7 ms·

There is and has been a creeping level of do-gooderism/we-know-best in the US regulatory environment, namely that no one ever stop to ask if the cost to benefit

by Aloha 4y ago

There is and has been a creeping level of do-gooderism/we-know-best in the US regulatory environment, namely that no one ever stop to ask if the cost to benefit ratio is reasonable. There are a bunch of regulatory inspired costs - backup cameras, mandatory stability control, airbags and ABS, each of these come with costs - the disproportionate burden of which, falls on the poor. While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but not every preventable death or injury is worth the economic costs (opportunity, regulatory, whatever) that we spend to prevent them.

sneak 4y ago
We're at the point now that in the EU cars are now required to carry cellular radio transcievers (each with a unique identifier in the form of an IMEI) from the factory. It has gone a long way from mandating seatbelts.
xpe 4y ago
> There is and has been a creeping level of do-gooderism/we-know-best in the US regulatory environment It feels this way, though I haven't studied it. > While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted. I somewhat agree, but this raises the next question: what is the value of a human life? It is one thing for a healthcare system or insurance group to try to maximize something (quality of life? remaining life expectancy?) for a particular budget. It is another to tradeoff saving lives against lowering vehicle costs.
- Aloha 4y ago
  The US is a car based society, there is trillions of dollars of concrete and steel in the ground making it so, we can change if we want that but it'll take decades and trillions more to replace/overlay the infrastructure we already have. Pricing people out of vehicles prices them out of access to affordable housing, decent paying jobs and a whole bunch of other things that are important to not living in poverty, by putting vehicles and access to reliable transportation out of reach for the poor, we're effective condemning them to whatever their status quo is.
  - wyre 4y ago
    No one needs a new car. There is a huge used car market with a lot of accessible financing. Isn’t there a trope of the millionaire driving a 15yo sedan? Not having access to reliable transportation is not the significant factor w.r.t social mobility you are making it out to be.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      it used to be you could find a 20 year old, serviceable used car for sub 2500 dollars, now get something serviceable and running, it's closer to double that. Even when you adjust for inflation, the price for a cheap used car is 30-40% higher than it was a decade ago.
    - xpe 4y ago
      wyre, how would you characterize the effects of reliable transportation towards social mobility? It seems you only discuss the rich frugal segment. What about the rest? Middle class folks in the suburbs? Poor urban people who drive to work? Etc... I'm asking in this way because saying "... you are making it out to be" is based on some comparison between your assessment and your perception of another person's writing. That has several layers of indirection. So I would prefer to just ask you directly.
      - wyre 4y ago
        I’ve been car free my entire adult life, I’ve also been broke my entire adult life too. I’ve been fortunate enough to live in places with good cycling infrastructure and public transit; I know that isn’t the case in most places. That said, I wouldn’t attribute my lack of social mobility to my decision to not own a car/lack of money to own a car. Automobile financing can absolutely be predatory to low income workers and to a degree it might prohibit some mobility when a large portion of income goes to maintaining a vehicle just to maintain an income. Maybe there should be regulation on predatory financing? Someone making $20k a year is going to be poor regardless if they own a car or not. Economic mobility comes from having marketable skills that provide value to others and the ability to acquire those skills. A college education is not particularly accessible to low-income folks that need to also work to pay rent and food.
- plegresl 4y ago
  Government agencies already have a dollar amount for the value of a human life that they are supposed to use when considering safety regulations: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agencies-determine-the-dollar-value-of-human-life https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agen...
- mattjaynes 4y ago
  This reminds me of the "If it saves just one life" fallacy... Even the most ardent believer of this fallacy will often break when confronted with real costs to their own life. For example: Cruel Capitalist: If lowering the highway speed limit to 40 miles per hour (64km/hr) would save 20,000 lives per year on US roads, should we do it? Bleeding Heart: It would be inconvenient, but yes, it would save lives! Cruel Capitalist: And if lowering the highway speed limit to 20 miles per hour (32km/hr) would save 40,000 lives per year? Bleeding Heart: You know, maybe some people just aren't meant to live that long. Isn't the planet getting overpopulated anyway?
  - em-bee 4y ago
    then we'd all use public transport. do it!
    - xboxnolifes 4y ago
      But then we need to limit the speed of public transport.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        in a world where cars are not allowed to go fast, public transport would get dedicated tracks where it can go faster. even with busses there would be less traffic because a bus can carry a lot more people than many cars. therefore it would be much safer for pedestrians and the goal of reducing accidents would certainly be achieved.
tjr225 4y ago
As far as I know you can still buy an old car without any of these features, either pass or be exempt from any of emissions standards, and more or less drive that car wherever the heck you want it. So, I’m not sure how any of the regulations you cite affect the poor. Unless of course the poor are attempting to purchase or finance new cars, which even I as someone who makes well into six figures without any debt except my mortgage, won’t do.
- Aloha 4y ago
  There is a reason the average vehicle age in the US keeps going up, also all of those do-dads and addons at least marginally increase repair costs.
  - Cd00d 4y ago
    The reason the average age goes up is because it's far easier to maintain a car well past 100k miles now than it ever has been before. https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-miles-does-a-car-last/ https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-mil...
- KingMachiavelli 4y ago
  Any change's effect is relative. If new cars become more expensive because of regulation then used cars become slightly more expensive because the market as a whole shifts. So the poor end up driving just as unsafe a vehicle but pay a bit more. Of course the poor, like everyone else, in theory benefits from the positive externality of other people having backup cameras and other safety features.
trhway 4y ago
I'd guess you never watched Fight Club :)
- ipython 4y ago
  Shhh the first rule of fight club…
wyre 4y ago
I want to agree with your main point but I disagree with your reasoning. Regulations exist to to increase safety. Regulatory capture already exists. Yes, it does disproportionately effect the poor, but that isn’t the fault of safety regulations, it is the fault of societal issues w.r.t wealth inequality, social mobility, etc. California’s housing crisis isn’t caused because new houses need solar panels, for example.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >California’s housing crisis isn’t caused because new houses need solar panels, for example. Not sure where you're getting that, it sure as hell contributes. Several thousand dollars extra to every house is just another cost on the pile. It's death by a thousand regulatory cuts.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    What's the profit margin on a newly built house in California? I can't imagine that construction costs are close to selling price anywhere in commuting distance from a city.
  - Espressosaurus 4y ago
    The cost is still dominated by zoning/nimbyism. Yes it's a cut, but when the land alone costs more than any possible house built on it, and and non-single-family-residences are harshly restricted, well, guess what there's more demand than there is supply, and no way to increase the supply, so the prices go up. Way up.
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      But land doesn't cost that much. Approved plots of land with an existing structure cost that much. Land itself is relatively cheap. There's a LOT of empty space in California. When you say land is expensive you're really saying that regulation is expensive. The regulatory hurdles others have mentioned are why having a zoned and permitted structure is so valuable. Having a home so you can do a single wall teardown is worth hundreds of thousands at least - maybe more because it can clear existential regulatory hurdles that block development. The nimbyism you mention is possible because of these bad regulations, which in theory exist for the greater good -- but which in practice do not provide for it.
brandonmenc 4y ago
There are also social costs. The car seat requirement limits the extended family who can take kids off your hands for a few hours. Aunts and uncles used to pop over and take us out for an afternoon at the zoo or to get ice cream. Nowadays I can't take my nieces and nephews out like that until they're practically teenagers because I don't have car seats.
- Cd00d 4y ago
  It takes minutes to transfer a car seat. LATCH especially makes it incredibly easy.
  - zik 4y ago
    "I'm stuck at the office. Can you pick up little Johnny?" "Sorry no, I don't have a car seat. And I can't get it from you today because it's with you at the office."
    - spockz 4y ago
      In the Netherlands it is allowed for emergency transportation not to use a car seat but just the seat belt. Obviously this doesn’t work for baby carriers. This is the reason why the baby carrier is left with the child, eg at daycare, so that the child can always be transported safely.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        husband stuck at work is not an emergency though.
  - D13Fd 4y ago
    You’re wrong. If you want to properly install the seat, it’s going to take at least 10 minutes for someone with practice, and a very frustrating half hour for someone without practice. Latch or no latch. The permissible lateral movement specs can be hard to hit even if you know the tricks.
yellow_lead 4y ago
> cum molotov cocktail What?
- phil-martin 4y ago
  preposition: cum combined with; also used as (used to describe things with a dual nature or function). "a study-cum-bedroom" So in this case "rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail" means a rolling death trap that becomes moltov cocktail, in a rather unpleasant explodey fiery fashion.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    Exactly. Ala the ford pinto or GM pickups with the gas tanks outside the frame rails. Which were the two I was thinking of when I wrote that phrase.
- 3-cheese-sundae 4y ago
  Think "magna cum laude"
elil17 4y ago
There’s a big divide between state laws (this article) and federal regulations (backup cameras, for instance). The NHTSA chooses which vehicle technologies to mandate based on a cost/benefit analysis with the value of a human life set at about $11 million.
kastagg 4y ago
How do you know there is no cost/benefit analysis?
Cd00d 4y ago
I don't agree with this argument. Yes, because of safety mandates the price of a new car has gone up. I bought a brand new base model Toyota for $11k in 2001, and the cheapest brand new cars now are closer to $20k. BUT, cars now also last far, far longer. There is still a massive market for cars under $10k that will run for many 10s of thousands, if not 100 thousand more miles with minimal maintenance. 20 years ago cars wouldn't start. Or, you'd need to know just how to turn the key or finesse the clutch. None of that is a thing any more. Yes, safety makes cars more expensive. It definitely saves lives. But, I'd need evidence that there are not cars available for the poor. It's only NEW cars that are unavailable, but you can find plenty of cars with backup cameras and a lot of life left in them for cheap in the used car market.
- judge2020 4y ago
  To add: it’s hard to imagine but 2001 was over 20 years ago. Inflation is something you must consider, and wow, $11k in 2001 is $18,400 in 2022. Even if you exclude our recent inflation crisis, in 2021 it’s still $16,800.
  - dereg 4y ago
    You both are missing the demand side of the picture. From 2001 to 2020, Real median household income has risen by 9%. Automobile prices have risen by 21%. Median income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N CPI - New Vehicles: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA01 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA01
    - Cd00d 4y ago
      I haven't missed the point. NEW car prices may have grown faster than income, BUT cars last far longer, so there's more market availability at the lower price point. There are more used cars that are reliable for sale. Covid has us in a weird used car bubble, but generally, once that blip is over we're in an era where reliable cheap cars have far less issues than any time in the past.
gpapilion 4y ago
I’ve thought about this a lot when it comes to car seats. The paper implies 57 deaths prevented, but I see these stats often turned to a percentage reduction(53% reduction in deaths for example). Then when debated the change in the death as a percentage seems large, and folks automatically vote for these laws. We continue to chase small improvements because we aren’t looking at the actual numbers.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Also note this paper does not seem to take in lifelong injury rates. We believe this has prevented 57 deaths, but we don't ask the question of how many injuries has this prevented. It may be easy for some people to point out the death number is very small, but living, not the non-existent should be the primary concern here. There are over 4 million vehicle related injuries per year. How many of those are in the 0-13 year old range, and how many of them are life long?
NegativeLatency 4y ago
Having to own a car in the first place is an imposition, I’d prefer to not own or maintain one but in the US it’s pretty necessary.
spankalee 4y ago
Cars are extremely dangerous to those outside them, so I'm more than ok with making them more expensive for even a little bit of safety. If they're too expensive, people should take transit. Cars should be safe, legal, and rare.
- smegger001 4y ago
  Mass transit is great unless your a shift worker. I start work at 4 am, my wife gets off her shift at the hospital at 10 pm neither of us can use it as the bus doesn't run when we need it. even if it did run 24-7 the nearest stop is about a mile away.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
It’s interesting that you focus on the cars safety systems instead of the automotive industries generational destruction of robust public transit that would be incalculably (n order effects are impossible to calculate and all) better than multi ton personal vehicles, gas or ice.
flukus 4y ago
People have also switched to larger and more expensive vehicles in addition to these mandatory costs, so I'd say the mandatory costs are mostly a non-issue, otherwise we'd be seeing people cut costs elsewhere. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/01/20200101-jato.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/01/20200101-jato.html

by Aloha 4y ago

sneak 4y ago

We're at the point now that in the EU cars are now required to carry cellular radio transcievers (each with a unique identifier in the form of an IMEI) from the factory. It has gone a long way from mandating seatbelts.

xpe 4y ago

> There is and has been a creeping level of do-gooderism/we-know-best in the US regulatory environment It feels this way, though I haven't studied it. > While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted. I somewhat agree, but this raises the next question: what is the value of a human life? It is one thing for a healthcare system or insurance group to try to maximize something (quality of life? remaining life expectancy?) for a particular budget. It is another to tradeoff saving lives against lowering vehicle costs.

Aloha 4y ago
The US is a car based society, there is trillions of dollars of concrete and steel in the ground making it so, we can change if we want that but it'll take decades and trillions more to replace/overlay the infrastructure we already have. Pricing people out of vehicles prices them out of access to affordable housing, decent paying jobs and a whole bunch of other things that are important to not living in poverty, by putting vehicles and access to reliable transportation out of reach for the poor, we're effective condemning them to whatever their status quo is.
- wyre 4y ago
  No one needs a new car. There is a huge used car market with a lot of accessible financing. Isn’t there a trope of the millionaire driving a 15yo sedan? Not having access to reliable transportation is not the significant factor w.r.t social mobility you are making it out to be.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    it used to be you could find a 20 year old, serviceable used car for sub 2500 dollars, now get something serviceable and running, it's closer to double that. Even when you adjust for inflation, the price for a cheap used car is 30-40% higher than it was a decade ago.
  - xpe 4y ago
    wyre, how would you characterize the effects of reliable transportation towards social mobility? It seems you only discuss the rich frugal segment. What about the rest? Middle class folks in the suburbs? Poor urban people who drive to work? Etc... I'm asking in this way because saying "... you are making it out to be" is based on some comparison between your assessment and your perception of another person's writing. That has several layers of indirection. So I would prefer to just ask you directly.
    - wyre 4y ago
      I’ve been car free my entire adult life, I’ve also been broke my entire adult life too. I’ve been fortunate enough to live in places with good cycling infrastructure and public transit; I know that isn’t the case in most places. That said, I wouldn’t attribute my lack of social mobility to my decision to not own a car/lack of money to own a car. Automobile financing can absolutely be predatory to low income workers and to a degree it might prohibit some mobility when a large portion of income goes to maintaining a vehicle just to maintain an income. Maybe there should be regulation on predatory financing? Someone making $20k a year is going to be poor regardless if they own a car or not. Economic mobility comes from having marketable skills that provide value to others and the ability to acquire those skills. A college education is not particularly accessible to low-income folks that need to also work to pay rent and food.
plegresl 4y ago
Government agencies already have a dollar amount for the value of a human life that they are supposed to use when considering safety regulations: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agencies-determine-the-dollar-value-of-human-life https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agen...
mattjaynes 4y ago
This reminds me of the "If it saves just one life" fallacy... Even the most ardent believer of this fallacy will often break when confronted with real costs to their own life. For example: Cruel Capitalist: If lowering the highway speed limit to 40 miles per hour (64km/hr) would save 20,000 lives per year on US roads, should we do it? Bleeding Heart: It would be inconvenient, but yes, it would save lives! Cruel Capitalist: And if lowering the highway speed limit to 20 miles per hour (32km/hr) would save 40,000 lives per year? Bleeding Heart: You know, maybe some people just aren't meant to live that long. Isn't the planet getting overpopulated anyway?
- em-bee 4y ago
  then we'd all use public transport. do it!
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    But then we need to limit the speed of public transport.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      in a world where cars are not allowed to go fast, public transport would get dedicated tracks where it can go faster. even with busses there would be less traffic because a bus can carry a lot more people than many cars. therefore it would be much safer for pedestrians and the goal of reducing accidents would certainly be achieved.

tjr225 4y ago

As far as I know you can still buy an old car without any of these features, either pass or be exempt from any of emissions standards, and more or less drive that car wherever the heck you want it. So, I’m not sure how any of the regulations you cite affect the poor. Unless of course the poor are attempting to purchase or finance new cars, which even I as someone who makes well into six figures without any debt except my mortgage, won’t do.

Aloha 4y ago
There is a reason the average vehicle age in the US keeps going up, also all of those do-dads and addons at least marginally increase repair costs.
- Cd00d 4y ago
  The reason the average age goes up is because it's far easier to maintain a car well past 100k miles now than it ever has been before. https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-miles-does-a-car-last/ https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-mil...
KingMachiavelli 4y ago
Any change's effect is relative. If new cars become more expensive because of regulation then used cars become slightly more expensive because the market as a whole shifts. So the poor end up driving just as unsafe a vehicle but pay a bit more. Of course the poor, like everyone else, in theory benefits from the positive externality of other people having backup cameras and other safety features.

trhway 4y ago

I'd guess you never watched Fight Club :)

ipython 4y ago
Shhh the first rule of fight club…

wyre 4y ago

I want to agree with your main point but I disagree with your reasoning. Regulations exist to to increase safety. Regulatory capture already exists. Yes, it does disproportionately effect the poor, but that isn’t the fault of safety regulations, it is the fault of societal issues w.r.t wealth inequality, social mobility, etc. California’s housing crisis isn’t caused because new houses need solar panels, for example.

HideousKojima 4y ago
>California’s housing crisis isn’t caused because new houses need solar panels, for example. Not sure where you're getting that, it sure as hell contributes. Several thousand dollars extra to every house is just another cost on the pile. It's death by a thousand regulatory cuts.
- adrianN 4y ago
  What's the profit margin on a newly built house in California? I can't imagine that construction costs are close to selling price anywhere in commuting distance from a city.
- Espressosaurus 4y ago
  The cost is still dominated by zoning/nimbyism. Yes it's a cut, but when the land alone costs more than any possible house built on it, and and non-single-family-residences are harshly restricted, well, guess what there's more demand than there is supply, and no way to increase the supply, so the prices go up. Way up.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    But land doesn't cost that much. Approved plots of land with an existing structure cost that much. Land itself is relatively cheap. There's a LOT of empty space in California. When you say land is expensive you're really saying that regulation is expensive. The regulatory hurdles others have mentioned are why having a zoned and permitted structure is so valuable. Having a home so you can do a single wall teardown is worth hundreds of thousands at least - maybe more because it can clear existential regulatory hurdles that block development. The nimbyism you mention is possible because of these bad regulations, which in theory exist for the greater good -- but which in practice do not provide for it.

brandonmenc 4y ago

There are also social costs. The car seat requirement limits the extended family who can take kids off your hands for a few hours. Aunts and uncles used to pop over and take us out for an afternoon at the zoo or to get ice cream. Nowadays I can't take my nieces and nephews out like that until they're practically teenagers because I don't have car seats.

Cd00d 4y ago
It takes minutes to transfer a car seat. LATCH especially makes it incredibly easy.
- zik 4y ago
  "I'm stuck at the office. Can you pick up little Johnny?" "Sorry no, I don't have a car seat. And I can't get it from you today because it's with you at the office."
  - spockz 4y ago
    In the Netherlands it is allowed for emergency transportation not to use a car seat but just the seat belt. Obviously this doesn’t work for baby carriers. This is the reason why the baby carrier is left with the child, eg at daycare, so that the child can always be transported safely.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      husband stuck at work is not an emergency though.
- D13Fd 4y ago
  You’re wrong. If you want to properly install the seat, it’s going to take at least 10 minutes for someone with practice, and a very frustrating half hour for someone without practice. Latch or no latch. The permissible lateral movement specs can be hard to hit even if you know the tricks.

yellow_lead 4y ago

> cum molotov cocktail What?

phil-martin 4y ago
preposition: cum combined with; also used as (used to describe things with a dual nature or function). "a study-cum-bedroom" So in this case "rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail" means a rolling death trap that becomes moltov cocktail, in a rather unpleasant explodey fiery fashion.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Exactly. Ala the ford pinto or GM pickups with the gas tanks outside the frame rails. Which were the two I was thinking of when I wrote that phrase.
3-cheese-sundae 4y ago
Think "magna cum laude"

elil17 4y ago

There’s a big divide between state laws (this article) and federal regulations (backup cameras, for instance). The NHTSA chooses which vehicle technologies to mandate based on a cost/benefit analysis with the value of a human life set at about $11 million.

kastagg 4y ago

How do you know there is no cost/benefit analysis?

Cd00d 4y ago

I don't agree with this argument. Yes, because of safety mandates the price of a new car has gone up. I bought a brand new base model Toyota for $11k in 2001, and the cheapest brand new cars now are closer to $20k. BUT, cars now also last far, far longer. There is still a massive market for cars under $10k that will run for many 10s of thousands, if not 100 thousand more miles with minimal maintenance. 20 years ago cars wouldn't start. Or, you'd need to know just how to turn the key or finesse the clutch. None of that is a thing any more. Yes, safety makes cars more expensive. It definitely saves lives. But, I'd need evidence that there are not cars available for the poor. It's only NEW cars that are unavailable, but you can find plenty of cars with backup cameras and a lot of life left in them for cheap in the used car market.

judge2020 4y ago
To add: it’s hard to imagine but 2001 was over 20 years ago. Inflation is something you must consider, and wow, $11k in 2001 is $18,400 in 2022. Even if you exclude our recent inflation crisis, in 2021 it’s still $16,800.
- dereg 4y ago
  You both are missing the demand side of the picture. From 2001 to 2020, Real median household income has risen by 9%. Automobile prices have risen by 21%. Median income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N CPI - New Vehicles: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA01 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA01
  - Cd00d 4y ago
    I haven't missed the point. NEW car prices may have grown faster than income, BUT cars last far longer, so there's more market availability at the lower price point. There are more used cars that are reliable for sale. Covid has us in a weird used car bubble, but generally, once that blip is over we're in an era where reliable cheap cars have far less issues than any time in the past.

gpapilion 4y ago

I’ve thought about this a lot when it comes to car seats. The paper implies 57 deaths prevented, but I see these stats often turned to a percentage reduction(53% reduction in deaths for example). Then when debated the change in the death as a percentage seems large, and folks automatically vote for these laws. We continue to chase small improvements because we aren’t looking at the actual numbers.

pixl97 4y ago
Also note this paper does not seem to take in lifelong injury rates. We believe this has prevented 57 deaths, but we don't ask the question of how many injuries has this prevented. It may be easy for some people to point out the death number is very small, but living, not the non-existent should be the primary concern here. There are over 4 million vehicle related injuries per year. How many of those are in the 0-13 year old range, and how many of them are life long?

NegativeLatency 4y ago

Having to own a car in the first place is an imposition, I’d prefer to not own or maintain one but in the US it’s pretty necessary.

spankalee 4y ago

Cars are extremely dangerous to those outside them, so I'm more than ok with making them more expensive for even a little bit of safety. If they're too expensive, people should take transit. Cars should be safe, legal, and rare.

smegger001 4y ago
Mass transit is great unless your a shift worker. I start work at 4 am, my wife gets off her shift at the hospital at 10 pm neither of us can use it as the bus doesn't run when we need it. even if it did run 24-7 the nearest stop is about a mile away.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago

It’s interesting that you focus on the cars safety systems instead of the automotive industries generational destruction of robust public transit that would be incalculably (n order effects are impossible to calculate and all) better than multi ton personal vehicles, gas or ice.

flukus 4y ago

People have also switched to larger and more expensive vehicles in addition to these mandatory costs, so I'd say the mandatory costs are mostly a non-issue, otherwise we'd be seeing people cut costs elsewhere. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/01/20200101-jato.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/01/20200101-jato.html