Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

The Independent have been running this story all week, few others have made it a story like they have in their papers (they do a tabloid version of the Independent too, not that anyone reads papers these days).

American safety standards have worked well for the U.S. over the years, many European (and other) marques simply don't bother to put their cars through the tests or to spoil their designs with 'Duplo lego style' headlamps/bumpers and other odd U.S. requirements for what Americans consider 'safety'. It has been like this too with emissions over the years, why bother exporting to the U.S. when it is so much hassle to get a car good for the E.U. market dumbed down for the U.S. market?

There is also the Chicken Tax (25% on light trucks), so there is a lot of protectionism under various guises of safety/pollution that has gone on over the years. No idea why things are going to be 'harmonised' now, however the status quo has left American motors retarded as far as engineering is concerned. This makes all American cars uncompetitive as far as the rest of the developed world is concerned. Tesla is probably the only exception. Other than the desirable Tesla, American cars have at best novelty value in Europe, only bought by people who have some other motive - stretched limos, that sort of thing.

Safety itself is a complete joke regardless of what regulations you have. On a recent visit to Silverstone I could not help but notice how every car had a roll cage, harness seating and a driver accessible fire extinguisher amongst other modifications. And Silverstone does not have trees to hit at the side of the road, there is zero on-coming traffic and it is not exactly as if there are side-roads, or even unexpected twists in the track. Admittedly speeds are a tad higher than what you can expect on the school run, however, go at 40mph or higher in any consumer automobile and you are going to be heading for the hospital if you hit something hard like another car doing the same speed the other way. In fact I don't think the NCAP tests are ever above 40 mph for this very reason.

I'm not sure but I think airbags do detonate on most cars, regardless of the seat belt status. It would be too complicated or unreliable to couple the two systems.

However: an airbag isn't very effective (and could even be dangerous) without the seat belt, so manufacturers in Europe aren't really required to worry about the safety without seat belts. Effectively the safety regulations say: those with no seat belts are idiots breaking the law and it's not your job to worry about the safety those people. Which is completely sensible.

I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare...) BUT the reasonable thing to do would be to not force car manufacturers to make cars less safe for those who do wear seat belts.

What you have to remember is that those European Chrysler efforts like the Jeep are not made in America. They are made by Magna Steyr in Austria alongside plenty of other SUV's - the BMW ones and the Mercedes ones have been made in the same OEM/contract facility over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Steyr

A lot of people think that airliner safety comes from the FAA hammering on Boeing. That's not true at all. It's the attitude of Boeing and Boeing engineers that make it safe. (I used to be a Boeing engineer on flight critical systems.) The worst nightmare of a Boeing engineer is an accident resulting from his design mistake.

The worst for me was when the Alaska 717 went down because the stabilizer jackscrew failed. I worked on the 757 jackscrew. It was a while before I found out it wasn't the 757 design.

Safety came from the engineers who knew what they were doing and would refuse to put their name on anything that they weren't sure about.

I also know of instances where Boeing produced safer designs and had to lobby the FAA to get them to accept them. One example is using twin engines on overwater flights, rather than 3 or 4. The twin engines are statistically safer.

I know of cases where Boeing designs were much safer than that required by the FAA, and the FAA later adopted the Boeing designs as a requirement.

I've actually felt a lot safer flying after my time at Boeing and knowing the nuts and bolts of how they were made and the dedication and competence of the engineers in charge.

The same racing drivers who have to wear top-line racing helmets connected to HANS devices, wear fire-resistant overalls, have medical teams on immediate standby, and who are often strapped in by their mechanics before heading off?

I think you may be overlooking an awful lot of what makes modern motor racing safer than it was in the past.

(and that's ignoring the number of serious injuries and driver deaths that still occur thanks to freak accidents)