I see they just delivered the petition.
I see they just delivered the petition.
That's not nice. True as it may be....
However, none of the pro-regulatory guys has ever explained to me why I can CHOOSE to drive any old car which doesn't meet the new standards, but not allow manufacturers to build any car which is equal to that old car which I could then CHOOSE to buy.
Hey, I totally AGREE with you here. I'm not pro-regulatory in the least. I have three cars sitting here that wouldn't come within a mile of even safety/emissions standards from a decade ago. Hell, one of them has lap belts and a "engine safety strap" as its primary safety features, and would make my or your e21 look like the safest car on the planet. Having lived in Europe, there are any number of cars there that I'd love to import (though I can't afford to, so it's kind of a moot point anyhow).
I just think it's funny that this petition has been reposted on my facebook page 25 times tonight by my legitimate motorsports/grease-monkey friends who don't realize that it's borderline counterproductive to submit such a shoddy petition, which portrays those of us in favor of deregulation as a bunch of stupid people. I worked in the "politics industry" so I'm just saying how it works - even though I would LOVE it if a petition or a letter to my congressman is all it took to get a law changed.
When I want something changed at work (I work for the military now), I write a professional, well-reasoned and well-sourced memo or point paper about the benefits to the agency of making said change. If I were just to say "because I want it and it's good" I'd get laughed out the door by the Admiral and lose my leadership's respect forever probably.
Likewise, the proponents of changing the import laws regarding cars need to make a well-reasoned and rational argument about what the benefit of doing this would be for the country, economy, or whatever "national good" would be reasonable. Just saying "because we want our R32 GT-Rs because they're cool and because Canada has them" isn't going to change the viewpoints of the regulators and lawmakers, who largely couldn't care less about what cool import tuner cars you want.
SEMA (and other organizations and groups) have spent years making arguments for no front license plates in some states (with calculations of fuel savings en masse, and cost of plate production for the state as justifications), or arguments for relaxation of tint laws (using a/c efficiency = fuel savings as justification, among others). These arguments haven't resulted in much getting done, but at least they present valid points and rationale and do get attention every year in state senates and other government organizations (every year there are bills about both presented in the Virginia House/Senate, though none have yet passed).
But when someone posts up a childish, poorly-written petition that presents NO valid arguments other than "because we want it," or "because other countries have it," I think it's perfectly reasonable to imagine Mitch and Barack and Joe and Harry getting a good laugh out of it (assuming they would ever actually see it). Because I almost laughed out loud when I read it, it sounds so stupid. YMMV.
As to your question, I would assume that the answer is that laws and regulations generally aren't retroactive - so they couldn't make a law that requires your e21 to meet modern safety/emissions standards without presenting some serious Constitutional questions. But they can create laws for future car production (which they do).
That's all aside from the question of whether car manufacturers even WANT to build things without most of the federall-mandated stuff (ABS, stability control, back-up-cameras, airbags, etc). Because if Ford's new sedan doesn't have ABS or airbags, it's not going to compete in the marketplace against other cars that do - since guys like us who want bare-bones cars are most certainly NOT the majority of new-car buyers out there.
Hell, remember when cars used to have "ABS" badges on the back. Manufacturers like to brag that their cars have the latest safety stuff. Look at any car ad these days touting rearview cameras and blind-spot warning. The general public wants all that crap on their cars for the most part, so the manufacturers put it on anyhow.
And we could go into the fact that the manufacturers probably have a big say in what these new regulations require anyhow. They talk a big game about "regulations hurting them" but with all the automotive lobby money flying around, I have a hard time believing that the automakers aren't at least partially complicit in some of the new regulations, so they can sell us more crap that we don't want/need.
Sorry for the rant. Preseason football is really hard to watch....
That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled!
I just find it rather surprising the number of people on here who defend to the death regulation and (admittedly wonderful) safety features, but then with great pride and joy speak of the automobiles they love to drive which come nowhere close to meeting said regulation, and better still, defend their "right" to deny me a choice in the matter.
Philosophical argument. The mechanics of getting it done are, as you and others pointed out, difficult at best. But the "safety nazi/soviet" mentality will grow with in kind effect (large soda in NYC anyone?).
And, I forgot there was pre-season football on tonight - but you're making me think I'm not missing as much as I know I think I am.
Irish44j has it right regarding how to accomplish anything in DC. A few letters to the relevant congressperson gets a lot more traction than those online petitions.
The people saying "if I can have an old unsafe car, why can't I have a new one?" need to think about how regulation works. They cannot suddenly say that "all vehicles must have TPMS, Stability control, Backup cameras, ABS, and so on retrofitted because that would be an egregious expense to the public. So you control it through trends. I dont have the numbers, but noone here will argue with me that the vast majority of vehicles are well out of service after they are 25 years old. If you are not an enthusiast, it is rather unlikely that you would be looking for something older than 1990 as a daily driver at this point. Therefore you control new cars to control the trend to control what is out on the streets to prevent death and injury.
Sorry if this might be considered a flounder, but it touches on the same thing as much of the problem currently happening in government. Shortsightedness. It seems that, depending on motive, for one reason or another, few people want to look more than a few years ahead anymore. These regulations, by necessity, have to look further than that.
Look outside the enthusiast market. Do you want unregulated daily driver type cars driven by the same masses you commute next to in large numbers on the highway? There would be a lot of deaths and injuries resulting from that market segment. How do you keep it from being a large market segment, but allow some freedom of expression for the enthusiast in a better manner than the current system?
While none of US want to be regulated, I am sure that you would like to see come safety regulation of the vehicles that the idiot commuting next to you can drive. If for the very least, if they die on the road, its your tax money that mops up the mess.
eh, only 2 years until I can import a FD RX-7 from Japan anyway.
Irish described the way DC works (or doesn't work, depending on your perspective). The laws have nothing to do with protecting us the consumers. They are in large part designed to protect the OEMs from competition. The same thing happens in all industries. The big guys spend their millions to get Congress to pass some law that they can tout as helping the people out or keeping us safe, but what it really does it quell any upstarts from breaking into the market and challenging them. They will say things like they only desire to have a level playing field because they like the competition and that drives them to create better products, but that is a load of crap. They want to make it so they don't have competitors, or at least any new ones.
irish44j wrote: Side note, from someone who worked on "The Hill" for a few years in a Senate committee (me): Petitions get no truck. With anyone. Literally not a single person with any kind of authority on the Hill cares about these online petitions, nor do they even bother reading them... The way to get laws changed in this country is money.
I also worked in Washington, but on the lobbying side of the equation. I won't kid you--getting any sort legislation passed on behalf of a client is an enormous undertaking. And that's paying clients, represented by savvy, well connected firms. Even hot-button issues that politicos hang their own election campaigns on will often go down in flames on the floor of Congress.
Regardless of what you think of Breitbart news, this article pretty much sums things up: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy
A startling new political science study concludes that corporate interests and mega wealthy individuals control U.S. policy to such a degree that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
You'll need to log in to post.
