For fear of sabotaging the corporate-friendly TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the U.S. and European Union, the car industry buried a report showing major discrepancies between the safety records of U.S. and EU vehicles, according to exclusive reporting in The Independent on Wednesday.
The safest car is no car at all - or barring that, one can cut the danger a car presents by 50% by driving it 50% less. 90% by driving 90 percent less... etc.
Sure, U.S. cars may be less safe, but after the agreement U.S. automakers could sue the EU to get them to reduce their safety standards and reporting because they reduce U.S. automakers' profits.
Global Trade Agreements: A great way to get around all those pesky safety regulations.
"Unsafe cars, leaded paint and asbestos insulation are cheaper to make. Either change your rules or pay up."
You might try responding to what Yunzer actually posted.
Since when have mere matters of life and death stopped trade agreements, corporate acquisitions, oil, gas and mineral explorations, etc? As has been pointed out the Europeans and the Japanese build safer cars, period. But, on the other hand, they intentionally pollute more. Pick your poison on this one, eh. And, you thought all those old Volvo ads about safety roll cages were just semi-subliminal advertising for the chase scenes in spy movies?
Pipe dream much? The mileage driven per year is actually increasing. Since 2008, I believe, when people who actually got/retained jobs had to drive longer to keep them. Decreasing that # would mean investing in lots of things that don't return as much on each dollar invested. And, we couldn't have that, could we?
Just trying to explain the way odds work. If you buy two loto tickets it doesn't double your chances of winning the loto. It just give you two tickets, each with a million to one chance.
Purchasing two tickets gives you a two-in-a million chance.
Purchasing a million tickets out of a million guarantees you'll win.
So, if there's a one in a thousand chance you'll get into an accident each time you drive, the individual drive risk remains the same on each drive but the cumulative risk increases.
In a perfect world....
Problem is that the auto mfrs. along with the gas companies have historically decimated public transportation. The investment in public transportation is abysmal in many major urban centers across the nation. How would you expect people that live in rural areas get around when there is virtually no public transit? My son does not own a car and he lives in a large city where he uses the bus system and his bike but reliability has been a major problem causing him to be late to work or miss buses home after work leaving him stranded. A lot has to change (vastly improved public transportation nationwide) in order for the usage of automobiles to be dramatically reduced.
Well, I burn very little gasoline. I own a car, but it hasn't been started since a long trip 6 weeks ago. My brother and his partner do just fine without a car in Toronto. It is perfectly doable.
However, I really can't shed many crocodile tears over supposedly ""unsafe"" cars when merely walking somewhere in the many sidewalk-less, crosswalk-less suburban areas around me is far more dangerous due to the fucking cars. The car drivers don't get injured in the least when they strike a bicyclist or a pedestrian.
By the logic of these car-safety crusaders, shouldn't we be outlawing walking, bicycles and motorscooters/motorcycles first if we are really concerned about safety?
And sorry to say, but public transit is only going to improve if ridership improves on the existing service. People who drive cars saying they won't use public transit until service improves is a total cop-out. You make the conscious CHOICE to live and work where you CAN use public transit - and by "public transit" I mean a bus, not the stupendously expensive "light rail" that bourgeois white poeple like. In my city, the car-drivers complain about the poor service, but 10 years ago the service was much better, and they still didnt use it.
A little anecdote:
On September 12, 2001, a bunch of activists including my brother Steve people gathered at the Thomas Merton Center on Penn Avenue, on the 86B bus line - which back then ran every 12 minutes. They decided to hold a protest on the theme of "our grief is not a cry for war" at the Federal Building, which the 86B goes right past. The activists led by the semi-famous Ms. Molly Rush of King-of-Prussia ploughshares fame said, OK, lets get in our cars and drive down there (apparently riding the bus is "beneath" them). Steve replied that he would be getting on the bus (average wait time - 6 minutes) and seeing them down there. Someone said; why are you doing that - I'll give you a ride. Steve's response was "Do you not have ANY understanding of what happened yesterday???!!!" His point was that (totally setting aside its effects on the global environment and communities), the automobile - or specifically the filthy toxic liquid it depends - on is THE source of virtually all human strife and brutishness on the earth today - including the violence of the previous day.
Bull-Fighting and Logging are even more dangerous, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand either:
The subject at hand is this: Wall Street Car Companies are trying to subvert expensive safety design features since they don't care if we get killed in their lust for profits.
European and Japanese cars are far safer since they incorporate expensive safety features like crush-able fenders which slowly absorb energy and cause a more gradual deceleration in a crash than dangerous American designs which break your phucking neck off.
Why is this important? Because according to DOT data, Americans have a one in two chance of being involved in a fatal accident sometime in their lives. Think about that for a minute. A Fifty-Fifty chance! Bad odds like that are never allowed in Aviation, which is partly why it is over 100 times safer on a death/seat-miles basis, than driving your car down the road on the same A to B points.
If we are going to subscribe to your absurd suggestion to "outlaw walking and bicycles and motorscooters/motorcycles first, if we are really concerned about safety", then we MUST outlaw all nuke plants since they all leak dangerous ionizing radiation, and Cancer is now the number two killer for Americans.
On second thought, I like your ideas.
Let's outlaw nuke plants, the private auto, McDonalds, MonSATAN agent-orange Roundup, etc, etc, etc....
But in the meantime, I'll never buy another American car: They are unreliable and dangerous. A little Ralph Nader common sense for this insane private-auto industry who owns this insane government would go a long way here.
There are about 36,000 fatal car accidents in the USA per year 36/300 million is .00012 or 1/8333, so an average USAn one would have to live 8333 years to have a reasonable certainty of dying in a car crash.
Nuclear plants do not "leak ionizing radiation" - a coal burning power plant or the soil subgrade under a typical US house, emits much more radionuclides (primarily radium and radon). The number of cancer cases attributable to nuclear power generation is too small to detect in cancer statistics. The cancer rates in the counties around the TMI plant in E-central Pennsylvania are among the lowest in the state. I know that I am talking to a wall here, but the truth must be heard.
This obsession of USAns with absolute safety and security has got to go - we have a lot of work to do to overthrow the vile system, and it is not going to happen without taking some risks with our lives.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I think you might be all screwed up here with your Math and understanding of accident statistics. The statistic I quoted said nothing about a "certainty of dying." What I said was "Being Involved in a Fatal Accident" where someone in the pileup is killed. Many survive but can never walk again, or have terrible disabilities.
But just for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct and only 36,000 Americans are killed in autos every year. Since life expectancy is say 85 years on average that's 3,060,000 Americans killed as a measure of your exposure to death in a lifetime. (So 3,060,000deaths/300,000,000 people = .0102 percent chance of death). But for every one killed, a much larger number are injured or walk away in many pileups.
(P.S. I think your nuke denial is complete balderdash as well. The NRC
published leak limits for nuke plants. If they are exceeded, a 1000 ft
emissions tower is built, such as happened at Fukushima prior to the
explosions, to allow the workers on the ground not to max out in a few
months. Studies by Dr. Wing, a radiation expert confirm that cancer is
400 times greater downwind of the Three Mile Island Accident.)
Yes. How long till truth is illegal because it might impact profits? The reality is inplace - it merely needs putting on the statute book.
The supremacy of profits is capitalism's Achilles heel.
TPP has been brought about by Corporations putting tons of money in lawmakers campaign chest...We dont really need TTP but they claim we do yet they have not explained why we do..When we can plainly see we dont....It puts money in the pockets of billionaires they put money in politicians pockets we get the economic shit end of the stick..and they tell us trust us it is for your own good....Can we ever believe a politician when he opens mouth....NO!
So American exceptionalism IS defined as the best congress money can buy ?
Sorry to burst your bubble, Yunzer, but while the idea of taking public transportation or walking/bicycling, etc., to one's destination is a noble idea, many people don't live near good public transportation, or within walking/bicycling distance to work or wherever, plus there are times when a car really is necessary to have.
The fact that even a lot of the crappiest cars that're made here in the United States are safer than they used to be, however, is because Ralph Nader made it possible. If you own a DVD player and can possibly get hold of it, I recommend renting the documentary film "Unreasonable Man", a documentary movie by Ralph Nader. It gives lots of insight and is an excellent eye-opener of a documentary film, to boot.