Progress
Previous post: Assorted links
Next post: Robert Pozen on Lehman Brothers
Our Books
Modern Principles of Economics
Launching The Innovation Renaissance
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will(Eventually) Feel Better
Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World
Discover Your Inner Economist
Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding
Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial
Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures
Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime
What Price Fame?
In Praise of Commercial Culture
Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science
Contact Us
Real progress would be shown by crashing two cars from 1959 and two from 2009 and comparing the results. The goal is to protect everyone, not just the people in one car.
No, absolutely–because of course if the ’59 model had hit something like a tree, lamp post, brick wall or highway divider, the driver would have been fine.
The fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror of the Bel-Air is a nice touch.
There has been huge progress even since the late 1980′s early 1990′s. See a big 92′ Volvo 940 wagon vs. a brand new little Renault Modus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
The little Renault tears the Volvo apart.
There have been claims that the 1959 Chevy used in the test had severe body rust, which weakened its frame and caused the crash damage to be much worse than it would have been without the rust.
Peter where can these claims be found?
So how do you guarantee that your car will be hit by a car of the same size? we arent going for ‘fair’ whatever that is we are going for realistism. they should be tested against the worst case car currently on the road. A Suburban is big and still fairly common.
It is a good point. But in this case you can tell from the video that the car just crumples better and protects the passenger compartment. Two Malibus would look very similar to the one.
See, I’m an engineer. If I were an economist I’d be thanking The Fed for giving us such great purchasing power improvements.
There is definitely progress in car safety. Where there isn’t progress is in YouTube comments. They have been of ridiculously low quality for every video ever posted. Strangely, for this particular post, quite a few of the comments more resemble YouTube comments than MR comments. My theory is that this YouTube thing is contagious. It’s not the best theory, but I challenge everyone to come up with a better one.
The videos are biased. Most are shot from an angle that gives a full view of the damage to the ’59 and a limited view of the damage to the ’09. The one “run” that I find particularly informative is the overhead shot. You see them approach, approach, approach–then switch to a side view. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? (Couldn’t resist.)
This video is a propaganda video for the agency which produced it. It should be viewed with all of the skepticism of any other piece of propaganda.
I don’t doubt at all that our cars have improved their safety in no small part due to the work of this agency. I do doubt strongly that they are honest players in evaluation the true value of their own work.
Diversity — the theory that making cars safer causes drivers to drive more recklessly is contradicted by the data.
From 1960 to 1990, for example seat belt use rose from about 1%-2% to over 90%. According to your theory this should have lead to a massive increase in the accident rate. But over this period the accident rate steadily declined in almost every year. The correlation between the accident rate and seat belt use is exactly the opposite of what your theory calls for.
There is actually a counter theory that the act of buckling up makes drivers more aware of the dangers of driving and causes them to drive more carefully. The data actually strongly supports this theory.
“There have been claims that the 1959 Chevy used in the test had severe body rust, which weakened its frame and caused the crash damage to be much worse than it would have been without the rust.”
I’ve only seen one guy (named Rusty, go figure) make this claim, and the claim itself has been discounted by the producers of the video and by people involved with the actual sale of the car. It’s Googleable.
It certainly demonstrates that automobiles are now safer, but at the same time, it shows that aesthetics have declined precipitously. Modern automobiles look better than most produced during the seventies, eighties and early to middle nineties, but still pale relative to most anything from the sixties or before. It’s almost as bad as architecture!
“people would drive much better if they did not have all these safety features to encapsulate them when they drive (and crash) like douchebags”
And yet the accident rate per mile driven is FAR lower today than in 1960.
Sure, part of that is due to improvements in road design, ABS, improved tires, yadda yadda yadda, but there is NO indication in the trend data that would indicate some drastic confounding behavioral reaction to improved safety devices.
Thank you for this! I was just looking for exactly this kind of thing, but actual statistics, the other day. Does anyone know where there are some good hard statistics on safety, durability (years of usability), etc for cars across the decades? I saw it once but have lost the source.
Also, if anyone has such data for other consumer products, I would love that too.
I think, the session of progress always should be on, it helps to us for doing well in all respect fields.
I can’t help but point out the fallacy behind this comment:
“This is real progress. We buy safer cars becuse we value our own ond our passengers safety; the suppliers have responded to a consumer preference.”
Auto safety (and even the inclusion of seat belts) a a consumer issue owes as much (or, probably, more) to the consumer advocacy movement of the 1960s and 1970s (Nader and others) than to the invisible hand.
No doubt, people now take safety into consideration when they buy a car, but it wasn’t really an issue — nor was it something consumers had any information on — until it was MADE a public issue and something to value in a vehicle by a concerted effort by activists.
In the late-1960s, GM and other anti-Nader people, for example, made arguments that were remarkably similar to the ones made by free-marketeers today. If people want to buy an exploding car, or one without seat belts, they said, why shouldn’t the market allow them to do so? Things like safety features would drive up costs, they said.
Rather than the triumph of the free market, any increases in auto safety that we’ve seen over the past 40 years should be attributed to the type of government regulation and activist meddling that today’s libertarians claim to abhor.
As a media type and with a passion for all beautiful things manmade or otherwise e.g.(Ferrari’s, Maserati’s & Elle McPherson), I cannot see for the life of me why the council refuses not to demolish this eyesore. Historical significance for trams the minority groups say, well go down to the tempe bus museum and tram shed on the princes highway and look at them there and while your at it think of your mother in law.
Think about it — if you run directly into a wall but the impact is cushioned by an inflated pillow, would it matter if the pillow was attached to you before the impact? Or to the wall?
men would love us; God made us foolish so we would marry them.”
However ,What is the appropriate incentive to reduce losses to non-car road users?
It’s pretty good.
Still amazed by the depth of “comments”…the investment boggles the mind….all I have to offer is that the width of a chariots wheels can still be seen in modern railroad track width.
Comments on this entry are closed.