Approving US-made cars would make UK roads less safe
Although there's not currently much of an appetite for American-made cars in Britain, the US wants its vehicles to be declared 'equivalent' to ours in safety terms – despite them falling way short.
Why is the safety of US-market cars an issue?
Following President Donald Trump's directive that America should sell more cars abroad, the US and EU are currently in negotiations.
The US believes the EU's stricter vehicle safety rules are simply a form of trade protectionism. US ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland said: 'If we sell you a vegetable or a car or a product, if it's safe to use in the US it should be deemed safe to use in the EU.'
Are US vehicles safe?
'When it comes to protecting pedestrians and everyone else outside of vehicles, the gap between crash standards in the US and Europe is an ocean wide,' James Nix, vehicles policy manager for pressure group Transport & Environment (T&E) said.
Dudley Curtis from the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) added: 'One long-standing issue is the design of the front end of vehicles. In America you don't have a pedestrian protection requirement. We've had these since 2003.'
What safety equipment do US cars lack?
There's a host of safety equipment we take for granted that isn't compulsory on US-market cars.
At the very basic level, seatbelt reminders have been compulsory in cars sold in Europe since 2019. In the US, they are only required for the driver's seat. The Biden administration wanted them all-round in 2026-27 but experts think that's now unlikely to happen.
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) has been hailed as the greatest safety advance since the seatbelt as it slows a car automatically if it detects an impending impact. Since 2022 it must be fitted to every new car sold in the EU (and the UK). The US was due to make it compulsory in 2029 but the ETSC says the Trump government has suspended that.
Cars sold this side of the Atlantic since 2022 must also have intelligent speed adaptation. This uses cameras and GPS to encourage drivers to stick to speed limits. Again, it's not compulsory in the US. Neither is fatigue monitoring or emergency calling, which enables the car to automatically summon assistance if it detects a possible driver-incapacitating accident.
Then there are the things we don't see. To get the top five-star Euro NCAP crash test rating, vehicles sold in the EU must pass stringent tests for the protection of occupants in frontal and side-impact collisions, whiplash prevention and safety assist features, as well as pedestrian safety.
Equivalent testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the US isn't as rigorous. 'For example, they don't use the latest [more sophisticated] generation of crash test dummies,' the director-general of Europe for the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Laurianne Krid, pointed out.
What is the problem with selling US-market vehicles here?
As we've seen, simply saying a US car is as safe as a European one doesn't make it so. James Nix from T&E said: 'Particularly since the 2000s, Europe has made significant vehicle safety improvements that simply weren't mirrored in the US.'
To maintain this improved safety standard, all manufacturers – whether from Europe, Korea, Japan, China or the US – must currently seek European type approval for their cars to sell them in large volumes here.
There are concerns that giving in to the US would set a precedent for other countries. The ETSC's Curtis explained: 'We want to send a very clear message that this is a bad idea and will be a big mistake. We don't want to see the EU's world-leading vehicle safety standards undermined, because it's hard to see how that doesn't then undermine the whole system.'
If the US gets its way, we might also see an influx of much larger vehicles. The FIA's Krid said: 'Most of the crash tests we do don't test the compatibility of smaller vehicles with much larger ones. Having larger vehicles coming to Europe isn't going to be great for road safety in general.'
There's also the impact on infrastructure. Krid added: 'We do know the heavier the vehicles and the fewer the axles that weight is put on, the more damage there is to the infrastructure. So bringing in larger vehicles will have an impact on roads.' And the last thing we need is more potholes.
Why aren't US vehicles as safe?
Of course some US-made vehicles such as Teslas meet European type approval requirements, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
The ETSC's Curtis explained: 'The US and Europe have two different regulatory systems. In the US, there's manufacturer self-certification before a car can be sold. Then there's a robust enforcement system run by [the] NHTSA.
'The European type approval system independently checks components, systems and the whole vehicle before it's allowed to be sold.'
The result is that US roads are significantly less safe than Europe's. The ETSC says that since 2013, road deaths in the EU have decreased by 16 per cent. In the US over the same period, they have increased by 25 per cent.
How likely is equivalency to happen?
With the Trump government nothing is off the table. 'It's hard to second guess what the US strategy is,' said Curtis. The concern is it could be the thin end of a wedge that will see larger US vehicles coming in through a back door.
Currently, if you want to fizz around Fulham in a monster Ford F-Series pick-up, you can buy one via the individual vehicle approval (IVA) loophole. Sales of giant Chevrolet Silverados sold in Europe through IVA went up by 513 per cent between 2022 and 2023. Safety experts want the IVA loophole closed.
Krid warned: 'There is a genuine risk that some vehicles [deemed unsafe in Europe] might come through. That's what happens in negotiations. We want to limit the loopholes or whatever might arise from the trade agreement.'
One thing is for sure, there are multiple reasons we should all be concerned about the prospect of car safety standards being diluted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Promise of ‘a little rebate' suddenly becomes Trump's latest gimmick to distract Americans from the Epstein fallout
In the months after the 2024 presidential election — and understanding what happened with Latino voters and why they shifted to Donald Trump — I called a Democratic operative in Webb County, right in the heart of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. She told told me that when asking why one voter would back the once and future president, put simply, the voter told them in Spanish, 'I voted for Trump because he's going to give me money.' Famously, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump signed an economic rescue package that included a $1,200 check. Moreover, Trump sent letters telling people he was the person responsible for it. For many working-class families, the stimulus checks were a lifeline and Trump's approval rating slightly ticked up after sending out the checks, even as he would proceed to make careless mistakes that caused unnecessary deaths in the midst of the pandemic. That conversation came to mind when on Friday, Trump suddenly floated the idea of sending out 'a little rebate' to Americans. 'We're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt, but we're thinking about a rebate,' he told a reporter before boarding Marine One on his way to a five-day trip to Scotland. 'We're thinking about a rebate because we have so much money coming in from tariffs, that a little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.' Unsurprisingly, Trump's comments come when voters are souring on the president. On Friday, as he departed, he vehemently denied that he visited the late pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein's island. During that same gaggle, he said that he could pardon Epstein's enabler and occasional girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. Fewer than 30 percent of independents approve of him, according to a new Gallup poll and he has an overall approval rating of 37 percent. His approval among men, a central part of his 2024 victory, now sits below 50 percent. And no matter how much he tries to deflect, blame the Democrats for ' the Jeffrey Epstein SCAM,' he has been unable to escape the stench of it. This week, House Speaker Mike Johnson had to dismiss the chamber a day early for the summer recess to prevent enough MAGA Republicans from teaming up with the Democrats to sign a discharge petition to force a vote to release the Epstein files. Even some of Trump's most devoted supporters like Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined with Democrats in a subcommittee to subpoena the Department of Justice to hand over documents related to Epstein. In the Senate, Democrats smell blood in the water, as Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona attempted to force the release of files related to Epstein. Both men obviously see themselves as potential Oval Office occupants and see this as an opportunity to gain points with the base and the American public. Manosphere podcasters like Theo Von and Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh who played a key role with non-college educated sports-loving dudes breaking for Trump are turning on Trump. But this will likely not happen for a number of reasons. For one, the stimulus checks in 2020 came during a once-in-a-century pandemic that required people to stay home and therefore lose their jobs. The checks made sure people had enough to meet their basic needs while keeping demand steady enough. Pumping money into the economy now when unemployment is relatively low — and Trump frequently touts how 'hot' the country is right now — would do nothing but overheat the economy, drive up demand and cause inflation to spike, the very formula that killed killed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' White House runs and allowed Trump to return to Washington. This is to say nothing of his desite for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which could drive up inflation and his 'reciprocal tariffs.' None of that matters though, Trump is trying to rekindle the same tricks that helped him in the past. It's the same rationale for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's saying that Barack Obama staged a 'coup' and his rage against Joe Biden's autopen. Trump is in a position of his own creation and trying to dig himself out with the old tricks. But this time it might not work. Even now, some people might take his stimulus checks and then still not like him. After all, that happened in 2020.
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
Leading Democrats and advocates for the homeless are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing homeless people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on "creating distracting headlines and settling old scores." "But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. 'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem," she said in a statement. ___
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Secrets of South Park Trump-Epstein episode that will further anger the White House
Top brass at the entertainment conglomerate that airs South Park signed off on a controversial episode of the series that viciously mocked President Donald Trump while linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. Comedy Central owner Paramount Global's three co-CEOs all the watched the show's no-holds-barred season 27 premiere, which featured Trump in bed with Satan and a deepfake of the president wandering nude in the desert, Puck News reported. Chris McCarthy, George Cheeks, and Brian Robbins were leaning toward airing it before running by their boss, Paramount heiress Shari Redstone. Redstone reportedly didn't watch the episode but 'trusted [the executives'] judgment and would support their decision,' Puck News reported. The trio concluded it was OK, despite the episode taking on Paramount's $16 million settlement with Trump over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris and CBS canceling the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. The episode scandalously showed Trump in bed with Satan and later featured a deepfake of the president stripping down and bearing his 'teeny-tiny' penis. South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker ultimately agreed to edit the scene, which showed an AI-generated depiction of a sweaty and nude Trump in the desert. On Thursday, the creators revealed how they battled with the network over the decision to show Trump's penis in the scene. On Thursday, the creators revealed how they battled with the network over the decision to show Trump's penis in the scene 'Trump: His penis is teeny-tiny, but his love for us is large,' flashes a line on screen. Parker explained how executives reacted. 'They're like, "OK, but we're gonna blur the penis,"' Parker recalled. 'I'm like, "No, you're not gonna blur the penis."' Stone added, '[So] we put eyes on the penis.' 'If we put eyes on the penis, we won't blur it. And then that was a whole conversation for about four f**king days,' Parker explained. 'It's a character.' The White House issued a scathing statement in response. 'This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention,' a portion read. The episode saw the president threaten the town South Park with an endless array of lawsuits. The threats were a clear reference to Trump's recent suits against ABC, The Wall Street Journal, and even Paramount, which some have criticized as baseless. Paramount found itself on Parker and Stone's bad side earlier this year, after it blocked a $1 billion deal Stone and Parker previously had with Paramount and HBO Max that would have allowed both platforms to air their series. Stone and Parker - known for standing up to networks and censors - said no, claiming Skydance boss David Ellison was trying to lower the market value of their show. The creators then secured a $1.5-billion exclusive streaming deal with Paramount this week. The deal also confirms 50 new episodes that will air on Comedy Central and stream exclusively on Paramount Plus over five years. The new season was originally slated to start July 9, but was delayed two weeks due to complications from the then ongoing merger.
