4 ms·

> 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 rea

by 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.

by wlll 8y ago

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.