By on June 27, 2017

crash test dummies
We knew the Trump administration wanted to deregulate the automotive industry in order to free it from any production hangups, be it imagined or genuine. However, some of the items under consideration for potential elimination are safety features that seem silly to go without. At the top of that list is the requirement that all electrically driven vehicles must emit noise to alert pedestrians to their presence.

However, this isn’t the only safety feature at risk of becoming an optional extra. In budget documents provided to Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration specified it is considering six separate areas for deregulation. Those include the modern standard for rear-view mirrors and backup cameras in passenger cars, mandatory electronic stability-control units for heavy trucks, and a rule allowing car dealers to install switches to deactivate airbags in customer vehicles.

While some of the rules could be abolished entirely, others are more likely to undergo some gentle retooling to provide automakers greater flexibility. Automakers have long pressed for the revamp of some antiquated, NHTSA-administered safety standards in order to permit the introduction of newer technologies. Still, eliminating any safety mandate is likely to raise the ire of consumer safety advocates, whether the end goal is well-intentioned or not. 

Considering agencies throughout the federal government view expansive deregulation as a central tenant of President Trump’s plan to abolish roadblocks to corporate productivity, safety groups may have plenty to gripe about — especially if the new-and-improved safety technologies automakers are promising don’t immediately arrive.

As usual, nothing is ever as one-dimensional as any singular group would like it to be.

“This looks like to me that the agency was trying to figure out what things they didn’t really need and what things really aggravated the manufacturers,” Joan Claybrook, former NHTSA administrator under President Jimmy Carter and president of Public Citizen, told Bloomberg. “But I do think the agency does have the obligation to explain these things when they take effect.”

So far, the NHTSA hasn’t specified which of the regulatory issues it wants to abolish or reshape — only that it was reassessing their validity.

It would certainly be somewhat hypocritical for the agency to outright eliminate the majority, though. The NHTSA’s own research estimates the electronic stability control mandate for trucks would prevent around 1,420 to 1,760 crashes and 40 to 49 deaths annually. “It’s bad policy to take off the books policies that are effective now and saving lives,” said Henry Jasny, senior vice president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.

Likewise, the EV noise requirement was estimated to prevent some 2,400 pedestrian injuries per year once electric vehicles became ubiquitous.

The U.S. Transportation Department has already finalized rules requiring electric vehicles and hybrids to emit “alert sounds” at speeds below 18.6 miles per hour, warning cyclists, pedestrians, and the blind of the approaching danger. It did so just last December. While the rules were set to take effect last February, the Trump administration delayed the date until September at the request of various automakers.

“[The] NHTSA is working with the new administration on its regulatory portfolio and priorities, including pending petitions for reconsideration,” the agency said in its official statement.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

85 Comments on “NHTSA Poised for Potential Deregulation Bonanza on Automotive Safety Aids...”


  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    I’ve been trying to stay off topics like this because it honks me right off, but: do you think an administration and congress that are completely happy to remove health-care coverage for millions of people really care about a few hundred accidents?

    I mean, they’re actually _eager_ to let poor people die so that rich people can get a tax cut.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Time to stop watching fake news CNN and PMSNBC

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Sad, isn’t it? While I see nothing wrong with evaluating existing regulations for efficacy and removing those that serve no purpose – recall 85 MPH speeedometers as an example, that is not the goal here. No, the goal is to allow corporations to make more on the backs of regular people. Me and Mine First, if you will. America was great.

    • 0 avatar
      operagost

      Congress and the President already removed health care coverage for millions back in 2013.

      Oh, you meant Trump. I thought you meant when Obama lied, and told everyone they could keep their plans and doctors, when their plans were subsequently cancelled and they couldn’t afford the replacements.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        You’re right, and that was a huge problem. But I don’t see any solution to that in what’s being proposed, and it makes things far, far worse for indigent people and the working poor.

        It also makes things far harder for providers, who will still have to treat people regardless of ability to pay, but won’t have as much Medicaid money to fall back on.

        I just don’t see any solutions in what’s being proposed.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      psarhjinian – ban seat belts and *ALL* safety features. That improves the chances of not requiring health care post MVC.

    • 0 avatar
      bullnuke

      I’ve heard that the leader of this administration beats his wife and skewers innocent babies while in his cups.

    • 0 avatar

      Then: “Obamacare ‘Death Panels’ are a GOP hoax!”

      Now: “The GOP health legislation will kill poor people.”

      Shoulders on the left must be aching from all that goalpost moving.

  • avatar
    Car Guy

    There will always be a need for regulations but in today’s sue happy society I think the threat of lawsuits does more to keep automakers in line than anything NHTSA does.

    That said, there are a number of antiquated regulations that should be taken off the books to clear the way for automated vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Forget self-driving vehicles, how about outdated headlight technology and wing mirror technology regulations.

      • 0 avatar
        operagost

        Joan Claybrook didn’t think headlights were important, or she would have gotten rid of the stupid sealed beams back in the 1970s. Yet, the progressive media likes to interview her for some reason. I think they love her 85 MPH speedo.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Oh man, where is the popcorn…this is going to be amazing.

    With that said, I’m against seatbelt laws and helmet laws (I don’t need a law to tell me to wear a seatbelt or use a helmet). I sincerely believe it interferes with Darwin. If you think it is your God-given right to go through a windshield at 40 MPH, what right does the government have to interfere with your rights? As for the insurance cost, very simple, you’re unbelted, you’re PI or PI claims of passengers unbelted are unpaid. Pay out of pocket. You chould have prevented the severity of your injury.

    To be clear, I do not apply this logic to those under 18, who should be seatbelted, or in car seats as required. Blessed be the fruit and all.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “If you think it is your God-given right to go through a windshield at 40 MPH, what right does the government have to interfere with your rights?”

      well, when we all collectively pay for the fire department to roll ambulances to try to save you….

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        A lot of EMS providers are revenue based and not taxpayer supported.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Nit, meet pick.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Sorry. A conversation based in facts is truly terrible isn’t it?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            You’re right, facts are great. Speaking of facts, who pays the cops and the firefighters, and the *non revenue based* EMS providers?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Freed, “non revenue based” is about an oxymoron as “non profit”. Every entity everywhere attempts to make a profit always, no matter who or what funds them. Just ask the “non profit” higher “education” cartel.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “non profit” doesn’t mean your organization can’t turn a profit, it just means there are special rules for what you can do with those profits.

        • 0 avatar
          Chan

          And who pays for EMS revenue? The insurance industry, which is socialized among all subscribers.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Nonsense, Chan, I have it on good authority this fine fella wrote a check for $2,113 to EMS on the spot the last time he got in a wreck. And a few hundred to the cops and firefighters. And $150 to the wrecker that hauled his car off. And $40,000 to the guy who owned the SUV he wrecked. And $334,124 to the hospital who fixed him up.

            Real conservatives pay cash, brah.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        …and we all pay inflated insurance premiums to cover said stupidity…

        Folks can say “I have the right to be irresponsible and stupid” all they want. The problem comes in thinking that you’re the only one affected. More than often, that’s just not true.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          When you pay for all the costs for your own stupidity – both direct and indirect, then you can choose to do whatever you want. Otherwise, your poor choices are costing everybody.

          • 0 avatar
            operagost

            If we claim that merely existing on this earth “costs everybody”, then I guess the world “predicted” by the Beatles in “Taxman” has actually arrived.

            If we go along with your argument, then we should jail people who engage in risky sexual behavior. They’re spreading disease! How about people who skydive, rock climb, or engage in other risky pursuits. We don’t want to pay for that! Should at least put in a punitive tax.

            I don’t agree with any of that, in case you were confused.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            You know what he’s talking about. Our behaviors don’t happen in a vacuum.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I kind of agree with ‘operagost’ here…

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            It’s hard to disagree with what he’s saying, but at the same time, we have to acknowledge that the “I pay for all my mistakes out of my own pocket” line is pure bunk most of the time.

            The only way to truly say “I’m totally responsible for my actions” is to be able to pay for everything you do wrong completely out of pocket. Very few of us could actually do that.

            Otherwise, some kind of shared financial cost kicks in.

            I prefer to think of it as “anyone’s human and can make a mistake, and that’s why all us humans need to band together.”

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I don’t want to go full Somalia or dissolve all safety regulations but I have a very big problem with “it effects my insurance premiums!” or even “*some* cost to society exists!” being the main justification for legislation.

            I agree with the sentiment about people banding together but I also think society should recognize that people have different values and different risk tolerences (even if you think that’s stupid/reckless/whatever).

            Sometimes that means you’ll incur a shared financial cost but I don’t necessarily believe this means that those behaviors should be strictly regulated or barred.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            So basically you want the freedom to do whatever you want, and to hell with how it affects anyone else.

    • 0 avatar
      kenwood

      I’m totally fine with Darwinism, but those brain deficient meat-sacks then become a 200 lb projectiles that could hit an innocent who actually has a purpose and a reason to live.

    • 0 avatar
      carlisimo

      Someone has to clean up that mess, and the rest of us have to sit in the traffic jam it causes. So no, I hope they don’t lift those regulations.

      As for why the government has the right to tell you to wear a seat belt – the roads haven’t been privatized yet. It’d actually be pretty interesting to have a private toll road with no rules that we could compare it to a parallel public road. On some days you could do 120mph, but you’d probably have a greater incidence of accidents and traffic jams.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Remove that plastic laminated mid-layer and it makes it much easier to go through the windshield. As it stands, traumatic tattooing makes plastic surgeons a lot of money.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    This is a step in the right direction. The NHTSA was allows to become an activist organization, doing whatever they wanted, requiring whatever they wanted with no consequence.

    There are features that make sense but certainly shouldn’t be mandated by the government like back up cameras, stability control, or the absolute worst, tire pressure sensors. Those of us that know how to drive don’t need these nannies and would rather not pay for them.

    On the flip side of that, if its a feature I do want, then I’m more than willing to pay for it.

    • 0 avatar
      VW4motion

      Please remove the seat belts from your autos. Just deregulate yourself. And make sure you have auto insurance. Don’t like seeing my taxes pay for ignorance.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “Those of us that know how to drive don’t need these nannies and would rather not pay for them”

      Statistically only 3-5% of drivers are excellent drivers. 33% are poor to fair (i.e.should not have a drivers licence). The rest are just so so average.

      Ironically, most think that they are good to excellent when asked to rate their driving skills.

      @EBFlex, Statistically, you ain’t in that 3-5%.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Statistics source?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @28-Cars-Later – it was from an article I read decades ago. Those numbers have always stuck in my head especially the part where the vast majority of drivers think that they are much better than they actually are.

          I found this more recent article:
          http://www. prnewswire. com/news-releases/new-allstate-survey-shows-americans-think-they-are-great-drivers—habits-tell-a-different-story-126563103.html

  • avatar
    operagost

    Please, please stop interviewing Joan Claybrook. There have been like 12 NHTSA administrators since her. Automobiles have been getting safer all the time, and none of those people have introduced regulations as stupid and useless as her 85 MPH speedometer. She is a hack lawyer who knows Ralph Nader, which is why she’s the sweetheart of the media.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    “Those include the modern standard for rear-view mirrors and backup cameras in passenger cars, mandatory electronic stability-control units for heavy trucks…”

    Brilliant! Who needs rear backup cameras in vehicles with less and ,ess rearward visibility, OR FRIVOLOUS ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL FOR HEAVY TRUCKS!

    WINNING!

    #MAGA! (should be Make America Catch Down To DevelopING Nation Status Again, or MACDTDNA!)

    So much winning! We’re already tired of the WINNING!

    Among other items to be 86ed if Tumptardian Guard gets way (along with throwing 20 million, for starters, to be ratcheted up to as many as 100 million, who currently have health insurance that’s even somewhat accessible, at least for emergency care, completely off insurability rolls).

    Bring on the Hecho En China 2019 Ford Focus with no ESC, crumple zones, or power steering or brakes, too! Bring back radial tires and plain glass for the windshield, too!

    Bring back so many coal burning power plants that Boston & Dallas & Philadelphia look like Beijing, MOTHERF*CKERS!

    MAGA MOTHERF8CKERS WINNING SO MUCH!

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      People who know how to drive is who doesn’t need those things snowflake.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Both political parties are full of dishonest and/or moronic scumbags,whether Clintons, Schumers, Pelosis, Trumps, MCConnellTurtle, or whomever…

      They work, ultimately, for the same powerful entities (corporations and deep silicon valley technology firms and deep state agencies and MIC and gov’t managerial class in Imperial City), but utilize slightly different tactics to maintain their OGILOPOLY that the Dem OR Repubs sh!tsystem imposes on 95% of Americans.

      But we’re going to get hit very hard again with an economic downturn, this time cause by an inflationary lightning rod (I’m seeing it form on the horizon in real time, in the trenches of commercial real estate, government’funded projects, gov’t spending in general, you underfunded pensions/retirement plans in both private and public sector, health care, housing, etc spikes – 54% of Americans now spend 50% or more of their NET carbonation rent/housing alone), and there’s less buffer to absorb the shock or respond this time with fed funds rate so low (it was at 5.25% in 2008; plenty of room to cut – all the way down to 0.25% in fact, as of 2014 . We’ve had rates pegged near the zero bound or below in real terms for almost 10 years now).

      Governments, corporations (yes, check out their debt-to-liquidity ratios) and households are all in a much worse position now, even with a largely financial assets’ inflationary boom for the last 5 1/2 years, than they were in 2008 to deal with another economic downturn.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy67

      What’s wrong with radial tires?

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Rather simple question, compare the number and type of safety improvements taht were voluntarily put into production by D3 auto manufacturers as compared to the safety improvements that they utilize due to legislation.

    Once you have done this, you can determine if government oversight is a positive.

    As for legislating against stupidity, if it only cost those who are/were stupid then fine, let them go without. However instead it costs all of society in emergency services, legal services, medical and living support costs, lost productivity and time spent closing the road to conduct collision/crash investigations.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “As for legislating against stupidity, if it only cost those who are/were stupid then fine, let them go without. However instead it costs all of society…”

      So where do you draw the line on potential regulations (if anywhere)?

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        why the F does there have to be a “line?”

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          I guess what I mean by “line” is are there any aspects in life that shouldn’t be subject to potential legislation even if the situation means costs to society exist?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            I guess what I mean is that I’m sick of people trotting out “where do you draw the line” slippery-slope arguments. There doesn’t have to be a “line.” Christ, listening to some of you it’s like you think if we allow NHTSA to mandate rear view cameras today, then by tomorrow Obama is going to be rounding up everyone’s kids into re-education work camps.

            Just be honest and say the real reason you don’t like it. Which is that you don’t want anyone telling you what to do. Most of us go through that phase but get over it after adolescence, when we grow up and realize living in a modern society is “give and take,” and not just “take take take mine mine MINE” like the current crop of 70 year old children running things believes.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “There doesn’t have to be a ‘line.’ ”

            That’s all I was asking, Jim.

            Maybe I didn’t articulate myself properly and maybe I was pushing the topic too far beyond the world of cars, but you’ve got me pegged way wrong.

            I don’t know why you have such a short fuse on TTAC but you don’t need to go into full internet snarky anger mode over so much.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Cost/benefit seems to make the most sense.

        Serious car accidents have immense financial consequences, which we all end up sharing to some extent or another. If an upfront investment of a few hundred dollars saves hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses, property damage, lost time and productivity, etc., then the investment can make sense.

  • avatar
    chaparral

    Could we get rid of the unbelted 30 MPH frontal impact standard? Can we also require logging of belted/unbelted data and not count injuries/deaths of unbelted drivers against automakers’ safety statistics?

    In 1970 only NHTSA pushed safety advances forward against drivers’ and automakers’ preferences. By now the drivers and insurance companies are at least pushing for safety advances.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @chaparral – the odds of suffering a fatal injury in a crash multiply exponentially at speeds greater than 20 mph.
      Ever wonder why the speed limit is set at 20 mph in school zones?

      There are three collisions in a crash.
      1. Vehicle strikes object.
      2. Occupant of vehicle strikes interior of vehicle.
      3. Vital internal organs strike rigid skeletal structure/tear internal anchor points.

      Seatbelts help keep you from striking the interior of the vehicle and slow deceleration forces on the body. That reduces the damage at point 2 and reduces the odds of point 3 from occurring.

      • 0 avatar
        chaparral

        Lou,

        I agree with you. That’s why I say that the UNBELTED safety standards should be the ones to be ditched first.

        If I don’t have to protect the occupants in a crash where they’re not wearing their seatbelts, I can build a smaller cabin with a windshield that’s closer to the driver, helping visibility.

      • 0 avatar
        operagost

        There is no federal standard for speed limit in school zones.

        I have seen the speed limit, when students are “present”, be anywhere from 15 to 25 MPH.

        I wonder if politics have more to do with school zone speed limits than engineering.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    I am tired of these “safety groups”

    I should be able to choose if I want a backup camera or not.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Personally, I detest back-up cameras. Our newest vehicle has one and at night, when I start backing up, it startles me when the screen turns on and I catch it in my peripheral vision. It registers as headlights coming right at me. I of course do not use it and back up the same way I have for decades.

      Back-up cameras, to me remove a skill, which is never a good thing. Like youngsters not learning cursive writing in primary school. A good idea in theory, except that exams at all levels are still ‘hand written’.

      Other safety measures that I would prefer to live without include air pressure monitors, which just add another cost to those of us in the Great White North who use winter tires and rims.

      However, I would not allow my children to drive/ride in vehicles that do not have have adequate crash test scores, air bags/curtains, active head restraints, ABS, traction and stability control.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @Arthur Dailey: Personally, I detest back-up cameras.

        All of my vehicles have the cameras. Not just backup, but surround as well along with lines superimposed for distance and tracking.

        Just last week, I was parallel parking with using the rear view, surround view, and the mirrors. Looking through the cameras, I spotted this metal stake about 2 feet high kind of partially bent over the edge of the pavement. Just the right position to give my rear quarter panel a scratch. I saw it in the surround view and stopped. I tried checking the mirrors, but there was no way to see the thing. The right mirror was too high up to see it. The camera sure saw it and saved me from a scratch.

        The nose camera can be handy for situations when I’m at a relatives house and we’re trying to squeeze as many cars as possible into the driveway. I’ve also used the surround view to squeeze between cars gridlocked and blocking an intersection. The green lines superimposed on the screen from the nose camera tell me if I can make it. I’ve squeezed through some really tight spots with the surround helping when I’m between the cars. Not for the feint of heart, but sometimes driving in the city ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          @mcs: And what happens when a driver becomes dependent upon them and they malfunction or fail? Ice and snow are known to have caused this to occur. And as vehicles age, their cameras will become less reliable.

          Will we have a generation of drivers who don’t know how to back up without a camera or who don’t know how to check their blindspot?

          Assistance is one thing, but dependency is a totally different matter. I prefer that my kids learn/know how to drive without them (and how to use 3 pedals).

          When you drove past your parking spot prior to preparing to back in (parallel park) in it, were you unable to see that broken post/stake? Just askin’.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Sorry for the last sentence, a little snarky. But the site won’t let me delete it.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            The stake was probably the lower part of a sign that had been ripped off and from the street view, it wasn’t very thick. The car immediately behind that space was blocking any view of it when I went by. Also, it was low so the width of my vehicle combined with the height of the door put the stake at an angle I couldn’t see.

            Also, I want to point out that I use my mirrors as well as the camera system. I actually paused a minute trying to find the stake in the mirrors because I thought it was something weird with the camera. I even had the passenger take a look and she couldn’t see it.

            Cameras are really reliable. My daughter has a camera on her 10-year-old car and it’s fine. My nose camera can get dirty or snow covered and same with the rear camera. The airflow keeps the side cameras clean and does a decent job with the fronts and rears. I apply rainx to help out.

            One thing that mirrors can’t beat is the night vision capabilities. I can definitely see better with the cameras at night. Amazing views in the dark.

            Oh, and if you think outward visibility in modern vehicles sucks. I drove a 1966 Town Landau Thunderbird this weekend. No side rear window and tiny mirrors. Right side rear visibility was pretty bad.

            You might like your hand crank starter, manual choke, and tiller steering, but I’ll take power assisted steering with a wheel, electric start, and other modern conveniences.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Last week drove in a car with side view assist. Suddenly, the image stuck. So, if you don’t realize it has malfunctioned, you may make wrong decision if you rely on it. Your eyes are better.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        I love the backup camera on my pickup.

        How do they remove skill?

        They are just one more tool to enhance one’s abilities but like anything else, they can be misused by lazy/poor drivers.

        As far as them getting covered in snow or debris rendering them useless, so can mirrors and windows.

      • 0 avatar
        boozysmurf

        Honestly, I was right with you… until I bought a ’16 F150 4×4.

        While I agree that proper understanding of how to back up a car is essential (ie. skill) and no one should rely solely on the screen in the dashboard, it’s a hell of a useful tool in the toolbox. Between that, my existing skills (and I’ve parallel parked 5-ton tankers), and really good mirrors, it’s a great addition to the things that provide visibility all-round the vehicle.

        You still need to use your mirrors to see where the sides of the vehicle are in relation to other things, and you still need to be aware of where the front end is swinging, as well – the camera absolutely doesn’t help with that.

        It does take some getting used to, and it does feel incredibly disconnected and unnatural to look down at the dash, rather than over my shoulder, but the reality is, I can’t see anything within six feet of the back of the truck, no matter how hard I look. With the camera, I can park within an inch of something with no danger of hitting it (I can also drop the hitch exactly where I want it, because I can see the hitch/receiver on the trailer).

        So, for me, it doesn’t remove a skill, rather it augments one.

        Whether people are being taught the skill properly in the first place (I don’t believe they are – driver education is atrociously bad right now) is an entirely different question.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          @boozysmurf’s final paragraph illustrates that point that I was albeit clumsily trying to make.

          Eventually nearly all new drivers will have learned to drive on vehicles with cameras. They will quite possibly never been taught/learned/practiced manual methods of backing up/changing lanes/etc.

          Without that skill they will become dependent on the technology, which is not 100% foolproof or reliable. Akin to the self-driving argument. And for better or worse, even at my advanced age, I believe that self-driving vehicles will be the norm, before I give up my ‘keys’.

          • 0 avatar
            carlisimo

            You still fail your driving exam if you reverse without looking over your shoulder, even in a car with a rear view camera.

  • avatar
    mcs

    Does anyone seriously think that the OEMs are going to pass along to us even a single cent of whatever they save from deleting safety equipment?

    • 0 avatar
      alff

      Yes. The auto industry is overbuilt and highly competitive. Absent collusion (which would be difficult to engineer across so many participants), significant cost decreases will eventually be reflected in sale prices.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “Those include the modern standard for rear-view mirrors” Fake news, you can’t see out of the cars at all so what is a rear-view mirror going to do?

    Here are some real safety standards:

    1. Drivers must be able to sufficiently see out of every window in their field of vision and all retractable windows must be of a minimum glass height/area.
    2. Headlights cannot be brighter than X lumens on pain of felony.
    3. Tires must be of a minimum thickness of three inches when sold. No exceptions.

    What else?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I’m thinking “secure foam,” like they had in “Demolition Man.”

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Here are some real safety standards:

      1. Drivers must be able to sufficiently see out of every window in their field of vision and all retractable windows must be of a minimum glass height/area.
      2. Headlights cannot be brighter than X lumens on pain of felony.
      3. Tires must be of a minimum thickness of three inches when sold. No exceptions.”

      then you’ll complain about how regulations are making cars all look the same.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        We’re already there, besides styling != safety.

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          Indeed, we crossed that bridge a long time ago. Everything from the rear quarters to the front bumper is heavily regulated for both passenger/pedestrian safety and to help after accident repairs on a vehicle.

          Its a wonder the industry has been able to do what they do.

  • avatar
    raph

    Sweet the personal responsibility bootstrappers are finally getting that much needed traction they’ve been talking about. Now if the administration would just make seat belts, ABS/TCS/ESC optional as well as crash absorbing structures they could get the sub 3000 pound full size brodozer they are looking for at a price point where they can finally afford it after the steel mill shut down.

    Trump mak’n ‘murica great again!

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • turbo_awd: Good one, Karen.. Yeah, Covid + crazy wildfires and we had a couple of days of possibly not enough...
  • Old_WRX: “two big nostrils” Maybe the same people who make those eyelash things people put on cars like...
  • mcs: The roadster will be lighter and faster than the plaid S. Hopefully smaller too.
  • karonetwentyc: Speaking as an ex-California resident: Governor Newsom, California can’t even keep the lights on...
  • karonetwentyc: Shame that my 60th Anniversary XJ was totalled in a flash flood. It could have shown these...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber