Domestic Automakers Lobby to Streamline US-EU Safety Regulations

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole

Automakers are pressing U.S. and European governments to find common ground on safety regulations to save them hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs, Automotive News is reporting.

Automakers have to change dozens of components on their cars at a huge cost to comply with different safety standards. The article said to make a popular U.S. car in 2013 comply with European safety standards cost $42 million for the automaker.

Trade talks have been been ongoing for 10 months and lobbyists are hoping one government will adopt the standards of the other, instead of creating a separate system.

The story details the differences between U.S. and E.U. safety regulations, as small as a trunk release latch in the U.S that isn’t required in Europe, all the way up to small overlap front crash protection.

Despite the differences, both sets of safety regulations create equally safe cars and would boost EU-U.S. auto trade by 20 percent, the Peterson Institute for International Economics said in a study.

This isn’t the first call for harmonized regulations, Ford and Daimler have both asked for unified standards.


Aaron Cole
Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 97 comments
  • PentastarPride PentastarPride on Jul 26, 2015

    This is a great idea. What took so long for this idea? Better yet (and I know this won't happen), why doesn't the government get out of regulating safety standards (and other areas)? The free market is the only proper regulatory body. Private nonprofit standards institutes could pick up where the regulatory agencies (such as the NHTSA) left off. Look at nonprofit institutes such as UL (Underwriters Laboratories), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and so on--they set standards and are trusted and well-recognized. The manufacturers pay for certification and often participate in codifying the standards as a group effort. Sure, abiding by standards would be voluntary, but people vote with their wallets. Unsafe products obviously won't be very popular, but the merchant and the consumer should make those decisions.

    • HerrKaLeun HerrKaLeun on Jul 27, 2015

      Well, those "private" institutions would be useless if governments would not sanction them by requiring their approval. For example Electrical code requires "listed" equipment. If it wasn't for government requiring your desklight to be UL listed, UL would be meaningless. i work in Design and construction requiring following code everyday. and I can tell you, designers stretch the truth to show code-compliance (i.e. rudimentary safety, energy efficiency etc.). And they are not willing (and their clients are neither) to do anything above code. If government would not require UL listing tomorrow, I promise, 99% of devices installed tomorrow would be some Chinese knockoff that burns up.

  • Wmba Wmba on Jul 26, 2015

    So the manufacturers are at it again. About every two or three years Ford stands up on its hind legs and squawks about "harmonizing" the regs. So, it's like A DeMuro refrain, recycled every couple of years, with the same commenters saying the same things all over again. Robert Ryan is a particular nitwit on this and many other subjects which only spring into his own particular head, things like insurance for LHD cars not being available in the UK, which is demonstrably false. The US has better standards in the most meaningful areas, and IIHS adds its own unofficial ones on top, shaming manufacturers on things like small overlap crash testing - it's unofficial, but effective lobbying none the less. In the EU, where bureaucrats are king, the IIHS wouldn't get a look in, so EU cars aren't as good at crashes, Ford's crabbing about equal outcomes being just that, which they cannot prove in any meaningful way. But they like to carp anyway and hope that no one will notice, having spent that $42 million making the Fusion "safe" as the Mondeo in the EU. Funny nobody bought up the EU Type Approval. Over there, a car design has to be pre-approved before sale, leading to all sorts of private pre-approval companies of sometimes dubious capability. Then if some joker approves the vehicle in Outer Slobovia, all the other EU members must accept the thing on their roads. The US requires car companies to meet the regs, and then checks afterwards to see if they were lying when something goes wrong, and has huge penalties for the liars - like FCA RAM trucks. This means type approvals are not required in the US, which allows manufacturers to make running improvement changes without having to resort to another type approval. The EU can, but never does, send inspectors out to check car designs afterwards. It's a lackluster, bureaucratic system that changes only when some bureaucrat thinks it should, not when a powerful third party such as IIHS shows shortcomings. So it's also cheaper. The US should harmonize with the EU only if they agree to US standards affecting structures and interior layouts. Turn signal lights and driving lights are easy, the serious stuff isn't. UNECE standards, similar to Euro ones allow reptiles like Max Mosley to make money conning countries like India on safety requirements, by crashing cars in Germany to stiff, some say beyond Euro standards, decrying the bad results, and offering "consulting" on how to do better in future. Does the US want people like the guy Sepp Blatter who runs FIFA, Bernie Ecclestone and his crowd, Mosley or the IOC making money with old boy's clubs? The Europeans definitely win at corruption. Stay away.

  • Master Baiter Master Baiter on Jul 26, 2015

    This is just what we need--some nimrod in Brussels designing our cars for us here in the U.S.

    • Wmba Wmba on Jul 26, 2015

      Well, the bureaucrats don't design the cars, they have regulations regarding them, just as the US does. So your comment is about as bright as the bureaucrats you condemn.

  • HerrKaLeun HerrKaLeun on Jul 27, 2015

    some other difference between the EU and US to consider: 1. Average US car is older than average EU car. Even if EU regs are a few years behind US regs, the average (or mean) car may be of similar real-life safety. This is especially true since many older EU cars get removed due to safety inspections (and emission test, and registration fee based on emission). 2. Police (and mandatory bi-annual) safety inspections) take out the bad cars rather quickly. Some cars I see every day on US streets would have been removed in the EU many years ago. Fully corroded, smoking,.... 3. There is a generally better attitude among EU drivers to service the car and repair it. Just take brake fluid as a example, EU drivers get a heart attack if the brake fluid is older than the recommended 2 years. Here in the US most people will deny that brake fluid ever needs to be replaced. Same for tire pressure that no one seems to check in the US. 4. This is less related to actual car safety, but first aid training, having up-to date first aid kit, hazard sign, safety west etc. are mandatory and Police also check for that. 5. Not every idiot gets a drivers license in the EU. Children (16 year olds...) are not allowed to drive and there is much less tolerance for drunk driving. Alcohol limits are much lower (even 0% in many countries, and heavily enforced) and drunk driving doesn't only yield a fine, it yields license suspension and mandatory psychological test. This again is not related to crash tests, but sure improves overall safety. 6. The average EU vehicle is much smaller and lighter. So any accident likely is against a lighter enemy than a US accident. 7. Speed limits typically are lower in the EU. Especially in-town and highway. I know the Autobahn has higher limits than the Interstate, but only on well-built stretches. In addition the Autobahn left lane belongs to the new/large/expensive cars. Slow/old/cheaper cars stay on the right. In the US there seems to be a rule that the worse and slower your car is, the more left you need to be on the Interstate (anecdotal of course :-).

Next