Are the IIHS and the NHTSA killing US car industry?

America has rather peculiar approach to the car safety. Chrysler Imperial was the first mass produced car with the so-called Sure Brake system that was essentially an early take on anti-lock brakes derived from similar equipment found on aircraft. That was in the early 70s. Fast forward to late 2000s and you find Chrysler's flagship, the 300, offered without ABS at the basic trim level. Halogen headlamps were long illegal but HID lamps do not have to have self-levelling system installed so they're free to dazzle oncoming traffic. Degree of safety has been proportional to the price of the car which resulted in the notion of safety being a privilege, not the right.

But if that can be put down to oh-so-loved free market, the following cannot. Car safety regulations in the US are effectively controlled by car manufacturers (NHTSA) and insurance companies (IIHS).

The former is a federal authority, nevertheless the only apparent reason behind its existence is protection of the domestic car industry setting standards that are different from the rest of the world. Not to speak about the cost-benefit ratio used to justify why NOT to introduce a particular safety feature. Or any other advancement. In other words, saving lives and making driving safer is not as important as saving money. Even CAFE (fuel efficiency standards) are designed with Detroit in mind as it effectively takes SUVs out of the equation.

The IIHS serves the insurance companies and, as the April 14 report proved rather conclusively, domestic car manufacturers. The IIHS is known for devising weird (premium-friendly) standards but the latest really went too far. IIHS pitched mid-size cars such as Mercedes C-class, Toyota Camry and Honda Accord (in US specs, Euro-Accord is actually a Acura TSX) against Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit (aka Jazz) and Smart ForTwo – in a frontal crash.

The obvious and much trumped conclusion was that size and weight do matter. Aside from the fact that the tests had very little to do with real world, it's the selection of small cars that is most suspicious. All are imports. There is no subcompact or compact car made by a US manufacturers. Detroit, of course, relies on SUVs and full-sized cars and has no cars that would be able to compete with Fit or Yaris. Ford's Fiesta, which is based on Mazda2, still undergoes US testing, and small US cars are just laughable. The IIHS then tried to wrap all up into the fuel economy packaging by saying that small cars aren't really that efficient and suggested a diesel VW Jetta...

IIHS test does nothing to promote road safety or the fuel economy. It only fosters the the-larger-the-safer myth, that was proven to be wrong by 2003 Transportation Research Board study that concluded the following - “average midsize and large cars have same risk to drivers as average SUV, that safest subcompact and compact cars have same risk to driver as average SUV, that pickups and SUVs (and minivans) impose high risks on other drivers because of their incompatibility with cars, and that average subcompact and compact cars have similar combined risk as average SUV. It's all down to the fact that although heavy cars do generate more kinetic energy that can be fatal (to both involved parties) they also require more energy to stop and to maneuver which makes them more prone to be involved in an accident.

If both the IIHS and the NHTSA want to help US manufacturers, they should focus on scrapping insensible US regulations in favour of international ECE standards that are proven to lead to greater road safety. But to adopt a US point of view, saving money, ECE would allow Detroit to decrease cost of new cars development. Both GM and Ford have cars capable of competing with overseas manufacturers. But they have them in Europe and can't import them because of the protectionist system they helped to create.