RE: Alfa and US safety laws

["Richard & Julie Arnold" <rarnold@domain.elided>]

George, you wrote: >That is, unless someone can convince me that a new
Alfa 156 GTA is somehow more dangerous than an equally non-compliant
Lincoln Navigator. I don't think anyone can.<  

I would submit the 156 GTA is closer to being in compliance with current
safety laws than the average SUV.  The Europeans have been building
crumple zones for decades.  Virtually every European car has them.  As
for the unsightly US bumpers, don't forget, the Insurance companies
lobbied for that one to reduce claim amounts associated with fender
benders where nobody got hurt but their net income.  Try to get the GTA
past that one easily.  I agree with you, all US passenger vehicles
should have to live by the same set of rules.  I, for one, am alive
today because my Mercedes turbo diesel won when a mid-70's Vistacruiser
wagon strayed into my lane at 60mph.  The front of my car was mashed up
really bad; nevertheless, after I came too, I simply opened the door and
got out.  I suspect a large S-class Mercedes would win against a
Navigator, I don't think a GTA would.

Best regards,
Richard Arnold
73 Spider
87 Mercedes 300SDL (Different Car)


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-alfa@domain.elided [mailto:owner-alfa@domain.elided] On Behalf Of
George Graves
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 4:00 PM
To: alfa-digest@domain.elided
Cc: GLewis4457@domain.elided
Subject: Re: Alfa and US safety laws

On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 09:49  AM, GLewis4457@domain.elided wrote:

> And I'll tell you, if these stupid laws were actually proven
> effective, and
> if they were fairly applied in such a way that ALL vehicles had to
> comply equally to them, I might be a little less angry about this
> hypocrisy on the part of our government "for our own good" than I am
> now. I'm tired of know-nothing bureaucrats telling me what is and
isn't
> in my best interest! I'm an American, dammit. I don't need a blinking
> Big Brother!
>
> As you may, or may not, know, the SUV craze is a relatively recent
> (within the last 10 years) phenomenon.  The laws you are talking about
> were implemented when trucks were a much smaller part of the vehicle
> mix.

I know that the SUV (and the minivan) were 'invented' by the US auto
industry SPECIFICALLY to circumvent the safety and fuel economy laws of
the late '70's. That the SUV has become a 'craze' is simply proof that
Detroit's ability to come up with a doubtful product and then convince
American car buyers that they actually want that product has not
diminished one iota from its heyday in the 1950's.

>   At the insistence of ranchers, construction companies, and other
> large users of small trucks (i.e. pickup trucks) these vehicles were
> exempted from safety and emissions regulations.  At that time there
> was no significant import manufacturer in the large US style truck
> market.  Custromizers, taking advantage of this, started to produce
> trucks with more ammenities...prob starting with the Chev. Suburban
> since it has been around the longest...  Manufaturers not wanting to
> miss this emerging market segment started to emulate the customizers
> and also took advantage of the truck exemptions.  This expemption has
> been overturned, if you spent more time learning than whining, and
> soon trucks (including diesels) will be required to pass emissions!
> and safety standards on a par with cars. 

That's good.

>  Negotiations are now going on for the US to accept EU auto
> certificaions, like we now accept e-code lighting.

Even better, but I'll believe it when I see it. Such magnanimity on the
part of US law makers is suspect as they have much too much of the
'NIH' syndrome in their makeups.

>
> Do emissions standards work?  Ask the people of the LA valley where
> they now have significantly cleaner air than they did 20 years ago.

Of course Emissions laws work. They're vital (a pain in the arse
sometimes, but....).


> Ask the people who are alive today because their car is engineered to
> absorb crash energy rather than passing it on to the passengers, or
> their car does not explode.

They certainly don't work when huge, heavy vehicles like trucks and
SUVs don't have to adhere to them.


>   Should they be equally applied, YES, and that is happening...even
> now.

But it hasn't happened yet.

>
> Bah, your whining about your freedoms is a crock of crap.

Easy enough for you to say. I want to import a new Alfa Romeo from
Italy and drive it on the public roads. I cannot do this. Its against
the law unless I'm willing to post a bond equal to the price of the car
and sign a document promising to bring the car up to current US safety
standards within 6 months. Something, I might add, that is virtually
impossible due to the fact that the unique parts to make that
conversion don't exist. Therefore I am restricted by my my own
government from buying the automobile of my choice. If that's not a
lack of freedom, I don't know what is. I'm not asking for immunity from
smog laws (but I do happen to know that a modern Alfa WILL easily pass
CA. smog) but, I ask you, how many Americans are going to want to do
what I want to do (go to Europe, buy a car not sold in the US, and
bring it back)? If the government can let MILLIONS of SUVs by without
having to comply with US safety laws, what harm could the few thousand
(at most) privately imported cars do?  The laws are arbitrary and
unfair, and that's my point.

>  BTW, what about the freedom of the soccer moms to buy the vehicles
> they prefer.

I have no problem with soccer moms buying whatever they want. And that
they want SUVs is what gives lie to the entire debate over automotive
safety measures. Since most SUV buyers are surely aware by now that
their vehicles are considered unsafe, and they buy them anyway, it
seems to me that this is a clear indication that Americans neither care
about nor particularly want the safety regulations that have been
crammed down their throats. Now, I happen to think that forcing auto
builders to make safer vehicles was a good idea, and I am all for new
laws making the trucks conform to them as well. I just think that if an
individual wants to buy a car in another country and bring it to the US
for their own use, he/she should be allowed to do so. That is, unless
someone can convince me that a new Alfa 156 GTA is somehow more
dangerous than an equally non-compliant Lincoln Navigator. I don't
think anyone can.
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided