Just a thought....

In reply to OldGray320i:

Look up youtube videos of Chinese automobile crash tests, that's what no regulation looks like.

Here are the regulations, take a look and pick out the ones that are not needed. You are taking for granted that the cars we have today have been shaped by these regulations over the years.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/index.html#P564

bmwbav wrote: I'll vote that you have to pay too, every time.

The most telling line of your arguments thus far.

What gives you the right to "vote" money out of my pocket? Are you going to reimburse me for the additional cost?

Doubtless you'll be thrilled at my next statement: I am going to die. Either by your hand as a result of our debate, the hand of my wife, possibly the kids, maybe the car you've regulated that shouldn't injure me (potentially driven by the wife or kids), or, God willing and I'm lucky, of old age.

From our numbers, just simple math, in the next 35 years of driving I'll have a .85% chance of hitting a pedestrian with my car, a .05% chance of killing one. In all likelihood, I'll never hit a pedestrian.

For this chance, you usurp the right to take money out of my pocket for my choice of a new car. You don't pay my mortgage, you don't put groceries on my table, but you reserve the right to increase my cost for the minuscule possibility that I may run in to a pedestrian.

What prevents you from then determining that my 320i is unsafe, bereft of all modern safety devices? The fact that you like cars to? Small comfort that.

Regulations are important and serve a vital function. Just not all of them, especially not when they're solely dependent upon your good will for the moment. God forbid somebody with a 320i run in to you (and in my case, you're quite safe - the car hasn't run in several years!).

From your list of regs: 101 - Controls and Displays the market will quickly weed out those vehicles that have poor ergonomics. Unless the buyers are Italian car aficionados, in which case they'll be a vocal minority. 102 - Standard No. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence for the same reason as 101. Not a lot has changed with auto transmission gear selectors in the intervening years. A quick google search shows Hurst had filed a reverse lockout a year before the regulation; markets work 113 - Hood Latch System even the dealer has to open the hood. It's a latch. 114 - Theft Protection nothing has stopped criminals from stealing cars and going on wild police chases. 531 - Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards let the market determine 581 - Bumper Standard why? Let designers design; if the car is expensive to repair, word gets around that insurance is expensive - let the market decide 582 - Insurance Cost Information Regulation call your insurance agent, they'll tell you. 583 - Automobile Parts Content Labeling really? Who cares? Is it reliable? Word gets around if it breaks.

And there are probably a few more that I'm ambivalent about. As much as I think the crash standards are important, cars of yore didn't have them, and word got around about what cars would kill you in an accident - my beloved Z-cars among them. Don't get hit in one, you won't do well. That was back in the mid 80s. I'd drive a Z-car again, even in today's land of the 5000lb SUV behemoths, but there won't be a new one produced, it'd never get off the drawing board today.

And for many of these I'm ambivalent about, I think today's culture and market would opt for them anyway. Volvo and Mercedes had crash work done well before it was mandated, so it's not like all manufacturers were out to kill you just to sell their product. I'm a lot more comfortable with consumers determining what makes it to the market than I am you telling me I have to have a back up camera.

What about the FF 818? Should it meet all of the federal regs for crash standards? Funds and space unlimited, I'd already have one. Same goes for the Cobra, too. Death traps? Possibly.

Maybe today's business culture mandates these regs, there certainly are auto execs, like the stories of Ford and the Pinto - they knew there was a risk, and calculated profits against a redesign. I'd have been fired from Ford, because I couldn't do that. Others, obviously, not so much.

Maybe it's to protect against the lawsuits - hey, we met the standard, good luck suing us. There are insurance fraudster's too, so it's not like all consumers are angels either.

At what point do we allow freedom of choice, and at what cost?

Have you lost freedom of choice? You don't have to buy anything. New cars are available, they are safer, but you are free to buy any car you'd like. New houses are available and they're built to better standards than many old houses, that stuff costs more. You don't have to buy them either, old houses have more charm. I happen to like old cars myself.

How much do you estimate those regulations cost? How much is the regulation of a standard automatic shift pattern fleecing America, millions I'm sure? I think you're on to something.

I am still not seeing dealer regulations and instead seeing OEM regulations.

Everything listed in the article had precisely ZERO to do with dealers.

Now because of the dealers business being in a building and dealing with financial institutions. there are other regulations that must be dealt with per the article.

This thing just read as a "We aren't making enough money so we want to de-regulate to improve profits. We are special because we are rich and want to get richer."

So, back to the point, what are the regulations that the dealers are dealing with that is dealer specific and not OEM or just business based, even if it wasn't in the article?

bmwbav wrote: Prices aren't steep, you can buy a brand new car for around 12K, with all of the "crazy" regulations included, a range of cars start under 15K. ABS isn't mandated apparently. The pedestrian safety design standards indirectly drive the need for backup camera's, higher hood = higher trunk/rear window relative to the roof height, you can't see directly behind your car anymore. "and I think in terms of economic vitality, there are greater daily impacts beyond all the explanations given. " OK, how about this literal "daily impacts" explanation from the CDC. In 2010, 4,280 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in the United States, and another 70,000 pedestrians were injured.1 This averages to one crash-related pedestrian death every 2 hours, and a pedestrian injury every 8 minutes.1 Pedestrians are 1.5 times more likely than passenger vehicle occupants to be killed in a car crash on each trip. Is this "daily impact" of a pedestrian dying every 2 hours less than the "economic vitality" that's so important? Again, very short sighted view.

interesting stat. To play devil's advocate, two points:

1. It's not clear that the higher hoods/trunks or backup cameras would substantially change that number. Most pedestrian deaths are people getting hit by cars going fast. 2" higher hood isn't gonna change that. The pedestrian rules seem more oriented to reducing injuries in low-speed impacts with pedestrians. Would be interesting to see what pedestrian deaths were in 2000 or in 2014 with the new standards.

2. On the other hand, for the sake of argument let's say that all of those deaths would be prevented with the new standards. Are there 4,280 "jobs lost" as a result of said standards? or 428? or 42? IDK...