41–50 of 175 posts
I tend to agree for heated seats, but not for driver assistance. I think there will be a chilling effect - New Jersey customers might be forced to pay upfront for driver assistance features that residents of other jurisdictions could pay for on a monthly basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> prevents you from paying for it via a monthly subscription And why in tarnation would I pay monthly for something that has a fixed cost to the manufacturer?
I would happily pay $10/mo for 5 months a year for the 4 years I expected to own the car rather than $250-500 to buy heated seats. I don’t care about someone else’s costs; I care about the value I get and the price I’m asked to pay. If someone else makes a profit because they structure the deal smartly, good for them.
Not a fan of subscriptions, but it's good to be aware what politicians are getting out of the deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People seem to think that if you ban this practice, you'll get the premium package for free. No, no one thinks that. What people do think is that if they buy it, they will own it, and it will be theirs. Not a rental from a megacorp whose auth servers shit the bed on the coldest day of the year.
The good news is I can not pay for heated seats, and then run my own wire to get it.. it won't look as nice, but it will work
SYSTEM SAFETY MECHANISMS ENGAGED
car is now inoperable
So if NJ residents now need to pay a lump sum to get the same features, this means more sales tax money going to the state. I can see why legislators want to get behind this. Not a fan of subscriptions, but it's good to be aware what politicians are getting out of the deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't they suing California now for having "too strict" of emissions regulations because California's position in the marketplace makes it so that their rules become de facto law of the land? If that goes through, I'm not really sure if California can do really any automotive regulation that other states won't like.
At least with something like this, it would be relatively simple for the manufacturers to just enable the functionality based on where the car is sold. Can't do anything like that with emissions regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
Many polls report that the Republicans are more popular than the Democrats at the moment.[1]
Sadly, refusing to acknowledge the existence of differing views seems to be rather common these days.
1: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-...
I don't get it. People seem to think that if you ban this practice, you'll get the premium package for free. That's not going to be the case. Currently, you can pay for heated seats all up-front or via a monthly subscription. This proposed legislation prevents you from paying for it via a monthly subscription. So automakers will stop allowing you to do that. All you've done is limit customer choices.
> prevents you from paying for it via a monthly subscription And why in tarnation would I pay monthly for something that has a fixed cost to the manufacturer?
There is a broad equivalence between capex and opex.
I find subscriptions distasteful, but I can still acknowledge that, depending on the price, they may be reasonable compared to ownership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't they suing California now for having "too strict" of emissions regulations because California's position in the marketplace makes it so that their rules become de facto law of the land? If that goes through, I'm not really sure if California can do really any automotive regulation that other states won't like.
If they can sue someone over growing their own wheat, they can sue over just about anything with even a tenuous link to commercial activity.
Presumably automakers are suing California for the inverse thereof—the Dormant Commerce Clause—à la Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, saying such authority is actually reserved exclusively to the federal government as an exception to states' general police powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't they suing California now for having "too strict" of emissions regulations because California's position in the marketplace makes it so that their rules become de facto law of the land? If that goes through, I'm not really sure if California can do really any automotive regulation that other states won't like.
At least with something like this, it would be relatively simple for the manufacturers to just enable the functionality based on where the car is sold. Can't do anything like that with emissions regulations.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/07/kia-subaru-disable-usefu...