Last January, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said that Canada will match the U.S.'s fuel-consumption benchmarks for new cars and light trucks. Meanwhile, Quebec and Manitoba have pledged to adopt more stringent California standards while Ontario warns that its automakers can't possibly meet them. The Canadian Press reports that Transport Canada is studying the trade-off between fuel-economy and safety. Even before the results are known, Canada's greens are up in arms. Clare Demerse, senior policy analyst at the Pembina Institute: "I would hope that the government would not, in any way, use this kind of research… as an excuse not to go the more aggressive vehicle efficiency standards." George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Agency: "If you could reduce some of the presence of those large-type vehicles, unyielding full frames, you would be improving vehicle safety most likely." Why let the facts get in the way of PC public policy?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Well, he has a point. There are now plenty of small cars that have great safety ratings (the Mazda2 is the latest vehicle to get 5 stars at the NCAP euro test, which is better than many SUVs), not to mention better active safety than SUVs (i.e. lighter weight that translates in better handling and braking abilities).
The whole “3 tons of metal around me” is a myth, which works only when you’re actually crashing into another, SMALLER vehicle.
And the small cars should be considered responsible?
The way I see it, impending high gas prices and the upcoming CAFE/CALI/CANADA mileage requirements war means that smaller, lighter cars are an inevitability. Meanwhile, existing cars aren’t small or light, which means that there will be a necessary period of small “new reality” cars sharing the roads with heavy “old school” designs. This period will suck. There’s no way around it. We can delay the suck, but it will come eventually. After 5 to 10 years of the suck, 7 passenger, 1500 pound tin cans will have become the norm on America’s roads, and all we’ll have to worry about is the occassional F-350 or big rig, just like we do now. In the meanwhile, complaining about the suck isn’t productive.
I just heard from a co-worker that vehicles like the Smart car are being given preferential boarding to the Seattle area (Puget Sound) ferries like motorcycles are. I think incentives like that are likely to be helpful and appeal to people in more tangible ways (ie: your commute will be faster).
I’m already a fan of small efficient cars (as long as they are well built and can be a little fun to hoon around in). Small cars are getting much more safe all the time. The whole perceived virtue of safety through mass is not always true.
I have to agree with steronz on this one at 1.10 a litre 4 bucks + a gallon.Large cars/trucks are vanishing fast.
My buddy was gasing up his pickup yesterday he stopped the pump at 80$.He told me last night, 25yrs of driving pickups is comming to the end real soon.
steronz :
The thing is, there are already some really nice small vehicles available in Europe and Asia that aren’t tin cans and are demonstrably safer than the small cars we had back in the ’70’s and ’80’s. If they could be made available we wouldn’t have to go through “dark times” of crappy unsafe cars until companies get around to developing better ones. Hell, even GM and Ford build some decent small cars for other markets. I would assume Chrysler is still doomed and I don’t think anything can change that.
We should use this as an opportunity to capitalize on our weak dollar and see if we can have companies shift production of some of their small cars to the US.
I agree that fuel efficiency should be a higher priority than more safety at this point. This whole “small cars are unsafe” thing all comes from ignorance, fear, and – I’m tempted to say – stupidity. I can’t think of a single car on the market today that I would consider unsafe. Did anyone have any problems with the safety of 2000lbs Civics in the early 90’s? Those cars are still on the road and do you hear about astronomical death rates in them? Cars were pretty safe then and they’re much safer now. For crying out loud, a Mini weighs 2600 lbs and has how many airbags? Anyone who’s worried about getting killed in today’s small cars is best to just stay off the road altogether and worry about other dangerous things, like slipping in the bathtub.
I wish the general population worried half as much about avoiding running into things as they do about how well their car will hold up to hitting a solid wall at 80 MPH.
Don’t worry too much about the big pickups and SUVs anymore. They will disappear fast as gas rises to $4 and diesel closes in on $5. Already I have noticed a lot fewer big pickups on the road. A lot of them, even newer ones, just sit on dealer lots or hidden in garages. Truckers are having a hard times staying in business due to fuel prices and the recession.
Remember that small cars, while more crunchable, are smaller targets to hit and more maneuverable.
To survive Peak Oil small cars and ethanol are absolute necessities.
Forty years ago folks were driving behemoths with no seatbelts, air bags, ABS, traction control, stability control. With protruding steel knobs on metal dashboards.
Anyone driving or being a passenger in a vehicle 40 years ago must have been suicidal, or espoused a death wish.
Back then, they actually paid attention to actually drive.
In 2008 with all the safety features, folks continue to be suicidal by multitasking in a vehicle. If the lack of seatbelts could kill you 40 years ago, the multitasking and using a phone will kill you in 2008.
It seems that we are constantly trading off “one thing” for “another”.
In typical Canadian fashion a study / inquiry / committe is the way to resolve the issue. They will conclude that in Quebec they use smaller vehicles, out west they still use pick ups, an Ontario is downsizing.
AGR, I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s not the cars that aren’t safe enough, it’s the people.
The #1 best way to increase car safety is to spend some money on driver training. People will pay thousands for the sense of security provided by hundreds of extra pounds of steel and a brace of airbags and electronic nannies in a car they’ll have to replace in 10 years anyway (if they don’t make use of those airbags and crash it first), but not on an education that will make them and the people around them safer for life? Driver education doesn’t affect fuel economy, performance, or use any of the earth’s resources. Bloating out cars does.
Maybe it’s time to intentionally make cars LESS safe; give Darwin a chance to do some housecleaning.
JuniperBug :
Hmm, that makes a good deal of sense. If people had more fear when driving they might think twice about hatting on the phone and pay better attention to the task at hand. The proliferation of safety equipment has made people too complacent.
Hey, My first car was a ’73 Pinto wagon and my second one was a ’70 VW Beetle convertible. Neither of those was a paragon of safety and I’m still here to tell the tale.
I’m hoping we eventually reach a point where all vehicles on the road are of similar size except for those who actually need larger vehicles. The drivers of larger vehicles would only be able to use those vehicles when necessary and they would be held to a higher standard in terms of both licensing and consequences. In the meantime, I’m all for bringing in stricter licensing requirements and severe consequences for poor driving! Using your automobile to kill others through negligence is basically considered acceptable in our society. Why?
JuniperBug, will you be thinking, “I’m glad natural selection is removing me from the gene pool for being stupid enough to drive something smaller than a 3/4 ton truck with side air bags” while you’re dying after some idiot with a suspended license and an old truck speeds through a red light and T-bones you? Or were you planning to use some driver safety training to change the path of that truck?
97escort, you’re one of very few peak oil believers who has faith in replacing our oil with agriculture. Most think the end of cheap oil will devastate agricultural production!