Federal and global regulations costing consumers a FORTUNE for their cars
06-06-14, 06:20 AM
#31
Lexus Fanatic
Of course I'm not disputing that cars are generally safer......I can clearly remember when they weren't. Nor am I disputing that gridlock is not an issue everywhere, But, where it IS an issue, in a number of places, it's a BIG one....you can take that to the bank. Dense traffic crawling at low speeds generally reduces the impact-force of accidents.
06-06-14, 07:24 AM
#32
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
cars may be 'cheaper' after inflation but that's due to massive efficiencies in manufacturing, and in particular, robots. it's also due to GLOBAL competition. neither of these things are the result of government regulations. car makers must compete like mad to maintain marketshare, let alone grow.
06-06-14, 07:25 AM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
Maybe, but thats not a factual statement, its a statement of opinion of what would happen if a certain factor was removed. What we KNOW for a FACT is that they ARE cheaper, even with federal and global regulations. Would they be "even cheaper"? Maybe...but would I rather have a car thats "even cheaper" or would I rather have a car that is MUCH safer...and still significantly cheaper than what I was paying for a car as little as 10-15 years ago? I'll take the safer car, thanks.
To be clear, I'm talking about safety standards, crash testing, etc. When it comes to CAFE and fuel economy regs, I agree with you more...because that is indeed market driven. Fuel prices go up, people seek out economy and the industry will move to fill those needs. There is no argument however that will make me believe that federal safety standards, crash testing and the information and transparency it gives a buyer at any price point doesn't make cars safer for everybody. Anybody can advertise that their car is the safest in the world...but without independent evaluation to fact check those claims, how would someone in the general public know?
Like I said, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Lexus...always going to be innovators when it comes to safety because rich people can pay for safety, and rich people WANT to pay for safety. I will always be able to buy a safe car, as someone who owns a $350k Lexus LFA, you certainly will always be able to buy a safe car. Without federal safety standards would someone who only has $15,000 to spend be able to buy a safe car? How about only has $2,500 to spend on a used car? Because of those standards and the spotlight crash testing puts on manufacturers who want to sell in the US that $2,500 used 20 year old car is probably safer than some new economy cars that cannot be sold here but are sold in other countries.
The guy walking down the street doesn't get to choose what car runs him over. Hence why regulations for the shape and size of a nose of a car to lessen pedestrian injury have a lot of value IMHO.
Quite frankly, thats like saying that lung cancer deaths are down significantly nationwide because the city of Phoenix banned smoking.
This sort of "what if they made you hire a fireman to stay in the trunk" type thing descends into ridiculousness pretty fast. If they mandated a technology that made cars safer and it added a cost of $1,000 to a car...my response would be who cares? The average new car in this country is something like $33,000. $1,000 is 3% of its cost. If the price of my new car went up 3% but the tradeoff is that there was a greatly reduced chance of it ever being involved in a vehicle fire...I'd probably be down for that. Again though...I have a neighbor who's car caught fire in his garage and burned his house down...no joke. Had he had a halon fire suppression system in the car maybe that wouldn't have happened. But...hey...he has that $1,000 in his pocket 
That is meant to be tongue in cheek by the way.
I never said cars were cheaper because of regulations. I said despite these regulations which you claim are "driving up the cost of cars for consumers" prices are still lower. Carmakers compete, absolutely...but without government safety standards and independent crash testing nobody holds them accountable but the consumer...and the only way the consumer can test a car's safety is to wreck it and either live or die. I'd rather have some tax dollars and manufacturer's dollars that find their way into the price of my new car pay to have that vehicle tested for compliance than have the test be my or my families lives.
And remember, even with these regulations and safety standards and all...I'm still paying less for a comparable car than I was 10-15+ years ago...and I have a much safer car to boot.
Seat belts exist in all cars because of government regulation. Their universal use is because of government regulation. Airbags exist in all cars because of government regulation. Head restraints that protect from whiplash...government regulation. Collapsable steering columns...collapsing engine mounts, crumple zones, high mounted brake lights, all of these things exist in all cars because if they don't exist in a car they can't sell it here. We are all safer for all of these things. Does a "daytime running lights" slip by every once and a while?...sure.
I get it...as a political viewpoint you don't like government regulations in general. However, I think when you look past that bias and really look at where cars are today vs where they were even 5 years ago...10...15...20 years ago I think its hard to make the statement that we don't have better, safer cars today than we did at those times...and whether or not that may have occurred without those regulations...it DID occur WITH those regulations in place...and without driving up the cost of cars for the consumer. So...if it ain't broke...
To be clear, I'm talking about safety standards, crash testing, etc. When it comes to CAFE and fuel economy regs, I agree with you more...because that is indeed market driven. Fuel prices go up, people seek out economy and the industry will move to fill those needs. There is no argument however that will make me believe that federal safety standards, crash testing and the information and transparency it gives a buyer at any price point doesn't make cars safer for everybody. Anybody can advertise that their car is the safest in the world...but without independent evaluation to fact check those claims, how would someone in the general public know?
Like I said, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Lexus...always going to be innovators when it comes to safety because rich people can pay for safety, and rich people WANT to pay for safety. I will always be able to buy a safe car, as someone who owns a $350k Lexus LFA, you certainly will always be able to buy a safe car. Without federal safety standards would someone who only has $15,000 to spend be able to buy a safe car? How about only has $2,500 to spend on a used car? Because of those standards and the spotlight crash testing puts on manufacturers who want to sell in the US that $2,500 used 20 year old car is probably safer than some new economy cars that cannot be sold here but are sold in other countries.
The guy walking down the street doesn't get to choose what car runs him over. Hence why regulations for the shape and size of a nose of a car to lessen pedestrian injury have a lot of value IMHO.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
But, where it IS an issue, in a number of places, it's a BIG one....you can take that to the bank. Dense traffic crawling at low speeds generally reduces the impact-force of accidents.
Originally Posted by bitkahuna
so if a halon fire suppressant system for cars became a govt requirement, but added $1000 to the cost of a car, you'd be ok with it because it would indeed be 'safer' in the event of a fire?
That is meant to be tongue in cheek by the way.
cars may be 'cheaper' after inflation but that's due to massive efficiencies in manufacturing, and in particular, robots. it's also due to GLOBAL competition. neither of these things are the result of government regulations. car makers must compete like mad to maintain marketshare, let alone grow.
And remember, even with these regulations and safety standards and all...I'm still paying less for a comparable car than I was 10-15+ years ago...and I have a much safer car to boot.
Seat belts exist in all cars because of government regulation. Their universal use is because of government regulation. Airbags exist in all cars because of government regulation. Head restraints that protect from whiplash...government regulation. Collapsable steering columns...collapsing engine mounts, crumple zones, high mounted brake lights, all of these things exist in all cars because if they don't exist in a car they can't sell it here. We are all safer for all of these things. Does a "daytime running lights" slip by every once and a while?...sure.
I get it...as a political viewpoint you don't like government regulations in general. However, I think when you look past that bias and really look at where cars are today vs where they were even 5 years ago...10...15...20 years ago I think its hard to make the statement that we don't have better, safer cars today than we did at those times...and whether or not that may have occurred without those regulations...it DID occur WITH those regulations in place...and without driving up the cost of cars for the consumer. So...if it ain't broke...
Last edited by SW17LS; 06-06-14 at 08:05 AM.
06-06-14, 09:31 AM
#34
Lexus Champion
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.
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.
06-06-14, 09:39 AM
#35
Lexus Champion
they've recently mandated back up cameras -- how many children have been killed by parents backing over them? it's worth the extra expense IMO.
06-06-14, 09:42 AM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maybe, but thats not a factual statement, its a statement of opinion of what would happen if a certain factor was removed. What we KNOW for a FACT is that they ARE cheaper, even with federal and global regulations. Would they be "even cheaper"? Maybe...but would I rather have a car thats "even cheaper" or would I rather have a car that is MUCH safer...and still significantly cheaper than what I was paying for a car as little as 10-15 years ago? I'll take the safer car, thanks.
To be clear, I'm talking about safety standards, crash testing, etc. When it comes to CAFE and fuel economy regs, I agree with you more...because that is indeed market driven. Fuel prices go up, people seek out economy and the industry will move to fill those needs. There is no argument however that will make me believe that federal safety standards, crash testing and the information and transparency it gives a buyer at any price point doesn't make cars safer for everybody. Anybody can advertise that their car is the safest in the world...but without independent evaluation to fact check those claims, how would someone in the general public know?
Like I said, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Lexus...always going to be innovators when it comes to safety because rich people can pay for safety, and rich people WANT to pay for safety. I will always be able to buy a safe car, as someone who owns a $350k Lexus LFA, you certainly will always be able to buy a safe car. Without federal safety standards would someone who only has $15,000 to spend be able to buy a safe car? How about only has $2,500 to spend on a used car? Because of those standards and the spotlight crash testing puts on manufacturers who want to sell in the US that $2,500 used 20 year old car is probably safer than some new economy cars that cannot be sold here but are sold in other countries.
The guy walking down the street doesn't get to choose what car runs him over. Hence why regulations for the shape and size of a nose of a car to lessen pedestrian injury have a lot of value IMHO.
Quite frankly, thats like saying that lung cancer deaths are down significantly nationwide because the city of Phoenix banned smoking.
This sort of "what if they made you hire a fireman to stay in the trunk" type thing descends into ridiculousness pretty fast. If they mandated a technology that made cars safer and it added a cost of $1,000 to a car...my response would be who cares? The average new car in this country is something like $33,000. $1,000 is 3% of its cost. If the price of my new car went up 3% but the tradeoff is that there was a greatly reduced chance of it ever being involved in a vehicle fire...I'd probably be down for that. Again though...I have a neighbor who's car caught fire in his garage and burned his house down...no joke. Had he had a halon fire suppression system in the car maybe that wouldn't have happened. But...hey...he has that $1,000 in his pocket That is meant to be tongue in cheek by the way.
I never said cars were cheaper because of regulations. I said despite these regulations which you claim are "driving up the cost of cars for consumers" prices are still lower. Carmakers compete, absolutely...but without government safety standards and independent crash testing nobody holds them accountable but the consumer...and the only way the consumer can test a car's safety is to wreck it and either live or die. I'd rather have some tax dollars and manufacturer's dollars that find their way into the price of my new car pay to have that vehicle tested for compliance than have the test be my or my families lives.
And remember, even with these regulations and safety standards and all...I'm still paying less for a comparable car than I was 10-15+ years ago...and I have a much safer car to boot.
Seat belts exist in all cars because of government regulation. Their universal use is because of government regulation. Airbags exist in all cars because of government regulation. Head restraints that protect from whiplash...government regulation. Collapsable steering columns...collapsing engine mounts, crumple zones, high mounted brake lights, all of these things exist in all cars because if they don't exist in a car they can't sell it here. We are all safer for all of these things. Does a "daytime running lights" slip by every once and a while?...sure.
I get it...as a political viewpoint you don't like government regulations in general. However, I think when you look past that bias and really look at where cars are today vs where they were even 5 years ago...10...15...20 years ago I think its hard to make the statement that we don't have better, safer cars today than we did at those times...and whether or not that may have occurred without those regulations...it DID occur WITH those regulations in place...and without driving up the cost of cars for the consumer. So...if it ain't broke...
To be clear, I'm talking about safety standards, crash testing, etc. When it comes to CAFE and fuel economy regs, I agree with you more...because that is indeed market driven. Fuel prices go up, people seek out economy and the industry will move to fill those needs. There is no argument however that will make me believe that federal safety standards, crash testing and the information and transparency it gives a buyer at any price point doesn't make cars safer for everybody. Anybody can advertise that their car is the safest in the world...but without independent evaluation to fact check those claims, how would someone in the general public know?
Like I said, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Lexus...always going to be innovators when it comes to safety because rich people can pay for safety, and rich people WANT to pay for safety. I will always be able to buy a safe car, as someone who owns a $350k Lexus LFA, you certainly will always be able to buy a safe car. Without federal safety standards would someone who only has $15,000 to spend be able to buy a safe car? How about only has $2,500 to spend on a used car? Because of those standards and the spotlight crash testing puts on manufacturers who want to sell in the US that $2,500 used 20 year old car is probably safer than some new economy cars that cannot be sold here but are sold in other countries.
The guy walking down the street doesn't get to choose what car runs him over. Hence why regulations for the shape and size of a nose of a car to lessen pedestrian injury have a lot of value IMHO.
Quite frankly, thats like saying that lung cancer deaths are down significantly nationwide because the city of Phoenix banned smoking.
This sort of "what if they made you hire a fireman to stay in the trunk" type thing descends into ridiculousness pretty fast. If they mandated a technology that made cars safer and it added a cost of $1,000 to a car...my response would be who cares? The average new car in this country is something like $33,000. $1,000 is 3% of its cost. If the price of my new car went up 3% but the tradeoff is that there was a greatly reduced chance of it ever being involved in a vehicle fire...I'd probably be down for that. Again though...I have a neighbor who's car caught fire in his garage and burned his house down...no joke. Had he had a halon fire suppression system in the car maybe that wouldn't have happened. But...hey...he has that $1,000 in his pocket
That is meant to be tongue in cheek by the way.I never said cars were cheaper because of regulations. I said despite these regulations which you claim are "driving up the cost of cars for consumers" prices are still lower. Carmakers compete, absolutely...but without government safety standards and independent crash testing nobody holds them accountable but the consumer...and the only way the consumer can test a car's safety is to wreck it and either live or die. I'd rather have some tax dollars and manufacturer's dollars that find their way into the price of my new car pay to have that vehicle tested for compliance than have the test be my or my families lives.
And remember, even with these regulations and safety standards and all...I'm still paying less for a comparable car than I was 10-15+ years ago...and I have a much safer car to boot.
Seat belts exist in all cars because of government regulation. Their universal use is because of government regulation. Airbags exist in all cars because of government regulation. Head restraints that protect from whiplash...government regulation. Collapsable steering columns...collapsing engine mounts, crumple zones, high mounted brake lights, all of these things exist in all cars because if they don't exist in a car they can't sell it here. We are all safer for all of these things. Does a "daytime running lights" slip by every once and a while?...sure.
I get it...as a political viewpoint you don't like government regulations in general. However, I think when you look past that bias and really look at where cars are today vs where they were even 5 years ago...10...15...20 years ago I think its hard to make the statement that we don't have better, safer cars today than we did at those times...and whether or not that may have occurred without those regulations...it DID occur WITH those regulations in place...and without driving up the cost of cars for the consumer. So...if it ain't broke...
Cars are faster, safer, more luxurious and better built than ever. Maybe just maybe some influence by the government worked.
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/pu...lt-history.cfm
By the late 1920s and early 1930s, mass-produced cars dotted the landscape and car accidents occurred more and more frequently. About 30,000 people died each year. A group of medical professionals, alarmed at the wasted lives, added lap belts to their own cars and after testing their effectiveness, urged car manufacturers to make them standard equipment on all cars. This was also a time when plastic surgery was a burgeoning specialty and after repeated late-night calls to horrific accident scenes plastic surgeon Claire L. Straith began taking a camera along to photograph crashes and analyze their causes. While his primary focus (yes, this Claire was a man) was on the elimination of sharp edges on dashboards, he also argued vehemently for the use of seatbelts. Joining him in the crusade to convince manufacturers of the need for seatbelts was the prominent physician C. J. Strickland who later founded the Automobile Safety League of America.
As Ford stressed safety, GM continued using appealing ladies to advertise power under the hood. The buying public concluded that if Ford had to add so many safety features to its cars, they must have been more dangerous than other cars. Ford saw its sales plummet, with Chevrolet taking a convincing lead. That prompted Henry Ford II to say, "McNamara [Ford's President] is selling safety, but Chevrolet is selling cars." Ford's safety campaign had been a disaster; safety didn't sell. Ford shifted its ad campaign and did not offer seat belts as standard equipment in its '57 models.
Nader's detailed research was published in 1965 as "Unsafe at Any Speed", a book that uncovered Detroit's resistance to adding automotive safety features. It highlighted the prevailing view amongst car makers that safety problems were more attributable to road conditions and driver incompetence than to harder-to-fix car interiors. His arguments made a lot of sense to a small but vocal group of consumer advocates, legislators, and attorneys who in 1966 insisted that the car industry make safer cars. Senate hearings investigating industry practices served to focus attention on the industry's apparent refusal to improve vehicle safety. When faced with testimony from doctors, engineers, crash investigators, and others that there were safety improvements available that could save thousands of lives, industry leaders insisted that customers just weren't buying safety. Henry Ford II only worsened the industry position when he claimed that the industry would be shut down completely if it had to make safety-related "unreasonable, arbitrary, and technically unfeasible" product changes. In light of that sort of statement, Senators were justified in their disbelief that manufacturers would, as they claimed, make cars safer through voluntary self-regulation.
When President Johnson suggested it was time for federal regulations to control car safety performance, Congress unanimously passed The Highway Safety Act and The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, creating the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The federal government had been given authority to regulate car and highway standards, including a demand that the Department of Transportation move quickly to force car manufacturers install seat belts in new cars. After twisting a few arms, Washington persuaded Detroit to add safety features on 1966 model cars, one of those features being front seat belts. A year later back seat belts were added, as well, and for the 1974 model year, three-point, continuous-loop seat belts were required.
When President Johnson suggested it was time for federal regulations to control car safety performance, Congress unanimously passed The Highway Safety Act and The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, creating the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The federal government had been given authority to regulate car and highway standards, including a demand that the Department of Transportation move quickly to force car manufacturers install seat belts in new cars. After twisting a few arms, Washington persuaded Detroit to add safety features on 1966 model cars, one of those features being front seat belts. A year later back seat belts were added, as well, and for the 1974 model year, three-point, continuous-loop seat belts were required.
Last edited by LexFather; 06-06-14 at 09:49 AM.
06-06-14, 09:52 AM
#37
Lexus Fanatic
In my industry, the housing industry its no different. People whine all the time about home inspection reports where a house has a cat door through the fire door to the garage and we want it replaced. The code doesn't say there needs to be a 90 minute fire door to a garage just for fun...its to protect you from a car fire in your damn garage...it can't do that with a hole in it. Sprinkler systems, arc-fault interrupting circuit breakers, fire seals around garages, structural ratings for weather and acts of god, mandatory fire alarm systems, mandatory carbon monoxide alarm systems for houses that rely on fossil fuels for heat or cooking, emergency release valves on boilers and water heaters, anti-tip brackets for ranges, ...these things come from government regulation...they drive up the cost of construction and thus housing but guess what...they save people's lives. My great aunt and her baby died in a house fire in their sleep in 1930...guess what? That would be pretty much impossible in my house in 2014. Thats because of government regulation, not because of home builders wanting to make safer homes or consumers demanding safer homes.
Last edited by SW17LS; 06-06-14 at 09:56 AM.
06-06-14, 11:11 AM
#38
Moderator: LFA, Clubhouse
Maybe, but thats not a factual statement, its a statement of opinion of what would happen if a certain factor was removed. What we KNOW for a FACT is that they ARE cheaper, even with federal and global regulations. Would they be "even cheaper"? Maybe...but would I rather have a car thats "even cheaper" or would I rather have a car that is MUCH safer...and still significantly cheaper than what I was paying for a car as little as 10-15 years ago? I'll take the safer car, thanks.
What you fail to understand (and demonstrated in your most recent post where you absurdly and self-servingly suggest those that disagree with you are ignorant and would change their minds if only we knew someone "who's [sic] kid got backed over by a car" or our house burned down) is this:
Regulations are only a net positive for society if the economic benefit exceeds the cost.
You need to understand that. No one reasonably says, 'Well this regulation happened to benefit me in a particular circumstance, therefore it is good for society." No, that's absolutely absurd. It's completely selfish. It's as selfish as saying 'a federal regulation that taxes others to pay me $1,000,000 a year is good for society'. There is no difference there. Whether something is good for society is much more than whether something is good for one single individual, and that's the kind of broader and deeper mindset you need to take in analyzing the effects of these regulations. You will never get to meaningful analysis - nor will you appear interested in meaningful debate, for that matter - if you just reject anything that's not fact right in front of your eyes.
06-06-14, 11:13 AM
#39
Moderator: LFA, Clubhouse
Like Grengar brings up the fire suppression system as an example of something that to him is totally ridiculous...well...wouldn't think it was so ridiculous if your neighbor's house burned down because of a car fire in the garage, or if you knew someone who died when they were in an accident and the car caught fire. These things DO happen.
06-06-14, 11:14 AM
#40
Lexus Champion
just like seat belts being mandatory...should they be optional too or do they get a pass for being mandated? and the seat belt law...?
06-06-14, 11:20 AM
#41
Lexus Champion
06-06-14, 11:27 AM
#42
Moderator: LFA, Clubhouse
As I said, it just depends on how much societal benefit there is versus the cost. No debate needs to be taken to extremes. Reasonable people recognize that individual elements of a trend can be either good or bad, regardless of whether they feel the overall trend is good or bad.
06-06-14, 11:44 AM
#43
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
a driver without a seat belt is not more a menace to others.
given modern manufacturing, option 'packages', etc., the vast majority of the public would still get (and use) seat belts.
i don't have a problem with the govt 'educating' on safety issues. i do have a problem with requiring it.
a related example would be seat belts on planes. how many lives have been saved due to seat belts on planes (i bet not many), vs. the GIANT HASSLE AND EXPENSE of telling and having and enforcing everyone to use them during flights?
and to SW13GS and others - i don't think all safety regs are bad, and i absolutely agree that cars today are safer than in the past, because of all the regs, but ALSO because of innovators like mercedes benz and volvo, who invented things governments would never have dreamed of (e.g, anti-lock brakes).
the purpose of this thread wasn't only about safety though, it's about a whole command and control mindset by government about personal transportation, and the do gooders who think they should be able to tell everyone what they should drive, how they should drive, how much they should or shouldn't drive, and tack on expense after expense after expense. not only that, the unintended consequences... for example, in the giant push for great fuel economy, and the constraints on fuel supply and idiotic array of different fuels which MUST be produced raising prices, people are literally driving less, and of course consuming a LOT less fuel. the result is that state govt revenue has gone down dramatically 'per mile' driven. so now states are looking to make up that revenue drop by adding additional 'per mile' or other tax schemes. if we're gonna have to drive slow *** ugly 'efficient' cars like a prius, shouldn't we at least get an economic benefit?
06-06-14, 11:46 AM
#44
Lexus Champion
06-06-14, 11:49 AM
#45
Lexus Champion
problem I have is its those same people with ZERO health insurance that don't wear them that are seriously injured in an accident....and guess who pays for their hospital stay?
Last edited by bagwell; 06-06-14 at 12:28 PM.
