6 ms·

The EU safety directive requires many safety features for new cars: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/new-vehicle-safety-systems.html h

by est31 4y ago

The EU safety directive requires many safety features for new cars: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/new-vehicle-safety-systems.html https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/n... Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature remains optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them mandatory saves lives. But it also means that if you want your car to be sold in the EU, you must integrate these features, which means you need more chips.

nybble41 4y ago
> Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature remains optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them mandatory saves lives. On the other hand, making them mandatory makes cars more expensive, which means (especially during a shortage) that some can't afford them at all while the rest are forced to do without other things to compensate; either way it reduces their qualify of life. But of course the government knows better than those actually affected by these laws where the ideal balance lies between safety and QoL.
- Beldin 4y ago
  On the other other hand, you can easily use the same reasoning in favor of mandating safety features: Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. That means second hand cars with these features will be significantly more expensive than those without. Which means that some can never afford these features, while others have to do without other things to compensate. Either way, quality of life is reduced - and more than in your scenario, because the features do not benefit from economy of scale as much when they're optional.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    > Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. If they were rare they might be more expensive, but otherwise it's the same system and will cost about the same amount to incorporate into a vehicle. Making it mandatory doesn't make it any cheaper. (Usually the opposite, in fact. From the POV of those manufacturing the safety systems, there's nothing quite like having the government mandate that people buy your product.) Economy of scale is not guaranteed, or even really all that common once you get past early research and development or one-off custom products and into the realm of mass production. In general commodities become more expensive in response to higher demand, not less. If these systems are something most people actually want and consider worthwhile then they'll already have the benefit of any economy of scale which may apply without the mandate.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Given your car’s safety features have significant externality effects on other citizens, yeah, the government seems well within its duties to mandate certain safety tech.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    There is no negative externality merely from not having a safety feature. There would only be a negative externality if there were actually a situation where someone was harmed due to the lack of a safety feature (or any other reason, really) and the person responsible for the harm was not held liable for making the injured party whole. Mandatory safety features, on the other hand, are a direct example of a negative externality: Those wanting the safety features to be mandatory get what they want while other people bear the cost.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Please explain how you’re going to make me whole if your car without auto breaking kills me.
      - nybble41 4y ago
        Obviously I can't. The same goes for the case where my car with auto braking kills you—auto braking reduces the risk slightly but doesn't offer absolute protection. Either way the liability for your death is mine as the operator of the vehicle, though if it can be traced to a defect in the auto-braking system I might be able to redirect that liability to the manufacturer. There are any number of other ways you could die due to an accident or negligence, and we can't make you whole for those events either. The best we can do is try to atone for it with respect to those you leave behind—to make up, as much as possible, for the hole your absence leaves in society. That doesn't mean we paralyze ourselves with inaction or always prioritize marginal improvements to safety (even others' safety) over all other concerns.
        oneoff786 4y ago
        The best way can do is prevent it with a baseline of good safety tech so that your willingness to save a buck to put others at risk is not allowed.
- adrianN 4y ago
  There was massive resistance against seatbelts when they were introduced. Maybe sometimes the government does know better than those actually affected.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    A far better analogy would be airbags, which were both expensive and deadly in their earliest (mandated) forms.
cjmb 4y ago
"...requires many safety features for new cars:" > "Making them mandatory saves lives." Alternatively: making them mandatory raises the price of new cars and pushes more consumers to buy used older cars, which are generally less safe for a variety of reasons & often worse for the environment. Economics is always about tradeoffs. Not saying this one isn't worth it, but you're not getting a free lunch here. source: have not bought a new car despite being in the market for one since 2020 because prices make it a bad decision. Have added an additional 20k miles to existing car.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Only in the short term. In the long term cars only last so long. Plastic starts to wear out from sunlight exposure (ozone?) in about 10 years. Spare parts go out off production so when something breaks it is live without. Some things just aren't worth fixing. Sure it is possible to fix anything, but the labor is too high in general. Collectors sometimes pay $100,000 to restore an old care to brand new, realistically if the assembly line still existed the car would be about $8,000 (of course it wouldn't meet modern standards) The current new car problems mean some people will be keeping old cars running a bit longer than normal, but all those cars are headed for scrap eventually. Eventually everyone will be jumping to newer cars.
- megablast 4y ago
  Maybe it pushes some of those people to buy bikes which are a million times safer and better fir the environment.
- est31 4y ago
  I think a lot of potential car buyers are waiting for the price crisis to end. My comment was made in a more general sense. Note that the price of the non-optional features is lower than if it were an optional feature thanks to economics of scale. So making them mandatory reduces the costs of the features.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    That isn't how economics works. You can't cite a government mandated outcome and declare that the intermediary processes are cheaper because the government ordered more production of something. An "economy of scale" is something that happens in some circumstances where it is possible to increase production without incurring non-linear pressure on prices. Not a law of production or economics.

by est31 4y ago

nybble41 4y ago

> Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature remains optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them mandatory saves lives. On the other hand, making them mandatory makes cars more expensive, which means (especially during a shortage) that some can't afford them at all while the rest are forced to do without other things to compensate; either way it reduces their qualify of life. But of course the government knows better than those actually affected by these laws where the ideal balance lies between safety and QoL.

Beldin 4y ago
On the other other hand, you can easily use the same reasoning in favor of mandating safety features: Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. That means second hand cars with these features will be significantly more expensive than those without. Which means that some can never afford these features, while others have to do without other things to compensate. Either way, quality of life is reduced - and more than in your scenario, because the features do not benefit from economy of scale as much when they're optional.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. If they were rare they might be more expensive, but otherwise it's the same system and will cost about the same amount to incorporate into a vehicle. Making it mandatory doesn't make it any cheaper. (Usually the opposite, in fact. From the POV of those manufacturing the safety systems, there's nothing quite like having the government mandate that people buy your product.) Economy of scale is not guaranteed, or even really all that common once you get past early research and development or one-off custom products and into the realm of mass production. In general commodities become more expensive in response to higher demand, not less. If these systems are something most people actually want and consider worthwhile then they'll already have the benefit of any economy of scale which may apply without the mandate.
oneoff786 4y ago
Given your car’s safety features have significant externality effects on other citizens, yeah, the government seems well within its duties to mandate certain safety tech.
- nybble41 4y ago
  There is no negative externality merely from not having a safety feature. There would only be a negative externality if there were actually a situation where someone was harmed due to the lack of a safety feature (or any other reason, really) and the person responsible for the harm was not held liable for making the injured party whole. Mandatory safety features, on the other hand, are a direct example of a negative externality: Those wanting the safety features to be mandatory get what they want while other people bear the cost.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Please explain how you’re going to make me whole if your car without auto breaking kills me.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      Obviously I can't. The same goes for the case where my car with auto braking kills you—auto braking reduces the risk slightly but doesn't offer absolute protection. Either way the liability for your death is mine as the operator of the vehicle, though if it can be traced to a defect in the auto-braking system I might be able to redirect that liability to the manufacturer. There are any number of other ways you could die due to an accident or negligence, and we can't make you whole for those events either. The best we can do is try to atone for it with respect to those you leave behind—to make up, as much as possible, for the hole your absence leaves in society. That doesn't mean we paralyze ourselves with inaction or always prioritize marginal improvements to safety (even others' safety) over all other concerns.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        The best way can do is prevent it with a baseline of good safety tech so that your willingness to save a buck to put others at risk is not allowed.
adrianN 4y ago
There was massive resistance against seatbelts when they were introduced. Maybe sometimes the government does know better than those actually affected.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  A far better analogy would be airbags, which were both expensive and deadly in their earliest (mandated) forms.

cjmb 4y ago

"...requires many safety features for new cars:" > "Making them mandatory saves lives." Alternatively: making them mandatory raises the price of new cars and pushes more consumers to buy used older cars, which are generally less safe for a variety of reasons & often worse for the environment. Economics is always about tradeoffs. Not saying this one isn't worth it, but you're not getting a free lunch here. source: have not bought a new car despite being in the market for one since 2020 because prices make it a bad decision. Have added an additional 20k miles to existing car.

bluGill 4y ago
Only in the short term. In the long term cars only last so long. Plastic starts to wear out from sunlight exposure (ozone?) in about 10 years. Spare parts go out off production so when something breaks it is live without. Some things just aren't worth fixing. Sure it is possible to fix anything, but the labor is too high in general. Collectors sometimes pay $100,000 to restore an old care to brand new, realistically if the assembly line still existed the car would be about $8,000 (of course it wouldn't meet modern standards) The current new car problems mean some people will be keeping old cars running a bit longer than normal, but all those cars are headed for scrap eventually. Eventually everyone will be jumping to newer cars.
megablast 4y ago
Maybe it pushes some of those people to buy bikes which are a million times safer and better fir the environment.
est31 4y ago
I think a lot of potential car buyers are waiting for the price crisis to end. My comment was made in a more general sense. Note that the price of the non-optional features is lower than if it were an optional feature thanks to economics of scale. So making them mandatory reduces the costs of the features.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  That isn't how economics works. You can't cite a government mandated outcome and declare that the intermediary processes are cheaper because the government ordered more production of something. An "economy of scale" is something that happens in some circumstances where it is possible to increase production without incurring non-linear pressure on prices. Not a law of production or economics.