Two completely awful cars destroyed in the name of science.
You're confusing me with someone else with the luddite / big Detroit iron love. I'm all about crumple zones and modern 'safety cell' construction. I have never even owned an American car, come to think of it.
Some pages back there was a couple of guys arguing that their 50s big-iron cars were safer than today's cars, essentially because they had thicker sheet metal.
The passenger compartment collapsed, crushing the crash dummy's legs. The seat was torn from the floor. The windshield popped out and the doors opened, possibly allowing the driver to be ejected.
On the other hand, the driver of the Malibu might have sustained an injury to his left foot, analysis of test data showed, but otherwise emerged unscathed.
Some pages back there was a couple of guys arguing that their 50s big-iron cars were safer than today's cars, essentially because they had thicker sheet metal.
Yeah, I think it was only one guy, but he was very vocal.
Let it be said that I do not have a problem with safety features. I have issues with feature creep, but nobody else does, apparently. I certainly don't want to be lumped in with Mr. RAA, and I'm certainly never going to make the argument that the cars I love are somehow safer because they are simpler.
Let it be said that I do not have a problem with safety features. I have issues with feature creep, but nobody else does, apparently.
It seems to me that most people dislike feature creep. The only thing is, everybody has a different idea of what feature creep is. I don't care for GPS, so if they add it to every new car, that's feature creep to me. But a lot of people love it. To them it's not creep but a feature they can't believe was excluded in the 2008 model of the same car.
As a producer, that means you have to weigh the net goodwill of each feature with how much displeasure it creates. Feature X will make 10% of drivers ecstatic, but increase likelihood something breaks within the first 5 years by 0.1%. I don't have the figures to say whether or not you add that feature, but I bet Ford does.
Also, many of yesterday's features do eventually become necessities, which is how we progress. I'm sure there were guys in 1922 asking why anyone needed shocks on their car. The back jarring was fine and the shocks would just break down after 30,000 miles anyways. I'm sure we'll all be amazed at what features become necessities in the next 20 years.
Let it be said that I do not have a problem with safety features. I have issues with feature creep, but nobody else does, apparently. I certainly don't want to be lumped in with Mr. RAA, and I'm certainly never going to make the argument that the cars I love are somehow safer because they are simpler.
That's just dumb.
Feature creep bugs me, but most features are useful. GPS, iPod plugs, etc seem to be the current wave - but 20 years ago remote locking doors were "new". Not all are equally useful but most are generally worth the cost/weight penalty.
Spec creep bugs me more. It's absurd to have a 290 HP family sedan, but since someone else has 280, 290 is better. It's absurd to have 19" wheels on a street car, but since 18" wheels are good, 19" wheels are better. Why does an economy car have 17" wheels over the 11" brake discs?" A 14" wheel would increase economy 0.5-1.0 mpg and save $200-400. Why are most "mid size" sedans actually full size? If I wanted a full size car I'd buy a full size. 60 cu ft of trunk space is fine, I don't need 80, if I did I'd get a wagon. So on and so forth...
.
Did anybody not see this coming?
. Sept. US auto sales fall amid clunkers letdown
. DETROIT (AP) -- GM, Ford and Chrysler reported September sales declines on Thursday, revealing a tough hangover from this summer's Cash for Clunkers buying spree......
.
Spec creep bugs me more. It's absurd to have a 290 HP family sedan, but since someone else has 280, 290 is better. It's absurd to have 19" wheels on a street car, but since 18" wheels are good, 19" wheels are better. Why does an economy car have 17" wheels over the 11" brake discs?" A 14" wheel would increase economy 0.5-1.0 mpg and save $200-400. Why are most "mid size" sedans actually full size? If I wanted a full size car I'd buy a full size. 60 cu ft of trunk space is fine, I don't need 80, if I did I'd get a wagon. So on and so forth...
Absolutely, this is way worse than feature creep. Why can't we get Accords and Camrys that get better fuel efficiency today than 20 years ago?
Spec creep bugs me more. It's absurd to have a 290 HP family sedan, but since someone else has 280, 290 is better. It's absurd to have 19" wheels on a street car, but since 18" wheels are good, 19" wheels are better. Why does an economy car have 17" wheels over the 11" brake discs?" A 14" wheel would increase economy 0.5-1.0 mpg and save $200-400. Why are most "mid size" sedans actually full size? If I wanted a full size car I'd buy a full size. 60 cu ft of trunk space is fine, I don't need 80, if I did I'd get a wagon. So on and so forth...
Absolutely, this is way worse than feature creep. Why can't we get Accords and Camrys that get better fuel efficiency today than 20 years ago?
Probably because people don't care. They'd rather have a bigger car with more power at the same gas mileage. When you adjust for inflation, the price of gas is basically flat over the past century. Couple spikes, but apparently not enough to fundamentally change behavior or product design.
Personally I'd much rather have a brand new ~250hp accord getting the same mileage as the ~90hp 1981 model I once had!
Personally I'd much rather have a brand new ~250hp accord getting the same mileage as the ~90hp 1981 model I once had!
I'd take a middle ground. The 90hp cars were not always pleasurable to drive in certain conditions (merging onto freeways with uphill on-ramps for instance) The move from 100hp 30 years ago to about 150hp 15 years ago was pretty good for the average driver. But every 50hp increase gives you declining benefits. Maybe you can pass someone more quickly with 250hp than with 200hp, but if you are driving safely you'll seldom use that extra power. So, it's surprising to me how auto manufacturers have focused on the power at the detriment to efficiency; especially considering that MPG ratings are plastered on the new car's sticker in large font.
Perhaps, there's an issue that makes increasing one number easier than the other. Likely, it's simply that other improvements have made people worse drivers. Each handling improvement, like ABS, tends to reduce accidents in the short term, but then drivers compensate by being even more reckless. If markets are expressing what the masses desire, it seems like people want 8 ton automobiles that can accelerate and break so quickly you get whiplash between stoplights.
People *do* care about how much power their car has. HP increases are a big selling point which is why they're heavily advertised - "The all new 270 HP 2009 Accord", "The exciting 290 HP Nissan Maxima". Horsepower is an easy concept, more is better. You won't hear aerodynamics, weight, rolling drag/inertia, or other more meaningful measures advertised because they're not simple concepts.
However, that doesn't mean people *should* care. Most passenger cars, minivans, SUVs, and light trucks can accelerate to 60 in under 10 seconds. However, if you time most people accelerating onto a 60 MPH road they spend more than 20 seconds accelerating. Few people ever use even half of the power available, but the penalty for that power (weight, wasted fuel, etc) is always there.
So, it's surprising to me how auto manufacturers have focused on the power at the detriment to efficiency; especially considering that MPG ratings are plastered on the new car's sticker in large font.
That's not really true. Manufacturers have optimized their engines to a very high degree. Specific output (power relative to engine size) has increased drastically in the last two decades, while emissions have been reduced. The steady MPG is more a factor of increasing size/weight, rolling inertia (giant wheels/tires, bigger brakes), and lousy aerodynamics.
Perhaps, there's an issue that makes increasing one number easier than the other.
Horsepower is relatively easy to get. A slightly larger and more powerful engine can be developed fairly cheap. And since most engines are used in multiple cars/trucks, there is incentive to do the work necessary to optimize those engines. Safety is easy, but comes with a weight and cost penalty, and is also easy to market (think "5 star safety rating" commercials). Fuel economy is hard, as it's a balancing act of cost, (perception of) performance, styling, and utility, and that balance varies for each customer. And many people don't acknowledge the implications of 27 MPG city vs 25 MPG city.
The Prious is extremely popular because of a combination of economy, utility, and cost. The old Honda Insight was better looking, better performing, w/ better mileage, but only sat two, and was thus didn't sell well. The new Insight is basically just an arguably better looking Prious. So what's the message to the manufacturers? Utility trumps economy.
Let it be said that I do not have a problem with safety features. I have issues with feature creep, but nobody else does, apparently. I certainly don't want to be lumped in with Mr. RAA, and I'm certainly never going to make the argument that the cars I love are somehow safer because they are simpler.
That's just dumb.
Feature creep bugs me, but most features are useful. GPS, iPod plugs, etc seem to be the current wave - but 20 years ago remote locking doors were "new". Not all are equally useful but most are generally worth the cost/weight penalty.
Spec creep bugs me more. It's absurd to have a 290 HP family sedan, but since someone else has 280, 290 is better. It's absurd to have 19" wheels on a street car, but since 18" wheels are good, 19" wheels are better. Why does an economy car have 17" wheels over the 11" brake discs?" A 14" wheel would increase economy 0.5-1.0 mpg and save $200-400.
The examples they cite - the new Camaro, in particular - are fairly extreme, but at the 'luxury' end of the spectrum, 18 and 19 and even 20 inch wheels are pretty much mandatory these days. What's even more insane are the wheels that are fitted as standard to the uber-SUV luxo-barges (Escalades, Sequoias, Yukons) and are designed to be shod with low profile performance rubber. WTH? If you want to go fast, why don't you get an actual car? Maybe this is changing with 'the new economy' and the demise of brands such as Hummer...
Not that this should be news for anyone who has been paying attention, but it's good to see MSM reporting on the subject.
Personally I'd much rather have a brand new ~250hp accord getting the same mileage as the ~90hp 1981 model I once had!
I'd take a middle ground. The 90hp cars were not always pleasurable to drive in certain conditions (merging onto freeways with uphill on-ramps for instance) The move from 100hp 30 years ago to about 150hp 15 years ago was pretty good for the average driver. But every 50hp increase gives you declining benefits. Maybe you can pass someone more quickly with 250hp than with 200hp, but if you are driving safely you'll seldom use that extra power. So, it's surprising to me how auto manufacturers have focused on the power at the detriment to efficiency; especially considering that MPG ratings are plastered on the new car's sticker in large font.
Perhaps, there's an issue that makes increasing one number easier than the other. Likely, it's simply that other improvements have made people worse drivers. Each handling improvement, like ABS, tends to reduce accidents in the short term, but then drivers compensate by being even more reckless. If markets are expressing what the masses desire, it seems like people want 8 ton automobiles that can accelerate and break so quickly you get whiplash between stoplights.
This is a point I remember seeing raised in the comments on Jalopnik during their recent 'crash week' marathon of mayhem (sorry).
The hypothesis: road rage is a recent phenomenon enabled by cars that are so fast and so safe that even an incredibly poor driver can get away with virtually anything. The accidents we see despite modern safety features are often a result of a carelessness engendered by the impressive capabilities of modern tire and braking systems.
I've always felt (and still do) that kids should be required to pass their driver license exam in a vehicle without power brakes, ABS, or power steering, a manual transmission, and about 80 horsepower. 90% of drivers wouldn't even get out of the parking lot (which is about right, since most new drivers shouldn't be anywhere but a parking lot based on their meager training). Along the way, random quizzes should be done - "what did the sign we just go by say?" "what color car is in the lane next to you". Miss too many, you fail.
Modern cars are way too easy to drive and they discourage people from focusing on the task at hand. I won't lie, I've done a lot of things while driving that aren't driving related, especially in the long desolate stretches of interstate between cities. But the problem is when people take that level of inattention and keep it in the city. As mentioned in Jalopnik, the issue is that the cars are so good that most drivers don't have good risk assessment anymore. And this isn't a "kid" thing, I see a lot of older drivers making high risk/low reward decisions while going 70 MPH on I-405 during rush hour.
Also, thanks for the tire article. Pretty much what I was getting at. And as an engineer, I hate big wheels because they have so many negative consequences, and in most cases don't even look that good.
Anecdote: My car requires staggered (different width front and rear) 16" tires. 5 years ago there were typically about 50 good tires in the proper sizes; there are now fewer than 10. And good luck finding a decent 14" tire...
I've always felt (and still do) that kids should be required to pass their driver license exam in a vehicle without power brakes, ABS, or power steering, a manual transmission, and about 80 horsepower.
Yeah! And make them crank the shaft to start the car as well, just to prove they can do it.
While I agree with you that we hand out driver's licenses far too easily, your list of requirements doesn't really make much sense. No matter how safely a given young driver can drive, the combination of handling and youthful-invincibility makes them more like to choose to drive recklessly.
If anything, a better test would probably be to put them in the most suped up car you can find, and then see if they can pass. Just try going 20 mph through the school zone with a 700 HP engine. Then, once they've passed the test a wise parent will make sure to replace the engine in their car with something crippled to 70-90 HP.
.
An excerpt from a Market Ticker article is quoted below. Its is an encouraging prediction for those wanting a newer car that feel they missed out on Cash for Clunkers -- if you have any cash.....
. Where's My Economic Recovery?
. .....But "cash for clunkers" is now known to have massively pulled-forward demand and left a vacuum behind, as the most-recently posted auto sales were disastrously bad. This of course portends a resumption of credit contraction next month, never mind what may come from those who bought "clunker deals" but can't afford them. If you're looking for a new(er) car the best time to buy may well be in the late winter and spring of next year, when the lates have turned into repossessions and the lots are rather likely to be full of six-month-old cars with a few thousand miles on them clogging up dealer lots, destroying not only the poor fools who took on debt they can't afford but adding further punishment to new car sales (after all, why buy new when you can buy a six-month old vehicle at 30% - or more - off!).....
.
.
This article has nothing to do with "Cash for Clunkers" and is barely related to the "Economy" but should be of interest to gearheads. I just recently learned about the HCCI engine. GM is reportedly close to production. If it really does get a 15% improvement in fuel efficiency, we may be seeing alot of these things around in the near future.
. HCCI - Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition
.
...never mind what may come from those who bought "clunker deals" but can't afford them....destroying not only the poor fools who took on debt they can't afford but adding further punishment to new car sales...
.
That somehow sounds strangely familiar, but I just can't put my finger on which market it was...
I've always felt (and still do) that kids should be required to pass their driver license exam in a vehicle without power brakes, ABS, or power steering, a manual transmission, and about 80 horsepower.
Yeah! And make them crank the shaft to start the car as well, just to prove they can do it.
While I agree with you that we hand out driver's licenses far too easily, your list of requirements doesn't really make much sense. No matter how safely a given young driver can drive, the combination of handling and youthful-invincibility makes them more like to choose to drive recklessly.
If anything, a better test would probably be to put them in the most suped up car you can find, and then see if they can pass. Just try going 20 mph through the school zone with a 700 HP engine. Then, once they've passed the test a wise parent will make sure to replace the engine in their car with something crippled to 70-90 HP.
You can't eliminate the reckless behavior. The point is to teach new drivers to analyze and anticipate. Modern cars are good enough where you can follow the car in front of you and slam on your brakes and usually avoid the car in front of you. This leads to people driving closer and closer. Take away the ABS and heavily boosted brakes, and you're forced to watch not just the car in front of you, but the car in front of that one, as well as the general flow of traffic ahead of you.
. . . Take away the ABS and heavily boosted brakes, and you're forced to watch not just the car in front of you, but the car in front of that one, as well as the general flow of traffic ahead of you.
But this is no longer possible, due to the combination of many more trucks and SUVs on the road than 30 years ago, high beltlines, and deep-tint rear windows on most SUVs and minivans.
I remember growing up back in the 1970s when all cars were about the same height, very few pickups and trucks were used for daily drivers, and virtually nobody had deep-tinted windows, and you could easily look straight through the insides of several vehicles in front of you to see what was ahead. Also, you were much safer backing out in parking lots, as you could actually see through the side windows of the adjacent parked cars to see if anybody was coming. Not anymore!
As has been covered earlier in this thread, automobiles have made great strides in safety, but NOT in the area of visibility from within. That tragic accident a couple of months ago in south Puget Sound where a guy accidently ran over and killed his neighbor's daughter who was on a tiny bicycle as he was slowly pulling into his garage, well that accident could have been completely avoided if he had been driving a small car (say, a 1988-91 Civic station wagon which has incredible front visibility due to highly upright seating position and sloped front end, and available 4 wheel drive as well) instead of a SUV.
You can't eliminate the reckless behavior. The point is to teach new drivers to analyze and anticipate. Modern cars are good enough where you can follow the car in front of you and slam on your brakes and usually avoid the car in front of you. This leads to people driving closer and closer. Take away the ABS and heavily boosted brakes, and you're forced to watch not just the car in front of you, but the car in front of that one, as well as the general flow of traffic ahead of you.
Um, can't you just have the instructor/tester enforce such behavior? Driver's ed cars have second brakes for the instructor, maybe they should add a "tailgating sensor" which chimes an annoying alarm if you follow too closely. That sounds better than teaching them on crippled cars and expecting them not to learn how to be dangerous later on.
I'm sure you've noticed that as soon as people are around a police car they suddenly "behave" - drive the speed limit, signal, hang up the cell phone - and just as quickly resume their bad habits once the police car is out of sight. People know how to drive, they just don't practice the good behavior unless the threat of getting a ticket is imminent. But if you start someone off driving in such a way that they're forced to use the good behaviors, more of those habits will stick.
The reason for my drastic suggestion is that the system doesn't work. New drivers get relatively little time with instructors, and in my experience many instructors are not that good of drivers, much less teachers. They then drive around with their parents, most of whom are also not very good drivers, and in most cases have been "teaching" bad habits for their child's entire upbringing. Driver's tests are what, 20 minutes long? There's no way to measure driving comprehension in 20 minutes (other than abject failure).
I'm sure you've noticed that as soon as people are around a police car they suddenly "behave" - drive the speed limit, signal, hang up the cell phone - and just as quickly resume their bad habits once the police car is out of sight. People know how to drive, they just don't practice the good behavior unless the threat of getting a ticket is imminent.
Sounds like you are advocating cameras on every street corner and extensive ticketting?
.
This story really should not be a surprise to anybody following CFC news. Sales numbers were available last August indicating that full size pickup trucks were the best sellers.
. Cash for Clunkers Hugely Successful at Buying People New Pickup Trucks
. So a few months and Freedom of Information Act requests later, it turns out that more than anything else, Americans used the wildly popular "Cash for Clunkers" stimulus program to hustle the government into buying them new trucks. The most common trade in the program was one Ford F150 pickup truck for another.
.
The single most common swap — which occurred more than 8,200 times — involved Ford F150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers................
Comments
You beat me to it. The YouTube video is gone, but here's a more official version - http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... ?gt1=33009
Here's the important part from the article.
Yeah, I think it was only one guy, but he was very vocal.
Let it be said that I do not have a problem with safety features. I have issues with feature creep, but nobody else does, apparently. I certainly don't want to be lumped in with Mr. RAA, and I'm certainly never going to make the argument that the cars I love are somehow safer because they are simpler.
That's just dumb.
It seems to me that most people dislike feature creep. The only thing is, everybody has a different idea of what feature creep is. I don't care for GPS, so if they add it to every new car, that's feature creep to me. But a lot of people love it. To them it's not creep but a feature they can't believe was excluded in the 2008 model of the same car.
As a producer, that means you have to weigh the net goodwill of each feature with how much displeasure it creates. Feature X will make 10% of drivers ecstatic, but increase likelihood something breaks within the first 5 years by 0.1%. I don't have the figures to say whether or not you add that feature, but I bet Ford does.
Also, many of yesterday's features do eventually become necessities, which is how we progress. I'm sure there were guys in 1922 asking why anyone needed shocks on their car. The back jarring was fine and the shocks would just break down after 30,000 miles anyways. I'm sure we'll all be amazed at what features become necessities in the next 20 years.
Feature creep bugs me, but most features are useful. GPS, iPod plugs, etc seem to be the current wave - but 20 years ago remote locking doors were "new". Not all are equally useful but most are generally worth the cost/weight penalty.
Spec creep bugs me more. It's absurd to have a 290 HP family sedan, but since someone else has 280, 290 is better. It's absurd to have 19" wheels on a street car, but since 18" wheels are good, 19" wheels are better. Why does an economy car have 17" wheels over the 11" brake discs?" A 14" wheel would increase economy 0.5-1.0 mpg and save $200-400. Why are most "mid size" sedans actually full size? If I wanted a full size car I'd buy a full size. 60 cu ft of trunk space is fine, I don't need 80, if I did I'd get a wagon. So on and so forth...
Did anybody not see this coming?
.
Sept. US auto sales fall amid clunkers letdown
.
DETROIT (AP) -- GM, Ford and Chrysler reported September sales declines on Thursday, revealing a tough hangover from this summer's Cash for Clunkers buying spree......
.
Absolutely, this is way worse than feature creep. Why can't we get Accords and Camrys that get better fuel efficiency today than 20 years ago?
Personally I'd much rather have a brand new ~250hp accord getting the same mileage as the ~90hp 1981 model I once had!
I'd take a middle ground. The 90hp cars were not always pleasurable to drive in certain conditions (merging onto freeways with uphill on-ramps for instance) The move from 100hp 30 years ago to about 150hp 15 years ago was pretty good for the average driver. But every 50hp increase gives you declining benefits. Maybe you can pass someone more quickly with 250hp than with 200hp, but if you are driving safely you'll seldom use that extra power. So, it's surprising to me how auto manufacturers have focused on the power at the detriment to efficiency; especially considering that MPG ratings are plastered on the new car's sticker in large font.
Perhaps, there's an issue that makes increasing one number easier than the other. Likely, it's simply that other improvements have made people worse drivers. Each handling improvement, like ABS, tends to reduce accidents in the short term, but then drivers compensate by being even more reckless. If markets are expressing what the masses desire, it seems like people want 8 ton automobiles that can accelerate and break so quickly you get whiplash between stoplights.
However, that doesn't mean people *should* care. Most passenger cars, minivans, SUVs, and light trucks can accelerate to 60 in under 10 seconds. However, if you time most people accelerating onto a 60 MPH road they spend more than 20 seconds accelerating. Few people ever use even half of the power available, but the penalty for that power (weight, wasted fuel, etc) is always there.
That's not really true. Manufacturers have optimized their engines to a very high degree. Specific output (power relative to engine size) has increased drastically in the last two decades, while emissions have been reduced. The steady MPG is more a factor of increasing size/weight, rolling inertia (giant wheels/tires, bigger brakes), and lousy aerodynamics.
Horsepower is relatively easy to get. A slightly larger and more powerful engine can be developed fairly cheap. And since most engines are used in multiple cars/trucks, there is incentive to do the work necessary to optimize those engines. Safety is easy, but comes with a weight and cost penalty, and is also easy to market (think "5 star safety rating" commercials). Fuel economy is hard, as it's a balancing act of cost, (perception of) performance, styling, and utility, and that balance varies for each customer. And many people don't acknowledge the implications of 27 MPG city vs 25 MPG city.
The Prious is extremely popular because of a combination of economy, utility, and cost. The old Honda Insight was better looking, better performing, w/ better mileage, but only sat two, and was thus didn't sell well. The new Insight is basically just an arguably better looking Prious. So what's the message to the manufacturers? Utility trumps economy.
Thought you might appreciate this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704252004574456981150147524.html?mod=rss_Autos
The examples they cite - the new Camaro, in particular - are fairly extreme, but at the 'luxury' end of the spectrum, 18 and 19 and even 20 inch wheels are pretty much mandatory these days. What's even more insane are the wheels that are fitted as standard to the uber-SUV luxo-barges (Escalades, Sequoias, Yukons) and are designed to be shod with low profile performance rubber. WTH? If you want to go fast, why don't you get an actual car? Maybe this is changing with 'the new economy' and the demise of brands such as Hummer...
Not that this should be news for anyone who has been paying attention, but it's good to see MSM reporting on the subject.
This is a point I remember seeing raised in the comments on Jalopnik during their recent 'crash week' marathon of mayhem (sorry).
The hypothesis: road rage is a recent phenomenon enabled by cars that are so fast and so safe that even an incredibly poor driver can get away with virtually anything. The accidents we see despite modern safety features are often a result of a carelessness engendered by the impressive capabilities of modern tire and braking systems.
Makes sense to me.
Modern cars are way too easy to drive and they discourage people from focusing on the task at hand. I won't lie, I've done a lot of things while driving that aren't driving related, especially in the long desolate stretches of interstate between cities. But the problem is when people take that level of inattention and keep it in the city. As mentioned in Jalopnik, the issue is that the cars are so good that most drivers don't have good risk assessment anymore. And this isn't a "kid" thing, I see a lot of older drivers making high risk/low reward decisions while going 70 MPH on I-405 during rush hour.
Anecdote: My car requires staggered (different width front and rear) 16" tires. 5 years ago there were typically about 50 good tires in the proper sizes; there are now fewer than 10. And good luck finding a decent 14" tire...
Yeah! And make them crank the shaft to start the car as well, just to prove they can do it.
While I agree with you that we hand out driver's licenses far too easily, your list of requirements doesn't really make much sense. No matter how safely a given young driver can drive, the combination of handling and youthful-invincibility makes them more like to choose to drive recklessly.
If anything, a better test would probably be to put them in the most suped up car you can find, and then see if they can pass. Just try going 20 mph through the school zone with a 700 HP engine. Then, once they've passed the test a wise parent will make sure to replace the engine in their car with something crippled to 70-90 HP.
An excerpt from a Market Ticker article is quoted below. Its is an encouraging prediction for those wanting a newer car that feel they missed out on Cash for Clunkers -- if you have any cash.....
.
Where's My Economic Recovery?
.
.....But "cash for clunkers" is now known to have massively pulled-forward demand and left a vacuum behind, as the most-recently posted auto sales were disastrously bad. This of course portends a resumption of credit contraction next month, never mind what may come from those who bought "clunker deals" but can't afford them. If you're looking for a new(er) car the best time to buy may well be in the late winter and spring of next year, when the lates have turned into repossessions and the lots are rather likely to be full of six-month-old cars with a few thousand miles on them clogging up dealer lots, destroying not only the poor fools who took on debt they can't afford but adding further punishment to new car sales (after all, why buy new when you can buy a six-month old vehicle at 30% - or more - off!).....
.
This article has nothing to do with "Cash for Clunkers" and is barely related to the "Economy" but should be of interest to gearheads. I just recently learned about the HCCI engine. GM is reportedly close to production. If it really does get a 15% improvement in fuel efficiency, we may be seeing alot of these things around in the near future.
.
HCCI - Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition
.
That somehow sounds strangely familiar, but I just can't put my finger on which market it was...
You can't eliminate the reckless behavior. The point is to teach new drivers to analyze and anticipate. Modern cars are good enough where you can follow the car in front of you and slam on your brakes and usually avoid the car in front of you. This leads to people driving closer and closer. Take away the ABS and heavily boosted brakes, and you're forced to watch not just the car in front of you, but the car in front of that one, as well as the general flow of traffic ahead of you.
But this is no longer possible, due to the combination of many more trucks and SUVs on the road than 30 years ago, high beltlines, and deep-tint rear windows on most SUVs and minivans.
I remember growing up back in the 1970s when all cars were about the same height, very few pickups and trucks were used for daily drivers, and virtually nobody had deep-tinted windows, and you could easily look straight through the insides of several vehicles in front of you to see what was ahead. Also, you were much safer backing out in parking lots, as you could actually see through the side windows of the adjacent parked cars to see if anybody was coming. Not anymore!
As has been covered earlier in this thread, automobiles have made great strides in safety, but NOT in the area of visibility from within. That tragic accident a couple of months ago in south Puget Sound where a guy accidently ran over and killed his neighbor's daughter who was on a tiny bicycle as he was slowly pulling into his garage, well that accident could have been completely avoided if he had been driving a small car (say, a 1988-91 Civic station wagon which has incredible front visibility due to highly upright seating position and sloped front end, and available 4 wheel drive as well) instead of a SUV.
Um, can't you just have the instructor/tester enforce such behavior? Driver's ed cars have second brakes for the instructor, maybe they should add a "tailgating sensor" which chimes an annoying alarm if you follow too closely. That sounds better than teaching them on crippled cars and expecting them not to learn how to be dangerous later on.
The reason for my drastic suggestion is that the system doesn't work. New drivers get relatively little time with instructors, and in my experience many instructors are not that good of drivers, much less teachers. They then drive around with their parents, most of whom are also not very good drivers, and in most cases have been "teaching" bad habits for their child's entire upbringing. Driver's tests are what, 20 minutes long? There's no way to measure driving comprehension in 20 minutes (other than abject failure).
Sounds like you are advocating cameras on every street corner and extensive ticketting?
Too much of a financial incentive to abuse cameras/ticketing, which is already problematic.
This story really should not be a surprise to anybody following CFC news. Sales numbers were available last August indicating that full size pickup trucks were the best sellers.
.
Cash for Clunkers Hugely Successful at Buying People New Pickup Trucks
.
So a few months and Freedom of Information Act requests later, it turns out that more than anything else, Americans used the wildly popular "Cash for Clunkers" stimulus program to hustle the government into buying them new trucks. The most common trade in the program was one Ford F150 pickup truck for another.
.
The single most common swap — which occurred more than 8,200 times — involved Ford F150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers................