
Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP' - the-dude
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/new-ttip-scandal-car-industry-buried-report-revealing-us-car-safety-flaws-10514716.html
======
petewailes
At the risk of sounding cynical and jaded, is anyone remotely surprised by
this? The EU has been pushing car encouraging manufacturers to work harder at
car safety for longer, and more effectively than the US has.

Seat belts? Volvo. Air bags? First made standard in Mercs and Porsches, at a
time when Ford and GM were lobbying against being made to include them. They
became optional and then standard between the mid to late 90's, while
legislation in the US made them a requirement in 98.

Shaped airbags? Citroen. Side impact airbags? Volvo. Curtain airbags? BMW.

The big difference though is the Euro NCAP ratings. It's near impossible to
get a good score on them with just airbags, so the car manufacturers are
forced to do more to score well, and it's become a solid marketing tool.

On the other hand, FMVSS 208 (the American testing standard) are designed to
require an airbag to be able to stop an adult male not wearing a seatbelt, so
fire far too hard, causing a lot of issues. Whilst they'll stop you dying,
they'll cause huge trauma and other issues in doing so.

EU car safety technology regulation and manufacturer incentivisation is just a
long way ahead, and has been for nearly two decades. So it's not surprising
when something like this comes out.

[edit to include important side note]

Never wear anything flammable with sleeves while driving. Airbags are small
explosions and can set flammable clothing on fire, causing severe burns &|
death. If you need to be warmer, turn on the heater.

Also, never put your thumbs near the centre of the steering wheel. You don't
want to be trying to get out of a car after an accident with broken thumbs,
which is what you get when the airbag deploys.

~~~
alkonaut
> designed to require an airbag to be able to stop an adult male not wearing a
> seatbelt,

What? To me it seems obivous that the right thing to do is have the seatbelt
be part of the switch for the airbag -- no seatbelt, no detonation!

~~~
WalterBright
I'd rather have racing-style belts and no air bag. Racing style go over both
shoulders, are wider, and are fixed length.

There are some horrific crashes in auto racing and the drivers walk away. That
convinces me.

~~~
mootothemax
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)

~~~
WalterBright
I'm looking at the kind of accidents where an airbag is supposed to be
effective. An airbag will do nothing for you if the car is burning.

The first and foremost safety device in a race car is the racing belt. The
belt means you slow down with the car, which is much less deceleration than if
your body hits the dashboard. (The point of crumple zones in the car is to
reduced peak deceleration. In order for that to work, you gotta be strapped
in.)

~~~
snowwrestler
An airbag allows the driver's head to experience even lower deceleration than
the car, because it gives the head an extra 1-2 feet in which to decelerate--
the distance between the upright position and smashed into the deployed
airbag.

When wearing a 5-point harness without a helmet and head restraint, the
deceleration delta between the car and the head will be entirely borne by the
structure of the neck, which is how Dale Earnhardt died.

------
junto
I wouldn't be surprised if we see lots of things like this come out over the
next months.

VW has got seriously burned, but I highly doubt that they are the only ones
fiddling the playing field.

More than likely, different manufacturer's (especially the big ones with lots
of money) can afford to take their competitor's cars to pieces and look for
areas where their competitors are cheating. They take them apart to gather
engineering knowledge from competitors already.

Then they leak that information. Why?

Because if you are the only one to step in your own dog shit, then you stink
and look stupid. If you make everyone step in their own dog shit, then
everyone collectively stinks. If you can't avoid the smell, you learn to
accept it. Somewhat like living in London in the 1600's.

------
Maarten88
So the report was published normally, and this "burying" consists of lobyists
not talking about it much? And therefore the press not writing about it much?

Press and politics seem to be depending on lobyists to determine the agenda,
and even do their work sometimes, which I think is a problem that has gotten
out of hand, and not only in the car industry.

~~~
7952
It is also a lack of civic society. There are not enough mainstream
organisations fighting these issues.

~~~
jessaustin
At this address you will find _six pages_ of links to such organizations:
[https://www.aaafoundation.org/useful-
links](https://www.aaafoundation.org/useful-links)

------
nomercy400
The worrying part here isn't that the cars are not safe, or that TTIP will
allow certified cars from the US be sold in EU, but that the industry tries to
hide it.

And that there is apparently a gap between certification in the US and
certification in the EU.

~~~
the-dude
I think the timing is very interesting with regard to dieselgate.

~~~
masklinn
Yes it's really fun all around, with EU manufacturers trying to bypass/fudge
more stringent US emission regulations and US manufacturers trying to
bypass/fudge more stringent EU safety regulations.

~~~
rplst8
I'd take more stringent safety standards over ridiculous emissions standards
any day. Though, you could argue stricter safety standards fly in the face of
emissions standards. More weight in the car, plus if the occupant survives,
their carbon footprint is still there.

~~~
happyscrappy
The cheating EU cars are emitting 40x the pollution which is why air quality
in Europe sucks.

~~~
adventured
At least in some places it certainly does:

[http://www.france24.com/en/20150320-paris-city-smog-
pollutio...](http://www.france24.com/en/20150320-paris-city-smog-pollution-
plume-labs-hidalgo-public-transport-diesel)

------
Theodores
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.

------
mzs
The actual report (pdf) which is much better than this wordy article that only
lists one data-point:

[http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/11297...](http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/112977/103199.pdf)

This study examined the hypotheses that vehicles meeting EU safety standards
perform similarly to US regulated vehicles in the US driving environment, and
vice versa. The analyses used three statistical approaches to “triangulate”
evidence regarding differences in crash and injury risk. Separate analyses
assessed crash avoidance technologies, including headlamps and mirrors. The
results suggest that when controlling for differences in environment and
exposure, vehicles meeting EU standards offer reduced risk of serious injury
in frontal/side crashes and have driver-side mirrors that reduce risk in lane-
change crashes better, while vehicles meeting US standards provide a lower
risk of injury in rollovers and have headlamps that make pedestrians more
conspicuous.

------
JohnyLy
This is outrageous but not surprising at all. In my opinion, more than a car
safety issue, this is a money-making issue. EU pushes car manufacturers to
build safer cars but this has a high cost. European customers respond well to
marketing campaigns promoting safety. Therefore, those extra safety costs have
a good return on investment. In the US, car safety is not considered as
important as in EU because companies don't think there will be a good ROI.
Because car manufacturers don't believe is viable enough, they tried to hide
this report.

------
bencoder
The most interesting part of this for me is that there is a difference at all.
The difference is not explained in the article.

I've never lived in the US; what is the difference between EU and US cars in
this respect?

Edit for clarity: What I meant, is /why/ is there such a difference in safety?
What physical differences between the cars cause that?

~~~
adaml_623
Please read the article again:

"passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side
collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a
typical US model."

Less deaths and injuries if cars meet EU standards

~~~
bencoder
I read that, I saw the difference. Sorry I wasn't clear in my original post.

I meant: what causes the difference? Why is there such a big difference?

~~~
adaml_623
Sorry. That's a way harder question :-)

I guess it's all a trade off of material/weight vs performance. If you make a
more rigid passenger compartment then it might weigh more and your car might
be slower. Or maybe you have to spend more on a stronger type of steel that is
more expensive. Or you have to make something more complicated to be safer.

So on average maybe the US cars come down on the lighter/cheaper/faster side
of the curve. Obviously the trade offs are incredibly complicated.

~~~
pjc50
The US fleet tends to be heavier on average, surely? More SUVs/light trucks,
larger vehicles in general.

~~~
jessaustin
Crash survival depends on the dissipation of kinetic energy into the
structures of the vehicle rather than the structures of the human body. Even
in well-designed vehicles, more kinetic energy means more danger.

------
alkonaut
I don't understand the issue here, cars sold in Europe already include many US
cars obviously, and cars that sell in Europe are usually safety tested, for
example by Euro NCAP. Here is a US car available in Europe, that has an
excellent five star safety score in NCAP
[http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/jeep/cherokee/8871](http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/jeep/cherokee/8871)

Now if "research actually established that American models are much less safe
when it comes to front-side collisions" then those differences presumably
apply to US models that aren't currently sold in Europe, and thus have never
been tested here. If a model eventually will be sold in Europe (in any
numbers) it will presumably be tested in Europe too, and those safety
differences would show up in the tests?

It doesn't worry me that some new car is approved for sale while not being
safe, I wouldn't buy it until I see five Euro NCAP stars, and that I think
goes for most European consumers. Relaxing the approval wouldn't change the
testing! If US manufacturers want to sell cars in Europe they will have to not
meet regulations but satisfy NCAP.

(That said: cars like the new mustang might never be tested in NCAP, nor will
it have to to compete with European performance cars which often aren't tested
either, or score poorly. Performance car buyers don't seem very safety
concerned so crashing expensive cars that sell in small numbers doesn't seem
worthwhile).

~~~
Theodores
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Steyr)

~~~
alkonaut
Yes. But it's probably not because they are _manufactured_ here that it gets 5
stars in NCAP. Surely it's because they know that if they want to actually
_sell_ any Jeeps, they better have 5 stars?

The same would be true for an american 2016 SUV that isn't available in Europe
today, if they want to launch it in Europe.

I believe the US manufacturer would either change it to achieve 5 stars, or
make an EU model that gets 5 stars, or just not sell it in the EU. And that is
regardless of whether the _regulations_ are relaxed so that it could be sold
as-is in Europe!

------
sixQuarks
Another reason why Tesla is so far ahead of the game. Elon Musk had the
engineers design the vehicle to be as safe as possible, period.

They didn't design the safety of the car with the crash tests in mind. They
passed all the crash tests with flying colors as a side-effect of actually
designing for safety.

~~~
WalterBright
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.

~~~
bruceboughton
> 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.

Interesting. Why do you think it is that twin engines are statistically safer?
I thought redundancy was a normal part of the safety toolkit for planes.

~~~
rplst8
I think it's even true for single vs. twin engine planes. A lot of it has to
do with - are the systems redundant, or are they both needed to properly fly
the plane. Also whether the probability adds up in a serial or parallel
fashion. I know a friend that pilots a single engine Cessna. Obviously one
engine, but it also has no electronic ignition and four magnetos.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_magneto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_magneto)
The engine operates without the use of a battery because of this. I think the
Cessna has a battery for auxiliary systems, but by removing the battery, spark
module, and electronic timing/distributor from the critical path of engine
operation, the chances of failure are lower. The four magnetos are for the
four cylinders in the engine, but any one magneto can run the entire engine.
In this case, the four items are redundant.

I think the first twin engine commercial airliner to be certified for over-
water flights was the 777. It can take off, fly 6000 miles, and land safely
with one engine and a full load.

~~~
Already__Taken
I'm interested in how these redundancies have accumulated over the life of
building aircraft. They're obviously for good reason. However the recent news
pieces comparing electric aircraft, I wonder if there's a lot of efficiencies
on the table for conventional aircraft if they could just drop in a modern
engine like you might find in a race car.

~~~
rplst8
That's a good point. Gasoline engines have come a long way since the days of
magneto operation, with variable timing, ignition, and direct injection (of
which some piston driven aircraft may already use). Turboprops and turbofans
(jets) are already very efficient compared to automotive piston engine
aircraft. A 747 for instance gets around 91 mpg/person while buses average
around 200 mpg/person - but, the drag forces on an aircraft are I think at
least an order of magnitude greater.

------
jbapple
Where can I read the actual report?

~~~
mzs
Here you go (pdf):
[http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/11297...](http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/112977/103199.pdf)

