Attention Nader supporters!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:56 pm

i'm more interested in keeping kerry out of office.

nader? the guy's a charlatan. on par with 'the reverend' jesse jackson.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:23 am

Nader, wasn't he the consumer champion that caught Ford out putting dangerous cars on the road despite knowing the problem (Ford Pinto if memory serves me well, there was the famous internal memo that costed paying the claims arising as cheaper than changing the production line ) and sparked of a whole raft of safety regulation that means american cars now have fuel tanks that don't just blow up when struck from behind. i remember it well as it was a case that rebounded round the world. From the father of consumerism to fringe lunatic, isn't propoganda wonderful.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:46 am

gmc wrote: Nader, wasn't he the consumer champion that caught Ford out putting dangerous cars on the road despite knowing the problem (Ford Pinto if memory serves me well, there was the famous internal memo that costed paying the claims arising as cheaper than changing the production line ) and sparked of a whole raft of safety regulation that means american cars now have fuel tanks that don't just blow up when struck from behind. i remember it well as it was a case that rebounded round the world. From the father of consumerism to fringe lunatic, isn't propoganda wonderful.unfortunately, every one of your 'facts' above is wrong.

It wasn't ford, it was chevrolet. it wasn't the pinto (nearly a decade later), it was the corvair, in 1965. and every single one of naders criticisms about the corvair was later proven wrong - by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the very organization that was created as a result of the furor set off by his charges! The cause of the instability in the corvair was drivers not setting the tire pressures to the values specified in the car's handbook by chevrolet. it wasn't the evil auto industry callously killing innocent people, it was nader making a name for himself.

No, he was not the father of 'consumerism'. Setting aside that consumerism is simply the state of being consumers, nader was a johnny-come-lately to the consumer advocacy/protection movement. Consumers Union was formed in 1936, and they actually have been champions of consumer product quality, safety, reliability, and responsibility. So, nader coming along a quarter century later does not qualify as the 'father' of anything. he was a struggling lawyer who wanted to make a name for himself. he did.

The correct construct of your last line should be "From fringe lunatic to the father of consumerism, isn't propoganda wonderful"....

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:28 am

Nope definitely the pinto with the exploding fuel tanks. It was a terrific scandal at the time

http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm

it wasn't the evil auto industry callously killing innocent people,

The technology was available to make the Pinto a safer car. An inexpensive lightweight plastic baffle was placed between the front of the gas tank and the four protruding bolts on the differential housing. This piece of plastic prevents the bolts from puncturing the gas tank and was used in one of the only successful crash tests the Pinto underwent. In another successful test, a piece of steel was placed between the tank and the bumper to add support against the crumpling back end. The best method for improving the safety of the Pinto was to line the gas tank with a rubber bladder. Ford alleged that it would cost $11 per car to add any sort of gas tank, fire prevention device. This fact is mentioned earlier in the cost analysis and like the other Ford cost facts, is also false. The fires that occurred in Pintos could have been largely prevented for considerably less than $11 a car. The cheapest method involves placing a heavy rubber bladder inside the gas tank to keep the fuel from spilling if the tank ruptures. Goodyear had developed the bladder and had demonstrated it to the automotive industry. Crash-tests were conducted and there are reports showing that the Goodyear bladder worked very well. On December 2, 1970, Ford Motor Company ran a rear end crash test on a car with the rubber bladder in the gas tank. The tank ruptured, but no fuel leaked. On January 15, 1971, Ford again tested the bladder and again it worked. The total purchase and installation cost of the bladder would have been $5.08 per car. That $5.08 per car could have saved the lives of several hundred innocent people.

Not evil just indifferent.

Also a report was prepared for NHTSA by consultant Eugene Trisko entitled "A National Survey of Motor Vehicle Fires." His report indicates that the Ford Motor Company makes 24 per cent of the cars on the American road, yet these cars account for 42 per cent of the collision-ruptured fuel tanks. Another staggering fact that was discovered was that a large and growing number of corpses taken from burned cars involved in rear-end crashes contained no cuts, bruises or broken bones. They clearly would have survived the accident unharmed if the cars had not caught fire.

OK I was wrong about him being involved in the pinto. I knew he had something to do with car safety. The Pinto case was sensational at the time that's why I remember it, just the breathtaking callousness of it all.

The crusading attorney first made headlines in 1965 with his book Unsafe at Any Speed, a scathing indictment that lambasted the auto industry for producing unsafe vehicles. The book led to congressional hearings and a series of automobile safety laws passed in 1966.

Mind you I haven't a clue what he's done since then.

There was a similar campaign in europe at the time that led on to our own safety regulations and car manufacturers being forced to make their cars safer. not something they would do willingly at the time. Now in Europe they are desperate to get good crash ratings for the new models.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:41 am

so to recap, it wasn't the pinto that nader was involved with, it was the corvair. all of the sensational safety arguments he made about the corvair were later proven conclusively to be false, by the NHTSA, the very organization spawned by the furor he created.

he's a charlatan. he manufactured a safety scare for no reason other than to make a name for himself. did good come out of it? certainly. do the ends justify the means? certainly not.

nader is not the father of consumer advocacy. nader has done very little directly as a consumer advocate. again, i refer you to Consumer's Union, which *has* been doing direct, focused, customer advocacy since the 1930's.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:05 pm

Actually i did more digging since you tweaked my curiosity and see what you mean about Unsafe at any speed and ralph nader. I had only ever read about nader as a consumer advocate withput going in to a deal of detail, as a non american it's only of passing interest if I'm being honest. I do remember the fuss about the Pinto as it was incredible even at the time that a company could be so penny pinching. American politics seem very polarised with anyone the least bit left leaning being demonised to the point of irrationality I suppose I was making the mistake of assuming you were doing just that without checking my facts first. My apologies.

We didn't have ford pintos but the ford cortina which tried to look like a big american car. much beloved of company reps, They were horrible to drive but I have a healthy prejudice against rear wheel drive anyway.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:10 pm

certainly, don't get me wrong - the whole pinto thing was business at its worst. in no way am i defending that sort of thing. the good news of course is that those days are long past - the american auto industry has learned that people *will* pay for greater safety, and consider the cost of almost no consequence. thus even the lowest cost cars often have front driver and passenger airbags, side air bags, 'crumple' frames to protect the occupant, etc.

of course, some of that is due to regulation, and some is due to consumer advocacy pressure. but once the industry learned that people wouldn't turn their backs on expensive safety items, they started doing it of their own accord. that's capitalism at its *best*.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:17 am

Personally I think you need to watch capitalism with a big stick handy just as you need to watch the more extreme socialists with the same stick to hand. Balance in everything and watch the &*YKJJGYT all the time.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:04 am

I didn't know who this Nader is, so I asked a colleague. Apparently he's someone

who keeps trying to be President of the U.S.A. Is it "Nar-der" or "Nay-der" ?