Poll: should North America exempt Euro small cars from crash standards to sell here? - Page 4 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > General Fuel Topics
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Would you support lower safety standards to have more small cars in North America?
I already own a crash helmet - bring 'em on! 27 72.97%
Bad idea. Hummers don't need imported hood ornaments. 10 27.03%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-07-2007, 02:58 PM   #31
Registered Member
 
bzipitidoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 112
Country: United States
I much prefer "legal but costly" to "illegal". As in, let people drive SUVs and Hummers. But, raise the price of gas to, oh... $5 or more per gallon. So, I voted YES! As for people who drive monster vehicles because they feel safer, seems to me even if they're right (which isn't clear), they're selfish. Their safety is made greater at the expense of making everyone else's safety a little less.

So the reason a lot of these great little cars aren't available in the US is because they aren't safe enough for UNBELTED occupants?!! Well that matches with something I couldn't quite put my finger on about the appearances of the interiors on newer cars. And I could never understand why motorcycles are allowed but not these far safer vehicles. Maybe this could be turned from illegal to legal with a price. If you buy a model without interior padding and whatnot, you get to sign a disclaimer or some such saying that you understand the car has only passed the safety standards for belted occupants, and you release the manufacturer from all liability arising from any failure to wear a belt. Maybe have a little extra saying you will pay double whatever the fine is if you're caught without a seatbelt.

I've become used to strapping in. Now if I'm not belted in, it doesn't feel right. At least we dumped the automatic restraint nonsense-- you know, those shoulder belts that were attached to a motorized slide.
__________________

bzipitidoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 07:14 PM   #32
Registered Member
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Country: United States
Location: Connecticut
I must be dense or something.
The two possible answers to the question don't look like answers.

How about "yes" and "no"?

I don't have a helmet. I don't think the question has anything to do with motorcycles directly. I can't decide if this answer means "yes" or "no".

The reference to hood ornaments on Hummers - well, it's clever but it doesn't look like an answer to the question. I can't decide if this answer means "yes" or "no" either.
__________________

__________________
Currently getting +/- 50 mpg in fall weather. EPA is 31/39 so not too shabby. WAI, fuel cutoff switch, full belly pan, smooth wheel covers.

Now driving '97 Civic HX; tires ~ 50 psi. '89 Volvo 240 = semi-retired.
brucepick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 07:16 PM   #33
Registered Member
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Country: United States
Location: Connecticut
As for my answer to the question, I'm for safety. But you probably would figure that from a Volvo driver. I commute 58 mi. each way with traffic going 55-75 mph. I will not do that in a tin box. My vehicle has to at least meet minimum U.S. safety standards.
__________________
Currently getting +/- 50 mpg in fall weather. EPA is 31/39 so not too shabby. WAI, fuel cutoff switch, full belly pan, smooth wheel covers.

Now driving '97 Civic HX; tires ~ 50 psi. '89 Volvo 240 = semi-retired.
brucepick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 07:35 PM   #34
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
On the way back to my office from home today I drove by Viti dealership in Tiverton and saw a black Smart parked at the entrance to the lot . . . with the Tiverton Code Enforcement Officer parked right next to it and he was checking the Smart out. I didn't even know we had a code enforcement officer!
JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 07:52 PM   #35
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
If I had my way, all small, unincorporated businesses would be exempt from the vast majority of regulations so that they would be able to compete. Many of these regulations were actually lobbied into place by the large auto industries in an attempt to drive out foreign competition. To mass produce a car and to be able to sell it in the U.S. today takes hundreds of millions of dollars. This is money that only the large industries have, thereby relegating the small businesses to hand-builts and kit cars. As a result, these same small businesses have not been able to produce an affordable EV that has long range and can perform like a normal car, even though all the technology is there. You need mass production to get the price down to an affordable level, but the current laws require you meet all sorts of expensive standards before you can even begin to mass produce. Don't have the cash? You're **** out of luck.
The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 09:39 AM   #36
Semi-retired OPEC Buster
 
BeeUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 200
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzipitidoo View Post
If you buy a model without interior padding and whatnot, you get to sign a disclaimer or some such saying that you understand the car has only passed the safety standards for belted occupants, and you release the manufacturer from all liability arising from any failure to wear a belt. Maybe have a little extra saying you will pay double whatever the fine is if you're caught without a seatbelt.
I like this idea, I am sure that would never fly in the states. It would be hard to track when the car is sold and to ensure the new owners are "aware" of the cars safety deviations before purchase, it would be a legal nightmare and I could see abuse by shady car dealers. As mentioned by others, older cars that do not meet the current standards are still allowed, and there is no waiver to sign, nobody is worried about them....
__________________
B W


BeeUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 11:28 AM   #37
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
BeeUU -

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeUU View Post
I like this idea, I am sure that would never fly in the states. It would be hard to track when the car is sold and to ensure the new owners are "aware" of the cars safety deviations before purchase, it would be a legal nightmare and I could see abuse by shady car dealers.
Agreed. This would constitute a set of "safety tiers".

Quote:
As mentioned by others, older cars that do not meet the current standards are still allowed, and there is no waiver to sign, nobody is worried about them....
Ex post facto (link). It's reasonable that you can't penalize someone for something that used to be legal. Technically, the same is true for emissions too. Older cars (like mine) only have to meet older emissions standards.

I really really really really want to know what the crash test results would be with seat belts.

CarloSW2
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 01:42 PM   #38
Semi-retired OPEC Buster
 
BeeUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 200
Country: United States
Lightbulb Ahhhhh

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post
Ex post facto (link). It's reasonable that you can't penalize someone for something that used to be legal.
CarloSW2
I did not know that, thank you!!!
__________________
B W


BeeUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 03:09 PM   #39
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17
Country: United States
The real reason why very fuel-efficient cars aren't allowed isn't because of crash test ratings, it's because they'd make oil companies and people like George Bush less profitable.
andrmtro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 04:26 PM   #40
Tuggin at the surly bonds
 
Silveredwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 839
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrmtro View Post
The real reason why very fuel-efficient cars aren't allowed isn't because of crash test ratings, it's because they'd make oil companies and people like George Bush less profitable.
...only 3 sure things in the world: death, taxes, and oil profits (and sometimes you can delay the first 2)
__________________

__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Silveredwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.