>old cars are unsafe
>look at this crash test of an old car with a new car. The driver of the old car would have died
>see, that's why you can't sell a sub-1000kg shitbox anymore. you just can't
Meanwhile, this is what happens when any morcycle collides with a car.
How can anyone justify safety regulations while motorcycles are road legal? If I want to drive a deathtrap, why can't it have 4 wheels?
>motorcycles are dangerous, so everything else should be just as dangerous
>should be just as dangerous
What I'm saying is: motorcycles are ALLOWED TO BE dangerous, so everything else should be ALOWED TO BE just as dangerous.
Auto makers can make a crossover with lots of crumple zones so Karen feels like her kids are safe. They can make an SUV with massive ground clearance and skid plates for guys who go off-roading. They can make gigantic trucks for guys with small dicks. They can make econoboxes for wagies. But they can't make a lightweight car for enthusiasts, because it's "unsafe".
Why is a motorcyclenallowed to be so unsafe? As far as I know, it's because it is broadly understood that people ride motorcycles for fun, while cars are a means to an end. You need a special licence to drive them that proves you know how not to have a nice day.
So let's do the same thing for sports cars. If you wan't to drive one, you need to get a license that teaches you how to drive a car with little to no safety features without dying. And manufacturers could sell cars beholden to safety regulations similar to the ones governing motorcycles. Same with noise amd emmisions.
nobody reading that shit lmfao
>t. illiterate
but i read it and i'm moronic, what's your excuse
it’s okay tyrone. not everyone knows how to read or come up with a proper argument. 😀
Agreed.
We literally let violent Black folk out on bail, but to import an automobile you have to jump through newer and tighter regulatory hoops?
Cars have shitty emmissions regulations, but it doesn't matter if you drive 1km a year, or literally perpetually
No seatbelt warning chime is unsafe, but I can stuff my mouth full of seed oils and sugar and clog up the emergency room (I am an undocumented illegal and they cannot refuse me medical treatment and I simply don't pay bills)
Realistically there is no way to make a 500lb bike safe when it has to share the road with 3000lb+ cars. Restraints, airbags, none of it makes sense on bikes anyway. And bikes are such a small proportion of vehicles that it doesn’t make much sense to focus on.
>I can blow off my head with a shotgun legally, so why can't I drive without my seatbelt?!
>I can blow off my head with a shotgun legally
That's quite illegal actually
>That's quite illegal actually
So, the people that survive suicide attempts, do they get charged with anything?
unlawful discharge of firearm
No. It's so insurance companies can avoid payouts via their no suicide clause.
Yes. And the punishment is usually the chair.
Just because motorcyclists don’t value their lives doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. And for those who don’t, you can always drive a car from the 1980s or prior.
Those cars are disappearing. You can only fix or take car of one for so long before its to expensive for a normal person to enjoy.
>you can always drive a car from the 1980s or prior
Right now is the tail end of that being realistic. 80s cars are getting rare and expensive.
>order a chassis and some body panels from a catalogue
>put a junk yard motor in it
>have your very own lotus 7
>can even register it for road use in most places
>generally very cheap
>no one does this for some reason
>most places
AFAIK, in the EU it has to conform to the regulations of the year the chassis was made.
>>no one does this for some reason
too much effort for 99.999% of people. they just want a car that works and doesn't need to be fricked with and has all the modern amenities like bluetooth and heated seats and AC
>Meanwhile, this is what happens when any morcycle collides with a car.
It's assumed you're forfeiting any semblance of safety or right to life when you choose the motorcycle.
>can anyone justify safety regulations
It's the law that cars have to have safety shit to be sold. If it was optional hardly anyone would tick the box.
>the airbag is invented
>all auto manufacturers start including airbags in their cars
>the government makes it mandatory since everyone is doing it
>the three point harness is invented
>everyone adds three point harnesses to their cars
>government makes it mandatory since everyone is doing it anyway
generally government regulation follows industry practice. not the other way around.
Maybe 50 years ago, now it's more like
>Upgrade to the PREMIUM safety subscription package for only 399.99 a month! Includes driver airbag operation as standard and passenger airbags for only 49.99 each!
I don't fully agree with what he says but you are proving his point. That is 100% an industry led trend.
not true, they all lobbied as hard as possible against making airbags mandatory
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-02-19-mn-546-story.html
Thank God that was a Sable, and not a Grand Marquis.
it's a Buick LeSabre
blind moron
this is why I think SxS vehicles should be road registerable. at worst, they're as safe as a motorbike
You are right to a point, but some regulations are beneficial. A properly equipped biker is safer than a naked man driving with no seatbelt, even in a modern car, and also safer than "your legs are a crumple zone" vehicles like VW bus.
why are we trying to protect people from themselves again?
the answer must be something different from any form of "to preserve taxpayer life"
Why is that an invalid argument?
i was implying that there really isn't any reason for safety stuff to be mandatory other than to extract as much money as possible from taxpayers.
>there really isn't any reason for safety stuff to be mandatory other than to extract as much money as possible from taxpayers.
If you’re a politician, yes, plus you need to appear to be “doing something” to make the country better. Given the prevalence of insider trading I firmly believe that 99% of members of congress are motivated by nothing but money.
it's protecting people who want to be safe from corpos that want to save money. not having seatbelt regulations doesn't mean you get to choose to not have them, it means new cars don't have seatbelts.
Because domestic car corporations want to keep superior foreign vehicles out of our markets. They lobby to bloat vehicles because they can sell them at a higher profit point when there's more shit added.
because the big nose clan would sell you the most unsafe deathtrap possible (like they did before crash regs came in).
many companies were still using 70s designs when the regs came in late 90s early 2000s and the crash tests from the period really show the difference. You can look up Rover 100 crash test to see this.
the other thing is that its completely possible to build a modern car that weighs little.
A modern MX5 weighs the same as the original 80s model. The original Toyota aygo from 2005 weighed only 890kg. Even the much more usable MK3 MX5 was only 1150kg with the power hard top.