you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 86 points 11 months ago (18 children)

This is kinda misleading, the complaint is that cars are too expensive. They're not saying cars should be less safe, just that the extra safety isn't worth the financial cost.

(Still not a good position to take in my opinion)

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    That's par for the course for Republicans. Are things too expensive? Let them be shittier so they are cheaper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I'd have to argue that cars are less safe when there is a giant tablet bolted to the dash and every setting is buried in menus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I think we're finally past the peak of tablet-ification of car dashboards. A lot of manufacturers have finally realized people hate it and newer models are putting all crucial functions on buttons and only putting infotainment stuff on the tablet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Yeah. Right wing positions are wrong enough without the constant, panicky extremification of them that goes on. It’s not really persuasive to anyone when we distort these positions and then crow about how bad they are. It’s all just part of the outrage-engagement complex that is rapidly rotting all our brains.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    it's not misleading, it's pointing out the GOPs actual position, which is to reduce costs that the manufacturer can't avoid to save them money. If safety regs are gutted, manufacturers get to keep the prices the same, but make more money. If instead more regulations are put in that necessitate reducing costs in other areas it will just cost the manufacturers money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

    Safety is basically self-certified in the US. What evidence is there that the extra cost is related to safety?

    I understand that Republicans are often prohibited by their own belief systems to look at the profit margins of the things they occasionally pretend to want to make affordable, but in the US that's exactly where a lot of the problem lies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    You can argue with the evidence if you want to but it is offered right there, at the top of the article.

    NHTSA says have saved 860,000 lives since 1968.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (2 children)

    The amount of lives saved isn't what I was interested in. I was interested in the purportedly added cost. US car safety regulations are toothless compared to the EU. That's partially why our roads are filled with monster truck sized pedestrian flatteners.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I see - so you’re arguing with the Republican premise that safety features add cost. It seems obvious that more features will add some cost, but how much is the question. The number of lives saved is also pretty important to understanding that cost, I would add.

    Naturally the GOP are trying to deflect general economic outrage at Democrats and “nanny state” regulators any way they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Yeah I question it especially because they tend to state shit like this sans evidence, and people just believe them because they are the "small government, fiscal responsibility" themed party.

    You're actually right though that lives saved would be part of the economic calculation if they were doing it, which they are not.

  • source
  • parent