1. 美国公路局是什么单位
国国家公路交通来安全管理局（NHTSA）是美源国国家公路安全管理局的简称。美国国家公路安全管理局(NHTSA)是美国政府部门汽车安全的最高主管机关。是美国运输部下的一个执行机构，其宗旨是“保护生命、防止伤害，减少车辆撞击（Save lives, prevent injuries, rece vehicle-related crashes）”。
2. 美国运输部、美国国家公路交通安全管理局、美国环境保护署和美国的联邦政府分别相当于中国的什么部门
交通运输部、交通运输部公路局、环保总局、国务院
3. 美国有哪些安全部门
美国三大安全部门
美国国土安全部（U.S. Department of Homeland Security）
成立日期： 2002年11月日
运作日期： 2003年1月4日
部长：: Michael Chertoff
副部长： Michael P. Jackson
财政预算： US$36.5 billion (2004)
员工人数： 184,000人 (2005)
国土安全部属下部门
主要机构
助理国土安全部长 (美国出入境及海关执法处)
助理国土安全部长 (运输保安署)
美国海关兼边境通行署专员
美国国籍及移民处处长
美国特工处处长
联邦执法训练中心处长
美国海岸警卫队司令 (战时移交至美国国防部属下的美国海军部)
2004年三月一日的重组后，国土安全部成立了国家事故管理系统(National Incident Management System/NIMS)；目的向美国三层次行政区划(联邦、州、本地)提供全国性一致门径援助。 几个月后，国家应变计划National Response Plan (NRP)由NIMS的模板成立目的，是调校联邦政府部门的原有协调架构，为统一式全天侯门径的本土事故管理。
2002年，美国总统小布什11月25日在白宫签署《2002年国土安全法》，宣布成立国土安全部.成立国土安全部是美国自1947年成立国防部以来最大规模的一次政府机构调整，涉及的原政府机构有如下23个：
1.调入信息分析与基础设施保护分部
——国家基础设施保护中心(原属联邦调查局)
——国家通信系统局(原属国防部)
——关键基础设施确保办公室(原属商务部)
——计算机安全分会(原属国家标准与技术协会)
——国家基础设施建模与分析中心(原属能源部)
——联邦计算机事故反应中心(原属总务管理局)
2.调入化学、生物、放射与核对抗措施分部
——民间生化防护研究计划局(原属卫生与公众服务部)
——劳伦斯?利弗莫尔国家实验室(部分)(原属能源部)
——国家生物武器防务分析中心(新组建)
——普拉姆岛动物疾病中心(原属农业部)
3.调入边境与运输安全分部
——海关总署(原属财政部)
——移民和归化局(原属司法部)
——动植物卫生检验局(原属农业部)
——海岸警卫队(原属运输部)
——联邦保护局(原属总务管理局)
——运输安全局(原属运输部)
4.调入应急准备和反应分部
——联邦应急管理局(独立)
——国内危机支援小组(原属司法部)
——国内战备办公室(原属司法部)
——国家国内战备办公室(原属联邦调查局)
——负责公众健康危机预防的助理部长办公室(原属卫生与公众服务部)
——战略国家贮备局(原属卫生与公众服务部)
5.调入独立机构
——特勤处(原属财政部)
美国中央情报局（C.I.A.）(ALIAS双面女间谍的Sydney就是CIA Agent)
1947年，为了防止再次出现“珍珠港”式的悲剧，杜鲁门总统决定在“战略服务办公室”(Office of Strategic Services)的基础上成立一个专门的非军方情报机构。同年，在杜鲁门总统签署《国家安全法案》后，中央情报局(CIA)诞生了。CIA建立的初衷是应对日益复杂的、来自于前苏联及东欧国家的“情报战争”，所以CIA成立之初的职责范围远比今日小的多，并且很杂，那时的CIA负责美国国土外的情报搜集、美国本土的反间谍工作、秘密培训世界范围内反共势力的武装。并且，最重要的一点之一在于，CIA那时的经费来源于国防部拨款，而不是作为一个独立机构受参众两院拨款委员会拨款的影响。因此，CIA那时的许多秘密行动是不为人知的，也不受参众两院武装力量委员会的质询和日常听证。
美国联邦调查局（F.B.I.） （X档案的Fox Mulder和Scully就是FBI Agent)
F.B.I.是20世纪美国最强力的联邦执法和调查部门，在美国本土的调查和执法权之大，一直无其他执法机构可以出其右。从20世纪50年代末到60年代中后期，美国联邦调查局不断扩大其规模，执法和调查权限也不断扩大，甚至出现了联邦调查局主任而不是总统国家安全事务助理每日向总统汇报国家安全状况。当然，这也是有一定的历史背景因素的。在那个年代，前苏联势头正旺，东西方冷战形势严峻，美国国家安全受到的威胁巨大，国外情报势力在美国本土的活动日益猖獗，前苏联在世界各动乱地区也积极发展反美势力，因此，在那样的特定历史环境下，F.B.I.得到了前所未有的发展，对内，全权负责维护国家安全和防范有组织的恐怖主义活动；对外，积极协助美国国防部军事情报局(M.I.A., Military Intelligence Agency, U.S. Department of Defense) 及美国中央情报局(C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency)，防范并打击一切可能危害到美国国家安全的情报和军事活动（那时恐怖主义并不像现在这样猖獗）。
在FBI的发展历程中，不能不提到胡佛。胡佛可是臭名昭著的FBI头子，据说只有他和几个早期的资深FBI探员知道President John Kennedy被刺的真相。教我美国现代史的老教授（是美国著名的Fulbright学者）甚至推断，胡佛参与了策划刺杀Kennedy。当然，现在谁都不可能知道真相了。不过话说回来，如果没有胡佛，FBI也不可能壮大成现在这样，他也是有一定功劳的。
而且，胡佛在任期间，他在FBI内成立了著名的J.A.T.（Joint Anti-Terrorist Teams），专司美国60年代时期的国内反恐任务，其实我觉得，虚构的C.T.U.在一定程度上延承了真实的J.A.T.风格。因为J.A.T.不像其他FBI下属机构，在每个州都有分总部，而是在全国设有12个Divison，分别在Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, Springfield, Chicago, New York, Washington, 每个Division下再下设类似于洛杉矶CTU这种的Unit。这种行政管理模式，和24小时中虚构的CTU的运作方式很类似。
到了20世纪80年代中期，随着前苏联的逐渐衰败，在美国阿拉巴马州(Alabama) 民主党参议员Jeffrey Buckingham 和俄勒冈州(Oregon)民主党参议员Josh Wolford的联合提议下，美国国会参议院批准并最终通过了“对外情报及军事活动权限法案第十七修正案”(Seventeenth Amendment, Clearance Law on Anti-intelligence and Military Operations)，F.B.I.自此失去了美国领土外的军事情报活动共同调查权限，只能派观察员参与。2001年9.11袭击发生后，布什策动成立美国国土安全部(U.S. Department of Homeland Security)，在一定程度上进一步弱化了F.B.I.的执法权限，但是其调查权限加强，且F.B.I.仍然是美国最主要的维护国家安全的利剑之一。
F.B.I.的总部设有一个Strategic Information and Operations Center (S.I.O.C. 战略信息与行动指挥中心)，任何F.B.I.参与的重大调查活动都是直接受命于这个中心指挥。F.B.I.自己描述的核心任务是："...to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States." （保护并防止美国受到恐怖主义及外国情报活动带来的威胁，执行美国刑法所赋予的权利）。其实这个描述很模糊，详细地说，F.B.I.目前的职责范围是这几样：一是美国国内跨州的重大刑事犯罪调查；二是罪案发生在政府行政权权限区域内或是涉及政府公务人员，比如，2003年6月美国能源部驻Vermount（佛蒙特州）的总部大楼内发生枪战，就是由F.B.I.负责的，当地警察的S.W.A.T.（特警部队）和州警没有权利介入，只有F.B.I.自己的S.O.T.（Special Operation Teams）可以进入枪战范围实施缉捕。当地警察只能在政府办公楼区域外实行道路封锁等协助F.B.I.；三是发生在美国国内及国外的一切危及到美国国家安全的国外情报行动或其他严重罪案行为（包括商业间谍活动，国外情报人员活动，计算机网络攻击，生化病毒攻击，等等），F.B.I.都有权介入调查，这也是F.B.I.目前最主要、最核心的任务之一；需要指出的是，当发布生化病毒攻击威胁时，由国土安全部统领调查行动，F.B.I.只是辅助；四是针对关系到美国国家经济命脉的重要设施（如炼油厂，常规能源发电站，核电站，联邦机构的研究设施，等等）实施的恐怖主义袭击活动，F.B.I.需协助美国国土安全部执行调查活动，并由国土安全部统领调查。
4. 美国读交通工程专业研究生哪些学校比较好
1、Traffic Engineering(交通工程)
研究内容包括道路上一切运动的物体，当然也包括行人以及路旁的设施，以及交叉口设计、红绿灯、交通港站和停车场设计。
2、Highway Design / Maintenance(公路设计/维护)
作为世界上高速公路最发达的国家，Highway Design在美国有着巨大的市场。尤其是目前很大一部分高速公路都面临着快速老化的问题，因此maintenance and rehabilitation也是主要的研究方向。国内一般本科的时候会学过《道路勘测设计》的，和这个方向很相似，只是设计标准会有一定的差异。
3、Pavement Design / Pavement Materials(路面设计/路面材料)
主要研究方向包括：水泥路面，沥青路面，改良土，路基，地基检测。与上面一个专业相比，这个专业与国内的土木更为相近。本科的时候土木学过《路基路面工程》、《建筑材料》。基本上就是这2个研究方向的基础。
4、Intelligent Transportation System/Simulation/ Traffic Flow Models(智能交通系统/模拟/交通流模型)
其实上面3个方向各自都能作为单独的一个研究方向，列在一起是因为这些方向与EE联系的紧密一些，而且这3个专业很多Prof.都是中国人。我看到的大约50%以上的中国教授都是这3个方向的，但不太清楚是什么原因。而且这个方向的中国学生也比较多，很多都是EE出身，MA转成交通方向的。
5、Transportation Safety(交通安全)
算是交通方向的一个研究的热点，因为只要是设计到人和交通工具的运动，就免不了有潜在的危险。无论是设计道路、桥梁、轻轨、地铁，安全始终是首要的问题。大的项目一般至少要有5%的费用花费在Transportation Safety上面，而且在项目可行性研究阶段，Safety也是主要的研究方向。因此这个方向的 Prof.还是相对项目多一些，也是比较有钱的。
6、Transportation Analysis and Planning/ Transportation Planning and Policy(交通分析与规划/交通规划与政策)
比较正统的交通规划方向，可能有些还包括Urban Planning、Subway、LRT等。
7、Transportation Economics(运输经济学)
主要研究方向是交通设施的经济效益，比如修建一条公路对当地经济的影响。本科的时候大家也都学过《运输经济学》，不过真正要评价一条公路的影响需要考虑的内容还是很多的，不单单是经济方面，还包括社会效益，环境因素等等。
8、Logistics/Transportation Freight(物流/货物运输)
Logistics方向的划分不像其他方向，比较模糊。大部分的学校把Logistics划分在管理学院以下，少数学校有研究Logistics的老师在会在Transportation Eng专业下，而且一般只有1个Prof.是这个方向的。第1类;对口专业申请：美国交通工程研究生申请
5. 梅赛德斯奔驰对召回漫不经心，惨遭美国高速公路交通安全管理罚单
车辆召回在今日已是家常便饭，当碰到旗下车辆有瑕疵，车厂主动发起召回是负责任的展现。但豪华品牌龙头Mercedes-Benz却因为召回动作太慢，日前被美国NHTSA（国家高速公路交通安全管理局）开罚1300万美元的民事罚款，若后续不遵守和解协议，还将再罚700万美元。
根据外媒报导，北美 Mercedes-Benz 因为对于140万辆出现违规问题的车主未能及时通知召回，时间拖延过久，以及部分瑕疵问题并未通知召回等现象，也未对有关单位提交报告，遭到NHTSA调查并开罚。NHTSA与Mercedes-Benz的和解条款中，Mercedes-Benz被要求支付高达1300万美元的巨额民事罚款，若后续不遵守和解协议，还将面临700万美元的额外罚款，日前Mercedes-Benz 已经同意签下和解协议。
对此一事件，北美 Mercedes-Benz发表声明表示，只是错过了一些召回截止日期，厂方已经在制定更健全的程序，以回应、并报告品牌任何不合规定的问题，以满足NHTSA的要求。NHTSA管理层表示，为确保消费者能获得保障，同时并提供车辆召回保修的重要资讯，希望汽车製造商能遵循对当局应尽的法律义务，对消费者负起责任。
"
本文来源于汽车之家车家号作者，不代表汽车之家的观点立场。
6. 美国交通警示牌提问
向上的意思吧
7. 麻烦老师解答：美国交通中心是______
| 芝加哥 匹兹堡 |
8. 谁参加过七天的道路交通安全法律法规和相关知识学习
相关知识、题库和考题都和科目一考试差不多。
中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第119条（一）“道路”，是指公路、城市道路和虽在单位管辖范围但允许社会机动车通行的地方，包括广场、公共停车场等用于公众通行的场所。
《道路交通安全法》对交通事故的定义为：车辆在道路上有过错或意外造成的人身伤亡或财产损失的事件。也就是说，构成交通事故要有4个要件：即车辆、道路上、交通违法行为或过错、损害后果。
浅析道路交通事故新定义
根据《道路交通安全法》第119条第5项的规定，道路交通事故是指车辆在道路上因过错或者意外造成的人身伤亡或者财产损失的事件。这是我国法律对道路交通事故定义的阐述，具有法律效力，要想对道路交通事故有深刻地认识，就要准确地领会这一定义的含义。
首先，道路交通事故的主体，一方必须是车辆。即发生道路交通的事故的双方或者是两车之间、或者是人车之间发生的刮擦、碰撞或直接影响等形成的事故，有一方必须是车辆。《道路交通安全法》也对车辆进行了界定，这里的车辆包括各种机动车和非机动车。可以有相对方可以没有相对方，车辆因侧翻导致自己损失的事故就是没有相对方的道路交通事故。相对方可以是一方也可以是多方，多辆车发生追尾的事故就是相对方是多方的道路交通事故。
其次，道路交通事故的地域范围是道路，发生在道路以外的事故一般不属于道路交通事故。《道路交通安全法》对“道路”的含义也做了解释，即包括公路、城市道路和虽在单位管辖范围但允许社会机动车通行的道路，还包括广场、公共停车场等用于公众通行的场所。应当说，凡在这些场所发生的事故都应当属于道路交通事故。这时排除了那些在家庭私有车库、私有场院内的场所等那些非公众通行的地方发生的事故。
再次，道路交通事故的另一个主观因素是过错或者意外。在法律意义上过错包括故意和过失。故意是指行为人认识到结果的发生而追求结果的发生，驾车追求撞人结果的发生，行为人的主观心理状态就是故意，这一行为不是交通肇事行为，而是故意伤害。过失是行人应该认识到结果的发生而没有认识到或认识到结果的发生但轻信能够避免，最终结果发生的心理状态。违反交通法律法规的行为导致交通事故是一种过失行为，是一种最为常见的肇事行为。发生意外的情况，也就是意外事件，主要是指发生了当事人意想不到的情况。如由于客观原因使道路状况变化、刹车失灵等。区分当事人的主观故意和客观因素，对于明确道路交通事故双方当事人的责任有着很重要的意义。解释中还提到的“造成人身伤亡或者财产损失”是指由于发生了道路交通事故，给双方当事人或者财产损失的后果。如果虽然发生了碰撞，但对双方当事人没有造成任何的伤害或损失，也就谈不上为交通事故了。
新中国最早的有关道路交通的法律法规是1951年经政务院批准，由公安部公布的《城市陆上交通管理暂行规定》，但是该法并没有规定道路交通事故的定义。随后又出台了几部有关道路交通的部门规章，也都没有规定道路交通事故的定义。直至1991年国务院发布《道路交通事故处理办法》，才第一次明确地规定道路交通事故的定义。《道路交通事故处理办法》第2条规定：“车辆驾驶人员、行人以及其他在道路上进行与交通有关活动的人员，因违反《中华人民共和国道路交通管理条例》和其它道路交通管理法规规章的行为，过失造成人身伤亡或者财产损失的事故。”
道路交通事故的概念和外延的变迁也是我国对外交流的需要。日本对道路交通事故的定义是，由于车辆在交通中所引起的人的死伤或物的损失。美国国家安全委员会对交通事故的定义是，道路交通事故是在道路上所发生的意料不到的有害的或危险的事件。道路交通事故新的定义较《道路交通事故处理办法》的事故定义去掉了违法行为这个在过去处理的交通事故的必要因素，将过失改为过错，并增加了意外事故。新定义与国外定义比较，类似的地方都是在道路上或在交通中引起的死伤或物损的意外事件。但是无论是美国定义中的“意料不到的危害的或意外的事件”，还是日本定义中的“由于车辆在交通中所引起的人的死伤或物的损坏”，对当事人的主观方面来说都隐含了过错或者意外，从这个角度而。言，我国道路交通事故新定义与美国、日本的道路交通事故的定义在本质上是一致的。这反应出在交通事故处理方面我国正在与国际接轨
9. 有人知道这个单位吗美国全国公路交通安全管理局 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)介绍
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. 道路交通安全协会怎么办
中国道路交通安全协会
1994年，经中华人民共和国公安部、民政部批准成立中国道路交通安全协会，并由中华人民共和国公安部主管。协会主要从事宣传和普及交通安全知识，繁荣和发展交通安全科学技术事业，开展交通管理学术交流和研讨等方面的社会活动。协会是国际道路交通安全协会（简称PRI）的会员单位。
中国道路交通安全协会自成立以来，不断适应道路交通安全管理工作新形势，拓展社会化管理渠道，传播交通管理新理念，推介交通管理新技术、新产品。2004年和2006年在北京成功举办了两届“中国国际道路交通安全产品博览会暨智能交通论坛”。同时，协会积极利用和引导社会资源开展交通安全宣传工作，加强国际间的交流与合作。近几年来分别与美国好事达保险公司、艾利公司、德国奔驰公司、法国保乐力加公司、日本日产公司、丰田公司等国际知名企业合作，以不同形式开展了公益性的交通安全宣传活动，社会反响较大，有力地促进了我国道路交通管理社会化、科学化的进程。为进一步增进国际交往，协会每年组团参加“PRI”年会，与成员国相互交流和研讨交通管理经验。
中国道路交通安全协会作为政府部门联系社会的桥梁和纽带，要在构建和谐社会的活动中继续加强与社会各界的合作，努力做好宣传交通法规、普及交通安全知识，传播交通行业信息等方面的工作，为我国社会发展和经济建设营造安全、有序、畅通、和谐的交通环境做出应有的贡献。