Talk:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The last 5 paragraphs of the history section are really devoted to expressing the author's critical point of view about NHTSA, rather than to presenting information from a neutral point of view.

Contents

[edit] Outdated NHTSA Logo

The NHTSA logo displayed at the top of the page is outdated. If anyone would care to locate the updated logo and replace the old logo with the new one, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.244.4 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2007 June 18

Done -- Jimad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimad (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2007 June 21

[edit] NPOV

I agree that this article needs work. The last section does appear to be in it mainly to promote a view that the NHTSA has been a negative institution. I am going to fix some obvious wording, but more work is needed than I can do, at least for now. Not my leg 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I made some changes and think it reads a little better. I don't know where to go from here, I don't think it can be worded a lot differently to fix the POV issue (although some changes could probably be made), now it is an issue of whether or not the section itself is POV, regardless of how it is stated. I'm not sure if any of that makes sense. Not my leg 19:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think placing things more in context makes article read better - seemed unbalanced and negative in earlier version. NHTSA does what it has to do by law - it's not evil or good. Preventing Americans from choosing vehicles freely was indeed very controversial in real life - I can understand NHTSA aficionados may not want this pointed out - but goal here is even handed, right?
  • I moved the POV tag. The section on the grey market actually seems pretty good, and generally informative. The "out of oligopoly" and perhaps the "unintended consequences" sections still seem POV, although improved. I agree that presenting criticisms is important, but these sections seem to serve the purpose of arguing that the NHTSA works on an invalid theory, and that the idea of regulating design will necessarily produce bad outcomes. These are certainly positions one may hold, but they should be cited as arguments people have raised, not facts about the NHTSA. Not my leg 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • These are good points - I'll do some research and work on it some more

The article as it stands is pure polemic, while doing little to provide even basic information on the agency, like its size, budget, brief, jurisdiction, body of regulation, people, etc. Much of what's there just needs to go. I will be pondering this and probably doing a substantial rewrite soon. Demi T/C 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- it needs a substantial rewrite. I contributed the "mission statement", and the "US safety performance" material. This IS factual, reliable, citable and published, but I would agree hardly appropriate in an introduction to NHTSA. However, any balanced appraisal of NHTSA must address why US safety policy has been such a catastrophe in the US compared to in other countries. I injected this to offer some counterbalance to the material I first found, which was pure polemical advocacy unrelated to NHTSA. It seemed that the earlier writer(s) completely ignored NHTSA's stated mission, and instead made NHTSA's mission their personal mission – one which seemed totally unrelated to any proven safety benefits. While the NHTSA site is pretty good, still please do proceed to rewrite article on a "clean sheet" with the encouragement of this contributor whose contributions this process will likely remove.68.40.157.64 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Revisited

There's been an increase in activity on this article in the last few days, and that's a good thing. However, it is important to keep in mind the principle and intent behind the NPOV requirement. NPOV means Neutral Point Of View. NHTSA's modus operandi and track record, and the issues surrounding the regulations the agency administers, are all very controversial. That makes it difficult to maintain neutrality, but we must each do his best. It is not OK to attack the conclusions of a particular study or a particular researcher based on another researcher's work. These are complicated matters, and there is very little within them that can be answered with a simple yes or no. It is even more inappropriate to disparage a particular researcher or theory, without substantive support, simply because he or it fails to agree with your politics. Sometimes, NPOV means describing the various positions, theories, and conclusions on an issue and acknowledging that there's no universal agreement. Let's all strive to document our assertions to the maximum practicable degree — using proper citation format rather than leaving parenthetical references lying around for someone else to have to clean up, please — and let's leave our own opinions, preferences, and personal advocacy out of it. --Scheinwerfermann 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data veracity

I've removed the "US safety performance since creation of NHTSA" section (I wasn't logged in, so it shows my IP address rather than my username). The entire section was highly POV and inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is drawn largely from a self-published book (not the most reliable of sources). The statistics given are rather misleading, since they aren't normalized for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and VMT has increased faster in the U.S. than in most other developed countries. Blackeagle 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the data you deleted, for they are well supported from primary sources. The text you disparage as unreliable—and its author—are held in extremely high regard by the world's traffic safety research community, notably the US National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board, and this has been the case for many years (this is neither the author's first book nor the first version of this book). The nature of a book like this is such that commercial publishing is not practicably feasible due to extremely limited demand (traffic safety research stats generally don't make the New York Times' bestseller list...!). If you were to do some research into the author's bona fides and credentials, you would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion regarding his qualifications, whether you agree with him or not.
Furthermore, while you're correct that the data presented in this section are raw numbers rather than VDT or PVR numbers, that in itself does not make them invalid or inappropriate for use in this discussion. The point of using raw numbers in this section is to illustrate one very specifically defined trend. VDT and PVR figures are both amply presented and evaluated, just not in this section of the article, and both sets of figures robustly support the trend illustrated by the raw numbers, i.e., that the US is lagging behind other countries in actual safety performance of the vehicle/driver/traffic/roadway system.
You have presented no data to support your assertion that VDT has increased faster in the U.S. than in other countries, nor have you specified whether your claim is based on sequential-year VDT ratios, raw VDT increase or something else. It is inappropriate to delete well-documented data when you've no contrary evidence of greater veracity with which to replace it, let alone when you've no such evidence at all. Please in future come here to the talk page to raise your doubts and questions about content you feel is inappropriate, rather than simply deleting it. --Scheinwerfermann 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur - an important section that needs to be in the article. Might help to explain what "FARS" is and how to get there.66.77.124.61 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I think you are being rather misleading about both Dr. Evans credentials and about the state of transportation publishing. The Transportation Research Board annual meeting does not have a "keynote". The closest equivalent would be the featured speaker at the Chairman's Luncheon, but this is not where Dr. Evans spoke. According to Dr. Evans website, [1] he spoke at the Human Factors Workshop in 2003. While his website describes his speech as a keynote, the meeting program merely describes him as the "Luncheon Speaker". Just to give a sense of scale here, in 2003, the TRB Annual Meeting included 38 workshops and 538 technical sessions (presentation sessions have up to 5 speakers each, poster sessions can have quite a few more). Characterizing Dr. Evans luncheon speech as the "keynote" of the entire conference is highly misleading.
In the transportation research world, self publishing is virtually unheard of. Traffic safety research may not make the New York Times bestseller list, but there are plenty of academic publishers and university presses eager to publish books on such specialized and esoteric topics and sell them (at considerable prices) to academics, students, and university libraries. Unlike Dr. Evans book, these publications have the opportunity to undergo the peer review process. Dr. Evans seems to have quite a few peer reviewed publications on transportation topics listed in TRIS.[2] Those would be far more appropriate to cite than his self published book, however, he does not seem to make these broad claims about NHTSA anywhere in his peer reviewed research. This leads me to view his claims with a jaundiced eye.
Blackeagle 05:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


He was, in fact, a featured speaker at the Chairman's Luncheon and the keynote speaker at the Human Factors workshop. If you were not at the annual meeting in 2003—as I was—or if, like me, you've been attending these annual meetings for enough years that they are difficult to recall individually, you may do as I did and confirm this by contacting TRB directly. I am not certain what point you hope to make with this lexical fencing, but you have still presented no evidence (beyond your "jaundiced eye", which is but a subjective opinion) to support your claims of data unreliability and impropriety. Perhaps if you were more closely familiar with NHTSA as an agency and source of funds throughout the North American traffic safety research and writing industry, and the politics therewithin, you might be able to answer for yourself why strong criticisms of the agency's performance are relatively scarce, even those based upon solid data. Fact is, even if you don't like his book being self-published, you are now having your second round of difficulty providing evidentiary support for your refutation of the data Evans' book contains. This is not surprising, given the veracity and pedigree of the data themselves, but it ought to give you pause in your aspersions. I also hasten to remind you that even commercially-published books in this field are not necessarily peer-reviewed, and your claim to the contrary is not only incorrect but disingenuous.
Finally, as a point of wikiorder: You have once again failed to properly format your comment here on the talk page. Please remember, however many colons are used to indent the text to which you are replying, you need to use one more than that before each of your new paragraphs. I have fixed it for you this time, but thank you for doing it correctly yourself next time. --Scheinwerfermann 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Evans was not the featured speaker at the 2003 Chairman's Luncheon (or as far as I can determine, any other year). The featured speaker at the Chairman's Luncheon in 2003 was Admiral James Loy, former commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and at that time head of the Transportation Security Administration. I have the 2003 annual meeting program right in front of me. If you don't have one handy, take a look at pages 3 and 4 of the TRB Annual Report.[3]
Regarding your "point of wikiorder" by the very standard you set my comment was properly formatted. I was replying to your comment, not the one by 66.77.124.61. You used one colon, I used two.
I have requested a copy of Dr. Evans' book via interlibrary loan (my University library claims they've got a copy of the 1991 version, but it isn't on the shelf). I'll be able to comment on his data a bit more once I get my hands on it.
Blackeagle 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Re-read what I wrote, more carefully this time, paying special attention to definite vs. indefinite articles. As regards comment formatting, your comments appear correctly formatted because I reformatted them for you (twice, now, with two separate comments of yours), adding one additional colon before each of your paragraphs. I did suspect you hadn't any firsthand experience with Evans' book—good of you to come clean about that. --Scheinwerfermann 21:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have read what you've wrote. You claim Dr. Evans was "a featured speaker at the Chairman's Luncheon". There was only one featured speaker at the chairman's luncheon that year, and it was Admiral Loy. I don't understand why you keep insisting to the contrary when I have presented evidence supporting my position and you have not. Regarding the book, you ought to read what I wrote more carefully. I never claimed to have read Dr. Evans book. Blackeagle 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, sir or madam, I was there, and the nice lady at TRB confirmed my recollection for me on the phone the other day, as did Dr. Evans. I can only assume you were not there, which is your loss—it was an excellent speech. Attacking the credibility of a book you have not read is rather an ignorant and silly thing to do, and I'm not certain what you hoped to achieve by it. We can take this discussion up again once you've read the book through, preferably several times. --Scheinwerfermann 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
One further point regarding Wikiorder. According to the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines page, keeping the layout clear is merely regarded as "good practice". Editing others' comments is listed as "Behavior that is unacceptable". Please refrain from it in the future. Blackeagle 16:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come now, surely you don't really expect to get away with conflating reformatting with editing! You and I both know I've never edited your text in a talk page, merely reformatted it, which is entirely acceptable. As regards the layout guideline being denoted a "good practice", yes, that's correct. I'm certain you're not advocating disregarding community standards of good practice and engaging in bad practice instead, for that would be a ridiculous and counterproductive bit of advocacy. --Scheinwerfermann 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism & POV

Not to weigh in on the previous argument, but the sentence "In the US, the numbers reflect that the US already had a sizeable lead from the 1960's with safer vehicles and roads than those in Europe. Even today, domestic vehicles have lower claims for injury and death than the imports" seems to be misleading since the both the rate of accident reductions and the end-point result seems to point in the opposite direction, namely that several European countries have fatality rates about 1/2 that in US. IE a more correct statement would be that the US used to have a lead but has lost it. Further, I do not believe it is factually correct that domestic vehicles have lower claims, based on IIHS data that seems to say just the opposite. Jimad 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the statement is not supportable by facts in evidence, and so I have removed it. --Scheinwerfermann 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the objectionably unsupportable statement was only one of several acts of vandalism committed by an anonymous user at IP 12.110.179.187, who seems to have been intent on injecting his opinions and political views into the article. I have gone through and cleaned up the mess he made, restoring appropriate text from before his edits. Good catch, thanks for pointing it out. Not sure how I managed to miss such obvious vandalism as "The UN, an ineffective organization"...! --Scheinwerfermann 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual errors

The Oligopoly section was full of baseless opinion, POV (Nader's?) and factual errors:

  • The various US carmakers were not producing "basically the same car with styling variations" to any degree greater or lesser than any other country's auto industry.
  • The US automakers were not, at the time under discussion, insulated from imports to anywhere near the degree they are so insulated today by the more or less hidden trade barrier imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that differ from international safety standards used by the rest of the developed world. Imports were very much present in the US market in the 1950s and 1960s. They were generally not as popular as US-made cars (with exceptions, viz. VW Beetle), because they were widely viewed as not being optimized for US driving conditions prevailing at the time.
  • The US automakers' products were not "unsalable" in other countries. Prior to the oil price spikes of the early 1970s, US-designed and/or US-built vehicles were very popular outside the US. Ford, GM, Chrysler and AMC all enjoyed significant sales (relative to market size) of US-based models in such markets as Australia, South Africa, Central and South America and certain European countries.
  • Disc brakes and ABS were not "foreign" innovations. The first mainstream volume-production car with disc brakes was the 1955 Chrysler. The first mainstream volume-production car with available 4-wheel computer-controlled ABS was the 1971 Imperial (also a Chrysler product).

A great deal more work needs to be done on this article. Yes, NHTSA has made a mess of virtually everything they've touched, relative to the performance of analogous agencies in other countries. But in order to explain how this came to be, it is first necessary to separate the hype from facts, and post only the latter, while perhaps taking note of significant points of view and denoting them as such. Scheinwerfermann 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Are you referring specifically to the Corvair? Otherwise, this point is valid, the difference betweeen a 1955 Cadillac and a 1965 Plymouth mechanically is negligible - certainly when comparing say a 1955 BMW Isetta with a 1965 Mercedes-Benz 600.
They were insulated by the ultra low price of gasoline in the US - so the cars were suited mostly for parades and such in most other countries. The US mfrs bought foreign automakers to compete overseas (Holden, Simca, Rootes, Opel etc.)
Actually Crosley/Jaguar/Citroen innovated the disk brake early 1950's and ABS was Jensen in 1966. Chrysler dabbled a bit - but that is all. Here's why - technical innovation seemed at that time to interfere with profits - Cadillac did not get where it is today by accident.
Yes - the US has erected this hidden trade barrier of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards that differ from international safety standards used by the rest of the developed world - the article should point that out, the history leading to this state of affairs (which appears unrelated to safety), and the consequences. An article that doesn't explain why NHTSA has swerved into the business of banning safe cars from the US market is incomplete.

66.77.124.61 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


First off, I have reformatted your response to make it possible to reply. This is not Usenet; do not intersperse your comments with those already posted. Make your comments below those already posted, with proper indentation.
You seem not particularly knowledgeable about American cars of the 1950s and '60s; it reads as if you are going on vague, general impressions rather than close working knowledge. The mechanical differences between a '55 Cadillac and a '65 Plymouth are many and significant. One is body-on-frame, one is unit-body. Suspension technology and configuration is significantly different. Brake configuration, likewise sifnificantly different. Engines are similar only in the broadest sense of configuration (V8 OHV). Electrical system technology and configuration, again significantly different.
Comparing a 1955 BMW Isetta with a 1965 Mercedes-Benz 600 is ridiculous. One might as well compare a Schwinn to an Audi S8. Let's try and keep it serious and relevant. The mechanical differences between a 1955 Mercedes and a 1965 Mercedes are arguably less numerous and less significant than those of the two American-made cars you picked for your comparison.
The price of gasoline in the US was not nearly as significantly lower in the 1960s as it became starting in the 1970s. Your lack of historical knowledge is telling on you again. Countries outside North America reacted to the 1970s oil crises by increasing taxation on motor fuels, and that is when the gap became significant between US and European/Japanese fuel prices. That is also, not coincidentally, when US-design vehicles stopped being especially saleable in Europe and Japan.
As for brake innovations, sure, Crosley played with disc brakes in the early 1950s. Although they were a US manufacturer (not to be confused with Crossley), their worldwide sales volume rounds down to zero. Jensen, too, played with a primitive form of ABS in the mid 1960s. Their sales volume, too, rounds down to zero. The first volume production of disc brakes and ABS (as we presently understand it; a computer-controlled 4-wheel system with tonewheel input) took place in the US.
It is very important, for the integrity and veracity of Wikipedia articles, to give facts priority over guesses, assumptions, thirdhand recollections and personal preferences. It is not helpful to perpetuate myths and half-truths.Scheinwerfermann 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure suggestions, Documentation, sources

A lot of this article reads like an essay for a class instead of an encyclopedic-style article about NHTSA. I suggest this outline for the article:

Intro section
Mission and organization
History
Impacts of policy, research, and recommendations
Current issues
Criticisms (if there are any that can be backed-up by references)
Possible future issues or areas of research
"See Also"
References (Books, government publications, websites, media articles and documentaries, TV news reports, etc)
Notes

In other words, it looks like the article should be completely rewritten. I know that would be very time-consuming but it would produce a good reference for those interested in reading about traffic safety and the federal government organization dedicated to studying and promoting traffic safety. Cla68 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you in principle. What's presently posted generally isn't wrong; by any objective measure, NHTSA's performance has been abysmal. While the article does need significant reworking, it would be intellectually dishonest not to devote significant space to these legitimate criticisms, which can indeed be rigourously documented (take a look; the most serious criticisms are already documented with links). Scheinwerfermann 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't have any problem with a section, large or small, on criticism, as long as it is written in a neutral manner (yes, it is possible to write critically and neutrally at the same time). I disagree that the current criticisms in the article are well sourced. If you want to see an article that is well sourced, look at Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. As that article shows, you can't have too many references. That article also shows the preferred way to show sources. If you present a well-sourced, neutrally-phrased article, the truth will speak for itself without having to make POV declarations like, "NHTSA's performance has been abysmal" or, "NHTSA has truly saved millions of lives." Cla68 03:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I really don't think our viewpoints are too far apart; let me just pose this question to you: Do you favour quantity or quality in references? The author of the books and sites presently linked for referential support is very highly regarded in the international traffic safety research community, and has very extensive credentials in that field. I heard him give the keynote speech at the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board annual conference in Washington, DC a few years ago. He is certainly not a kook or a bitter flake. The problem is, he is one of relatively few people critically analysing NHTSA's performance. There are one or two others of note, but he is the primary one. So, the question in my mind is: Do we limit the degree to which his references are used, and the degree to which his criticisms are incorporated in this article, because he's only one source and we can't find five or six others to corroborate what he says? This is a problem whenever you have an area of knowledge which is for whatever reason so specialised that few people are highly qualified to discuss it at a meaningful level. Interested in your thoughts. Scheinwerfermann 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Safety stats methodology & Government role

Do the stats adjust for population growth? US is growing much faster. As I read this, the unstated premise of this section is the government causes automobile safety, and if people are dying on the highway, the government is at fault. Sure Ralph Nader beleives that, but reality is a lot more complicated - f.ex. the death rate in the UK is an ultra low 58/1000's of 1% per capita, half that of France, but that's most likely due to the people and the way they drive, rather than some bureaucratic scheme coming out of Whitehall.66.77.124.61 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the stats are in terms of deaths and injuries per vehicle-mile or vehicle-kilometre travelled and per vehicles registered and so factor out population growth. Your understanding of the premise of this article is flawed; it is overly simplistic and superficial. Of course the government does not "cause" auto safety. Governments all over the world take authority over policies, regulations and laws related to vehicular and road design, construction and use. Some of those sets of policies, regulations and laws result in relatively good safety. Some of those sets of policies, regulations and laws result in relatively poor safety. That is why NHTSA comes under fire for their poor performance. Behavioural factors certainly play a significant role in roadway safety...what's your point? That's why the regulations, laws and policies get written in the first place! Scheinwerfermann 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Safety on the roads, like safety in the air, IS the responsibility of government. The differences between US the UK road safety are mainly due to massive differences in public policy. Just one detail. The UK passed a successful belt wearing law in the early 1980s while our top safety official, NHTSA administrator lawyer Joan Claybrook (a Nader protégé) opposed belt wearing laws in favor of airbags (already well-known by the technical community to be quite ineffective). The core difference is that in other countries technical knowledge matters, whereas US policy results from agenda-driven lawyers influencing lawyer legislators. This is described in detail in Chapter 15 The Dramatic Failure of US Safety Policy in the 2004 book TRAFFIC SAFETY by Leonard Evans. (details at http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/traffic-safety.htm). When its author spoke in the UK, 12 members of Parliament, including one Cabinet Secretary, came to hear him. The contrasts sharply with the total lack of interest in the science of safety by every member of our US Congress. Additionally notable since the author of TRAFFIC SAFETY is a member of the US National Academy of Engineering. 68.41.174.44 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Quite so. As I think I mentioned above, I heard Dr. Evans' keynote speech at the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board annual conference a few years ago. I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions and recommendations, but it cannot realistically be denied that Evans is on the short-short list of individuals most highly qualified in the world to comment on matters of roadway safety and regulatory performance related thereto. Scheinwerfermann 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "Fact" check request to the supposed HDLI quote that domestic cars are safer because I cannot find "facts" supporting the statement at the citation currently listed. The facts are suspect in my mind because I have read quite a bit of the documents at the closely-related IIHS site and they seem to contradict the supposed HDLI quote. So, if anyone know the correct and complete cite for this "fact" please provide it otherwise I will probably replace the current "fact" with a more detailed statement on the issue based on published IIHS data where I can give a complete and correct citation. Jimad 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The effort to present both sides

Anyone else feel a little annoyed by the way the 'npov' policy usually finishes? I can obviously see why a biased article is not okay, but it seems like what people tend to do is just list one side's points and then list the other's, and whatever one people read last tends to 'win' in their minds.

What I mean is, can't we just talk about the facts and not degrade every subject with two sides into a "Here's your points, and here's your points!" and leave out anything meaningful? Sometimes neither side is right.

Well...no, I don't feel annoyed by this which you are talking about. That's not a NPOV problem, that's a problem with poor-quality writing. NPOV, on a practical level, means presenting all serious, relevant and substantiable points of view on whatever which topic is at hand. Go take a look, for example, at turn signal color or headlamp laws and regulations. These "facts" that you want to talk about cannot be discussed without describing the various perspectives. That is the nature of reality even for innocuous subjects, let alone contentious ones. I think you understand this ("sometimes neither side is right"), you just need to realise that means there's no such a thing as 'the facts' as you want them to exist, in a contextual and perceptual vacuum. Scheinwerfermann 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aerodynamics (headlamps)

Hi, O.M. Note that NHTSA never seriously intended to adopt the ECE headlamp standard. They contracted Exponent Research, a Michigan engineering consultancy, nominally to evaluate the relative merits of the various possible headlamp regulatory paths (do nothing, adopt ECE, adopt Ford's proposal, and a few others). GIGO, Garbage In = Garbage Out, and Exponent Research recommended Ford's system in yet another all-too-typical instance of "America's right and the stupid rest of the world is wrong" arrogance. NHTSA used Exponent Research's conclusions as justification for rubberstamping Ford's proposal, and that's how we wound up where we are. There are requirements for anti-UV and anti-abrasion hardcoats on plastic headlamp lenses, they're just not strict enough; Ford made sure the regulation contains lax, cheap-to-comply-with technical requirements. In this particular case, the US test requires that polycarbonate lenses be made only from materials that have passed the 3-year Florida and 3-year Arizona tests. In those tests, sample plates of a proposed lens material (i.e., particular polycarbonate + particular coating) are laid in the sun for 3 years in Florida and 3 years in Arizona, after which they must exhibit no more than 30% haze. The problems with this meaningless "test" are fairly obvious: Manufacturers use specially-prepped test plates that aren't representative of the actual lenses that'll be used, 30% haze is way too much, and the duration of the test means the newest materials allowable for use on the road are at least 3 years out of date. The ECE test for polycarbonate lens materials is more stringent, takes days rather than years, and requires at least one sample of the actual lens be tested...and even with this more stringent test, there are still some problems with hazing of ECE plastic headlamp lenses. Also be aware that HB3 and HB4 are axial-filament designs, not transverse. The HB3 and HB4 didn't come along til 1986, and those were GM's bulbs, because GM liked 4-lamp systems. Ford preferred 2-lamp systems, hence their use of the HB1 twin transverse filament bulb...followed by the HB5 twin axial filament bulb, which is just an HB3 and an HB4 rolled into one, which Ford picked up starting in 1992. --Scheinwerfermann 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The statistics involved are skewed. It says that the countries are

The statistics involved are skewed. It says that the countries are comparable to the United States. For two of them, size is an issue. With Australia, it's average population density.

Municipalities labled A, B, C, and D. They are all of similar size.

Pop: a:1,000,000 b:300 c:800,000 d:1,000

Because of the obviously higher population density of A, crashes are statistically more likely than that of B. If they both prevent 100 fatal crashes, however, the percentages will vary greatly. This is the reason that the statistics are skewed. It's not a lack of effort, as is implied, but a greater extent that must be done to yield the same results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.126.171 (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Average population density is relatively meaningless in the context of traffic crash rate analysis. Canada's average population density is quite low, but the density is quite high in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal, for instance. Australia is closely comparable to the US in many ways, including general road type prevalence and geometry, vehicular mix, etc. While there are certainly differences in spot-to-spot population density, this is much less relevant than e.g. road geometry, vehicular mix, and traffic density. If two roads of given width, curvature, sight line, and bank angle are travelled with a similar density of similar vehicles, it doesn't matter if one of those roads travels through a metropolis of 33 million people and the other crosses a town of 12,000. --Scheinwerfermann 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing thread

In the unindendend consequences section, the following sentence appears to have been edited so much it is now unclear: "These regulations, frequently used as justification for lax crash avoidance safety performance standards, were disregarded by NHTSA under Claybrook's administration" Love to fix it, but how - what are "These regulations" exactly? What is the take-away from this section supposed to be?69.8.247.232 03:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody made some fairly hamfisted deletions of text that had made this section somewhat more intelligible than it was when you found it. I've reworked it to be clear and sequential, and will provide citations as soon as I return to my library. Good catch. --Scheinwerfermann 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the phrase 'simply and illegally'. Accusing successive generations of high ranking Executive Branch employees of illegal behavior is not something that should be done without careful consideration. If we are going to claim that people in the law enforcement section of government violated the law, we owe it to the readers to not only justify this claim, but to document what investigations were done into their behavior and the outcome of these inquiries. If there were none, then this must also be explained convincingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.156.29.61 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC).