Trump claims driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

[DrLove]

Obama done it so it MUST be undone. I'm afraid Dotard has gone full Retard.

<snips>

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.​

US says driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lighter cars have a higher death rate.
Obama's 54.5 MPG wish was beyond moronic.

 

[depotoo]

Lighter cars have a higher death rate.
Obama's 54.5 MPG wish was beyond moronic.

Lighter and smaller cars

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Trump runs his mouth about a lot of random shit. The bottom line is we don't need government fuel standards. All they do is raise the cost of living and make it harder for lower income individuals to afford a car. The marketplace will drive people to more fuel efficient vehicles and already has started doing so.

 

[depotoo]

New study reveals 10 cars most likely to kill you
Small cars 'death traps'

 

[Cellblock2429]

Obama done it so it MUST be undone. I'm afraid Dotard has gone full Retard.

<snips>

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.​

US says driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

/----/ So have a head on collision with a 2018 Caddy that gets 25 mpg with a 1959 Caddy that gets 7 mpg. See which one survives. Which one would you want to be riding in?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obama done it so it MUST be undone. I'm afraid Dotard has gone full Retard.

<snips>

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.​

US says driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

Yup President Trump cares about the environment ( higher gas prices) and saving life's ( people drive less, lower the odds)



But seriously I would rather be in a car today going up against a 60s tank any day, these cars are getting engineered way to good with safety in mind.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obama done it so it MUST be undone. I'm afraid Dotard has gone full Retard.

<snips>

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.​

US says driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

/----/ So have a head on collision with a 2018 Caddy that gets 25 mpg with a 1959 Caddy that gets 7 mpg. See which one survives. Which one would you want to be riding in?
View attachment 208097View attachment 208098

Car number two, educate yourself.



.

 

[depotoo]

From the article-

Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, “I think we need to go where the technology takes us” on fuel standards.

Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.

Wheeler also spoke out for what he called “a 50-state solution” that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.

The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn’t capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.

The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done “in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects,” the draft stated.

 

[Defiant1]

Obama done it so it MUST be undone. I'm afraid Dotard has gone full Retard.

<snips>

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.​

US says driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

/----/ So have a head on collision with a 2018 Caddy that gets 25 mpg with a 1959 Caddy that gets 7 mpg. See which one survives. Which one would you want to be riding in?
View attachment 208097View attachment 208098

Give me that 59 Caddy any day of the week.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama done it so it MUST be undone. I'm afraid Dotard has gone full Retard.

<snips>

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.​

US says driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

Yup President Trump cares about the environment ( higher gas prices) and saving life's ( people drive less, lower the odds)



But seriously I would rather be in a car today going up against a 60s tank any day, these cars are getting engineered way to good with safety in mind.

.

But seriously I would rather be in a car today going up against a 60s tank any day, these cars are getting engineered way to good with safety in mind.

What about a car today versus a car tomorrow that has to weigh 200 pounds less?
Or one next week that has to weigh 300 pounds less?
Or one next month that has to weigh 400 pounds less?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Obama done it so it MUST be undone. I'm afraid Dotard has gone full Retard.

<snips>

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.​

US says driving would be riskier if fuel standards tougher

/----/ So have a head on collision with a 2018 Caddy that gets 25 mpg with a 1959 Caddy that gets 7 mpg. See which one survives. Which one would you want to be riding in?
View attachment 208097View attachment 208098

Car number two, educate yourself.



.

/----/ I remember those older cars were built like tanks. Today's cars are made of plastic. Sure you have seatbelts and airbags, but they were massive.
Sixth generation (1959–1960)
Sixth generation
Length 225.0 in
Width 1959: 80.2 in 1960: 79.9 in
Height 56.2 in
Curb weight 4,900–5,100 lb

 

[Crepitus]

New study reveals 10 cars most likely to kill you
Small cars 'death traps'

Looking at that list I have to wonder how much the driver has to do with it. They arent all small light cars. The Silverado pickup? The Camaro?

 

[DrLove]

Lighter cars have a higher death rate.
Obama's 54.5 MPG wish was beyond moronic.

Nonsense and besides - There is no truth to the rumor that you can't make larger cars more fuel efficient.
Hell, big truck manufacturers like Freightliner have been increasing efficiency and reducing emissions for the past dozen or so years -
Read the damn story and get back to me.

 

[DrLove]

Trump runs his mouth about a lot of random shit. The bottom line is we don't need government fuel standards. All they do is raise the cost of living and make it harder for lower income individuals to afford a car. The marketplace will drive people to more fuel efficient vehicles and already has started doing so.

Interesting that small cars are earning many if not most of the top safety ratings.

A few brands stood out in this latest batch of IIHS ratings. Toyota, Hyundai, and Subaru were some of the standout brands once the results were in. Toyota has the most models, 10, among the ranks of Top Safety Pick and Safety Pick+. Hyundai was next with nine vehicles represented, and every Subaru except the BRZ sports coupe earned an IIHS safety award.​

Only 15 Cars Earn 2018 IIHS Top Safety Pick+ Rating

I get it that you want government out of fuel standards, but how about safety requirements? Sheesh, Ralph Nader and many since have saved a lot of damn lives.

 

[DrLove]

New study reveals 10 cars most likely to kill you
Small cars 'death traps'

On second link, it's Australia and I've not even heard of Daihatsu - Fact is, out of the ten cars ranked highest in US safety, small cars take around 8 out of the top 10 spots.

The worst performers in accidents was the Hyundai Getz (2002-2003), with 14.24 serious injuries per 100 crashes, the Daihatsu Hi-Jet (1982-90), with 12.14 serious injuries per 100 crashes, and the Suzuki Alto (1985-2000), with 10.60. The Daihatsu Mira, a common sight on New Zealand roads, also performed poorly. Almost 10 of every 100 Mira drivers involved in a serious accident would suffer serious injury, according to the findings.

 

[Defiant1]

Trump runs his mouth about a lot of random shit. The bottom line is we don't need government fuel standards. All they do is raise the cost of living and make it harder for lower income individuals to afford a car. The marketplace will drive people to more fuel efficient vehicles and already has started doing so.

Interesting that small cars are earning many if not most of the top safety ratings.

A few brands stood out in this latest batch of IIHS ratings. Toyota, Hyundai, and Subaru were some of the standout brands once the results were in. Toyota has the most models, 10, among the ranks of Top Safety Pick and Safety Pick+. Hyundai was next with nine vehicles represented, and every Subaru except the BRZ sports coupe earned an IIHS safety award.​

Only 15 Cars Earn 2018 IIHS Top Safety Pick+ Rating

I get it that you want government out of fuel standards, but how about safety requirements? Sheesh, Ralph Nader and many since have saved a lot of damn lives.

I only buy American cars.

 

[DrLove]

/----/ So have a head on collision with a 2018 Caddy that gets 25 mpg with a 1959 Caddy that gets 7 mpg. See which one survives. Which one would you want to be riding in?
View attachment 208097View attachment 208098

The 2018 Caddy please. your 59 isn't even gonna be close in safety features. You gonna die

 

[DrLove]

Yup President Trump cares about the environment ( higher gas prices) and saving life's ( people drive less, lower the odds)

But seriously I would rather be in a car today going up against a 60s tank any day, these cars are getting engineered way to good with safety in mind.

You're first line Funny - Second agree. Mods, we need a Funny AND Agree button - Oh wait, never mind!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lighter cars have a higher death rate.
Obama's 54.5 MPG wish was beyond moronic.

Nonsense and besides - There is no truth to the rumor that you can't make larger cars more fuel efficient.
Hell, big truck manufacturers like Freightliner have been increasing efficiency and reducing emissions for the past dozen or so years -
Read the damn story and get back to me.

Nonsense and besides - There is no truth to the rumor that you can't make larger cars more fuel efficient.

Great. What was the secret to Obama's plan to basically double MPG without making vehicles lighter?