1. 美國公路局是什麼單位
國國家公路交通來安全管理局（NHTSA）是美源國國家公路安全管理局的簡稱。美國國家公路安全管理局(NHTSA)是美國政府部門汽車安全的最高主管機關。是美國運輸部下的一個執行機構，其宗旨是「保護生命、防止傷害，減少車輛撞擊（Save lives, prevent injuries, rece vehicle-related crashes）」。
2. 美國運輸部、美國國家公路交通安全管理局、美國環境保護署和美國的聯邦政府分別相當於中國的什麼部門
交通運輸部、交通運輸部公路局、環保總局、國務院
3. 美國有哪些安全部門
美國三大安全部門
美國國土安全部（U.S. Department of Homeland Security）
成立日期： 2002年11月日
運作日期： 2003年1月4日
部長：: Michael Chertoff
副部長： Michael P. Jackson
財政預算： US$36.5 billion (2004)
員工人數： 184,000人 (2005)
國土安全部屬下部門
主要機構
助理國土安全部長 (美國出入境及海關執法處)
助理國土安全部長 (運輸保安署)
美國海關兼邊境通行署專員
美國國籍及移民處處長
美國特工處處長
聯邦執法訓練中心處長
美國海岸警衛隊司令 (戰時移交至美國國防部屬下的美國海軍部)
2004年三月一日的重組後，國土安全部成立了國家事故管理系統(National Incident Management System/NIMS)；目的向美國三層次行政區劃(聯邦、州、本地)提供全國性一致門徑援助。 幾個月後，國家應變計劃National Response Plan (NRP)由NIMS的模板成立目的，是調校聯邦政府部門的原有協調架構，為統一式全天侯門徑的本土事故管理。
2002年，美國總統小布希11月25日在白宮簽署《2002年國土安全法》，宣布成立國土安全部.成立國土安全部是美國自1947年成立國防部以來最大規模的一次政府機構調整，涉及的原政府機構有如下23個：
1.調入信息分析與基礎設施保護分部
——國家基礎設施保護中心(原屬聯邦調查局)
——國家通信系統局(原屬國防部)
——關鍵基礎設施確保辦公室(原屬商務部)
——計算機安全分會(原屬國家標准與技術協會)
——國家基礎設施建模與分析中心(原屬能源部)
——聯邦計算機事故反應中心(原屬總務管理局)
2.調入化學、生物、放射與核對抗措施分部
——民間生化防護研究計劃局(原屬衛生與公眾服務部)
——勞倫斯?利弗莫爾國家實驗室(部分)(原屬能源部)
——國家生物武器防務分析中心(新組建)
——普拉姆島動物疾病中心(原屬農業部)
3.調入邊境與運輸安全分部
——海關總署(原屬財政部)
——移民和歸化局(原屬司法部)
——動植物衛生檢驗局(原屬農業部)
——海岸警衛隊(原屬運輸部)
——聯邦保護局(原屬總務管理局)
——運輸安全局(原屬運輸部)
4.調入應急准備和反應分部
——聯邦應急管理局(獨立)
——國內危機支援小組(原屬司法部)
——國內戰備辦公室(原屬司法部)
——國家國內戰備辦公室(原屬聯邦調查局)
——負責公眾健康危機預防的助理部長辦公室(原屬衛生與公眾服務部)
——戰略國家貯備局(原屬衛生與公眾服務部)
5.調入獨立機構
——特勤處(原屬財政部)
美國中央情報局（C.I.A.）(ALIAS雙面女間諜的Sydney就是CIA Agent)
1947年，為了防止再次出現「珍珠港」式的悲劇，杜魯門總統決定在「戰略服務辦公室」(Office of Strategic Services)的基礎上成立一個專門的非軍方情報機構。同年，在杜魯門總統簽署《國家安全法案》後，中央情報局(CIA)誕生了。CIA建立的初衷是應對日益復雜的、來自於前蘇聯及東歐國家的「情報戰爭」，所以CIA成立之初的職責范圍遠比今日小的多，並且很雜，那時的CIA負責美國國土外的情報搜集、美國本土的反間諜工作、秘密培訓世界范圍內反共勢力的武裝。並且，最重要的一點之一在於，CIA那時的經費來源於國防部撥款，而不是作為一個獨立機構受參眾兩院撥款委員會撥款的影響。因此，CIA那時的許多秘密行動是不為人知的，也不受參眾兩院武裝力量委員會的質詢和日常聽證。
美國聯邦調查局（F.B.I.） （X檔案的Fox Mulder和Scully就是FBI Agent)
F.B.I.是20世紀美國最強力的聯邦執法和調查部門，在美國本土的調查和執法權之大，一直無其他執法機構可以出其右。從20世紀50年代末到60年代中後期，美國聯邦調查局不斷擴大其規模，執法和調查許可權也不斷擴大，甚至出現了聯邦調查局主任而不是總統國家安全事務助理每日向總統匯報國家安全狀況。當然，這也是有一定的歷史背景因素的。在那個年代，前蘇聯勢頭正旺，東西方冷戰形勢嚴峻，美國國家安全受到的威脅巨大，國外情報勢力在美國本土的活動日益猖獗，前蘇聯在世界各動亂地區也積極發展反美勢力，因此，在那樣的特定歷史環境下，F.B.I.得到了前所未有的發展，對內，全權負責維護國家安全和防範有組織的恐怖主義活動；對外，積極協助美國國防部軍事情報局(M.I.A., Military Intelligence Agency, U.S. Department of Defense) 及美國中央情報局(C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency)，防範並打擊一切可能危害到美國國家安全的情報和軍事活動（那時恐怖主義並不像現在這樣猖獗）。
在FBI的發展歷程中，不能不提到胡佛。胡佛可是臭名昭著的FBI頭子，據說只有他和幾個早期的資深FBI探員知道President John Kennedy被刺的真相。教我美國現代史的老教授（是美國著名的Fulbright學者）甚至推斷，胡佛參與了策劃刺殺Kennedy。當然，現在誰都不可能知道真相了。不過話說回來，如果沒有胡佛，FBI也不可能壯大成現在這樣，他也是有一定功勞的。
而且，胡佛在任期間，他在FBI內成立了著名的J.A.T.（Joint Anti-Terrorist Teams），專司美國60年代時期的國內反恐任務，其實我覺得，虛構的C.T.U.在一定程度上延承了真實的J.A.T.風格。因為J.A.T.不像其他FBI下屬機構，在每個州都有分總部，而是在全國設有12個Divison，分別在Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, Springfield, Chicago, New York, Washington, 每個Division下再下設類似於洛杉磯CTU這種的Unit。這種行政管理模式，和24小時中虛構的CTU的運作方式很類似。
到了20世紀80年代中期，隨著前蘇聯的逐漸衰敗，在美國阿拉巴馬州(Alabama) 民主黨參議員Jeffrey Buckingham 和俄勒岡州(Oregon)民主黨參議員Josh Wolford的聯合提議下，美國國會參議院批准並最終通過了「對外情報及軍事活動許可權法案第十七修正案」(Seventeenth Amendment, Clearance Law on Anti-intelligence and Military Operations)，F.B.I.自此失去了美國領土外的軍事情報活動共同調查許可權，只能派觀察員參與。2001年9.11襲擊發生後，布希策動成立美國國土安全部(U.S. Department of Homeland Security)，在一定程度上進一步弱化了F.B.I.的執法許可權，但是其調查許可權加強，且F.B.I.仍然是美國最主要的維護國家安全的利劍之一。
F.B.I.的總部設有一個Strategic Information and Operations Center (S.I.O.C. 戰略信息與行動指揮中心)，任何F.B.I.參與的重大調查活動都是直接受命於這個中心指揮。F.B.I.自己描述的核心任務是："...to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States." （保護並防止美國受到恐怖主義及外國情報活動帶來的威脅，執行美國刑法所賦予的權利）。其實這個描述很模糊，詳細地說，F.B.I.目前的職責范圍是這幾樣：一是美國國內跨州的重大刑事犯罪調查；二是罪案發生在政府行政權許可權區域內或是涉及政府公務人員，比如，2003年6月美國能源部駐Vermount（佛蒙特州）的總部大樓內發生槍戰，就是由F.B.I.負責的，當地警察的S.W.A.T.（特警部隊）和州警沒有權利介入，只有F.B.I.自己的S.O.T.（Special Operation Teams）可以進入槍戰范圍實施緝捕。當地警察只能在政府辦公樓區域外實行道路封鎖等協助F.B.I.；三是發生在美國國內及國外的一切危及到美國國家安全的國外情報行動或其他嚴重罪案行為（包括商業間諜活動，國外情報人員活動，計算機網路攻擊，生化病毒攻擊，等等），F.B.I.都有權介入調查，這也是F.B.I.目前最主要、最核心的任務之一；需要指出的是，當發布生化病毒攻擊威脅時，由國土安全部統領調查行動，F.B.I.只是輔助；四是針對關繫到美國國家經濟命脈的重要設施（如煉油廠，常規能源發電站，核電站，聯邦機構的研究設施，等等）實施的恐怖主義襲擊活動，F.B.I.需協助美國國土安全部執行調查活動，並由國土安全部統領調查。
4. 美國讀交通工程專業研究生哪些學校比較好
1、Traffic Engineering(交通工程)
研究內容包括道路上一切運動的物體，當然也包括行人以及路旁的設施，以及交叉口設計、紅綠燈、交通港站和停車場設計。
2、Highway Design / Maintenance(公路設計/維護)
作為世界上高速公路最發達的國家，Highway Design在美國有著巨大的市場。尤其是目前很大一部分高速公路都面臨著快速老化的問題，因此maintenance and rehabilitation也是主要的研究方向。國內一般本科的時候會學過《道路勘測設計》的，和這個方向很相似，只是設計標准會有一定的差異。
3、Pavement Design / Pavement Materials(路面設計/路面材料)
主要研究方向包括：水泥路面，瀝青路面，改良土，路基，地基檢測。與上面一個專業相比，這個專業與國內的土木更為相近。本科的時候土木學過《路基路面工程》、《建築材料》。基本上就是這2個研究方向的基礎。
4、Intelligent Transportation System/Simulation/ Traffic Flow Models(智能交通系統/模擬/交通流模型)
其實上面3個方向各自都能作為單獨的一個研究方向，列在一起是因為這些方向與EE聯系的緊密一些，而且這3個專業很多Prof.都是中國人。我看到的大約50%以上的中國教授都是這3個方向的，但不太清楚是什麼原因。而且這個方向的中國學生也比較多，很多都是EE出身，MA轉成交通方向的。
5、Transportation Safety(交通安全)
算是交通方向的一個研究的熱點，因為只要是設計到人和交通工具的運動，就免不了有潛在的危險。無論是設計道路、橋梁、輕軌、地鐵，安全始終是首要的問題。大的項目一般至少要有5%的費用花費在Transportation Safety上面，而且在項目可行性研究階段，Safety也是主要的研究方向。因此這個方向的 Prof.還是相對項目多一些，也是比較有錢的。
6、Transportation Analysis and Planning/ Transportation Planning and Policy(交通分析與規劃/交通規劃與政策)
比較正統的交通規劃方向，可能有些還包括Urban Planning、Subway、LRT等。
7、Transportation Economics(運輸經濟學)
主要研究方向是交通設施的經濟效益，比如修建一條公路對當地經濟的影響。本科的時候大家也都學過《運輸經濟學》，不過真正要評價一條公路的影響需要考慮的內容還是很多的，不單單是經濟方面，還包括社會效益，環境因素等等。
8、Logistics/Transportation Freight(物流/貨物運輸)
Logistics方向的劃分不像其他方向，比較模糊。大部分的學校把Logistics劃分在管理學院以下，少數學校有研究Logistics的老師在會在Transportation Eng專業下，而且一般只有1個Prof.是這個方向的。第1類;對口專業申請：美國交通工程研究生申請
5. 梅賽德斯賓士對召回漫不經心，慘遭美國高速公路交通安全管理罰單
車輛召回在今日已是家常便飯，當碰到旗下車輛有瑕疵，車廠主動發起召回是負責任的展現。但豪華品牌龍頭Mercedes-Benz卻因為召回動作太慢，日前被美國NHTSA（國家高速公路交通安全管理局）開罰1300萬美元的民事罰款，若後續不遵守和解協議，還將再罰700萬美元。
根據外媒報導，北美 Mercedes-Benz 因為對於140萬輛出現違規問題的車主未能及時通知召回，時間拖延過久，以及部分瑕疵問題並未通知召回等現象，也未對有關單位提交報告，遭到NHTSA調查並開罰。NHTSA與Mercedes-Benz的和解條款中，Mercedes-Benz被要求支付高達1300萬美元的巨額民事罰款，若後續不遵守和解協議，還將面臨700萬美元的額外罰款，日前Mercedes-Benz 已經同意簽下和解協議。
對此一事件，北美 Mercedes-Benz發表聲明表示，只是錯過了一些召回截止日期，廠方已經在制定更健全的程序，以回應、並報告品牌任何不合規定的問題，以滿足NHTSA的要求。NHTSA管理層表示，為確保消費者能獲得保障，同時並提供車輛召回保修的重要資訊，希望汽車製造商能遵循對當局應盡的法律義務，對消費者負起責任。
"
本文來源於汽車之家車家號作者，不代表汽車之家的觀點立場。
6. 美國交通警示牌提問
向上的意思吧
7. 麻煩老師解答：美國交通中心是______
| 芝加哥 匹茲堡 |
8. 誰參加過七天的道路交通安全法律法規和相關知識學習
相關知識、題庫和考題都和科目一考試差不多。
中華人民共和國道路交通安全法》第119條（一）「道路」，是指公路、城市道路和雖在單位管轄范圍但允許社會機動車通行的地方，包括廣場、公共停車場等用於公眾通行的場所。
《道路交通安全法》對交通事故的定義為：車輛在道路上有過錯或意外造成的人身傷亡或財產損失的事件。也就是說，構成交通事故要有4個要件：即車輛、道路上、交通違法行為或過錯、損害後果。
淺析道路交通事故新定義
根據《道路交通安全法》第119條第5項的規定，道路交通事故是指車輛在道路上因過錯或者意外造成的人身傷亡或者財產損失的事件。這是我國法律對道路交通事故定義的闡述，具有法律效力，要想對道路交通事故有深刻地認識，就要准確地領會這一定義的含義。
首先，道路交通事故的主體，一方必須是車輛。即發生道路交通的事故的雙方或者是兩車之間、或者是人車之間發生的刮擦、碰撞或直接影響等形成的事故，有一方必須是車輛。《道路交通安全法》也對車輛進行了界定，這里的車輛包括各種機動車和非機動車。可以有相對方可以沒有相對方，車輛因側翻導致自己損失的事故就是沒有相對方的道路交通事故。相對方可以是一方也可以是多方，多輛車發生追尾的事故就是相對方是多方的道路交通事故。
其次，道路交通事故的地域范圍是道路，發生在道路以外的事故一般不屬於道路交通事故。《道路交通安全法》對「道路」的含義也做了解釋，即包括公路、城市道路和雖在單位管轄范圍但允許社會機動車通行的道路，還包括廣場、公共停車場等用於公眾通行的場所。應當說，凡在這些場所發生的事故都應當屬於道路交通事故。這時排除了那些在家庭私有車庫、私有場院內的場所等那些非公眾通行的地方發生的事故。
再次，道路交通事故的另一個主觀因素是過錯或者意外。在法律意義上過錯包括故意和過失。故意是指行為人認識到結果的發生而追求結果的發生，駕車追求撞人結果的發生，行為人的主觀心理狀態就是故意，這一行為不是交通肇事行為，而是故意傷害。過失是行人應該認識到結果的發生而沒有認識到或認識到結果的發生但輕信能夠避免，最終結果發生的心理狀態。違反交通法律法規的行為導致交通事故是一種過失行為，是一種最為常見的肇事行為。發生意外的情況，也就是意外事件，主要是指發生了當事人意想不到的情況。如由於客觀原因使道路狀況變化、剎車失靈等。區分當事人的主觀故意和客觀因素，對於明確道路交通事故雙方當事人的責任有著很重要的意義。解釋中還提到的「造成人身傷亡或者財產損失」是指由於發生了道路交通事故，給雙方當事人或者財產損失的後果。如果雖然發生了碰撞，但對雙方當事人沒有造成任何的傷害或損失，也就談不上為交通事故了。
新中國最早的有關道路交通的法律法規是1951年經政務院批准，由公安部公布的《城市陸上交通管理暫行規定》，但是該法並沒有規定道路交通事故的定義。隨後又出台了幾部有關道路交通的部門規章，也都沒有規定道路交通事故的定義。直至1991年國務院發布《道路交通事故處理辦法》，才第一次明確地規定道路交通事故的定義。《道路交通事故處理辦法》第2條規定：「車輛駕駛人員、行人以及其他在道路上進行與交通有關活動的人員，因違反《中華人民共和國道路交通管理條例》和其它道路交通管理法規規章的行為，過失造成人身傷亡或者財產損失的事故。」
道路交通事故的概念和外延的變遷也是我國對外交流的需要。日本對道路交通事故的定義是，由於車輛在交通中所引起的人的死傷或物的損失。美國國家安全委員會對交通事故的定義是，道路交通事故是在道路上所發生的意料不到的有害的或危險的事件。道路交通事故新的定義較《道路交通事故處理辦法》的事故定義去掉了違法行為這個在過去處理的交通事故的必要因素，將過失改為過錯，並增加了意外事故。新定義與國外定義比較，類似的地方都是在道路上或在交通中引起的死傷或物損的意外事件。但是無論是美國定義中的「意料不到的危害的或意外的事件」，還是日本定義中的「由於車輛在交通中所引起的人的死傷或物的損壞」，對當事人的主觀方面來說都隱含了過錯或者意外，從這個角度而。言，我國道路交通事故新定義與美國、日本的道路交通事故的定義在本質上是一致的。這反應出在交通事故處理方面我國正在與國際接軌
9. 有人知道這個單位嗎美國全國公路交通安全管理局 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)介紹
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, often pronounced "nit-suh") is an agency of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, part of the Department of Transportation. It describes its mission as 「Save lives, prevent injuries, rece vehicle-related crashes.」[1].
One of NHTSA』s major achievements in pursuit of this mission is the data files maintained by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis. In particular, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, or FARS, has become a resource for traffic safety research not only in the US, but throughout the world. Research contributions using FARS by researchers from many countries appear in many non-US technical publications, and provide the most solid knowledge on the subject.
The agency has an annual budget of US $815 Million (2007).
History
In 1940, the United States implemented automobile design legislation, concerning sealed beam headlamps, which had recently been invented and were an important safety advance at that time. This regulation, virtually unchanged for the next 40 years, set a pattern of using auto safety design legislation to freeze innnovation at a point in time.
In 1958, the UN established the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. The United States refused to join, but vehicles meeting these established safety standards were legal to import into the United States.
In 1965 and 1966, public pressure grew in the US to increase the safety of cars, culminating with the publishing of Ralph Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed, and the National Academy of Sciences' "Accidental Death and Disability - The Neglected Disease of Modern Society".
In 1966, Congress held a series of highly publicized hearings regarding highway safety, and passed legislation to make installation of seat belts mandatory, and created several predecessor agencies which would eventually become the NHTSA, including the National Traffic Safety Agency, the National Highway Safety Agency, and the National Highway Safety Bureau.
The NHTSA was officially established in 1970 by the Highway Safety Act of 1970. In 1972, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act expanded NHTSA's scope to include consumer information programs.
Since this era, automobiles have become far better in protecting their occupants in vehicle impacts. The number of deaths on American highways hover around 40,000 annually, a lower death rate per mile travelled than in the 1960s.
NHTSA has concted numerous high-profile investigations of automotive safety issues, including the Audi 5000/60 Minutes affair and the Ford Explorer rollover problem.
In the US, NHTSA has introced a rule making Electronic Stability Control mandatory on all passenger vehicles by the 2012 model year. This is remarkably fast for a technology first brought to public attention in 1997, with the Swedish moose test.
Consumers today have a far greater amount of auto safety information available, e to the efforts of NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
US safety performance since creation of NHTSA
In the mid 1960s, when what is now NHTSA came in being, the USA had safer traffic than any country in the world, whether measured by the number of traffic deaths per thousand vehicles, or the number of traffic deaths per 100 million miles.
In 2002, the US had sunk to 16th place (behind Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland) in terms of deaths per thousand vehicles. In terms of deaths per 100 million miles, the USA had dropped from first place to tenth place.
Simple raw numbers of annual traffic deaths, all from readily available government data (FARS for US), show the pattern clearly using three comparison countries that are otherwise similar to the US.
1979 Fatalities 2002 Fatalities Percent Change
United States 51,093 42,815 -16.2%
Great Britain 6,352 3,431 -46.0%
Canada 5,863 2,936 -49.9%
Australia 3,508 1,715 -51.1%
If US fatalities had dropped by the same close to 50% amount experienced in the other countries, the US would now be suffering about 27,000 annual traffic deaths, instead of the actual 42,000. By not decreasing as has occurred in other countries, about 15,000 additional Americans are being killed on its roads annually [2].
While data leave no doubt of the enormity of the failure, the extent of NHTSA』s responsibility cannot be so easily determined. However, what is clear from decades of scientific research is that behavioral factors are vastly more important than vehicle factors. Even NHTSA』s own research established this in a classic large scale study performed in Indiana University in the mid 1970s. Based on multi-disciplinary examinations, the vehicle was identified as the primary factor in only 2% of 5,000 crashes investigated. Even for these, the vehicle factor was mainly related to poor maintenance of brakes and tires. (Detailed reports summarized in Treat JR. A study of precrash factors involved in traffic accidents. The HSRI Research Review. Ann Arbor, MI; May-August 1980.)
As much of the rest of this article so clearly attests, NHTSA』s efforts have focused largely on those vehicle factors which research shows to be of microscopic relevance. The vehicle mix, and vehicle regulations in Canada are not all that different from those in the US, yet Canada cut its traffic deaths in half while those in the US declined by only 16%; this discrepancy strongly suggests that the factors that Canada (et al.) emphasized are much more important.
Any discussion of the effect NHTSA has had on US safety must start with broad results derived from data that are not in dispute – are not controversial.
Born from Oligopoly
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
In the era when NHTSA began, a commonly repeated saying in the US auto instry was "safety does not sell." From a modern perspective, this seems unusual, since auto manufacturers now prominently feature safety features and positive safety ratings in their advertising, but the automobile market in the US at this time in history had some unusual characteristics.
At the time NHTSA was established, the US auto market was an oligopoly, with just three companies controlling 85% of the market. In economics, oligopoly is a type of market failure. US manufacturers (which had innovated the automatic transmission, air conditioning, and power steering in the post-War years) suddenly realized that any innovation in safety would be unprofitable.
Some of the major car safety innovations of the 20th century, like roll cage construction, seat belts and traction control, were therefore developed abroad in response to competitive market forces in those territories.
Government agencies have only a modest record of success in the area of innovation and breakthrough design, but they are widely perceived as good at establishing minimum acceptable standards.
Faced with this situation, the normally free market capitalist Americans sought government help. Car manufacturers appeared to be dragging their feet on improving vehicle safety in the American market. Some saw parallels to the 1906 case of Upton Sinclair and meatpacking. Command and control legislation appeared to many to be a wise course of action at the time.
This move was controversial, with other Americans feeling that if a certain passenger vehicle is not safe, the consumer is perfectly free not to purchase it. They would point to Volvo, which equipped its cars with seat belts beginning in 1959, and was available to Americans. The real market failure in this view was the lack of safety information. Other than providing this information, the government has no role.
The command and control group won this argument and NHTSA reflects this view. Cars that fall outside of NHTSA regulations are actually illegal for Americans to possess.
Today the US auto market has fragmented and is far more competitive, leading to advances in car safety, technological innovation, and price competition.
Unintended consequences
Design legislation led to many unintended consequences, especially in the early days of NHTSA.
Many of these spring from the fact that Americans in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s often preferred not to wear seat belts - yet these are one of the single most important safety devices ever created. NHTSA struggled with this fact and came up with the seatbelt interlock in 1974, that prevented the car from starting unless the occupants were belted. The interlock provoked such an uproar that it was quickly pulled from the market.
Also in 1974, NHTSA banned the Citroën SM automobile, which contemporary journalists noted was one of the safest vehicles available at the time, e to a design issue unrelated to safety (bumper standards that took effect for 1973 and were aimed ineffectually at controlling the costs resulting from collisions) and because it was not equipped with sealed-beam headlamps, which at the time were outmoded but mandatory in the US.
Joan Claybrook, then NHTSA administrator appointed by President Carter in return for a political favor, was so ignorant of automotive safety-related matters that European car manufacturers found it incredible she was in charge of traffic safety for the world's largest auto market[citation needed]. Under Claybrook, NHTSA engaged in rulemaking of bious and/or negative benefit to safety, such as requiring auto speedometers not to display calibrations higher than 85 mph (about 140km/h), refusal to approve the better headlamps on grounds that improved headlamp performance would encourage faster night driving, and lobbying hard for airbags designed around the assumption of unbelted vehicle occupants of alt-male size and weight. Such bags are too large and powerful for belted and/or smaller vehicle occupants, who can be severely injured or even killed when such bags deploy. Claybrook's airbag advocacy was factually and scientifically baseless and designed to create a personal legacy; she described airbags as "puffing like a pillow"[cite this quote], when in fact overly-powerful airbags designed to comply with regulations her agency wrote resulted at least 150 deaths before the safety regulations were twice rewritten to permit less aggressive multistage-deployment bags. Too, the US air bag mandate violates Federal cost-effectiveness regulations for mandatory auto safety devices {{{author}}}, {{{title}}}, [[{{{publisher}}}]], [[{{{date}}}]]..
These cost-effectiveness regulations, frequently used as justification for lax crash avoidance safety performance standards, were simply and illegally disregarded by NHTSA under Claybrook's administration. When HID headlamps appeared on the market, NHTSA made no move to require automatic beam levelling or lens cleaning equipment, citing lack of cost-effectiveness. Both of these systems are glare-control measures required with these powerful headlamps under ECE Regulations followed outside North America.
The world's first halogen headlamp bulbs, high-performance designs known as H1 and H3, were introced in Europe in 1962 and 1964, respectively, and quickly became standard the world over, but they were not permitted in the US until 1997. Likewise, the first two-filament high/low beam halogen headlamp bulb, another high-performance design called H4, was introced in Europe in 1971 and immediately became the world standard, but was not legalized in the US until 1992. Other lighting-related lags speciously attributed to cost-effectiveness regulations selectively obeyed by NHTSA are evident in US regulations; for example, virtually every country in the world has since at least the early 1970s required rear turn signals to emit amber light so they can immediately be discerned from adjacent red brake lamps. US regulations still permit rear turn signals to emit red light, citing the same cost-effectiveness regulations that were deliberately disregarded when airbags were mandated.
NHTSA also administers the controversial Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Wall Street Journal and others have argued that this program distorts market incentives, forcing people to buy smaller, less safe vehicles. CAFE may indeed be a driving factor behind the explosion in demand for SUVs, which are considered "light trucks" for CAFE purposes and therefore do not have to meet the stricter standards for vehicles classified as "cars." The counter argument is that politically reflecting the actual cost of oil and its externalities to the US consumer is not politically feasible.
Aerodynamics brings change to NHTSA
Automakers faced an inherent conflict between NHTSA's stringent headlight legislation, which froze U.S. headlight technology in 1940, and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, which effectively mandated that automakers develop ways to improve the ability of the car to cleave the air. As a result, in the early 1980s, automakers lobbied for a modification of the mandate for fixed shape sealed-beam headlamps.
NHTSA adopted Ford's proposal for low-cost aerodynamic headlamps with polycarbonate lenses and transverse-filament bulbs.
For the 1984 model year, Ford introced the Lincoln Mark VII, the first car since 1939 to be sold in the US market with architectural headlamps as part of its aerodynamic design. These composite headlamps, when new to the U.S. market, were commonly but improperly referred to as "Euro" headlamps, since aerodynamic headlamps were already common in Europe. Though conceptually similar to European headlamps with nonstandardized shape and replaceable-bulb construction, these headlamps conform to the SAE headlamp design standards contained in U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, and not to the international safety standards used worldwide outside North America.
Consistent with allowing automobile designers appropriate levels of freedom to do their work, the minimum allowed performance and materials rability requirements of this new headlamp system were actually lower than those of the old sealed beam system.
The years since then have seen an explosion of innovation in automotive headlight technology for Americans, including lights that see around corners and high powered lighting technology.
The Grey Market
The United States has chosen to make its automobile design regulations incompatible with those of other instrialised nations, such as the European Union and Japan. Importation of vehicles not in conformity with government design legislation is a criminal offense for Americans.
Since NHTSA regulations have no provision for equivalency, and full NHTSA type approval costs approximately USD $2 million, the availability of some cars to American consumers is restricted. This particularly impacts low volume manufacturers.
Because of the unavailability of certain cars, a grey market for vehicles naturally arose in the late 1970s. This provided an alternate, legal method to acquire desirable vehicles only sold overseas, and still obtain NHTSA certification.
The success of the grey market, however, ate into the business of Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc, which launched a successful congressional lobbying effort to eliminate this alternative for consumers in 1988.
It is no longer possible to import a non-US vehicle into the United States as a personal import, with few exceptions.
In 1998, NHTSA granted vehicles over 25 years of age dispensation from the rules it administers, since these are presumed to be collector vehicles.
A car can be certified though a handful of 'Registered Importer' organizations (DOT/NHTSA compliance work) and an ICI laboratory for EPA work, bringing in a number of cars to spread the cost of type approval and destructive testing.The Smart Fortwo car is imported in this manner.
Destructive crash testing is not always needed if the vehicle can be shown to be substantially similar to a model sold in the US.
The Show or Display law allows import of vehicle[s] "of such historical or technological significance that it is in the public interest to show or display it in the United States even though it would be difficult or impossible to bring the vehicle into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This provision is intended to facilitate the importation of a make or model of a vehicle which its manufacturer never certified for sale in the United States." However, this provision still demands compliance with emissions standards.
Vehicle Importation Guidelines [3] List of Registered Importers [4]
10. 道路交通安全協會怎麼辦
中國道路交通安全協會
1994年，經中華人民共和國公安部、民政部批准成立中國道路交通安全協會，並由中華人民共和國公安部主管。協會主要從事宣傳和普及交通安全知識，繁榮和發展交通安全科學技術事業，開展交通管理學術交流和研討等方面的社會活動。協會是國際道路交通安全協會（簡稱PRI）的會員單位。
中國道路交通安全協會自成立以來，不斷適應道路交通安全管理工作新形勢，拓展社會化管理渠道，傳播交通管理新理念，推介交通管理新技術、新產品。2004年和2006年在北京成功舉辦了兩屆「中國國際道路交通安全產品博覽會暨智能交通論壇」。同時，協會積極利用和引導社會資源開展交通安全宣傳工作，加強國際間的交流與合作。近幾年來分別與美國好事達保險公司、艾利公司、德國賓士公司、法國保樂力加公司、日本日產公司、豐田公司等國際知名企業合作，以不同形式開展了公益性的交通安全宣傳活動，社會反響較大，有力地促進了我國道路交通管理社會化、科學化的進程。為進一步增進國際交往，協會每年組團參加「PRI」年會，與成員國相互交流和研討交通管理經驗。
中國道路交通安全協會作為政府部門聯系社會的橋梁和紐帶，要在構建和諧社會的活動中繼續加強與社會各界的合作，努力做好宣傳交通法規、普及交通安全知識，傳播交通行業信息等方面的工作，為我國社會發展和經濟建設營造安全、有序、暢通、和諧的交通環境做出應有的貢獻。