5 ms·

The manufacturer who adds extra "beef" to its structure ends up with a heavier airplane that carries fewer passengers or uses more fuel, and loses sales to

The manufacturer who adds extra "beef" to its structure ends up with a heavier airplane that carries fewer passengers or uses more fuel, and loses sales to the lighter and more efficient, though "weaker," competitor. The same is true of cars. We willingly sacrifice greater safety to get cheaper, more fuel-efficient vehicles. If this wasn't published by a U.S. based paper, I'd think this writer was European or something. The historical trend (prior to the recent price hikes with gas of the last couple of years) has been the direct opposite. Americans were buying bigger and beefier cars (read: SUVs and minivans) to protect themselves and any children. (The whole "soccer mom" phenomenon, remember?) This was a contributing factor to the implosion of the U.S. car industry, since they faced selective pressures at home that caused them to develop vehicles that didn't sell as well to the world at large. And now that fuel prices are starting to invert the equation, foreign auto makers are eating our lunch,

stcredzero 17y ago
Two examples of failure of the market. If everyone was driving light fuel-efficient cars, then engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer. Also, the market seems to drive the lightness of the tail on an airliner right down to the limits set by the regulations. If the market was doing what it should, then engineers would stop short.
- anamax 17y ago
  > If everyone was driving light fuel-efficient cars, then engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer. Light fuel-efficient cars don't meet everyone's needs. (Yup, mom-mobiles/mini-vans are needed.) And few people can afford to have both a commute car and an "everything else" car per daily-driver. (Besides, a commute-only vehicle means that you can't do as much in transit.) Besides, the "if everyone drove small, everyone would be safe" assumption is wrong because many car accidents don't involve another car. I'm unaware of significant efforts to make "not cars" (not just trucks, but immobile structures) more crash friendly. (Yes, I know about break-away traffic signs. Even if all signs were break-away, that wouldn't be enough.)
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Besides, the "if everyone drove small, everyone would be safe" assumption is wrong because many car accidents don't involve another car. Lose points for misreading and putting words in my mouth. I said that, "engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer." It is the prevalence of large passenger vehicles that makes greater mass an issue in North America. I wouldn't see so many small single women driving around alone in Suburbans, Expeditions, and other SUVs if there wasn't an on-road arms race here in terms of vehicle mass. I've spoken with two other people who have been in major collisions in a little teeny Honda CRX. The engine dropped out the bottom of the car, the front end crumpled, and everything happened exactly like it was supposed to, and everyone came out mostly unscathed. Consumers here as a whole would be much better served by paying attention to the safety engineering of vehicles, instead of just feeling secure because they are perched high in a huge metal behemoth. No scheme or factor is going to make everyone safe. Don't put that straw man on me. More consumer attention to safety engineering is going to ground the market on more economical principles, however.
    - stonemetal 17y ago
      >>"engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer." Nope, people want to feel safe not be safe.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Lose points for misreading and putting words in my mouth. I said that, "engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer." It is the prevalence of large passenger vehicles that makes greater mass an issue in North America. Lose points for continuming to assert something after being told of counter examples. Trucks exist. So do overpass supports. All other things being equal, mass and distance helps. Bigger vehicles provide more of both. But, let's not stop there. > I wouldn't see so many small single women driving around alone in Suburbans, Expeditions, and other SUVs if there wasn't an on-road arms race here in terms of vehicle mass. You're assuming something about them that's false. The fact that someone is driving alone doesn't mean that said someone always drives alone. Do you really think that they should drive the kids to {wherever}, leave the car and take the bus home and then take the bus back to pick them up? Besides, I've shown the arithmetic - it rarely makes sense to buy an extra car to save gas - the other costs dwarf the savings.

stcredzero 17y ago

Two examples of failure of the market. If everyone was driving light fuel-efficient cars, then engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer. Also, the market seems to drive the lightness of the tail on an airliner right down to the limits set by the regulations. If the market was doing what it should, then engineers would stop short.

anamax 17y ago
> If everyone was driving light fuel-efficient cars, then engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer. Light fuel-efficient cars don't meet everyone's needs. (Yup, mom-mobiles/mini-vans are needed.) And few people can afford to have both a commute car and an "everything else" car per daily-driver. (Besides, a commute-only vehicle means that you can't do as much in transit.) Besides, the "if everyone drove small, everyone would be safe" assumption is wrong because many car accidents don't involve another car. I'm unaware of significant efforts to make "not cars" (not just trucks, but immobile structures) more crash friendly. (Yes, I know about break-away traffic signs. Even if all signs were break-away, that wouldn't be enough.)
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Besides, the "if everyone drove small, everyone would be safe" assumption is wrong because many car accidents don't involve another car. Lose points for misreading and putting words in my mouth. I said that, "engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer." It is the prevalence of large passenger vehicles that makes greater mass an issue in North America. I wouldn't see so many small single women driving around alone in Suburbans, Expeditions, and other SUVs if there wasn't an on-road arms race here in terms of vehicle mass. I've spoken with two other people who have been in major collisions in a little teeny Honda CRX. The engine dropped out the bottom of the car, the front end crumpled, and everything happened exactly like it was supposed to, and everyone came out mostly unscathed. Consumers here as a whole would be much better served by paying attention to the safety engineering of vehicles, instead of just feeling secure because they are perched high in a huge metal behemoth. No scheme or factor is going to make everyone safe. Don't put that straw man on me. More consumer attention to safety engineering is going to ground the market on more economical principles, however.
  - stonemetal 17y ago
    >>"engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer." Nope, people want to feel safe not be safe.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Lose points for misreading and putting words in my mouth. I said that, "engineering quality, not greater mass, would be the dominant safety factor for the buyer." It is the prevalence of large passenger vehicles that makes greater mass an issue in North America. Lose points for continuming to assert something after being told of counter examples. Trucks exist. So do overpass supports. All other things being equal, mass and distance helps. Bigger vehicles provide more of both. But, let's not stop there. > I wouldn't see so many small single women driving around alone in Suburbans, Expeditions, and other SUVs if there wasn't an on-road arms race here in terms of vehicle mass. You're assuming something about them that's false. The fact that someone is driving alone doesn't mean that said someone always drives alone. Do you really think that they should drive the kids to {wherever}, leave the car and take the bus home and then take the bus back to pick them up? Besides, I've shown the arithmetic - it rarely makes sense to buy an extra car to save gas - the other costs dwarf the savings.