re: those HORRID automobile safety rules.

[Joe Elliott <jee@domain.elided>]

Hmm, seems to me that most European manufacturers did away with most 
of those concerns before the U.S. government lifted a finger. 
Additionally, American cars from the '70s and '80s are still 
deathtraps, arbitrary regulations about 5mph bumpers and soft 
dashboards didn't do anything about that.  A safe car is absolutely 
f***ing useless if it's only equipped with 2-point seatbelts in the 
rear.  I didn't see the US government doing jackball about that until 
1990, well after every imported car had 3-point belts.  Even today 
our "stringent" crash test doesn't have a thing to do with the safety 
of the rear occupants.  Don't even get me started on ineffective 
lighting.  US headlight regulations have already cost me $1500+.  If 
I was a lawyer with lots of free time you can be damn sure I'd find 
every accident out there that can be attributed to poor lighting 
and/or unnecessary glare from sealed beam headlights (as well as the 
post-'86 horseshit) and have one hell of lawsuit against the USDOT. 
And let's not forget that in 1996 the USA mandated dual airbags in 
every car sold here, when manufacturers such as Volvo knew damn well 
that existing passenger airbags did more harm than good.  And one of 
the reasons older airbags are so dangerous is because the USA 
required that they restrain an unbelted 200lb asshole (err, human 
being).  So those of us that wear our seatbelts get thanked by having 
our faces torn off by pre-'97 airbags in minor fender benders.  And 
to be honest, I'd rather have a world of carbureted, non-catalysed 
Fiat 500s stinking up the air (which can clean itself up) and getting 
50mpg than a bunch of clean-burning 7.0L American cars whose exhaust 
I can breath while they deplete our planet's oil supply (which cannot 
be replenished) at 9mpg.

It seems to me that automakers can still "sell whatever unsafe junk 
to the public that [makes] them the most money"--as long as they can 
call it a "light truck."  The only difference is that these "light 
trucks" place everyone on the road at risk while a Euro-spec MGB is 
only a risk to those who choose to ride in it.  I think Americans 
should have the right to take all the unsafe purchases they want, as 
long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.  Unfortunately, the people 
making the laws in this country seem to hold the opposite opinion.

While an American passenger car from 1982 was held to all the same BS 
as my GTV6, such vehicles still exude an aura of death while the GTV6 
feels relatively safe for reasons that have nothing to do with US 
regulation.  Of course, I can't see where I'm going, but that's okay 
because because the GTV6 will escape unscathed when I back into 
somebody's door in a parking lot at up to 5mph.  It also weighs more 
thanks to "intrusion beams" in the door that don't interface with the 
frame at all and are consequently just dead weight.

The bottom line is that no amount of amateur regulation has ever, or 
will ever, make cars safe.  Manufacturers that give a damn what they 
build, and consumers who give some consideration to what they buy 
(i.e. Adam Smith's invisible hand) are what make cars safer than 
those that preceded them.  American regulations only made the world's 
worst cars marginally safer, which is meaningless as far as I'm 
concerned, because the people who bought them didn't want a safe car 
in the first place so it's been a huge waste of money.

Joe Elliott


At 2:10 PM +0000 9/17/02, alfa-digest wrote:

> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:50:32 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mel Odious <doskow@domain.elided>
> Subject: those HORRID automobile safety rules.
>
> yeah, George, let's get rid of all that safety "craps".
>
>       bring back the 50s & before when auto manufacturers
>       could sell whatever unsafe junk to the public that
>       made them the most money!
>
>       we need cars with hard dashboards gauranteed to break
>       heads, glass which breaks into tiny pieces to embed
>       in flesh, steering columns to spear drivers, cars
>       in which the crumple zone is the front seat(s),
>       vehicles which are sure to become as flat as possible
>       on rollover, bumpers at whatever height is cheap for
>       manufacturers, ineffective lighting, unrestricted
>       exhaust gases to asphyxiate occupants and the populations
>       of densely populated cities.
>
> jak
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided