Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Montana was smarter then the feds on the speed limit and just made the fine $5. FU Jimmy Carter!

AFAIK , the states 'could' do the same kind of thing for all the 'safety' stuff also. Car that doesn't meet federal safety __ .. pay a $1 fine when you buy it.

I haven't seen any of the 50 states themselves (or the majority of people in any of the states) show an interest in doing that. Weather you think it's good or bad, I don't see the people themselves pushing for it.

The trend I see .. it is the majority of individuals that are supplying the pressure / push for perpetual safety improvement... Supply and Demand .. Companies and Government are only supplying what the majority keep pushing for.

[Fat Charlie]

It costs money to jump through regulatory hurdles. Regulatory hurdles, by and large, serve a purpose, even if we tend to focus on the things they prevent us from being able to do.

It also costs a lot of money to run a company badly. Just like with regulations, people focus on the wrong things here. Shareholders and management would rather sell pickups for $50k than well thought out people movers for $10k. Or $6800, for that matter- have you noticed how much capital isn't getting thrown at Paul Elio?

Everything that lowers the price of a car hurts the car companies' pricing structure and isn't going to get done- except maybe complaining about the price of airbags. GM started losing money big time in 2005, but they kept paying a dividend for another three years. Maybe it's a Common Core thing, but I don't see how a company that's losing money has any profits left over to pay out a dividend to its shareholders. The shareholders didn't complain, though: they were happy to believe their board and management who kept pouring the "profits" to them, even when there weren't any.

Mandated equipment isn't what made their products unaffordable or their business unprofitable, and they have no interest at all in selling inexpensive cars except as a way of getting entry level buyers into their stores until they can afford "real" cars.

[vadimr4]

Charlie,
So you are saying a small car is not a "real car"? My metro is more than enough to get me from point A to point B and is as real as any other car out there. I fail to see the logic that a bigger more expensive car is better than a cheap entry level car. There are trade offs in any equation; do you want more safety features, driving assist features, entertainment, trim, cost, etc. Not everyone wants wood trim or leather seats. Not everyone even wants a radio! Not everyone event needs an AC system.

[Fat Charlie]

I drive a Fit.

I'm saying that the US auto manufacturing industry doesn't see them as real cars. Real cars have more profit per unit than the entire sticker price of a little car.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by IamIan

AFAIK , the states 'could' do the same kind of thing for all the 'safety' stuff also. Car that doesn't meet federal safety __ .. pay a $1 fine when you buy it.

I haven't seen any of the 50 states themselves (or the majority of people in any of the states) show an interest in doing that. Weather you think it's good or bad, I don't see the people themselves pushing for it.

The trend I see .. it is the majority of individuals that are supplying the pressure / push for perpetual safety improvement... Supply and Demand .. Companies and Government are only supplying what the majority keep pushing for.

All of this "majority" forcing their opinions on the minority is not how America is supposed to work. Same goes for minority forcing their beliefs on the majority for that matter. Why can't you just do what you want w/o making it mandatory for everybody to do what you want? The other problem is lawsuits and the great glee juries seem to get in sticking it to the big corporations any chance they get.
Normally this would be easy to get around. Ordering whatever weird thing you want from from far off land that makes it in the global manufacturing universe can get you what you want. With cars though the federal government won't allow them on the road. There is nothing a state can do to get around this.
On a side note I would just love to see a little experiment in our 50 states. That's what the 50 states should be after all 50 unique governments so out of all of them there should be a place that fits what you believe. Instead it seems some know that if they allowed real freedom on place the migration would show what the majority really wants, and what really works for true progress. So I would love to see just one single state allowed to do it's own thing. Texas is the obvious choice for a fair shake but heck I'd take anything, West Virginia whatever. Run it real libertarian free from the feds for 50 years and then compare.

[Xist]

It is offensive to cRiPpLe_rOoStEr that government is telling him how to stay alive and that everyone else is forcing their beliefs on him.

[RedDevil]

Everyone else?
There used to be a whole bunch that did not care about safety equipment in their cars but they all died in car accidents, thanks to Darwin.

Or would you think the safety stuff is related to Intelligent Design ?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

All of this "majority" forcing their opinions on the minority is not how America is supposed to work.

How do you figure ?

We vote (majority rules) .. for laws, for representatives, constitutional amendments , etc ... that's how it was setup from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Why can't you just do what you want w/o making it mandatory for everybody to do what you want?

Because what people want to do has an effect on other people ... Our world and our society is a very interconnected web .. We do not function as islands of isolation from the rest of the world and the rest of our species.

Things that person A wants sometimes come in conflict with what person B wants .. when that happens they both can't have 100% of what they want.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

With cars though the federal government won't allow them on the road. There is nothing a state can do to get around this.

AFAIK .. It isn't the federal government .. that is the state government choosing to comply with federal policies .. in exchange for the federal money being offered to them for doing so... just like when the federal government admitted they didn't have the authority to force a speed limit .. but they could remove federal money to states who don't comply.

Further it doesn't seem to me to be the government separate from the people ... as if the government is imposing something the majority are against .. Instead it seems to me the people themselves are the ones driving and applying the pressure ... the state and federal governments are complying with the pressure that the people push for.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Instead it seems some know that if they allowed real freedom on place the migration would show what the majority really wants, and what really works for true progress.

I think what we have is what the majority thinks they want ... as good or as bad as that is .. The majority vote on election day and they vote with their Dollar $$... As long as a higher 'safety' rating is a selling feature worth more $$ ... that is the majority voting with their $$$.

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Everyone else?
There used to be a whole bunch that did not care about safety equipment in their cars but they all died in car accidents, thanks to Darwin.

Or would you think the safety stuff is related to Intelligent Design ?

I don't care about safety. I'm not dead from a car accident. And I'm also no creationist nutjob.

But I still believe it to be improper for the government to be dictating this much to its own citizens. It's personally offensive and insulting that I need to be treated like a child; what's worse is that so many others actually do need to be. Perhaps if we weren't force-fed what to do all the time, folks would be able to exercise enough common sense to figure it out on their own.

[gone-ot]

Uh, I do NOT believe a single individual voter was ever asked about EPA-mandated safety stuff. The ONLY people who voted on what EPA decided to do was Congress members...you know, those people who eat at the Lobbyists' "Hog Trough."

Sure EPA asked for inputs AFTER they made up their mind, but then typically ignored the inputs. Like their current "press" for E15 fuel.