How The U.S.Government Killed The Safest Car Ever Built

formatting link
wearethegovernmentandweareheretohelpyou. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin
Loading thread data ...

formatting link
>

Not that horrbile thing they wanted to force on people again.. The idea that cutting edge technology can be legislated on to people is what is absurd. There's a reason it appears in higher cost luxury and/or performance models first. Plus as one commenter points out, the US government bans much of racing safety technology from the street because it isn't what they mandate. I remember when they forced Ferrari to take the racing harness out of the F40 and replace it with a 3 point mouse-track automatic seat belt.

Reply to
Brent

5000 lbs. apiece? would never pass CAFE.

gov't doesn't seem to understand that mandates can be mutually exclusive, or at least in effect so.

nate

Reply to
N8N

Every one of the fifty U.S.States can knock out that Unconstitutional Obamacare thingy. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

formatting link
>

They were missing an advantage of gull wing doors. Not just cool looking. They let you put a side frame rail up high up where it can protect occupants in t-bone crashes. When the doors open up, the occupants can step over the rails to get in and out of the car.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Seems to me that if the evil government had mandated strict crash standards in the 1980's that it would have saved a couple of hundred thousand lives by now. If the government hadnt mandated emission controls todays cars would still be big polluters and our skies would be significantly smoggier. Government mandates are not *all* bad. Ben

Reply to
ben91932

They pretty much are all bad because the "good" ones tend to patch up a previous failure of government.

I could go into it if anyone desires, but I don't feel on having another thread where I spend most of the time trying to introduce people to entirely new ways of thinking and solving problems.

Essentially many products today must follow safety standards that are entirely private. The automobile could work that way as well. However the government has long interfered with the automobile and because it owns the roads and determines who can pollute and who can't (instead of dealing with it via property rights that would have never allowed a pollution problem in the first place) we have the system we have today, which IMO retarded the advancement that could have been had if the automobile followed the route of other products.

Reply to
Brent

If the government mandated that drivers learn to f'ing drive instead of handing out drivers' licenses for Betty Crocker points, we wouldn't need crash standards to save lives.

I've never had a car significantly newer than 20 years old at the time that I owned it, save for one that I bought new. (current pickup truck is 17 years old.) I'm still alive despite driving such "obsolete" machinery. Why do you think that is?

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.