Mark Hickey wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Sure, seat belts, fully padded dashboards, safe knobs, different shapes
>>for lights and wipers, collapsible steering columns, hazard lights, side
>>marker lights, impact resistant door latches, rollover protection, dual
>>master cylinders, shoulder harnesses, locking seat backs, anti-lock
>>brakes, air bags, etc.
>>
>>And the $4 fix for the Corvair.
>>
>>What a bum.
>
>
> I have no argument that he did some things that were worthwhile - but
> we've been talking about the Corvair. He didn't "fix it"... he killed
> it.
No, GM killed it by leaving out a $4 part and waiting 5 years to put it
back. Their "solution" to the Nader problem was to hire detectives to
dig up dirt on him. The head of GM was forced to publicly apologize
before congress and pay Nader damages. It's unbelievable that you
attempt to twist this story to make GM a victim of Nader. That's a
conservative wet dream.
>>>imagine if
>>>lighter, more efficient vehicles would have caught on in Detroit 10
>>>years before they became "necessary").
>>
>>When did they "become necessary"? I must have missed that.
>
>
> That would have been in the 70's. Are you young or were you stoned?
> ;-)
No, but I was waiting in gas lines with everybody else. The 2 oil shocks
in the 70's were blips caused by the formation of OPEC. The same
motivation for efficient cars didn't hold through the 80's, 90's and the
current decade. Even if the Corvair was the prototype of some kind of
efficient car design (which it wasn't), it wouldn't have mattered.
>>As far as discouraging the use of small, light cars, the Pinto was a
>>much bigger factor. The car has been gone for 25 years and people still
>>make jokes about it.
>
> Hey, the Pinto was a virtual Mercedes compared to the Vega. The only
> reason no one still makes jokes about those is that the last one
> either rotted away or stopped running about 20 years ago.
You don't have to tell me, I owned a Vega. I sold it for a VW Rabbit.
Those 2 were the car Detroit should have made and the car it actually
did. US automakers just didn't want to invest in new technology, tooling
or facilities. But, back to the main point, the Pinto, like the Corvair,
was put into production with a major safety flaw -- strictly to save a
few $. That was Detroit's dirty little secret that Nader exposed in his
book.
>>Iaccoca and his Detroit brethren have directly caused the deaths and
>>maiming of thousands in the cynical pursuit of profit. Nader and the
>>groups he helped start have directly saved thousands of lives by
>>exposing these issues. There are lots of Iaccocas and damn few Naders,
>>that's a shame.
>
>
> I don't think it's that simple. There's nothing the auto makers like
> more than someone telling them they have to add $1000 to the cost of a
> car, as long as everyone else does too. Higher price = more profit.
> The automobile has had a very evolutionary design - you can't really
> compare the current cars with those from the 60's and assume that they
> were built with the same knowledge base.
That's an interesting theory, but it doesn't agree with reality. Car
makers have always fought *all* safety improvements -- that was what
Nader's book was about -- not specifically the Corvair. It's still going
on today, where Detroit interests and their congressional stooges are
fighting a change to roof-crush standards.
<http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=174&did=902>
"At a March 18 hearing, House Energy and Commerce Committee questioned
the need to update rule 216. Leading the charge was U.S. Rep. John
Dingell, D-Dearborn, the Big Three’s most influential defender in Congress."
"Dingell said he may support a new regulation if a public-safety need
was demonstrated — and it would not add significant costs to vehicles."
I suppose that means that even if need was demonstrated, it shouldn't be
fixed if costs were "significant".
Detroit is conservative, and conservatives hate change (by definition)
-- I don't know why. Reason would say that if all car makers were held
to the same standards (which they are) then there would be no
competitive bias. But, as so many pointed out at the time, when emission
standards started coming online in the 70's, Japan hired engineers,
Detroit hired lawyers and lobbyists. They like to make the rules --
*all* the rules -- stupid, but true.
