2 ms·
Safety mandates also help drive obsolescence, which helps car manufacturers sell more cars, which in turn keeps the used car market well supplied. (It's basical
by wahern 5y ago
Safety mandates also help drive obsolescence, which helps car manufacturers sell more cars, which in turn keeps the used car market well supplied. (It's basically a very progressive tax that mostly falls upon the wealthier.) Most safety mandates seem to be largely voluntary, AFAICT--literally, or with deadlines that go unchallenged by the industry--as the regulatory agencies hash out timelines with manufacturers so they can maximize return and minimize cost inflation by letting the features trickle down from luxury models over the course of 5-10 years. IIRC, backup cameras are a great example of this, with companies like Toyota preemptively committing to adding them to all cars across their lineup before (or at least very early during) the industry and regulatory agency negotiations.
I think the most costly safety "taxes" (e.g. impact resistance) effectively just translate to heavier cars. Fuel mileage requirements also had the perverse second order effect of increasing car sizes. These are the closest analog for housing. There was recently a lot of noise about
California requiring sprinkler systems in new single-family homes, but that just ends up increasing costs by like 1% or less. It's de minimis to begin with, and should drop as builders adjust their processes. (I realize these things add up, and I'm not trying to defend the sprinkler mandate, but there are also counterveiling forces--like standardization--which push back in the other direction.) But minimum square footage requirements for units, maximum height requirements for buildings, etc... those go straight to the bottom line of primary costs (property, raw material, and labor) similar to car size and weight. But unlike cars, the health & safety benefit of modern unit size requirements (i.e. the marginal increase over, say, mid-century requirements) is basically non-existent and were in many cases quite literally crafted in the first instance to limit housing supply.
- ericmay 5y ago> Safety mandates also help drive obsolescence, which helps car manufacturers sell more cars, which in turn keeps the used car market well supplied. (It's basically a very progressive tax that mostly falls upon the wealthier.) Yes but these laws cover cars built from X date onward. Are people trading in their Corolla to get a new one because of a safety regulation like a backup camera?
- wahern 5y agoI've always assumed so, and it was something I looked forward to for many years--I was late to the party. Backup cameras have been required by law since 2018, but judging by this 2021 list, similar, optional safety features do seem to be in high demand: https://www.autopacific.com/autopacific-insights https://www.autopacific.com/autopacific-insights (via https://www.autoblog.com/2021/10/20/top-10-car-features-people-want/ https://www.autoblog.com/2021/10/20/top-10-car-features-peop...) 1. Heated seats: 66% 2. Blind-spot monitoring: 60% 3. Front and rear parking sensors: 55% 4. All-wheel or four-wheel drive: 54% 5. Lane-departure warning: 54% 6. Apple CarPlay and/or Android Auto: 53% 7. Power front passenger seat: 52% 8. LED accent lights: 52% 9. Ventilated or cooled seats: 50% 10. Memory driver's seat: 49% All-wheel drive is classified as a safety feature, which assuming that's how it's perceived, makes safety features 4 out of the top 5 in-demand features.
- ericmay 5y ago> Backup cameras have been required by law since 2018 Yes. In new cars that are built. It doesn’t require cars built prior to be retrofitted with a camera.