No $4,500 Electric Car For You!

[Peter]

I agree electric cars are the future though.
They have to be as the UK and Europe are banning new ICE car sales in 2030.

 

[Phys251]

Why should you pay attention to arbitrary labels? Hear what the guy says; if it's wrong, disagree and move on. If it's right, agree and move on. If you simply don't like it (or him), shut up and move on.

All paying attention to a label (and advertising it) does is prove bias.

Lead by example by watching more Rachael Maddow.

 

[madman]

"Eric Peters is a Libertarian gearhead, columnist and author." Why should I pay any attention to that?

you mean a conservative gearhead.

 

[SMTA]

By all means, all DOT and EPA standards on cars must be eliminated so we can import Chinese cars. Who needs seatbelts and airbags anyway, nor side impact braces, and all the wasted money on crash testing perfectly good cars. I don't know what the evil government has any safety regulations about anything. Eliminate all of those and we could get all sorts of cheap dangerous crap from China - and then all Americans can just live off monthly checks for the government.

All Xi Jinping need do is call Biden and order him to let in Chinese made cars exempting them for USA standards and I'm certain Biden would do it. He has no choice to do whatever China says or China could put out a death warrant for his son's mega bribery and go public with the info they have on President Biden's personal involvement in selling out the USA in trade negotiations and tariffs with China.

Maybe I should start a poll on this:

Should the USA exempt and allow importing Chinese made cars by exempting Chinese made cars from US safety, environmental and other regulations - plus China's essentially exemption for any civil liability lawsuits - because Chinese cars are cheaper?

And your pure garbage posts just continue to be further removed from reality.

 

[RF667799]

By all means, all DOT and EPA standards on cars must be eliminated so we can import Chinese cars. Who needs seatbelts and airbags anyway, nor side impact braces, and all the wasted money on crash testing perfectly good cars. I don't know what the evil government has any safety regulations about anything. Eliminate all of those and we could get all sorts of cheap dangerous crap from China - and then all Americans can just live off monthly checks for the government.

All Xi Jinping need do is call Biden and order him to let in Chinese made cars exempting them for USA standards and I'm certain Biden would do it. He has no choice to do whatever China says or China could put out a death warrant for his son's mega bribery and go public with the info they have on President Biden's personal involvement in selling out the USA in trade negotiations and tariffs with China.

Maybe I should start a poll on this:

Should the USA exempt and allow importing Chinese made cars by exempting Chinese made cars from US safety, environmental and other regulations - plus China's essentially exemption for any civil liability lawsuits - because Chinese cars are cheaper?

American manufacturers would be easily as capable of making small cars much like the ones in the OP. Whether they are safe enough or not, can be decided by those purchasing them. If some states are allowing golf carts on the roads, it can't be that big a concern. Especially when you consider the utility of these vehicles doesn't lie in high speed freeway driving.

 

[joko104]

American manufacturers would be easily as capable of making small cars much like the ones in the OP. Whether they are safe enough or not, can be decided by those purchasing them. If some states are allowing golf carts on the roads, it can't be that big a concern. Especially when you consider the utility of these vehicles doesn't lie in high speed freeway driving.

Anything China wants, now Democrats want. Where golf carts can drive is limited by each city, not that state. Her, a small city, golf carts can drive on maybe 1% of the roads. These are only back residential roads unable to reach any business.

I understand you want ALL EPA, DOT, crash testing and all other federal regulations eliminated for China's profit and to abolish the last of the American automobile industry. Obviously you don't care how many children, adults and elderly are disfigured, crippled and killed.

You liberals used radical federal laws to crush the American auto industry for the Japanese - and now want to eliminate all of those same regulations to finish off the American auto industry for China. There is nothing many Democrats don't want for China and don't want that harms Americans and the USA economy. As always, the Democratic Party is the worst enemy the USA has ever had.

China sure is getting their money's worth for their bribe to the President, ie "The Big Guy" - a pure traitor of endless treason.

Golf carts don't go Interstate speeds. Chinese golf cars do.

 

[RF667799]

Anything China wants, now Democrats want. Where golf carts can drive is limited by each city, not that state. Her, a small city, golf carts can drive on maybe 1% of the roads. These are only back residential roads unable to reach any business.

I understand you want ALL EPA, DOT, crash testing and all other federal regulations eliminated for China's profit and to abolish the last of the American automobile industry. Obviously you don't care how many children, adults and elderly are disfigured, crippled and killed.

Are you arguing that EPA and DOT regulations are protectionism for the American auto industry? Or are you arguing that only the rich should have access to the mobility afforded by automobiles, so that the masses will be easier to control?

Hell are you arguing? It doesn't really appear to have a lot of relevance to my post.

 

[aociswundumho]

By all means, all DOT and EPA standards on cars must be eliminated so we can import Chinese cars. Who needs seatbelts

Seat belts were invented by the market due to consumer demand for safety.

and airbags anyway, nor side impact braces, and all the wasted money on crash testing perfectly good cars. I don't know what the evil government has any safety regulations about anything. Eliminate all of those and we could get all sorts of cheap dangerous crap from China - and then all Americans can just live off monthly checks for the government.

These small cars are much safer than motorcycles. Do you support banning motorcycles because of how dangerous they are?

Should the USA exempt and allow importing Chinese made cars by exempting Chinese made cars from US safety, environmental and other regulations - plus China's essentially exemption for any civil liability lawsuits - because Chinese cars are cheaper?

Definitely. Such a move would drastically increase the living standard of low income Americans.

 

[aociswundumho]

Anything China wants, now Democrats want. Where golf carts can drive is limited by each city, not that state. Her, a small city, golf carts can drive on maybe 1% of the roads. These are only back residential roads unable to reach any business.

I understand you want ALL EPA, DOT, crash testing and all other federal regulations eliminated for China's profit and to abolish the last of the American automobile industry.

You are making the same mistake Trump makes, by focusing on what's best for producers instead of what's best for consumers.

 

[joko104]

You are making the same mistake Trump makes, by focusing on what's best for producers instead of what's best for consumers.

Chinese death traps are not good for anyone. In addition, no jobs, no consumers.

 

[joko104]

Seat belts were invented by the market due to consumer demand for safety.



These small cars are much safer than motorcycles. Do you support banning motorcycles because of how dangerous they are?



Definitely. Such a move would drastically increase the living standard of low income Americans.

Yes, motorcycles are safer. Almost no one drives a motorcycle in snow, on ice or in downpouring rain.

 

[aociswundumho]

In addition, no jobs, no consumers.

1. The economy is not a jobs program. The purpose of economic activity is not to create work.

2. Only about half of American adults are employed, but 100% of Americans are consumers.

 

[joko104]

1. The economy is not a jobs program. The purpose of economic activity is not to create work.

2. Only about half of American adults are employed, but 100% of Americans are consumers.

Jobs are at the very heart of economic activity. Your view is why the super rich keep getting super richer and the poor keep getting poorer. GM importing their Chinese made crap cars would be disastrous for the country and all Americans.

That half off all labor is slaving for others is wrong, very wrong. Apparently you believe no one having a job is the ideal economy. It is all about jobs.

 

[Lisa]

No $4,500 Electric Car For You! - EPautos - Libertarian Car Talk

Eric Peters is a Libertarian gearhead, columnist and author.

www.ericpetersautos.com

Good article regarding how the rotten, progressive regulatory state makes us all worse off.

Did you read this? It's not about it being electric. It doesn't meet basic NHTSA safety regs. It would be a death trap in an accident over 10mph. That thing would make a FIAT or a Smart car look like a Volvo by comparison.

To emanates the squeal of apologia for the Wuling – and similar EVs available in China and other places – not being allowed here.


What they mean is, it’s not compliant – with the litany of federally mandated rules and regulations pertaining to how a car must absorb impacts in a crash; that it must be fitted with air bags (which have recently proved to be very unsafe) and other such that may indeed lower the risk of being injured or killed . . . if the car is involved in an accident.

 

[RF667799]

T

What he considers to be over regulation in the name of safety, is kind of Eric Peters' point. Those of lesser means are legislatively priced out of the market. Sometimes just administratively.

That little electric car is probably safer than a SxS ATV, yet those are permitted on the streets in many places.

That little car is probably safer than the below vehicle. I own that vehicle. I know there's risk involved in riding it as compared to a larger, more robust vehicle. I choose to accept that risk when I bought in. So why can I accept that risk with three wheels, but not with four? Seems the big difference is the buy-in price.

 

[aociswundumho]

Did you read this? It's not about it being electric. It doesn't meet basic NHTSA safety regs.

Which are completely arbitrary and based on nothing but the regulator's personal preference for risk.

It would be a death trap in an accident over 10mph.

Even if this ridiculous and obviously false claim were true, it still should be up to each consumer to decide for themselves.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No $4,500 Electric Car For You! - EPautos - Libertarian Car Talk

Eric Peters is a Libertarian gearhead, columnist and author.

www.ericpetersautos.com

Good article regarding how the rotten, progressive regulatory state makes us all worse off.

This is like one of those articles that after I read it, I think, "Are you libertarian or just stupid?". I have ridden in one of the electric cars the article referrers to in China. They are slow, they are dangerous as they lack most safety features, and they also lack a/c. They sell in a country where it is upgrade from a bicycle and cities are very dense, thus driving distances are short. Given their size, they are comfortable for 1 person and possibly 2 if the other is a small child. One of times I was in one, we had 5 in it, which to see one of them in person you would think would be physically impossible and was incredibly uncomfortable for even a short distance.

The point being, we don't have those cars here because people would not buy one. The fact that there are regulatory hurdles to such a vehicle is irrelevant here because people would not buy them anyway. Even with our regulatory environment, you could easily build basic, inexpensive vehicles for our market, the problem is that people don't buy them.

I rode in this vehicle with 5 others, seriously.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Which are completely arbitrary and based on nothing but the regulator's personal preference for risk.

That is not how regulations are determined.

 

[aociswundumho]

This is like one of those articles that after I read it, I think, "Are you libertarian or just stupid?". I have ridden in one of the electric cars the article referrers to in China. They are slow, they are dangerous as they lack most safety features, and they also lack a/c. They sell in a country where it is upgrade from a bicycle and cities are very dense, thus driving distances are short. Given their size, they are comfortable for 1 person and possibly 2 if the other is a small child. One of times I was in one, we had 5 in it, which to see one of them in person you would think would be physically impossible and was incredibly uncomfortable for even a short distance.
The point being, we don't have those cars here because people would not buy one. The fact that there are regulatory hurdles to such a vehicle is irrelevant here because people would not buy them anyway.

Great. If you are correct, then there is no reason to prohibit them from the US market, because no one will buy them.

Even with our regulatory environment, you could easily build basic, inexpensive vehicles for our market, the problem is that people don't buy them.

NO YOU CAN'T.

About ten years ago the Tata Nano was the world's cheapest car at about 2k. When they tried to import it to the USA, the emission and safety regulations added 8k to the price, and the car was simply not worth anywhere near 10k. The progressive regulatory state makes it impossible offer truly inexpensive cars on the US market. This hurts low income people in the US the most.

Another example: ever notice that you can't buy a small pickup truck today? It's because of the progressive regulatory state.

How CAFE Killed Compact Trucks And Station Wagons

Close your eyes and imagine it’s 1979. A first-term Democratic president struggles with unemployment, malaise, high energy prices, and embassy trouble. The landscape of today looks like the landscape of then, but there’s one important thing missing: The compact pickup. Where did they go? The...

www.thetruthaboutcars.com

 

[RF667799]

Great. If you are correct, then there is no reason to prohibit them from the US market, because no one will buy them.




NO YOU CAN'T.

About ten years ago the Tata Nano was the world's cheapest car at about 2k. When they tried to import it to the USA, the emission and safety regulations added 8k to the price, and the car was simply not worth anywhere near 10k. The progressive regulatory state makes it impossible offer truly inexpensive cars on the US market. This hurts low income people in the US the most.

Another example: ever notice that you can't buy a small pickup truck today? It's because of the progressive regulatory state.

How CAFE Killed Compact Trucks And Station Wagons

Close your eyes and imagine it’s 1979. A first-term Democratic president struggles with unemployment, malaise, high energy prices, and embassy trouble. The landscape of today looks like the landscape of then, but there’s one important thing missing: The compact pickup. Where did they go? The...

www.thetruthaboutcars.com

In my post above, I talked about the buy-in affect.

There are special safety rules for low volume manufacturers. You know...to hell with all those heavy side beam reinforcement, mandated back up cameras, chunky A-pillars, air bags, and on and on.

You just gotta have the buy-in (quarter million or so), and all that mandated safety goes away.

Revology Cars

Revology Cars presents the world's first brand-new reproduction classic Mustang. We bring modern technology and classic style together like never before.

revologycars.com

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Great. If you are correct, then there is no reason to prohibit them from the US market, because no one will buy them.




NO YOU CAN'T.

About ten years ago the Tata Nano was the world's cheapest car at about 2k. When they tried to import it to the USA, the emission and safety regulations added 8k to the price, and the car was simply not worth anywhere near 10k. The progressive regulatory state makes it impossible offer truly inexpensive cars on the US market. This hurts low income people in the US the most.

Another example: ever notice that you can't buy a small pickup truck today? It's because of the progressive regulatory state.

How CAFE Killed Compact Trucks And Station Wagons

Close your eyes and imagine it’s 1979. A first-term Democratic president struggles with unemployment, malaise, high energy prices, and embassy trouble. The landscape of today looks like the landscape of then, but there’s one important thing missing: The compact pickup. Where did they go? The...

www.thetruthaboutcars.com

This is just stupid. You remember Yugos? Why do you think they didn't sell well here?

Here consumer, you can buy this utter piece of shit, but it's new, for $5000, or you can buy this used car that you will like driving much better for $5000, your choice...

You can build cars here with no climate control, no power anything, no cruise, manual windows and so on. They would be much cheaper, yet no one wants them, thus they don't get built. I mean seriously, how goddamn lacking of business sense do you have to be to compare the market for basic vehicles in a market like India with not even 1/10th of our per-capita income, to the market in the United States? You know, there is a huge market in India for 250 sq foot flats that lack A/C, why do we not have more of those for sale here, must be big government regulations...

There is still a market for feature phones in India yet not in the United States? You think that is due to government regulations as well? There is a market for cheap iphone knockoffs in China yet not in the United States, you think that is due to government regulations as well?

You know why there is no nation on earth that is libertarian? Let me give you a hint, its because it's a stupid ideology that results in stupid beliefs like the notion that the reason we don't have Tata Nanos in the United States is just regulations. I mean seriously, even communism has a better track record in governance than libertarianism, and communism was an abysmal failure.

By all means, let's drop those pesky progressive regulations so we can sell Tata Nanos here, even though no one wants them. Who wouldn't love to drive around in these pieces of shit and as a bonus, get that wonderful pollution that goes along with the libertarian paradise of no regulations:

 

[RF667799]

This is just stupid. You remember Yugos? Why do you think they didn't sell well here?

Here consumer, you can buy this utter piece of shit, but it's new, for $5000, or you can buy this used car that you will like driving much better for $5000, your choice...

You can build cars here with no climate control, no power anything, no cruise, manual windows and so on. They would be much cheaper, yet no one wants them, thus they don't get built. I mean seriously, how goddamn lacking of business sense do you have to be to compare the market for basic vehicles in a market like India with not even 1/10th of our per-capita income, to the market in the United States? You know, there is a huge market in India for 250 sq foot flats that lack A/C, why do we not have more of those for sale here, must be big government regulations...

There is still a market for feature phones in India yet not in the United States? You think that is due to government regulations as well? There is a market for cheap iphone knockoffs in China yet not in the United States, you think that is due to government regulations as well?

You know why there is no nation on earth that is libertarian? Let me give you a hint, its because it's a stupid ideology that results in stupid beliefs like the notion that the reason we don't have Tata Nanos in the United States is just regulations. I mean seriously, even communism has a better track record in governance than libertarianism, and communism was an abysmal failure.

By all means, let's drop those pesky progressive regulations so we can sell Tata Nanos here, even though no one wants them. Who wouldn't love to drive around in these pieces of shit and as a bonus, get that wonderful pollution that goes along with the libertarian paradise of no regulations:

Leaving aside all the ideology ranting...

Obviously, only certain people should be able to avoid all the mandated safety regulations when they choose the level of risk they're comfortable with in their new car.

For a quarter million up buy-in, you can disregard all the mandates.

Revology Cars

Revology Cars presents the world's first brand-new reproduction classic Mustang. We bring modern technology and classic style together like never before.

revologycars.com

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Leaving aside all the ideology ranting...

Obviously, only certain people should be able to avoid all the mandated safety regulations when they choose the level of risk they're comfortable with in their new car.

For a quarter million up buy-in, you can disregard all the mandates.

Revology Cars

Revology Cars presents the world's first brand-new reproduction classic Mustang. We bring modern technology and classic style together like never before.

revologycars.com

So a dumb policy that only impacts a tiny percentage of Americans should be extended to everyone out of fairness?

 

[aociswundumho]

You can build cars here with no climate control, no power anything, no cruise, manual windows and so on. They would be much cheaper, yet no one wants them, thus they don't get built.

Those costs are trivial compared to the cost of regulatory compliance. Again, it cost Tata $8000 to get their $2000 car to comply.

I mean seriously, how goddamn lacking of business sense do you have to be to compare the market for basic vehicles in a market like India with not even 1/10th of our per-capita income, to the market in the United States?

Again, if there is no market for such cars in the US, then there is no reason to prohibit their sale. Please explain to me why it's necessary to prohibit the sale of cars you claim no one will buy.

You know, there is a huge market in India for 250 sq foot flats that lack A/C, why do we not have more of those for sale here, must be big government regulations...

LOL, it is because of government regulations. I'm a builder. Every progressive city has square foot minimums for both single and multifamily housing, along with a mountain of other regulations, all of which drastically reduce the supply of housing.

Why do you need square foot minimums if there is no demand for tiny houses or apartments?

You know why there is no nation on earth that is libertarian?

Let me remind you that it wasn't that long ago when the idea of a representative democracy was considered crazy and radical.

 

[Lisa]

Which are completely arbitrary and based on nothing but the regulator's personal preference for risk.



Even if this ridiculous and obviously false claim were true, it still should be up to each consumer to decide for themselves.

Those NHTSA are not in any way arbitrary. They exist to address known risks and hazards as a way to improve the safety and survivability of crashes. I've worked in the auto industry as an engineer. trust me on this. I used to be able to quote the number and complete passage of the relevant safety regs that my designs had to comply with. They are not in any way arbitrary. If any designer or engineer had a better way to achieve the same goal you were welcome to write up a paper and have it posted in the SAE or send it to the DOT for further review.

Safety is a society-wide issue. One driver can not refuse to obey or decide that they will not comply because their actions put others at risk because they drive on the roads and highways with hundreds of other people every hour of the day. We do not allow drunks to ignore DWI laws or people who use cell phones behind the wheel to use them because they claim that others are not harmed by their actions. You are not just you who is involved. You are part of a very interdependent society of equals and you are expected to conduct yourself and drive accordingly.