The LA Times Mistakes the American Car Market, But Then, It Gets Most Everything Else Wrong, Too

[condign]

From the L.A. Times review of the Nissan Cube:
Here is one of the great unspoken truths about the drive for a more fuel-efficient vehicle fleet. It will be utterly impossible to achieve energy security or to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions unless we are able to lower the average vehicle weight. It doesn't matter if you're advocating grid-

Comments

[mrlloyd]

Are lighter cars unsafe? The most fuel efficient cars on European roads don't seem to have a problem with the safety standards here, and the traffic safety expert I work with doesn't think this is a big problem. Thoughts on how to protect passengers have come a very long way in the last few decades. However if you want to pursue this a bit further...

It is true that design factors aside the determining factors in safety are the relative weights of the vehicles and their speed, so by choosing to drive heavy cars (which on average are driven faster then lighter ones) you create a safety hazard for drivers of light vehicles, motorcyclists, bicycles and pedestrians.

The problem with trying to approach safety standards via costs is that in this situation you create a state where when one person chooses to pay for safety (a heavier car) they force everyone else to do the same in order to maintain the same level of safety. The result is an arms race that leads to heavier cars, lower fuel efficiency and no great improvement in safety. I believe this kind of market failure is called a Nash equilibrium.

The optimum situation is for all cars to be lighter. This would improve their fuel efficiency and keep safety at an appropriate level. Most of the research on Nash equilibriums shows that the best way to address them is through regulation. By imposing rules you can usually move to the higher equilibrium at very low cost and fairly quickly.

Of course the real reason we need to cut fuel consumption is because if we don't the sea will rise, the deserts will spread and staggering numbers of people will be forced from their homes - which won't be good for anyone's safety...

ps : You're mostly right about hybrids. Barring technical breakthroughs in the electric car space more efficient 'normal' cars are the way to go.

[condign]

You're mostly right about hybrids.

I may mount that on the wall...

Are lighter cars unsafe?

That's impossible to say. Or rather, it's a matter of personal choice. I love my Scion xB. I consider it "safe," in that I figure I'm probably roughly as likely to be mugged in New York as I am to be injured in an accident in it. I'm not as risk averse in this regard, however, as many people are.

To clarify a host of other points:

• A Nash equilibrium is not a market failure. Certain market failures persist because they achieve a Nash equilibrium, but that's not the same thing. (This is a picky point.) Nash equilibria are just game theory concepts.
  
• As I pointed out, the particular equilibrium that was reached was the result of regulation, not market failure. There were smaller cars out there that were both (a) more fuel efficient and (b) safer than passenger cars, without going to SUVs. Then came the CAFE standards, which were not a market feature, and the SUV behemoth started up. Law of unintended consequences...
  
• The optimum situation is for all cars to be lighter. This would improve their fuel efficiency and keep safety at an appropriate level. No. The situation you approve of is for all cars to be lighter. Given that there will always be larger cars--trucks are needed for hauling, shipping, etc.--there will always be those who wish to be a little safer, and those who wish to tolerate more risk.Indeed, the tolerance for risk of given individuals will change over their life. (See-->I wouldn't put a child seat in a Scion xB.) I somehow doubt that a nation of stripped-down death carts will actually be safer--I've certainly never seen an engineering study to that effect--so long as there are larger non-passenger vehicles on the road.
  
• Most of the research on Nash equilibriums shows that the best way to address them is through regulation. What research would that be? Most research on Nash equilibria suggest that they can be addressed through changed incentives. Whether regulation is the best changed incentive, however, depends on the situation.

I don't think you're talking about Nash Equilibria, though you may be thinking about a specific application thereof. I'd give a more compelling counterargument, but it's hard without knowing what you're addressing. (I mean that in all politeness.)