones that clearly aren’t flimsy?

Then I’ll respond to yours.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2009 8:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

I don't see this back and forth as serving any function. You demand absolute proof of the assertion in this thread, going so far as to imply that Mr. Burnett must have fabricated his citations; and I'm unwilling to spend the time trying to prove it to you -- which I rather doubt it's possible to do, no matter what evidence is adduced.

I pretty much trust the NCPA, at least pending any counterevidence... but it's irrelevant to the point of this post, which is this:

Not even you or Geoman has claimed that Barack Obama has demonstrated any concern whatsoever that increasing CAFE standards could lead to more highway deaths. You have both completely ignored this point -- the central point of the post -- in your zeal to deny that there is any possibility that such a connection could exist.

But I imagine that even you, and even Geoman, would agree that, since there is some controversy and legitimate question (even if unproven to your satisfaction), therefore the president has a duty to investigate, at least, whether his fuel fiat is costing innocent people their lives. I would imagine the two of you would also be forced to agree that there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has done so.

You two have made far more of an effort trying to counter the claim than the president has done; he has not bestirred himself at all! Not even to deny the charge; he simply ignores it as if no one has even made the claim.

Ergo, I end where I began:

In this case, the deaths of thousands of strangers, while [possibly] statistically certain, is to Barack Obama statistically meaningless. He fails to think about it not because he is distracted, by preening or any other of his unsavory habits, but because the deaths and inuries are just "white noise" to him. "Can't make an omlet without breaking a few legs."

It may be neither policially correct or politically wise to say so, but I believe Obama is the coldest hearted sociopath to have occupied the Oval Office in my lifetime -- or possibly ever. Your life or death literally means nothing to him, except insofar as it could affect his reelection chances in 2012. I almost wonder whether he is an out and out solipsist.

This is symptomatic of graver moral sickness (or crime) than mere "preening."

None of your points, even were we to accept them as proven, contradict the concluding paragraphs of this post.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2009 9:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I guess the "statistically certain" part was the main thing.

Hey, at least I got a "possibly" out of it.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2009 9:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

"Not even you or Geoman has claimed that Barack Obama has demonstrated any concern whatsoever that increasing CAFE standards could lead to more highway deaths. You have both completely ignored this point -- the central point of the post."

First off, you have not demonstrated he didn't think about increased auto deaths. I mean, you say he doesn't care, or didn't think about it, or whatever, and I suspect you might be right, but that is simply an unproved (and perhaps unprovable) hypothesis.

Second - in my original post I said: "Obama is an idiot, and he is probably doing this for all the wrong reasons, and he probably does look at you, me, and everyone else as cockroaches, or better yet pieces on a chessboard that can be sacrificed to win the game. yes, yes yes." The triple yes indicates concurrence with your hypothesis. I didn't think we needed to discuss it further, since we don't disagree regarding your unproved hypothesis.

Where does that leave us? What I responded was that the increased deaths from lighter cars is NOT a zero sum gain.

You are saying that Obama = thoughtless jerk because increased CAFE = 1,000 extra traffic deaths each year. I'm saying Obama = thoughtless jerk, BUT increased CAFE = 1,000 extra traffic deaths - fewer deaths due to respiratory illness - deaths due to wars we don't have to fight - accidents avoided due to lighter, more maneuverable cars (Dick E's point) - deaths avoided because the cars are lighter, which is less kinetic energy in each crash - deaths avoided because technology has improved, and cars don't have to be flimsier.

An alternative hypothesis is that Obama did look at the potential for increased auto fatalities, and then decided that the reduction in fatalities from other sources outweighed the costs. You've done nothing to disprove this either.

My central point is that even Obama can be doing exactly the right thing, even if it is for all the wrong reasons. But, you're blog, so go ahead and score it as you see fit.


The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2009 11:19 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved