The 10 least safe cars of all time

On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message

>> Besides GM and Ford are more than happy to manufacture and sell safety
>> features to the car purchasing public. The problem was getting the
>> public to be generally inclined to purchase safety features. Caddilac
>> and Lincoln buyers were willing to pay but not the rest. And yes Nader
>> had a lot to do with getting the public to pay for those features one
>> way or the other.

> In addition to my other comments, including stating the book's title which
> alone conspicuously negates and gives lie to your argument, I'm quite
> CLEARLY saying that "GM paid Ralph Nader something like a million
> dollars to deliver the message that the basic VW bug design was unsafe
> at any speed" bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the facts
> of the matter.
>
> Regarding your other ridiculous comments, perhaps you should simply
> read the book and/or research the entirety of the story to provide proof
> positive documention of how the auto industry not only fought tooth and
> nail, with legion excuses, against providing safety features but also GM's
> illegal tactics (for which they justifiably paid handsomely) and desperate
> attempts to injure Ralph and besmirch his, continuing to date, deservedly
> thoroughly unsullied reputation.

You mean that the automakers fought the government from telling them
what to build. This is natural and understandable. Not only because
government telling them what to offer in their products is
fundamentally wrong, but that they had tried to sell safety before and
it wouldn't sell.

The idea that automakers didn't care for safety and didn't want to
provide it is incorrect and any fair examination of history of the
industry shows that. I've seen films of Henry Ford demonstrating
laminated safety glass, the safety of the Chrysler Airstream, the
benefits of GM's new braking systems in the 1930s, and much more. There
has always been a drive to make safer vehicles and get the public to buy
them.

However, the public didn't really start listening until the 80s.
Then again, perhaps it had to do with the funds people had available to
them, making safety a lower priority until their incomes increased or
automakers increased productivity to where such things were affordable.

If at any time the car buying public had demanded safety devices the
automakers would have provided them immediately. Many were *OPTIONS* for
years before government made them required. They were options because
most people wouldn't buy them back then.

Airbags are a prime example. Offered on expensive big three passenger
cars in the early 1970s they weren't purchased often and problems were
discovered with regards to children and small adults in using them to
stop unbelted passengers. The government regulators refused to listen in
the 1980s and the result was needless deaths from airbags designed to
stop an average unbelted male.

What really needed to happen wasn't the growth of the government and
using government force, but education of the american car buyer. All the
safety regulations could evaporate right now and approximately nobody is
going to knowingly buy a car that isn't as safe as we have come to know
cars to be. That education has happened, all the government force didn't
really make cars safer, it was the buyers demanding it. Government gets
in the way right now with its CAFE requirements since today's buyers
care far less about fuel economy than they do safety. While the
government is more the reverse these days.

On 2010-12-07, C. E. White > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> With the Pinto perception became clouded because ford did a heartless
>> calculation of lawsuit cost vs. product improvement and settling
>> lawsuits was cheaper so they didn't improve the product. So the pinto
>> gets an undeserved bad rap when even with the problem was safer than
>> at least much of its competition.
>
> This is another flase preception regarding the Pinto. There was no heartless
> calcualtion directly related to the Pinto. At the famous Pinto fire related
> lawsuit, the plantiff's attorneys presented an older Ford document that was
> unrealted to the case. Furthermore, the document was written using NHTSA
> (Government) figures for the value of a life. Back then the Government was
> heavily into cost benefit analysis. All Ford did was make the calcualtions
> requested by NHTSA using the value of a life provided by NHTSA.

Doesn't shock me that the famous cost-benefit analysis was from a
government "request". Here's a cite to back up what you have above:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/T...Pinto_Case.pdf

On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>>>
>>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > http://www.autoshippers.org/blog/201...rs-of-all-time
>>>>> > cuhulin
>>>>>
>>>>> Another ridiculous slap at the Pinto. As usual the person who wrote
>>>>> this
>>>>> article is repeating a bunch of trial lawyer created hype that was
>>>>> unreleated to reality. Pinto were not particualry dangerous and in fact
>>>>> among contemporary small cars had one of the better safety records. The
>>>>> whole notion that they would burst into flames at the drop of a hat was
>>>>> totally bogus. Ford made the mistake of fighting a lawsuit related to a
>>>>> Pinto that caught on fire in an accident and lost big time. This turned
>>>>> on
>>>>> the trial lawyer hype machine. If you don't know what I mean, look at
>>>>> what
>>>>> is happening today with regards to Toyota and supposed unintended
>>>>> acceleration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also disagree witht he Corvair being in the list. It may not have
>>>>> been
>>>>> the
>>>>> safest car ever sold, but I can think of dozens that were far worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for sure the list, does not include one of the most dangerous
>>>>> vehicles
>>>>> ever sold - the original VW Beetle.
>>>>
>>>> I think you pretty clearly received the message that GM and Ford were
>>>> trying to deliver. GM paid Ralph Nader something like a million dollars
>>>> to deliver the message that the basic VW bug design was unsafe at any
>>>> speed. In GM's eyes it was money well spent ...
>>>
>>>> -jim
>>>
>>> Ahh, no, that isn't remotely close to an assessment of Ralph Nader's
>>> involvement. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the
>>> American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book
>>> detailing resistance by car manufacturers to the introduction of safety
>>> features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money
>>> on improving safety. It was a pioneering work of attack journalism.
>>
>> Not to mention false ...
>
> I think Paul (Marlon Brando) said it best in 'Last
> Tango in Paris': "What a steaming pile of horse****!"

Really?
http://www.archive.org/details/wreckless (Wreckless, 1935, GM film to
highlight the safety of their new cars)

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Histor...ass&id=3078116
(Henry Ford, development of safety glass, 1919. By 1929 all Fords had
laminated safety glass windshields)

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1955-1...-victoria4.htm
Example of the offerings of Ford's 1950s attempt to sell safety.
"Sales of most makes were down after banner 1955, but Ford's drop in
sales that year has frequently been linked to its safety campaign --
which may or may not be true. Spurred by Cornell University's research
efforts and the first year of its own safety crash program in 1955, Ford
decided to go all out for safety in 1956 with its "Lifeguard design"
advertising campaign. Standard equipment included stronger "double-grip"
door latches, "deep-center" dished steering wheel, recessed instruments,
and safety designed door and window handles."

Do I need to go on, or do you wish to keep believing in grade school
myths?

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>
> You mean that the automakers fought the government from telling them
> what to build. This is natural and understandable. Not only because
> government telling them what to offer in their products is
> fundamentally wrong, but that they had tried to sell safety before and
> it wouldn't sell.
>
> The idea that automakers didn't care for safety and didn't want to
> provide it is incorrect and any fair examination of history of the
> industry shows that. I've seen films of Henry Ford demonstrating
> laminated safety glass, the safety of the Chrysler Airstream, the
> benefits of GM's new braking systems in the 1930s, and much more. There
> has always been a drive to make safer vehicles and get the public to buy
> them.
>
> However, the public didn't really start listening until the 80s.
> Then again, perhaps it had to do with the funds people had available to
> them, making safety a lower priority until their incomes increased or
> automakers increased productivity to where such things were affordable.
>
> If at any time the car buying public had demanded safety devices the
> automakers would have provided them immediately. Many were *OPTIONS* for
> years before government made them required. They were options because
> most people wouldn't buy them back then.
>
> Airbags are a prime example. Offered on expensive big three passenger
> cars in the early 1970s they weren't purchased often and problems were
> discovered with regards to children and small adults in using them to
> stop unbelted passengers. The government regulators refused to listen in
> the 1980s and the result was needless deaths from airbags designed to
> stop an average unbelted male.
>
> What really needed to happen wasn't the growth of the government and
> using government force, but education of the american car buyer. All the
> safety regulations could evaporate right now and approximately nobody is
> going to knowingly buy a car that isn't as safe as we have come to know
> cars to be. That education has happened, all the government force didn't
> really make cars safer, it was the buyers demanding it. Government gets
> in the way right now with its CAFE requirements since today's buyers
> care far less about fuel economy than they do safety. While the
> government is more the reverse these days.

You certainly are a princess of bull****.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Ahh, no, that isn't remotely close to an assessment of Ralph Nader's
>>>> involvement. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the
>>>> American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book
>>>> detailing resistance by car manufacturers to the introduction of safety
>>>> features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money
>>>> on improving safety. It was a pioneering work of attack journalism.
>>>
>>> Not to mention false ...
>>
>> I think Paul (Marlon Brando) said it best in 'Last
>> Tango in Paris': "What a steaming pile of horse****!"
>
> Really?
> http://www.archive.org/details/wreckless (Wreckless, 1935, GM film to
> highlight the safety of their new cars)
>
> http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Histor...ass&id=3078116
> (Henry Ford, development of safety glass, 1919. By 1929 all Fords had
> laminated safety glass windshields)
>
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1955-1...-victoria4.htm
> Example of the offerings of Ford's 1950s attempt to sell safety.
> "Sales of most makes were down after banner 1955, but Ford's drop in
> sales that year has frequently been linked to its safety campaign --
> which may or may not be true. Spurred by Cornell University's research
> efforts and the first year of its own safety crash program in 1955, Ford
> decided to go all out for safety in 1956 with its "Lifeguard design"
> advertising campaign. Standard equipment included stronger "double-grip"
> door latches, "deep-center" dished steering wheel, recessed instruments,
> and safety designed door and window handles."
>
> Do I need to go on, or do you wish to keep believing in grade school
> myths?

You called Nader's book false, you couldn't begin to get his briefcase
off the ground with the assistance of a gantry crane, a master operator
and detailed video instructions in every known language.

On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You mean that the automakers fought the government from telling them
>> what to build. This is natural and understandable. Not only because
>> government telling them what to offer in their products is
>> fundamentally wrong, but that they had tried to sell safety before and
>> it wouldn't sell.
>>
>> The idea that automakers didn't care for safety and didn't want to
>> provide it is incorrect and any fair examination of history of the
>> industry shows that. I've seen films of Henry Ford demonstrating
>> laminated safety glass, the safety of the Chrysler Airstream, the
>> benefits of GM's new braking systems in the 1930s, and much more. There
>> has always been a drive to make safer vehicles and get the public to buy
>> them.
>>
>> However, the public didn't really start listening until the 80s.
>> Then again, perhaps it had to do with the funds people had available to
>> them, making safety a lower priority until their incomes increased or
>> automakers increased productivity to where such things were affordable.
>>
>> If at any time the car buying public had demanded safety devices the
>> automakers would have provided them immediately. Many were *OPTIONS* for
>> years before government made them required. They were options because
>> most people wouldn't buy them back then.
>>
>> Airbags are a prime example. Offered on expensive big three passenger
>> cars in the early 1970s they weren't purchased often and problems were
>> discovered with regards to children and small adults in using them to
>> stop unbelted passengers. The government regulators refused to listen in
>> the 1980s and the result was needless deaths from airbags designed to
>> stop an average unbelted male.
>>
>> What really needed to happen wasn't the growth of the government and
>> using government force, but education of the american car buyer. All the
>> safety regulations could evaporate right now and approximately nobody is
>> going to knowingly buy a car that isn't as safe as we have come to know
>> cars to be. That education has happened, all the government force didn't
>> really make cars safer, it was the buyers demanding it. Government gets
>> in the way right now with its CAFE requirements since today's buyers
>> care far less about fuel economy than they do safety. While the
>> government is more the reverse these days.
>
> You certainly are a princess of bull****.

Name calling is not an argument. Please learn some automotive history.

On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>> Ahh, no, that isn't remotely close to an assessment of Ralph Nader's
>>>>> involvement. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the
>>>>> American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book
>>>>> detailing resistance by car manufacturers to the introduction of safety
>>>>> features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money
>>>>> on improving safety. It was a pioneering work of attack journalism.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention false ...
>>>
>>> I think Paul (Marlon Brando) said it best in 'Last
>>> Tango in Paris': "What a steaming pile of horse****!"
>>
>> Really?
>> http://www.archive.org/details/wreckless (Wreckless, 1935, GM film to
>> highlight the safety of their new cars)
>>
>> http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Histor...ass&id=3078116
>> (Henry Ford, development of safety glass, 1919. By 1929 all Fords had
>> laminated safety glass windshields)
>>
>> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1955-1...-victoria4.htm
>> Example of the offerings of Ford's 1950s attempt to sell safety.
>> "Sales of most makes were down after banner 1955, but Ford's drop in
>> sales that year has frequently been linked to its safety campaign --
>> which may or may not be true. Spurred by Cornell University's research
>> efforts and the first year of its own safety crash program in 1955, Ford
>> decided to go all out for safety in 1956 with its "Lifeguard design"
>> advertising campaign. Standard equipment included stronger "double-grip"
>> door latches, "deep-center" dished steering wheel, recessed instruments,
>> and safety designed door and window handles."
>>
>> Do I need to go on, or do you wish to keep believing in grade school
>> myths?
>
> You called Nader's book false, you couldn't begin to get his briefcase
> off the ground with the assistance of a gantry crane, a master operator
> and detailed video instructions in every known language.

That's because it is, the idea that government intervention was needed
for safety is false as is the idea that the corvair was unsafe. The man
is not an engineer and never developed a product in his life. He and
those that have followed him act to stifle innovation and competition
while rendering products a boring mass of sameness.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> You mean that the automakers fought the government from telling them
>> ...
>> You certainly are a princess of bull****.
>
> Name calling is not an argument. Please learn some automotive history.

Perhaps you'd prefer prince? In any case the concepts of classical physics,
logic, govenment, law ... are quite obviously lost on you as they're farther
over your head than is the exosphere

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ... absolutely nothing
whatsoever worthy of reading.

Portnoy wrote:

>
> In addition to my other comments, including stating the book's title which
> alone conspicuously negates and gives lie to your argument, I'm quite
> CLEARLY saying that "GM paid Ralph Nader something like a million
> dollars to deliver the message that the basic VW bug design was unsafe
> at any speed" bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the facts
> of the matter.

Well GM and Nader reached a settlement wherein he was paid a large sum
of money. And Nader was instrumental in leading folks like Ed to the
conclusions they have drawn. Those are the facts and your claim that it
bears no resemblance to the facts is a bit hollow.

>
> Regarding your other ridiculous comments, perhaps you should simply
> read the book and/or research the entirety of the story to provide proof

I wasn't talking about what was in the book. We are talking about public
perception. The public didn't read the book either.

Detroit didn't consider the attacks on the reputation of their small
cars to be a detriment. The Corvair and Pinto were both popular car
models that became unpopular in big hurry. Whether Detroit actively
assisted in their demise or just let it happen makes very little
difference in the end. It was a strategy that was only partially
successful.



> positive documention of how the auto industry not only fought tooth and
> nail, with legion excuses, against providing safety features but also GM's
> illegal tactics (for which they justifiably paid handsomely) and desperate
> attempts to injure Ralph and besmirch his, continuing to date, deservedly
> thoroughly unsullied reputation.