5 ms·

Well what do you suggest then? I mean, the current regulations seem to have caught a number of car manufacturers faking test data and presumably they will be pu

by wlll 8y ago

Well what do you suggest then? I mean, the current regulations seem to have caught a number of car manufacturers faking test data and presumably they will be punished. I think we can agree that the goal is to reduce dangerous emissions, but if we're not going to have regulations that state a limit and perhaps a penalty for abuse, then how?

Klathmon 8y ago
The worry is that they start to become impossible (or at least impossible without massively increasing the cost and complexity of the system). So "cheating" starts to look more and more worth the risk. Granted, I don't think we are quite at that point yet, and don't take this to be implying that we should not have environmental regulations here, just that we need real information about what's possible and how, and there needs to be a 2 way conversation with the manufacturers to evolve the regs with what's possible.
- wlll 8y ago
  > The worry is that they start to become impossible (or at least impossible without massively increasing the cost and complexity of the system). That's not really a worry. Governments are well aware that people need cars that they can afford. Governments are ultimately elected by the people, and messing around with transport makes you unpopular (the recent backlash at the possibility that fuel duty will be unfrozen in the UK is an example).
  - greedo 8y ago
    Governments don't care about people having affordable cars. Governments care about votes. Look at the cost of safety features that have been implemented in cars the last 10 years; some for marginal benefit (rear-view cameras). These features increase the cost, making it hard for lower income people to afford the cars.
    - wlll 8y ago
      > Governments don't care about people having affordable cars. Governments care about votes. These things are related. If the people think that they can't get the car they need because of the government this will turn in to loss of votes. See fuel duty example again. > Look at the cost of safety features that have been implemented in cars the last 10 years; some for marginal benefit (rear-view cameras). Regulations are rarely perfect. It seems from my searched that backup cameras are net better (~300 people killed, 18,000 injured in backup incidents) and that cameras will help drop some of those figures, but not by a huge amount. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the figures play out in the future. However, some regulations have had a significant effect, for example seatbelts. > These features increase the cost, making it hard for lower income people to afford the cars. The tech will come down in price, and the car companies still want to sell cars to lower income families and so will at worst absorb some or all of the cost at the price of a slightly lower profit. And as someone else pointed out in a different thread, emissions from cars has a significant negative effect on people's health, particularly in urban and inner city areas where these lower income people are more likely to live.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sulam 8y ago
  Mr Fox, I need help understanding how to securely design this henhouse.
syshum 8y ago
>I think we can agree that the goal is to reduce dangerous emissions, we can reduce the emissions to zero by banning all cars, would you support that regulation? >then how? Improvements to technology the lessen the dependency on those energy sources. Regulations will not solve the problem, no matter how draconian you desire to make them. Regulations will just increase the cost of goods furthering the economic divide and harming the people that can least afford the changes
- simplify 8y ago
  Have regulations not solved water potability, domestic child labor, lead in paint, water tables, airline safety, accessibility, and many more problems?
  - syshum 8y ago
    You will disagree, but largely no. Those things where solved by a variety of other factors and where on their way out long before the government came along to "regulate" them and take the credit for it.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      Could you elaborate in some detail on those other factors? Preferably with some citations. I’m totally unfamiliar with this second narrative, while I am familiar with the likes of ‘The Jungle’.
- openasocket 8y ago
  > Regulations will just increase the cost of goods furthering the economic divide and harming the people that can least afford the changes NOx gas emissions from cars cause and worsen respiratory diseases, especially in urban areas where it is especially concentrated, thus ALSO harming people that can least afford it. I'd also note there are plenty of cheap vehicles that do meet these regulations.
- wlll 8y ago
  > we can reduce the emissions to zero by banning all cars, would you support that regulation? That's ridiculous, of course not. > Improvements to technology the lessen the dependency on those energy sources. > > Regulations will not solve the problem, no matter how draconian you desire to make them. Regulations will just increase the cost of goods… Regulations will drive technological solutions, and if it weren't for regulations around emissions then car manufacturers have proved that they will quite happily sacrifice the health of everyone in the search of profit. > furthering the economic divide and harming the people that can least afford the changes Oh please. Car manufacturers will always sell budget cars to people with small budgets, because there's a market for it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by wlll 8y ago

Klathmon 8y ago

The worry is that they start to become impossible (or at least impossible without massively increasing the cost and complexity of the system). So "cheating" starts to look more and more worth the risk. Granted, I don't think we are quite at that point yet, and don't take this to be implying that we should not have environmental regulations here, just that we need real information about what's possible and how, and there needs to be a 2 way conversation with the manufacturers to evolve the regs with what's possible.

wlll 8y ago
> The worry is that they start to become impossible (or at least impossible without massively increasing the cost and complexity of the system). That's not really a worry. Governments are well aware that people need cars that they can afford. Governments are ultimately elected by the people, and messing around with transport makes you unpopular (the recent backlash at the possibility that fuel duty will be unfrozen in the UK is an example).
- greedo 8y ago
  Governments don't care about people having affordable cars. Governments care about votes. Look at the cost of safety features that have been implemented in cars the last 10 years; some for marginal benefit (rear-view cameras). These features increase the cost, making it hard for lower income people to afford the cars.
  - wlll 8y ago
    > Governments don't care about people having affordable cars. Governments care about votes. These things are related. If the people think that they can't get the car they need because of the government this will turn in to loss of votes. See fuel duty example again. > Look at the cost of safety features that have been implemented in cars the last 10 years; some for marginal benefit (rear-view cameras). Regulations are rarely perfect. It seems from my searched that backup cameras are net better (~300 people killed, 18,000 injured in backup incidents) and that cameras will help drop some of those figures, but not by a huge amount. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the figures play out in the future. However, some regulations have had a significant effect, for example seatbelts. > These features increase the cost, making it hard for lower income people to afford the cars. The tech will come down in price, and the car companies still want to sell cars to lower income families and so will at worst absorb some or all of the cost at the price of a slightly lower profit. And as someone else pointed out in a different thread, emissions from cars has a significant negative effect on people's health, particularly in urban and inner city areas where these lower income people are more likely to live.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sulam 8y ago
Mr Fox, I need help understanding how to securely design this henhouse.

syshum 8y ago

>I think we can agree that the goal is to reduce dangerous emissions, we can reduce the emissions to zero by banning all cars, would you support that regulation? >then how? Improvements to technology the lessen the dependency on those energy sources. Regulations will not solve the problem, no matter how draconian you desire to make them. Regulations will just increase the cost of goods furthering the economic divide and harming the people that can least afford the changes

simplify 8y ago
Have regulations not solved water potability, domestic child labor, lead in paint, water tables, airline safety, accessibility, and many more problems?
- syshum 8y ago
  You will disagree, but largely no. Those things where solved by a variety of other factors and where on their way out long before the government came along to "regulate" them and take the credit for it.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    Could you elaborate in some detail on those other factors? Preferably with some citations. I’m totally unfamiliar with this second narrative, while I am familiar with the likes of ‘The Jungle’.
openasocket 8y ago
> Regulations will just increase the cost of goods furthering the economic divide and harming the people that can least afford the changes NOx gas emissions from cars cause and worsen respiratory diseases, especially in urban areas where it is especially concentrated, thus ALSO harming people that can least afford it. I'd also note there are plenty of cheap vehicles that do meet these regulations.
wlll 8y ago
> we can reduce the emissions to zero by banning all cars, would you support that regulation? That's ridiculous, of course not. > Improvements to technology the lessen the dependency on those energy sources. > > Regulations will not solve the problem, no matter how draconian you desire to make them. Regulations will just increase the cost of goods… Regulations will drive technological solutions, and if it weren't for regulations around emissions then car manufacturers have proved that they will quite happily sacrifice the health of everyone in the search of profit. > furthering the economic divide and harming the people that can least afford the changes Oh please. Car manufacturers will always sell budget cars to people with small budgets, because there's a market for it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]