mmarshall

True, they didn't have as many safety-features, but traffic was so much lighter back then that the chances of hitting another car were also much less.

That was the year Ralph Nader celebrated. It was the year the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (which he worked very hard to get passed) officially took effect.....although some of its provisions were already seen on some cars before 1968.

Back then, at least as I saw it, there was some excuse (and need) for safety and design regulations to be passed. But, today, we have gone so far into regulation-overkill that it borders on the ridiculous.

SW17LS

In my opinion the issue is efficiency and balance.

There's no argument that today's cars are not FAR safer than cars as recent as those made 10 years ago. There's no doubt in my mind that crash safety standards, independent crash testing, etc play a big role in that. Look at the new small overlap test. Came out a couple years ago...EVERYBODY failed because the cars weren't designed to perform in that type of test...and thus that type of accident. Well...fast forward to today...everybody passes. As someone who purchases and drives an automobile, I benefit from that. We all do. You can make the argument that carmakers design safety to perform in those specific tests, and maybe they do...but that MUST translate into safety on the road as well.

Automotive deaths have dramatically fallen over the years...this is why. Big benefit to all of us whether it makes cars more expensive or not. Its fine to say that Mercedes did this on their own, Volvo did this. Thats Mercedes and Volvo. What about Kia? Rich people always can afford safe things...its about creating a minimum level of safety and that benefits everyone.

As for the hood height requirements...its fine to pooh pooh those and lament the impact they have on styling...until you get hit by a car as a pedestrian and those changes keep you from living the rest of your life drooling on yourself and *****ting in a bag. I think at that point you wouldn't think a 3 inch higher hood was that big a deal.

My issue is when it comes to things like hugely aggressive CAFE standards driving cars to be so much more efficient...and then requiring ethanol blended fuels that reduce MPG and drive up food costs. THAT is stupid. Forcing dealers to submit to testing that has no practical purpose...THAT is stupid.

BUT...in the end if you look at vehicle prices over time and adjust them for inflation...I think you might be surprised to find that cars are actually a little cheaper than they used to be despite all of this. Certainly not dramatically more expensive. Case in point. My GS350 was just about $60,000 loaded. If we adjust inflation backwards to 1998 from 2013 we get $41,982. What did a loaded GS300 cost in 1998? Bear in mind you had no AWD, no luxury package, no AVS, etc...I was just shopping for the Ford Explorer before I got my new Jeep. A loaded Limited Explorer is like $48k. I bought a Ford Explorer Limited in 1997, MSRP was about $38k. Adjust $38k for inflation to 2014 and you get $56,129.20. Remember that the 2014 Explorer Limited has WAY more technology, way more features, its much larger, much safer...AND cheaper! if you do this model by model you'll see if anything adjusted for inflation cars have gotten cheaper.

Blackraven

spwolf, since you're from Croatia, then you are aware on both the good and bad things that are happening now that Croatia has joined the European Union.

The bad ones being the fact that Brussels government is thinking of launching EURO 7 vehicle emission regulations by year 2020.

As a consequence, one can expect a decrease in the number of vehicles with 8 cylinders and above

with an increase of cars with those HORRID 3 CYLINDER CRAP ENGINES

mmarshall

It's not just due to the cars themselves. Roads have also gotten a lot safer, and most states have finally gotten serious about DUI/DWI convictions.

gengar

Why shouldn't cars be a lot cheaper? As technology improves and manufacturing can become more streamlined, there is no reason why cars shouldn't be cheaper every year. That's naturally what should happen in a free market society. It's not a particularly compelling argument to say that 'oh well, cars cost about the same as they used to, so who cares if unnecessary regulations are bloating the price'.

doge

Dispute one point before you get on your soap box and yell fire

LexFather

A Car enthusiast looks for reasons to be ENTHUSED about cars, not constantly berating them and voicing why the end is near.

Car prices go up just like everything else. What is new? Safety requirements continue to get stricter as emissions requirements. What is new?

The fact of the matter is SW13GS post refutes all the negative nancy posting. Cars have gotten better and cheaper. Not to mention they are more accessible than ever due to leasing and every trick in the book.

For goodness sakes, car sales are on the up and up, May has a huge month and here we have more negativity spread about the car.

mmarshall

Mike is correct on that one (I have found plenty of reasons myself). And I think another point has to be made, that, contrary to some of the opinions and leanings in the auto press, one can be a CAR enthusiast without being a speed enthusiast, an aggressive-driving enthusiast, or simply being overly sport-oriented and thumbing one's nose at anything that doesn't ride or handle like a Porsche.

SW17LS

I'm not saying they shouldn't be cheaper....I'm saying they ARE cheaper. The argument that these things drive up the price of cars compared to a time when these things weren't around doesn't hold much water. To make it clear...the argument is not: 'oh well, cars cost about the same as they used to, so who cares if unnecessary regulations are bloating the price'...that statement isn't accurate. Cars are actually cheaper, not 'about the same price'.

If a regulation makes me and my family safer, I don't consider it unnecessary. My cars today are much safer, so in general I have to say I'm a fan.

Everything is working great then. Safer roads, safer cars, better DUI/DWI convictions, all of these things are converging to cause traffic fatalities to decline tremendously...to boot cars are cheaper! So what are we complaining about? They can't look "as cool" because of safety guidelines? I felt that way when I was 18 maybe. Safety first...

If you look at the statistic for the number of accidents you will see the number of accidents are not down...the number of fatalities are down. Hence...safer cars.

doge

My post didn't pertain to the content it was to your quick dismissal of the content because of the medium

Vladi

Well I despise lazy farts sitting in thick governmental chairs and I don't trust money hungry corporate scumbags that would sell their grandparents for cash if they could get away with it. The worst thing is they are slowly becoming one entity made of only the worst parts of both worlds.

We can argue about CAFE and other things but no one is asking a very relevant question for 21st century. Why is internal combustion engine still part of our present and future? Well, except filthy profits of course. This is a perfect example of government and conglomerates merging into one to suck on our money while straying away from technological advancements, and no polishing the turd to breakdown less and sip less s not a technological advancement.

Its unacceptable that we as a society need another "space race" in order to be creative and productive instead of being all that just for the cause of, you know, being creative and productive so we can speed up the progress. As long as cow milking philosophy is being applied on every industry in our humanity this world will go no where fast.

mmarshall

Denser traffic, though, often forces such slow speeds that accidents become basically just fender-benders, so at least some of of the safety-items in cars are redundant under those conditions.....they don't make much difference. In gridlock, it doesn't matter much if you are in a brand-new Mercedes S-Class with state-of-the-art safety gear, or in a notoriously risky 1960 Corvair....if you tap somebody's fender at 10 MPH, the persons inside either car are not likely to be injured much. That's typical rush-hour speeds on many big-city highways. And congestion, of course, has caused those slow speeds. It cannot one overstated just how much traffic has increased in and around major cities, especially in the D.C. and L.A./SoCal areas. Those of us, like me, who grew up in the 60s have seen traffic double and even triple.....more than that in some cases.

SW17LS

I think you're reaching here mmarshall. Traffic isn't an issue everywhere. Cars are safer. No argument exists to dispute that. Safer cars are a good thing.

gengar

Sure. And I'm saying that they should be even cheaper. You don't need to play semantics to have a point.

spwolf

i dont see that as bad because emissions suck when you live in the big city... also i barely ever see v6 and v8 engines anymore because of the price of fuel... so i welcome euro 7 and actual application of euro 6 to turbo petrols that are exempt right now due to high particle emissions that are worse than diesels.

and diesel emissions still suck if you live in the city, euro VI is not as strict as EPA standards due to politics and lobbying from car manufacturers - just like article above.

as to low bonnet - IS has very low bonnet, and issue was solved with pop-up hood.

i think city safety is crap though, so of course there has to be a balance in regulations.

But if we want to look at what happenswhen industry regulates itself - check brazilian or indian spec cars.... 2 airbags are luxury and esp is not an option even... most cars wouldnt pass crash tests.