5 ms·

Regulatory capture marches forward. In an environment where small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular, I expect lots of "for your safe

Regulatory capture marches forward. In an environment where small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular, I expect lots of "for your safety" reasons why cars have to be complicated and expensive.

cudgy 3y ago
Well they have to do something with all the new funding from the latest “infrastructure” bill. “helped secure a historic 50 percent increase in funding and staffing resources for the agency under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa-leadership/ann-carlson https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa-leadership/ann-carlson
asoneth 3y ago
Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven by regulatory capture or not it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles. Personally I think consumers should be free to decide things like seatbelt and airbag use but if they drive on public roadways they should not be allowed to make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them. > small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular Agreed that's a promising area. It's possible that the increasing regulatory burden on cars may drive an increase in low-speed vehicles such as neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) for use cases that do not require more than 25mph/40kph.[2] Since they are exempt from the vast majority of new automobile regulations that makes them comparatively much simpler and more affordable. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7126a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7126a1.htm [2] I am not claiming this works for every suburban commute, just that there exists a nontrivial number of car trips in cities and towns that would be feasible in a NEV.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles Not the way we do it, it doesn't. What it does make sense to do is put the liability for harm where it belongs: on those who actually cause harm. But the vast majority of our automobile regulations--I include traffic laws in this category--do not do that. The regulation proposed here is an example.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Nonsense. Better than worrying about liability of the harm that happens, is reducing the amount of harm that happens. To argue otherwise is silly.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      Regulations that restrict people who have not caused actual harm do not, in general, reduce the amount of harm that happens. But they do work great as revenue sources for local governments (speeding laws are the most common example but not the only one), not to mention as excuses for manufacturers to charge higher prices and squeeze out more profit from consumers. They also reduce general respect for laws and regulations among the public: people start to view driving, for example, as a game to avoid being caught doing things that are technically illegal but which the vast majority of people do anyway (such as exceeding posted speed limits). Fostering that kind of mentality among the public arguably increases the amount of harm that happens. Furthermore, government institutions, particularly in the post-COVID era, simply lack credibility when they make claims about some government mandate reducing harm. In this case, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, NHTSA's claims about harm reduction assume that these systems will always operate perfectly and will never cause any harm, only prevent it. Such an assumption is not credible. In short, I do not share your faith in the ability of government regulators to actually reduce harm, on net. More generally, I do not share your faith in the ability of governments to actually act in the interest of all the people, instead of benefiting the governments themselves and particular special interests.
      - taeric 3y ago
        I disagree. Especially for institutions that have as much easy to look at data as this. Total wrecks is easy to track. And if it is going down, regulation to help is working. Paranoia on overreach is fine. Good, even. That is best approached by auditing and running the stats. Constantly. But to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. That said, if you are going to assert some of these claims, on what evidence? I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer?
- akira2501 3y ago
  The majority of people killed in crashes are impaired by alcohol or drugs or both. 1/6 of all fatalities are pedestrians, and another 1/6 are motorcycles, despite only being 1/10 of all registered vehicles. There are tons of modes in this data. Assessing all crash fatalities as some sort of "general" problem you can target misses this fact. The single greatest thing you could do to reduce fatalities is to eliminate drunk and impaired driving.
  - drivebycomment 3y ago
    This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, since, AEB doesn't prevent anyone else from working on eliminating drunk and impaired driving. If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving.
    - akira2501 3y ago
      > This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, This discussion is about _mandating_ AEB, not it's mere existence or implementation, and of the overall value of that proposition; which, I am suggesting is low relative to all other problems and efforts spent mandating this would be better spent elsewhere. > If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving. Are these systems tested for this use case? I'd like to see that. Otherwise, this is a guess, and a bad one.
  - asoneth 3y ago
    Agreed that eliminating drunk and impaired driving is important. (For example, if there was a well-tested and reliable technology that could reduce drunk and impaired driving, I would be in favor of mandating it in new cars.) But this is not mutually exclusive. For one thing, we can do two things at once. For another, automobile fatalities typically have multiple contributing causes. If we had stronger safety regulations around vehicle height, stopping distance, windshield visibility, etc then some number of the crashes involving alcohol or drug use might have been injuries or close calls instead of fatalities.
- eep_social 3y ago
  > make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them And yet we see that truck and suv purchases are through the roof with buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe. Generally the other side, which is fuck the pedestrians, cyclists, or other drivers who cannot afford to drive a full sized truck to starbucks, is left unsaid.
  - asoneth 3y ago
    > buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe Yes. This is precisely why this sort of decision cannot be left to individual consumers -- the end result is an arms race of ever-larger vehicles and dramatic increases in fatalities for the rest of us.
taeric 3y ago
I mean, I can certainly agree that there is a thing as regulatory capture. I am not clear that this is it, though. Making cars safer has legit improved life expectancy. Anti-lock brakes, seat belts, rear view cameras, blind spot indicators, etc. are all very welcome advances that make modern vehicles much more safe than they would otherwise be.
- pdonis 3y ago
  All of the safety devices you mention were bought by many consumers before they were required by regulations. Why? Because they are obvious benefits with no real downside. In fact, the only reason regulators were able to require things like anti-lock brakes and seat belts on all cars was that the vast majority of cars already had them, because the vast majority of drivers already recognized their benefits. They didn't need regulators to tell them. The systems under discussion here are different, because they have the capability to do something that none of the other safety systems you mention can: take control of your car from you. Anti-lock brakes only work when you press the brake pedal. Seat belts and rear view cameras are passive. Automatic systems that can press the brakes without warning and without you expecting it are very different; what if the system makes a mistake? Multiple other posters in this thread have described such mistakes. These systems are more like rudimentary self-driving cars and should be judged accordingly. They are not just passive safety features with no downside.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    The car industry fought seatbelts and airbags. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists-carsafety-costs-companies-feel-consumers-will.html https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists... Your claims about widespread voluntary adoption appear false. https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance > At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.
    - pdonis 3y ago
nradov 3y ago
That's not what is happening here at all. There is a separate set of regulations for those small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles. They are classified as "neighborhood electric vehicles". The NHTSA has not proposed to require automatic emergency braking for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle
killdozer 3y ago
lmao not every law is "regulatory capture", sometimes laws make dangerous activities that most of us are forced into (like driving) a bit safer as better technology becomes available.

cudgy 3y ago

Well they have to do something with all the new funding from the latest “infrastructure” bill. “helped secure a historic 50 percent increase in funding and staffing resources for the agency under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa-leadership/ann-carlson https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa-leadership/ann-carlson

asoneth 3y ago

Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven by regulatory capture or not it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles. Personally I think consumers should be free to decide things like seatbelt and airbag use but if they drive on public roadways they should not be allowed to make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them. > small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular Agreed that's a promising area. It's possible that the increasing regulatory burden on cars may drive an increase in low-speed vehicles such as neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) for use cases that do not require more than 25mph/40kph.[2] Since they are exempt from the vast majority of new automobile regulations that makes them comparatively much simpler and more affordable. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7126a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7126a1.htm [2] I am not claiming this works for every suburban commute, just that there exists a nontrivial number of car trips in cities and towns that would be feasible in a NEV.

pdonis 3y ago
> it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles Not the way we do it, it doesn't. What it does make sense to do is put the liability for harm where it belongs: on those who actually cause harm. But the vast majority of our automobile regulations--I include traffic laws in this category--do not do that. The regulation proposed here is an example.
- taeric 3y ago
  Nonsense. Better than worrying about liability of the harm that happens, is reducing the amount of harm that happens. To argue otherwise is silly.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    Regulations that restrict people who have not caused actual harm do not, in general, reduce the amount of harm that happens. But they do work great as revenue sources for local governments (speeding laws are the most common example but not the only one), not to mention as excuses for manufacturers to charge higher prices and squeeze out more profit from consumers. They also reduce general respect for laws and regulations among the public: people start to view driving, for example, as a game to avoid being caught doing things that are technically illegal but which the vast majority of people do anyway (such as exceeding posted speed limits). Fostering that kind of mentality among the public arguably increases the amount of harm that happens. Furthermore, government institutions, particularly in the post-COVID era, simply lack credibility when they make claims about some government mandate reducing harm. In this case, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, NHTSA's claims about harm reduction assume that these systems will always operate perfectly and will never cause any harm, only prevent it. Such an assumption is not credible. In short, I do not share your faith in the ability of government regulators to actually reduce harm, on net. More generally, I do not share your faith in the ability of governments to actually act in the interest of all the people, instead of benefiting the governments themselves and particular special interests.
    - taeric 3y ago
      I disagree. Especially for institutions that have as much easy to look at data as this. Total wrecks is easy to track. And if it is going down, regulation to help is working. Paranoia on overreach is fine. Good, even. That is best approached by auditing and running the stats. Constantly. But to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. That said, if you are going to assert some of these claims, on what evidence? I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer?
akira2501 3y ago
The majority of people killed in crashes are impaired by alcohol or drugs or both. 1/6 of all fatalities are pedestrians, and another 1/6 are motorcycles, despite only being 1/10 of all registered vehicles. There are tons of modes in this data. Assessing all crash fatalities as some sort of "general" problem you can target misses this fact. The single greatest thing you could do to reduce fatalities is to eliminate drunk and impaired driving.
- drivebycomment 3y ago
  This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, since, AEB doesn't prevent anyone else from working on eliminating drunk and impaired driving. If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, This discussion is about _mandating_ AEB, not it's mere existence or implementation, and of the overall value of that proposition; which, I am suggesting is low relative to all other problems and efforts spent mandating this would be better spent elsewhere. > If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving. Are these systems tested for this use case? I'd like to see that. Otherwise, this is a guess, and a bad one.
- asoneth 3y ago
  Agreed that eliminating drunk and impaired driving is important. (For example, if there was a well-tested and reliable technology that could reduce drunk and impaired driving, I would be in favor of mandating it in new cars.) But this is not mutually exclusive. For one thing, we can do two things at once. For another, automobile fatalities typically have multiple contributing causes. If we had stronger safety regulations around vehicle height, stopping distance, windshield visibility, etc then some number of the crashes involving alcohol or drug use might have been injuries or close calls instead of fatalities.
eep_social 3y ago
> make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them And yet we see that truck and suv purchases are through the roof with buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe. Generally the other side, which is fuck the pedestrians, cyclists, or other drivers who cannot afford to drive a full sized truck to starbucks, is left unsaid.
- asoneth 3y ago
  > buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe Yes. This is precisely why this sort of decision cannot be left to individual consumers -- the end result is an arms race of ever-larger vehicles and dramatic increases in fatalities for the rest of us.

taeric 3y ago

I mean, I can certainly agree that there is a thing as regulatory capture. I am not clear that this is it, though. Making cars safer has legit improved life expectancy. Anti-lock brakes, seat belts, rear view cameras, blind spot indicators, etc. are all very welcome advances that make modern vehicles much more safe than they would otherwise be.

pdonis 3y ago
All of the safety devices you mention were bought by many consumers before they were required by regulations. Why? Because they are obvious benefits with no real downside. In fact, the only reason regulators were able to require things like anti-lock brakes and seat belts on all cars was that the vast majority of cars already had them, because the vast majority of drivers already recognized their benefits. They didn't need regulators to tell them. The systems under discussion here are different, because they have the capability to do something that none of the other safety systems you mention can: take control of your car from you. Anti-lock brakes only work when you press the brake pedal. Seat belts and rear view cameras are passive. Automatic systems that can press the brakes without warning and without you expecting it are very different; what if the system makes a mistake? Multiple other posters in this thread have described such mistakes. These systems are more like rudimentary self-driving cars and should be judged accordingly. They are not just passive safety features with no downside.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  The car industry fought seatbelts and airbags. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists-carsafety-costs-companies-feel-consumers-will.html https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists... Your claims about widespread voluntary adoption appear false. https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance > At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.
  - pdonis 3y ago

nradov 3y ago

That's not what is happening here at all. There is a separate set of regulations for those small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles. They are classified as "neighborhood electric vehicles". The NHTSA has not proposed to require automatic emergency braking for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle

killdozer 3y ago

lmao not every law is "regulatory capture", sometimes laws make dangerous activities that most of us are forced into (like driving) a bit safer as better technology becomes available.