I do feel I am forced to buy what I don't want, and I don't like it. Therefore I have been buying fewer cars. My latest is a smaller Kia Soul. I like the basic car, although I have no idea how much crap is in it from government mandates. I do notice the very annoying seat belt reminder EVERY time I start it up (I bought seat belt extenders to disable it finally), and the stupid message on the "agree" screen that you have to manually "agree" to each time you start it. I don't even remember what it makes you agree to, but its some stupid government message about safety I think. For me, those two things are the reminders that we live in a socialist country that wants to control me

apparently. But that's ok, too!

Nothing new there... follow the money, the power, the control and the connections...
Nothing we haven't seen before or commented on here before...

Now, as to changing that... ?????????????

I have no idea what you are talking about

And you will deny the way that government agencies collaborated with or enabled those 'injustices' and monopolies?!
Most coins have two sides....

Yes, look to the late 1800s in the US, steel, railroads, oil, etc.

No, Robbie... I think that's a great example... of lousy marketing, lobbying and manipulation of government AND the marketplace... by EATON!

Talk about a prime example of crony capitalism or something of that sort! Excellent!

Now, today, as far as I know, folks like the NHTSA are looking or thinking about sophisticated collision-avoidance systems, some have already appeared on high-end luxury makes and models. e.g., Mercedes and maybe some others.

Back-up Cameras started to appear some years back; my wife's '12 Prius-V came with it as part of a high-end package on that model. I believe that some government agency or agencies is/are looking into making such cameras (as well as collision-avoidance systems) mandatory in the next few years, too.

I stipulate that cars ARE 'getting safer,' but I see an inherent tug of war between companies and Naderite-types of do-gooders trying to push the features in as 'standard equipment' versus "Joe Public" who gripes about the added costs and expense when they go to sign the sales contract.

Oh, and lest I forget, there's that nagging aspect that, by adding all of these options, features and systems to cars, what we're also doing is removing more and more responsibility AND skills requirements from the Drivers... Sort of Darwining ourselves down an evolutionary ladder, rather than improving our skills.

That, TOO, is 'a tradeoff,' as I, for one, am pretty ok with accepting assistance From My Vehicle to keep me safer (or just plain alive) if someone ELSE does something stupid behind Their steering wheel! But I'm also lucky enough to occasionally afford myself a new vehicle WITH those features.
Can _I_ / should I be the 'one' to make that decision for all other car buyers? Or even most of them, or a few? Or should the car companies? Or the NHTSA?

Interesting questions, I think... :)

While there are lots of examples of 'lack of faster progress' IN regulated industries, I think it's still an unfair generalization... Virtually ALL 'industries are regulated' to some degree today, so a postulation is fine, but can't be tested, as there are few control samples to measure...
Examples?

Amen

Robbie,
You answered your own question of who would regulate the nuclear industry, the insurance companies. I for one would prefer that the oversight of a plant to be overseen by the insurance folks as opposed to a government guy/gal that has no profit incentive. Ditto goes for the drug industry. We also do not need the FDIC or the SEC. They should be replaced by the private sector. Government should protect us and settle lawsuits and not much else. The first question to always ask is, "What government agency is better at something than the private sector?".

Are you serious? Are you sure you’re posting on the right forum? Are you actually advocating the use of aggressive force, i.e. using government mandates, to enforce a particular opinion?

The nuclear power industry is the most overregulated industry in America. You can't do anything without filling out a bunch of paperwork to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That's why the pace of innovation has almost ground to a halt over the past 40 years. A certain amount of regulation is necessary for public safety, but the arrangement we have is grossly hurting the progress that we could be achieving...

Yes, perhaps I was not clear. I am postulating what would have occurred without regulation. And we can know that because that is what happens in every other industry.

I actually liked your humor. It was a nice touch. This sounds an awful lot like the Tucker automobile.they had engine problems as well. from an engineering and marketing standpoint I would think that a custom engine is a foolish idea. You have too many obstacles to overcome as it is without having to design an engine and transmission system as well. They should have done what Buell motorcycle company did and use an existing off-the-shelf engine, the Harley Davidson engine.

do you own the air? -- j

y'know, if we had a truly free, capitalistic nation,
we'd all be richer and more comfortable -- and
the government would be about 10 percent of its
current size. -- j

The government as the article said not only has no business in telling auto manufacturers how to build a car but the same should be said about the oil industry, the nuclear industry, the drug industry, the insurance industry, I think you get my point. People should be willing to decide for themselves what products that they want at what price. The free market should always decide what the consumer wants, not some poly in DC. While I'm at it let's bring back the term limits thing, these last 20 years is enough of a reason to do so.