redblueamerica.com

I saw a news report the other day that sparked my interest.  The report was about a bill making its way through congress to increase the mandatory roof strength for SUVs in order to better protect the occupants.  As a car lover with a degree in engineering this peeked my interest.

In the report there was a gentleman who, as best I could tell, suffered a significant head or spinal cord injury in his SUV when it rolled over and the roof was crushed.  He was in a wheel chair and obviously not in very good shape.  Seeing this report, who could argue against making cars safer?  Really, without seeing this report, voting to protect people is a good thing, is it not?  It sounds like a no-brainer, right?

Enter the law of unintended consequences.

Here is the problem.  Significantly increasing the required strength of the roof area of a vehicle makes the vehicle considerably more top heavy.  And a more top heavy vehicle – drum roll please – rolls over easier and is thus more likely to be involved in a dangerous roll-over accident.

So, in an effort to make vehicles safer for the occupants, Congress is actually mandating, by law, a less safe vehicle prone to more dangerous roll-over accidents.

But the law of unintended consequences doesn’t stop there. 

A heavier roof means a stronger (and therefore heavier) rest of the vehicle.  Larger suspension components and larger frame components to hold the weight.  Larger drive components to propel the weight and larger cooling components to provide more cooling for the larger drive components.  Lastly, a larger engine is required to power all this extra weight. 

And what does a heavier vehicle with a larger engine cause?  Lower gas mileage!

So, with one bill, Congress is mandating that vehicle manufacturers make less safe vehicles that get worse gas mileage.  Good job congressmen!

This issue is a perfect metaphor to so much of what is coming out of congress.

I heard a talk show host some time ago talking about when he went with his father to buy the first new car the family ever owned.  It was a 1959 model of some kind of sedan (I don’t remember).  It was a mid to large sized (for the time), four door family car with four doors and a 6 cylinder engine.  It got an average of 23 MPG.  As reference, the 1959 Edsel weighed around 3600 lbs, he 1959 Fairlane was 3900 lbs, and the 1959 Impala was 3700 lbs.  Truly fuel efficient family vehicles in the late 1940s with 6 cylinder engines were already achieving gas mileage approaching 20 MPG and by the 1960s those same 4 door, 6 cylinder sedans were approaching 30 MPG in some cases. 

In comparison, the 2008 Pontiac Grand Prix gets 18 MPG city and 28 MPG highway – averages to 23 MPG – and weighs 3500 lbs.  The Ford Taurus’ numbers are 18/28 MPG, 3600 lbs and the Toyota Avalon is 19/28 MPG, 3500 lbs.  With all the technological breakthroughs between 1959 and 2008 comparable cars haven’t changed their mileage or weight at all in 50 years. 

And let me ask you, if you were given a choice between riding in a 1959 Impala and a 2008 Taurus in a head on collision between the two, which would you chose.  Run a search for each car, the Impala looks quite a bit sturdier to me.  Is this progress?

To put it into perspective how long ago and how much has changed since 1959, in that year Castro took over Cuba, Buddy Holly’s airplane crashed, President Eisenhower granted Hawaii and Alaska statehood, the spacecraft Explorer 6 sent back the first pictures of Earth from space, Luna 2 became the first man made object to hit the moon, Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston was released, and the Twilight Zone premiered on TV.  We went from barely post Sputnik space probes to the Space Shuttle that is ready to retire but cars get the same gas mileage and weigh the same.  How can that be?

The law of unintended consequences?  You guessed it.

In an effort to reduce emissions, congress has been regulating the inner workings of engines.  By de-tuning engines, they emit less “harmful gas.”  As another side note, in the 1960s, most leading scientists believed that the Earth was approaching an ice age because of global cooling caused by too much ozone and too many ozone gasses – the exact opposite as scientists today.  But this too is for another time.  In the process of de-tuning vehicle engines to “save the environment,” the government has regulated us into engines that get much worse gas mileage – burning more fossil fuel and, that’s right again, hurting the environment.

That explains the gas mileage but what about the weight?

In an effort to make vehicles safer, Congress has regulated more and more stuff into cars like dynamic side impact door reinforcements and crumple-zones.  All of these additions cost money because of more complicated engineering and add weight because of more structure.  But, once again, I pose the question of which vehicle you would rather be riding in when a 2008 Taurus has a head-on with a 1959 Impala? 

How much safer are we really?

This is symbolic of pretty much everything coming out of congress.  Congress is passing laws (when they actually pass anything) that seem good on the surface.  There is a guy in a wheel chair that was injured in an SUV accident.  “We must do something to make everyone safer in order to ensure that doesn’t happen to anyone else, right?”  Without thinking of the long term consequences, they play right into the law of unintended consequences.

Let me give you another example.  I am an SUV guy.  But not for on the road.  I drive my Jeep to work and use it to get way out away from everyone.  But I have always liked the Range Rover Defender series of SUV, specifically the Defender 110.  It is one of the most durable and capable off road vehicles in the world.  It can carry 9 people, a bunch of stuff, go anywhere you could want to go, and gets very good gas mileage because of its 5 cylinder diesel engine.  One of the things that makes Range Rovers great is that they have very light roof structure which makes them have a much lower center of gravity than other SUVs and therefore less prone to roll over.  This leads to a much lighter vehicle in general which allows for a much more economical engine.  But before all you people who like to get way off the beaten path run to your nearest Range Rover dealership, they are not available in the USA.

They are not available because it would take too much to make them comply with Congressionally mandated emissions, roll over, side impact, air bag, crumple zone and probably a myriad of other laws.  All of these laws together mean that I can’t buy a better, less expensive, more economic, product.  I know that if I am barreling down the highway at 80 mph and swerve from one lane into another the D110 may roll over and that would be bad for me.  But I have weighted the consequences and would purchase a D110 because I don’t drive down the highway that fast and am more careful when I drive an SUV.  That is personal responsibility.

It is very similar to deciding to drive a Geo Metro because of gas mileage even though you would be at a considerable disadvantage in a head on with a Cadillac.  You weigh the consequences and choose. 

What Congress next decided that the Geo or the Prius was too small and therefore too dangerous and legislated them out of existence.  Everyone would be up in arms because of the gas mileage, right? 

That is exactly what they are doing or have already done on light, economical SUVs.

By trying to keep me safe from myself, the government is limiting my ability to drive a better vehicle that gets better mileage.

Now, none of these are very big issues in the overall scheme of things.  But they are easy to describe and easy to relate.  These issues typify the problem with most bills coming out of congress recently from both parties.  The issues that get focus change from one party to the other but unintended consequences and infringement on how I live my life don’t change.

What makes Congress think they know better than I do what is good for me?   

Why do we let Congress get away with passing knee jerk, very specific, draconian ruling from on high that usually cause more problems than they solve?

When did congress change from an entity designed to pass legislation to protect the freedom of all citizens into an entity that feels the need to protect all the citizens from themselves, no matter how much freedom is taken away in the process.

That reminds me of a joke.  What is the opposite of progress?

Congress!