No one really knows what's in it. The current "deal" is that the house will pass the senate bill (which is a spending bill, that by constitutional mandate must arise in the house) and then they will "agree" to change it again in the future. So no one has any idea what the final bill will look like.

Wow. That's a scary looking woman. Stretching leather should be left to the Italians.

John, you need to think, then write. It is impossible to do a 10 yr reliability study on a 2010 model year vehicle.... Are you with me yet? Long term reliability in most people's mind is NOT 3 years like JD Power or other ratings claim. A long term reliability is 10+ years. The reason a Tacoma sells 5 times as well as a Ranger is directly related to the fact that a 97 Tacoma is Substantially better than a 97 Ford Ranger. A 97 Accord blows away a 97 Taurus. That's why new Toyotas sell. You can count on them being reliable in 10 or 15 years. You simply cannot do that with any domestic brand.

95mph isn't that fast. It's probably just the speed governor keeping it at 95. I lived in Montana during the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit. It was pretty common to just set the cruise at 100mph and go. Almost any modern car can cruise at 100mph without much issue. Interestingly it was the safest period in terms of deaths per mile on Montana highways in the state's history. The higher speeds were in fact safer than slower speeds. My opinion is that it was due to forcing people to actually think about what was a good speed and pay attention to what they were doing rather than just driving the max speed limit all the time regardless of conditions like we often see on I-15.

Based on their vehicles, it doesn't appear that Ford or GM has cared about their own engineering in the past. What makes you think they'll start now?

I have a degree in physics. EM radiation is more my thing, but I've got a pretty good grasp on motion. Your original statement was interesting to me regarding the reasoning that a side impact, as a matter of physics, would cause more damage. I wasn't sure if you were agreeing that the Buick in this accident failed as a matter of design or for some unknown reason that a side impact will be more damaging per se. Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi. (Newton's third law was what I was questioning specifically). Everything that happens is a matter of physics at some level. With respect to this accident it's a function of the structural design of the vehicle. Buick sedans, as it appears from the pictures, are not well engineered to withstand side impacts. NHTSA side impact tests are done at 38.5 mph. You can watch videos of about every make or model. None are even remotely close to the damage shown in the pictures. Not even in the ball park. That's why I simply don't believe that the final damage to the vehicle was entirely a result of the accident and not more. If it is, Buick has some very serious design flaws.