4 ms·

An interesting twist to this would be to change liability. Make the driver liable (not the manufacturer) for driving a car breaking the emission standards. This

An interesting twist to this would be to change liability. Make the driver liable (not the manufacturer) for driving a car breaking the emission standards. This will set in motion the following steps: - Car users will be offered insurance against breaking emission standards - Insurance companies will hire specialists to lower insurance rates of above insurance - Consumers are disincentivized to modify their ECU in a non-compliant way - Consumers are incentivized to buy cars offering more transparency in firmware (and car manufacturers will offer more transparency) I'm a firm believer in: you buy it, then you're responsible for ascertaining its safety. If you can't do this, hire someone to do it for you.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> I'm a firm believer in: you buy it, then you're responsible for ascertaining its safety. If you can't do this, hire someone to do it for you People elect government to take care of this for them. We can't all be experts in everything. I firmly believe that when we work together on solving problems, we are better off. Putting the onus on the individual is exactly what big businesses would like. It gives them even more of a free pass towards short term profits. Get caught doing something wrong? Close up shop and reopen another, earning profit while fooling the public again under another name. No thank you!!!
crowbahr 9y ago
Problem is that the US Government guarantees that vehicles sold here have met minimum safety requirements. The public relies on the government to have done that legwork. Beyond that you would immediately get into jargon and confusing packaging for insurance and vehicle emissions. I was just buying dental insurance and the 4 different plans provided by a single provider had 30+ different fields each of which was subtly different. How am I, as a standard consumer, supposed to make sense of all of that... Much less compare it with the 3 other networks. Then add onto that another factor (the type of car I drive) into the same bag and it becomes just absurd. I don't have a solution to the cheating but I feel like mandating open source software is a good step.
- edejong 9y ago
  Simple solutions: buy sensors to detect emissions or regularly check your car yourself. Spend money on experts, optionally working together with other owners of similar brand (community). Insist on buying models with open software. The point is, regulation here is failing because it is not community led. We need to take matters in our own hands to understand the difficulties, simplify and source it back to the government, if needed.
  - edejong 9y ago
    Downvote why?
    - tomhoward 9y ago
      Who knows? Maybe it was by mistake. It really doesn't matter. Everyone gets them. Try to let it go and focus on making your next comment a good one :)
phire 9y ago
I feel like this would have the opposite effect. No one will offer insurance against this liability at a reasonable cost. Instead, car manufactures will offer a guarantee that the car will not break emission standards when they sell the car to the consumer. This guarantee will be void the second you do anything the manufacture doesn't approve of, such as missing a scheduled servicing appointment, which of course must take place at the manufacture certified servicing center. Car manufactures will take the opportunity to lock down the firmware even further and block 3rd party servicing centers.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
> I'm a firm believer in: you buy it, then you're responsible for ascertaining its safety. If you can't do this, hire someone to do it for you. This seems like one of those plans that goes 1. Deregulate everything 2. ... 3. All irresponsible companies go out of business when intelligent consumers patronize responsible ones instead Skipping over the "decades of death/disruption" in step 2, and being awfully optimistic about consumer intelligence in step 3.
- edejong 9y ago
  I don't want to deregulate everything, especially not all security regulations on cars. What is needed is removing distance between regulators and users. Would you rather buy a locked down laptop which is factory protected against viruses (with a known set of them) but no chance to modify nor understand the virus protection system. Or, choose for a regulating system that punishes those who help spread viruses because no scanner was installed? The latter teaches the users more and keeps them closer to the product. It creates a market where more parties can enter and provide security advice. Lastly, the 'stepping over death and destruction' is obviously a straw man. We have seen many deregulations that we in dire need and worked out well. It all depends on transparency and communication.
7952 9y ago
Just what we need, more economic hocus pocus. People need to understand that buying toxic cars is wrong. No amount of tax or financial liability makes it OK. This is moral issue.
7952 9y ago
Just what we need, more economic hocus pocus. People need to understand that buying toxic cars is wrong. No amount of tax or financial liability makes it OK. This is moral issue.
mcguire 9y ago
- Create a market for road side emissions testing equipment. Your traffic stops just got a bit more thorough. - Reduce emissions standards to levels that can be tested easily in nonstandard conditions.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> I'm a firm believer in: you buy it, then you're responsible for ascertaining its safety. If you can't do this, hire someone to do it for you People elect government to take care of this for them. We can't all be experts in everything. I firmly believe that when we work together on solving problems, we are better off. Putting the onus on the individual is exactly what big businesses would like. It gives them even more of a free pass towards short term profits. Get caught doing something wrong? Close up shop and reopen another, earning profit while fooling the public again under another name. No thank you!!!

crowbahr 9y ago

Problem is that the US Government guarantees that vehicles sold here have met minimum safety requirements. The public relies on the government to have done that legwork. Beyond that you would immediately get into jargon and confusing packaging for insurance and vehicle emissions. I was just buying dental insurance and the 4 different plans provided by a single provider had 30+ different fields each of which was subtly different. How am I, as a standard consumer, supposed to make sense of all of that... Much less compare it with the 3 other networks. Then add onto that another factor (the type of car I drive) into the same bag and it becomes just absurd. I don't have a solution to the cheating but I feel like mandating open source software is a good step.

edejong 9y ago
Simple solutions: buy sensors to detect emissions or regularly check your car yourself. Spend money on experts, optionally working together with other owners of similar brand (community). Insist on buying models with open software. The point is, regulation here is failing because it is not community led. We need to take matters in our own hands to understand the difficulties, simplify and source it back to the government, if needed.
- edejong 9y ago
  Downvote why?
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    Who knows? Maybe it was by mistake. It really doesn't matter. Everyone gets them. Try to let it go and focus on making your next comment a good one :)

phire 9y ago

I feel like this would have the opposite effect. No one will offer insurance against this liability at a reasonable cost. Instead, car manufactures will offer a guarantee that the car will not break emission standards when they sell the car to the consumer. This guarantee will be void the second you do anything the manufacture doesn't approve of, such as missing a scheduled servicing appointment, which of course must take place at the manufacture certified servicing center. Car manufactures will take the opportunity to lock down the firmware even further and block 3rd party servicing centers.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

> I'm a firm believer in: you buy it, then you're responsible for ascertaining its safety. If you can't do this, hire someone to do it for you. This seems like one of those plans that goes 1. Deregulate everything 2. ... 3. All irresponsible companies go out of business when intelligent consumers patronize responsible ones instead Skipping over the "decades of death/disruption" in step 2, and being awfully optimistic about consumer intelligence in step 3.

edejong 9y ago
I don't want to deregulate everything, especially not all security regulations on cars. What is needed is removing distance between regulators and users. Would you rather buy a locked down laptop which is factory protected against viruses (with a known set of them) but no chance to modify nor understand the virus protection system. Or, choose for a regulating system that punishes those who help spread viruses because no scanner was installed? The latter teaches the users more and keeps them closer to the product. It creates a market where more parties can enter and provide security advice. Lastly, the 'stepping over death and destruction' is obviously a straw man. We have seen many deregulations that we in dire need and worked out well. It all depends on transparency and communication.

7952 9y ago

Just what we need, more economic hocus pocus. People need to understand that buying toxic cars is wrong. No amount of tax or financial liability makes it OK. This is moral issue.

7952 9y ago

Just what we need, more economic hocus pocus. People need to understand that buying toxic cars is wrong. No amount of tax or financial liability makes it OK. This is moral issue.

mcguire 9y ago

- Create a market for road side emissions testing equipment. Your traffic stops just got a bit more thorough. - Reduce emissions standards to levels that can be tested easily in nonstandard conditions.