Importing a grey market vehicle to become easier if Ford gets their way?

and?

attention-seeking retard.

And the irony meter pegs.

That's bad, because that would not mandate the clearly safer amber turn signals or rear fog lamps in the US, for two. (I'm not sure if the latter will work, without some kind of PSAs informing motorists that rear fog lights are only for use in fog. "This means you too, Audi driver.") Would also not mandate self-levelers and headlight washers for HID lights in the US, only for vehicles that are sold as conforming to ECE regs. These are all things that have a real safety benefit but NHTSA is resistant to for some reason. (and I'm just discussing lighting here, but to my knowledge this is in fact where ECE regs and various FMVSS's diverge the most.)

Indeed... kinda sad.

nate

Nate Nagel wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com:

Is there any practical difference between the two? Imagine this for- instance: We could end up with ECE headlamps.

Having said the above, though, I can't see Ford's scheme ever being realized. The sorts of people who become government regulators are imbued with complete certitude, and are almost religiously convinced of their own absolute correctness, importance, and right to tell other people how to run their lives. If they started to admit that maybe the other guys' (less rigid!) regulations were just as acceptable as their own, their legitimacy might be questioned. And they can't have that.

Well, there's one difference.

I've been reading up on a lighting forum that I probably should have started reading ages ago (which is where I found the news article,) and there are also other differences - the side retroreflectors and lights are not required by UNECE regs but are by FMVSS 108. Also FMVSS 108 allows red rear directionals, and allows them to be shared with the brake lights, two things that aren't allowed in Europe (and I don't see why they would want to bend on that, either.) Rear fog lights and front fender directional repeaters are not required here but are in Europe, as are self-levelers and headlight washers for HIDs. Finally, there's a 50 cm^3 luminous area requirement for some of the rear light functions here in the US but not in Europe, so ECE lights are not always compliant with FMVSS 108.

And that's just lighting...

Indeed... but in the case of ECE I would say they should stand their ground on the repeaters, rear fogs, etc.

Really I would say that the only lighting reg where FMVSS 108 is clearly superior in terms of safety is the requirement for lighting to the side of the car.

nate

not true. they're all carefully selected to comply with political interests

#1. the oil companies who LOVE heavier and heavier cars being mandated in the name of "safety", even though they can actually be more dangerous. [heavier cars have longer braking distances, are less maneuverable and are thus more accident prone for instance. like heavier roof columns and higher window lines restrict visibility.]

#2. the car manufacturers who can get away with dangerous manufacturing practices [red rear turn signals] because it saves them money.

true, for political reasons.

that's about as relevant as blathering about spare tires that you've never used...

says the anosognosia-afflicted retard - no irony there!