op here! I definitely do believe that regulation is the path forward to shrinking and slowing cars. But that's not actually what I suggested. I just want the ability to PURCHASE one of these in north america - and for them to catch on
I would imagine if car vendors were creating cars that intentionally cut off or slow down their competitors the regulators would step in and do what they do best... regulate.
So regulations on small cars forced people to buy larger vehicles, and their solution is even more regulations, just this time on larger vehicles? How about just relax regulations on the smallest vehicles, making them more feasible?
Sorry to pick on you again, but missed the other fork of your argument that it is not economical to have more regulation than other countries:
> If the US regulates itself into having a difficult time making or using working/economical cars, then other countries can more economically create better cars ...
The problem is that global companies will build to suit the local regulation or that there will be a race to the bottom. Either leads to atrocities like this:
"A car-to-car test between a 2015 Nissan Tsuru, the least expensive sedan sold by Nissan in Mexico, and a 2016 Nissan Versa, the least expensive sedan sold by Nissan in the United States.
Agreed -- the popularity of giant vehicles is basically a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, and probably regulation is the only way to fix it at this point.
That's a great illustration of why limited regulation can be desirable: if the law says you must apply brakes, it bans downshifting for engine braking (a better means to slow, arguably)! Regulation ossifies a "state" of the world and it may be inaccurate, or it may become outdated compared to the needs of the future.
Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven by regulatory capture or not it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles. Personally I think consumers should be free to decide things like seatbelt and airbag use but if they drive on public roadways they should not be allowed to make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them.
> small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular
Agreed that's a promising area. It's possible that the increasing regulatory burden on cars may drive an increase in low-speed vehicles such as neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) for use cases that do not require more than 25mph/40kph.[2] Since they are exempt from the vast majority of new automobile regulations that makes them comparatively much simpler and more affordable.
[2] I am not claiming this works for every suburban commute, just that there exists a nontrivial number of car trips in cities and towns that would be feasible in a NEV.
This is the worst type of regulatory overreach - a true innovation killer - putting useless regulatory burden on all car manufacturers. It will only benefit the large incumbents that can afford to be inefficient.
In what world (except for a communist one) is it the role of the government to put arbitrary laws in place pandering to nische interests like this one? The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case).
I think the regulatory approach of making these sort of vehicles more expensive is a good one. I'd love to see this approach be adopted at the provincial level where I live.
There's going to be businesses that need this sort of vehicle and particular hobby enthusiasts will be willing to pay much more to have one, but regular people doing typical activities absolutely do not need these and we should dissuade them from buying vehicles that are so much more dangerous and polluting than others.
I agree that the regulation is not perfect. We can do better to accommodate the needs of enthusiasts. But, in the case of brute regulation, I prefer we err on the side of safety vs enthusiast features.
Here in the netherlands, really old cars that fail to meet emission standards have special dispensation to be used on the road for less than 500km a year. Maybe something similar for sports cars would work. As you said, nobody is using their 911 GT3 for 10,000km a year anyway.
While I agree with this as an argument against overregulation, I find it extremely doubtful that rollback of extant standards will ever accomplish a reduction in vehicle costs. I'd certainly be interested to hear arguments or evidence otherwise, however.
If it's not working, they why continue? At levels where it does work, you will just disadvantage the less wealthy as the people who can afford it will choose to buy it.
"Agreed, but I still think there is value in even higher standards for larger vehicles,
Also consider that more onerous licensing requirements will (hypothetically) deter people from buying the regulated vehicles, meaning there will be less of them on the road, meaning it's less likely that one will be involved in any given collision."
If that's the case, then why not remove commerical trucks altogether since they are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes (11%)? I don't really like the concept of restricting people for the purpose of reducing their freedoms. Boths sides use it on issues they feel should be abolished but are protected (abortion, guns). I'd rather see progress that addresses the real issues than tries to restrict people for the sake of restricting them. It just seems lazy.
"If the restrictions are "you cannot advertise them" then I think it would be very effective in slowing or reversing their proliferation. Surely there is some happy medium."
How many people actually buy their type of vehicle due to advertising? In my experience, people know they want a sports car, SUV, or truck.
"I'd probably look at Europe as an example."
To my knowledge, they still allow larger vehicles, but they just aren't as popular. Is there a specific regulation?
"practical and reasonably sized cars"
This is highly subjective. A truck is a reasonable and practical size if you live on a farm or participate in specific activities. Using this type of language makes it seem like you have bias against larger vehicles.
"It would be expensive data to gather, but what's a human life worth?"
Why not just ban vehicles altogether if that's the basis?
"We also might consider simply banning certain kinds of modifications, e.g. those that significantly change vehicle geometry relative to stock and/or remove safety features."
There can be areas where higher ground clearance is required. Many people still live on dirt roads that can be rough. There are also areas with significant snowfall that this can be useful for. Should we also make handicap vans illegal because they're modified. Even then, what if the geometry change is actually beneficial (rebuilding older cars with modern suspensions, or lowering a truck)? I don't think bans are really going to make a difference and would just be a ham-handed "fix".
"Roads are public infrastructure, not a private playground, and the onus should be on those who wish to modify their vehicles outside of regulated configurations to prove that they are safe."
States do require this. They have safety regulations and many have safety inspections. Again, I think safety mostly hinges on good decisions and I don't see any data suggesting that specific vehicles or modifications will make a significant difference.
I’d rather have auto manufacturers figure out creative solutions to this problem rather than screw up auto designs for generations because of some broad-sweeping regulation.
One big reason why cars look similar and alike are regulations. This is also a reason why SUVs get bigger and bigger - 2nd order effects of coupling permitted mileage to vehicle area. I'm wondering whether we'll get rid of obsolete regulations once cars are majority electric and have working accident-avoidance algorithms. I suspect not.
I’ve been downvoted over this before but really we just need weight limits on cars. Efficiency is pretty closely aligned and we seem to regulate that just fine.
reply