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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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....

BeeUU -

Agreed. This would constitute a set of "safety tiers".

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

Ahhhhh
 

I did not know that, thank you!!!

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)