THSCC Forums

It depends on how paternalistic you are as to whether or not you think making safety an option is causing the poor to "suffer".

The government has decided for them that it makes sense to pay that much more $ for a car, and that if they can't afford that, then they'd be better off to not drive. I'm quite certain that the poor person who couldn't afford a car b/c of this added cost that these required features have added over the years doesn't THANK the government for looking after them. They just buy an older, crappier, probably less safe, less reliable car that turns into a money pit for them and the cycle continues. Whats safer, a new crapbox, or a 25 year old Chrysler K-car with blown shocks and bald tires?

Let people choose to drive what they want to drive. You cannot legislate that stupid people be smart. It will just never work.

On the flip side, the manufacturers LOVE it. Cars cost a certain amount. The manufacturers then add a margin to that. If they are REQUIRED by the government to raise their cost, then they make more money. They don't put these features in for just their cost. Its more $ in their pocket. I'm sure they are lobbying FOR these requirements.

DUI is a TOTALLY different issue. I've openly stated that any case where an externality is involved (i.e. not having a particular feature on a car is causing a disproportionally large number of injuries to those other than the car owner/driver themselves) some intervention is appropriate. The classic case for this is pollution, and I'll certainly acknowledge that the free market won't handle this appropriately.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV

Regarding the tire blowout example. The same folks who let the Explorer Firestones run too low pressure at too high speed in hot conditions are likely to have done the same thing with run flats . . .

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT

It was just an example, I appreciate the specifics of the situation, but that wasn't the point.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV

I remember Vance Swift telling me about a car he had more than a few years ago -- one of his Saab's, maybe. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the street seatbelt that came from the factory in it was considered a "racing modification" in South Carolina and thus illegal/uninsurable.

_________________
Martyn Wheeler
AXing Kit's '05 Mazda 3, #29 HStock
(when The Gonzo Symphonic allows)

"Qu`ils mangent de la brioche" Brice?

fortunately NC has an inspection law.

i think we can all agree that the US car manufacturers lost market share over the last 50 years because they were out of touch with the real consumer. but i think we could also argue that when Detroit was King, Washington was in their hip pocket.

the government mandates brought about starting in the mid 1960s and continuing to date have indeed cramped Detroit's style.

i believe a safe and affordable car is possible. the Korean's seem to be headed in that direction.

_________________
BenchWarmer Motorsports

another one of those damn LeMons heads

just another Chump

we are an Autocross Club Dammit............

Well intentioned but poorly executed. That's all I can think of when I consider gov't safety requirements.

Have some worked out well? Sure, for example seatbelt requirements have been great. Oh except for the abomination of late-80's auto seatbelts which in some cases were less safe than normal ones (forget to connect the lap belt?).

Federally mandated DOT headlights? Total loser. Kept US vehicles from having the excellent lights from the rest of the world for a long, long time.

Some regulation is good, yes, but the fed seems to be able to f*ck up regulations with an alarming regularity. Per my post in another thread, how often are the unintended consequences of regulation worse than the original problem?

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

I know a LOT of cars that are unsafe that can pass NC inspection. Inspection is more concerned with emissions than safety. Just b/c a car passes state inspection does NOT mean its safe to drive.

I just have more faith in people to make the right decisions than I do in government to make the right decisions FOR people. On the whole, neither is really true. People are stupid and government is stupid. In both cases, the unintended consequences Mike mentioned come into play. The difference is, if people make a stupid decision with negative consequences, it generally just affects them. When government makes a stupid decision (even if done with good intentions) with negative consequences, it affects everyone, including the people who never made the dumb choices to start with.

Fact is, we'll never really know how things would have gone without regulation, we never tried it. The closest parallel to NO regultation we have is maybe India, where a new car can be had for $2,500. To meet US safety regulations, it will cost ~$8k. Obviously I'm not advocating using Indian safety standards here based on the horrible amount of traffic deaths there are there, but it is pretty spectacular that it more than TRIPLES the price of a car to meet US safety standards. I'm sure there is somewhere in the middle that could make a bit more sense.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV