More on Obama-rama here.. But fuel efficiency isn’t the only issue.

There is a tradeoff between safety and efficiency. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that CAFE standards contributed to as many as 3,200 additional fatalities each year, because downsized cars are less safe in accidents. Other studies from the Brookings Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute put that number significantly higher.

The evidence clearly shows that smaller cars have significant disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside the vehicle must absorb. Consequently, the weight and size reductions resulting from the CAFE standards are linked with the 46,000 deaths through 1998 mentioned above, as well as thousands of injuries. It is time that policymakers stop defending the failed CAFE program and start valuing human lives by repealing the standards.

Why the Government’s CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased

Very interesting read, Proof. I found this report from the National Academy of Sciences:

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10172

“Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards”

The information on safety issues begins on pg. 25. I couldn’t find anything that says there are “3,200 additional fatalities each year, but they DO conclude that:

But it is clear that there were more injuries and fatalities than otherwise would have occurred had the fleet in recent years been as large and heavy as the fleet of the mid-1970s

Obviously, we’re way past the point where we can return to cars as large as those produced in the mid-1970s.

But there was something else mentioned on the page you linked to that I’m a tad confused about. Obama said:

And whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel-efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could’ve saved their industry.

Why would they do that? Did they all sign some suicide pact? So I found more of his speech, elsewhere, and learned he went on to say:

Even as they’ve shed thousands of jobs and billions in profits over the last few years, they’ve continued to reward failure with lucrative bonuses for CEOs.

It just makes no sense for them to do this, to lobby against what he claims “could’ve saved the industry,” and for what? Massive job losses, loss in profits, but the ONLY thing driving them to do this was so they could reward those at the top with lucrative bonuses? And it wasn’t just one car company (I could imagine one foolishly doing this, and all the others holding them up as an example of what NOT to do) but the entire industry did this, damning their own futures?

I’m with The Whistler on this one. Obama is too shallow to run against. It’s like running against a cartoon character.

I’m also opposed to welfare for the UAW. Those bastard make excessive pay, have crazy benefits, and retire early and now the rest of us, in addition to having already paid too much for automobiles, are supposed to pay for their health care? What a load of crap.

Hillary is very carefully avoiding the trap of swinging too far to the left to pander to the Dem’s DU/MoveOn/Kos wing to get the nomination

And, should Hillary lock up the nomination, she would rush flank speed to the center, assured that the left-wing nut buckets wouldn’t have a choice but to vote for her, and then she could work full time on fooling as many in the center as possible.

Whistler,

I disagree the we do better running against Hillary next year. Of course, much will depend on who the GOP selects as its candidate, but Hillary is very carefully avoiding the trap of swinging too far to the left to pander to the Dem’s DU/MoveOn/Kos wing to get the nomination. She will have a much easier time selling herself as a moderate once she is nominated than any of the “Seven Dwarfs.”

There is also the fact that, sadly, there are a lot of people in this country who vote with no clear idea of what the candidates actually stand for or what they propose to do. Hillary consistently has the highest negatives of any candidate for president, but whether those voters who are put off by her would vote for the GOP alternative, or merely stay at home is still an open question.

Meanwhile, there are an awful lot of people who would vote for her for no better reason than that she is NOT male and NOT a Republican. The Hildabeast is dangerous… more so than any of the other Democrats, including Obama.

Speaking of Obama… funny we haven’t heard the word “gravitas” lately, isn’t it?

A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE “to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years’ use.” Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16

CAFE Standards Kill: Congress’ Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price

Actually, Obama didn’t make anything up.

If you go here:

http://www.autoproject.org.cn/english/new_advance_en/Pew.pdf

You’ll find an October 2004 report on “Comparison of Automobile Fuel Efficiency and GHG Emission Standards around the World.” Scroll down to the table on page 15, “Fleet Average Fuel Economy…” and for Japan, the average mpg is 45.4. The graph on page 16 reflects the same thing.

Incidentally, the Toyota representative quoted in the article is in the U.S. — he obviously has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the cars being made IN Japan.

Obama was, in fact, correct.

reform that could’ve saved their industry.

That’s known as “editorializing”, not necessarily to be confused with “fact”.

Whistler, I have no clue about what Obama wants to ‘force us to do,’ if anything. You would have to ask him.

But I DO think a correction should be made to the original claim that Obama is ‘making things up.’