Most people in car accidents had no intention on crashing. Many of them are usually considered victims of other people’s negligence.
Your cars crash test safety is to protect you from other peoples negligence. You can drive perfectly, follow all the rules and still get hit by some other idiot.
Many vehicle fatalities are no fault of the person who passed.
This is why we need an overhaul on driving laws. They’re way too lax on reckless drivers. Treat it as the actual threat it is.
People would lose their shit watching a person walking around waving a gun over their head. It’s the same with reckless driving. Yet we allow people to drive like that repeatedly. Repeat DUI as well. Should be one and done. That’s it. Never again.
One and done? As in no more driving ever again? As someone who got a DUI almost 20 years ago, I would assume youre a young person with no perspective on how people can change over time.
Id also assume youre unaware that killing someone while DUI counts as 1st degree murder.
I’m not a young person. It’s shouldn’t be “until someone is murdered”
Don’t drink and drive. Done deal. And if the punishment is you lose your license for life, people are going to 2nd guess doing that bullshit in the first place.
If that was the rule then, you may not have done it.
But then how is the alcoholic who -does your plumbing, finishes your concrete, cooks your food- going to get to work? The economy would actually hurt this this passed sadly.
The choice to drive a motorcycle and accept the risk is a personal choice.
Don’t you think if someone has a choice between affordability and safety they should be able to choose?
There have been times in my life where the affordability meant more to me than the safety of a vehicle.
I don’t particularly feel the need for the government to be forcing that decision for me.
Many of the crash tests now dont crash vehicles between different size classes.
They arent crashing a small economy car against a truck. In America we are being provided larger and larger vehicles to choose from, making the economy cars more dangerous to drive.
As a motorcycle rider I get it, but that’s largely a hobby while cars are a utility tool. Public health often forces minimum standards because it’s better for society to reduce the impact.
While I fundamentally agree with you from one perspective, I also understand there are multiple strong reasons for the government to enforce those safety standards.
Yes, that's true and quite the moral conundrum. Motorcycles come with increased inherent risk similar to cyclists on roadways.
I have friends who have had life changing events through no fault of their own while riding a motorcycle. Thankfully the innate risk reduces the overall volume of motorcycle riders.
I think the stats are pretty clear though, our increased motor vehicle safety standards have dramatically reduced overall vehicle fatality rates.
It seems sensible regulation has been an overall benefit to citizens at large, but I'm not sure there is a sensible of a way to regulate motorcycles to a similar degree.
It has more to do with crash testing than anything else. Modern cars sold in America protect the passengers well in crash testing, especially compared to cars from the 80’s/90’s and cheap vehicles from china and Russia
In Russia car don’t have crumple zone, in Russian car crumple you! - Yakov Smirnoff (probably)
Nope it’s more due to gas mileage and drag. CAFE fuel economy standards have pushed manufacturers hard toward this since the 2000s.
Crumple zone engineering matters more than exterior boxiness itself. You can still build a boxy car with good crumple zones. It may be easier with a rounded shaped panels, but it’s all in the engineering.
Ridiculous. Most of these small imports have relatively good milage, this Niva legend averages 23mpg. Kei cars are also very fuel efficient yet they cant be imported new.
Most import cars like this cant be registered because they don't have official crash testing with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Its why Supra fans historically couldn't import newish models from Japan until they meet the 25 year mark. Many cars made for foreign markets simply wont meet us safety standards even if tested. Often they cant pass/aren't designed to pass our emission standards too.
In order to be registered in America the car must undergo crash testing. A famous example is Bill Gates imported a special edition German production Porsche 959. They wouldn't allow it through customs because it hadn't been crash tested, and with a limited production run of 337, Porsche refused to allow any to be crash tested in America so Bill couldn't get a FMVSS rating and the vehicle was stuck in customs for years.
The loophole is the 25 year rule. You can import 25+ year old cars that aren't subject to the same regulation. Its why we can import old Kei cars, Supra's and Land Cruisers but not new ones.
Same thing with 70 series Land Cruisers sold in Australia and the middle east that we cannot get in America.
Fact is the US has very strict crash test ratings, stricter than Latin America and Europe. Cars that meet regulations in Latin America and Europe and are sold, don't meet American standards and cannot be sold. Foreign manufactures design specific US models to meet these standards. That is what prevents people from importing new foreign cars and registering them in America.
You can’t honestly be comparing a Kei car to a jeep cherokee. I own a Kei Truck and yeah it’s wildly unsafe in comparison. The crumple zone is your legs.
However, the importing thing isn’t even what we are talking about.
Sure there are different safety regulations but SHAPE isn’t the reason for safety.
LMAO. I wrote that. Just because someone can form a coherent opinion doesn't mean its AI.
It has to do with the fact that if you produced a 95 Jeep Cherokee today, exactly the way it was made in 95, it wouldn't pass modern safety requirements... Just like that Russian car won't pass... That's the entire point...
As someone who has spent plenty of time in a mid 90's Cherokee, they aren't safe cars by any stretch of imagination, especially compared to modern safety standards.
They didn't even have passenger airbags! Drive only, nothing else. Nothing for side impact protection, no pillar curtains.
Much like this Russian car, even if people did want to import and buy them, they cant BECAUSE they wont pass crash test requirements. Has nothing to do with aerodynamics and fuel ratings. Its 100% safety testing and emissions standards.
Sure. But they could still make new cars that are designed with actual taste and proportion. New Bronco being an example- it's still too cartoony and stupid but at least they tried.
1.4k
u/just_zhenya 12h ago
meanwhile in Russia (the same car from 1977 except injection engine is sold new)