Let Market, Not Mandate, Raise Vehicles' Fuel Efficiency

News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:39 PM EDT

Article Source: The Detroit Free Press

business, oil, automobile, fuel-efficiency, cafe

In this op-ed, Mr. O'Keefe tries to correlate mandated fuel economy standards to an increase in traffic fatality.

In response to the 1973 oil embargo, Congress created the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandate, dictating that the average fuel economy of new cars double by 1985. Now, in response to high crude oil and gasoline prices, as well as national security concerns over oil imports, Congress is taking another look at CAFE and mandating further increases in vehicle mileage.

It has been extensively documented that the best way to increase mileage is weight reduction. CAFE led to the production of smaller, lighter cars that led to increases in highway fatalities -- perhaps 2,600 a year. CAFE led to an abundance of cars that get more than 30 m.p.g. -- but not an abundance of buyers for them.

Published to:

Jason Coleman's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

5.7

{"commentId":253466,"authorDomain":"super-structure"}

Jason Coleman

This sounds perfectly reasonable other than the fact that it isn't. Mr. O'Keefe wished that waving his hands in this fashion to show that because two numbers increased, then they must therefore be related, even though no other evidence corroborates this. He neglects that speed limits increased across the country during this time (faster speeds results in higher accident rates, or so I'm told by the highway patrol) as well as the fact that then total volume of vehicle traffic increased (note he doesn't mention anything about percentage of highway accidents over this time period).

He also attempts to paint the wows of Detroit on the fact that people just don't want lightweight cars that get good gas mileage and therefore auto manufacturers must sell them at a loss. This fails to explain the success of the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord, two of the highest selling cars in history, both of which get in excess of 30 mpg (and have, more or less, since those models started over 25 years ago). He mentions that Detroit has enough problems without having to deal with higher mileage requirements. Sadly, the biggest problem Detroit still has to deal with has always been it's problem: competition. Detroit can't sell it's cars to us because there are better options, ones which are safer, cheaper to drive, and are more attractive. Mr. O'Keefe should

{"commentId":253466,"threadId":"37261","contentId":"327280","authorDomain":"super-structure"}

2 votes

#1 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:47 PM EDT

{"commentId":254038,"authorDomain":"hodgie"}

K.Hodge

... should... what?

If you were going to say "take his head out of his ass" i'd whole heartly agree, I do take objection to the "faster driving means more accidents" attitude though, since it is clearly not true. Faster driving results in higher fatality to accident ratio maybe, but strictly faster speeds does not lead to more accidents. Case in point being the Autobahn.

The fact that the baby boomers were all starting to come into their own at this point and all started getting cars would definitely be a factor.

{"commentId":254038,"threadId":"37261","contentId":"327280","authorDomain":"hodgie"}

3 votes

#1.1 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:11 PM EDT

{"commentId":254056,"authorDomain":"super-structure"}

Jason Coleman

That's weird. I'm pretty sure that I finished that thought when I hit submit, but who knows. Most likely user error. Anyway, it should have been something to this effect: Mr. O'Keefe should stop trying to blame the government for things that Detroit has clearly failed at of it's own slothfulness.

However, yours was probably more to the point.

As for my statement about speeds correlating to accidents, I stand by it although I cannot find any good data with a cursory search at the moment. Your example of the Autobahn is a very good one, but it must be kept in mind that the portions of that highway with unlimited speed restrictions have been designed with high speeds in mind. As someone who studied highway design in my undergraduate, I can state that roadways must take into account the design speeds. Now, back in the US, we have a very high portion of the (rural) interstate system that was designed in the 50's and, as I recall, the highest design speed at the time was 65 mph (why our interstate curves aren't banked, or super-elevated, in the same way that the Autobahn's are). In the mid-90's, when the national speed limit was done away with, many states raised the speed limit up to 70 (or higher). This is not so far out of the design range, but it does present clear reason to expect an increase in both accidents and fatalities. However, as you say, the increase of fatal accidents would be expected to be more pronounced as higher velocities are even more deadly. Now, studies vary to be sure and I'm not wanting the speed limits to reduce, as some people still argue. I'll try and find some better numbers later.

Yeah, that whole baby-boomer/ gray hair driver thing has me a bit worried.

{"commentId":254056,"threadId":"37261","contentId":"327280","authorDomain":"super-structure"}

2 votes

#1.2 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":253846,"authorDomain":"joemama"}

Joemama

Just to echo a few of your points Jason, i wanted to add:

This has forced automakers to sell small, higher-mileage cars at a loss to meet their fleet mileage requirements and avoid large fines. Making cars that people don't want and then selling them at a loss distorts business decisions and wastes resources.

1st I want to say that if you try to sell me a 5lb bag of crap then are forced to sell me a 3lb bag, either way I'm not buying crap. 2nd, The best way to increase fuel economy is to start making more efficient engines, the "if it's not broke don't fix it" mentality is why pushrods are still used in American engines, and why they need to cut weight from the cars to compensate. Finally the best way to sell a car is to sell a reliable product. Japanese cars have mad a name for themselves based on this fact alone. Why buy an American economy car that will have problems 50k down the line and 5 days after the warranty ends. Solve those problems and they'll be selling cars that use less resources and require less to make.

{"commentId":253846,"threadId":"37261","contentId":"327280","authorDomain":"joemama"}

3 votes

#2 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:12 PM EDT

{"commentId":253864,"authorDomain":"super-structure"}

Jason Coleman

This piece really does sound like that if only American vehicles could be made of lead, then everyone would buy one. It's really bad logic on the very face of it, but worth pointing out as such.

I do agree with the engine issue. I recently read an amazing fact. Currently, the average fuel economy of vehicles sold in this country is about 26 mpg, which is 4 mph less than the Ford Model T got. Also, and this is sadly just as true of the Japanese and European manufacturers who sell here in the states as well, virtually all increases in engine technology have been put towards horsepower. My old Toyota Camry had a 95hp, 2.2 liter engine (the standard Toyota 22R engine). Now, you can buy a similar car with about a 135hp, 2.2 liter engine that gets roughly the same fuel economy. Why not have a 110 hp, 2.0 liter (or whatever that math works out to be) that gets better fuel economy? This is typical across the board of engine design, as far as I can tell.

Also, to the point of engine design, I now drive a Ford Escape Hybrid. It's gasoline engine uses the Atkinson cycle, instead of the more common Otto cycle (note: both are 19th century technology, nothing really fancy). This is a trade for economy at the cost of horsepower, but I can assure anyone that there's still power to spare. We get told that there's no market for cars with less horsepower, but since we don't generally have that option, then how would we know? Further, if that were the case, wouldn't V6 sedans outsell 4-cyl.'s by quite a large margin? I'm not sure, but it seems to me that no one's even really trying to find out.

{"commentId":253864,"threadId":"37261","contentId":"327280","authorDomain":"super-structure"}

1 vote

#2.1 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:30 PM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"37261","isPrivate":false}

JASON COLEMAN

Backyard

Let Market, Not Mandate, Raise Vehicles' Fuel Efficiency

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: