Ralph Nader a man hated and loved

If you never read the book "Unsafe At Any Speed" then back in the day (and probably still) you were coached by the auto industry to hate Ralph Nader and his book. The basics of the book was the fact that tens of thousands of people died in automobile accidents yearly and not one bit of regulation was being enacted to make the BIG auto industry to at least do something to protect occupants and drivers......and pedestrians too. The argument was that a plane crashes or a train derails or a ferry ship sinks or a public bus crashes and lives are lost and there is a total government investigation and new rules and regulation are enacted for the much smaller (still tragic) loss of human life. Why not the same concern for the hundreds of lives lost every week in automobile accidents. The arguments were that "hey it's my life and if I don't want to wear a seat belt nobody is going to make me". Well that wasn't the argument, the fact was the cars were unsafe at even the lowest speed for the "Second Impact" and for what the vehicle hit like the person that just picked up the kids from school or driving home from work in on coming traffic. No padded dashes, no collapsible steering columns, glove box doors that took your knee caps out, control knobs that punctured you sticking out, chrome everything dashes and shift levers that glare/reflection sometimes could keep you from seeing a pedestrian, Outside door handles that in a rollover would push the door button in, open the door on the first roll and sling the driver or passenger out or worse only HALF WAY OUT.....and why not NO SEAT BELTS. This roll over accident was one of the reasons for automatic door locks at 15-20 mph BTW. No hood secondary safety latch (as seen with the '59 Chevy in the video). No seat back latch, no non-snagging inside door handles or plastic break-away window crank knobs,,,,yep plastic on the '68+ cars and not because they wanted to make them cheaper. Non-glare dashes, ash trays that closed if your body/knee hit them. Low glare shift lever and turn signal stalks on the steering column along with a low glare horn ring and speedometer bezel. Padded dashes with rocker type switches and padded lower dash. In the book Chrysler stepped up as the LEADING auto manufacture to address all of the safety concerns and reading the book made me proud. Chrysler to address concerns with the major glare from the hood that was a complaint when a simulation of a child (manikin) stepping out from a sidewalk wasn't seen actually proposed a flat or non-glare hood surface like the dashboards became. It was hard to argue that cars were designed for styling and almost nothing else up to that point but the auto industry, except Chrysler and Ford were not going to change and GM was doing everything to stop it...............that's why it was easy to pick the Chevy Corvair as a good or is that bad example of a vehicle "Unsafe At Any Speed"........the rear suspension until GM put a travel limiter on them was shown to be able to roll at a very low speed as witnessed by a police officer coming the other direction. The Corvair, driven by an older woman, dropped the passenger's side wheels off a 6" edge drop of the road she was traveling on. When she tried to get the car back on the road the car dramatically turned into on coming traffic and rolled. The car's door opened on the roll and her arm flung out and door closed and amputated her arm. All witness by the LEO and documented. So after presenting all of the safety concerns,,,,oh forgot the dual master cylinder brake systems and setting brake standards, side marker lights and reflectors, windshield and all glass safety standards along with three point interior mirror break-away......the 1966 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and followed along by the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) and then the rest of the world came on board (and now they try to claim it was their idea Ha) and IMO the world is a much safer place. Let the arguments begin and love Ralph or hate Ralph if you or a loved one have ever survived a vehicle accident or came away with way less injury you owe him at least a "whatever"

I have been on the wrong side of a number contentious issues in my life. Ralph Nader was one of them. I believe I have learned from my mistakes, and try to be extra careful to not repeat them.

B13 ... ole Nader was way WAY ahead of his time .....

He wasn’t referring to the Corvair... he was predicting the dangers of a particular 1969 1/2 Road Toad !

LOL here come all of the "I drive a car with a full frame for safety" guys. Maybe we'll hear the tall tale of the guy who says he was hit at 50mph and the car received barely a scratch.

So this is bailing out of the unmoderated section ?

Gooood decision..

Like so many things, government-mandated safety is a very good thing...in moderation.

And so is personal choice and freedom.

The rub comes when those two things start to bump into each other....

Sorry, but I do not believe in car "accidents". They are mostly always not an accident. It is usually some idiot not paying attention, driving like an idiot, or shouldn't be driving to begin with! I do blame auto manufacturers and lobbyists for pushing cars on the public and not enough training to be able to understand that driving a vehicle is, for 95% of the population, THE most dangerous thing they will do in their entire lives! Especially nowadays with all the "safety" features and the way new drivers are being taught how not to drive correctly are the biggest issues. Insurance should have never been made mandatory either, just learn how to drive and these things would go away on their own... TRULY A PET PEEVE OF MINE!

It is all part of the evolution of safety in automobiles, that's all there is to it. It still continues today.

Nader is a charlatan and a fraud. Sure safety is important, but Freedom is more important. Nader spread egregious lies and false data to promote his cause, to promote himself, make big money and gain political power. He was the granddaddy of the now common practice of using junk science to create his own "facts", and whipping the fake news media into a feeding frenzy. Safety should have been allowed to come from market demand. It had already started on its own, without government force. But it is slower to raise public awareness and wait for it to occur organically, and there is less opportunity for fascist leaning power brokers like Nader to make bank on it.

When safety features like seat belts and abs were optional, most people didn't buy them. That may have been mentioned in Naders book or another I read.

Point being that the people asses their own risks and make their own decisions.

Taken to the extreme, why should any manufacturer be allowed to sell a car that can exceed 70 mph? Speed kills, why not limit everything to 25mph?

OTOH, I do think that Nader was right to point things out, let the people be informed. But when the government gets involved, things get extreme. As the knowledge got out about the benefits of seat belts, abs etc people will start to buy them.

Speaking about people not knowing how to drive, just the other day we had a family discussion about driving with abs. I was surprised that nobody was happy with the abs in their vehicle after a recent ice storm. Otoh it's not the first time they have ignored the mechanic in the family.

They were all driving with the old school idea of pump the brakes. Not how you do it with abs, which is stab and steer for the most part.

I really don't have an opinion on Ralph, but I do think it is too easy to get a drivers license. Let's face it, plenty of people can't chew gum and walk at the same time. Plenty of people don't pay enough attention and more don't think ahead.

Agreed....

Nader was and is a complete fraud ---- he made the Corvair out to be a safety risk ---- while ignoring other vehicles of that era with similar swing axle rear suspensions like VW and Porsche 356. The testing criteria used against the Corvair was weighed toward showing the rear oversteer characteristics which was part of the base engineering of a rear engine vehicle. At that point in time of auto evolution, understeer was the dominant handling feature in most vehicles --- oversteer with the rear swinging out can be throttle controlled and can be a benefit if the driver is aware and skilled enough to use throttle application to control roll.

The Edsel was a landmark car that featured numerous safety features that the public did not want and did not want to pay for.

However, all of the Big Three at that time had very rigorous safety feature development programs and all of that research and development was planned to be included in all models and become mainstream in the 1960s - regardless of Nader.

[quote=ruderunner]When safety features like seat belts and abs were optional, most people didn't buy them. That may have been mentioned in Naders book or another I read.

Point being that the people asses their own risks and make their own decisions.

Taken to the extreme, why should any manufacturer be allowed to sell a car that can exceed 70 mph? Speed kills, why not limit everything to 25mph?"

Not going to agree with the 25 mph speed limit idea. Lots of things will cease to live after being hit at that speed with something of substantial mass.

Will agree that a LOT of people need a yearly refresher course on the basics of automobile operation.

Well, we now know who feels their freedom is irreparably damaged because they are required to wear a seat belt or a helmet on public roads

Guess since they are only putting "themselves" at risk with such behavior, don't look at me to financially support their surviving kids, or air transport their brain damaged body to a trauma center.

Exactly.

BTW I had a similar accident (to the Corvair described above) many years ago in a Pinto that turned out far better. Got my right side wheels off a tall paved lip at 50 mph on I-81. Tried to jerk it back on... instead, spun out, down an embankment and through the median, crossed the oncoming lanes, hit the gravel shoulder, spun BACK across the oncoming lanes, and finally came to rest in the median.

Fortunately it was noon in the middle of nowhere so I didn't collide with any other vehicles and wasn't hurt other than a few sore muscles. And I didn't blame Ford for my screwup either... but I sure learned a lesson about handling cars at highway speed

My all-time favorite vanity plate sighting was a beautifully restored red Corvair in N.Va.... it said, "F NADER"

I was going to respond, but the words in my signature prevailed.

There is wisdom there I admit, sometimes its best to not dig a deeper hole.

I can see a bit of both sides of the argument, and from experiences like an unbelted wreck as a passenger, and having owned a Corvair and a couple 911s.
Still have the scars from the wreck, and learned handling in SoCal's canyons in the Corvair & '73 911 without putting a mark on them.

What Nader did crate, besides an awareness of safety, was a high profile for himself, and primarily the culture of victimization.
He's the patron saint of an entire class of liability lawyers, and advanced the blaming game as a means to hide behind one's own incompetence.
Obviously one can be hurt or killed in a wreck, but the avoidance of same remains woefully under-addressed.
Witness the "jerk it back" experience posted previously. That never works, unless you want a catastrophe.
That's why I always recommend parents take their kids to a HPDE or race school to learn car control.

By the same token, though, many of the crash-mitigating and survival features are definitely a good thing, especially for innocent 2nd/3rd/etc parties.
And there's no defense for things like the Pinto fuel tank debacle or similar corporate decisions.
I'd say there's a sizable amount of evidence that mankind will put money before everything else, thereby becoming his own enemy.

His work on auto safety was no surprise to me but his revelations on meat safety shocked me.

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