21–30 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.
I think it actually has the effect that a state like CA or TX becomes the de facto regulatory-maker just based on size of the car market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.
But this kind of fragmentation already exists today with different driving laws between states. A legal student driver in one state might not be allowed to drive in another. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's strange that vehicles are regulated at the state not federal level. They're a big component in interstate commerce, and therefore ought to be within the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate, even under a relat…
I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible and promote the technology. It's a good thing that these are going into place, since autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis.
> I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible... Was that hyperbole? I would say the majority of regulations (at least in OECD countries) are sensible, and many that are not are intended to be, are outdated, or are politicized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.
I think it actually has the effect that a state like CA or TX becomes the de facto regulatory-maker just based on size of the car market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.
But this kind of fragmentation already exists today with different driving laws between states. A legal student driver in one state might not be allowed to drive in another. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's strange that vehicles are regulated at the state not federal level. They're a big component in interstate commerce, and therefore ought to be within the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate, even under a relat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.
But this kind of fragmentation already exists today with different driving laws between states. A legal student driver in one state might not be allowed to drive in another. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's strange that vehicles are regulated at the state not federal level. They're a big component in interstate commerce, and therefore ought to be within the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate, even under a relat…
For example vehicle window tinting laws vary wildly from state to state (and arguably they're more liberal in states that get hotter, and more restrictive in states with gang issues) so you can own a vehicle that is legally tinted in your home state, but gets ticketed when it crosses a state border.
Daylight running lights are another example, some states require them, while others do not. So you can buy a brand new vehicle which could get ticketed since it lacks DRLs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
And is the fundamental belief of libertarians: that governments can do nothing right, either morally or pragmatically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible... Was that hyperbole? I would say the majority of regulations (at least in OECD countries) are sensible, and many that are not are intended to be, are outdated, or are politicized.
Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
The only regulation that really matters is making car manufacturers liable for accidents and they would have to pay a fine from $100,000 for the smallest accident (per car) up to $10 million per accident. When the manufacturers "can't explain" how the accident happened (after an audit was performed), they should be fined the maximum $10 million amount. Why? Because for one assuming it's just a glitch and "they don't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
My biggest gripe is overreach. You start with sensible building codes, and eventually the city council is telling you what color bricks you have to use before they'll approve your plan. Yes this happens.