CU Effed Up, Schooled By NHTSA

When Consumer's Union (Consumer Reports) reported that the majority of infant seats they tested failed a side impact crash test, NHTSA was horrified and sprang into action. They tested samples of the same car seats that CU was claiming failed--and they couldn't duplicate CU's results. NHTSA deduced that CU had tested an equivalent of a 70mph side impact, not a 38mph side impact.

“Our initial review of the Consumer Reports testing procedures showed a significant error in the manner in which it conducted and reported on its side-impact tests. The organization’s data show its side-impact tests were actually conducted under conditions that would represent being struck in excess of 70 mph, twice as fast as the group claimed. When NHTSA tested the same child seats in conditions representing the 38.5 mph conditions claimed by Consumer Reports, the seats stayed in their bases as they should, instead of failing dramatically.”

I have always been suspicious of Consumer Reports "scientific" methods--they don't reveal details of their testing, use tiny sample sizes, and inject (mostly liberal) politics into their conclusions. For example, CU apparently gives the same weight to a burnt out lightbulb on a new car as a non functioning ABS system--both are "problems". Obviously, one is major and one is not.

CU has retracted their report, but the damage has already been done to the car seat makers, who were pilloried by the local nightly news ("Your kids at risk! News at 11:00!"). Even worse,they may have convinced some people that their car seats are unsafe. I hope they get sued.

Here's a video of a re-test that NHTSA did of one of the "failed" car seats, at the actual speed of 38mph:



Here's a video of an unrestrained infant dummy:



(Please, don't be a dummy!)

Video: Car Curling, Or Maybe Hockey?

Funny/scary video from Portland. Icy street, apparently on an incline, clueless drivers. Add them up, and you get life size curling!

Funny Video: Pump on the Wrong Side

Heh.

Imam: Beat Your Wife (Wives?) Carefully.

According to this authority, a Muslim may beat his wife (or wives?) but only if he is carefull--no broken bones, no bruises, don't hit the face, and not in front of the kids. Very progressive!



Question: when was the last time any Rabbi, Pastor, Priest, or Minister told you it was OK to beat your wife, and outlined the parameters of how it should be done?

Question: can a religion condone wife-beating and still be a "religion of peace"?

*Before you guys get all huffy on me, let me say that I don't believe that all Muslims are wife beaters. I am certain that some streams of Islam don't condone wife beating. But a sizeable portion of the Muslim world is still stuck in about the year 1200.

Ultimate Used Parts eBay Auction

Wow. Just wow. Check out this eBay auction for a collection of vintage cars and parts.

Ethanol: Corporate Welfare for Farmers

A large part of the political support for ethanol--for mixing requirements, CAFE credits, and outright subsidies--is old fashioned "special interest" pandering, nest feathering, corporate welfare.

One aspect of this farmer protection program is the import tariff on ethanol. Currently, ethanol imports are taxed at a whopping $0.54/gal (per gallon!). The effect of this is to protect the domestic ethanol producers, and to keep ethanol expensive. But it isn't the "family farm" that is being protected--the big winners are the huge producers of ethanol, corn, and seed--companies like Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland.

This doesn't make much sense for the bigger picture. Ethanol derived from corn and soybeans is much less energy efficient than ethanol derived from sugarcane, according to a Wall Street Journal article I just read. Corn has an ethanol energy factor of 1.3 (1.3 BTU's out for every BTU it took to produce), while sugarcane has an efficiency of a whopping 8.

If our priorities are to reduce our use of oil, we should be working on getting the cheapest ethanol possible. I guess we'll find out what the priorities of the New Democrat Congress are soon enough--pork, or oil?

Winter Safety Gear

There have been some reminders recently of how dangerous nature can be, especially in winter, including the Kim family tragedy and heavy snowstorms and avalanches in Colorado.

Everyone should ideally carry a minimal safety kit in their car, which would support basic first aid care and short term shelter. A longer term kit is a must for anyone who lives in harsh or rural areas, where help may be days not hours away.

Since I am a suburban Detroiter, my car safety kit is pretty minimal, as far as supplies go. Some of the supplies I carry:

• Fix-a-flat goo
• Extending lug wrench
  
• Reflective emergency blanket
• An old waterproof coat with hood
• An old pair of glove (also comes in handy for repairs)
• Red road flares
• First aid kit
• Mag-lite D-cell LED flashlight (will run a looong time)
• Leatherman multi-tool
• Hand sanitizer
• $50 cash
  
• Spare headlight bulbs
• Duct tape
  
• Jumper cables
• A few MREs
• Bottled water (in glass)

After the James Kim story, I decided to add a few MRE's and water to my emergency trunk box, just in case I was stuck somewhere far away from rescue, but I doubt I'll ever need them.

Some day, when I set aside the time, I will do the legal paperwork to be able to legally carry my 1911 in my car. Around here, the sad truth is, there is more threat from uncivilized men than from avalanches.