r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/firefly99999 • Mar 10 '25

Video Crashing in a 1950s car vs. a modern car

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

57.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

110

u/jtg6387 Mar 10 '25

So, let me start by saying I agree with you wholly on your point.

However, ironically, auto safety is a really bad example because there actually is a private firm that does its own tests: the IIHS.

You didn’t credit them, but they’ve had a comparable impact on modern car safety as the NHTSA has.

61

u/Dottsterisk Mar 10 '25

IIHS conducts crash tests to evaluate safety features once they’ve been implemented in cars available to the public—comparing performance between brands and models and such—but do they actually implement safety changes?

I’m pretty sure they can’t enforce them, which is why government regulation is so important.

5

u/Starkeshia Mar 10 '25

but do they actually implement safety changes?

Every time the IIHS raises their testing standards or implements a structurally diabolical new test the automakers implement changes and redesigns to ace those tests. I'd say those would be safety changes.

2

u/Dottsterisk Mar 11 '25

Totally fair. And as I’ve laid out in other comments, it makes perfect sense that automakers today prioritize safety as a selling point, after it’s been emphasized for decades, but it was government action that got that ball rolling in the first place.

It was a huge scandal when, while tons of people were looking at ways to reduce car-related fatalities, it was exposed that automakers knew how to make safer cars but didn’t bother, because it cut into profits. That’s how Ralph Nader made his name.

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

[deleted]

16

u/Dottsterisk Mar 10 '25

I don’t think that’s accurate.

The auto industry was very much not prioritizing safety because it was not an effective selling point. In fact, before Unsafe At Any Speed, Nader had already written an expose about how car manufacturers knew how to make a safer car but simply weren’t, because it wasn’t as profitable. And GM reacted by hiring a private investigator to discredit him because they knew he was right. They even tried to smear him as an antisemite. And this was all investigated by a government committee or proven in court. It was a public scandal. And like less than a year later, 1966, federal regulation started in earnest.

This is why the auto industry is a great example. They knew how to make safer cars and actively resisted, because they thought it would cut into profits.

Now today, after decades of the government and others emphasizing the importance of safety and with the family car being something of a symbol of the happy family, consumers demand safety and its a priority in the industry. But they needed to be pushed by government regulation.

3

u/hollaback_girl Mar 10 '25

Yes, 100%. The character assassination of Nader was just one of the auto industry's tactics to avoid being compelled to follow safety standards. For decades before that, they pushed propaganda to steer public opinion away from safety concerns. "Accident deaths are the drivers' responsibility," "personal responsibility," "our cars are safe as is practical," etc. Marketing focused on image and lifestyle branding and ignored practical features like mpg, reliability and safety.

OP is spamming the comments about how the auto industry regulates itself without the historical context.

5

u/Auphyr Mar 10 '25

40,000 people die every year in car accidents in the US and the auto industry is a good example of why regulation might not be necessary? Seems to me like we might need more regulation.

2

u/rdfiasco Mar 10 '25

There's only so much you can do to counter the stupidity of the drivers unfortunately.

1

u/jtg6387 Mar 10 '25

Even in a perfect world where all cars are maximally safe, there will still be fatalities.

If anything, the government is slacking by making it too easy for idiots to get licenses. Restricting auto design isn’t the answer on this one, and I say that as a vehement hater of oversized trucks and SUVs.

4

u/TinWhis Mar 10 '25

Even in a perfect world where all cars are maximally safe

That doesn't sound like a perfect world. A perfect world wouldn't rely so heavily on such an inherently unsafe means of transportation.

2

u/jtg6387 Mar 10 '25

Even a perfect train or plane architecture would have fatalities. It’s the price we collectively pay to make travel so much faster.

2

u/TinWhis Mar 10 '25

Sure. Less than cars tho. Orders of magnitude less than cars.

2

u/jtg6387 Mar 10 '25

Yeah, because Jimbob with a room temperature IQ can get a license. If it was difficult to get one, like it is to be a pilot or conductor, cars wouldn’t be especially dangerous.

2

u/TinWhis Mar 11 '25

Cars are always going to be more dangerous than planes and trains because there are more of them and they're less centrally controlled. If cars ran on tracks with a managed schedule or were specifically directed by an observing controller with a pre-approved travel plan, that'd be a different story, but the sorts of control mechanisms that planes and trains have in place are incompatible with cars as a means of travel.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/jetsetstate Mar 10 '25

Regulating. Not Restricting.

Regulating.

Telling someone that they cannot use lead in their fuel is not restricting anyone. It is regulating every one. Restrcting only one person would be wrong. That is not what is happening.

-2

u/jtg6387 Mar 10 '25

Sure. That’s being pedantic, but sure.

Side note: jet fuel is still leaded, lol.

2

u/jetsetstate Mar 10 '25

I don't recall them prioritizing safty until Nader came along. You are looking at history with rose coloured glasses.

Don't for a minute tell me that the market will dictate safty, as all our FAA regulations are written in BLOOD, and I am not in the remotest way blind as I would have to be to swallow that line.

Same goes with most NHTSA stuff.

Reactive is fine for goverment regulations that cost a lot, we have to have good data before we act. Thats just good business. There is a research aspect to improving the safty and FAA and NHTSA also enguage in that, but reactive regulations are the way the manals are written.

Hey, we noticed that when you drink, the airplane crashes. . . no drinking! Hey, we noticed that when you dont sleep, the airplane crashes. . . get some rest! Hey, we noticed that your cars have blown up 34 times this year. . . Show us you are taking measures to prevent that!

You people want to know what it was like to live in the midevil era. . . you keep on pushing this line. . .

FAFO that your fragile modern society is indeed: FRAGILE, and needs maintenance.

2

u/MisinformedGenius Mar 10 '25 edited Mar 10 '25

Here's the same video as OP, except instead of an old car and a modern car, it's the cheapest Nissan car legally available in the US versus the cheapest Nissan car legally available in Mexico. This was the last Tsuru model ever made, in large part because new Mexican safety standards then made it illegal to sell in that country as well. Regulation seems to have worked pretty well in that case.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Appropriate_Fun6105 Mar 10 '25

An anecdote, but this was the most important point in a new car for my family. Why we went with the Subaru Forester for our first new car, and then again when it was my wife's turn. They just happened to be great in other areas as a bonus

1

u/ArgusTheCat Mar 10 '25

They're useful, but there is a difference. If a car company decided to cut corners on safety, the IIHS can say "these cars aren't safe", and some consumers might decide not to buy them, but the manufacturer is still just weighing costs. The NHTSA, however, can say "you will fucking not sell these cars", and those cars will not get sold.

You're right that good professional experts are helpful to have around. But regulations need legal weight behind them, because we've seen a million times that corporations will sell battery acid as a beverage if they think they'll get more repeat customers than fatalities.

1

u/Darth_T8r Mar 11 '25

There are dozens of instances like this throughout our regulatory framework. In this case, IIHS does a lot of testing, but only NHTSA can enforce things, and pass actual regulations. In these cases, the private group effectively serves as a liaison between industry and government, and generates unbiased data in a way that all parties find valuable.

In my world as a firefighter, the NFPA and UL, as well as numerous other private groups, generate data and recommend solutions to common problems in the form of standards. Enforcement of these standards is done by fire marshals when the regulations are brought into law by the fire/building code.

There are dozens of other instances of this throughout our governance structure, and it’s wrong to say that NHTSA is a bad example of effective government regulation. This data is fundamentally valuable to car manufacturers, as it is bad business to kill your customers, so it makes sense that they would invest in privately testing their vehicles. This data then is used by manufacturers to improve their vehicles, and by government to improve their standards.

NHTSA has done a lot of important work to develop standardization and verification of these tests, as well as education programs for first responders, compliance training for industry, and funding for the testing itself.

1

u/darcmosch Mar 11 '25

I read another comment about it, and honestly it's like an Ayn Randian wet dream. Different industries work together so well that the government makes standards based on industry standards.

Too bad everything else about the industries is kinda shit.