5 ms·
> How can we quantify the penalty faced by consumers in EU with to increased costs due to regulation? I really hate that everything has to be seen from the con
by x3ro 10mo ago
> How can we quantify the penalty faced by consumers in EU with to increased costs due to regulation?
I really hate that everything has to be seen from the consumers' lens, especially the consumer of luxury goods (I'm talking SUVs and the like, cheap cars exist in Europe).
What if we didn't just look at it from the POV from people who buy or want cars? I don't own a car, nor do I plan to. I have to pay for roads, which I understand to an extent. But why should my life be at risk from people wanting to buy SUVs cheaper?
Edit: Also, looking at "cars" without distinction really just obfuscates the real issue. The most dangerous cars (for pedestrians) are the biggest (and sometimes the fastest) ones. Plus most pedestrians die in cities, not on a Highway. So yeah, if you want to drive an SUV in a dense city, then I'm all for making it 10x more expensive for you, because it makes no sense (to me) and puts me in danger :)
- simianwords 10mo agoI agree with everything you said but > But why should my life be at risk from people wanting to buy SUVs cheaper? What if the risk is not that much greater? That's what I'm questioning.
- x3ro 10mo agoMakes sense. And I'm glad I don't have to make that choice. But as mentioned in my edit, I think that the "low hanging fruit" are still plentiful, so we won't have to think about this for a while (talking about pedestrian deaths).
- CalRobert 10mo agoBut it is much greater - more than double the odds of killing a kid in a collision, for instance.
- simianwords 10mo agowhat if reducing the size of a ball point pen by half reduces the rate of death by ball point pens by 50%.
- kelnos 10mo agoI'm not sure why you're responding to a measured, factual rate of death with some random weird thing that you just made up. So ok, I'll do it too: what if reducing the size of a ball point pen by half reduces the rate of death by ball point pens by 0.01%? (Answer: you don't do it, because the benefit to doing so is low, and that measured effect could be well within the margin of error anyway.) (And my weird made-up number sounds a lot more likely than your weird made-up number.)
- jacquesm 10mo agoThey're doing that all the time, check comment history.
- simianwords 10mo agoThe reason I brought it up was because it is not meaningful to only compare relative decrease of deaths without understanding the extent of how many deaths they are responsible for. If only a few people die due to car accidents and one is much more likely to die of other causes than cars, is it worth making cars that much more expensive to decrease the deaths by a bit? The regulations in my opinion add up to 20-30% of the car price. And likelihood of death due to a car at an individual level decreases by .01% (maybe). Imagine you were given two options: - Car A at $45k USD - Car B at $35k USD And you are less likely to die with Car A. Is it super obvious that you will buy Car A? If so why doesn't everyone flock to Volvo cars which lead to ~45% fewer fatalities? Why is this so obvious to you that this regulation is a good thing? The sibling is implying that I'm trolling or whatever but this is a legitimate question.
- CalRobert 10mo ago“ And likelihood of death due to a car at an individual level decreases by .01% (maybe).” This is made up out of thin air.
- simianwords 10mo agoMaybe I'm wrong but can you explain why people don't flock and buy only Volvo cars when (I fact checked this) they are 40% more safe than other cars?