So have we discussed this yet?

I can see it now, manly man gets his electric box truck wedged in a rut, spins the tires all day and drains his battery. In the next scene our manly man is walking into someone's camp site, holding an extension cord "uhm... excuse me... could I borrow a bit of electricity?"

I'd love to see manufacturers being allowed to produce vehicles that acknowledge to all that they have safety deficiencies, but allow the buying public to decide whether to take the risk. I mean we're allowed to ride motorcycles, and without a helmet in some states.

It may only be a 'risk' in terms of individual danger, but it's a certainty in terms of societal costs. Healthcare is WAY more expensive than safety features built into cars, and when people get more injured in the same kinds of accidents than they otherwise would be, somebody ends up paying for it, and whoever that somebody is will pass the cost on until you get to the bottom of the totem pole to someone who can't pass it on any further, i.e. Jon Q Public. Whether it's your insurance rates or your local taxes, those costs will come back around.

As far as motorcycles, there is no healthcare cheaper than death, and 400-500lb vehicles do relatively much less damage to others than 3,000-30,000lb vehicles. So maybe that's the ticket, then. Make operators so likely to die feebly against sturdier objects that they don't drive up healthcare and insurance costs appreciably?

Vigo wrote:

I'd love to see manufacturers being allowed to produce vehicles that acknowledge to all that they have safety deficiencies, but allow the buying public to decide whether to take the risk. I mean we're allowed to ride motorcycles, and without a helmet in some states.

It may only be a 'risk' in terms of individual danger, but it's a certainty in terms of societal costs. Healthcare is WAY more expensive than safety features built into cars, and when people get more injured in the same kinds of accidents than they otherwise would be, somebody ends up paying for it, and whoever that somebody is will pass the cost on until you get to the bottom of the totem pole to someone who can't pass it on any further, i.e. Jon Q Public. Whether it's your insurance rates or your local taxes, those costs will come back around. As far as motorcycles, there is no healthcare cheaper than death, and 400-500lb vehicles do relatively much less damage to others than 3,000-30,000lb vehicles. So maybe that's the ticket, then. Make operators so likely to die feebly against sturdier objects that they don't drive up healthcare and insurance costs appreciably?

Don't disagree with anything you said, but you left off an important part of the quote, and an important part of any "safety opt out". That's the part about insurance companies pricing coverage accordingly.

Have you looked at the price of federal defender 90's or early Broncos lately. Shoot wranglers are 40k plus now.

I think 60k isn't a terrible price point considering...

I like it.

It doesn't actually say 4x8's fit in it. It says in pickup configuration, the bed is wide enough for 4x8's.

I take that to mean they will fit, but be hanging out past the tailgate, and they won't fit at all with the back seat in place.

There may be more to it than meets the eye regarding crash worthiness.

The article says it has a steel roll cage, although not much evidence in the pictures. Could be that the pics are preliminary, and that production versions will have more cage in them.

Or, it could be sold "For off-road purposes only".

IIRC, heavy duty trucks don't have to meet many safety standards, right? Are they playing games with GVW ratings to get this thing exempted? Is that even possible?

Tom Suddard wrote: IIRC, heavy duty trucks don't have to meet many safety standards, right? Are they playing games with GVW ratings to get this thing exempted? Is that even possible?

The article says that the weight rating makes it a Class 3 truck so it doesn't need the same safety equipment that passenger cars do.

I like it. I don't like trucks but i like this for some reason.