Norquist: ‘More People Will Die’ Because Bush Raised CAFE Standards
Norquist: ‘More People Will Die’ Because Bush Raised CAFE Standards
On the David Strom Show on March 22, Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist angrily attacked the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law in December by President Bush to slowly raise fuel economy standards to 35 MPG by 2020. Norquist alleged that these standards are killing 2,000 people each year:
The government itself has calculated that around 2000 people a year are killed because of those CAFÉ standards and our cheerful government has just voted to increase them, to make cars lighter, smaller. And more people will die. I mean 2,000 people a year die because the environmentalists think that you should be in a smaller car because it offends their sensitivities that you’re using gasoline.
Listen here:
Norquist seems to be referring to the 2002 National Academies report Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, which states, “[A]ll but two members of the committee concluded that the downweighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.” The report explains the reasoning:
Although many general indicators of motor vehicle travel safety improved during [the 1970s and early 1980s] (e.g., the fatality rate per vehicle mile traveled), the preponderance of evidence indicates that this downsizing of the vehicle fleet resulted in a hidden safety cost, namely, travel safety would have improved even more had vehicles not been downsized. . . When asked about the potential use of lighter material to allow weight reduction without safety-related size reductions, … industry representatives did not expect that they could avoid reducing vehicle size if substantial reductions in vehicle weight were made. . . The committee recognizes that automakers’ responses could be biased in this regard.
However, the blistering minority dissent in that very same report points out several fallacies in the reasoning and concludes:
The relationships between vehicle weight and safety are complex and not measurable with any reasonable degree of certainty at present. The relationship of fuel economy to safety is even more tenuous.
Evidently, Norquist is more concerned by hypothetically projected deaths in an alternate universe where Detroit adopts safety instruments like air bags and rollover standards without kicking and screaming, than he is by the very real casualties to our economy, our soldiers, our nation, and our planet caused by our addiction to fossil fuels.
The American people, regardless of party, overwhelmingly recognize that higher fuel standards spur technological innovation and improve our lives.
Transcript:
NORQUIST: But when they pass those CAFÉ standards, corporate average fuel economy standards, which mandate that cars all get an average of 20 or 30 miles to the gallon. Which means less metal in your car, more plastic in your car and higher death tolls when people run into trees. The government itself has calculated that around 2000 people a year are killed because of those CAFÉ standards and our cheerful government has just voted to increase them. To make cars lighter, smaller and more people will die. I mean 2000 people a year die because the environmentalists think that you should be in a smaller car because it offends their sensitivities that you’re using gasoline. If they don’t want to use gasoline, that’s fine, but they have the right to tell lower income people, you can’t afford a larger, safer car.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
6 Responses to “Norquist: ‘More People Will Die’ Because Bush Raised CAFE Standards”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
A crash is a complex situation involving both the passengers in the vehicles as well as the vehicles themselves.
In a collision between a large and a small vehicle the small vehicle will tend to take the brunt of the damage. The larger vehicle has more momentum to dissipate in the accident. However, looking at only this one scenario is misleading.
Several other aspects bear consideration.
First, larger vehicles are more susceptible to single vehicle accidents. Large trucks and SUVs have more momentum and that can lead to stability problems like we’ve seen in Ford Explorers. These vehicles are more prone to rolling and to damage from collisions with road side objects.
Second, the passengers within a larger vehicle may be in more danger than those in a smaller vehicle. The momentum of the crash may be transferred to the occupants of the vehicles. The occupants of the higher momentum vehicle will tend to be injured in greater proportion, particularly if they are not wearing seat belts or if airbags do not deploy properly.
Finally, although a collision between a larger vehicle and a smaller vehicle endangers those in the smaller vehicle, in collisions between like vehicles those in the smaller vehicles will tend to be safer. At the same speed, a collision between smaller vehicles must dissipate much less momentum than a similar collision between larger vehicles. A road which contains a greater proportion of smaller vehicles may be safer overall to the drivers of those vehicles, and even to the drivers of the larger vehicles.
Beyond momentum arguments, the safety features of cars have greatly improved since the seventies and the eighties. Modern cars have rigid passenger compartments surrounded by crumple zones, airbags often for the rear passengers as well as for the driver, as well as improved seat belts, anti-lock brakes, and traction control systems. I don’t think you can look at studies from the seventies and eighties and then deny all the advances which have happened since.
But then, I don’t think Grover Norquist is actually interested in having an honest debate about these issues. He’s interested in scaring people so his organization can raise more money.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:31 pmBy Grover’s logic, the government should be promoting the sale/use of Army tanks for everyday driving.
I remember the same argument back in the 70’s yes, I’m that old) when Japanese “econobox” vehicles started sharing the roads with hulking steel American cars that got 7mpg. If there was an uptick in automobile deaths, it must have been short-lived and minor as I have no recollection of it. “Safety standards” and “crumple zones” made vehicle accidents more survivable.
As people demanded more fuel-efficient cars, the average weight of vehicles on the road began to decline. It has only been the recent “SUV craze” that has loaded our highways with bulky gas guzzlers again. And just as it did in the 70’s, increased fuel efficiency will drive down the average weight and increased safety standards will decrease casualties.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pmI would like to add to others with a note about european cafe standards which have been in place much longer .. In addition to what fletc3her was speaking to regarding the size of the vehicles themselves… In Germany they have the autobahn and when they have crashes they don’t have to send out the meat wagon to pick up the dead .. they send the ambulance because they have lighter vehicles with all the bells and whistles for safety which by the way are of much higher standard than our own here in the states… woe the person who cannot see beyond their own nose eh Norquist you need to wake up and smell that you just shat yourself and your stink is more than passing… I liked what you had to fletc3her you were right on
March 25th, 2008 at 8:10 pmI forgot to mention — in 1993 there weren’t any hybrid vehicles on the road.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:52 pmThe fatality rate of crashes has most to do with cabin integrity and upper body restraints (shoulder harnesses and airbags). One need only look at the low fatality rates in F1 crashes to see the absurdity of Norquist’s remarks.
Smaller vehicles tend to be more nimble, thus increasing accident avoidance.
Fatalities per vehicle mile sounds scientific but congestion (vehicles per lane miles) is a major factor.
Re vehicle momentum: I’d think that the mass of driver and passenger is more pertinent than vehicle mass except in high/low mass collisions.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:19 amPretending Norquist’s rant actually made sense, if we make all vehicles lighter, then when lighter vehicles hit other lighter vehicles… everybody is even less hurt than now. This is supposing that the problem is the old big honking 6 ton Hummer hitting the new “weaker” lighter Toyota Prius. It’s amazing how easy it is to defeat them using their own twisted logic.
WE NEED A VEHICLE WEIGHT TAX for excessively heavy vehicles (possibly excluding freight since truck drivers get screwed so hard these days anyway). The extra wear on the roads is reason enough to massively tax >2 ton vehicles.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm