fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I never used the word 'fairness.' I used the word 'thug.'
Washington's Toyota U-Turn
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
Let's be honest here, we are talking about 2 deaths a year.
David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports magazine, said the core problem of faulty Toyota accelerators had been linked to 19 deaths in a decade, amounting to two a year of the 40,000 people killed annually on American roads.
"I find it a little odd that we're going to have a Congressional hearing to look at those two deaths out of 40,000," said Champion.
"Any death is tragic but you have to look at death rates in safety terms rationally."
Now, how many deaths per year were the CAFE standards estimated to cause? IIRC it was around 6000..."I find it a little odd that we're going to have a Congressional hearing to look at those two deaths out of 40,000," said Champion.
"Any death is tragic but you have to look at death rates in safety terms rationally."
Well, there seems to be a lot of misinformation here...
I have been following this closely - I have a recalled vehicle, I am in automotive, plus, I was with a large group of auto parts manufacturers the end of last week, where there was a lot of conversation regarding the recall, and why it is a 'big deal'.
Unlike your source shag-the actual recall which involves the accelerator pedal only goes back to 2005 - the older recall involves the floor mats, however that only goes to 2004, where he got the decade number is unknown. Toyota has only been using the electronically controlled 'gas pedal' rather than the cable method for 5 years, and for the first 2 years it was only on Avalons, a fairly short run vehicle.
The underlying problem is that they wear. After so many ups and downs of the accelerator pedal there is a wear pattern that occurs and it sticks in the 'open' position, especially in higher humidity. So, what we are seeing right now is the tip of the iceberg. The very first of these cars have the number of up and down repetitions that is resulting in the wear pattern culprit. More and more of the recalled Toyotas will be exhibiting the problem as they wear the accelerator component.
The big deal for the government - it looks like a large percentage stick eventually, when that 'critical mass' is achieved. The 'potential' for further deaths and injuries is very high.
So, that percentage that you are so fond of quoting will go up, and considerably. We are seeing the first cars that have quite a few miles on them, and they seem to have 'hard' miles - lots of stop and go, where the pedal has had a lot of up and down repetitions. But, soon the 'mid-mileage' cars should be hitting the same number of repetitions and they will be failing as well, and since the number of mid-range mileage cars far exceeds high mileage cars the number of failures will increase dramatically.
So if you look at it mathematically - the cars start seem to fail at approximately 100,000 miles but there may have only been about seventy five thousand cars that have hit that mileage marker (once again - cars with fewer miles have failed - the unknown factor is the number of repetitions the gas pedal has gone through, some may go well over 100,000 with no failure). There have been 16 deaths to this point. (.00022). However, it is hard to tell how many vehicles have the real amount of up and down repetitions needed to create the failure. It could be as few as 1/4 of that 75,000 vehicles, because high mileage 'younger' cars usually have excessive highway miles - not so many up and down repetitions on the accelerator. So, you have to temper this next section that these numbers are with the single multiplier, it could easily be 4 times as high as this 'best case' scenario. In the next 4 years a total of 1.5 million cars are expected to reach this mileage milestone then the failure rate is expected to reach a fatality rate of 315 people, with all 2.14 million vehicles (2.3 million with 7% failure to reach 100,000 miles) final fatality rate at 450 people, 50 deaths per year, if no cars are repaired (remember, best case scenario - worse case 4x450 - 1800 people over 9 years - 200 deaths per year).
In comparison, the famous Ford/Firestone debacle - Explorers killed 300 people on about 4 million vehicles over a 10 year time span - 30 deaths per year. The multiplier is about 1/3 - .000075.
Oh - another little misstatement - the IIHC (a better source than your 'if I recall correctly shag) places increases in auto accident deaths with regards to CAFE standards at 2,000 extra per year not 6,000. We would be better off removing drunks rather than CAFE standards - 12,000 drunk driving deaths in 2008.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The correct stat is 7,700 deaths per mile per hour gained by the CAFE standards.
What do drunk drivers have to do with CAFE standards, fox? Wouldn't removing both help? Why does it have to be the FALSE CHOICE of one or the other? Shouldn't improving survivability be a priority no matter what the cause?
from heritage -
The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. 5 This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards.
that is a different stat foss - it has to do with a 'total' amount since 1975. The number shag and I were talking about was a yearly number - IIHC tracks those numbers...
Oh - another little misstatement - the IIHC (a better source than your 'if I recall correctly shag) places increases in auto accident deaths with regards to CAFE standards at 2,000 extra per year not 6,000.
Removing both would help - but, isolating CAFE standards regarding highway fatality gives a false impression of the overall problem.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ok, I'm convinced: You like to argue for the sake of it. Did I actually say that your stat was incorrect? I simply put a more illustrative stat out there.
You still haven't responded to my point about the FALSE CHOICE you spewed out there.
And you're right about CAFE standards giving a false impression of the overall problem - GOVERNMENT is way too involved in our lives overall, not just in the auto industry. Well said. I didn't think you were an advocate for smaller government, but I guess even an old dog can learn a new trick.
