I’m continuously amazed that there are so many people that think nothing of speeding and driving somewhat impaired, yet won’t drive a compact car because it’s a “death trap”. An 80 mph impact is for all practical purposes un-survivable no matter what you are driving.
Well maybe they should test cars dropping them on their roof upside down from 30 feet height.
That will show them…
Or maybe see how long they’ll float. Been of few of those incidents this year.
Cute, 252525. That made me laugh. Oh, that it were not true!
Like all regulatory agencies, there’ll be no end to finding new ways of testing. There is no end. Eventually, in order to meet federal requirements, new cars will get so expensive that only the rich will be able to afford them. The rest of us will just have to ride horses!
I'm continuously amazed that there are so many people that think nothing of speeding and driving somewhat impaired, yet won't drive a compact car because it's a "death trap". An 80 mph impact is for all practical purposes un-survivable no matter what you are driving.
Yep. You hit the nail on the head.
@the same mountainbike, seriously what will happen then is they will add extra 200 pounds of metal reinforcements to the corners, + more to the wheelwells and there will go your mpg. Modern cars are getting to heavy and big already…
Maybe it is time to spend more time and money on driver education…
@thesamemountainbike
Like all regulatory agencies, there'll be no end to finding new ways of testing. There is no end. Eventually, in order to meet federal requirements, new cars will get so expensive that only the rich will be able to afford them. The rest of us will just have to ride horses!
They said the same thing when the government mandated cars to be cleaner. Catalytic converters, fuel injection and electronics have made cars better than they have ever been.
They said the same thing when passive restraints (airbags) were made mandatory.
We would still be riding around in model Ts if we were satisfied with the status quo.
Speaking of wish lists, I want a car that the power window would still operate when the car is being immersed in a river-or bring the hand crank windows back…
Top Gear should do all the crash testing of cars.
They said the same thing when the government mandated cars to be cleaner. Catalytic converters, fuel injection and electronics have made cars better than they have ever been.They said the same thing when passive restraints (airbags) were made mandatory.
We would still be riding around in model Ts if we were satisfied with the status quo.
How about exempting small one person cars if they are built so the driver sits in the center in a roll cage and uses a 5-point harness to secure the driver who is wearing a helmet? After all, we allow motorcycles, don’t we?
Just an idea.
Not to get off the track again but in Minneapolis now they are fighting over changing the codes to not allow as much parking for large developments. They want, and this is from the new mayor, “100,000 more people but no more cars”. So rather than regulating them out of existence, you just won’t be able to afford a parking place for them. Maybe that’s why I get a little excited at government encroachment sometimes. Even now, day parking downtown is $100 a month. When it hits $500 no one except the 1% will drive downtown. Seem to be following the New York model.
New York, one of those cities where you have a choice of a 5 minute walk or a 20 minute drive.
Not to get off the track again but in Minneapolis now they are fighting over changing the codes to not allow as much parking for large developments. They want, and this is from the new mayor, "100,000 more people but no more cars". So rather than regulating them out of existence, you just won't be able to afford a parking place for them. Maybe that's why I get a little excited at government encroachment sometimes. Even now, day parking downtown is $100 a month. When it hits $500 no one except the 1% will drive downtown. Seem to be following the New York model.
I agree with you bing. I live on the opposite end of the spectrum, I live in a county of about 30k people, we have no zoning (which is good and bad), a barely functioning sheriffs department, a huge drug and alcohol problem, meth labs everywhere you turn, dogs running around everywhere, mediocre schools, and people burn anything and everything that will burn.
There is lots of freedom out here, its pretty, but we need some law and order, the problem is like many of the big cities the Government gets to big. I would not be happy in a place like NY where you can’t legally carry a gun or drink a 44oz soda, however I do feel we need some rules that are enforced.
How about exempting small one person cars if they are built so the driver sits in the center in a roll cage and uses a 5-point harness to secure the driver who is wearing a helmet? After all, we allow motorcycles, don't we? Just an idea.
You have many 3 wheeled cars that are exempt because they are considered a motorcycle, and I think they should be exempt, we had the 4 wheeled GEM electric car which was exempt.
I used to feel that there should be no safety regulations and the people should decide what they want to drive, now that Im older I think the big reason why even entry level cars are so safe these days is because safety is mandated.
I think if safety wasn’t mandated, only high dollar cars would have advanced safety features and it would be unaffordable to the little guy.
“Well maybe they should test cars dropping them on their roof upside down from 30 feet height.”
Here’s a drop test:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/a-tribute-to-saab-part-2-series-18-episode-5
Yes, Rick, they said the same thing then. And, as said, regulatory requirements continue to be made more stringent every year.
If you believe that market and economic forces along with the simple human compulsion to invent and to improve things would not have driven advancements in design without government mandates, I have a surprise for you… advancements and improvements and new inventions were constantly happening millennia ago, long, long before regulatory agencies. I have all of the history of mankind to prove you wrong. The government did not get us from fire to electric lights and central heating, the government did not get cars to be invented (and yes, cars ARE a huge improvement over horses), the government did not gat us to fly. The government does not motivate inventions and improvements, rather it stifles them.
We did not get from Model T’s to modern cars because of government regulatory agencies. We got from Model T’s to modern cars IN SPITE OF government regulatory agencies. Much of what constitutes modern cars was already in place well before the '70s. Much of the improvements and inventions might not have happened if the government had had its fingers deeply into the design of cars between the late 19th century and the 1970’s.
am still amazed when i see new ad for airbag BETWEEN driver/passenger. pretty soon its going to fill car with foam like in the demolition man movie
I have a surprise for you...... advancements and improvements and new inventions were constantly happening millennia ago, long, long before regulatory agencies.
I agree with what you say…but there are some very noteworthy exceptions. You can easily plot the gas mileage improvements from when car manufacturers allowed to do what they want and the changes in Cafe’ numbers. When they first were introduced…manufacturers numbers when up…Then they stayed flat until 2012 (when there was a change).
If it’s going to eat into their profits - then they are NOT interested. Manufacturers can increase MPG greatly - over time. If Ford found a way to all of a sudden increase gas mileage 50%…knowing that their competition wouldn’t be able to do this for 3-5 years…I guarantee they would. But if it takes them 10 years to increase gas mileage 50%…with incremental increases form year to year…they are NOT going to do it on their own.
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/faq-new-corporate-average-fuel-economy-standards.html
I get your point, Mike, but it was the confluence of fuel injection and microprocessors that really influenced gas mileage numbers, and I would argue that it would have been inevitable without regulatory influence. The benefits of fuel injection were well know long before the creation of the EPA, and CAFE regulations had absolutely nothing to do with the development of microprocessors except via DOD and NASA contracts having had the influence they had in its development. In short, it wasn’t regulatory, it was investment in technology. That combined with gas-price-driven market forces and the fact that these systems are actually less costly to mass produce than carbureted systems would, I believe, have caused development of the technologies that make great gas mileage commonplace.
In short, I believe credit for the development of high mileage cars would have been driven by market and economic forces anyway. The government gest way too much credit for that.
And the same forces that improve gas mileage reduce pollution. The same technology that makes a system that better uses the energy available in the gasoline also reduces emissions.
As I’ve said before, I credit the EPA with having done a great deal to clean up industrial pollution. But I think they get way too much credit for increasing mileage and reducing automotive emissions.
I find myself agreeing with both. It needs to be a partnership not a fight. Certainly government roads helped develop the auto industry. And certainly NASA and the DOD helped with the development of micro processors and plastics. And certainly DOD initiated the development of the internet, but left alone without checks, the government will tend to go too far. A good balance with money spent to develop and improve, not buy votes.