Hey just 10 bucks,then I’m in(I remember an article on the mandated stability system and they said it would add 1500 greenos to a new vehicle) didnt really say I wasnt comfotable with the system when I learn the system I compensate for it. I really try to stay home in bad weather,I learned how to drive one wheel drive Ford pickups in snow and ice(one word “caution” when the white stuff arrives,usually the first thing around here over the bank is a SUV or sports car,people push these things past the margin in bad weather.
Would love to have a Boxster for the "Warm Springs Mtn"gymkhana.Yes give me those 4 huge easy to service rotors> But a nice 4-5 liter diesel would be sweet-Kevin
Toyota? 
used muscle car in beat up condition: $1000
Cost to restore car: $25000
To the shop guy who restored it; the look on your face when you get the bill: priceless
Well I look at it this way. Cars hit things when driven poorly. I drive. I see idiots driving. If a moron in an suv thinks the tires are going to help him drive 70 when I think the safe speed in slush is 45 then please government make sure the moron does not roll in front of me.
Actually, It doesn’t have to be a classic. What about restoring something more economical, like a Honda CRX, Geo Metro, or Honda Civic Del Sol? I doubt it would cost $25,000 to restore something like that. You could even restore your current car. It doesn’t have to be an antique, or even a car you don’t yet own.
Why not?
Again your lack of driving experience is showing…
. Because MOST people usually buy a car when they need one.
. Restoring a car requires a lot of money. Do you have $25k lying around?? You can’t get financing for something like this.
. Try getting parts for a 30yo car that’s NOT a classic.
. As for restoring a newer car…it could cost more then a new car…and when done will have LESS value then a new car.
. Try getting insurance for what you paid for it on a restored NEWER car. You’ll NEVER be able to get insurance for it’s value. So if you get in a accident…you SOL.
Again real world situation.
used muscle car in beat up condition: $1000
Cost to restore car: $25000
To the shop guy who restored it; the look on your face when you get the bill: priceless
One of these car shows on the Discovery channel did just that a couple of years ago. They went to a junk yard and bought this rusted out piece of junk 1968 Camaro with no engine and no interior…But it was well over $1000…more like $5,000. I think this piece of junk cost more the car did new.
I NEVER said such a thing. You may want to CUT BACK on whatever it is you are SMOKING.
From my post above…
You’re right…those situations happen…but how often and does it warrant the NEED to MANDATE stability control on every vehicle sold in the US.
Then you responded with this.
That’s how all safety innovations work. You may never need it, and I hope you never do.
So explain what you meant by safety innovations…and how this has anything to do with them being MANDATED by the government.
I edited my post above to address your confusion. I didn’t go so far as defining each word I used, so I hope you can figure it out.
Why do you assume I lack driving experience? I have logged more than 1,000,000 miles as an over-the-road truck driver.
I see it as another app to our computer on wheels. Do I think it should be a government mandate? NO!! I don’t believe in any gov.t mandates. Quit protecting me from myself!
Because you’re making these wild assumptions that are totally WRONG.
Ford explorers. First thing over the shoulder here in snow. Boxter would be nice, but I’ll take the hard top version!
What assumptions would those be? Is the assumption that you have a choice between restoring your current car and buying a new one really so “wild?”
If you want to disagree with my opinions, fine, disagree with them. Someone needs to let you off your leash every once in a while. You are wound up way too tight.
What about the government mandates that your food must be safe and your water supply must not contain too much Arsenic? Are those bad mandates too? They don’t protect you from yourself. They protect you from the wrongdoing of others, much like mandating stability control could.
Wow. I’ve been physically away from the computer for a few days since posting the question, and I’m pleasantly surprised at the length the thread has grown to, as wlel as all the thought that’s gone into the commenst. I’m also pleasantly surprised at the passion stirred regarding the government’s mandating the system. It’s shown once again that while we all may not agree, we all care. And I thank you all.
In the interest of creating a mandate almost anything can be decripbed as protecting us from others. Banning incandescent lightbulbs, mandating the maximum amount of salt in food preparation, banning plastic water bottles, just about anything. At what point does it become an invasion of our right to choose? At what point should the marketplace be the determining factor? At what point do the mandates make the products too expensive to be accessible to the working class?
I would argue that mandates making our food and water supply safe from toxins protect us from hidden dangers we’re exposed to from others, and mandates requiring disclosure give us information to make choices with, while mandates attempting to force good things upon us are intrusionary. And they rob us of our rights. I know the dangers of salt. If I like the hamburgers prepared with a lor of salt, it should be my choice, note the government’s. Similarly, I’m familiar with the weaknesses of various vehicle designs. I’m also awaye that many of these systems have tradeoffs. If I choose to buy an SUV without stability control because I don’t trust or like stability control, that should be my choice, not the government’s. I also believe that of something is truely unsafe, the marketplace will banish it, and if it’s a true safety asset the marketplace will make it commonplace, as it did with disc brakes.
I reiterate that I realize the subject of government mandates in general and specifically relating to automotive design is a gray area. Apparently it’s more polarizing than I realized. I stand by my feelings on the subject, but I thank you all for your comments. I don’t want you to think I posted and then ignored the replys.
When the gov’t steps in, and says “You have to do/not do xxxxx”, its always going to make some people happy, while other people unhappy. That’s just the nature of gov’t rule over a large number of people.
This country has such a large mixture of people, with all sorts of varying degrees of intelligence, common sense, carelessness, disrespecting of others, etc, that you have to make any new rules and regulations to be able to cover all the groups, if not to directly protect one group from another.
I could easily go off on a tangent about guns, but I’ll stick with cars.
The law requires that everyone who wants to drive a car in every state in this country on public roads, must have a driver’s license from one of the 50 States, or from one of the Provinces of Canada, or some other country. We will honor all of them, as long as they are valid. Doesn’t matter if they drive on the other side of the road, we will take it.
Now, driving is both really simple, and very complex, all at the same time.
But there are so many different people out there who can’t seem to abide by them, they have to do everything in their power in order to curtail the more dangerous ones.
And don’t forget, the gov’t is in the business of keeping each and every one of its citizens alive, for as long as possible, in order to collect taxes from them. Putting air bags, adding abs, and including stability control are just extra ways of keeping people alive longer, and providing money to the gov’t, so that the politicians don’t have to get real jobs for their entire lives, have to pay for their own airfare, and housing upgrades.
Personally, I like the idea of stability control in every vehicle out there.
That means that less people will crash their cars in front of me on mountain roads, delaying me from enjoying the ride.
I still want them to require a device that keeps the vehicle inside their own lane, however.
BC.
In which case, we will all be using public transportation. We will just THINK we’re ‘driving’ our own cars.
Despite mandates for ‘safe’ arsenic levels in public water supplies, I can take you to places in this USA where you don’t drink the water because of too much arsenic etc. in the water. How much good is that mandate doing? To quote one of our founding fathers, “They who can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The best, fairest and most cost-effective way of preventing the “morons” from impacting your driving (fig and lit) is to have:
- Rigorous licensing requirements that “weed out the weakies”
- Mandatory retesting after an at-fault accident, and
- Random re-testing, just to keep folks on their toes.
Far better to make the offending parties sweat than to make my purchase of unwanted electronics an effective subsidy of those that never learned to control a skid.