811–820 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulations will make cars unaffordable which is exactly what they are pushing for
Yeah! Let's get rid of requirements for headlights and seatbelts, and brake lights, too. Why do we need all that? /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rearview cameras are effective: https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2130 I agree with having simpler SKUs, but rearview camera is not where to start
Funny story about this. There was a woman who backed over her own kid in the driveway. For some reason, she was not imprisoned for vehicular manslaughter. So instead of not being in prison, she spent the next half decade lobbying congress to make backup cameras mandatory. And it happened. So now everyone's car costs $3k more. It would have been cheaper to put her imprison than impose a $3k cost per every car sold in…
> A 2012 Harris poll suggests that the public agress with the mandate despite the technology’s costs. NHTSA says adding a backup camera to a car without an existing display screen will cost around $159 to $203 per vehicle, shrinking to between $58 and $88 for vehicles that already use display screens. The Harris poll found that consumers care more about safety features like backup cameras than they do about multimedia systems.
I'm not sure where you're getting your $3k backup cameras from; the camera is a $30 part, and pretty much every new car has a screen in it already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem here is that we are comparing against price inflation (not salary inflation). If every company increased its prices, then that's the inflation. Customers will feel ripped off if their salaries didn't at least match inflation. In other words, if your salary in 2005 was $50k when Mazda was $13k; then your salary should be $82k for a $22k Mazda3 to be the same price. Currently, a Mazda3 starts at $24…
But you should compare the same cars. I bet 13k was for a basic trim, with manual, less powerful engine etc. Car of 2025 has lots of features even in basic trims. My first car had no ac, no power steering, no power window, etc. And I'm not that old...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of those “useless” sensors like tire pressure or backup camera are required by law. Even if you get a bare bones hatchback (manual transmission, manual locks, manual windows etc.) they’ll be forced to include those.
Honestly, good! I am so tired of these insane "I want nothing but an engine" spiritual boomers. They are making the road far more dangerous for everyone. Yes, I will force you to have automatic emergency breaking in your Model T hotrod. Yes, you will be mad. Yes, the road will be a lot safer. No I don't care about your boomer rage about technology. No you don't want to live with India tier road laws/standards - even…
I would rather live with India tier roads than tier opinions.
Strange article based on incorrect information. My son and I are buying car and there are so many under 25k. In total there are 12 new models. Adjusted to inflation things did not change a lot in last 20 years (in 2005 there were 10 models less than 15k). - 2025 Nissan Versa – Starting at $18,330 - 2025 Hyundai Venue – Starting at $21,395 - 2025 Kia Soul – Starting at $20,490 - 2025 Nissan Sentra – Starting at $21,59…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation) You'll need to provide hard evidence for this. I was pretty young in 2005 but $15.000 would get you a decent car (though not a pickup). That being said, it is possible we have more models now under 25.000 but what $15/25k used to buy you (segment wise) has downgraded.
Not OP, but this seems like a decent source for the claim. It lists 12 cars under $25K MSRP: https://www.motortrend.com/features/cheapest-new-cars That said, we picked up one of the cars on this list for well under $15,000 in 2010. (And it's still going strong! Never needed a major repair.) Which doesn't really mean anything, just throwing out yet another anecdote to highlight that nobody's presented any information…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The C pillars are too large and the body too high for you to get good sight to anything behind you in a modern vehicle.
>The C pillars are too large and the body too high for you to get good sight to anything behind you in a modern vehicle. Which is the work product of the 2000s era of "legislate to make cars better" advocacy. 90s SUVs rolled a lot, so they changed the rules to require them be strong, Strong made them hard to see out of in reverse so they added cameras. Now because both are regulatory required, at substantial cost, yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rearview cameras are effective: https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2130 I agree with having simpler SKUs, but rearview camera is not where to start
The problem isn't that they're effective. It's that they're a regulatory solution to the complaints that the same demographics had 20yr ago (it's too easy to back a big fashionable in the 00s SUV over a kid) and as a result of it now all cars have crap rear visibility because there's no reason to be good when you have the camera.
> When averaged between the 2 automakers, effects were significantly larger for drivers 70 and older (38% reduction) than for drivers younger than 70 (1% increase); effects were significant for older but not younger drivers.
A big SUV is probably an exacerbating factor, though.
Also, for any kind of car, rear cameras and sensors decrease impacts while parallel parking. I see far fewer damaged bumpers on newer cars these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's a bad thing? A country's government sees an opportunity to invest into a promising new technology that could reap tremendous economic benefits. Such benefits include new jobs, new income, the ability to increase social/political capital worldwide, and help usher in a world that is that much less reliant on oil. That's what countries in the first world are supposed to do .
China historically does it in a way where they orchestrate cartel like behavior and will dump inventory on the market at low prices to kill off international competition. Some of it is altruistic but not all of it.
Foresight is required when dealing with such entities, not hindsight.
If my electric car comes in at 1/4th the price of an American built one, so be it. The tradeoff here is that in countries that aren't engulfed by rent-seeking capitalists who only answer to themselves, countries like China have a policy goal and will make sure the state utilizes the private sector to meet the goal.
For example, Mr. Musk could easily take some of that $450 billion net worth of his and make his cars considerably cheaper. He has taken enormous subsidies and kept his cars expensive. In China, the state would not let someone with that amount of capital take subsidies, and most certainly wouldn't allow them to bribe the government with the government's money.