Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[duncan]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Except 1/2 the population is a drain on the other 1/2 financially so depending on if the deaths come from the givers or the takers.
I still say the safety features in their totality cost much Kore then $100, where do you even get that? I ask for a 3rd time, how come the cheapest car that !eets these standards is over $10,000 while there are cars out there that don't for a 1/3 that price.

Most of the real takers drive in limos or fly private planes so we don't get too many of them - shame but that's life

Back to your price thing
As I have already said
THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COST AND PRICE

Cost is what it costs to make
Price is what you can get for it

To get an idea of the cost of the safety gear do a "gedanken" experiment

Imagine all of the safety gear stripped out on one side of a line and the rest of the car stripped to small pieces on the other

The safety pile is about (or less than) 1% of the size of the other pile

1% of $10,000 (and I'm being generous about the "cost" here) is $100

To give another datum point the Cummins 6 liter used in the Dodge Ram
(the whole thing, fuel system, turbo, starter, alternator, flywheel)
1100 lbs of finely machined steel
Was being sold to Dodge for just less than $2000 a unit (back in 2001)
That's less than $2 a pound

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Some safety features such as a collapsible steering collumn and decent seats to prevent whiplash are undeniably worthwhile, but I'd still rather have the interior trim designed to also provide impact absorption at some extent instead of blowing money on airbags, and would still rather have lap-belts instead of 3-point belts. Too bad nowadays even in Brazil airbags are mandatory (just a few vehicles, either trucks with a payload above one metric ton, passenger vans and buses, and some 4WD vehicles, are exempt)...

The problem with lap only belts is you will still face plant into the dash or steering wheel in an impact.

Air bags work. There was increased effort focused on preventing injuries to legs and feet after their introduction. Previously this wasn't a problem because the injuries were occurring to corpses.

Something that has stuck with me is seeing images in a magazine feature on crash safety. One was of a person (corpse) who had struck the windscreen, face first, without wearing a seat belt. Their face was the same flattened shape as the windscreen. I can post a scan of that if anyone needs convincing.

I have seen personally a laminated windscreen cracked under impact, with hair caught in the cracks. The windscreen had separated with the impact of the person's head but was held together by the plastic layer. The hair was grabbed as the cracks closed up when the head bounced back.

I wear seat belts!

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Don't forget to put a "Baby on Board" sign in the window- you know, so I smash into anything but that vehicle.

Wasn't there originally a somewhat reasonable premise for those signs - an accident where a child was thrown some distance from the car and missed by the attending emergency services with no one conscious to tell them the child was in the car?

[RedDevil]

I thought the Baby on Board sign is there to warn other drivers for the driving skills of that single occupant of the car?
"There is a baby in that car, the sign says so. That must be him, then".

Seriously, if you get woken up at 1 AM, then 3AM, then 5AM, then get in a car - other drivers better beware!

[niky]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

How is $850 in 2001 only $500 in current money? Plus how much have they added since 2001?

That's $800 for everything. I thought we were talking about airbags, since that's the big ticket item everyone harps on, and about the only safety item listed that's optional nowadays.

-

Most of those items are standard now because of market demands. Remove FMVSS, and they'd still come standard. Except for airbags. Which either cost $500 or not nearly as much.

That's because of economies of scale. At this point, all cars come assembled with airbags and side impact bars in mind. Above a certain price point, offering cars without certain items costs the manufacturer more than simply making them standard. Because then they have to engineer two different sub-assemblies, source them in two different batches, etcetera... and this drives the price of each vehicle up.

It's only in very, very cheap cars, for example, where you can get non-power windows. That's because a power window motor assembly costs less due to economies of scale than a manual crank that you'll only put on maybe 5% of your products.

-

I'm not suggesting these things are zero cost. Indeed, having side curtain and knee airbags is simply chasing tinier and tinier percentages of injury with more and more money...

But we can actually buy new cars at the exact same price, inflation adjusted, as old cars of similar size and utility, with all that safety equipment AND better performance and economy... surely that ought to be celebrated?

All that's left, really, is to decouple the regulations. Cars already gain or lose sales based on EPA numbers or crash ratings. There's no need to make getting good ones mandatory. Consumer preference and insurance premiums will take care of that quite nicely.

Just as consumer preference is killing the manual transmission.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I ask for a 3rd time, how come the cheapest car that !eets these standards is over $10,000 while there are cars out there that don't for a 1/3 that price.

Because the car companies have built a pricing structure that they're not going to undermine. There is no profit from a $3k car in the US. There isn't any profit from a $10k car in the US, for that matter- and they don't like selling $10k or $15k cars because they undercut sales of $20k cars.

Look at trim levels- a radio with more capabilities costs just as much to build as a base one, but it's only available in a car that costs thousands more than the base model and you have to get several other "options" that add only a few bucks in cost with it to "justify" the overall price jump. My last new car had another trim level: sunroof and leather for $2500 more- that was more than a 10% jump in the car's price. My current car had another trim level: pretty wheels, a spoiler and audio controls on the steering wheel for $1500. Again, a 10% jump from what I paid for the car- all for pulling wheels from Bin 2 instead of Bin 1, slapping a piece of molded plastic on the liftgate and pulling a steering wheel out of Bin 2 instead of Bin 1.

Try buying the "nice" trim level of a car with the "low end" engine. Not happening.

Do you know what adding a remote start involves these days? Enabling the feature in the PCM, (maybe) adding a wire to connect a couple modules that are already there and replacing the key fobs with ones that have starter buttons: That'll be $600, please. The additional wire (if needed) is only to make it harder for people to hack the PCM to enable the feature on their own- because if it were that easy why would anyone buy the higher trim package at an additional 10% premium? We've got to protect the price structure.

Or if you prefer brevity,

Originally Posted by duncan

THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COST AND PRICE

Cost is what it costs to make
Price is what you can get for it

Safety features were expensive back when they were offered as premium features. Volvo: we're safe- Swedish engineering and all that. Mercedes-Benz: We've got a million safety patents and we don't enforce them because we're about safety. The message is Buy us- we're expensive, but you get unmatched safety in return. Next thing you know, everyone thinks safety features are expensive because we believe everything the TV tells us. Yes, the first airbags were pricey per unit. Now I'm getting them in for $12 each. Yes, developing the first unibody with crumple zones was expensive. Is it today? It's just an efficient way to design good, safe cars. Now to design a version of a modern car without airbags is going to cost more than the standard one- entirely different trim pieces and a new braking system in order to sell a car for less money than the one they're already making? Take power windows: Sure, they're a "luxury feature," but it's less expensive for the factory to buy one electric motor and one switch and slap them on everything than it is to have a million different wire and pulley assemblies that can withstand people cranking on them all the time. As an added bonus, you get to charge a 10% more for the car when you grab the "One Touch Down" switch from Bin 2 instead of the "Regular" switch from Bin 1.

[some_other_dave]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

So let me think of a few majority supported ideas that have yet to see the light of day ....

Interesting examples. Some, like the MJ laws, are currently being implemented, one state at a time.

Others, like term limits, are things that lots of people are in favor of in theory, but not willing to implement in practice. Remember, "term limits" always means "all of you people should get rid of your representatives--but our guy is OK, so he should stay". And people don't want to pay for the programs they do want...

Still, there are some that a majority of those polled do seem to want. But evidently not enough of them want them enough to vote specifically on those issues.

-soD

[Hersbird]

I don't care that the car companies don't want to undercut their profits. They would be willing if the federal government didn't stop the free market from bringing in the $5000 cars from companies that are happy to make and sell as many of them as they can build. The major corporations are protected in their models buy not allowing in a new choice. The big coporations actually love most government regulations. They can figure out how to leverage them or convince government to give them carve outs so overall the regulations protect them from the little guy. Tucker cars come to mind but it works even with Walmart. Walmart can support a $10/hr national minimum wage bill because they are already over that starting. My dad's small town store can hardly support one employee at current minimum wage and that is with him working his butt off everyday himself there at the age of 72 and living very frugal with a $40,000 home and a $10,000 car. Biggest vacation ever is the annual buying trip to Tucson for 2 weeks, and when I go up and pull him away for a few days of fishing.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by freebeard

How about POPA/PIPA, Net Neutrality or anything else that threatens Internet?

What about them ?

AFAIK the majority have not made any of those a high priority and pushed for or against them as a high priority ... AFAIK those are such a low priority to the majority that they don't even bother to know what they are.

Originally Posted by freebeard

And prohibition isn't a closed book yet

I don't expect it to be .. there are still people promoting a Flat Earth for goodness sake .. But prohibition remains a good example none the less , of what happens when the majority wants something as a high priority ... The government buckles and gives in.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

So let me think of a few majority supported ideas that have yet to see the light of day

Not just casually 'support' an idea ... but as I wrote .. actually seriously make it a high priority .. there is a significant difference.

The short take for your entire list ... is that none of them are a 'high priority' to the majority ... and 2 things to keep in mind to various degrees about each:

#1> As the saying goes .. talk is cheap... what is actually a high-priority to someone .. is what they choose to spend their time and money supporting , and investing in... it is not necessarily what they casually give lip service to but actually do not invest or support with their time and $$$.

#2> A high priority ... is not just a casual desire , interest ... those can be very low priorities .. a high priority is something that is more important to someone than a significant number of other things ... ie .. X > Y ... X is the high priority ... Y is not ... it doesn't matter if someone also wants Y .. or would casually like to have Y ... it is a lower priority to them.

I can address each individual item you listed if you like .. just let me know , and I will ... but they basically are each just slight variations of .. #1 and #2 above .. and are not actually a serious high priority to the majority of people.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

This is why I support the 50 individual states idea. Out of the 50 you can really try different ideas and philosophies and really see what works and what is snake oil.

That's a fine idea ... but keep in mind ... two things:

#1> Humans have many many similarities from person to person .. Sure there are differences ... just like there are differences now from state to state ... but the larger the population size .. the more 'average' of results you get .. It is extremely likely and expected for all 50 of those ... to converge on many issues... which is what we have.

#2> Also keep in mind .. we've already tried lots of ideas ... throughout the thousands of years of human history.

[niky]

The $5000 car is a fantasy. And they'd never sell in the US... Federal regulations or not.

I've driven several $7k cars. No AC. No power. No crash safety. No towing capacity. And they can't climb a steep grade with a full load (of four passengers, elbows-in-armpits) at more than a snail's pace. Top speed? Somewhere between 40 mph and fuhgeddaboutit. With suspensions that bottom out every time you fart and the possibility of the car swapping ends in a corner if it hasn't rolled over, first. (My various near-death experiences in cheap cars over the past several years would fill an entire chapter of my unwritten memoirs).

I've only driven a single $5k car. That was fun. It had three wheels, a 250cc thumper that drank both oil and gasoline in copious amounts (a Mirage drinks less at idle) and tended to overheat if you drove at more than 50 mph.

Not even the Chinese buy them, any more.

People already refuse to buy "small cars" in the United States because of fears over "safety", even if they can hit a brick wall at 40 mph and keep you more alive than in a 60's boat crashed into that same wall.

How many of them are going to buy cars that can't even survive hitting a pedestrian at half that speed?

The long and short of it is: Manufacturers can build cars that meet Federal Safety Standards, give you more useable space and power than pre-fed Yank tanks, and cost some $5k or more less than what they sell now.

That they don't is because buyers like luxury. The moment Americans, en masse, stop spec'cing everything with an automatic transmission and steering audio controls, perhaps then you'll be able to buy "bare minimum" cars again.