Yes there are always two sides, simplistic answers are mainly for the simple minded. On victimization, we seem to forget, there normally are 12? peers sitting in judgement. that have the final say, if the they are swayed by smooth talking lawyers, they IMO share a lot of the blame in that regard. Regarding your extremely valid point on car control, which IMo should be ingrained as to be nearly automatic, I feel go karts are the best car control platform for beginners to learn the needed skills. Nobody needs to get behind the wheel ,on the street, until they have mastered a go kart, driven near its limits IMO.

I thought this was going to turn into an argument on "old cars were built stronger with a full frame (as Mike pointed out) versus these new fangle tin can cars being built with cheap foreign steel and plastic" but it seems it's "the federal government ain't gona tell me I got wear a seat belt, helmet or ......" The point that was being made back then was there were no rules or standards on how cars were built. If left up to the marketing department they would be "function follows form". If left up to the accounting department it would be "use cheaper materials, does it really need to be that strong or good, and why do we have to put even one rear view mirror or a defroster in or on it?" We would probably still have those VW B-pillar flip out turn indicator reflectors or still have to use hand signals to make a turn even in the dead of winter. The S.A.E. produces all of the standards and submits them to NHTSA not the other way around. Yes they produced the seat belt requirements but the STATES are the one that make it a fine if you are not wearing it not the Feds. Without the FMVSS Standards the manufactures could do whatever they want, no seat belts, cable or rod operated brake systems, tiny brake lights mounted anywhere they fit or better yet where they look the most stylish. What the 1966 FMVSS Act did was level the playing field so that EVERYONE played and manufactured by the same rules. No one was going to build a car safer if no one else was going to and without the standards or rules in place that meant that anyone could get in the game and not care how safe or unsafe they had to make it. The Ford Pinto filler neck debacle (as mentioned) was a perfect example of "Well there's no FMVSS safety standard for it so it will be cheaper to settle the claims for injuries or deaths then it would be to move the filler neck to the side of the car". Chrysler on the early '69 model year B-bodies had a round opening behind the license plate for the filler neck with little side impact (quarter panel impact) clearance around it. They (as I said Chrysler was one of the leaders in safety designs) went to an oval opening to help prevent a side impact from dislodging the filler neck from the gas tank, and did it without a standard or regulation.......why didn't Ford? Well as mentioned there was no regulation so why spend the money.

Here are some examples of the FMVSS Safety Standards that every manufacture has to play by and I don't see one that takes away anyone's freedom or tells them how to drive. Hey if you want to not use your turn signals, never turn on your front or rear defroster, never dip your high beams, take your hood safety latch off, cover all of your marker lights and reflectors with duct tape, not wear your seat belts the Feds won't do a thing..................but watch out for some States and please let me know when you plan to be out on the road so I can keep my wife and kid safe at home The Standards are not just there for you, they're there to protect others from you, and you from other idiots that don't think when they drive

EXAMPLES OF Federal Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)


Standard No. 201: Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies performance requirements to afford impact protection for occupants.
Application:
Passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less

Standard No. 202a: Head Restraints
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of
neck injury in rear-end and other collisions.
Application:
Passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less

Standard No. 203: Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies requirements for steering control systems that will minimize chest, neck,
and facial injuries to the driver as a result of impact.
Application:
Passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less; exempted from the standard are: walk-in-vans and vehicles that conform to
the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means other than seat belt
assemblies

Standard No. 204: Steering Control Rearward Displacement
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering control
into the passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head injury.
Application:
Passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses; exempted from the
standard are: walk-in vans

Standard No. 205: Glazing Materials
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment. The purpose of this standard is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to
glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for
driver visibility and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle
windows in collisions.
Application:
Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, slide-in campers,
pickup covers designed to carry persons while in motion and low speed vehicles, and glazing
materials for use in those vehicles.

Standard No. 206: Door Locks and Door Retention Components
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies requirements for vehicle door locks and door retention components,
including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants
being ejected from a vehicle as a result of impact.
13
Application:
Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
or less

Standard No. 207: Seating Systems
Scope and Purpose:
This standard establishes requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their
installation to minimize the possibility of their failure by forces acting on them as a result of
vehicle impact.
Application:
Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses

Standard No. 208: Occupant Crash Protection
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in
crashes. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of deaths of vehicle occupants, and
the severity of injuries, by specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of forces and
accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes, and by specifying
equipment requirements for active and passive restraint systems.
Application:
Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, and pressure vessels designed
to contain a pressurized fluid or gas, and explosive devices, for use in the above types of motor
vehicles as part of a system designed to provide protection to occupants in the event of a crash.

Standard No. 209: Seat Belt Assemblies
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies. Seat belt assemblies are devices
such as straps, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order
to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners and all
hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle. The purpose of this
standard is to ensure that the hardware of seat belt assemblies shall be designed to prevent
attachment bolts and other parts from becoming disengaged from the vehicle while in service.
Application:
Seat belt assemblies for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses

Standard No. 210: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages
Scope and Purpose:
This standard establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to ensure their proper
location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure.
Application:
Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and school buses

Standard No. 211: [Reserved]

Standard No. 212: Windshield Mounting
Scope and Purpose:
This standard establishes windshield retention requirements for motor vehicles during crashes.
The purpose of this standard is to reduce crash injuries and fatalities by providing for retention of
the vehicle windshield during a crash, thereby utilizing fully the penetration-resistance and
injury-avoidance properties of the windshield glazing material and preventing the ejection of
occupants from the vehicle.
14
Application:
Passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less; exempted from this standard are: forward control vehicles, walk-in van-type
vehicles, or open-body type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields

Standard No. 213: Child Restraint Systems
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and
aircraft for the purpose of reducing the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle
crashes and in aircraft.
Application:
Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, and child restraint systems for
use in motor vehicles and aircraft

Standard No. 214: Side Impact Protection
Scope and Purpose:
This standard specifies performance requirements for protection of occupants in side impacts.
The purpose of this standard is to reduce the risk of serious and fatal injury to occupants of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses in side impacts by specifying
strength requirements for side doors, limiting the forces, deflections and accelerations measured
on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes, and by other means.
Application:
This standard applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, except for walk-in vans, or otherwise
specified.

Standard No. 215: [Reserved]

Standard No. 216a: Roof Crush Resistance
Scope and Purpose:
This standard establishes strength requirements for the passenger compartment roof. The purpose
of this standard is to reduce deaths and injuries due to the crushing of the roof into the occupant
compartment in rollover crashes.
Application:
Passenger cars (except convertibles) and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
(except school buses) with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lb) or less

At the risk of being off topic, I’ve noticed that people who live in snowy/icy areas tend to be better “emergency situation” drivers than people who live in warmer climates. When teaching my daughter to drive and the snow fell I told she was going driving, she thought I was nuts. I told her we were going to have fun, a lot of fun, and learn a lot. She did.

Seem to remember Nader was a lawyer trying to be famous, and came out with 'Unsafe at any speed'. Would have been a minor 'hit' but GM tried to buy him off. When he went public, he got famous. If I recall, GM was prominent in that book with different makes involved.

The story I read said the press caught GM digging for dirt on Nader. Had that not happened nobody would have heard of Nader. When under siege it's better to let the fly's bite than reveal your position. If you'll recall they were under scrutiny from the feds over an alleged monopoly. I believe their market share then was ~ 60%?

I would think your above conclusion has merit.

"I thought this was going to turn into an argument on "old cars were built stronger with a full frame (as Mike pointed out) versus these new fangle tin can cars being built with cheap foreign steel and plastic" but it seems it's "the federal government ain't gona tell me I got wear a seat belt, helmet or ......"

Maybe, but that left unanswered, why was Nader hated so much?

IMO, it was about government control and "rights", not whether Nader's concerns had merit relative to safety.

Nader took a small situation (the quirkiness of a Corvair when driven at its limits) and blew it all out of proportion for his own gain. And it worked for him. That sucks. Later we had the famous Chevy pickup fuel tank hazard with a demonstration that included Estes rocket engines as igniters. A chicken little example really.

Read some of the FMVSS standards and point out where citizen's "rights" are being compromised or taken away? As for government control it's their duty to protect the safety of ALL of the people on PUBLIC roads and highways and to minimize or prevent manufactures from making unsafe vehicles or product. All that the FMVSS regulations are and were about was to set the "official" written rules on how the game is played just like every sport, business, etc., BTW it had been tried, and tried by others (including Chrysler) to get those written play rules into place for a long time preceding Ralph Nader. Ralph just happened to write a book that GM knew if it wasn't discredited quickly they would be forced into making cars safer and there goes the "styling" and marketing they would rather dump money into to maintain their market dominance at that time. Well it backfired. I don't care who gained or lost, the rules were written, legislation passed by people elected to do so and the world is a safer place IMO. READ THE BOOK or at least the first few chapters and then we can continue this

Believe me Chrysler was privately pushing for the FMVSS standard to go into play......the evidence is how quickly they achieved most all of the FMVSS standards with the 1968 model year cars. There was an initial partial regulation two year phase-in period starting in 1966 and if you look at any '68 Monroney Label "window sticker" it runs down the added safety features (on the right of the label) and not one of those features took someone's "rights" away or forced them to put their seat belts on. I still don't see what bad came out of FMVSS???

Merits of Nader aside, it's hard to argue against this statement.

To be clear, the Corvair is but one chapter in the book.

Often, people think the book is all about the Corvair, and it's not. You can see the chapters listing here:

https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/10349095631_5.jpg

I put "rights" in quotations, it was far from my central concern here, I believe you are preaching to the choir.

I kind of felt that

Mike