Refuting the "Big Car = Safe" Myth

It is a universally known "fact" that the bigger the vehicle you drive, the safer you are.

Even those who buy small vehicles know this, they just feel that the increase in risk is small, and the benefits to parking, mileage, and cost are worth it.

Like many other universally known things, it just happens to be wrong.

This is extremely easy to prove:  just look at the actual crash statistics, compiled by vehicle weight:

(the NHTSA website is down, if / when it is restored, I'll post links to the original data)

At first glance this may appear to support the myth: Large vans are at the bottom, with the least crashes, and compact cars are at the top, with the most.

But look a little closer:

Subcompact cars are SAFER than compact cars.  They are even safer than small pickup trucks.

But subcompact cars weight LESS than small pick up trucks, as well as less than compacts.

Skip down a couple more lines: Full size cars are SAFER than full-size SUVs and standard pick-ups, even though on average they weigh substantially less.

But wait, there's more!  Midsize cars actually rank as safer than all sizes of truck, all sizes of SUV, and even safer than full-size cars!

So, if you were rationalizing that SUVs and trucks are only more dangerous than large cars due to roll-over risk, you still have to explain why midsize cars have fewer fatalities than large cars.

Here is similar data, with different presentation: a chart of risk relative to average (100=average) of several vehicle types

      Vehicle Class                Avg. Weight      Relative Fatality Risk

Subcompact (high-risk)             2,000lbs                    143

Sports Cars                              3,200lbs                    142

Compact Pick-ups                    3,500lbs                    123

1/2-ton pick-ups                       4,300lbs                    105

3/4-ton pick-ups                       5,400lbs                    101

1-ton pick-ups                          7,000lbs                    100

Compact cars                           2,500lbs                     96

Subcompact (low risk)              2,000lbs                     85

Truck based SUV                     5,400lbs                     82

Large Cars                               4,400lbs                     75

Mid Size Cars                          3,200lbs                     74

Full-size Vans                          5,000lbs                      52

Cross-over SUVs                    3,500lbs                      48

Minivans                                  4,500lbs                      40

Import Luxury cars                   4,000lbs                     35

http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.pdf

This data is from a different range of years, and formatted differently, so there isn't 100% agreement, but it shows the same trend - or rather, lack-there-of: there is absolutely no direct correlation between vehicle weight and risk of fatality.

Even within a single body type: cross-over SUVs weigh less than truck-based, yet have lower fatality rates.

Minivans weigh less than full-size vans, yet have lower fatality rates.

Mid-size cars weigh less than full-size, yet have lower fatality rates.

Notice that the authors of this study divided sub-compacts into two categories, because the range of data points was so wide.  Were they lumped together (as is often the case), the really bad ones would seemingly drag the safer ones down with them, making the entire category look bad, when its really a specific set of them. 
The lower risk subcompacts were found in real world crash statistics to have LOWER FATALITY RATES THAN TRUCKS OF ALL SIZES, up to and including the largest category of "passenger" truck, the 1-ton; which, despite the name, weigh in the range of 3-4 tons, up to 4 times as much as the sub-compacts that are safer than them.

Here is yet more data, in case you like graphs better than charts:

This graph is counting fatalities per crash, so its already assuming a crash occurs:

(from: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808570.pdf )

And this one, specifically for the type of crash where weight matters most: frontal collision with another vehicle

(from: http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.pdf )

You can download the original full reports if you want all the details, but the important thing to take away from these you can see at a glance: the dots are all over the place.  There is no trend for the lighter cars to have more fatalities, whether you look at per vehicle, per accident, or even per accident involving another car.

This should be enough.

Case closed.

The data is clear: heavier cars aren't safer.

But of course it isn't so simple.  Not because the facts are complicated, but because the human mind is complicated.

We aren't optimized to think in terms of statistics, we are optimized to think in anecdote.

And so when the most well-intentioned people attempt to study auto safety in order to improve it, even professional researchers fall victim to the same faulty reasoning and assumptions as the general public, generalizing things like "common sense" and "crash test data" to actual real-world risk.

And so, despite what the actual information about the real world clearly shows, even the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) claims

"All other things being equal, occupants in a bigger, heavier vehicle are better protected than those in a smaller, lighter vehicle." 

That sentence stands alone, as though it were universally factually accurate... but then soon after it is qualified by the important distinction that makes it accurate:

"Weight comes into play in a collision involving two vehicles. The bigger vehicle will push the lighter one backward during the impact. As a result, there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle."

(Then, to demonstrate this, they have a graph not of vehicle weight, but of vehicle size relative to risk (the bigger in size, the bigger the crumple zone))

This second sentence is actuate, and it is where all the confusion comes from.

The qualifier is nearly always neglected, but it absolutely completely 100% changes the context and meaning of the entire idea.

A heavier car is safer IN A HEAD-ON COLLISION WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE.

Here's the thing about that, though:

Most car accidents aren't head-on collisions with other vehicles.

In fact, the majority of them aren't.

In fact, the vast majority of them aren't.

Head-on collisions only make up 2% of all car crashes!!

(They make up 9% of fatalities, so even limiting to severe accidents, they are relatively insignificant - 89% of fatal accidents are not head-on)

In comparison, rear-end accidents make of 32% of all crashes.

Collision with fixed objects make up 33.5% of all crashes.

Rollovers accounts for 10%

In a collision with a solid object, like a concrete barrier or a tree, the total deceleration will be the same whether you are in a mini car or a land yacht: essentially whatever speed you were going to zero instantly.

In a rear-end accident, your car gets pushed forward, and instead of jerk, you just get acceleration.  The energy is absorbed by the movement of your vehicle.  You may get whiplash, but you don't get dead.

Consider the most extreme scenario: you are in a passenger car, and you get hit from behind by a 80,000 lbs semi-truck.

As long as you don't aren't pushed into the car ahead of you and get smushed (which you won't, if you leave proper following distances) the fatality rate is only 0.34%

Even if you get hit from behind by a vehicle that weighs 40 tons, about 20 times more than your car, you have a 9,966 in 10,000 chance of survival.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/analysis/rear-end-crashes.htm

Least you think that's only because rear-end collisions only happen at low speed, when its the cars hitting the semi's, the fatality rate is about 4 times higher - for the car, running into the semi is almost as bad as running into a brick wall.  When its the semi hitting the car, the car gets pushed forward, the movement absorbs the kinetic injury, and everyone is happy and smiling.

This shows two things: 1) Rear-end accidents are rarely fatal regardless of size differential, and 2) the direction an impact comes from absolutely does change whether weight matters.

If the mass differential of a semi-truck - 80,000lbs - vs a car - 4000lbs - is so insignificant, what do you think the impact of mass is on a rear-end collision between a 2000lb car and a 4000lb car?  The answer is none.

In a side impact the situation is similar: the impact force in tangential to your momentum, and so the amount of momentum you have is irrelevant.  Simple thought experiment: whether you are speeding or at a stand still, getting broad-sided will impact you equally hard.  Momentum doesn't matter.  But then why would mass? 

In fact the IIHS themselves - the very people who state categorically on their consumer website that "heavy cars are safer", say explicitly elsewhere on their consumer site:

"Unlike frontal crash test ratings, side ratings can be compared across vehicle type and weight categories. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the side test depends on the weight and speed of the moving barrier, which are the same in every test."

In other words, in a side-impact crash, your car's weight makes absolutely no difference.

But side-impacts make up 23% of crashes, and 18% of fatalities (compared to 2% and 9% for frontal crashes), so this rather undermines their own claim about the impact of weight.

In roll-overs, too, weight does nothing to improve your chances.

Fixed objects, rear-ends, side-impacts, roll overs - in 98% of all crashes, extra weight does literally nothing to protect you.

How much sense does it make that simulated two-vehicle frontal impact tests are the standard for "crash testing", when it is one of the least common types of crash?

So what about those few times you are actually on a high-speed undivided back-country highway, and some drunk crosses over the double yellow lines?

Even then, weight is not the most important factor.

KE=½ mass X velocity²
Kinetic Energy= (1/2 of mass) X (Speed squared)

The impact of your relative speeds is squared (multiplied by itself).  The impact of weight is divided by two.  The speed you are going is overwhelmingly more important than how heavy your car is.

Ok, so...

If there is all this evidence that weight really doesn't matter that much to safety, then why does everyone - even people who's entire job is analyzing car crashes, keep repeating the same myth?

Perhaps for the same reason you, the reader, are still not convinced.

Because, on a purely intuitive level, this belief feels like it makes sense.

It is an extension of the (equally false) assumption that being in a car is safer than being on a motorcycle: "because the steel cage protects you".

How could you not feel safer in a nice strong cage than exposed to the world?

Here's the thing about that though: a steel cage does not "absorb" the crash energy.  It TRANSMITS it.  It transmits it through the steel structure of itself, and on to you.  The stronger it is, the more effectively that force is transmitted.  Think about the "Newton's cradle" desk toy:

5 steel balls on strings, the first one is given a swing, and when it hits the rest, the force travels right though them to the last one.  The last one takes just as much impact as it would if the first hit it directly, because the others are solid, and the force just goes right through them.  It doesn't even matter that the 3 in the center have a combined mass of 3 times as much as the two on the ends.  The one on the end is in no way "protected" by them, as they don't "absorb" any of the force, they simply transmit it.

Because it feels right intuitively, and because it is repeated as a given almost universally, no amount of text is going to help people understand the error of this belief.

They say a picture is worth 1000 words, so a moving picture has got to be worth even more:

Here is perhaps a less abstract way to think of it:

Imagine that, instead of being inside a car, you are standing in front of one that is parked.  It is parked in neutral, with no parking brake on, but it is on perfectly flat ground, so it doesn't move.  You are just standing there, minding your own business, when a truck comes along and runs into the car.  Imagine how this will affect you.  Is the mass of the car going to somehow magically absorb the impact energy and make it go away?  No, of course not, its going to start moving forward.  And then its going to hit you, with close to as much force as if the truck had just hit you directly.

But if the mass of the car doesn't do anything to protect you when it is fully between the truck and your body, why would it do anymore to protect you if you are inside of it?

The answer is that it doesn't.  Like the Newton's cradle, the steel frame of a car simply transmits the force of any impacts on to you.

This is why modern cars have crumple zones.  They are deliberately, by design, weaker than the solid steel tanks of the past. Of course they aren't arbitrarily weaker - the human containing cabin is made stiff, while the front and rear are made soft on purpose so they take the impact energy.

Take, for example, this crash test between an old tank of a car and its modern descendant (which, incidentally, is about 200lbs lighter)

http://youtu.be/mJ5PcWziXT0

But even with crumple zones, having a steel cage doesn't do much to keep you safe on its own.  Another major difference between the old and new cars is seat belts and airbags.

Seatbelts and airbags don't actually protect you from the car that crashes into you.  They protect you from you hitting the inside of your own car.  The entire reason for having seat belts and airbags is to protect you FROM the steel cage you are riding in.

Again, this may be easier to fully grasp in cartoon form:

Given that a car has seatbelts and airbags (and that you actually use them) to protect you from the steel and glass of your own car, having strategically placed crumple zones outside of a stronger solid frame around the passenger compartment creates infinitely more safety in a crash than increasing mass, as shown in the crash test above, where the slightly lighter car completely obliterates the poor crash test dummy in the older car.

But even with two misunderstandings corrected, we are still looking at the entire question the entirely wrong way!

Because we are still thinking in terms of how survivable the passenger compartment of our car is, in the event of a severe crash.

This means we are treating severe crashes as though they are inevitable. In the real world, of course, since about 98% of accidents are caused by human error, its fair to say that nearly all accidents are avoidable.  They shouldn't even be called "accidents", because it makes it sound like its just some random thing that happens.  Really the VAST majority of auto collisions are due directly to negligence, on the part of one or both drivers.  If everyone drove below the speed limit, left large following gaps, refrained from alcohol and drugs, avoided all electronic distractions, and focused on driving safely, the fatal accident rate would drop from the single largest cause of accidental death to fairly negligible.  Combined with proper maintenance, it would be barely above zero.

So if severe accidents aren't actually inevitable, maybe instead of just focusing on likelihood of surviving an accident, it would make more sense to factor in the risk of getting into an accident in the first place.
Ask yourself: Which would you rather do, crash and survive, or not crash in the first place?

So then you have to wonder, what factors might reduce the chances of getting into a crash?

Well, imagie you are going 60MPH in a 5,500lb Ford Expedition on a rural highway, and a truck pulls out from a cross street 140 feet ahead of you. If you instantly apply maximum brakes (ignoring reaction time, which is the same regardless of vehicle) you are going to slam into it at roughly 35mph, the same speed that crash tests are conducted at, and enough to cause very serious injury.

If, however, you were driving the 3000lb Ford Focus, and were in the exact same situation, you would be able to come to a full stop a full 26 feet in front of the truck.

All other things being equal, smaller cars tend to have better braking distances, more maneuverability, and frequently better 360 degree roadway visibility for the driver compared to a larger vehicle.

Comparing trucks and SUVs to cars, due to their higher clearance, are far more likely to roll over, an event with a higher risk of fatality than most accident types.
In addition to all those factors making them capable of avoiding accidents better, the lack of (false) perception of safety may encourage drivers of small cars to take fewer stupid risks (which are, ultimately, the cause of almost all accidents).  The very fact that people feel safe in big vehicles make them do more stupid stuff, like speeding and reckless driving, than the drivers of smaller vehicles.  It's called risk compensation - and its counter-productive when the assessment of risk is completely wrong.

Extra mass only comes into play in a helpful way in 2% of crashes.  In the other 98% it is neutral at best - but in some percent, it is almost certainly a contributing factor - not only because of worse braking distance and handling, but also by encouraging drivers to drive worse.  In that last 2% mass helps, but not nearly as much as people assume.

This myth has been a significant driver of the trend of average passenger vehicles on the road to get heavier and heavier, as consumers pick cars that feel "safe", fueled by crash tests ratings being treated interchangeably with "safety", and official proclamations by official agencies.  One thing that is shown consistently in the statistics is that heavier cars and trucks are definitely much more deadly on average to the people they hit.  So the net effect is more traffic fatalities overall.   This is more than just counterproductive.  It is tragic.

Every time you here this myth repeated, think about the cartoons above.  Think about the graphs and charts. 
And don't let the myth influence your next car purchase.

If I Were Elected King of the Country

My new friend asked me a few weeks ago, "what would you change about the world, if you had the power to?"

She said she tried to ask all new people she met that question.

She said it was surprising how many people didn't have an answer because they had never thought about it.

I couldn't answer, but for a very different reason.

I just couldn't sum up, couldn't choose from the list what to say first.

I've been thinking about it ever since then, and I still can't find any way to tie all the various things together, so, instead of going into the detail about how and why for each one, I think I'll just list as many as I can think of.

(and if anyone wants elaboration on any in particular, ask me as a comment, and maybe I'll make that one its own post)

These are in no particular order:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election day would be a national holiday.  No one could be forced to work more than a 4 hour day on election day. 

Anyone not registered to vote would pay a small annual penalty with their taxes.

Judges would be subject to recall by popular vote.

Congressional, presidential, and governor terms 6 years.

All term limits would be eliminated.

All elections would be instant run off type (or another equivalent to eliminate "lesser of two evils" votes).

Party, primary, and electoral college systems eliminated.

Voter initiative process on federal level, and all 50 states.

All campaign related ads would be banned from TV, radio, print, direct mail, and billboards, starting 1 year prior to any election.  Each candidate or initiative would receive expanded space in the official election guide.  All statements made that could not be verified by an independent 3rd party fact checker would be marked with an asterisk.

No individual could donate more than $500 to any campaign or political organization in a year.  No company or corporation could donate any amount to any campaign or political organization.  No union, church, or other group could donate without 100% unanimous consent of all members, and then no more than the equivalent of $100 per member.  For any amount an individual spent out of pocket for a campaign, they would have to contribute an equal amount to the public campaign fund. 
All of this would be less important, giving the ban on media ads.

Media (of any form) which reports any mistaken information or error as factual, would be required to report the correction with equal or greater prominence and length of time as the original mistake (if error was headline for 3 days, retraction must be headline for 3 days)

Public school would be paid at the national level, by number of students (regardless of performance).  Any outside income (gifts of cash or supplies by parents for example) would reduce funding by 50% of the amount of income (i.e. parent donates $100, then federal funding is reduced by $50), used for the pool, to benefit schools with less generous parents.

Teacher training and classroom curricula would be evidence based

No multiple choice test could be used for assessment.  Guiding principal should be teaching for understanding, not just retention of facts.

Preschool and kindergarten would both become mandatory and free.

2 and 4 year college / university would be voluntary, free for any family below median national income.

All college finals would be administered one semester after the end of the class (to test for long-term retention)

Public school teacher salaries would be cut by roughly 5-10% (approximately the amount private school teachers make), principals and administrators by 25-50% (to be within 25% more than teachers).  All of this extra money would go to hiring more teachers to reduce classroom size. 

Teachers would have at least 15min of prep time for each 55min of instruction.
They would be eligible for overtime after 112 hours per month(equivalent annual hours to other jobs, considering summer and other breaks - after reduced work hours, (see below))

Cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and predictable irrationality would be a required course in middle school, high school, and college (beginning, intermediate, and advanced, respectively).

Drug use would be decriminalized.  Selling without a license would not be.  Prostitution and gambling would also be legal, (though regulated and taxed).

No law or regulation could stay in effect unless it can be shown to tangibly benefit some individual or society as a whole.

No censorship of "indecency" (nudity, sex, language)

Sex ed would be taught in preschool, 5th grade, and 12th grade, each class more advanced and in-depth (the first would be similar to current Jr High level, the last would be equivalent to college Human Sexuality course).  It would be a graduation requirement, so no opt out.

It would be illegal to formally teach any child below the age of 18 any form of religion, (other than in a historical or sociological context).  This would include attending services.

Churches would no longer be tax exempt.

No government recognition of religion or God, even in a neutral, non-specific way (e.g. "...One Nation, Under God..." or "In God We Trust")

All pronouns would be replaced with gender neutral ones.

All restrooms and locker rooms would be unisex (with individual stalls, and/or separate areas of the room optionally)

Combat and infantry roles would be available to women in the military.

No government or business could mandate different dress codes by gender.

This would include that women could be topless anywhere that men could.

Public beaches and parks would be clothing optional.

All laws on sexual assault, age of consent, marriage, etc would be gender neutral (this would, among other things, inherently legalize gay marriage).

No cosmetic surgery (including circumcision and pierced ears) before the age of 18

All subsidies and price controls for feed crops would be eliminated.

Minimum standards for animal welfare would include daily access to outdoors and a diet resembling a "natural" one - i.e. herbivores could not be fed animal by-products, nothing would be fed manure, nor its own specie, nor a reciprocal specie (i.e. Animal A is fed animal B, and animal B is fed animal A)

All new cars would be governed to a maximum of 65mph, or to the maximum of the state is is sold in, whichever is lower.

Each lane on any highway with 2 or more lanes in each would direction would have specified lane speeds. A two lane would have a maximum speed of 65 and minimum of 55 in the left lane, and max of 55 and minimum of 40 in the right. 
For a 3 lane, from the left, the speeds to maintain would be 60mph, 50, and 40 (each +/- 5mph).  A 4 lane would be 60, 55, 50, and 45 (+/-5).  A 5 lane would be 60, 55, 50, 45, 40 (+/-5). 

Speeds on all highways would be monitored by randomly placed, (and periodically moved) radar machines - a combination of the radar systems that say "your speed is:" and the camera detection system that catch red light and toll violators.  Like the latter, they would look up registration by plate number, and mail you your ticket.

The first 2 violations would be warning.  The 3rd would be a $100 fine.  The 4th would be a $500 fine.  The 5th would be one week mandatory community service.  The 6th would be license suspension for a year.

No one could get a drivers license without an intensive driver's ed class (50 hours minimum).  It would cover all the basics, plus: changing oil, checking tire pressure / fluid levels, changing a wheel, and safety check - cone tests, parallel parking, driving in reverse - calculating speed, distance, and time, as well as braking distance and impact force at different speeds - fuel economy, basic hypermiling - safe and legal bicycle operation - auto crashes, causes and prevention - practical accident avoidance, using simulator - poor weather handling, rain, ice, snow, fog, and glare - driving with manual transmission.  The final test could not contain any multiple choice questions, and would cover all topics, some as hands on skills tests.

Driving class (as above) would have a 2-3 day mandatory refresher course every 10 years - every 5 years before age 25 and after age 60, as well as after every moving violation or accident

No communication device while driving (including hands free) except 2-way radios used in the course of a job which involves driving (truck and taxi drivers, emergency services)

Public safety tax based on weight for all motor vehicles, added to annual registration (i.e. one pays for the additional risk to everyone else caused by their choice to buy a 3 ton SUV rather than a 1 ton car) - based on the grand total public cost of all accidents, divided by the total number of registered cars, proportioned by weight.

Anyone found to be 1% or greater at fault in any auto "accident" would be automatically charged with criminal negligence.

Revoke mandatory airbags, seatbelts, crash rating standards.

Traffic lights would flash green before turning yellow (as in Mexico).  They would flash red before turning green (so you know to turn your engine back on)

Stop signs would be considered yield signs for bicyclists (as in Ohio)

All 4-way stop sign intersections would be converted to either a 2-way stop, a traffic circle, or a stop light.

All major one-way streets would have timed / synchronized stop lights.

50% tax on retail gasoline, money used to subsidize public transit.

At rush hour, instead of a carpool lane, the left most lane would be for commercial vehicles (being used for work, not for commuting), transit, emergency services, and people with permanent disabilities only.  On highways with 3 or more lanes, the next one over from the commercial / handicapped lane would be for carpools of 4+ people, plus toll road paid by electronic RFID tag

Upper limit of inheritance or gifts of $10,000.  The government income from estates would replace all (or at least most) of the income tax.

The rate for any remaining income tax would be at least half for earned income (wages / salary / commission) as for unearned income (dividends, capital gains, gifts, prizes).

The tax rate on unearned income would be steeply progressive, with a maximum rate of 99% after $100,000.

One may only own land which you personally live and/or work on - i.e. a maximum of two parcels (one for work, one for home) per person.  They can be any size, so long as they are a) continuous and b) actively and directly used by the owner in some way.

No one could have more than 2 households as tenants, and then only if the tenants share the same parcel that the landlord lives on.

Corporate charters would only be granted for very specific circumstances, where it is demonstrated that the product or service offered could not be provided by a privately held company, and that it is of overall benefit to society.  Any charter application which met those standards and was granted would be for a specific and limited time period - 1 year by default, 5 years with requested extension, 10 years considered with an explanation of the need for a longer time period.

Patents and copyright would be good for 10 years, or until a 25% return on investment was made by the patent/copyright holder, or until the applicant dies whichever came first.

Business licenses and fees would be by percentage of net income, not flat amounts.

Business insurance companies would be required to offer a broad range of coverage and deductible amounts, so that small scale and hobby businesses with low maximum potential risk could afford coverage.

Any form of business could be run out of one's residence unless a specific risk or harm to the neighbors could be demonstrated.  "Lowering property values" would not in-and-of itself be a valid form of harm.

Employers would not pay for the employees' payroll taxes.  The employee would cover the full amount of their own social security and medicare taxes.

Employers would also not cover medical insurance, but that would be irrelevant, because there would be nationalized, single payer, health care.

1/2 of company profit would be distributed equally among all employees, without regard for title or position.  Any increase in efficiency due to improved technology that were not passed on to the consumer would be distributed to employees either in the form of fixed hours and increased salary, or fixed salary and decreased hours.

No one could sue for loss of profit.

A company with more than zero profit could not lay off employees.

Overtime would be anything over 86 hours per month, would pay time and a half, no exceptions by profession, would apply to salary and commission as well.  Double time after 172 hours in one month.

No company or corporation could buy another.

No company could have more than one location, except in those cases where the nature of the company required multiple locations (such as delivery service).  Exception could be made on a case by case basis, if the expansion could be shown to benefit society as a whole enough to offset the anti-competitiveness.

Any company based in the US, or with a majority of US shareholders, or with 1% or more of product exported to the US, must follow all US wage, safety, and environmental laws and regulations, regardless of the location of production.  (For example, if a company builds a factory in China, they still must pay US minimum wage if they want to export the product into the US)

No US military protection of private property, on US soil or abroad.  For example, US oil companies would have to pay for their own private security to guard pipelines.  Private corporate interests could not be considered "national interests", even if the product they produce is of value to the nation.

Any action of military or CIA is automatically war, whether or not it is officially declared.

Any action longer than 5 days must be approved by congress.  Any action longer than 60 days must be unanimously approved by all 50 states (via senators and/or governors).  Any action longer than one year requires majority vote of all US citizens.

Military budget reduced by 90% (give or take).  It could never be increased to more than 10% less than whatever nation has the highest military budget.

Universal conscription of all citizens at 18, both genders, deferments for medical issues, but no other reason.  Everyone must attend bootcamp.  After that, choice of 2 years of either military service, or civil service.

In middle school, high school, and college, reversible long-term birth control would be provided at no cost to both genders (yes, the technology exists).  This would be voluntary, and either child or parent could choose to opt out for any reason, however it would be the default - everyone would get it unless they actively choose to opt out.

(Voluntary) permanent sterilization would be provided at no cost to all adults.

All forms of contraceptive would be covered in full through health care.

Child tax credits would be eliminated.

Welfare would provide a fixed amount per household - it would not increase with additional children.

Universal, single payer healthcare - however, in order to engage in certain high risk activities, you would have to opt out.  You would present your opt out card before buying cigarettes, and to get a registration sticker with a stripe which indicates you may drive a car without a seatbelt of ride a motorcycle without a helmet.  Possibly also for purchasing more than a certain quantity of alcohol at one time, and certain foods.  Anyone who opted out could be refused service at any hospital unless they pay in full in advance, even in emergencies.  They could still purchase private health insurance, if any private insurer wanted to cover them.



Citizenship would not be automatic:
At age 18, each person would need to pass the same citizenship exam that immigrants have to pass (this would be covered in high school). 
They would  have to go to military bootcamp, and then either serve in the military or in civil service for 2 years.  They would have to register to vote. 

Anyone choosing not to apply for citizenship would be considered a native resident. 

Native residents would not have to pay any taxes.

They also could not vote or run for office.  They would not be eligible for public assistance, including health care and (college level) education.  They could not drive motor vehicles on public roads, nor sue in court.  They would be responsible for the labor, fuel, and expenses if using emergency services such as police or firefighters. 

One could apply for citizenship at anytime, up to age 40, however, once revoked, you could not get it back for 15 years, and would have to begin the process from the beginning.

Your Actions are (part of) Causing that Traffic Jam You're Stuck in*

*In the morning and evening of most large American cities (especially those surrounded by plenty of suburb), when everyone is driving their cars to their 9-5 jobs, there are simply too many vehicles on the highway for the lane capacity.  You get on the highway at the nearest entrance, and proceed to average 15mph the entire distance from your suburban home to the downtown city center where you work, frequently coming to a complete stop, never going more than 25mph at the most.

In that situation, traffic is going to go slow, no matter what.

That isn't the type of traffic jam I'm talking about.

There is also another type of traffic back up.  The kind that happens in moderate traffic.  Everyone slows down, sometimes even to a complete stop, and then a few hundred feet later, you are moving again at 50, 60, 70mph, as if nothing happened.

Sometimes this happens because there is the aftermath of a crash in the shoulder, or even across the divider on the opposite shoulder of the oncoming lane, and all the drivers feel it is very important for them to take a good look at it, because humans are just like that.  Other times its because someone is getting a traffic ticket, and, even though the cop is clearly busy at the moment, people imagine they are more likely to be caught speeding if the can see a police car.

But most often, these slow downs happen for no apparent reason at all.  You get to the front of it, and cars are accelerating just as suddenly as they slowed down.

Sometimes traffic pulses like this, fast - slow - fast - slow - fast - slow for miles.  In some places, not quite as dense as in the first example above, the daily commute does this pulse jam every single day.

When you find yourself in this situation, the choices you make can either make it better, or they can make it worse.  If you are reading this, there is a decent chance you are one of the few who makes it better already - but if you are like most people, there is a much better chance you are making it worse. 

In fact, if everyone realized what I'm about to explain, and acted appropriately, those slowdowns would never happen in the first place, but, of course, most people don't know any better, so its hard to hold it against them.

At least once you have finished reading this, there will be one more person who understands whats going on, and makes it better instead of worse.

The easiest way to understand how individual actions make the backup better or worse is with an analogy.

Lets say you are in a crowd, and for some reason everyone wants to go through a doorway as quickly as possible (the iconic burning theater, perhaps, or maybe just a Black Friday sale).

Each individual is acting as an independent free agent, and each wants their own personal speed to be as fast as possible.

What happens? 

Everyone rushes the door, and they get stuck on each other as they try to squeeze through all at once.  In extreme cases people get trampled, occasionally fatally, but even if everyone stays on their feet, the chaos amplifies the bottleneck and it takes an even longer time for everyone to get through.



Now consider an equally large crowd, but imagine they consist of a highly trained military company.  When the fire alarm goes off, instead of each individual going straight for the door and attempting to shove each other out of the way, they all immediately form a single file line down the center of the room, each taking their place based on where they started, no one "cuts in line", everyone moves at a quick but controlled pace and never any faster than the person in front of them.

In the second scenario the very last person to go through the door gets through faster than the middle person in the free-for-all scenario.

What has changed?  Each individual is moving a little bit slower, they all give each other a little more space, and no one runs around to the edge of the door to try to squeeze in from the side.  The exact things that people acting as individuals do to try to optimize their own individual escape time are what cause them to get stuck on each other and, paradoxically, means they and everyone else gets out slower.

Researchers have looked at this phenomenon of "more haste, less speed":

The desire for speed overwhelms the desire to avoid collision and the blob people jam up against one another -- just as salt can jam the shaker even though the hole is bigger than the largest grain. The room takes longer to empty even though everyone tries to move faster -- handfuls of people escape in bursts between clogging events.

http://www.nature.com/news/2000/000928/full/news000928-9.html

You can see something analogous on the highways everyday.  Drivers attempt to go as fast as possible at all times, even when there are other cars ahead of them.   Many tend to drive as close as possible to the car ahead, much closer than the recommended 2-3 second rule from drivers-ed class.  When coming up on a line of stopped cars ahead, they will keep a foot on the accelerator as long as they possibly can before hitting the brakes hard just in time to prevent impact.  And any time one lane is temporarily going slightly faster than the one they are in, they pull into it to gain one or two car lengths over those around them. 

The overly aggressive drivers are obvious.

But almost everyone contributes, if to a lesser extent, to the same general phenomenon. 
Say every car is as close as is safe to the car ahead, in every lane, and everyone is moving at a constant rate.  Now what happens if one car wants to change lanes?  Since the cars are all as close as can be already, there is no possible way that the car can change lanes smoothly, because someone is going to have to slow to let them in, and they will have to slow to make the merge.  Now the following cars in both lanes have to brake.  And since the cars behind them were already as close as possible to them, those cars also have to brake.  And since the cars behind them... you get the idea... the stopped cars now travels back through the traffic in a wave. 

Now the same scenario - except the drivers are self-regulating like our military company escaping the burning theater: each car leaves a gap from the car ahead of them large enough that another car can safely merge in front of them.

Now when a car inevitably needs to change lanes, they can do so without slowing down, and without making the car behind them slow down.  They and the car behind them will want to reopen the gap that they just filled, but this can be done gradually over time, with only minor adjustments to speed, and the wave of stopped cars never occurs.

Traffic engineers can control individual driver behavior by putting in deliberate bottlenecks, called metering lights - the kind found at toll plazas and some on-ramps, where everyone is supposed to wait just a couple seconds before they merge with traffic.  Everyone ends up on the highway, but that moment of waiting forces everyone to space themselves out, and even though you had to wait, it is more than made up for by higher average speeds for everyone - including you. 

Sometimes you can even see a similar effect from lane closures or rubbernecking - a section of highway that is moderately backed-up everyday, but on one occasion has a lane closed for construction or due to an accident, if its near the beginning of your trip, occasionally has you get to your destination faster than usual.  As the cars slow down for the bottleneck, and then reach the end and start to accelerate one at a time, they spread themselves out, just like a metering light would have done. 

An identical effect is seen with the crowd of pedestrians trying to get through a doorway; putting an obstacle in the way of the exit actually makes the crowd get though it faster.

Most fire codes require that the pathway to an emergency exit be kept wide open, but according to researchers in Japan, placing an obstruction next to an exit may actually help crowds of people to get out of a room more efficiently.

Researchers found that when people bottleneck near an exit, they start to jostle each other for position. The jostling acts much like friction, slowing down the rate at which people can exit. Introducing a strategically-placed obstacle near the exit can reduce the number of people pushing for the exit, speeding up the rate at which people can pass through.

"We found that we can evacuate faster if we put an obstacle at the suitable position in front of the exit," said Daichi Yanagisawa, who lead the study from the University of Tokyo in Japan.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/08/for-quick-exit-just-block-fire-door.html

Even without metering lights, though, you can make a conscious choice to help traffic you are in move more smoothly.

Pay attention to the road ahead.  If you see an ocean of brake lights up ahead, take your foot off the accelerator.  There is no point in racing to be the first to come to a stop.  Resist the urge to change lanes every time one appears to be going slightly faster, unless you have enough space that you can do it without anyone having to slow down for you. Leave a big enough gap between you and the car ahead of you that someone else could safely merge in front of you without you having to slow down.  That applies at any speed, from stop and crawl to over the posted limit** - not only will it smooth out traffic flow, it will also reduce your chances of being involved in a collision, not to mention reduce other people's road rage.  No one can cut you off if you choose to slow down and let them in.

That means people will get it front of you.

And that's ok.

At as slow as 10mph, one car length costs you all of one second.  At 35 it costs you one third of one second.  Big freggin deal!  Let 50 cars get in front of you on a trip with a 45mph average speed, and you get where you are going all of 30 seconds later than you would have had you made sure to be the one to go first.

Not only have you made 50 people a little happier, but you have helped traffic flow a little better for all the people behind you, all the way back down the highway.

Better still, when you are coming up to one of those pointless braking waves, and you start slowing down well in advance, often times it will have completely cleared itself up by the time you get to where it was.  Which means by simply taking your foot off the accelerator, you never have to brake at all.  By avoiding coming to a complete stop, your average speed ends up being higher!  Its quite like timing traffic lights - if you try to go faster than the timed lights are designed for, you have to stop for the red, and someone driving at the speed limit will pass you just as it turns green again while you are accelerating from a stand still.

And if driving with less pointless starting and stopping, less stress, and helping to clear up traffic jams wasn't enough, this also happens to be the best way to minimize fuel when driving in traffic, so you save cash too, along with the environment and America's energy independence. 

Next time you are driving, think about this essay.  When someone exits in front of you, leaving a huge gap between you and the next car, don't rush to catch up.  When you are entering the highway, and the on-ramp is clear but the merging lane is slow, don't stay on the on-ramp until the very last second and then cross over the solid white line in an attempt to pass as many other cars as possible.  You are saving yourself a negligible amount of time, probably less than a second, but you are creating a braking wave that will snarl the traffic behind you potentially for miles.  Think about the orderly single file line, and how much faster everyone exits the building.  Everyone else is going to drive how they are going to drive, but at least you won't be making it worse.  And who knows, if enough of us start doing it, a few others might just take notice, and sooner or later stop and go traffic waves will simply cease to exist.

Aerocaps for pick-up trucks

by Bakari Kafele on October 24, 2012

When people think about fuel economy, they usually think about small cars, perhaps a mid-size hybrid.  If they think about trucks, its usually to contrast them with a more efficient vehicle (and perhaps chastise truck owners for their wasteful choice).
But while cars are great if you need to get yourself and maybe a few other people from one place to another, they don’t excel in moving large amounts of stuff, and can’t tow very much.
If you regularly need to move lots of big, bulky, or heavy stuff, or tow something large and heavy, but rarely need to move more than a couple people, a truck makes a lot of sense.

Of course there is a reason that trucks are seen as inefficient: they are.  They are heavy, overpowered (although cars are even more so these days), and not at all aerodynamic.
Then again, because trucks get such low mileage to begin with, improvements in their mileage have a relatively bigger impact.  For example, an increase of 15mpg for a 45mpg car is a 33% increase and will save 55 gallons of fuel over 10,000 miles.  Not bad, but that same 15mpg improvement to a 15mpg truck is a 100% increase, saving 333 gallons over the same distance.
So what is a mpg-conscious person who needs to move a lot of stuff to do?



The classic question was whether its better to drive with the tailgate up or down – the reasoning being that the tailgate might be catching the air coming off the roof like a parachute, being a flat vertical surface and all.  It turns out though that (at least for most trucks) that at speeds an air bubble naturally forms in the truck bed of an open bed pick-up with the tailgate up, and that creates a virtual tonneau which deflects the air current over the gate.  With the tailgate open, that bubble can’t form, and aerodynamics is actually decreased overall, reducing MPGs along with it.


(image from: http://johnversteeg.com/projects/2 )

(image from: http://www.symscape.com/blog/tailgate-up-or-down )
It’s important to note that this does not seem to be universally true; while the MythBusters and some (better controlled) studies have found better fuel economy with the gate up, other studies have found the opposite: reduced air drag with the gate down.
Which actually shouldn’t be too surprising, given the complexity of fluid dynamics, and the plethora of shapes and sizes and other variables that go into the design of a truck bed, cab, and tailgate, from length of bed and height of cab, to whether edges are sharp or rounded.  In any case, neither shape of truck bed is optimal for aerodynamics, and the potential improvement gained by tailgate position is relatively minimal.
The next step in truck aero evolution is the tonneau.  When installed, it makes the truck bed a solid flat surface at the height of the bed rails and tailgate.


Now instead of a virtual surface closing the truck bed, consisting of a bubble of air, there is an actual surface there, to do the same thing.
Unfortunately, this is still far from the ideal tear-drop shape, and (again, unsurprisingly) while it is frequently seen to improve fuel mileage, it isn’t by terribly much, and it doesn’t consistently show any improvement at all.
The goal is aero-mods is to make a vehicle as close to a teardrop shape as possible.


And while many car designs typically match this shape better than an open bed pick-up truck,

the large bed area (with no particular requirements for headroom) leave a lot of room for modding a cap to make it fit the shape even better:



The result is referred to as an “aerocap” or “aeroshell”, and it can potentially give a truck lower air drag than some cars, while providing a covered and secure space to store cargo.

Of course none of this is news to serious ecomodders, and a large number of varying designs have been built, with different solutions to balance the trade-offs of maximum aerodynamics, interior space and accessibility, rear visibility, being securely attached but easily removable (in case on needing to use the truck bed for large items), and looking seamless and integrated.
Here are some of the designs that have been showcased in the ecomodder forums:

---

AeroHead / ITworks / Phil Knox’s T-100

One of the very first.  Phil has been aeromodding since the oil embargo of the 1970′s.  This particular truck was in the form in the picture in 2005.
Measured coefficient of drag on the stock truck, plus aeroshell: 0.325
For reference, an open bed pick up has a cd around 0.40 to 0.45, a typical car 0.30 to 0.35, and the original Honda Insight had a Cd of 0.25, the lowest of any standard production car.
The lower the number, the less air resistance.
With all of the mods shown in the picture, coefficient of drag dropped all the way to: 0.25
The shell alone caused a 13% highway mileage improvement compared to the same truck at the same speed without it, 27.5 miles per gallon (EPA 25), and with all aeromods it got 32mpg at 70mph.
For more on this truck, see: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=870

---

AeroHead / ITworks / Phil Knox’s T-100: V2
 

The original aeroshell was partially eaten by goats (or something like that…)
So he started over, and built another, goat-proof shell, and, as heavily aero-moddified as the first version was, he took the new one even further.
The new shell is made from the hull of a sailboat – you can tell in the first picture, the others are the same, just painted, and later with a window which removes the passenger side blind spot.
Aerohead takes this to Bonneville for racing and setting records and such, so the priority is maximizing aerodynamics over cargo carrying utility (the shell is removable though, so the truck could be used like a truck).
Theoretical Cd of 0.156
almost 80% mpg improvement compared to an original unmodified T-100, at 36mpg highway!
And yet still this was not enough – he has also built a trailer that attaches to the back of the truck just to extend the aerodynamic taper even further!

Wow.  Just wow.
A labor of love with years and years of labor put into it.
For more on this absolutely magnificent monstrosity, see:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/pickup-truck-streamlining-14884.html
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/basjoosing-toyota-t-100-articulated-front-wheel-skirts-22971.html
and
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/full-boat-tail-trailer-gap-fillers-toyota-t-7839.html

---

Bondo / Brett Herndon’s Aerolid

Ok, so the ITworks T-100 may be a little too extreme for the average pick-up truck owner.
On the other end of the spectrum of customization and labor required by the end user is the very polished and professional looking “Aerolid”.
These are available for purchase.
The long term goal is funding for large scale commercial availability (patent pending), but even without corporate sponsorship, he has already produced several on his own, and has a website up for their sale.
Highway mileage increase (on this truck) of over 20% 18mpg to 22.
For times the truck needs to be used for serious truck stuff, the center section can be removed without removing the entire shell

If a load is just a little too big to fit under the shell, but not so big it has to be removed entirely, it is hinged and can swing up partially; also making it a potential place to hang out while camping.

For more interior space and even better aerodynamics, there is an optional extender kit that is deployed with the tailgate down, which can fold away when not in use


For more on the Aerolid, see his website:  http://www.aerolid.com/
or the ecomodder thread http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/commercially-produced-aerodynamic-pickup-bed-cap-583.html

---

In between those two extremes the DIYers at Ecomodder have come up with plenty of unique designs:

---

SkyKing’s aeroshell/boat tail for the Dodge truck “Woody”


Made from laminated plywood sheets on a plywood frame, this design goes further and lower than any other.
26mpg highway from an otherwise unmoddified (except those beautiful wood side boxes) 1-ton.
For more on Woody’s shell, see:  http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/testing-aeroshell-boat-tail-dodge-22354.html

---

T Vago’s compound curve foam board pickup aeroshell


10% improvement, from 19mpg to 21mpg with no other mods.
Its made of foam, so its very light; which is good, sense adding weight reduces fuel economy, which would be counter-productive.  Also, it makes it easier to take off when the bed space is needed for big bulky stuff.
You can read much about its design process on a previous blog post:  http://ecomodder.com/blog/makings-pickup-aerocap-vagos-dakota/
as well as the forum thread http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/t_vagos-compound-curve-foam-board-pickup-aeroshell-15862.html

---

BamZipPow’s T-100 Aerocap


Made from coroplast (plastic sheets) over wood and metal frame.
Up to 27mpg highway.
Long thread covering everything from concept to construction to V2 trials:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/another-truck-aero-cap-idea-15137.html

---

JRMichler’s Nameless’ Canyon topper


Along with other mods, improved mileage from 21mpg to 30mpg in winter, and 27 to 35 in summer, with around 2mpg of that increase specifically upon replacement of the original non topper with this one.
Believe it or not, it is constructed of plain old plywood, waterproofed and strengthened with epoxy, and prettied up with some hardware store paint.
Details at http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/modding-06-gmc-canyon-17070.html

---

JRMichler’s brother’s Ford F-250


Mileage of 23.5mpg, up from 19.5
Not a lot of information on it is public, but what there is is here:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/modding-02-ford-f250-16798.html

---

Bajascoob’s Lightweight Aerocap on BigWhiteWhale


In addition to being relatively light, this design neatly solves the issue of reduced visibility created by every single other aerocap design.  The entire thing is completely translucent.
Unfortunately, plastic film isn’t 100% clear, so while he can see headlights behind at night, it isn’t clear enough to allow eliminating outside side mirrors.
Went from 16 to 19mpg.
Made of 1/2″ metal conduit frame wrapped in 4mm film, for a total of roughly $20 material cost.
More here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/f-250-7-3-4wd-light-aerocap-12573.html

---

Swede’s Aerolid


Coroplast over a welded 1/2″ conduit metal frame.
13% improvement, from 20mpg to 23.
Read more:  http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/swedes-aerolid-build-thread-13092.html

---

Kevlar’s aero “Toyota truck” (Apparently in 1992 Toyota didn’t give its trucks model names or numbers?)

Made of fiber-reinforced plastic board panels, the stuff public restroom stalls are made from.
31mpg actual, with an EPA estimate of only 24mpg highway
Since sold – and the new owner is reporting even better mileage, 32-36mpg.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aero-truck-project-begins-2269.html

---

Ccrider’s Tacoma Aerocap


1/2″ Plywood on a wood frame.
$45 worth of material, including the paint.
30+ mpg in a truck rated for 20.
Simple, inexpensive, yet the numbers speak for themselves.
Build thread at: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aerocap-tacoma-pickup-11271.html

---

Jacob Aziza’s Big Orange Work Truck’s tilted tonneau
(That’s me, the author)

Mine represents the opposite extreme from the first truck in this list, the ITworks T-100 in the trade-off between aerodynamics and the ability to use the truck bed.
Unlike every other design, the cover does not actually start at the roofline.  From an aerodynamic perspective this is a pretty major design flaw – it means that the air flowing off the back of the roof will not continue on smoothly to the cover, but will actually separate, leaving an air space of slower moving and potentially turbulent air right behind the rear window.
I was aware of this when I built it, but I decided it was more important to have a fully unobstructed view to the rear.  I regularly drive this truck in dense city traffic, at lower than normal speeds on major highways, and have to back up down driveways so narrow that I have to fold both side mirrors in.  In other words, I use my rear-view mirror a lot.  And even without a cover, I managed to back-up into a parked motor scooter once.  So I decided to sacrifice optimum aerodynamics and have the bed cover start about midway between the top of the bed and the roof.  I have a rearview mirror mounted just below the ceiling inside, and being higher than the top of the cover means I can see over it right to the edge of the tailgate.  I actually have a better view to the rear than with the stock mirror set up.

My other consideration that required a major trade off in maximum efficiency for maximum utility is that I regularly use the truck to haul things which would not fit under any of the above aerocaps, even the hinged ones if they were at maximum tilt angle.



Some of the aerocap designs have removable tops, or remove relatively easily for those times, but those times are so frequent for me that it would be extremely inconvenient to have to be constantly removing and replacing a cover. Besides for which, living in an RV, I have nowhere to store a large aeroshell when not in use.
Most of the time my trip goes something like: travel to location with bed empty, pick up bulky stuff, transport it to somewhere else, travel home with bed empty.  So if I was going to do anything to make the truck bed more aerodynamic, it had to be something I could remove completely within seconds while in the field, store it out of the way on the truck, and then deploy it again just as quickly for the trip home.
My solution was to take a standard, commercially available roll-up vinyl tonneau cover, and mount it on triangular plywood sheets.  When I need to access the bed, I just roll it up.  If the bed is empty (or carrying little enough) I roll it down, and the built-in rails keep it locked down.  While not the ideal angle, it still lets the air coming off the roof travel down to the tailgate level more gradually.
Vinyl tonneau with metal stabilizers on metal rails attached to plywood sides.
I already owned the tonneau (originally cost about $180), and used some old plywood and bolts I had lying around, for an additional cost of $0
My overall average mileage (on an already heavily modded truck) increased from 26mpg to 28, and test-run highway mileage from 28mpg to 30.
A lower improvement than many of the other designs – no doubt due to not starting at the top of the roofline – but an improvement none the less, and not too far behind most of the other numbers when reporting an actual before and after (as opposed to comparing with the EPA numbers – after all, the expected mileage for my truck is around 15mpg)

---

There are surely more that I have missed.  Hopefully there will be plenty more to come.
Its always best to buy the smallest vehicle that will fit your daily needs, (and rent a truck if you only need one every now and then).
But for those few people who legitimately do need a big truck, there is no reason to resign yourself to terrible fuel mileage.  If ecomodders can get hybrid like mileage out of ordinary cars, we should be able to get at least ordinary-car-like mileage out of big trucks.
If you’ve been inspired to improve your own truck, post on the forum with your thoughts and questions.  There are a lot of helpful knowledgeable people who will be more than happy to give you any advice you may need to do a similar project of your own.

Update: Oct. 25, 2012 …
For even more examples of aerocaps in the EcoModder forum, see: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/comprehensive-list-aerodynamic-pickup-caps-aeroshells-ecomodder-elsewhere-23775.html