Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I loved my '85 Civic, which was very basic. It had seatbelts and safety glass but not much else.
But I would not take it to work, nor drive it with the wife and kids anymore.
I would choose safety equipment if I could half afford it.

Making safety stuff mandatory instead of optional allows them to be mass produced and preinstalled, so much cheaper.
Having freedom to choose them will raise the cost and put it out of reach for many.

When I started my professional career my colleagues had the freedom to choose whether they'd smoke behind their desks or not.
Sometimes I could hardly see the opposing wall of our tiny room.
When I got home I had to put my clothes in an airtight bag and shower, just to be able to eat my dinner without that overpowering smell.
I'm so glad to have the freedom to breath freely now.

One mans freedom is another mans chain.
I rather have airbags for chains than crutches.

If you think the safety stuff being mandatory has made safe cars affordable to all I think you should look at some of the cars made for other countries without it and how affordable they are. Those cars still are reasonably safe yet cost under $5000 brand new. I don't know any poor people that can afford any new car in America. They probably could if they cost $3000-$5000. As a plus those cars also get really good gas mileage compared to the 1/2 broken down 15 year old Ford they are priced into because of our great government saving them with tire pressure monitors, crumple zones, side impact bars, backup cameras, 6 airbags, etc. Etc. Etc.

[RedDevil]

People make bad choices.
They have the tendency to ignore what they don't like to think about.

So they don't take a fire insurance on their house, or medicare.
Or safety features in their car.
They are happy to buy lottery tickets though...

Of course their chance of ever becoming a lottery millionaire is much smaller than getting their house burnt down, an expensive medical condition or a crippling car crash.

It is their right to make those choices you say. Even if many get devastated by it.
Anything better that that big bad government protecting them from doing that... right?

Well you voted that government to power.
Their protectionism is the direct result of your actions in the voting booth.
Don't blame them - you are responsible for your choices in the elections.

See?
If the government is bad the majoirity of voters made a bad choice.
And if it isn't, why fight them when they are trying to help you?

By making safety equipment mandatory they also make it cheaper, as it gets produced in greater numbers and installed as standard.
Free choice on this makes it more expensive, putting it out of reach of those who want it.
This therefore goes beyond individual responsibility.
Therefore the government jumps in.
Because you asked them to do so with your vote.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

If you think the safety stuff being mandatory has made safe cars affordable to all I think you should look at some of the cars made for other countries without it and how affordable they are. Those cars still are reasonably safe yet cost under $5000 brand new. I don't know any poor people that can afford any new car in America. They probably could if they cost $3000-$5000. As a plus those cars also get really good gas mileage compared to the 1/2 broken down 15 year old Ford they are priced into because of our great government saving them with tire pressure monitors, crumple zones, side impact bars, backup cameras, 6 airbags, etc. Etc. Etc.

I have got news for you my friend.
Go visit the 3rd world and see.

The 15 year old cars that have no value in the rich countries are being exported in large numbers to the lesser fortunated countries, where the low wages make fixing them again and again financially reasonable.

That is a good thing - that way they profit from the safety features made mandatory 15 years ago.
My '98 Nissan Almera had airbags, ABS, seat belt tensioners, you name it.
These cars are expensive, by their standards.

The Tata Nano is not a safe car, even compared to those 15 year old cars.
But the Nano is not aimed at people who buy old cars.
It was meant to get the families of 5 off their scooters.
As a bare bin on wheels, it is still a lot safer than an overloaded scooter.

In the US and Europe you see some 5 year old cars being sold for less than a third of their original value. Their safety equipment may be slightly outdated - but will still save lives.

If they did not have the safety stuff back then they would have been cheaper - but less than a third of that difference in cost will have persisted.
So now you can get a 5 year old car with all the safety stuff for 1/3 of what it did cost.
And the older the car gets, the less the safety stuff in it would have cost you.

Second hand cars with all the safety equipment are nearly just as affordable as they would have been without all that.
It is the new car buyers that pay most for the safety stuff.

[Hersbird]

You are living in a dream world if you think the government is elected by and then represents the common man. On top of that most of these rules come from unelected and outside of the constitution agencies, not actual laws passed by congress and then signed by the president.
The one 1/2 of one branch that is the closest to the government you describe, the house of representatives, hasn't been allowed to do a single thing the last 6 years. If your assertion was true that the government was a reflection of the people the other branches would see that obvious will and let the house lead the issues.

[RedDevil]

And who is responsible for that then?

[duncan]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

You are living in a dream world if you think the government is elected by and then represents the common man. On top of that most of these rules come from unelected and outside of the constitution agencies, not actual laws passed by congress and then signed by the president.
The one 1/2 of one branch that is the closest to the government you describe, the house of representatives, hasn't been allowed to do a single thing the last 6 years. If your assertion was true that the government was a reflection of the people the other branches would see that obvious will and let the house lead the issues.

The problem is the system you guys have
The USA is the only country that has been able to make a system like yours work - everybody else that tried it crashed and burned

The rest of the worlds democracies have gone for a parliamentary system,
the best ones use proportional representation
And nobody else has open slather on political spending

[freebeard]

People have differing ideas on what constitutes a safe vehicle.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

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.

Sense those congress members are also voters .. and all the people at the EPA are also all voters ... many more than a single voter was asked.

- - - - -

That technicality aside .. We don't have a democracy .. we have a republic .. we vote for representatives .. (generally speaking) .. it is pretty rare that policy , laws, regulations , etc... are put forth to the general public for direct voting .. because we don't have a democracy... and that is intentional on the part of the majority.

But ... if the majority of voters were significantly against the EPA regulation .. it would be a major campaign issue .. And thus ... the next election cycle would have removed any member of congress in favor of it and only elected members who were against it ... thus it would have been changed ... that isn't what happened ... as far as the majority is concerned EPA regulations are extremely low campaign issue .. the tiny % that it is a high priority for (AFAIK) , tend to be more in favor of less pollution .. ie ... more EPA regulations.

Also .. fundamentally I don't see the elected officials as actually being able to 'force' the majority to do anything that the majority is significantly opposed to .. Like Alcohol Prohibition .. If what was passed was actually significantly counter the what the majority wanted ... just like prohibition ... it would not have been enforceable .. and would have eventually been repealed .. just like prohibition was... We haven't seen that (opposition from the majority) with EPA regulations.

- - - - -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Not so much the people as it is the special interest groups. They make a lot of noise and wave a lot of money around. The people are for the most part apathetic so they basically don't count.

+1


From my PoV ... Apathy counts as a position on an issue.
And 'choosing' to let someone else choose for you .. ie by not participating yourself ... is also itself a choice / vote.

Also .. from my PoV .. voting with your $$$ counts more than election voting .. They both count ... but one is bigger than the other .. are AFAIK ... that election day vote steers less than 1/4 of the $$$ the other 3/4 is where people vote with their $$$ ... Burger King , Grocery Store , cell phone company, etc ... etc.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

There are 100s of things the majority wants that are squashed by the government all the time. Then there are 100s of things small minorities want that are forced on everyone by the government. People being able to vote with their dollars to get what they want in the market is a nice idea, but it doesn't happen that way. Maybe with smart phones but not with highly government regulated things like cars. Good news is with net "neutrality" maybe we can get the government to decide what the majority wants there as well. That is if they every actually publish the rules they voted on without letting anybody read.

Off hand .. I can't think of any example of something that the majority actually seriously wants and pushes for as a high priority ... that the government has ever successfully been able to 'squash'... Please give me one of the 100s of examples you were thinking of ??? ... Off hand I think of examples of the exact opposite .. prohibition being an easy one.

The minority of people .. becomes the majority of those who participate ... when the actually majority .. make the choice to have someone else choose for them ( ie not participate themselves) .. even in cases like voting when they can , instead go and make a choice themselves ... thus the majority are still getting what they chose ... (letting someone else choose for them)... if they were seriously against what that minority did .. they are completely able to participate next time ... but .. most weigh their options .. and instead continue to choose to have others choose for them... which is still itself a choice.

I don't see cars being any significantly different .. no law forces consumers to spend $40k instead of $1k .. Air Conditioning , Radios , etc... etc... As far as I can see voting with our $$$ is exactly what happens ... and why we have over 90% of what we have.

[freebeard]

Nobody likes rat rod Deuce-and-a-half trucks?

Off hand .. I can't think of any example of something that the majority actually seriously wants and pushes for as a high priority ... that the government has ever successfully been able to 'squash'... Please give me one of the 100s of examples you were thinking of ??? ... Off hand I think of examples of the exact opposite .. prohibition being an easy one.

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

And prohibition isn't a closed book yet, but it's worth noting that it was an easier issue to deal with when it was written into and then back out of The Constitution.

The USofA started out as a Union.

[Frank Lee]

Love that Deuce, although 4x4 and 4" ground clearance don't make any sense.


A local creation (used to be a grain truck) along those lines: