Talk:Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile/Archive 1

Politics vs. engineering
It seems to me that Nader picked on the Corvair because it had no loyal following, such as the dinosaurs and the Beetle had. It appears to have been one of the safest American cars at the time. More important, it was Detroit's admission that their engineering was inferior to Europe's. The problem with the VW was not so much the suspension or rear engine as that it was tall and narrow, like most other 1930s designs (but its lack of power tended to keep it within its safe speed range). --David R. Ingham 16:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, from my recollection of the book the Corvair wasn't the entirety; there was quite a bit of coverage on Ford's mechanical brakes, problems with Buick braking systems, assorted ehadlight woes before standardization, the dangers of different patterns of automatic transmission gear selectors, etc. --Mfree 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The James Roche that was linked in this article is not the James Roche, former Secretary of the Air Force, that the link went to. He could not possibly have been President of GM and in the Navy at the same time. Therefore I have removed the link.

Weasel words
The last paragraph is full of "weasel words". Quoted here, with added italics:

Some claim that the book still has relevance today: It denounced what Nader perceived as the political meddling of the car industry to oppose new safety features. Some see parallels in contemporary debates over the mandatory fitting of air bags, in the United States, and industry efforts by the ACEA to delay the introduction of crash tests to assess vehicle front pedestrian protection in the European Union. It has recognizable echoes in more recent consumer advocacy books such as Fat Land and High and Mighty.

Avoid_weasel_words

It's awful. It reminds me of watching Fox News. ;)

I'm going to remove it. If someone wants to add it back in, hopefully without the weasel words, please feel free.

--Shane 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Shane, thanks for the notice, the weasel words was removed. Milton 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You still need to cite reputable sources for all the arguments relating the book to more recent events, otherwise the paragraph contravenes the WP:OR policy. For example, you need to say where the idea that the book still has some relevance today was published, and where arguments drawing parallels with the air bag debate have been published. If it is your own conclusion, or synthesis, then it is considered to be "original research" and frowned upon. -- de Facto (talk). 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Section removed from article pending attribution
Due to lack of citations readers can only assume that this section, copied below, is WP:OR, so I have moved it here for discussion. If it isn't OR please restore it with attribution for:
 * Where has the discussion been previously published that suggests "The book still has some relevance today"?
 * Who has previously compared the air bag debate with Nader's book?
 * Similarly for the ACEA point, where has pedestrian protection been discussed before in relation to Nader's book?
 * Who has compared Nader's book with Fat Land and High and Mighty, and where?

The book still has some relevance today: it addressed what Nader perceived as the political meddling of the car industry to oppose new safety features, and parallels the debates in the 1990´s over the mandatory fitting of air bags, in the United States, and industry efforts by the ACEA to delay the introduction of crash tests to assess vehicle front pedestrian protection in the European Union. It has recognizable echoes in more recent consumer advocacy books such as Fat Land and High and Mighty.

-- de Facto (talk). 07:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I add a reference for the full paragraph; unfortunately the reference number appears at the end of the paragraph, which looks a reference to the last sentence, I don’t know how to make sure that the readers recognize it as a reference to the paragraph. Any idea?Milton 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don´t have a reference to the last part "Who has compared Nader's book with Fat Land and High and Mighty, and where?" this is why I dont recover this part.Milton 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you quote here the pieces from the cited paper which refer to the book so that we can phrase the passage correctly and in context. It should probably be in a new section and say something like " suggests, in a paper published by the SAE in 2003, that Nader's book still had relevance in 2003... because he observed that ...". -- de Facto (talk). 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote requested - weight distribution compared to European RR cars
Can someone please confirm the quote from the book which suggests that the 37:63 front:rear weight distribution is significantly more unequal than contemporary European rear-engined cars. The reason I ask is because the Simca 1000, of the same era, has a "more unequal" weight distribution of 35:65. -- de Facto (talk). 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed sentence after long wait for verification. -- de Facto (talk). 08:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m a little uneasy about how the article is going, more than 50% is dedicated to discuss the corvair issue, I think that this material is more appropriated to the corvair page as, for example, a discussion about weigth distribution in the corvair.

No material is commented from the other’s chapters,

I expect that this page is about the book, and needs to be a honest work to present the book point of view.

I think than a list of chapters will be handy, unfortunately I don’t have the list here, Someone can provide it???

Milton 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image
Does anyone have any objections to changing the current image of Nader to one circa the time of first publication? I think it would be more appropriate for this article. Alvis 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear ALvis, I think that the previous image was better, because it shows the book in a museum environment, it means that an independent evaluator (the museum curator) has assessed the significance of the book. In short a) It shows the book b) It also shows the importance of the book.

In a single image. Milton (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsafe at Any Rate
It's a tip of the hat by Elizabeth Warren to this book. Is there a way to notably tie her article Unsafe at Any Rate into this article? Alatari (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, it could be added in the "Government response" section or there could be a section called "modern views" or something like that. I also do know that time and time again, in articles in CounterPunch, Nader has supported Warren. Other thoughts?70.17.255.50 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What I really wanna know...
I've read a few articles about the Covair, the criticism of the corvair, the criticism of the criticism, and the government study.

what I'd really like to know is:

At the end of it's production life, how did the actual saftey record of the Corvair stack up against those of other cars of the time, or for that matter, of today's cars? Did Corvair drivers and passengers wind up suffering death or injury in greater proportion than those in other, ostensibly safer, vehicles?

If such info is available it would be nice to include it.

Thanx,

-ef

The movie An Unreasonable Man may have some answers to these questions. I don't personally know such information but it could be nice to be included.70.17.255.50 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
"Also shows how the primitive road safety components, still used in USA, called the three E’s (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, augmented by the addition of Emergency in the Bush Jr. Presidency) was born as a device to direct the efforts to the community away from the real problems of safety of the vehicles, some of the that was sell with tires that don’t resist the weight of the fully loaded vehicle."

This above paragraph needs to be made readable. It should also explain what the heck the 3 E's are (listing their names doesn't tell me). Evercat 21:22, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Also is blatantly opinionated...


 * The book also claims that the road safety mantra, still used in the United States, called the three Es : "Engineering, Enforcement, Education" (expanded to four Es in the George W. Bush presidency with the addition of "Emergency") was created to distract attention from the real problems of vehicle safety, such as the fact that some were sold with tires that could not bear the weight of a fully loaded vehicle.

Did Nader claim in his book that some vehicles in general are sold with bad tires, or did he name specific vehicles 40 years ago? Does this relate to the SUVs that rollover or whose tires fail, when drivers make sharp turning maneuvers at high speeds+

The phrase the fact that... implies that Wikipedia endorses Nader's claim. Ironically, the chief example in the article of industry not fixing unsafe stuff is the Corvair, but when I clicked on Chevrolet Corvair I read there that in 1964 GM improved the suspension in response to safety concerns. Seems like Nader's best example is really a counter-example.

I'm tempted to move the bulk of the rest of the article to talk, too! --Uncle Ed 17:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Similarity of article to book review
Ralph documented the resistance of car companies to the introduction of safety features, like safety belts, that looks timely today, for example with the lobby that produce a delay in the mandatory fitting of air bags.

Also you will learn how the primitive road safety components, still used in USA, called the three E's (Engineering, Enforcement, Education ) was born as a device to direct the efforts to the community away from the real problems of safety of the vehicles, some of the that was sell with tires that don't resist the weight of the fully loaded vehicle !.

Finally you can understand the lacking level of road safety in US versus European countries that have in service safety policies that will reduce the absolute number of killed by 30% over 5 years.

See the diff
The article looks like this Amazon.com review, right down to the phrasing. --Uncle Ed 17:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)