K a u k was driving her H onda Civic along a winding stretch of California Highway 152. H er husband, Tim, was beside her, and their two-month-old son, Matthew; was belted in his car seat. As Sharon steered around a curve, a Lincoln Town C ar coming from the opposite direction crossed the double line and slammed head-on into the H onda. Although Sharon was wearing a seat belt, she was killed inscandy. Tim and Matthew w ere seriously injured. T he passengers in the Lincoln suf fered only m inor injuries, even though they were not wearing seat belts. Since that tragic after noon in January 1990, one thought keeps passing th ro u g h Tun Kauks mind: “H ad we been driving a larger car, Sharons life might have been saved.” Earl M. Sweeney, chairman o f the Highway Safety Advisory Com m it tee for the International Association of Chiefs, o f Police, has seen num er ous accidents like this one. “The fact is, people in smaller, lighter vehi cles always get the w orst of it in col lisions with larger vehicles,” he says. For almost two decades, however, the federal government has been try ing to force Americans into smaller cars. T he fatal trade-off—higher gas mileage at the expense o f size and safety—begun in 1975, when Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law to solve the h a ro n S “energy crisis" during the Arab oil embargo. The law requires automak ers to produce car fleets averaging 27.5 miles per gallon. If a fleet fails to meet that average, the carmaker is fined $50 for every mile per gal lon under the standard, times the total number o f cars in the fleet. Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price This L aw M ig h t K ill You By D aniel R. L evine The result: carmakers have been forced to raise the prices of big cars—the cars m any Americans w ant—to entice consumers into smaller, lower-priced models. Under CAFE, large families, or people who simply enjoy the comfort and safety o f a spacious car, are penalized for their choice. Now some members o f Congress are asking for even stricter standards. Legislation introduced by Sen. Richard H . Bryan (D., Nev.) would require automakers to produce car fleets averaging over 34 m.p.g. by 1996 and about 40 m.p.g. by 2001. “This bill will save 2.5 million bar rels o f oil a day,” Bryan promises. \ ° /W Bryan's plan, which former Trans portation Secretary Samuel Skinner called the “Highway Fatality Bill,” was narrowly defeated two years ago. But Bryan continues to press for tougher fuel standards. H e is not alone. Bill Clinton’s economic m an ifesto, Putting People First, calls for increasing the CAFE standard to 45 m.p.g. by 2015. Speaking for many, Sen. D on Nickles (R., Okla.) says tougher stand ards would be a mistake. “A dra matic increase in CAFE standards would reduce consumer choice and increase highway fatalities,” Nickles says. “It’s an inherently flawed ap proach that has been proven to do more harm than gtxxl.” H ere’s why increasing the CAFE standards is a bad idea: More small cars mean morefatalities. W hen a 4000-pound Lincoln and 2275-pound H onda collide, pure physics takes over. A small car will provide less resistance to the energy of the crash and be crushed more quickly than a big auto, putting the occupants at greater risk. A 1989 study by economist Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institu tion and John G raham o f the H ar vard School o f Public Health found that the 27.5-m.p.g. standard is esti mated to be responsible for 2200 to 3900 additional deaths and up to 20,000 serious injuries over the tenyear lifetime of 1989-model cars. From this study G raham went on to estimate that increasing the stan dards to those in Bryan’s bill could add 1650 fatalities and 8500 serious injuries to the annual toll. T h e N ational H ighw ay Traffic Safety A dm inistration (NHTSA), which administers CAFE, has con firmed that small cars are m ore dan gerous than large ones, but claimed the 27.5-m.p.g. standard dix-sn’t affect safety. T his led th e Competitive Enterprise Institute and Consumer Alert, two public-policy groups, to 1 ^ a T c^ K READER S DICES! file a lawsuit charging NHTSA with ignoring CAFE’s dangers. In Febru ary 1992, the U.S. C ourt o f Appeals agreed and said NHTSA had “fudged the analysis” and “obscured the safety problem.” The court ordered NHTSA to conduct “a serious analysis o f the ICAFEj data and decide whether the associated fuel savings are worth the lives lost." When th e Insurance Institute for Highway Safety examined occupant death rates for 11 General Motors models reduced in size berween the 1977 aQd 1986 model years, the insti tute found that in ten o f the cars, more people died after downsizing. The cars that were not downsized showed no such increase in fatali ties. T he institute concluded that “downsizing cars means more deaths.” Ralph N ader and his various pub lic-interest groups have been in the forefront o f the effort to increase CAFE. These advocates m aintain that today’s small cars can be made just as safe as large ones through the use of air hags and other safety devices. Yet in 1989, a reporter interviewing Nader asked if he were to buy a car, what size would it be? “Well, larger cars are safer—there’s m ore bulk to protect the occupant,” he answered. Joan Claybrook heads the Nader group Public Citizen. She was also in charge of NHTSA du rin g the Carter Administration. Claybrook is an outspoken advocate of higher CAFE standards. But in 1980, as head of NHTSA, she released a report that concluded: "T he growing shift to smaller cars will increase the num - her o f i l e a l t ils and i n j u i ie s ;• t »un y e a r N H T S A p u b l i s h «i l The Car littol( A Consumer's (,u n it to Car Buying, w h i c h c o n i l o d e . i: "N ext sam e to w e a rin g y o u r s a fe ty U h . a t a r ’s w e i g h t is o i u : o f t h e i m im t i n 410 r t . i i it s a fe ty . ( f f ; d a c u r r e n t l y o n vli le r o a d . f a c t o r s , a f le e t i n g a u to m o b ile s your a 4<HH)-pouu«l car is twice .0 sale :i 2000-pound car.” Why the discrepancy.? Kuinei.NHTSA administrator I )j;iu<. Steed, who now heads an anti ( 'AFF'gioup called die Coalition Ibr V ehicle Choice, suggests the answer"./‘These groups make 1heir living hy m ak ing American industry, ihc villain — even when industry is right The day they agree with industry is the day they go out of business. UiiJormnately, the interests of Aiuei uan ion sunicrs, whom they supixiseilly represent, are forgotten," Prices would go up. The- average price of. a new car .has risen fro m ' $4950 in ..1975 to '$16,700 today, C a r makers have already been Ion Vi I <0 use more expensive, lightweight m a terials, reducing the.weight o| their cars by an average hi iouo pounds, to meet the 27.5-m.p.g. Mainlin'd, lb achieve a 40-m.p.g. standard, man ufitcturcrs would require greater use of these materials. Last year, alrer conducting an authoritative exam i nation o f C A FE, .the N illiou.il Research Council oI the National Academy o f Sciences concluded that higher CAFE standards would drive up the price o! new vehicles hy is much as $2750 each. And since the production »*l larger. THIS LAW MIGHT KILL YOU loss fifrl-efficient cars w ould be severely o it to comply with CAFE fleet requirements, their prices would rise even higher- This would hurt foitsitlisers ;md American auto manulaeiHrers. It would make big cars tinailon table for many more people I sli.arply limit U.S. production of mid and full sized cars and light trucks, an area in which U.S. m an ufacturers enjoy a 90-percent m ar ket share. “When the government cgulates in a way that prices many .. o f1its citizens out■ o- fr access to »----largetar safety, it owes them responsible candor,” wrote Judge Stephen Williams in the February 1992 court decision against NHTSA. C 1/ 7 .' has failed to accomplish its fuel conservation goals- It wits sup posed to .'reduce U.S. “dependence” on foreign oil and guard against future oil shocks, fn fact, U.S. pur chase of foreign oil has increased '20 pcre< nt since CAFE was enacted. ‘The present fuel-efficiency law is seriously flawed." the Washington .said in an editorial last year. “If the object is to save gasoline, a higher fuel eflii ten. y siandard is the wrong way to go about it.” / ltg/)r> standards will have little cfjt'i t on the nwmmmcnt. Even though pas prices, adjusted lor inflation, have U rn .11 their lowest level in tq years, the Persian G u lf War brought r -n ru rd t ails from some Congress m> n i..r a higher fucl econotn y sta nd .ir«l l b-y said n was nectlul not 11111v 10 reduce dependence on foTcign oil. hui to significantly reduce 01 , a ll.d 'g i t unlit>us< g as " According to Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment, however, A m erican cars and light trucks account for only 1,5 percent of these emissions, meaning that enactment o f the Bryan bill would reduce them by less than one-half o f one percent. Technological improvements since the early 1970s have reduced about 80 percent o f harmful carbon monox ide and hydrocarbon emissions, while fuel efficiency has more than doubled. These improvements are largely the result o f fierce competition among automakers striving to give the con sum er-w hat he or she-wants. Higher standards w ill limit con sumer choice. According ro a Gallup poll, Americans spend an average of two hours and 24 minutes a day in their cars. Many want to spend that time in large vehicles. Typical is Wal ter R. Thom as o f Kansas City, Mo., who drives a Buick Park Avenue. “I’m willing to pay more for a larger car, and I’m willing to buy more, gas for a larger car,” he says. “I don’t want the government telling me I have to drive a small car.” . Bryan’s legislation would reduce the num ber o f family-size cars on the m arket. Even the num ber of m idsized m odels that Americans have been forced to redefine as “family-size” would taper off. The H onda Accord has been Americas best-selling car for three of the past four years. Using available, proven technology, however, todays Accord could npt m eet the higher mileage standard proposed for 2001. Neither would current models such as the READER’S DIGEST Acura Integra or Legend, Toyota Camry, Buick LeSabre, Oldsmobile Cutlass or Chevrolet Lumina. The two-door Geo Metro XFi is one o f the few cars on the road today that exceeds Bryan’s proposed stand ard. It gets a remarkable 53 m.p.g. in the city and 58 m.p.g. on the high way, but it weighs only 800 pounds more than a touring motorcycle. “If fuel economy is your main objec tive, the Geo M etro is a great car,” says G M s William H . Noack. “But most of our customers want more luggage space* performance and com fort. CAFE forces automakers to build , cars customers.don’t necessarily want.” ‘ The consumers’ preference is evi denced by sales figures. In 1991, G en eral Motors sold only 96,000 Metros in the U.S. (two percent o f its total U.S. sales), b ut 217,555 m idsized Luminas ($7990 more expensive than the Metro). Nationwide, subcompact cars that achieve 40 m.p.g. or better account for less than three percent o f total new-car sales. Even though most Americans aren’t buying smaller cars, auto manufacturers are pres sured to build more o f them. T he o p e n s e c r e t , which seems to elude only Congressmen and fed eral bureaucrats, is that m arket con ditions determine the types o f cars people drive. In the late ’70s, auto m akers w ere producing cars that surpassed the 27.5-m.p.g. CAFE standard—not because o f a govern ment mandate, but because gasoline prices were near an all-time high and people wanted fuel-efficient cars. W hen gas prices dropped, buyers once again dem anded larger, more powerful cars. In its report about CAFE stand ards, the National Research Council concluded: “Congress and govern ment agencies are attem pting to reg ulate an industry o f trem endous importance to the U.S. economy in the absence o f sufficient information from" neutral sources on which to base such regulation.” Forcing automakers to build vehi cles to meet a drastically higher gasmileage standard would cost us more money, limit our choices and endan ger our lives. Just ask Tim Kauk, whose two-month-old son was left without a mother after the head-on collision o f their subcompact car: “Every time you go out in a small car, you’re pu ttin g your fam ily’s safety on the line. The sacrifice is not w orth it.” For information on prices and avalabJIily ol reprints write: Reader's D igest. Reprint Department-R. Box 4 0 6 . P le a sa n tv ille. NY 10670 or call: 800-280-6457 / 914-241-5374___________________ REPRINTED FROM THE MARCH 1993 ISSUE O F READER’S DIGEST © 1993 THE READER’S DIGEST ASSOCIATION. INC., PLEASANTVILLE. N Y. 10570 PRINTED IN U.S.A. TMs reprint does no! constitute an endorsement, implied or otherwise, by Reeder's Digest. II may nd be reprinted by anyone other than Reader's Dines! or used H any way for advertising or promotional purposes without prior written permission ol Reader's Digest The reprint may not be sold by anyone olher than Reader's Woesi and no message, with ihe exception ot tne donor's nr--------- ■" '— —“ ■ReadersOi— ■SDigest. - The r‘ -----Otgnst-------and the-------Pegasus --------------logo are registered ------------trademarks ' ot- The - - Reader's - -Digest Association. In This L aw M ig h t K ill You B y D aniel R. L evine
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz