Cheap cars are not permitted any more in the EU. Lots and lots of non-essential electronics are required to satisfy European norms, and you putting your hands on your car is frowned upon.
The only failure I see is not enforcing the GDPR on auto vendors, and cars being surveillance machines with no way to opt-out ( https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/arti... ).
Edit: right to repair as well.
Safety features that are easier to defend (automatic emergency braking, driver fatigue detection, driver distraction warning systems, black boxes, tire pressure monitors, "intelligent speed assistance", oncoming vehicle detection) are also adding a whole heap of electronics to cars that drive up the base price of any vehicle. Then there were the inherent privacy risks when the EU wanted to introduce mandatory, automated SOS call functionality ("eCall") on crashes (because their mobile modems are basically tracking devices you're not allowed to remove) but the requirements were altered to keep the modem off under non-crash circumstances.
You can't rip out the touch screen of your car and replace it with physical buttons unless you also figure out how to make the reversing camera work. Modifications to the outside of your car may also be a challenge because you need to keep the lane assist system working or your car won't pass the mandatory safety inspections.
I'm in favour of most new safety systems, but EU regulations seem to be making some very strange choices in this regard that make it impossible for newcomers to have even a remote chance of coming to market. The rules are excluding a whole bunch of Chinese and Indian cars (on purpose), but also stifling competition from new EU manufacturers.
I could believe it about the other things, but I really don't see how backup cameras fit in that list
Intelligent speed adaptation solutions are also very interesting, especially the closed type. I live in a country where the highway speed limit was raised from 110 to 130kph so that drivers going up to 180kph don't get their drivers license suspended and vehicle impounded and are just slapped with a fine. I kid you not.
Driving the speed limit is als frowned upon by many fellow drivers. It's so bad that the government has started to put physical barriers between the lines to prevent illegal overtaking on several high risk two-lane roads because so many people die due to head-on collisions that it starts to pose a problem with the public...
They seem outdated, even 20-30 year old cars are stable enough on the road to go 80-100km/h instead of 50. Germany has shown that driving as fast as the car can go is not the main cause for car accidents.
With some exceptions where I think they're doing something good, like dangerous curves, they are mostly used by police to make money for the city/government.
Sorry, the only thing I could find on the topic was that the vehicles manufactured after 2024 need to have a back-up camera when sold on the EU market, nothing about you actually ripping it out, can you please link?
That said, you, personally, may not need a back-up camera, but considering the general public, do you not think it would be a net-benefit? The general public includes inept/distracted drivers, and old people who don't see or can't turn around easily. I can easily see people being saved by appearing in the back-up camera of an inept driver while the vehicle flashes red lights and sounds alarms.
There is of course the lobbying angle to this -- more mandatory base features means auto vendors can safely drive up the base prices without fear of competition. The real question is is this going to lead to a net reduction of vehicle accidents?
- Making drinking and driving unacceptable.
- Better driver training.
- Mandating vehicle safety checks (MOT in the UK).
- Mandating speed limits with penalties.
Vehicle aids actually allow people concentrate less on the road.
BTW Putting "your hands on your car" means doing basic repairs and maintenance e.g.
- I changed my oil on my car.
- I've bled my brakes.
- I fixed the H-strap as it was broken on my driver's side door.
- I replaced the wiper system myself. This BTW would have cost several thousand pound to be done by a specialist (you have to remove significant portions of the dashboard to do this.
- Replacing the rear shocks on my suspension.
A vehicle is the second most expensive purchase people make after a home and yet because you disagree with how a small minority of people modify their cars, you are fine with the concept of ownership being erased and your vehicle forever being beholden to the manufacturer. It is incredibly short sighted.
Modern cars currently are getting to a stage where they cannot be repaired by anyone except for the manufacturer. This will drive up prices of repairs (dealerships/specialists are already expensive as they are) and you won't be able to go to smaller shops to get your car serviced / repaired and these places will go out of business and jobs lost.
This is already causing huge amounts of waste because cars are being scrapped because they are uneconomical to repair after minor accidents, or minor faults. Compare this with 15/20 years ago and I had a car that did 300,000 miles before it became uneconomical to repair (I still got £500 from the scrap man). Repairing a vehicle is much less wasteful than replacing it.
Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers. I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it.
Still, I reiterate, one must have the complete power to do so as part of owning a vehicle, just not the privilege of using it on public roads afterwards.
You could have looked it up. It is a common expression.
> To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods.
They already kinda use standardised parts. Most manufacturers license parts from one another e.g. I have a Vauxhall, the chassis IIRC is the same as a Volvo. Super cars will have headlights from a Ford Focus.
My Land-rover Defender 4x4 uses the same parts are other British Leyland cars of the same period e.g. the wiper system is the same as one on a Rover from the 1980s, the engine mounts are the same as the ones used in a Rover P4 from 1953.
More modern cars and electric cars though need entire custom drive chains, electronic wiring, sensors and computer system that are not standard.
> Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers.
Making your car un-roadworthy is already illegal. That is why yearly safety inspections (MOT) are required in the UK for any car that has been on the road for more than 3 years. If your car has obvious emissions issues you will be pulled over by the police.
> I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it.
They already try to prevent it. Newer cars will detect this and may even refuse to start. It however like any restriction. It can be circumvented.
It is still the worst interpretation and that is generally considered to be disingenuous. Also most Americans don't use the term that way either.
I can tell you that responsiveness is the last thing on my mind when I slog from one traffic light to the next, or generally when I drive the speed limit, and try to get from point A to point B. And I can tell you that my wife absolutely loves drive by wire when she needs to park in a tight spot -- I've had her (try) to park a car without electric power steering and with a carburetor...
My needs and the rest of society will be different. So posing every response through this filter is asinine.
Not everyone drives in a city with perfect well maintained roads in a city.
I drive on roads that of full of pot holes, has deep ditches on either side and frequently there maybe obstacles in the road (rocks, trees, animal). I drive under the speed limit normally as the roads can be dangerous.
Having a vehicle that is more responsive/lighter/better visibility is better than something that has bunch of driving aids which are largely useless in such circumstances.
> I've had her (try) to park a car without electric power steering and with a carburetor
Parking a vehicle isn't that difficult and you should have learned to do it properly by the time you take your test.
If you wife can't park a vehicle without driving aids than she shouldn't be driving that vehicle.
I'm pretty sure that the upheaval against any government that takes such a position is going to be a thing to behold, which is why the general approach in the EU has been working around shit drivers with technology to achieve net less deaths and emissions, while making walking, public transport, and biking more attractive. As opposed to making driving less accessible, so that only good drivers are left on the road, while no convenient alternatives exist for the rest.
This is a complete strawman of what I was saying. I never said about a new driving test every 5 years or requiring you drive without power steering.
Though you should probably be able to park the vehicle without driving aids. These things do fail!
I am talking about things that have already been proven to be effective. These are things like public awareness campaigns, stiff penalties for drink driving and the like.
> I'm pretty sure that the upheaval against any government that takes such a position is going to be a thing to behold, which is why the general approach in the EU has been working around shit drivers with technology to achieve net less deaths and emissions, while making walking, public transport, and biking more attractive
The driving aids is frequently distraction and can actually be dangerous. I won't drive newer vehicles because there is no way I am driving a vehicle that can take control away from me whenever it feels like, for the simple reason I am still legally on the hook.
It is pure madness this is now some of this absolute shite is mandated by the EU to be in vehicles and one of the reasons why I've bought an older vehicle that I can fix myself and has none of this crap. BTW it is much easier to drive, mainly because visibility around the vehicle is better and there are zero distractions in the vehicle.
It disappointing that so many people have been conned to think this is about vehicle safety and emissions.
The reason there were so many Diesels in the mid-2000s is that the EU/UK government said they were better for emissions and were subsidised by lower taxes. Anyone who has ever looked at the back of a Diesel vehicle (it is covered in soot) would know this is BS.
The same will be found out about the newer vehicles. This guy is an American petrol head but in this video he does a really good job talking about the absolute waste with modern vehicles. When people like him and I are complaining about this waste, you know the amount of waste is staggering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7c2_JMxR0s
As for public transport, biking and walking. Take this as someone that used to cycle commute daily and is an avid cyclist and I walk/cycle for recreation. You will never make it more attractive, especially outside of a city where public transport is less reliable.
Say what?
https://openinverter.org/wiki/ZombieVerter_VCU https://openinverter.org/wiki/Legalities