it was really the UAW workers…then went on strike at the GM and Ford plants that were making sedans.

 

HAHA, right

 

I think we will all agree that safety versus freedom is always a balancing act. I am certain without the likes of Ralph Nader we would still be driving death traps. And I'm no fan of the guy. Let's put it this way, the best vehicles are fast, efficient, and safe. The downside may be price for some. So do people want bare bones trucks on the road with no safety equipment at all? Should that be legal? And when they crash leaving people maimed, disfigured and disabled who pays?

 

I've read Nader's famous book Unsafe at Any Speed.....It is part of my automotive library. In it, he was right on about the Corvair and its numerous design-goofs...especially the early versions before 1964 or so. On other issues, he was partly-correct and partly-overdid it...on things like undersized wheels/tires, cost-cutting, and corruption in the corporate-ladders of automakers.

And, of course, also consider that some of the most risky and dangerous vehicles to come out of Detroit came out several years AFTER Nader published his book....the 1971 Ford Pinto and its notorious rear-impact/exploding gas tanks, the Chevy Vega of the same vintage with its notorious self-destructing engine and body/component-rust so bad that frame-strength was compromised, AMC vehicles in the late 60s with archaic vacuum-operated windshield wipers that jerked back and forth and worked only when they decided to work, Chrysler products of the time with non-power drum brakes that faded and started to lose effectiveness after just a couple of pedal-pushes, and grossly-over-engined muscle-cars from most of the manufacturers that could run like hell on the drag strip but couldn't safely do anything else...handle, turn, respond to the wheel, or stop in a reasonable distance...only a few Ford/Mercury products had really excellent brakes back then.

 

How so?

 

I want skilled engineers to take the helm of car companies once more, rather than marketing experts or legal strategists who simply exploit loopholes in regulations meant to enhance our quality of life. It’s time to throw out the playbook, push out the yes-men and women, and turn a new chapter. Let’s challenge what’s deemed impossible and invest real R&D resources into improving combustion engines. Let’s see if they can coexist and thrive alongside BEVs, HEVs, PHEVs, and EREVs.

Let the best product speak for itself.

 

We have already reached the near limit of ICE thermal efficiency no amount of R&D will change physics.

 

Consumers should be free to make informed decisions, including those related to safety. Some individuals choose to ride motorcycles, which are significantly more hazardous than even the least equipped autos on the road. Conversely, some choose new autos with safety features surpassing many modern vehicles on the road.

Specifically, I would not object to the window sticker on a new vehicle displaying: This vehicle is not equipped with airbags, ABS, tire pressure monitors, electronic stability control, back up camera... and so on.Nor would I object to a new vehicle on the same car lot displaying a window sticker listing any and all safety features.

Automobile and health insurance companies should be free to adjust premiums based on calculated risk.

 

don’t forget removal of seatbelts

 

ignore self-appointed arbiters of 'truth' and claims of what some undefined 'we' want.

 

In the 1980s and 90s, there was a "Gray Market" that existed to import cars (or versions of cars) from Europe that weren't available in the US due to our stricter regulations.

 

You are correct.....but, at the same time, Gray-market vehicles could also be a pain in the a** to import because of the massive amount of paperwork, exemptions, and red-tape involved.

 

then say goodbye to vehicle choice any fun, desireable, and reliable vehicles.

 

But this goes beyond personal freedom and the personal choice to behave irrationally, because the removal of safety devices like these wouldn't just impact the individual who might choose to forgo them. A car without these safety features is a car more likely to cause harm to others. Sometimes regulations are necessary to protect the stupid, and this would be one of those cases.

 

Sedan sales are absolutely softer and becoming softer due to demand, not engineered limitation of options. All you have to do is look at sales figures, if you limited options and the demand was there for sedans, the remaining sedans would have big increases in sales and thats not what we are seeing. Sedan sales have been slipping for a very long time.

Those were due to safety regulations, not efficiency regulations. Even so though, that was 40 years ago. Since 1988 its been illegal to import any car to the US that was not originally approved to be sold here that isn't 25 years old.