Just kidding. It’s a safety car thingie used to test collision avoidance without having to repair hundreds of rear bumpers. Although that would certainly give a bunch of Ford’s idled UAW workers something constructive to do. You do know I mean the car on the right, yes? Good. Quick! What’s the name of the one on the left, MKS, MKZ, MKT, MKWTF, MKLOL or MKF? Other than that, I got nothing. Hat-wearing Detroit News cheerleader Scott Burgess, on the other hand, has a whole article on FoMoCo’s new, automatic, stop-you-from-crashing-into-shit-when-you-get-old-enough-to-mistake-a-blinged-out-Fusion-for-a-genuine-luxury-car technology. And a video! The fact that we’ve already seen this techno-geekfest via Volvo seems to have slipped his mind. That’s understandable. Volvo has fallen off just about everybody’s radar these days. Still, its sad to see The Blue Oval Boys usurp the Swedes’ unique selling point for a car as sad as the MK… wait, don’t tell me…
Category: Safety
There are two main problems with debunking auto-related misconceptions. First, not everyone is ready, willing or able to confront the truth. Second, once you debunk something, it doesn’t stay debunked. TTAC’s Bob Elton dealt with the roof crush standard issue in his editorial “The Counterintuitive Truth About Roof Crush Standards” back in June 2006. He argued that increasing roof strength only increases the number of rollover accidents. Common sense: the higher a vehicle’s center of gravity, the more likely it will roll. Elton also revealed that “In 74% of cases, roof intrusion was not a factor. Rollover accidents are fatal because the occupants are usually ejected, or partially ejected, during the crash.” And that’s because… they’re not wearing their seat-belts. And yet, The Detroit News reports that “The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS] said Wednesday it will require automakers to dramatically increase the strength of vehicle roofs to receive its top safety pick ratings.” The road to hell? You don’t know the half of it…
Or so argues a study from Science Daily (via The National Motorists Association). Thomas Garrett, assistant vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and Gary Wagner from the University of Arkansas Little Rock, looked at revenue and traffic citation data from 96 North Carolina counties collected from 1990 to 2003.. Their conclusion is that as the economy weakens, local governments seek to replace lost tax revenue with increased traffic tickets. “There is ample anecdotal evidence that local governments use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue,” wright Garrett and Wagner. “Our paper provides the first empirical evidence to support this view.” How? According to the data, “a one percentage point decrease in last year’s local government revenue results in roughly a 0.32 percentage point increase in the number of traffic tickets in the following year.” Though they admit that the numbers seem small, Garrett and Wagner call them “statistically significant,” noting that they controlled for demographic and economic differences in the sample. The study will be published in the Journal Of Law And Economics, and will shock readers who haven’t read TTAC’s coverage of the ongoing speed camera nightmare.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is joining a larger veteran’s initiative to create a new program “to increase awareness of the importance of safe driving among newly-demobilized veterans.” Of course, the press release made no mention of the budget for said program. (In fact, they’re studying what to study.) But it did make a case– somewhat– that veterans’ safety needs differ than that of the general population. “According to the Department of Transportation, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all Americans between the ages of eight through 34. Men constitute about 70 percent of all traffic deaths. In the past decade, both deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes have gone down in the United States, due to increases in seat-belt use and decreases in alcohol involvement, among other factors. Nonetheless, motor vehicle accidents remain a major concern in the military and among veterans as the greatest cause of accidental fatalities. Several studies have reported an increase in post-deployment deaths [ED: percentage auto-related?] among military personnel who served in a combat zone compared to their non-deployed counterparts, who are in the military but not deployed to a war, after both the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War. Preliminary evidence also indicates this is the case with veterans from the Global War on Terror.” Citations? None. Intentions? Honorable. Boondoggle potential? Enormous.
Bioengineering is one of the most promising technology trends out there, but besides a perennial design influence, nature tends to stay away from cars. Or is it the other way around? Anyway, biodiesel tends to hog the bio-car development attention, but a LiveScience post sheds some light on efforts to introduce vehicle interior components made from organic materials. A team from Baylor University have been experimenting with coco fibers, and have developed trunk liners, floorboards and car-door interior covers made from a coco-based composite material. “(Coco) fiber has very good strength, stiffness and ductility, and potentially can be used for all kinds of things,” says Baylor engineering professor Walter Bradley. Bradley’s team blends coconut husk material with polypropylene fibers before being hot-pressed (compression-molded) into required shapes. The coconut fiber provides a rigid architecture for the resulting material, which Bradley says does not burn very well or give off toxic fumes, which is key in passing tests required for use in commercial automotive parts. Bradley also extolls the virtue in using a waste by-product of the coconut milk and oil industry. “We are trying to turn trash into cash to help poor coconut farmers,” he tells LiveScience. The team is partnering with a local auto industry fiber supplier to develop commercial products.
Accidents more than doubled at the Houston, Texas intersections where red light cameras are installed, according to a study released Monday by Rice University and the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). This result posed a dilemma for TTI and the city of Houston which had requested the study. Houston Mayor Bill White was furious when he saw the report’s draft text in August. He banned the document from publication and ordered a re-writing of the text that would reflect a more positive result. To accomplish this task, White was able to turn to the study’s primary author, Rice University Urban Politics Professor Robert Stein. Stein’s wife, Marty, is employed by the city of Houston as a top aide to the mayor. Stein’s newly revised report now concludes that “red light cameras are mitigating a general, more severe increase in collisions.”
New Year’s Day is taking a bizarre turn, as Ford reveals the new Shelby Mustang GT500 Shelby Mustang Cobra Shelby Mustang GT500 on the same day that it’s advising motorists how to deal with what it calls “chuck holes.” Is that a regional thing, and what do woodchucks have to do with pavement other than, how do I put this.. splat? Anywho, here’s FoMoCo spinmeister Wes Sherwood’s take on pothole etiquette. “If safe, don’t swerve to avoid potholes. Swerving can create a situation where the front wheel and tire on the car can impact the edge of the pothole at an obtuse angle, which might do more damage than hitting it squarely. If safe, don’t brake just because you see a pothole: heavy braking compresses the front suspension of the car and will have a tendency to force the tire and wheel down into the pothole, instead of gliding over.” Oh, BTW: “To give drivers a fighting chance with monster potholes, [Ford] engineers tune shock rebound rates to keep the wheel and tire suspended so it can glide over the pothole, preventing the tire from dropping down into it and impacting the edge of the tire and wheel.” Gliding over potholes. Well I never!
The young woman in a Corolla had the slows, yet was swerving as if drunk. When I pulled alongside of her at a stoplight, I saw that she was texting. As we took off, after the light changed, she continued to text and swerve and text and swerve. Two years ago, University of Utah professor Frank Drews told me that an estimated 60 percent of teen drivers text while driving. Activities such as texting, with multiple steps that take your eyes off the road for more than two seconds, are far more dangerous than talking on the cell phone. This according to the 100 Car Study by Virginia Tech researchers, in which video cameras recorded drivers over a year. For example, dialing and talking were responsible for equal numbers of cell phone-related mishaps and near mishaps, despite the fact that far more time is spent talking than dialing. And now, there may be a technological fix…
Three years ago, Texas researchers discovered that the most common form of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or carpool lane was associated with a significantly higher risk of injury accidents. A recent University of California study now suggests a remedy intended to reduce HOV lane risk may actually be making the already dangerous lanes even less safe. Researchers with California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH), a joint venture of the state Department of Transportation and the University of California, looked at accident data for two types of carpool lanes in California. They considered 279 miles of “continuous” HOV lanes, primarily in the northern part of the state, where drivers can enter or exit the HOV facility at any point. The report then analyzed another 545 miles of “limited access” lanes that used either painted stripes or flexible plastic barriers to restrict cars from entering or exiting except at pre-determined locations. Although the limited-access lanes promised smoother travel with fewer interruptions from general purpose traffic, they also delivered deadlier travel. “Rear end and sideswipe collisions together comprised over 90 percent of all collisions in both facilities,” the report stated. “Higher Property Damage Only collision rates were observed in both the HOV and left lanes of the HOV facility with limited access. The combined injury related collision rates for the HOV and left lane was higher for the limited access.”
The National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (short form here) is a landmark study. It’s first time the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has tackled the issue head-on (so to speak) in nearly 30 years. According to the final report, “traveling too fast” was the “critical pre-crash event” in only five percent of the 6,949 cases studied. In fact, in 12.2 percent of crashes, the vehicle was “stopped.” “Turning or crossing at intersection” was the number one critical pre-crash event (36 percent), followed by “Off the edge of the road” (22 percent). That said, NHTSA found “driving too fast for conditions” [NB: not necessarily over the speed limit] and “too fast for curve” were the number one and two “decision errors.” But top of the pile only means they accounted for 8.4 percent and 4.9 percent of “Critical Reasons for Pre-Crash Event Attributed to Drivers.” The major culprit after the jump.
Euro NCAP crashed 12 cars, and caused surprisingly little damage. Eight out of the 12 demolished vehicles received the coveted 5 star rating. Mercedes Viano and Ford Ka have four stars, the Dacia Sandero has three. The Ford Ranger limped out of the testing lab with only 2 stars: Bad boy! Results can be found here.
Next year, Euro NCAP will use a new, more stringent method. Cars without ESP won’t stand a chance to receive 5 stars. Seats will receive special attention. As a warning to manufacturers, Euro NCAP published results of its rear impact (whiplash) test which hadn’t been part of this year’s star ratings. It will be next year. Automakers better get off their duffs and start working on those seats now. Only 4 out of 25 received good marks. The rest are marginal or poor. Results here. Doing nothing will result in major demotions next year.
Ford Motor Company is getting some much-needed positive press today on the back of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) just released “2009 Top Picks awards.” Top picks need to have best in class front, side and rear impact protection and include electronic stability control. Ford (including Volvo) took the model count grand prize with 16 vehicles getting top honors. Honda placed second with 13 vehicles and Chrysler came in dead last with exactly zero models clearing the hurdle. Of course the Ford brand portfolio includes many more vehicles than does Honda’s, so you could argue that Honda is the real winner as a percentage of its vehicles sold. In fact, ALL of Honda’s 2009 North American models made the top pick level except for the S2000 sports car. The redesigned 2009 Fit (with optional stability control) is the first minicar to make the IIHS’ list. Ford’s numbers were pumped up by multiple models of the same car each getting their own gold star. Fusion and Milan, Taurus and Sable, Escape and Mariner … you get the idea. But even with badge engineering magic, GM only managed an eight count including the sisters Enclave, Traverse, Acadia and Outlook. Once again, Ford has trounced its domestic competitors and is in the hunt with the rest of the international market. Likewise, Toyota continues the pattern of mimicking GM with only eight top picks of it’s own. Soon I suppose we will see Toyota, GM and Chrysler executives complaining that the IIHS tests aren’t representative, include selection bias …. or are just plain un-American.
The auto industry and auto exports have top billing in China’s current 5 Year Plan. (Yes, for sentimental reasons, they still have one of those.) Yet when it comes to the car export part, China is still light-years away from fulfilling their master plan. The Vice Director General of the Department of Mechanic, Electronic and Hi-Tech Industry, Ministry of Commerce, made the startling admission. “China’s auto exports are still in the early stage, leaving a large gap in global exports,” Zhou Shijie told Xinhua. Translation: China’s auto exports are in the doghouse of the export powerhouse. “It is difficult for export companies to master the vehicle entry policy in foreign countries.” Translation: Our cars failed miserably in crash tests, we have trouble with pesky U.S. FMVSS and European ECE regulations, which we can barely comprehend (let alone satisfy). We’re fed up and we’re not gonna take it. No, we’re not gonna take it. Uh-oh.
Recent Comments