4 ms·
The US auto industry fought air bags for about two decades, saying they were too expensive and that people did not want them: http://www.csmonitor.com/1988/051
by mturmon 11y ago
The US auto industry fought air bags for about two decades, saying they were too expensive and that people did not want them: http://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0519/abelt.html http://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0519/abelt.html
"Top Ford Motor Company executives went so far as to arrange a meeting with President Nixon to plead against a federal regulation that would have required air bags in all cars, starting with 1973 models. The meeting had the desired effect: Mr. Nixon ordered the regulation quashed. Eleven years after the 1971 meeting, a transcript from secret Oval Office tapes disclosed the conversation."
I believe the Toronado air bags might have been offered just to provide a tool to say consumers did not want them.
Earlier on, they also fought seat belts. Then later, they fought for state laws mandating seat belt use by drivers, just so they could say the airbags were not necessary in the presence of seat belts. And a bunch of other stuff. Classic cartel behavior.
- Camillo 11y agoI don't even understand their logic. Why not simply ask the government to ban or restrict the use of old cars without those safety features, after a short transition period? That would boost sales by forcing motorists to upgrade. Emission regulations in Europe work that way and they are a boon for the auto industry.
- pm24601 11y ago> Emission regulations in Europe work that way and they are a boon for the auto industry. For some reason, VW didn't see it that way wrt the diesel emissions. Maybe you need to recheck your understanding of other motivations.
- Camillo 11y agoI said that auto companies could pursue their self-interest by turning regulations to their advantage, rather than opposing them. I didn't say they would embrace environmentalism in the truest depth of their hearts. Accepting emission standards for the entire industry and then cheating on them is fully consistent for an actor driven by self-interest, as long as they think they won't get caught. Given the obviousness of the above, the real question is how you came to make such a silly post. My best guess is that you simplified the positions into "companies accept emission standards = companies GOOD on environment, but VW cheating = VW BAD on environment", and that's how you saw a contradiction. Please take a bit longer to think your posts through.
- pm24601 11y agoO.k. Let me be more explicit. Automobile companies have a different self-interest than you think they should. (As demonstrated by VW's action) VW has over 450,000 people - all viewing the world differently ( as demonstrated by VW's corporate actions differently) Out of 450,000+, excluding the dealerships, not one agreed with you enough to blow the whistle.