Desperate to dress up the Trump administration’s possible rollback of fuel economy standards for cars as something other than what it is — a fat prize package for the auto and oil industries — some of the president’s supporters have come up with a doozy.
They’re calling it a matter of safety.
Their argument: Imposing strict miles-per-gallon requirements forces automakers to build smaller cars, which tend to be more fuel-efficient but less safe than bigger ones. So easing the standards would allow manufacturers to fill the roads with larger cars, which will save lives.
Sounds nice and noble, but it’s actually one of many examples of how the fossil fuels industry thinks it can tell Americans anything and they’ll believe it.
In reality, high MPG requirements increase safety on the roads. That’s the finding of a study released in April by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which said a reduction in the weight of cars could lead to fewer fatalities.
The bureau’s researchers say stringent federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards — which President Donald Trump announced in March that he would review — force auto manufacturers to make their bigger vehicles lighter. And when lighter vehicles crash into other light vehicles, it’s not as much of a problem as when heavy cars and light cars collide.
Think of it this way: If a Ford F-350 pickup (5,909 pounds for the lightest model) hits a Mazda Miata (2,232 pounds) head-on with both vehicles traveling at the same speed, the Miata’s occupants are going to be in a lot more danger than if their car were hit by a mid-size Chevrolet Malibu (3,086 pounds). It’s just a matter of physics — the bigger vehicle is going to have more kinetic energy.
Reducing mass and velocity lowers kinetic energy, meaning that if manufacturers reduced the overall weight of their fleets, especially the bigger vehicles, there would be less energy in crashes and therefore less chance of someone being injured or killed. Combined with ongoing technological advances that improve vehicles’ ability to absorb kinetic energy and protect occupants, decreasing weight makes sense.
“What CAFE actually does is it doesn’t just lower the weight of one vehicle,” said Kevin Roth, an environmental economist at the University of California at Irvine and a co-author of the study, in a story published by The Washington Post. “It changes the entire composition of the fleet.”
Of course, Trump’s supporters would rather you didn’t focus on that. They’re spotlighting another study showing that of the 10 cars involved in the highest rate of fatal collisions from 2012 to 2015, eight were minicars or compacts.
That’s something to be alarmed about, no question. But it ignores the issue of how many fewer fatalities may have occurred if the overall weight of the fleet were lower. It also doesn’t address the fact that small cars are in some ways safer than bigger ones, being that they tend to be more maneuverable and take less distance to stop, making them better suited to avoid accidents. Really, all the report shows is what we knew already: When big cars hit small cars — as is the case when big football players hit small ones or when bowling balls hit pins — the bigger one generally wins.
Plus, if this is really a matter of safety, the only way to truly level the playing field is to build every vehicle the same size with the same safety equipment. If that F-350 hits the Malibu, it’s not going to be pretty, either.
Meanwhile, the environmental benefits of CAFE standards speak for themselves. Higher overall fuel economy equals fewer carbon emissions equals a healthier planet.
Former President Barack Obama took a responsible step in 2012 by imposing an overall fuel economy standard for cars sold of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
If Trump eases that standard, he’ll be taking a backward step — both on the environment and on vehicle safety.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy