6 ms·
I don't often believe conspiracies, but I cannot understand these sort of things... what was the justification for such law? security? Industry protectionism?
by nudpiedo 7y ago
I don't often believe conspiracies, but I cannot understand these sort of things... what was the justification for such law? security? Industry protectionism?
- seniorivn 7y agoIt seams you forgot to list stupidity and as one of the reasons
- FrojoS 7y agoYou don’t have to believe in conspiracies. It‘s likely just lobbying and corruption.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoIsn't the conjoining of lobbying and corruption generally known as 'a conspiracy'?
- hanniabu 7y agoIt's known as US capitalism
- homonculus1 7y agoPithy, but we're talking about Italy.
- magduf 7y agoItaly is infamous for its corruption.
- emiliobumachar 7y agoSafety is a legitimate reason, unless they were doing the full-blown car certification, including crash-testing. I'm definitely in favor of giving green technology a pass to some extent, but it would be hard to figure out exactly to which extent. Unregulated cars were deathtraps.
- Retric 7y agoSafety and ‘explicit permit from the original manufacturer’ are unrelated. If they had required say crash test data that could have been a safety issue, but permissions from the manufacture is simple corruption.
- emiliobumachar 7y agoAgreed, if that's the whole story. I was thinking that permission from the manufacturer would be an alternative to doing tests which were infeasible at their scale.
- touristtam 7y ago> permissions from the manufacture is simple corruption Depending on interpretation that would open for liability of a modified vehicle by a third party for the manufacturer.
- cat199 7y agoor, depending on interpretation, it wouldn't.
- navigatesol 7y ago>Safety and ‘explicit permit from the original manufacturer’ are unrelated. Maybe. But your source is an anonymous poster on the forum. I'm not saying they made it up, but that there's likely more to the story. It isn't exactly far fetched to think there is strict regulation about how you can modify your car for the roads. The "explicit permit" might be to signify that everything is done to the highest standards.
- hanniabu 7y agoI don't need to get permission from Jeep to modify my car, I just need to get it inspected and approved. This is clearly a power move to protect their industry.
- taneq 7y agoPublic safety, of course. Think of the children! That sort of thing always works for regulatory capture.
- asdfman123 7y agoDon't think of it as a conspiracy theory. Think of it as the golden rule: people with gold make the rules.
- BioMeditate 7y agoIf I make this car, I don't want you extending is useful lifetime. I want you to buy a new one to replace it instead. AKA. Why you can't repair most cell phones now.
- nudpiedo 7y agoEvery time a car is repaired and a piece replaced its lifetime is also extended. Maybe they have feared that it would also have an impact on yearly GDP since car sales are very often used as a metric.
- siruncledrew 7y agoFrom the outside, it’s a hypocritical show when there is an established market of dominant companies, and then a new company enters the scene capturing a new secondary market related to the established market; then suddenly those established companies are up in arms screaming, “Regulations! Regulations!”, ready to support the government to throw the book at the new companies for <reasons>, as long as no regulations impact the established companies and they can continue to selectively skirt around which regulations they don’t like. And once they establish business units to compete against the new company in the secondary market, suddenly the established companies aren’t so pressed about needing to enforce regulations anymore.