5 ms·

The problem started in the US as unintended consequences of trying to create cars with better MPG. In the last century the US government created a standard for

The problem started in the US as unintended consequences of trying to create cars with better MPG. In the last century the US government created a standard for how efficient vehicles need to be. At the time most people drove cars and specifically station wagons were among the most popular styles of cars. Trucks were not aspirational vehicles and were used for work only. And since work trucks often times do need a lot more power than a family hauler or at least need to be heavier/larger, the government created two different standards: one for cars and one for trucks (body on frame vehicles). Of course manufacturers immediately saw that they could just make trucks more like cars than make cars more fuel efficient so they started putting modern interiors and such into trucks and modernizing the platforms to create SUVs. Thus the station wagon died and the SUV became the standard family vehicle for a lot of people.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>as unintended consequences I think we have plently of lessons of how badly things go when the federal government sticks its nose into anything that we can no longer call these as unintended consequences. They are very much intended We need to stop having the government pick winners and losers, or try to influence the market in any way be favoring one thing over another
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  >as unintended consequences regulatory capture tells us these consequences are intended. Intended to keep out upstarts without Musk's cash to back it. There's no reason we couldn't have bespoke car manufacturers producing city-cars for a low total cost.
  - IgorPartola 4y ago
    Do you think that anyone should be able to build a street-legal car? Regardless of how well it is manufactured and how safe it is for those inside and outside of it? How do you view the relationship between government-owned, built, and maintained roads and private vehicle manufacturers that use those roads?
    - adql 4y ago
      > Do you think that anyone should be able to build a street-legal car? Yes > Regardless of how well it is manufactured and how safe it is for those inside and outside of it? No. Should have cat, compliant lighting that's not too brigth/dim, working brakes and suspension, ABS and some common sense (like no spikes protruding from it). You know, the stuff proper MOT inspection would fail you for anyway. And maybe pay few hundred to professional mechanic to get thru it and make sure you ain't doing something stupid and get you nice custom VIN for it. If it is (say) 100+ production yeah probably should have some actual crash testing and rest of the compliance, but if it is one off ? Won't be worse than 20 years old F150 or someone's restored 70's/80's car and we aren't taking those off the roads.
      - IgorPartola 4y ago
        Hmm. So it's OK for the government to dictate what features a car must have, may have, may not have, etc? And the government should also inspect these vehicles and make sure they meet the standards before allowing them on public roads? Well, turns out you are in luck because this is all already possible in the US. Pretty much everywhere there are provisions for one-off custom vehicles and getting them inspected. Sure, the paperwork is daunting and the process isn't always easy, but it is definitely possible. See article about an engineer who registered a jet turbine powered VW bug that shot 15 foot flames out of the back of it in CA that surfaced on HN a few years ago. But we aren't necessarily talking about one-off cars that hobbyists who care about their craft create. We are talking about Walmart popping out $1,100 golf carts without airbags because it's a "city car".
        calvinmorrison 4y ago
        Let insurance handle it
        IgorPartola 4y ago
        Handle what? People killed by the contraption? Bystanders maimed?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- IgorPartola 4y ago
  Do you think that the government not taking an action can ever result in unintended consequences? Could the government, by taking no action, implicitly support the current "winner" because that's the status quo? What do you think would happen to the prices of gasoline, electricity, etc. if the government stopped regulating any and all of it? What's your view on government regulation around things like worksite safety, meat inspections and other food safety, drug safety? Should the government prevent your neighbor from installing a radio signal jammer that prevents you from using your cell phone on your property? Or is that picking a winner/loser?
  - adql 4y ago
    Right but in this case the actions taken were wrong, were not fixed, and still are not fixed. Like the fact only in near future it will be legal for US cars to have adaptive lights. Or how for years [1] near every car light was same ineffective design. Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation. If car manufacturers have to squeeze fleet averages (which is on its own retarded idea, just tax every model separately ffs) for normal cars. Or how apparently 20MPG sportscar is "gas guzzler" but 15MPG SUV is not * [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2J91UG6Fn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2J91UG6Fn8
    - IgorPartola 4y ago
      > Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation. My point exactly. Correct regulation is correct. People who take the absolutist approach on either side of this tend to quickly run into either "now I have to learn to do my own meat inspections" or "I can't buy meat because a cow needs to be exactly 7'11" tall or it isn't legally a cow".
- conk 4y ago
  This nearly 200 year old essay disagrees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Governments serve a very real and necessary task of regulating markets to prevent abuse by bad actors. Bad actors seeking out loopholes and skirting regs is not an argument for less regulation but rather an argument for more regulation.

phpisthebest 4y ago

>as unintended consequences I think we have plently of lessons of how badly things go when the federal government sticks its nose into anything that we can no longer call these as unintended consequences. They are very much intended We need to stop having the government pick winners and losers, or try to influence the market in any way be favoring one thing over another

calvinmorrison 4y ago
>as unintended consequences regulatory capture tells us these consequences are intended. Intended to keep out upstarts without Musk's cash to back it. There's no reason we couldn't have bespoke car manufacturers producing city-cars for a low total cost.
- IgorPartola 4y ago
  Do you think that anyone should be able to build a street-legal car? Regardless of how well it is manufactured and how safe it is for those inside and outside of it? How do you view the relationship between government-owned, built, and maintained roads and private vehicle manufacturers that use those roads?
  - adql 4y ago
    > Do you think that anyone should be able to build a street-legal car? Yes > Regardless of how well it is manufactured and how safe it is for those inside and outside of it? No. Should have cat, compliant lighting that's not too brigth/dim, working brakes and suspension, ABS and some common sense (like no spikes protruding from it). You know, the stuff proper MOT inspection would fail you for anyway. And maybe pay few hundred to professional mechanic to get thru it and make sure you ain't doing something stupid and get you nice custom VIN for it. If it is (say) 100+ production yeah probably should have some actual crash testing and rest of the compliance, but if it is one off ? Won't be worse than 20 years old F150 or someone's restored 70's/80's car and we aren't taking those off the roads.
    - IgorPartola 4y ago
      Hmm. So it's OK for the government to dictate what features a car must have, may have, may not have, etc? And the government should also inspect these vehicles and make sure they meet the standards before allowing them on public roads? Well, turns out you are in luck because this is all already possible in the US. Pretty much everywhere there are provisions for one-off custom vehicles and getting them inspected. Sure, the paperwork is daunting and the process isn't always easy, but it is definitely possible. See article about an engineer who registered a jet turbine powered VW bug that shot 15 foot flames out of the back of it in CA that surfaced on HN a few years ago. But we aren't necessarily talking about one-off cars that hobbyists who care about their craft create. We are talking about Walmart popping out $1,100 golf carts without airbags because it's a "city car".
      - calvinmorrison 4y ago
        Let insurance handle it
        IgorPartola 4y ago
        Handle what? People killed by the contraption? Bystanders maimed?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
IgorPartola 4y ago
Do you think that the government not taking an action can ever result in unintended consequences? Could the government, by taking no action, implicitly support the current "winner" because that's the status quo? What do you think would happen to the prices of gasoline, electricity, etc. if the government stopped regulating any and all of it? What's your view on government regulation around things like worksite safety, meat inspections and other food safety, drug safety? Should the government prevent your neighbor from installing a radio signal jammer that prevents you from using your cell phone on your property? Or is that picking a winner/loser?
- adql 4y ago
  Right but in this case the actions taken were wrong, were not fixed, and still are not fixed. Like the fact only in near future it will be legal for US cars to have adaptive lights. Or how for years [1] near every car light was same ineffective design. Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation. If car manufacturers have to squeeze fleet averages (which is on its own retarded idea, just tax every model separately ffs) for normal cars. Or how apparently 20MPG sportscar is "gas guzzler" but 15MPG SUV is not * [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2J91UG6Fn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2J91UG6Fn8
  - IgorPartola 4y ago
    > Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation. My point exactly. Correct regulation is correct. People who take the absolutist approach on either side of this tend to quickly run into either "now I have to learn to do my own meat inspections" or "I can't buy meat because a cow needs to be exactly 7'11" tall or it isn't legally a cow".
conk 4y ago
This nearly 200 year old essay disagrees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Governments serve a very real and necessary task of regulating markets to prevent abuse by bad actors. Bad actors seeking out loopholes and skirting regs is not an argument for less regulation but rather an argument for more regulation.