Hacker News Reader

Comment by calvinmorrison | Hacker News Reader

This exists all over the world. Just not here. Our regulations have killed simplicity in cars. Now we could adjust the regulations to allow more of this - like 'kei trucks' would be a big win. In fact, allowing small horsepower vehicles to skip safety requirements if they operate under 25mph is a great idea, and give a pathway for registration and insurance.

instead of motorcycles which are licensed, registered and insured, i now see more electric bicycles, which actually look like motorcycles, cost as much as motorcycles, and just ride around willy nilly.

Any small time manufactuer should be allowed to produce road legal vehicles for intracity use, and be allowed to skip most regulations that are onerous. Lighting, fine, brakes fine, but does it need a reverse camera or onstar or lane departure? no probably not.

View on HN

The problem started in the US as unintended consequences of trying to create cars with better MPG. In the last century the US government created a standard for how efficient vehicles need to be. At the time most people drove cars and specifically station wagons were among the most popular styles of cars. Trucks were not aspirational vehicles and were used for work only. And since work trucks often times do need a lot more power than a family hauler or at least need to be heavier/larger, the government created two different standards: one for cars and one for trucks (body on frame vehicles).

Of course manufacturers immediately saw that they could just make trucks more like cars than make cars more fuel efficient so they started putting modern interiors and such into trucks and modernizing the platforms to create SUVs. Thus the station wagon died and the SUV became the standard family vehicle for a lot of people.

>as unintended consequences

I think we have plently of lessons of how badly things go when the federal government sticks its nose into anything that we can no longer call these as unintended consequences. They are very much intended

We need to stop having the government pick winners and losers, or try to influence the market in any way be favoring one thing over another

>as unintended consequences

regulatory capture tells us these consequences are intended. Intended to keep out upstarts without Musk's cash to back it. There's no reason we couldn't have bespoke car manufacturers producing city-cars for a low total cost.

Do you think that anyone should be able to build a street-legal car? Regardless of how well it is manufactured and how safe it is for those inside and outside of it?

How do you view the relationship between government-owned, built, and maintained roads and private vehicle manufacturers that use those roads?

> Do you think that anyone should be able to build a street-legal car?

Yes

> Regardless of how well it is manufactured and how safe it is for those inside and outside of it?

No. Should have cat, compliant lighting that's not too brigth/dim, working brakes and suspension, ABS and some common sense (like no spikes protruding from it). You know, the stuff proper MOT inspection would fail you for anyway. And maybe pay few hundred to professional mechanic to get thru it and make sure you ain't doing something stupid and get you nice custom VIN for it.

If it is (say) 100+ production yeah probably should have some actual crash testing and rest of the compliance, but if it is one off ? Won't be worse than 20 years old F150 or someone's restored 70's/80's car and we aren't taking those off the roads.

Hmm. So it's OK for the government to dictate what features a car must have, may have, may not have, etc? And the government should also inspect these vehicles and make sure they meet the standards before allowing them on public roads?

Well, turns out you are in luck because this is all already possible in the US. Pretty much everywhere there are provisions for one-off custom vehicles and getting them inspected. Sure, the paperwork is daunting and the process isn't always easy, but it is definitely possible. See article about an engineer who registered a jet turbine powered VW bug that shot 15 foot flames out of the back of it in CA that surfaced on HN a few years ago.

But we aren't necessarily talking about one-off cars that hobbyists who care about their craft create. We are talking about Walmart popping out $1,100 golf carts without airbags because it's a "city car".

Let insurance handle it

Handle what? People killed by the contraption? Bystanders maimed?

Do you think that the government not taking an action can ever result in unintended consequences?

Could the government, by taking no action, implicitly support the current "winner" because that's the status quo?

What do you think would happen to the prices of gasoline, electricity, etc. if the government stopped regulating any and all of it?

What's your view on government regulation around things like worksite safety, meat inspections and other food safety, drug safety?

Should the government prevent your neighbor from installing a radio signal jammer that prevents you from using your cell phone on your property? Or is that picking a winner/loser?

Right but in this case the actions taken were wrong, were not fixed, and still are not fixed.

Like the fact only in near future it will be legal for US cars to have adaptive lights. Or how for years [1] near every car light was same ineffective design.

Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation. If car manufacturers have to squeeze fleet averages (which is on its own retarded idea, just tax every model separately ffs) for normal cars. Or how apparently 20MPG sportscar is "gas guzzler" but 15MPG SUV is not

* [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2J91UG6Fn8

> Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation.

My point exactly. Correct regulation is correct. People who take the absolutist approach on either side of this tend to quickly run into either "now I have to learn to do my own meat inspections" or "I can't buy meat because a cow needs to be exactly 7'11" tall or it isn't legally a cow".

This nearly 200 year old essay disagrees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Governments serve a very real and necessary task of regulating markets to prevent abuse by bad actors. Bad actors seeking out loopholes and skirting regs is not an argument for less regulation but rather an argument for more regulation.

Reverse cameras are a safety feature, not a luxury.

I also doubt any market for what you're describing exists beyond "15 year old Honda Civic/Toyota Camry"

Safety features can absolutely be a luxury.

Not when what they're protecting are pedestrians, especially children, who often aren't tall enough to be visible in a mirror.

This is an issue due to bad visibility in modern vehicles due to safety constraints requiring tiny windows, giant pillars, tinted windows, high position off the ground etc.

This is definitely a thing. In our current car even the rear view mirror is difficult to use because it's looking out of such a small rear window with a head rest for the middle seat in the way.

I don't typically carry passengers in the rear, so I just removed all of my rear seat headrests for better visibility.

so why do golf cars not have them?

Reverse cameras are definitely helpful, if not a necessity when driving a behemoth vehicle. This is much less of a concern for a golf cart.

Every golf cart I've ever driven has a buzzer/beeper that is active while reverse is engaged.

Works OK on a course... would not work so well on a noisy street.

Coz they are not street legal so there is no legal requirement for it. Also they are small enough that you can just turn around.

US legislators just decided to not fight the "how small car needs to be to not require backup camera" and required it to be in all of them.

golf carts are legal in Arizona. I'd assume they are legal in other states, if not other countries as well.

I’m not aware of anywhere they are street legal. Many gated/retirement communities allow them, but those aren’t public streets.

hmm I find using the camera to be less safe, and distracting that using my eyes to actually look at the real world not through the lens of a camera

The idea is that the camera is additional information, not a substitute for using your eyes.

Now look at most sold cars in US. The whole reason for it was essentially "kids can easily get behind dumb US sized pickups without driver noticing"

I drive a small hatchback. The camera shows things that are not visible any other way. Even if the rear hatch was entirely transparent there are large areas that wouldn't be visible due to the rear seats.

So, no, it isn't only a "giant Canyanero hurr durr" issue

The thing is, a wireless camera costs like $50 these days but car manufacturers will find a way to add it as a $2000 package.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com