Hacker News Reader

Comment by mulmen | Hacker News Reader

Do you have examples of the auto industry fighting safety features? I used to own an early 70s Oldsmobile Toronado which was available with both ABS and airbags. A quick Google search suggests that Chrysler and Ford had similar braking systems in 1971, possibly even better. ABS was not required by US law until 2011. 40 years after the US domestics first offered it.

I believe Ford made a big deal out of their padded dashboards in the 1950s as well but I would have to dig up references to that.

While Volvo has a great safety record they are not even close to the only manufacturer with a history of adding safety features to their cars. Safety is good business, the US domestics have known this for decades.

The 1971 Oldsmobile Torornado brochure prominently features ABS and specifically calls out the safety features available in that year: http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/olds/71toro/bilder/6.jpg

View on HN

The US auto industry fought air bags for about two decades, saying they were too expensive and that people did not want them: http://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0519/abelt.html

"Top Ford Motor Company executives went so far as to arrange a meeting with President Nixon to plead against a federal regulation that would have required air bags in all cars, starting with 1973 models. The meeting had the desired effect: Mr. Nixon ordered the regulation quashed. Eleven years after the 1971 meeting, a transcript from secret Oval Office tapes disclosed the conversation."

I believe the Toronado air bags might have been offered just to provide a tool to say consumers did not want them.

Earlier on, they also fought seat belts. Then later, they fought for state laws mandating seat belt use by drivers, just so they could say the airbags were not necessary in the presence of seat belts. And a bunch of other stuff. Classic cartel behavior.

I don't even understand their logic. Why not simply ask the government to ban or restrict the use of old cars without those safety features, after a short transition period? That would boost sales by forcing motorists to upgrade. Emission regulations in Europe work that way and they are a boon for the auto industry.

> Emission regulations in Europe work that way and they are a boon for the auto industry.

For some reason, VW didn't see it that way wrt the diesel emissions.

Maybe you need to recheck your understanding of other motivations.

I said that auto companies could pursue their self-interest by turning regulations to their advantage, rather than opposing them. I didn't say they would embrace environmentalism in the truest depth of their hearts. Accepting emission standards for the entire industry and then cheating on them is fully consistent for an actor driven by self-interest, as long as they think they won't get caught.

Given the obviousness of the above, the real question is how you came to make such a silly post. My best guess is that you simplified the positions into "companies accept emission standards = companies GOOD on environment, but VW cheating = VW BAD on environment", and that's how you saw a contradiction. Please take a bit longer to think your posts through.

O.k. Let me be more explicit. Automobile companies have a different self-interest than you think they should. (As demonstrated by VW's action)

VW has over 450,000 people - all viewing the world differently ( as demonstrated by VW's corporate actions differently)

Out of 450,000+, excluding the dealerships, not one agreed with you enough to blow the whistle.

Before Ralph Nader was the face of the Green Party and the the 2008 darkhorse candidate in the 2008 election, he was the bane of the automotive industry. Check out his book Unsafe at Any Speed.

GM's response to the aforementioned? One of petulance and cowardice. They had to be hauled into Congress, kicking and screaming of course, before anything was done.

I know there was auto-industry resistance to moving away from sealed-beam headlamps.

In general I think it's widely agreed that all businesses almost universally tend to oppose most forms of gov't imposed change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com