3 ms·
My point is that culturally they can be considered cars, if they look like cars and function like cars. I'd argue that they are cars, even if they get taxed dif
by corin_ 12y ago
My point is that culturally they can be considered cars, if they look like cars and function like cars. I'd argue that they are cars, even if they get taxed differently than most cars.
- 001sky 12y agoFair enough, but in the linked article the example would not meet even your test of "Look like cars and function like cars"...because the thing is basically a luge-position with an aero-fairing. This was the starting point of my comment--its not a "car" really in any sense--because it fails the technical/legal/regulatory (not obvious) in addition to the practical/function (more obvious).