Joined
·
378 Posts
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/why-news-outlets-continue-car-stories-wrong-160024727.html
Interesting read, starts off with the JGC and Liberty recall.
Interesting read, starts off with the JGC and Liberty recall.
Yes, with you on that one.‘The Jeep recall was purely political in nature (And I am not really referring to Right Vs Left). Some people made a bunch of noise, and then others felt obliged to respond, even when there was no real evidence of infringement upon peoples' safety.’
In fairness, the mass public rewards it. If we could stop people from Facebook, emailing, and forum-posting links to the craziest stories, the rewards for being an irresponsible jerk would end. The responsible outlets, however, don't get nearly as many hits, so they don't get as much money, so they turn irresponsible when they get new managers or owners.Media sensationalism is far to successful in driving the narrative of the mass public
On the other hand, without those expectations, our cars would have no crumple zones, no shoulder belts, and no airbags, unless you believe that the market forces that were absent until 1974 or so would suddenly have appeared and made every car carry decent shoulder belts. I personally suspect that we would have shoulder belts now from competitive pressure from European cars... but that they would not have shown up until the 1990s... and on cheaper cars would be connected to trim so that in a real crash, you'd still fly through the windshield.Most people live in a vacuum, obsessed with this idea that they can garantee their safety and wellness. They form completely unreasonable expectations that get placed upon everything. Producers of goods (Automobiles), Doctors, Police / Firemen, the list goes on and on. The second we get this sensationalized report - the first question out of everyone's mouth is: "Well how can we keep this from happening again". Errr. Stop living? Sorry, welcome to life, you can make no such garantee.
And they are also stupid enough to think that AR[15] stands for Assualt Rifle, when it is obvious to the most casual observer that it stands for Armilite; the inventor of the platform.MoparNorm said:All good points.
As recently as last week, "news" organizations of both sides of the political spectrum were reporting about the DC shootings with reference to "assault" weapons and AR15's. they ALL ran with it and I haven't seen much attention to the fact that it, in truth, was a semi-automatic shot-gun.
Oopsie...
The 'Year of the Shark' was 2001. How time flies.Erik Latranyi said:This is not political, this is FACT:
An example of media hype and irresponsibility is the focus on these mass shootings. According to the FBI, over the last 30 years, the number of those killed in mass shootings have accounted for less than 0.1% of all homocides.
Many know how bad things are in Chicago with murder right now. That gets far less attention than one insane gunman wo kills 12.
It is another example of how the media can influence where we put our attention.
The "shark attack" stories during the summer from a few years ago were shown to be absolute hype. The actual number of shark attacks was not out of line with any previous year. But that was not the impression as the media hyped every shark attack that summer.
This also happens to the automotive world, where a minor electrical problem is hyper-reported as a potential for millions to die.
I am hardly opposed to people demanding better. Heck from a different perspective, many of us here are begging for Sergio to do "better" with regard to certain offerings. I simply despise the phrase "How can we make sure this never happens again" as it is so common in the public. It drives people to come up with self defeating resolutions that give them the notion of safety with out providing it in reality.Dave said:In fairness, the mass public rewards it. If we could stop people from Facebook, emailing, and forum-posting links to the craziest stories, the rewards for being an irresponsible jerk would end. The responsible outlets, however, don't get nearly as many hits, so they don't get as much money, so they turn irresponsible when they get new managers or owners.
On the other hand, without those expectations, our cars would have no crumple zones, no shoulder belts, and no airbags, unless you believe that the market forces that were absent until 1974 or so would suddenly have appeared and made every car carry decent shoulder belts. I personally suspect that we would have shoulder belts now from competitive pressure from European cars... but that they would not have shown up until the 1990s... and on cheaper cars would be connected to trim so that in a real crash, you'd still fly through the windshield.
You can't tell me that a well designed seat belt, e.g. 1976 or newer, was such an incredibly sophisticated piece of equipment that it was impossible to design in 1940.
My basic point here is that we can increase safety through public appeals and such. Publicly funded vaccinations are one example of a place where people stood up and said, “We can make things safer.” Sometimes we need a good scandal to do things (how many cities did random fire inspections before the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire? That was hardly the first tragedy of its kind but it was the first to make the national news as a “manufactured scandal.”)
On the other hand, the auto industry almost invariably insists that every regulation is impossible, from lap belts to whatever. It goes both ways. In 1970 or so, an exec of GM pronounced that by 1974, no car could get double-digit gas mileage, idle properly, accelerate 0-60 in less than several minutes, or surpass 50 mph. He was ignored and oddly enough, the industry never built a car that bad, unless its Lean Burn system was malfunctioning.Does the automotive market need to be prodded sometimes? Sure.. But if pushed to hard, car prices will inch up ever faster, pushing them out of the hands of more and more, thereby partially defeating the purpose of putting better cars on the road.
I think Chrysler was well ahead of the curve here. In 1977 three people on my parent's block bought new cars.Dave said:On the other hand, the auto industry almost invariably insists that every regulation is impossible, from lap belts to whatever. It goes both ways. In 1970 or so, an exec of GM pronounced that by 1974, no car could get double-digit gas mileage, idle properly, accelerate 0-60 in less than several minutes, or surpass 50 mph. He was ignored and oddly enough, the industry never built a car that bad, unless its Lean Burn system was malfunctioning.
Pollution controls eventually added at least $100 to every car but in return we got vehicles that didn't bog, started when warm, and got better gas mileage. That's not to mention the various health benefits of not having choking smog.