The American auto industry may not want to admit this, but Unsafe at Any Speed is arguably the single most influential automotive book of the last 70 years.
As discussed at Curbside Classic (Niedermeyer, 2012), Ralph Nader didn’t invent the auto safety movement nor was he the first to shed light on the Chevrolet Corvair’s handling issues. However, Unsafe nevertheless played a catalytic role in launching the era of government regulation of automobiles.
In a classic example of no good deed going unpunished, Nader has been vilified by the auto industry and its friends in the media. A recent example can be found in veteran automotive journalist Chris Poole’s fact-challenged attack against Nader in an article repeatedly posted at The Daily Driver website (go here for further discussion).
The quotes shown below illustrate how Unsafe at Any Speed covers a broad range of auto safety topics. Auto enthusiasts who took the time to read this book might actually come away agreeing with some of Nader’s arguments, such as that the American auto industry focused too much on styling and not enough on improving the engineering quality of automobiles. This is a key point that auto buff magazine writer Brock Yates downplays in his assessment of Nader (go here).
Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile
- Ralph Nader; 1966
- Simon & Schuster, New York
“Ford terminated its safety campaign in the spring of 1956 after an internal policy struggle won by those who agreed with the General Motors’ analysis of the probable unsettling consequences of a vehicle safety campaign. The 1956 Ford finished second to Chevrolet in sales, but its failure to be number one had nothing to do with the Ford safety campaign. Even so, it has since been cited to prove that ‘safety doesn’t sell.’ Working through the Automobile Manufacturers Association and other industry-constituted committees, General Motors found its views accepted by other domestic automakers. Vehicle safety became an industry-wide policy matter rather than an individual company matter.” (pp. 90-91)
“After such a stylistic triumph there was little left for the engineer to do to the Mustang. The independent automobile evaluation magazine, Road Test, described the car as ‘a hoked-up Falcon with inadequate brakes, poor handling, and marvelous promotion.’ Their report, based on careful road testing, also said, ‘Like most American cars, the Mustang abounds with new and startling engineering features carried over from 1910.'” (p. 166)
“Probably no other major manufacturing industry in this country devotes so few of its resources to innovations in its basic product. The automobile is not in line for any significant changes in the next two decades; this is the estimate of J. M. Bidwell of General Motors’ research laboratories and is also the understanding that Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory representatives carried away from extensive consultations with company executives and engineers.” (p. 250)
OTHER REVIEWS:
The New York Times | Time | California Law Review | Jalopnik | The Truth About Cars | Corvair.org | Autoblog | Autoweek | Amazon | Goodreads
RE:SOURCES
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2012. “Automotive History: 1960-1963 Chevrolet Corvair — GM’s Deadliest Sin?” Curbside Classic. Posted Nov. 24; accessed Dec. 15.
Apart from Volkswagen with its rear-engined cars like the Beetle and Bus, together with the fact they were doing quite badly at the time with falling sales (and the Center for Auto Safety later publishing in 1972 “Small—on safety: the designed-in dangers of the Volkswagen”). Were there any other cars that Ralph Nader took particular issue with had the first-generation Corvair been properly engineered from the outset to avoid problems with its handling?