Crash Test Dummies Show Difference Between Cars In Mexico And U.S.

[Megalith]

Thanks to lax regulations in middle- and low-income countries, manufacturers can get away with selling zero-star cars that lack even the most common safety features. Apparently, airbags are only available if you opt for the luxury package in many locales.

Both are at the bottom of the line for price point. But there are crucial differences. The U.S. model has how many air bags and what other features? The Mexican model has no air bags, no antilock brakes or stability control to adjust tire speed and prevent skidding. In a crash test, Mexico's lowest-priced Nissan (left) collided with America's least expensive Nissan. The dummy's face hit the steering wheel in the Mexican model. Airbags in the American model softened the blow. On crash safety tests run by the nonprofit Latin New Car Assessment Program, the Versa gets four out of five stars. The Tsuru gets zero.

 

[MarkVI]

Food for thought for the anti-regulation crowd. Sometimes we need regulations to ensure basic safety standards.

 

[simko1ra]

This is a situation I feel I know quite a bit about. The issue is that in these low cost and income countries the price jump caused by adding the safety features, although minimal to developed countries, can be the difference between being able to afford a vehicle or not. When thinking of developing countries, what is more important, safety or mobility? Hell, most developing countries have tiny mopeds/scooters driving all over the place. I would bet that those are a LOT less safe than driving a small car with no airbags, stability control, etc. Over time, I would argue that the increased mobility could lead to increased economic opportunity, leading to being able to afford increased safety features. Just my thoughts though.

 

[SPARTAN VI]

Interesting that it's only an option considering it's usually good business to keep your buyers alive for repeat business: customer wrecks car, survives, and buys another. A dead customer 100% will not return business.. hah

 

[auntjemima]

Even with airbags, that Mexican car would have killed the occupant. Appeared to be zero crumple zones at all. I felt I was watching that video of a 2000's vs 1960's vehicle a while back.

The cabin folded on that guy and the windshield didn't even break on the other. Crazy.

 

[MV75]

Aren't these still pretty expensive even compared to our markets? $8000 or so? And what is amazing is that they can still produce what was a 1995-2000 model pulsar alongside the current version. You'd think they would be making just the one model to save costs. Global platforms and economies my arse.

 

[niconx]

The way the cabin was crushed is the main problem with the Mexican car. I understand complicated things like airbags and abs are expensive, but how much more would it cost them to simply add some reinforcement to the cabin?

 

[Deadly Ramon]

Interesting that it's only an option considering it's usually good business to keep your buyers alive for repeat business: customer wrecks car, survives, and buys another. A dead customer 100% will not return business.. hah

Doesn't keep the dead Mexican from crossing the border illegally and voting for Democrats

 

[Ducman69]

Food for thought for the anti-regulation crowd. Sometimes we need regulations to ensure basic safety standards.

Wrong, because you can get the exact same safe cars in those countries, as long as you *CHOOSE* to pay for it.

They have 0-star cars, but they also have plenty of 5-star cars, they simply have choices we don't.

You are arguing against consumer choice, because given the option, consumers are too stupid to choose to buy basic safety equipment.

Fact is, they aren't stupid, and they know the car isn't as safe, but its all some people can afford. The alternative for many such poor is to not buy that car, and instead to ride to work on a scooter or moped or commute sitting in the bed of an old pickup truck. How did the moped or passengers in the bed of a pickup truck fair in that crash test?

 

[Skripka]

Wrong, because you can get the exact same safe cars in those countries, as long as you *CHOOSE* to pay for it.

They have 0-star cars, but they also have plenty of 5-star cars, they simply have choices we don't.

You are arguing against consumer choice, because given the option, consumers are too stupid to choose to buy basic safety equipment.

Fact is, they aren't stupid, and they know the car isn't as safe, but its all some people can afford. The alternative for many such poor is to not buy that car, and instead to ride to work on a scooter or moped or commute sitting in the bed of an old pickup truck. How did the moped or passengers in the bed of a pickup truck fair in that crash test?

Oh really. Got a car advertisement from Mexico handy where they say "BTW this vehicle is cheap because it lacks XZY safety features"?


Because I suspect you're blowing smoke about things you dont't know about.

 

[toast0]

The way the cabin was crushed is the main problem with the Mexican car. I understand complicated things like airbags and abs are expensive, but how much more would it cost them to simply add some reinforcement to the cabin?

I'm sure that costs money too, but I'm guessing a small amount more metal (or metal in the right places) is less expensive, and building a reinforced passenger cabin is going to help with most collisions where airbags and abs are helpful for specific types of collisions. Generally lower speed of travel is in favor of less safety equipment too.

 

[Skripka]

I'm sure that costs money too, but I'm guessing a small amount more metal (or metal in the right places) is less expensive, and building a reinforced passenger cabin is going to help with most collisions where airbags and abs are helpful for specific types of collisions. Generally lower speed of travel is in favor of less safety equipment too.

Actually it is the other way around. Cars are increasingly made out of plastic...because in a crash it crumples and deforms rather than passing energy into the occupants. Also it is lighter and therefore more fuel economic. It also tended to be cheaper in materials.

Also these dangerous vehicles don't even have airbags or ABS. Which is why in a crash they're death traps.

 

[Ducman69]

Oh really. Got a car advertisement from Mexico handy where they say "BTW this vehicle is cheap because it lacks XZY safety features"?


Because I suspect you're blowing smoke about things you dont't know about.

That's not how this works. You don't get to say "I think you're retarded. Prove to me you're not retarded."

If you would like to call me a retard and prove to us that in Mexico consumers have no access to crash test safety information, then by all means show us your evidence of that.

Once you see that consumers do have information available to them, you can get back to the main question of whether or not consumers should have the choice of buying a car that is less safe, or if they should be forced by law to only have safer (and more expensive) vehicles available to them because they can't otherwise be trusted to make the right choice.

 

[Konig-Wolf]

I'm just glad I live in the USA then, and feel bad for the people getting the shaft in other countries. Hopefully, as we get better at making technology cheaper, the security amenities we take for granted will become standard features in all automobiles, not just ours.

 

[Skripka]

That's not how this works. You don't get to say "I think you're retarded. Prove to me you're not retarded."

If you would like to call me a retard and prove to us that in Mexico consumers have no access to crash test safety information, then by all means show us your evidence of that.

Once you see that consumers do have information available to them, you can get back to the main question of whether or not consumers should have the choice of buying a car that is less safe, or if they should be forced by law to only have safer (and more expensive) vehicles available to them because they can't otherwise be trusted to make the right choice.

I've been looking. I haven't found any database or official site regarding the Mexican authorities doing crash testing of vehicles. And further enumerating what vehicles even have airbags or ABS. That NTSB sign you see in car windows on a lot detailing safety features--yea that is strictly an American thing.


I presumed since you were making sweeping statements regarding customers being too lazy and stupid to read crash test data....that you knew where said data was easily available. Like I said, you're blowing smoke.

 

[SvenBent]

Interesting that it's only an option considering it's usually good business to keep your buyers alive for repeat business: customer wrecks car, survives, and buys another. A dead customer 100% will not return business.. hah

What I hear is that you arr saying 100% reduction in after crash complaint ?
Less complaints - better brand value
Better brand value = bigger profits

right ?

right ?

anyone ?

 

[Jim Kim]

My take on this, make sure your rental car has standard safety features when vacationing in 3rd world countries.

And the crash test dummy leaving a facial on the airbag, too cool.

 

[SvenBent]

and feel bad for the people getting the shaft in other countries. Hopefully, as we get better at making technology cheaper, the security amenities we take for granted will become standard features in all automobiles, not just ours.

That's how how I feel about the USA...

 

[Skripka]

What I hear is that you arr saying 100% reduction in after crash complaint ?
Less complaints - better brand value
Better brand value = bigger profits

right ?

right ?

anyone ?

No...Corporate Think Logic

A>B? Or A<B

A is the cost of fighting/settling likely litigation due to flawed/unsafe products.

B is the cost to improve said products to make them safe.


Human life is cheap and has a dollar sign on it. The above determines if you fix a flawed product or keep selling it.

 

[SvenBent]

No...Corporate Think Logic

A>B? Or A<B

A is the cost of fighting/settling likely litigation due to flawed/unsafe products.

B is the cost to improve said products to make them safe.


Human life is cheap and has a dollar sign on it. The above determines if you fix a flawed product or keep selling it.

Yeah this is sad to an extreme.
There was a case many years ago ( my details are fuxxy on this) where a car company got sued because the gas tank was place to lower and easily hit the ground and let the car explode.
The did the math on how expensive it would be for a recall and add in a metal plate to make it safer vs what they lost in average from getting sued.
the math came down to saving a handful of buck per car just to let people die and get sued... so they did that.

 

[heatlesssun]

Human life is cheap and has a dollar sign on it. The above determines if you fix a flawed product or keep selling it.

Human life that's not your own or someone close is cheap.

 

[Skripka]

Human life that's your own or someone close is cheap.

We (humanity) figured out in the 1920s that lead was poisonous. So why was lead still in common products like gasoline until the ban in 1996 in the USA, 70 years later?

A>B, A<B...and people whose only worry was making a quick buck.



History side note...leaded gasoline was still legal in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a handful of other places worldwide up through a few years ago IIRC. Might still be.

 

[heatlesssun]

We (humanity) figured out in the 1920s that lead was poisonous. So why was lead still in common products like gasoline until the ban in 1996 in the USA, 70 years later?

A>B, A<B...and people whose only worry was making a quick buck.



History side note...leaded gasoline was still legal in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a handful of other places worldwide up through a few years ago IIRC. Might still be.

I left out the "not" in my prior post. I'm guessing that most people place a pretty high value on their own lives since one's own life if irreplaceable. Lead has use has blamed for a number of interesting things, like the fall of the Roman Empire.

 

[evilsofa]

Yeah this is sad to an extreme.
There was a case many years ago ( my details are fuxxy on this) where a car company got sued because the gas tank was place to lower and easily hit the ground and let the car explode.
The did the math on how expensive it would be for a recall and add in a metal plate to make it safer vs what they lost in average from getting sued.
the math came down to saving a handful of buck per car just to let people die and get sued... so they did that.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Ford Pinto and "the math" you refer to is The Pinto Memo.

 

[dgz]

Oh really. Got a car advertisement from Mexico handy where they say "BTW this vehicle is cheap because it lacks XZY safety features"?


Because I suspect you're blowing smoke about things you dont't know about.

So, business as usual, then?

 

[TechLarry]

Even with airbags, that Mexican car would have killed the occupant. Appeared to be zero crumple zones at all. I felt I was watching that video of a 2000's vs 1960's vehicle a while back.

The cabin folded on that guy and the windshield didn't even break on the other. Crazy.

Ah, yes. The awesome but totally bogus and staged Biscayne vs. Impala fight.

 

[rat]

There was a thread where someone argued "let the free market decide" and to get rid of government regulations on cars... because who would buy an unsafe car?

I think this video is exactly why that shouldn't be done.

 

[primetime]

we still have people that cant be bothered to buckle up lol.....they die just same regardless

 

[heatlesssun]

There was a thread where someone argued "let the free market decide" and to get rid of government regulations on cars... because who would buy an unsafe car?

I think this video is exactly why that shouldn't be done.

Who would ever buy an inherently dangerous or defective product? Seems to happen all of the time for any number of reasons. How many people are still sporting Galaxy Note 7s?

 

[Ur_Mom]

There was a thread where someone argued "let the free market decide" and to get rid of government regulations on cars... because who would buy an unsafe car?

I think this video is exactly why that shouldn't be done.

There has to be a middle road. There are times when regulations go too far and are too extreme (see: California) but if you take them all away you have a very unsafe car. Most of the safety features that are standard in vehicles today are due to government regulations.

Not too much, not too little. Just hard to define where that is....

 

[heatlesssun]

There has to be a middle road. There are times when regulations go too far and are too extreme (see: California)

Anything can go too far. I don't understand why some seem to think that California is such a great example of over regulation. It's the most populous and wealthy state in the Union by a good margin. But it is the home of Hollyweird which many resent and perhaps even more hated these days is Silicon Valley which is a brain trust unique in human history. Whatever Cali's issues are with overregulation there are clearly some benefits as well.

 

[Skripka]

Anything can go too far. I don't understand why some seem to think that California is such a great example of over regulation. It's the most populous and wealthy state in the Union by a good margin. But it is the home of Hollyweird which many resent and perhaps even more hated these days is Silicone Valley which is a brain trust unique in human history. Whatever Cali's issues are with overregulation there are clearly some benefits as well.

Yup...people are now accustomed to not dealing with smog and acid rain. They forget it was a thing. And in other places still is.


During the industrial revolution London's air was as bad or worse than Beijing's today. New York's at the top of the 20th century was as bad or worse as well. Funny thing, the Chinese are actually doing something about it. They're the ones that are going to bring the first dozen or so new AP1000 nuclear reactor cores online. Why? Because they're sick of what is going on over there.

 

[Ducman69]

I presumed since you were making sweeping statements regarding customers being too lazy and stupid to read crash test data....that you knew where said data was easily available. Like I said, you're blowing smoke.

I can't tell if you're making a low effort troll post, or really have that much reading comprehension difficulty.

That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said.

You are arguing against consumer choice, because given the option, consumers are too stupid to choose to buy basic safety equipment.

Fact is, they aren't stupid, and they know the car isn't as safe, but its all some people can afford.

As you see I said that consumer are NOT stupid, and that they know the car isn't safe, but they purchase it for economic reasons and often that because the alternatives available to them, at their income, is no better.

And here buddy: http://www.latinncap.com/en/results

I'm sure you will now apologize for completely misrepresenting what I said and acknowledging that you're wrong... *holds breath*

 

[Ryokurin]

Aren't these still pretty expensive even compared to our markets? $8000 or so? And what is amazing is that they can still produce what was a 1995-2000 model pulsar alongside the current version. You'd think they would be making just the one model to save costs. Global platforms and economies my arse.

No, they are more like $6900 in USD. The cheapest new car in the US is the $12,800 Versa. Also FWIW, the car was also produced in the middle east (which is even cheaper) along with South America, so it still is technically a global platform.

 

[donald_k]

Nissan Tsuru is the same as a B13 3G Sentra... a lot of the older tooling gets sent and used longer in the 3rd world.

 

[westrock2000]

The songs write themselves.

Once there was this kid who
Got into an accident and couldn't come to school
But when he finally came back
His hair had turned from black into bright white
He said that it was from when
The cars had smashed him so hard

 

[DukenukemX]

Maybe Top Gear was right about Mexican cars?

 

[Weenis]

Speed limits are also significantly less in Mexico than here in the states..

 

[westrock2000]

Anything can go too far. I don't understand why some seem to think that California is such a great example of over regulation. It's the most populous and wealthy state in the Union by a good margin. But it is the home of Hollyweird which many resent and perhaps even more hated these days is Silicone Valley which is a brain trust unique in human history. Whatever Cali's issues are with overregulation there are clearly some benefits as well.

Do you think that if California was not on the coast that it would be still be as successful as it is today? Say you swapped locations of California and Arizona+Nevada.

What I mean is, is California successful because the people that live their, or in spite of the people that live their? Is there any reason to think that California would never be successful based on the politics of the state?

 

[wrangler]

The author of the article wants me and you to pay more for our vehicles so that Mexicans who have no interest in paying for these "safety" features can have them whether they want them or not.