Accountabability and "deadly" vehicles....

Mar 17, 2005 Last reply: 21 years ago 4 Replies
Jump to replies (4)

So there have been all these news spots on lately about some new crash tests recently performed (by the NHTSA, I guess). Apparently some didn't fare so well when flung into a wall, especially the Blazer. Seems every month or so there is a news blitz of crash tests, roll-over tests and safety ratings, and it got me to thinking this time around; when was the last time that I heard anything on the news about the activity behind the wheel that lead to these incidents on the road? I thought back, and realized I couldn't think of the last report concerning accountability on the drivers part. Turns out I was hammered and my memory was pretty twisted, so this whole piece may be WAY off base. I think what really seemed weird this time was that the rating system is now presented as though the vehicles are aggressively hunting people down. They are now "THE DEADLIEST VEHICLES" (keep your kids inside!). There was spot after spot after spot about what manufacturers are doing and what they're not doing and what they need to do to make cars safer because there are so many on the road and people are dying, yet there is no mention anywhere of safe driving practices and what needs to be done to prevent collisions in the first place. It's like building better fire-proof houses so you can have a bonfire in your living room (a stretch, I know, but keep up). So I went poking around the NHSTA site, and found all the normal stuff about crash regs and such. But I also found a ton of info about impaired driving (including distracted & drowsy driving), aggressive driving, and new drivers. Seems like the site was pretty well-rounded when it came to generalvehicle safety, with plenty of stuff on safe vehicles AND safe operation. My question then, is why do you so rarely see this sort of thing discussed in the media? According to the site, 43,000 people died in collisions last year, so it seems topical. But, it's presented as though it is up to the manufacturers to keep that figure down, rather than the person operating the pedals. Do the folks in the media think we won't like it if we're told that WE are the one's behind all the death on the highway, and not the engineers in Detroit or Torrance? Anyway, I'm not going NEAR a Chevy dealership until that Blazer is less deadly! How dare them!


The Insurance companies fund the tests, actually. The gov tests are lame.

Because the states would rather concentrate on easily provable offenses like speeding.

What is difficult to imagine, though you did pretty well, is that somehow, the government is responsible for our safety.

Just because some fool goes out and gets drunk and runs into a school bus at any speed, there are usually going to be fatalities. If the same driver goes off the road and does an end over end single car and gets killed, its because the vehicle isn't safe?

As long as there are people that refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, no vehicle can reasonably be made that is absolutely safe.

Brings to mind our multi-billion dollar submarine that hit a mountain in the middle of the ocean with all its sophistication on board. Imagine the Navy found the skipper at fault, not the vehicle. Congress better act to make them (subs) safer.

Ron

We have the same problem here in the UK with cars, drivers, and pedestrians.

Pedestrians step out in front of cars, and get hit, but drivers can't be trusted to look out for them, so cars have to be made with soft panels, and round lines and higher lines to the bonnet/hood.

How about this, move the airbag into the front grille instead of the steering wheel.

Make it illegal for pedestrians to cross the road without a michelin man bubble wrap suit. Don't dumb down the required skills to drive a car because pedestrians can't think for themselves.

There is not much money in suing individual drivers. If you want a big payday, you want a big company involved - particualrly a big company that has a history of paying off big. Trial lawyers fund ads and web sites designed to encorage "victums" to blame companies with money for accidents and associated injuries. In many cases "reporters" are fed information by trial lawyers. And it always makes a better story to blame a big evil corporation instead of a poor innocent victum. Likewise juries are encouraged to believe that money extorted from insurance companies and big corporations is not coming out of "our" pockets.

Ed

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required