Poll: should North America exempt Euro small cars from crash standards to sell here?
 

Tougher North American crash standards are one of the most often quoted reasons why North American's don't have the same range of small cars offered overseas.

Would you accept a reduction/exemption in bumper & crash standards for small vehicles so more of these could be available here?

Note that this isn't a question of "opening the floodgates" for imported brands; both Ford & GM make desirable, efficient B segment vehicles for Europe and elsewhere which they can't legally sell in North America.

They're still FAAAR safer than a motorcycle. As long as the future customers know they have not passed crash tests, they should be able to purchase them. I'd be afraid of insurance costs on them though,

Are US standards really tougher or (like headlight standards) merely different?

Automaker BS
 

I believe that most of the smaller cars from europe and japan would meet the US standards. In fact, Renault makes a point that their new cars all have a 5 star rating in the european test, even the relatively small sized Clio. The Smart car is the same, it passes the european test well.

I don't think the automakers want to spend the cash to do the testing for sale in the US, on a small car that they will make very little money. Plus there is all the other requirements for sale in the US.

Unless the car was designed from the beginning for sale in the US, the cost of conversion is high. For comparison the current converted to US standard Smart car is selling for 26k in the states, a bit higher than even the Canadian price, the mid teens.

I honestly think it's a non-issue.

I can legally drive my 1971 Honda n600 on the road despite the fact that it is no safer than a go-kart.

Likewise I can drive my wife's 1987 CRX on the road.

It is my personal opinion that North American safety standards were encouraged by the oil lobby in order to ensure that smaller cars won't be here in the US, and that people drive SUVs instead of Metros.

I say relax the standards a bit.

You hit the nail on the head here. When I was buying my Honda Fit, the salesperson said that this was a big issue. No one wanted to sell them because they made no money on them. Honda wouldn't even let them raise the price.

On the other hand, sell an SUV for $35k and the dealership makes $10k in profit. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which vehicle is preferred to sell.

Until recently, American cars used to have stricter bumper standards than Euro vehicles. (Just compare a photo of a Euro vs. NA spec car to see this difference). The Canadian standard is tougher than the current US one.

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/proble...per/Index.html

I agree, I think big oil along with US auto makers are keeping us from getting more small cars. More profit for both with big vehicles.

MetroMPG -

I am going to vote no because I think it is more complicated than the safety standard. I think that part of what is going on is a self-fulfilling prophecy because of the overall "makeup" of the US car market. In an environment like Japan, the odds of a big car hitting a little car are less than here. I would say that the same is true in the "medieval" topology of European cities that have meandering narrow streets. In the USA, I think that the overall makeup of big heavy cars necesitate better crash standards.

However, if we had policies that promoted smaller car ownership, aka tax incentives for gas misers and tax penalties for gas guzzlers, then I could see relaxing the safety standards because I could see our cars getting smaller over time.

I hate the oil lobby, so the increased safety for oil profits is an interesting angle. Hmmmm. The oil lobby wants safety standards that promote larger cars. But the auto lobby always drags its feet on any safety standard upgrade (seat belts, air bags, la la la), because a higher standard means a higher UMC (Unit Manufacturing Cost) for them. But, in the case of crash tests, maybe this is ok because they can play the "fake safety" angle of SUVs?

In terms of profit margins, this is always true of "entry level" products like compact cars. The goal is to "get you hooked" so that you buy the "next level up" of their car. Entry level cars can only be profitable when sold in volume.

Segway : You should see all the letters I get from the Saturn dealership telling me that they want to trade in my "super valuable" small car for resale. What a crock! I love the aesthetic of my little SW2, but I don't for a hot-second think that anyone envies me. I am probably the worst kind of customer for them because I don't want to "move up" to a family sedan or any kind of bread and butter car for them. When I go into "new car mode", I am always looking at cars $20K and below, which is cheap these days.

Nitpick : What about emissions?

I will need to do more homework on this. I just don't know what the auto crash/death rates are in Europe and Japan.

CarloSW2

This is a gas guzzler tax on the worst of cars/trucks.

If cars can get higher FE AND met US safety standards, more folks will buy them. Instead they'll shy away from them, especially seeing how ignoranuses in SUVs drive.

I've heard from a number of sources that to pass a new vehicle to sell it in the USA, that it tends to cost $1,000,000 or more, just for all the testing, this would explane why relabling vehicles is so cheap, they already passed all the tests.
when looking at how safe a vehicle is, you have to look at how many people it's going to kill over all, not just passengers, this is part of why I don't have motorcycle insurance, the visability on a motorcycle is great, and if I hit someone else they will be fine, so all of the losses are mine.

Before I vote
 

Before I vote, there are several factors at play that I can think of (with the exception of oil lobby, car makers not wanting to spend the money, etc.) that may require additional discussion. Personally, I would love to be able to import a Ford Ka, but would the American public be better-off in crashworthiness vs. economy?

The question isn't why, it's should these vehicles be imported...

North America Compared to Europe:

• We have more major highways a with multi-lane, controlled-access design at higher speeds
• With the exception of Sweden, we have safer guardrails, more break-away posts (light, sign, signal), and prevalent use of the "K-Rail"
• Insurance plays a huge role in 5-MPH bumpers and the damage incurred at that speed (the IIHS has a large presence). If significant damage occurs in a < 5 mph test, would affording the insurance on these imported vehicles be a factor?
• Pedestrian impact design safety is very important in Europe -- here we have more open-spaces, but also have major cities with high pesdestrian densities similar to Europe. The U.S. Gov't. hasn't mandated any changes with this regard, but will they or Transport Canada impose them soon?
• The American public looks at a Mini and asks, "How safe is it?" Informed consumers check crash test results and find it's safer than an F-150 (vast minority understand this). Would they do the same for the new imports and would the media have a field day with scaring people like they love to do?
• When up against the barrage of SUVs here, the occupant needs all they can get: curtain airbags, crumple zones, a safety cage, ABS, stability control, etc. Are these requirements going to be relaxed in this exercise (even though much of this isn't required -yet-)? Should all of this be rolled back for FE/emissions?
• When seatbelts were mandated (and since), they have been controversial, are often considered an intrusion on individual rights, and aren't automatic. We know from study after study that they save lives in even the smallest crashes and most states have required their usage. If an inferior design (from a safety standpoint) is imported, does that seem like we're giving up on a lot of progress?

RH77

One thing this conversation has me thinking: I'm convinced that if motorcycles were a recent invention, there's no way in hell they'd ever be permitted on North American roads.

Actually the Smart Car is selling for far below 24k. Its starting somewhere near 11.-14k and maxing with all options near 20-22k. I could see 26k but that would be with either AMG or Brabus models(if AMG touched it and Brabus wasnt a British company.) My sources come from the website

Yah, this poll needs more options, like should should hummers or other oversized vehicles be banned, or their drivers charged with more serious crimes if they get in an accident and someone dies (you knew it would do more damange in an accident, and accidents happen, therefore it is akin to firing bullets in the air, i.e. automatic manslaughter at a minimum).

The premise of this poll is all wrong, as others have said.

The only reason that European cars (large AND small) that are not presently sold in the USA don't meet US crash standards is that the US standards require that an UNBELTED occupant be accommodated.

This accommodation takes the form of padding objects that a belted occupant would never hit, making so-called "passive knee restraints/bolsters" on dashboards, to ensure that the unbelted occupant in the front has their hips shattered in a bad collision as the bolster drives their thigh bones into the hips at high speed.

For example, G&K Automotive in LA has certified the present Model 450 smart car for sale in the USA. What they had to do in order to achieve this was pad all parts of the interior with foam, including the inside of the glass roof (!!), and reinforce the aluminium door frames against side intrusion (the smart was designed before side impact tests were mandatory). The basic body structure of the smart car was easily able to meet US standards, with no modification.

The version of the smart car sold in Canada also has reinforced door frames but none of the nonsensical padding for unbelted occupants.

Transport Canada said that the smart car was the ONLY vehicle - bar none - that has ever passed the (optional) rear impact test. This remains true over two years later.....

So yeah, European cars - small and large - are as safe as they need to be.

SMART Safety
 

I think the SMART was really engineered with safety in mind, and is probably the outlier in the import discussion.

We need to take a look at a list of vehicles, why they would/wouldn't pass, and take a look at it that way. Is the Citroen C1 safe? Ford Ka, Fiesta? Opel Astra (could easily be sold as a Chevy).

RH77

Check those cars out on EuroNCAP.com; they're all four star cars. EuroNCAP is tougher than US test standards.

Ever since I realized the potential of EVs (back in the early '70s), I've been saying the same thing about ICE vehicles.

Imagine if Henry Ford had chosen electric instead of oil (and others followed with EVs), if motors, controllers, batteries (or other power sources) were ~100 odd years more mature, and EVs were as common as ICE cars today, there wouldn't be the gasoline infrastructure. What if someone proposed that we start using reciprocating internal combustion of petroleum distillates. What would the common wisdom say today? It's nearly imponderable.

I DEFINETLY agree!

That's really weird. I always thought that European cars were much safer than North American models.

Smart prices
 

I was quoting a price from the place selling Smarts in the Seattle area. They are all 24k+

Where did you see them for 14K? I may have to make a road trip!!

It makes a purchase more tempting!! Actually a Canadian diesel would be the best, eh Mr. T.

Mike -

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!? I totally didn't know that. Amazing.

There is DEFINITELY merit in relaxing that standard and enforcing the seat belt law even more. Local towns would love the extra income in traffic tickets too ;) . This thread was worth it for that nugget alone.

PS - I was raised without seat belts. I am more comfortable when I don't wear one, but I always do, because I'm not (that) nuts.

CarloSW2

RH77 -

Don't quote me on this, but I *think* the new Opel Astra that is coming to the USA as a Saturn has been pre-designed with USA crash standards in mind. This is because of the growing "Saturn-Opel" connection.

I want them to test a Fiat Punto :

https://home.earthlink.net/~cfg83/gas..._catalunya.jpg

CarloSW2

i think it's rather insane not to wear a seatbelt these days... no amount of padding is going to save to if you're propelled trough the front window...
if the police spots you without your belt over here it'll cost you 50? straight away... i don't know what some people are doing in their car but i really don't notice my seatbelt while driving

i live in europe, i can't compare the safety of vehicles of course... i suppose a car that's considdered mid sized here might be considdered small in the US, but other than that i think they're build to some very strict safety regulations.

i think it's just an excuse of car manifacturers to keep the markets sepparated...
over here they're all crying over propposed tighter emission standards.. saying they can't meet them because car's weight increased by all the imposed safety regulations...

porche even said they'd have to close down and it would lead to a massive loss of jobs if the standards where imposed... sounds like they're all still figuring out the shape of the wheel...

Thank you for letting us know how it is on the other side. It is good to know what the automakers are moaning about in Europe. I am a bit surprised that tighter emissions is the issue, I though that the current California standards are already tigher than the upcoming european standards.

I am not necessarily siding with the manufactures, but the resources required to meet politically driven emission and safety standards must be a pain, plus it takes away from figuring out how to improve the basic car, say how to the get weight out.

the european comission wants to restrict co&#178; emissions by 2012 to 120 grams co&#178;/ 100km.
now the standard is 162 g/100km however this proposition has been played down under gernan pressure to 130 grams. german carmakers mainly focus on luxury cars (bmw,audi,porche...). although they're also looking into hybrid technology now... additional reductions are to be achieved by mixing biodiesel with regular diesel fuel (already required in belgium, although i'm not sure if it's always practicly implemented due to the biodiesel industry not being up to full capacity yet).

politicians seem to recougnise theres a problem and action is needed but it seems things are moveing slowly and industry is constantly stepping on the breaks, even threathening with loss of jobs ... i should think researching improvements would create more work...

Heh, my car is rated at 90 g/km. Good thing Mercedes did not sell or shut down smart, or they'd be neck deep in EU poo-poo ;)

i agree on this or at least fill out a permit on fullsize pickups and suv's(the large ones not the "crossover" things) so whoever owns it must prove they accualy need it for lets say a horse trailer, general farm use, have a large boat, camper, etc...

I much prefer "legal but costly" to "illegal". As in, let people drive SUVs and Hummers. But, raise the price of gas to, oh... $5 or more per gallon. So, I voted YES! As for people who drive monster vehicles because they feel safer, seems to me even if they're right (which isn't clear), they're selfish. Their safety is made greater at the expense of making everyone else's safety a little less.

So the reason a lot of these great little cars aren't available in the US is because they aren't safe enough for UNBELTED occupants?!! Well that matches with something I couldn't quite put my finger on about the appearances of the interiors on newer cars. And I could never understand why motorcycles are allowed but not these far safer vehicles. Maybe this could be turned from illegal to legal with a price. If you buy a model without interior padding and whatnot, you get to sign a disclaimer or some such saying that you understand the car has only passed the safety standards for belted occupants, and you release the manufacturer from all liability arising from any failure to wear a belt. Maybe have a little extra saying you will pay double whatever the fine is if you're caught without a seatbelt.

I've become used to strapping in. Now if I'm not belted in, it doesn't feel right. At least we dumped the automatic restraint nonsense-- you know, those shoulder belts that were attached to a motorized slide.

I must be dense or something.
The two possible answers to the question don't look like answers.

How about "yes" and "no"?

I don't have a helmet. I don't think the question has anything to do with motorcycles directly. I can't decide if this answer means "yes" or "no".

The reference to hood ornaments on Hummers - well, it's clever but it doesn't look like an answer to the question. I can't decide if this answer means "yes" or "no" either.

As for my answer to the question, I'm for safety. But you probably would figure that from a Volvo driver. I commute 58 mi. each way with traffic going 55-75 mph. I will not do that in a tin box. My vehicle has to at least meet minimum U.S. safety standards.

On the way back to my office from home today I drove by Viti dealership in Tiverton and saw a black Smart parked at the entrance to the lot . . . with the Tiverton Code Enforcement Officer parked right next to it and he was checking the Smart out. I didn't even know we had a code enforcement officer!

If I had my way, all small, unincorporated businesses would be exempt from the vast majority of regulations so that they would be able to compete. Many of these regulations were actually lobbied into place by the large auto industries in an attempt to drive out foreign competition. To mass produce a car and to be able to sell it in the U.S. today takes hundreds of millions of dollars. This is money that only the large industries have, thereby relegating the small businesses to hand-builts and kit cars. As a result, these same small businesses have not been able to produce an affordable EV that has long range and can perform like a normal car, even though all the technology is there. You need mass production to get the price down to an affordable level, but the current laws require you meet all sorts of expensive standards before you can even begin to mass produce. Don't have the cash? You're **** out of luck.

I like this idea, I am sure that would never fly in the states. It would be hard to track when the car is sold and to ensure the new owners are "aware" of the cars safety deviations before purchase, it would be a legal nightmare and I could see abuse by shady car dealers. As mentioned by others, older cars that do not meet the current standards are still allowed, and there is no waiver to sign, nobody is worried about them....

BeeUU -

Agreed. This would constitute a set of "safety tiers".

Ex post facto (link). It's reasonable that you can't penalize someone for something that used to be legal. Technically, the same is true for emissions too. Older cars (like mine) only have to meet older emissions standards.

I really really really really want to know what the crash test results would be with seat belts.

CarloSW2

Ahhhhh
 

I did not know that, thank you!!!

The real reason why very fuel-efficient cars aren't allowed isn't because of crash test ratings, it's because they'd make oil companies and people like George Bush less profitable.

...only 3 sure things in the world: death, taxes, and oil profits (and sometimes you can delay the first 2)