6 ms·

Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security

by vsuperpower2020 3y ago

Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security features. Your idea of market correction doesn't work in this case, because it's never advertised as having shitty security, and the average (or even informed) consumer will have no idea this is a problem until after they've bought the car.

the_optimist 3y ago
Should other physical objects also be subject to this same regulation? What about bitcoins? Your proposed response is unsuccessful as policy reasoning.
- vsuperpower2020 3y ago
  My proposed response has been making cars safer and more reliable for years. I don't care if it applies to bitcoin or not, we're talking about cars. Next!
- Retric 3y ago
  The ability to leave your car in a public space while shopping is a major part of their utility. Cars are therefore common, left in the open, and valuable, but not particularly portable without being turned on. Jewelry, TV’s, bitcoin wallets etc aren’t just left in the open. Your house, front lawn etc is valuable and accessible but not generally mobile.
- dlgeek 3y ago
  Yes, and they generally are. In almost all states, sellers have to ensure that the things they sell are "fit for purpose". It's reasonable for us to ensure that they meet the basic requirements of being whatever they are - and for cars, part of their basic purpose is to sit in insecure areas and ensure only authorized users can operate them.
phpisthebest 3y ago
In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option, Before I buy a car, most often the second largest purchase a person will make in their life next to housing. I do i TON of research, I look at insurance rates, I look at Theft Rates for that model, I look on Car Complaints and other Database for common failure items for that model, I have it inspected by a independent mechanic having them pay extra attention to the common failure items. etc If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.
- dog_boxer72 3y ago
  Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” it. /sarcasm
  - YeBanKo 3y ago
    Yeah, and if you did not read T&S and now going to become a part of human centipede, that’s on you. I mean, how hard can it be to read a 22 page legalese, before going through a sign up flow, that was heavily optimized to increase conversion?
  - fargle 3y ago
    anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.
    - bmicraft 3y ago
      Nobody can or should be expected to know about every the safety and security aspects of every single minute detail in their lives.
      - fargle 3y ago
        i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature. and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.
Geisterde 3y ago
I never understand this arguement. I hear it in the form "we should just regulate cars to be safer", why dont you just buy a safer car? "What do you take me for? I got a mustang GT, the last thing that car is worried about is safety". Interesting, you bought a car because its fast, not paying any consideration to whether it could safely get you from point A to B, and this is what you rely on to get you to work? Its not social darwinism, the lack of critical thinking skills among the general population is alarming. Americans have apparently been coddled to the point that they arent worried about basic needs; if you go to buy a car you should have some simple considerations, is this car safe? What are the typical maintenance costs? Is it common for this car to be stolen? Things like, housing, transportation, education, those are really central aspects of peoples lives. Its all well and good that you want to draw symbols on paper and make all these things safe, but it appears to have come at a pretty serious cost. That cost, is the inability for the US population to use critical thinking.
- caconym_ 3y ago
  We should regulate cars to be safer because I don't get to decide which car (or, more likely, truck) the moron who puts me/my family in the hospital (or the grave) was driving. Given the trends in traffic and pedestrian deaths in the US, our regulators are grossly negligent in this regard.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    Sure, in the context of broad safety you have a point. Of course, you are more likely to die in places where police are responsible for your protection. The safest places people inhabit are their home, their work, places with private security measures. The negligence you speak of, how widespread would you say it is? Would you say the EPA dropped the ball preventing the east Palestine Ohio train derailment? Would you say that having some hard cutoff for how many chemical train cars until the train is reclassified? I imagine you would agree, that the chemical company sending 59 (oh w/e) train cars instead of 60 so that they are under easier rules, is kind of bullshit. If the company is following the rules then they can largely get away with it when things go wrong; if that company had actual liability for whats in the train cars, then they would have insurance. That insurance would be prorated on the safety profile of the train, and it would fix the hazzard or pay the claimants their due. These regulations only exist to cement decrepit companies monopoly over you. I have no faith that "negligence" in the public sector will improve. The roads, the enforcement of driving conduct, that will not improve. The safety, security, and reliability of cars will improve, because there is still competition from self aware drivers.
fargle 3y ago
if people cared, they would know i think this issue is overblown and is being used as a smokescreen for the rash of vehicle thefts caused, not by bad kia security, but large-scale organized crime.

the_optimist 3y ago

Should other physical objects also be subject to this same regulation? What about bitcoins? Your proposed response is unsuccessful as policy reasoning.

vsuperpower2020 3y ago
My proposed response has been making cars safer and more reliable for years. I don't care if it applies to bitcoin or not, we're talking about cars. Next!
Retric 3y ago
The ability to leave your car in a public space while shopping is a major part of their utility. Cars are therefore common, left in the open, and valuable, but not particularly portable without being turned on. Jewelry, TV’s, bitcoin wallets etc aren’t just left in the open. Your house, front lawn etc is valuable and accessible but not generally mobile.
dlgeek 3y ago
Yes, and they generally are. In almost all states, sellers have to ensure that the things they sell are "fit for purpose". It's reasonable for us to ensure that they meet the basic requirements of being whatever they are - and for cars, part of their basic purpose is to sit in insecure areas and ensure only authorized users can operate them.

phpisthebest 3y ago

In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option, Before I buy a car, most often the second largest purchase a person will make in their life next to housing. I do i TON of research, I look at insurance rates, I look at Theft Rates for that model, I look on Car Complaints and other Database for common failure items for that model, I have it inspected by a independent mechanic having them pay extra attention to the common failure items. etc If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.

dog_boxer72 3y ago
Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” it. /sarcasm
- YeBanKo 3y ago
  Yeah, and if you did not read T&S and now going to become a part of human centipede, that’s on you. I mean, how hard can it be to read a 22 page legalese, before going through a sign up flow, that was heavily optimized to increase conversion?
- fargle 3y ago
  anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.
  - bmicraft 3y ago
    Nobody can or should be expected to know about every the safety and security aspects of every single minute detail in their lives.
    - fargle 3y ago
      i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature. and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.

Geisterde 3y ago

I never understand this arguement. I hear it in the form "we should just regulate cars to be safer", why dont you just buy a safer car? "What do you take me for? I got a mustang GT, the last thing that car is worried about is safety". Interesting, you bought a car because its fast, not paying any consideration to whether it could safely get you from point A to B, and this is what you rely on to get you to work? Its not social darwinism, the lack of critical thinking skills among the general population is alarming. Americans have apparently been coddled to the point that they arent worried about basic needs; if you go to buy a car you should have some simple considerations, is this car safe? What are the typical maintenance costs? Is it common for this car to be stolen? Things like, housing, transportation, education, those are really central aspects of peoples lives. Its all well and good that you want to draw symbols on paper and make all these things safe, but it appears to have come at a pretty serious cost. That cost, is the inability for the US population to use critical thinking.

caconym_ 3y ago
We should regulate cars to be safer because I don't get to decide which car (or, more likely, truck) the moron who puts me/my family in the hospital (or the grave) was driving. Given the trends in traffic and pedestrian deaths in the US, our regulators are grossly negligent in this regard.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  Sure, in the context of broad safety you have a point. Of course, you are more likely to die in places where police are responsible for your protection. The safest places people inhabit are their home, their work, places with private security measures. The negligence you speak of, how widespread would you say it is? Would you say the EPA dropped the ball preventing the east Palestine Ohio train derailment? Would you say that having some hard cutoff for how many chemical train cars until the train is reclassified? I imagine you would agree, that the chemical company sending 59 (oh w/e) train cars instead of 60 so that they are under easier rules, is kind of bullshit. If the company is following the rules then they can largely get away with it when things go wrong; if that company had actual liability for whats in the train cars, then they would have insurance. That insurance would be prorated on the safety profile of the train, and it would fix the hazzard or pay the claimants their due. These regulations only exist to cement decrepit companies monopoly over you. I have no faith that "negligence" in the public sector will improve. The roads, the enforcement of driving conduct, that will not improve. The safety, security, and reliability of cars will improve, because there is still competition from self aware drivers.

fargle 3y ago

if people cared, they would know i think this issue is overblown and is being used as a smokescreen for the rash of vehicle thefts caused, not by bad kia security, but large-scale organized crime.