4 ms·
This makes me sad. I lived and worked in Japan for 6 years, returning to my native Scotland almost 2 years ago, after struggling for the few years after the M9
by scarygliders 12y ago
This makes me sad.
I lived and worked in Japan for 6 years, returning to my native Scotland almost 2 years ago, after struggling for the few years after the M9 quake (lived in Koriyama, Fukushima prefecture and lost my job after the quake).
We bought a new Suzuki Wagon R Limited back then, and I loved that car. Its apparently small outward appearance is deceptive; inside, there was loads of space - a high roof height, and when you folded down the rear seats you could comfortably fit items such as chests of drawers, fridges, and the like.
The engine; 0.6 litre - but that was augmented by a turbo, so there was plenty of power available, plus it sipped fuel. The automatic gearbox provided 4WD in first gear, which was awesome during winter - we lived in rural parts of Fukushima and the roads frequently iced over. Once during winter we went for a drive up a mountain road covered in about 3 inches of fresh snow and made it to the top of the Katasoniyama mountain because of the 4WD+studless tyres. Our Wagon R Limited also had niceties such as aircon, electric windows, and a minidisc(!)/radio.
All in all, a fantastic vehicle, and I wish we had sent it over to Scotland when we moved as the equivalent Wagon R's available here are made in Europe and just aren't the same standard of equipment and features, sadly.
The silly thing about the move by the Japanese government is that these Kei cars are an ideal solution to crowded cities as they require less space on roads and for parking, as well as being (or were) an extremely economical choice.
As others here have commented, I suspect there has been lobbying by the makers of large gas-guzzlers to make Kei cars less desirable. I think this decision by Abe's government will inevitably impact Japan's struggling economy - crony politics is notorious in Japan, something which contributed to the design and layout flaws of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.
- gambiting 12y ago>>All in all, a fantastic vehicle, and I wish we had sent it over to Scotland when we moved as the equivalent Wagon R's available here are made in Europe and just aren't the same standard of equipment and features, sadly. Well, I am glad you enjoyed it in Japan, but I am very happy that cars which do not meet basic NCAP safety standards are not allowed to be sold in the EU.
- 1stop 12y agoBecause you need the government to decide what is safe for you or not? I've never understood safety standards for consumer goods. If you want to drive around in a horrible death trap of a car... why should the government stop you? (Admittedly I guess you don't want driving time bombs, but the majority of NCAP standards are related to occupancy safety).
- hcho 12y agoBecause the governments in Europe pay for health care and social security too. The less wheelchair bound 19 year olds, the better.
- richardwhiuk 12y agoLargely because when you hit somebody, or they hit you, instead of a minor injuries claim, what you'll have is a death on the road. Realistically, you'd have thought the insurance on them ought to be huge due to the huge decrease in safety features.
- scarygliders 12y agoCan you cite what safety features aren't present on that Wagon R Limited?
- gambiting 12y agoBecause as a EU citizen I want to know for certain that something that is on the market here is not dangerous to drive around. The same as you can trust that the carrots sold at a local supermarket do not contain arsenic - there are regulations against that. But according to your logic, it would be better if there were no regulations, surely a producer of arsenic-containing carrots will naturally go out of market after sufficient number of people die, because no one will buy their carrots anymore,right? I believe that a car with a cabin that folds like origami in a crash should not be allowed to be sold in the EU(or in fact, anywhere).
- 12y ago
- richardwhiuk 12y agoRealistically all they are doing is removing a bizarre tax benefit which doesn't exist for any practical reason.
- scarygliders 12y agoHmmm, I thought in this day and age, where a lot of people are hyper-ventilating about the environment, that usage of such vehicles would be encouraged, and that would be at least one practical reason for the tax benefit.
- richardwhiuk 12y agoIf you were doing that, you would base the tax on miles per gallon, or CO2 per mile, rather than on engine capacity, which is a poor indicator of environmental concerns.