Will GOP Victory Kill The Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Automotive News [sub] reports that the new GOP majority in the house of representatives will likely mark a shift in the political dynamic between the industry and the US government, as Republicans shift from noisy protest of government support for the industry towards orchestrating reductions in industry regulation. And, according to the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, the first victim of the new Republican House could be the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a set of sweeping regulations aimed at preventing recall scandals like the Toyota unintended acceleration fiasco that took place earlier this year. House Republicans plan on holding hearings on that bill, which has passed committees in the House and Senate but has not yet faced a full vote by either full body. Says National Auto Dealers Association lobbyist Bailey Wood

There will be much more oversight, and the process will slow down

But House Republicans will also face their own challenges. With Democrat JerryBRown winning California’s gubernatorial race, national lobbyists will have a harder time resisting ever-increasing emissions standards, as California is the sole state with authority to independently regulate auto emissions. Though Republicans are likely to support the industry’s resistance to increased fuel economy standards, they will require help from the White House in order to, as the AAM’s Dave McCurdy puts it

rein in some of the more exuberant tendencies in California

With battles brewing over safety and emissions legislation, 2011 is shaping up to be an interesting year for followers of the politics of automobiles.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
11 of 41 comments
  • Robert Schwartz Robert Schwartz on Nov 08, 2010

    "With Democrat Jerry Brown winning California’s gubernatorial race, national lobbyists will have a harder time resisting ever-increasing emissions standards, as California is the sole state with authority to independently regulate auto emissions." At some point, California may overplay its hand. When the money is gone and the state has 33 million illegal immigrants living on welfare. OEMs may lose interested in building unicorn fart powered Pelosimobiles.

  • Golden2husky Golden2husky on Nov 08, 2010

    210Delray: You are correct about the 5 mph standard being rolled back a long time ago, during the anti-regulation presidency of Ronald Reagan. The result was very telling of the mindset of the industry, who lobbied vigorously for the repeal of the 5 mph bumper standard. The industry argued that the higher standard added weight which hurt consumers due to added gas consumption over the life of the car. I still remember shaking my head in disgust even back then. Once the standards were rolled back, most makers jumped on the bandwagon, busily saving those consumers a few gallons of gas per year. The IIHS argued that minor parking lot taps would end up costing motorists hundreds of dollars in collision repair. They filmed two identical Honda Accords being crashed into a wall at 5 mph, the only difference being the bumper design. As expected the car with 2.5 mph bumpers sustained significantly more damage than the one with 5 mph bumpers. Consumer Reports resurrected their "bumper basher" testing device because bumper quality went to hell. SUVs, which always had the lower standard had notoriously weak bumper systems in spite of the rough and tumble image. Yet another classic example of why industry can't be left to its own devices when it comes to consumer protection. However, it is interesting to note that some carmakers (Ford was one of them) chose to keep the 5 mph standard already engineered into their cars. Chrysler was one who quickly dumped the compression strut in the bumper system for the collapsible steel tube to save a few pennies per car/

    • See 1 previous
    • Golden2husky Golden2husky on Nov 09, 2010
      The Reagan Administration got rid of the stupid 80-mph speedometer rule, too. Thank goodness. That dumb rule, the 55 mph speed limit and the ignition interlock for the 1974 model year, are solid proof that more regulation isn’t always best. I agree with that assessment. Regulation just for the sake of regulation is useless. All those examples you cite were ludicrous. You can toss motorized seat belts in there, too, although they almost single handedly resulted in the airbag explosion.
  • Acubra Acubra on Nov 08, 2010

    Hey, how about learning to drive first? And growing up too? The sheer number of supposedly adult folks with a spolt brat's attitude is astounding, even in this far-better-than-norm forum. Any safety starts with a driver. And not even good, but sensible ones are few. No motor vehicle can be made absolutely safe. BTW, most important advances in real safety were made without any governmental persuasion. ABS, airbags, crumple zones,.. And sure, to err human, but you need a government to really screw things up.

    • See 3 previous
    • Geeber Geeber on Nov 10, 2010

      IIHS has also tended to favor regulations no matter what. The fact that it is not a government agency is irrelevant. As for ESC saving money - the same thing was said about 5 mph bumpers (which cost MORE to repair in accidents over 5 mph) and the nationwide 65 mph speed limit (never mind that insurance rates DROPPED after the repeal of the 65 mph speed limit). Mandatory ESC on passenger cars is an example of regulatory overkill. Saying that it works in extreme situations does not prove this incorrect. That is like saying that we should require racing style harnesses in place of seat belts, because some people have accidents at 100 mph. The comparison to snow tires is simply not accurate; as snow tires will prevent accidents at low speeds or more common driving scenarios. You don't have to be pushing your car to the limit to realize the safety advantage provided by snow tires in certain situations.

  • Acubra Acubra on Nov 09, 2010

    @ John Horner Educate yourself, my friend. When you strain your gray matter on a regular basis, thinking becomes a habit. Somehow automobile managed to develop for the better part of its 100+ years without any governmental involvement. Do you find it strange? All concepts I've mentioned were either invented, or perfected and made it into production through pretty much voluntary efforts of just one European company. Oh, BTW, throw in there the 3-point seat belts, 3rd stop signal and side impact door beams too. Although these come from another country.

Next