> $25K gas vehicles or $27K Hybrids represent Toyota, not "vehicles without safety features." I agree, but I think their point was something along the lines of

> $25K gas vehicles or $27K Hybrids represent Toyota, not "vehicles without safety features." I agree, but I think their point was something along the lines of: gas cars are cheaper, and there are ways to make cars even cheaper than those cars (ex. removing many safety features), so where do you draw the line for how cheap cars should be vs the minimum level of responsibility they should comply with -- safety, environmental, morality, etc. I'm sure before the government regulated a lot of safety features, had they asked the public if they would want those responsible features forced on them if it was going to drive the base price of cars way up, they too would have said no. But today, it seems absurd in hindsight not to have seat belts, the same way it will probably seem absurd in 35 years that we have minimal environmental regulations in place right now. That doesn't make it right, but it's an interesting dynamic to think that we've exhausted the low hanging personal safety fruit and now we need to address more environmental safety features.