House Cmte Votes Yet Again To Block CAFE Increases - Reuters

[hatrack]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "A House committee on Wednesday voted against requiring U.S. automakers to ratchet up fuel efficiency to a fleet average of 33 miles per gallon by 2014 from the current 27.5 mpg for passenger cars. The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 36 to 10 against the proposal to raise federal mileage requirements, which was offered as an amendment to a broad energy bill.

Democrat Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who sponsored the proposal, said higher fuel standards were needed to reduce oil demand and make the United States less dependent on foreign petroleum suppliers like OPEC. "The price of oil is controlled by OPEC," said Markey. "We can't break (the cartel) up."

U.S. oil demand averages averages 21 million barrels a day, with imports supplying three of every five barrels consumed. With gasoline demand the biggest component of oil consumption at about 40 percent, many environmentalists say the only way to significantly reduce petroleum demand is to boost vehicle fuel efficiency.

But committee Democrats from Michigan, where the auto industry is based, said Congress can't mandate what type of automobiles Detroit should make. "People are driving around in big cars, because they like them, because they feel safe," said Democrat John Dingell of Michigan. Opponents to the amendment said higher mileage requirements would force automakers to produce dangerous, small cars to meet the stronger fuel standard. "You'll never get your soccer moms and soccer kids in there," said Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan, referring to the feared subcompact vehicles. "It's not what Americans want."

EDIT

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8173495

Same old shit, week after week, year after year. "You can't bring a bunch of roughneck firemen into the prom just because the gym's on fire. The kids'll get really upset!!"

[sellitman]

1. The House is a laughing stock.

I wonder which Dems broke rank?

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Dingel's wife is a GM VP/Lobbyist

[punpirate]

2. Y'know...

... in all these arguments against CAFE standards, no one, but no one, admits that SUVs aren't produced because they're safer (which they aren't), but because they have a much higher profit margin than other vehicles.

It's all about corporations. Public be damned.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. When GM tries to make econo cars

They end up with Cimarrons (the Cavalier with a Caddie emblem) and Corvairs (a bad scale up of a VW Bug).

Their only good econo cars are the ones they buy in Japan and rebrand here (Prizm, Vibe, etc.)

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. maybe they should bring over the Opel line?

Maybe it 's the mindset of their people in the US. Perhaps they should concider borrowing more from their foreign operations.

[Massacure]

6. I think the penis factor is more important the safety.

[Poppyseedman]

5. For once I agree

CAFE requirements will not reduce the US dependence on foreign oil. I've seen the data and though it does help reduce the amount of increase, oil consumption will continue to grow as long as we are a oil based global economy.

China oil consumption increase alone will far outstrip any pressure we can exert on oil prices.

This will in the long run cost lives by forcing people into smaller cars and not address a growing problem except for making people FEEL like it's doing something about it

[amandabeech]

7. If we use less oil, we import less oil. If we reduce imports, our

negative balance of trade will not be as bad, and our economy will be stronger.

During the '70s and '80s oil crises, people moved to smaller cars from the land yachts prevalent in the early '70s. Today, People will either move to smaller vehicles or perhaps they will move to smaller hybrid minvans and SUVs as they become available from either Detroit or Tokyo.

Actually, small cars can be made safer by better cage design and by installing side airbags, like the Corolla/Prizm twins.

[NickB79]

8. If you didn't have to worry about being creamed by a massive SUV

There wouldn't be nearly as much of this purported risk associated with driving smaller cars. Of course smaller cars can be more dangerous to drive in when there are Hummers and monster trucks on the road. I suspect the increasing price of gas will soon remove that problem, however.

BTW, SUV's are no safer than small cars, despite the usual hype. Their roll-over rates far exceed that of any car model, resulting in numerous fatalities in accidents involving SUVs. The larger size puts more metal between you and the other car, but it also makes you top-heavy, negating any benefits.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Our tort system should have some way

way of making SUV owners and manufacturers compensate econo car passengers for increased damages and injuries caused by the SUV - even if the econo car driver is partially at fault.

[One_Life_To_Give]

14. What about the safety cage

I would think that a full safety cage and all around air bags would solve the issue. That is keep a SUV from being able to do catastrophic damage to a fuel efficient car. It should also help improve the survivability of crashes with commercial trucks and buses.

[Poppyseedman]

17. Let me get this straight

You want SUV owners and manufacturers to be partially legally responsible for damages to a smaller vehicle, even when it is the econo car owners own fault?

It is a rare day when an accident occurs and both people are at fault. That is why there are road rules, to determine who broke them and is at fault.

Should we apply the same rules to smaller cars verses motorcycles?

Same principle!

[Coastie for Truth]

18. Yes.

1. There were product liability cases where there was "joint liability" for "aggravation of injuries" due to the "aggressive design." This was discussed in a recent issue of Product Engineering. These were not junk cases like the McDonald's hot coffee cases.

2. I have to take issue with your statement that "It is a rare day when an accident occurs and both people are at fault. That is why there are road rules, to determine who broke them and is at fault." I would suggest that you Google "Failure Mode Effect Analysis" and its alternative name "Fault Tree Analysis" - and search in Dialog and Engineering Index, and download http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2000/spec/NASA-2000-sp6111.pdf (You might even find my published papers from the late 1960's; you will also find some papers by Rasmussen at MIT and McConnaughey at DOT and NTSB and Powers at Carnegie Mellon). There is no such animal as one sole, single cause of an accident, and nobody is ever 100% at fault unless there is actual felonious criminal conduct (not misdemeanor - but felony).

[Poppyseedman]

19. So

When a motorcycle hits your vehicle and is completely wrecked, because of the motorcycle driver negligence while your econo vehicle sustains only minor damage, you're going to pick up the partial cost of fixing their bike?

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Not analogous

Your passenger car is not designed to be "aggressive" with mis-match of bumper heights, etc.

The issue is "aggressive design" and it is a "product liability" issue for the manufacturer - although most personal injury lawyers sue both the owner of the SUV and the SUV manufacturer.

[Poppyseedman]

22. Explain "aggressive design"

Are you actually saying that the SUV manufactures are designing their vehicles to look more "aggressive" as to affect the owners attitude toward their fellow driver on the road, so they are partially to blame?

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Aggressive Design

is not "styling."

"Aggressive Design" is the ability of one design choice to cause more property damage and personal injury then a non-aggressive design. Typical would be high bumpers that "over ride" the bumpers in a passenger car - or that intrude more deeply into the passenger compartment in a "T" collision.

It is less a "buyer choice" issue -- and more a manufacturer's issue -- hence "product liability."

Bumper over ride is the classic aggresive design issue.

The obvious follow on question - "Why is the owner liable - as well as or in addition to the manufacturer. That is just a creature of our tort law system - "joint and several liability" and "joinder" and "privity." Been many years since I took "Business Law for Engineers."

[Coastie for Truth]

24. Further aspects of aggressive design - from 30+ years ago

1. The "Dagmar" bumpers (named after a "well endowed" Scandinavian movie star of the 1950's) - provided no additional protection to the car but increased damage to other cars and injuries to pedestrians.

2. The hood ornaments - significantly increased injuries to pedestrians.

[struggle4progress]

25. How could reducing mpg fail to reduce US dependence of foreign oil?

Thirty years ago, I had a small car that (when well-tuned) got over 50 mpg in highway driving: it was light and had a small engine.

Thirty years of engineering would have been able by now to provide comparable fuel efficiency is rather larger (and somewhat safer) vehicles, if there had been real pressure for such improvements.

[IrateCitizen]

9. More proof of Dems unwilling to confront the two biggest issues we face.

1. Ecological Collapse -- A UN working group report just came out that was assembled by over 1300 scientists from over 90 countries, working over a period of 4 years. It states that we have depleted about 2/3 of our "natural capital" -- i.e. clean freshwater, arable soil, fish stocks, etc. -- and that if we continue at this rate and don't make SERIOUS changes, we will soon cause an ecological collapse. They also discuss global climate change as a big, big problem as well.

2. Peak Oil Production -- Oil prices have surged from $35 to $55 per barrel in the past year, no major new fields have been discovered over the past 2 years, even Saudi Arabia has been unable to boost production, the North Sea and Alaskan oil fields are in declining production, oil conglomerates are investing their capital in mergers rather than exploration, and no respite is in view.

Yet, when given a chance to act, Congressional representatives decide to ignore reality and simply pretend that everything will be able to continue just like it always had, with endless expansion and endless growth of an auto-centric culture.

I'd find them laughable if we all weren't going to pay the price for their pigheadedness and disavowal of reality.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Sometimes I think some Dems who appear to be on Detroit's

payroll may be double dipping - on Tokyo's payroll too. Low domestic CAFE standards just drives me to buy a Toyota or Honda.

Which Dems - The Levins, Conyers, Dingle, etc.

Oh well - Domo arigatoo gozaimasu.

[ramapo]

15. Nothing New Here - The Dems suck on this issue

Clinton/Gore were steadfastly against any raise in CAFE standards.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. The politics of Michigan

Michigan is a "Purple State" - sometimes Red and sometimes Blue. The political parties in MI are irrelevant - it's a "One Party State" - GMFORDCHRYSLERUAW and the Michiganders believe their own GMFORDCHRYSLERUAW bull that big gas guzzlers are good for jobs and economy cars are bad for jobs, and they believe the corollary "Even if American manufacturers could make good economy cars, American motorists wouldn't buy them - but that's irrelevant because American manufacturers can NOT make good economy cars."

I only lived there for seven years (working on an electric vehicle project at a local "think tank - incubator" that also did a lot of photovoltaic work) -- and adjuncted at a local engineering school.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Thank Dingel, Conyers, Bonior, the Levins, etc.

(I lived in MI)

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. Didn't the Big 3 pay fines not long ago

because people wouldn't buy the cars that met the current CAFE?
To be effective you have to have the manufacturers produce a fuel efficient car. And have people actually willing to buy them.

With fuel over $3 a gal. the american motoring public is only just starting to change their buying habits. If the manufacturers do not respond to this change then maybe a CAFE increase is warranted. But with their current crop of fuel guzzling vehicals sitting on their lots. There is a fair chance they will shift their offering.

[Broca]

26. It's not that some democrats broke ranks

as many democrats never supported the better mileage rates. Even Feingold and Kolh in Wisconsin have voted against it in the past. The money and union influence was too much for them. Their lobbyist's profits were more important than national security and consumer interests. I say that as someone that spent many hours and weeks on the streets in their campaigns. Their overall positions on a varietyh of issues were still far better then their opponents.