50 thoughts on “How To Know That The Federal Government Is Too Big”
It was a bit of a culture shock coming from CA to AZ the first time I saw a car on the road without a body. In CA they stop you if your tires extend beyond the fender.
Hey, that power is enumerated in the Commerce Clause! At least so I have been told by people, who claim to be liberal…
Well, since the feds can regulate what lightbulbs you can buy, and what toilet you can buy, its no suprise that the government has got crappy standards for cars as well.
Thank goodness we’re keeping the government out of our bedrooms, as they’ve already taken over the bathroom and the garage.
The article doesn’t explain why exactly they are banned. Since Euro safety specs are often better than those in the USA, I wonder if it has to do with making the roads safe for other drivers. I hope so. How so? Well, non-standard lighting comes to mind.
Leland, I’ve been told by people who claim to be libertarians that “driving is privilege, not a right”, which Ken Anthony and I apparently agree is completely contrary to what this country stands for.
If the bans do have to do with the safety of the car’s occupants, I don’t see how it is any different than building safety codes — are you against those too?
Well, gee, Aaron, if they can force you to buy their medical insurance, they already own your ass regardless of which room it’s in…
Apologies if the important distinction was between the tyranny of the Federal government vs the tyranny of state and local governments.
I guess the one irony I buy into is the difficulty importing a Trabbie.
A person would want one as, for what else, as a trophy of the triumph of Capitalism and Democracy over Socialism and Dictatorship, and guess what, you can’t have one.
But I suppose there is the 25-year-old Trabbant exception to work with if one wanted a Victory Over Socialism trophy.
If that’s the wired piece I think it is, I’m finding myself wondering why they never got into the whole situation with the fuel-efficient diesels you can’t buy here if you wanted to.
Limiting importation of cars to those that meet “US specs” is nothing new. I encountered that in 1980 when I wanted to bring home a car from Germany. The car, a Capri, had actually been built in Germany, imported legally to the US, and shipped back to Germany by some GI. At some point, the sticker that showed the car met US emissions standards was lost or painted over. Because it was missing, I was told that I’d have to post a bond equal to the value of the car and have it smog tested when it arrived in the country. Since it had been in Germany (which at the time didn’t have unleaded fuel) for some time, I had no way of knowing whether it would meet the pollution requirements or not. I abandoned my efforts to bring the car home and sold it instead. Damned shame – it was a fun little car that cruised at 120 MPH on the Autobahn and still got pretty good gas mileage.
Likewise, I remember reading stories about a much younger Bill Gates and his attempts to bring a very expensive sports car to the US. This was back in the 1980s, IIRC.
“US specs” can cover many things including emissions requirements, safety, and even the type of headlights. I think some of it is a form of protectionism to keep some cars out of the country. Companies like VW, Honda, Toyota, etc., spend a lot of money getting some of their cars certified to US specs so they can be sold here. For those cars they don’t think will sell well here, they don’t bother so they can’t be legally imported. On recent trips overseas, I saw quite a few big brand cars that aren’t sold in the US for one reason or another.
I might give a crap if I knew WHY they were banned. As far as I can tell the ban amounts to two things- The Fed has safety standards, and these cars were not tested against those standards.
So is Rand opposed to safety standards generally? Would you prefer the States did that (and we have 50 conflicting standards)? Should there be an automatic waiver for cars that meet the safety standards from certain countries?
What exactly is the complaint here? Personally I’m quite content with government imposed minimum-safety requirements in cars. Or do we want to go back to a world where a 40 mph accident would 90% likely kill all of the occupants of a car?
I have no problem with safety standards per se. I have a big problem with the government telling me whether or not a vehicle I purchase must adhere to them.
Rand, do you have a problem with the government saying “if you purchase this car we think is unsafe, you can’t operate it on public roads until you make it safe” ?
Brock, I agree with you, but if you compare crash test reports, you might be shocked by how much variation already exists on the US market. Some cars are just dramatically safer than other cars, even if you compare cars that have almost exactly the same mass. Note that you have to look past the 5 star ratings when looking at crash reports and get into more specific numbers like “head injury criteria”. It is really hard for the ordinary consumer to assess how safe their car is, and private organizations like the IIHS aren’t doing enough to inform the public (because they don’t perform certain tests, this is true even if you spend hours analyzing the data they helpfully provide on their website!) More regulation would save lives.
Bob, your insurance company has the resources you don’t have. Back in the 90s, I was picking a new car from several selections, so I called up my insurance agent to see which cars had the higher premiums. At the time I considered the Geo Metro (due to its gas mileage and low cost), but it had a much higher insurance cost than a considerably more expensive Nissan Sentra.
Rand, do you have a problem with the government saying “if you purchase this car we think is unsafe, you can’t operate it on public roads until you make it safe” ?
I have a problem with the federal government doing that. It also depends on for whom it is “unsafe.” There’s a difference between third-party and first-party. If by “unsafe,” you mean have a higher probability of causing an accident affecting others, then that’s a legitimate regulation on public roads, but not crash protection for occupants. That’s nannyism.
Let safety be market driven instead of mandated. Like Karl pointed out, insurance companies will price their policies based on the risk of injury or death, making dangerous vehicles more expensive.
People make their own decisions about the level of risk they’re willing to accept. Motorcycle ridership appears to be increasing despite the much greater risk of injury or death in an accident. If we allow the government to mandate safety standards, wouldn’t it stand to reason that such “obviously unsafe” things as being a motorcyclist, skydiver, private pilot, etc. should be outlawed?
If we’re worried about the safety of others and not just the occupants of a vehicle, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we’d outlaw those vehicles that are much larger and more massive than the average car? You could be riding in a “tested safe” minivan or small car and still get your day ruined if you’re struck by a big Suburban or 18-wheeler?
The point is, at what point do we prohibit people from making their own choices because we don’t approve of them or they’re too dangerous? Do we really want a government (federal or state) that has that kind of power?
Note the title of this article. Effectively the federal government has criminalized the possession of certain vehicles. It’s not about driving unsafe vehicles on roads.
The ‘government’ isn’t concerned with safety. It’s lifelong bureaucrats and liberal control freaks who are concerned with safety.
And IF safety was the primary concern, MPG would go out the window and safety would go first. Hummers would be THE car to have or a something like a Suburban. Cars like a Kia Rio would be closer to the bottom of the list of “Cars the Government Loves”.
But we’re about safety sometimes, MPG later, and emissions last Wednesday and the next two Thursdays.
I think Der Schtumpy has the measure. If the issue truly is regulating safety standards; then that would be understandable. Agree with Rand that although some are talking about first party safety (owner of the car); we should only be talking about third party safety (other drivers on the road and property owners). It is the latter that causes people to claim driving [on public roads] is a priviledge rather than a right. I’m not sure how the Honda Beat poses a threat to other motorists as compared to the Chevy Volt.
Back to Der Schtumpy, during the Bush era while people were complaining about foreign oil and Kyoto; the Volkswagen TDI vehicles were banned because they didn’t meet diesel emission standards. They were just as safe as their non-TDI Volkswagen models (a Jetta with or without TDI has the same safety systems). They also got mileage over 40 mpg and sometimes up to 50 mpg. They also ran on almost any type of fuel oil.
The Feds and Volkswagen eventually worked things out, and the TDI is back in the US. But what was gained by banning it to begin with?
Building safety codes protect unsuspecting occupants from unsafe but hidden construction problems. Car safety regulations intended to protect the occupants similarly protect the unsuspecting — for example, the babysitter you are driving home (speaking of nannies!) A compromise might be to make information more available to enable informed consent — a red license plate might indicate a car that doesn’t conform to code. I don’t know if building codes can be violated with the equivalent of a red license plate….
Building codes primarily apply to new construction or when an older building is being renovated. There are untold thousands of older buildings in America that don’t meet current building codes. Many of them have been standing for decades and yet they don’t fall down. Codes are only as good as they account for realistically expected local conditions (e.g. earthquakes near fault lines, snow loads, etc.) and are only as good as their enforcement. It’s far from an unheard of case when a building inspector chooses to look the other way in response to financial offers.
In general aviation (everything from hang gliders to business jets), there are certain classes of vehicles that typically are less safe than others. For example, there are well over 10,000 homebuilt aircraft* licensed to operate in the US. All of them are required to have the word “experimental” displayed prominently on the outside and to have a passenger warning placard in the cockpit stating the plane was amateur built and does not comply with the federal safety standards that apply to standard built aircraft. If it’s good enough for aircraft, why wouldn’t a simplar approach be good enough for cars?
*Since the FAA started licensing homebuilt aircraft about 50 years ago, over 30,000 have been licensed. The 10,000 number is my guess at the current number in regular operation.
The FAA even requires operators to notify all passengers of the safety capabilities of the aircraft prior to operation, whether it is an experimental vehicle or not. Indeed, it is part of the training and testing to get a license, which is a privilege and not a right. The FAA, however, does not provide a voter registration card when you receive your license.
Leland,
I’m not sure how old you are. But during the Oil Embargo, we heard daily that diesel was THE way to go. No emission checks needed, the exhaust ‘washed’ out of the air when it rained. No harm, no foul. And they were good on fuel mileage.
Diesel does cost a little more, but IF we had more diesel vehicles, we’d make more diesel and the prices would just about match at some point. Then, more people would go diesel…it would get cheaper still, more diesels, cheaper yet again, no emission problems, less maintenance, cheaper in the long run.
Financially it makes sense, engineering wise it makes sense.
However, somewhere along the line, diesel emissions became JUST as harmful as gasoline engine emissions, and fuel mileage quit getting touted as a driving factor, even though everyone knows it’s better.
I seem to remember that “…Americans don’t want diesel engines, because they were sluggish, no pickup, not racey enough”, etc. That was the late ’70s, but just a few years later, we were all driving minivans that weren’t all that racey anyway.
Oddly, many of the minivans we had here, came with diesels as a choice in Europe, but not here. The bad part about emissions is that if people would just keep their ride tuned up, the emissions WOULD be OK.
Oh well.
I would have expected libertarians to balk at regulations requiring informative placards — such regulations still shifts responsibility for one’s safety from the individual to the state, and reduces the liberty of the vehicle owner. No?
Bobbi-Wan Kenobi is calling y’all out on your “hypocricy.” Run for it.
Leland,
even pretty restrained interpretations of Congressional powers allow Congress to restrict imports, including classes of vehicles. Doesn’t mean its a good idea, but this isn’t some kind of constitutional overreach.
I would have expected libertarians to balk at regulations requiring informative placards — such regulations still shifts responsibility for one’s safety from the individual to the state, and reduces the liberty of the vehicle owner. No?
Which is more restrictive to individual liberty?
1. Requiring the owner to install a warning placard in vehicles that don’t meet government requirements, or
2. The government prohibiting you from owning those vehicles in the first place.
The first is perhaps an inconvience. The second is dictatorial. Any more stupid questions?
such regulations still shifts responsibility for one’s safety from the individual to the state
OK Bobbi, I’ll bite. How is the states responsibility higher because of the existence of the placard? It would be lower with no placard?
Safety has three aspects. Safety of the driver – frankly I don’t give a damn about that; if you want to risk killing yourself it’s your choice. Safety of the passengers is a little more problematic. They may have little choice about whether to get in the car for various reasons, and may not know enough about the vehicle to make informed decisions. The third aspect is safety of other vehicles’ occupants and also pedestrians. To illustrate this point: In the UK, some years ago, “bull-bars” were outright banned on any vehicle. The fashion came from Australia, I believe, where they are called roo-bars and in some places they have a genuine use in preventing damage when the car hits a kangaroo. In the UK, the only large animal you are likely to hit is the bipedal kind – and it is known that relatively low-speed impacts on pedestrians by a car with these things fitted are quite likely to kill or severely injure the pedestrian. Hence the ban.
The issue is rather similar to the requirement for annual inspections of vehicles over a certain age – in the UK, it’s 3 years for ordinary cars.
As an example, I would hate to be anywhere near a Trabant. I would imagine that its brakes are pitiful, for a start. Equally, I would hate to be anywhere near a 10-year-old banger which has never been serviced or inspected.
I used a poor choice of words – I didn’t mean “legal responsibility” so much as what Rand called nannyism. And no, I wasn’t trying to point out hypocrisy so much as I actually wondered whether any of you are in favor of the placards as opposed to considering them a lesser evil. I take responsibility for not being clear about that. Why it might matter to you: “lesser evils” can be viewed as the nose of the camel. On the other hand, if you’re in favor of the placards, then hey, look, you just find common ground with a self-admitted liberal, and maybe that’s a reason for hope (and change).
After some reflection, I’m going to backpedal: safety advocates argue that by making certain safety equipment mandatory, it created an economy of scale that lowered the cost to the point where people can actually afford safer cars. If we allowed non-NHSTA-approved cars into the USA, why not allow their production here too? Once we allow that (which would clearly make car makers more free), safety equipment would only be widespread if the market demanded it (I’m trying to phrase this like a libertarian). I *know* car companies lie about safety, and I can see that the government is better at regulating than educating, so I think we would end up where Brock suggested we would be — where affordable cars wouldn’t be safe. I feel bad about being a nanny but I’d feel worse if the fatal accident rate went up.
I’m trying to phrase this like a libertarian
It’s misty bob. But I guess everyone needs a goal. I think you’ve chosen wisely.
I’m picturing Bobbi-Wan hunkered down in the underbrush, wearing all the crap he bought at REI earlier that day and speaking like David Attenborough.
gay bashing are not required.
Oh, thank goodness — my arm was getting tired there…
I know several people who work in Chicago city government. All are Democrats. When they were brainstorming, I suggested “Have a ‘think like a Republican day,’ and see if you come up with ideas you wouldn’t have otherwise.”
There is a not-so-insignificant difference between “Think like Democrats claim a Republican thinks” and “Think like a Republican actually thinks”.
And then, of course, it depends on which Republican you use as an example. There’s a pretty large swing in viewpoints from Reagan to McCain to Bush I to Bush II to……
“the Volkswagen TDI vehicles were banned because they didn’t meet diesel emission standards.”
In other words they were smelly. So, the gov’t imposed a lower particulate count for sulfides. Not even the TDI could avoid those restrictions so it stopped being imported. Mercedes and others went off to develop intricate catalyst systems using auxiliary power sources or urea solutions to neutralize the sulfides and not make them stink any more. But then, the fuel industry started producing low sulfide diesel fuels (along with some modifications to the fueling) and suddenly the TDI was able to meet the emissions standards. Mercedes still went ahead and released their diesel that uses a urea solution to clean the exhaust. Of course, that has to be annoying to have yet another light come up on your dash telling you that your urea is low. And you can’t just stop off at 7-eleven to get a big gulp and top off your urea by yourself either. You have to go to the dealership and have a tech top off your urea for your.
John, as to your first point: Sure, that’s the point of Curt’s article. But at least some Republicans have the goal of explaining their philosophy (usually in the hopes of being persuasive), and if non-Republicans try to receive the message as well as they can (because they are trying to learn), I think it can be a productive experience. Obviously, I also think you can substitute Republicans and non-Republicans with any other two political groups.
As to your second point: Good! As long as people note the differences, there is more to think about, and it also implies that groups within a larger political party can learn from each other.
Bob-1 Says:
“I used a poor choice of words – I didn’t mean “legal responsibility” so much as what Rand called nannyism. And no, I wasn’t trying to point out hypocrisy so much as I actually wondered whether any of you are in favor of the placards as opposed to considering them a lesser evil.”
Bob it’s important to remember that Libertarians adhere to the notion that ” your freedom ends at my nose”. So it’s not like Libertarians are totally against any government regulation. Since we are talking about the passenger’s nose and not the aircraft owner’s, an Experimental Placard for passengers is not considered (by this Libertarian, at least) as a problem.
As a pilot, I am aware of just how clueless non-pilots can be about airplanes. Especially small planes. So when I take a newbie up for a ride, I give him/her a thorough briefing and invite them to follow me around as I do the pre-flight check, and I talk them through the run-up that I’m doing.
When you tell them, during the preflight, that you are checking that each bolt has a locknut and cotter pin (or some locking mechanism), it suddenly dawns on them what sort of disasters can occur. Most people do not pre-flight their car. They become both apprehensive and reassured…apprehensive that there are a myriad of disasters they never thought of; re-assured that I’m being thorough in my check.
So a placard letting them know that a particular airplane they are about to ride in is “experimental” doesn’t seem like a huge problem or limit to freedom to me. In fact it’s the opposite.
if non-Republicans try to receive the message as well as they can (because they are trying to learn), I think it can be a productive experience.
I feel bad about being a nanny but I’d feel worse if the fatal accident rate went up.
Bob, do yourself a favor. Cut the tags off those new REI threads and run them through the wash before putting them on and venturing out.
And really, your problem isn’t learning stuff, it’s UN-learning what’s already in there.
…protect the unsuspecting…
You believe this to be the role of government? Talk about unlimited costs.
Gregg,
I’m always very impressed with the preflight every time I get to fly with a private pilot. I think the only issue here regarding libertarianism involves what the relationship should be between the government and the passenger,or the government and the pilot. I think you’re describing the relationship between the pilot and the passenger.
Curt,
Those words you boldfaced indicate that I know I’m expressing an opinion. Too often, when engineers talk about politics, they express opinions as facts. Or rather, I think that when engineers talk about politics, they express opinions as facts. Since no one agrees about facts or opinions, it really just comes down to trying to sound less confrontational. But of course, it gets me nowhere, because on this blog, if you offer to shake hands, someone will bite off your fingers.
Bob-1 Says:
” I think the only issue here regarding libertarianism involves what the relationship should be between the government and the passenger,or the government and the pilot. I think you’re describing the relationship between the pilot and the passenger. ”
I did both actually.
I am describing the connection the government has to this issue (my first and last paragraph) and that I’m ok with it.
I gave my personal anecdote (middle paragraphs) to illuminate how clueless a passenger can be (I don’t mean that cluelessness to be a pejorative).
Your statement about your feelings regarding being a nanny and accident rates was a statement of fact. And it indicates your viewpoint. This: I *know* car companies lie about safety, on the other hand was just thrown in for effect. And then: no one agrees about facts.
I think it is you who are confused with the difference between fact and opinion.
And believe me, if I decide to bite off your fingers, you’ll know it.
I do know that car companies lie about safety. Toyota is particularly egregious, and I’m not referring to anything regarding unintended acceleration. They advertise the Camry as one of the safest cars on the road, and yet in the 2011 NHSTA tests, it ranked the worst of any of the cars they initially tested (they revised the test in 2011, and only tested a handful of very popular cars to initiate the new test). Toyota re-released the Camry with revisions in response to such low scores. Other car makers, who didn’t revise their design after the tests came out still did better than the revised Camry. This pattern occurs again and again at Toyota — with both IIHS and NHSTA tests, their revised designs still don’t do as well as the original offerings from other makers. Compare Subaru and Toyota models with very similar mass to see what a difference there is in head injury criteria scores and other injury scores (especially notable, since Toyota in a partership with Fuji Heavy Industries). Toyota doesn’t offer the safest cars on the road and they say that they do. It is a fact that they lie.
Bob-1:
The question isn’t: “Do companies lie?”
The important question is: “How do you curb such behavior consistent with maximum personal liberty acknowledging the attendant personal responsibility?”
Gregg: The answer to that question is to make the people in the corporation who make decisions or tell lies, with an adverse outcome for someone else, personally liable. End the corporate responsibility copout.
If someone dies because of such a decision – life in jail, because it’s manslaughter. If someone dies because of a deliberate coverup that’s in itself illegal – that’s murder. And should be treated as such.
“The prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully”.
Fletcher Christian Says:
“Gregg: The answer to that question is to make the people in the corporation who make decisions or tell lies, with an adverse outcome for someone else, personally liable. End the corporate responsibility copout.”
Well yeah. But that doesn’t answer the question:
HOW?
Some people rely on the government to do that and are willing to trade liberty for absolution of responsibility. My point is that people have to demand good service from all agencies, and vote with their feet, wallet or what have you.
Too many people are willing to accept crummy service.
Or hope that the government fixes it. But when you ask the government to do that, you’ve created a need for more taxes to pay the new bureaucracy that just got created, which now has been given the power to cause an action to occur using the one uber-tool we’ve given government: Force.
And that same bunch of people can be bought (just like any other bunch of people) by a special interest. So they get to use force to cause an action you might not even want.
Today when the MSM sees a problem or disaster, in it’s community, the essential point of the article is, “How awful! What is the government going to do about it?”
when they ought to be saying:
“How awful, what are WE going to do about it?”
In my opinion, it was not the actions of the Japanese Government which caused it’s citizenry to behave so well during the tsunami. It was the culture.
Der Schtumpy: I remember the diesel arguments. Indeed, I had to re-educate my wife recently, but she still insisted on buying me a gasoline fueled vehicle rather than a TDI.
MrMandais: even pretty restrained interpretations of Congressional powers allow Congress to restrict imports, including classes of vehicles. Doesn’t mean its a good idea, but this isn’t some kind of constitutional overreach.
Ok. Did you have some doubt that I didn’t understand this? Was that doubt generated by comments I made, or comments made by Bob implying what I might have thought? It’s not an overreach, but it is neither liberal nor a good idea. I believe that was the point I made.
Gregg, I was referring to unsafe goods. Caveat Emptor is all very well, but it presupposes that the buyer can actually tell the difference. You’re buying basic tools? Then sure, you ought to be able to tell the good from the bad. But how are you going to tell in advance that you are buying a car with a design fault that means it blows up if you have a minor rear-end collision? (For example.)
In such a case as this, law enforcement ought to be allowed and expected to find the people responsible and deal with them effectively. And IMHO, safety regulations are a essential part of govenment – although there can obviously be debate about the number of them.
It was a bit of a culture shock coming from CA to AZ the first time I saw a car on the road without a body. In CA they stop you if your tires extend beyond the fender.
Hey, that power is enumerated in the Commerce Clause! At least so I have been told by people, who claim to be liberal…
Well, since the feds can regulate what lightbulbs you can buy, and what toilet you can buy, its no suprise that the government has got crappy standards for cars as well.
Thank goodness we’re keeping the government out of our bedrooms, as they’ve already taken over the bathroom and the garage.
The article doesn’t explain why exactly they are banned. Since Euro safety specs are often better than those in the USA, I wonder if it has to do with making the roads safe for other drivers. I hope so. How so? Well, non-standard lighting comes to mind.
Leland, I’ve been told by people who claim to be libertarians that “driving is privilege, not a right”, which Ken Anthony and I apparently agree is completely contrary to what this country stands for.
Aaron, I assume you’re being sarcastic, but if not: I recently posted this here: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-361
Similar laws in many other states. I’ve even seen claims that people have recently been prosecuted but I haven’t looked into it. Very bizarre.
I do believe this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
is completely wrong (see discussion notes).
If the bans do have to do with the safety of the car’s occupants, I don’t see how it is any different than building safety codes — are you against those too?
Well, gee, Aaron, if they can force you to buy their medical insurance, they already own your ass regardless of which room it’s in…
Apologies if the important distinction was between the tyranny of the Federal government vs the tyranny of state and local governments.
I guess the one irony I buy into is the difficulty importing a Trabbie.
A person would want one as, for what else, as a trophy of the triumph of Capitalism and Democracy over Socialism and Dictatorship, and guess what, you can’t have one.
But I suppose there is the 25-year-old Trabbant exception to work with if one wanted a Victory Over Socialism trophy.
If that’s the wired piece I think it is, I’m finding myself wondering why they never got into the whole situation with the fuel-efficient diesels you can’t buy here if you wanted to.
Limiting importation of cars to those that meet “US specs” is nothing new. I encountered that in 1980 when I wanted to bring home a car from Germany. The car, a Capri, had actually been built in Germany, imported legally to the US, and shipped back to Germany by some GI. At some point, the sticker that showed the car met US emissions standards was lost or painted over. Because it was missing, I was told that I’d have to post a bond equal to the value of the car and have it smog tested when it arrived in the country. Since it had been in Germany (which at the time didn’t have unleaded fuel) for some time, I had no way of knowing whether it would meet the pollution requirements or not. I abandoned my efforts to bring the car home and sold it instead. Damned shame – it was a fun little car that cruised at 120 MPH on the Autobahn and still got pretty good gas mileage.
Likewise, I remember reading stories about a much younger Bill Gates and his attempts to bring a very expensive sports car to the US. This was back in the 1980s, IIRC.
“US specs” can cover many things including emissions requirements, safety, and even the type of headlights. I think some of it is a form of protectionism to keep some cars out of the country. Companies like VW, Honda, Toyota, etc., spend a lot of money getting some of their cars certified to US specs so they can be sold here. For those cars they don’t think will sell well here, they don’t bother so they can’t be legally imported. On recent trips overseas, I saw quite a few big brand cars that aren’t sold in the US for one reason or another.
I might give a crap if I knew WHY they were banned. As far as I can tell the ban amounts to two things- The Fed has safety standards, and these cars were not tested against those standards.
So is Rand opposed to safety standards generally? Would you prefer the States did that (and we have 50 conflicting standards)? Should there be an automatic waiver for cars that meet the safety standards from certain countries?
What exactly is the complaint here? Personally I’m quite content with government imposed minimum-safety requirements in cars. Or do we want to go back to a world where a 40 mph accident would 90% likely kill all of the occupants of a car?
I have no problem with safety standards per se. I have a big problem with the government telling me whether or not a vehicle I purchase must adhere to them.
Rand, do you have a problem with the government saying “if you purchase this car we think is unsafe, you can’t operate it on public roads until you make it safe” ?
Brock, I agree with you, but if you compare crash test reports, you might be shocked by how much variation already exists on the US market. Some cars are just dramatically safer than other cars, even if you compare cars that have almost exactly the same mass. Note that you have to look past the 5 star ratings when looking at crash reports and get into more specific numbers like “head injury criteria”. It is really hard for the ordinary consumer to assess how safe their car is, and private organizations like the IIHS aren’t doing enough to inform the public (because they don’t perform certain tests, this is true even if you spend hours analyzing the data they helpfully provide on their website!) More regulation would save lives.
Bob, your insurance company has the resources you don’t have. Back in the 90s, I was picking a new car from several selections, so I called up my insurance agent to see which cars had the higher premiums. At the time I considered the Geo Metro (due to its gas mileage and low cost), but it had a much higher insurance cost than a considerably more expensive Nissan Sentra.
Rand, do you have a problem with the government saying “if you purchase this car we think is unsafe, you can’t operate it on public roads until you make it safe” ?
I have a problem with the federal government doing that. It also depends on for whom it is “unsafe.” There’s a difference between third-party and first-party. If by “unsafe,” you mean have a higher probability of causing an accident affecting others, then that’s a legitimate regulation on public roads, but not crash protection for occupants. That’s nannyism.
Let safety be market driven instead of mandated. Like Karl pointed out, insurance companies will price their policies based on the risk of injury or death, making dangerous vehicles more expensive.
People make their own decisions about the level of risk they’re willing to accept. Motorcycle ridership appears to be increasing despite the much greater risk of injury or death in an accident. If we allow the government to mandate safety standards, wouldn’t it stand to reason that such “obviously unsafe” things as being a motorcyclist, skydiver, private pilot, etc. should be outlawed?
If we’re worried about the safety of others and not just the occupants of a vehicle, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we’d outlaw those vehicles that are much larger and more massive than the average car? You could be riding in a “tested safe” minivan or small car and still get your day ruined if you’re struck by a big Suburban or 18-wheeler?
The point is, at what point do we prohibit people from making their own choices because we don’t approve of them or they’re too dangerous? Do we really want a government (federal or state) that has that kind of power?
Note the title of this article. Effectively the federal government has criminalized the possession of certain vehicles. It’s not about driving unsafe vehicles on roads.
The ‘government’ isn’t concerned with safety. It’s lifelong bureaucrats and liberal control freaks who are concerned with safety.
And IF safety was the primary concern, MPG would go out the window and safety would go first. Hummers would be THE car to have or a something like a Suburban. Cars like a Kia Rio would be closer to the bottom of the list of “Cars the Government Loves”.
But we’re about safety sometimes, MPG later, and emissions last Wednesday and the next two Thursdays.
I think Der Schtumpy has the measure. If the issue truly is regulating safety standards; then that would be understandable. Agree with Rand that although some are talking about first party safety (owner of the car); we should only be talking about third party safety (other drivers on the road and property owners). It is the latter that causes people to claim driving [on public roads] is a priviledge rather than a right. I’m not sure how the Honda Beat poses a threat to other motorists as compared to the Chevy Volt.
Back to Der Schtumpy, during the Bush era while people were complaining about foreign oil and Kyoto; the Volkswagen TDI vehicles were banned because they didn’t meet diesel emission standards. They were just as safe as their non-TDI Volkswagen models (a Jetta with or without TDI has the same safety systems). They also got mileage over 40 mpg and sometimes up to 50 mpg. They also ran on almost any type of fuel oil.
The Feds and Volkswagen eventually worked things out, and the TDI is back in the US. But what was gained by banning it to begin with?
Building safety codes protect unsuspecting occupants from unsafe but hidden construction problems. Car safety regulations intended to protect the occupants similarly protect the unsuspecting — for example, the babysitter you are driving home (speaking of nannies!) A compromise might be to make information more available to enable informed consent — a red license plate might indicate a car that doesn’t conform to code. I don’t know if building codes can be violated with the equivalent of a red license plate….
Building codes primarily apply to new construction or when an older building is being renovated. There are untold thousands of older buildings in America that don’t meet current building codes. Many of them have been standing for decades and yet they don’t fall down. Codes are only as good as they account for realistically expected local conditions (e.g. earthquakes near fault lines, snow loads, etc.) and are only as good as their enforcement. It’s far from an unheard of case when a building inspector chooses to look the other way in response to financial offers.
In general aviation (everything from hang gliders to business jets), there are certain classes of vehicles that typically are less safe than others. For example, there are well over 10,000 homebuilt aircraft* licensed to operate in the US. All of them are required to have the word “experimental” displayed prominently on the outside and to have a passenger warning placard in the cockpit stating the plane was amateur built and does not comply with the federal safety standards that apply to standard built aircraft. If it’s good enough for aircraft, why wouldn’t a simplar approach be good enough for cars?
*Since the FAA started licensing homebuilt aircraft about 50 years ago, over 30,000 have been licensed. The 10,000 number is my guess at the current number in regular operation.
The FAA even requires operators to notify all passengers of the safety capabilities of the aircraft prior to operation, whether it is an experimental vehicle or not. Indeed, it is part of the training and testing to get a license, which is a privilege and not a right. The FAA, however, does not provide a voter registration card when you receive your license.
Leland,
I’m not sure how old you are. But during the Oil Embargo, we heard daily that diesel was THE way to go. No emission checks needed, the exhaust ‘washed’ out of the air when it rained. No harm, no foul. And they were good on fuel mileage.
Diesel does cost a little more, but IF we had more diesel vehicles, we’d make more diesel and the prices would just about match at some point. Then, more people would go diesel…it would get cheaper still, more diesels, cheaper yet again, no emission problems, less maintenance, cheaper in the long run.
Financially it makes sense, engineering wise it makes sense.
However, somewhere along the line, diesel emissions became JUST as harmful as gasoline engine emissions, and fuel mileage quit getting touted as a driving factor, even though everyone knows it’s better.
I seem to remember that “…Americans don’t want diesel engines, because they were sluggish, no pickup, not racey enough”, etc. That was the late ’70s, but just a few years later, we were all driving minivans that weren’t all that racey anyway.
Oddly, many of the minivans we had here, came with diesels as a choice in Europe, but not here. The bad part about emissions is that if people would just keep their ride tuned up, the emissions WOULD be OK.
Oh well.
I would have expected libertarians to balk at regulations requiring informative placards — such regulations still shifts responsibility for one’s safety from the individual to the state, and reduces the liberty of the vehicle owner. No?
Bobbi-Wan Kenobi is calling y’all out on your “hypocricy.” Run for it.
Leland,
even pretty restrained interpretations of Congressional powers allow Congress to restrict imports, including classes of vehicles. Doesn’t mean its a good idea, but this isn’t some kind of constitutional overreach.
I would have expected libertarians to balk at regulations requiring informative placards — such regulations still shifts responsibility for one’s safety from the individual to the state, and reduces the liberty of the vehicle owner. No?
Which is more restrictive to individual liberty?
1. Requiring the owner to install a warning placard in vehicles that don’t meet government requirements, or
2. The government prohibiting you from owning those vehicles in the first place.
The first is perhaps an inconvience. The second is dictatorial. Any more stupid questions?
such regulations still shifts responsibility for one’s safety from the individual to the state
OK Bobbi, I’ll bite. How is the states responsibility higher because of the existence of the placard? It would be lower with no placard?
Safety has three aspects. Safety of the driver – frankly I don’t give a damn about that; if you want to risk killing yourself it’s your choice. Safety of the passengers is a little more problematic. They may have little choice about whether to get in the car for various reasons, and may not know enough about the vehicle to make informed decisions. The third aspect is safety of other vehicles’ occupants and also pedestrians. To illustrate this point: In the UK, some years ago, “bull-bars” were outright banned on any vehicle. The fashion came from Australia, I believe, where they are called roo-bars and in some places they have a genuine use in preventing damage when the car hits a kangaroo. In the UK, the only large animal you are likely to hit is the bipedal kind – and it is known that relatively low-speed impacts on pedestrians by a car with these things fitted are quite likely to kill or severely injure the pedestrian. Hence the ban.
The issue is rather similar to the requirement for annual inspections of vehicles over a certain age – in the UK, it’s 3 years for ordinary cars.
As an example, I would hate to be anywhere near a Trabant. I would imagine that its brakes are pitiful, for a start. Equally, I would hate to be anywhere near a 10-year-old banger which has never been serviced or inspected.
I used a poor choice of words – I didn’t mean “legal responsibility” so much as what Rand called nannyism. And no, I wasn’t trying to point out hypocrisy so much as I actually wondered whether any of you are in favor of the placards as opposed to considering them a lesser evil. I take responsibility for not being clear about that. Why it might matter to you: “lesser evils” can be viewed as the nose of the camel. On the other hand, if you’re in favor of the placards, then hey, look, you just find common ground with a self-admitted liberal, and maybe that’s a reason for hope (and change).
After some reflection, I’m going to backpedal: safety advocates argue that by making certain safety equipment mandatory, it created an economy of scale that lowered the cost to the point where people can actually afford safer cars. If we allowed non-NHSTA-approved cars into the USA, why not allow their production here too? Once we allow that (which would clearly make car makers more free), safety equipment would only be widespread if the market demanded it (I’m trying to phrase this like a libertarian). I *know* car companies lie about safety, and I can see that the government is better at regulating than educating, so I think we would end up where Brock suggested we would be — where affordable cars wouldn’t be safe. I feel bad about being a nanny but I’d feel worse if the fatal accident rate went up.
I’m trying to phrase this like a libertarian
It’s misty bob. But I guess everyone needs a goal. I think you’ve chosen wisely.
I’m picturing Bobbi-Wan hunkered down in the underbrush, wearing all the crap he bought at REI earlier that day and speaking like David Attenborough.
Oh, thank goodness — my arm was getting tired there…
I know several people who work in Chicago city government. All are Democrats. When they were brainstorming, I suggested “Have a ‘think like a Republican day,’ and see if you come up with ideas you wouldn’t have otherwise.”
There is a not-so-insignificant difference between “Think like Democrats claim a Republican thinks” and “Think like a Republican actually thinks”.
And then, of course, it depends on which Republican you use as an example. There’s a pretty large swing in viewpoints from Reagan to McCain to Bush I to Bush II to……
“the Volkswagen TDI vehicles were banned because they didn’t meet diesel emission standards.”
In other words they were smelly. So, the gov’t imposed a lower particulate count for sulfides. Not even the TDI could avoid those restrictions so it stopped being imported. Mercedes and others went off to develop intricate catalyst systems using auxiliary power sources or urea solutions to neutralize the sulfides and not make them stink any more. But then, the fuel industry started producing low sulfide diesel fuels (along with some modifications to the fueling) and suddenly the TDI was able to meet the emissions standards. Mercedes still went ahead and released their diesel that uses a urea solution to clean the exhaust. Of course, that has to be annoying to have yet another light come up on your dash telling you that your urea is low. And you can’t just stop off at 7-eleven to get a big gulp and top off your urea by yourself either. You have to go to the dealership and have a tech top off your urea for your.
John, as to your first point: Sure, that’s the point of Curt’s article. But at least some Republicans have the goal of explaining their philosophy (usually in the hopes of being persuasive), and if non-Republicans try to receive the message as well as they can (because they are trying to learn), I think it can be a productive experience. Obviously, I also think you can substitute Republicans and non-Republicans with any other two political groups.
As to your second point: Good! As long as people note the differences, there is more to think about, and it also implies that groups within a larger political party can learn from each other.
Bob-1 Says:
“I used a poor choice of words – I didn’t mean “legal responsibility” so much as what Rand called nannyism. And no, I wasn’t trying to point out hypocrisy so much as I actually wondered whether any of you are in favor of the placards as opposed to considering them a lesser evil.”
Bob it’s important to remember that Libertarians adhere to the notion that ” your freedom ends at my nose”. So it’s not like Libertarians are totally against any government regulation. Since we are talking about the passenger’s nose and not the aircraft owner’s, an Experimental Placard for passengers is not considered (by this Libertarian, at least) as a problem.
As a pilot, I am aware of just how clueless non-pilots can be about airplanes. Especially small planes. So when I take a newbie up for a ride, I give him/her a thorough briefing and invite them to follow me around as I do the pre-flight check, and I talk them through the run-up that I’m doing.
When you tell them, during the preflight, that you are checking that each bolt has a locknut and cotter pin (or some locking mechanism), it suddenly dawns on them what sort of disasters can occur. Most people do not pre-flight their car. They become both apprehensive and reassured…apprehensive that there are a myriad of disasters they never thought of; re-assured that I’m being thorough in my check.
So a placard letting them know that a particular airplane they are about to ride in is “experimental” doesn’t seem like a huge problem or limit to freedom to me. In fact it’s the opposite.
if non-Republicans try to receive the message as well as they can (because they are trying to learn), I think it can be a productive experience.
I feel bad about being a nanny but I’d feel worse if the fatal accident rate went up.
Bob, do yourself a favor. Cut the tags off those new REI threads and run them through the wash before putting them on and venturing out.
And really, your problem isn’t learning stuff, it’s UN-learning what’s already in there.
…protect the unsuspecting…
You believe this to be the role of government? Talk about unlimited costs.
Gregg,
I’m always very impressed with the preflight every time I get to fly with a private pilot. I think the only issue here regarding libertarianism involves what the relationship should be between the government and the passenger,or the government and the pilot. I think you’re describing the relationship between the pilot and the passenger.
Curt,
Those words you boldfaced indicate that I know I’m expressing an opinion. Too often, when engineers talk about politics, they express opinions as facts. Or rather, I think that when engineers talk about politics, they express opinions as facts. Since no one agrees about facts or opinions, it really just comes down to trying to sound less confrontational. But of course, it gets me nowhere, because on this blog, if you offer to shake hands, someone will bite off your fingers.
Bob-1 Says:
” I think the only issue here regarding libertarianism involves what the relationship should be between the government and the passenger,or the government and the pilot. I think you’re describing the relationship between the pilot and the passenger. ”
I did both actually.
I am describing the connection the government has to this issue (my first and last paragraph) and that I’m ok with it.
I gave my personal anecdote (middle paragraphs) to illuminate how clueless a passenger can be (I don’t mean that cluelessness to be a pejorative).
Your statement about your feelings regarding being a nanny and accident rates was a statement of fact. And it indicates your viewpoint. This: I *know* car companies lie about safety, on the other hand was just thrown in for effect. And then: no one agrees about facts.
I think it is you who are confused with the difference between fact and opinion.
And believe me, if I decide to bite off your fingers, you’ll know it.
I do know that car companies lie about safety. Toyota is particularly egregious, and I’m not referring to anything regarding unintended acceleration. They advertise the Camry as one of the safest cars on the road, and yet in the 2011 NHSTA tests, it ranked the worst of any of the cars they initially tested (they revised the test in 2011, and only tested a handful of very popular cars to initiate the new test). Toyota re-released the Camry with revisions in response to such low scores. Other car makers, who didn’t revise their design after the tests came out still did better than the revised Camry. This pattern occurs again and again at Toyota — with both IIHS and NHSTA tests, their revised designs still don’t do as well as the original offerings from other makers. Compare Subaru and Toyota models with very similar mass to see what a difference there is in head injury criteria scores and other injury scores (especially notable, since Toyota in a partership with Fuji Heavy Industries). Toyota doesn’t offer the safest cars on the road and they say that they do. It is a fact that they lie.
Bob-1:
The question isn’t: “Do companies lie?”
The important question is: “How do you curb such behavior consistent with maximum personal liberty acknowledging the attendant personal responsibility?”
Gregg: The answer to that question is to make the people in the corporation who make decisions or tell lies, with an adverse outcome for someone else, personally liable. End the corporate responsibility copout.
If someone dies because of such a decision – life in jail, because it’s manslaughter. If someone dies because of a deliberate coverup that’s in itself illegal – that’s murder. And should be treated as such.
“The prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully”.
Fletcher Christian Says:
“Gregg: The answer to that question is to make the people in the corporation who make decisions or tell lies, with an adverse outcome for someone else, personally liable. End the corporate responsibility copout.”
Well yeah. But that doesn’t answer the question:
HOW?
Some people rely on the government to do that and are willing to trade liberty for absolution of responsibility. My point is that people have to demand good service from all agencies, and vote with their feet, wallet or what have you.
Too many people are willing to accept crummy service.
Or hope that the government fixes it. But when you ask the government to do that, you’ve created a need for more taxes to pay the new bureaucracy that just got created, which now has been given the power to cause an action to occur using the one uber-tool we’ve given government: Force.
And that same bunch of people can be bought (just like any other bunch of people) by a special interest. So they get to use force to cause an action you might not even want.
Today when the MSM sees a problem or disaster, in it’s community, the essential point of the article is, “How awful! What is the government going to do about it?”
when they ought to be saying:
“How awful, what are WE going to do about it?”
In my opinion, it was not the actions of the Japanese Government which caused it’s citizenry to behave so well during the tsunami. It was the culture.
Der Schtumpy: I remember the diesel arguments. Indeed, I had to re-educate my wife recently, but she still insisted on buying me a gasoline fueled vehicle rather than a TDI.
MrMandais: even pretty restrained interpretations of Congressional powers allow Congress to restrict imports, including classes of vehicles. Doesn’t mean its a good idea, but this isn’t some kind of constitutional overreach.
Ok. Did you have some doubt that I didn’t understand this? Was that doubt generated by comments I made, or comments made by Bob implying what I might have thought? It’s not an overreach, but it is neither liberal nor a good idea. I believe that was the point I made.
Gregg, I was referring to unsafe goods. Caveat Emptor is all very well, but it presupposes that the buyer can actually tell the difference. You’re buying basic tools? Then sure, you ought to be able to tell the good from the bad. But how are you going to tell in advance that you are buying a car with a design fault that means it blows up if you have a minor rear-end collision? (For example.)
In such a case as this, law enforcement ought to be allowed and expected to find the people responsible and deal with them effectively. And IMHO, safety regulations are a essential part of govenment – although there can obviously be debate about the number of them.