Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


bzcat

JL Wrangler scores 1 star in Euro NCAP

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, probowler said:

Which is all fine and dandy, but it' shouldn't be the governments job to do that. If Subaru or Mercedes want to sell cars based on safety, more power to them, but it shouldn't be blanket mandated by G-men.

I'm not denying the effectiveness of these technologies, just simply stating that it should be up to us as the consumer whether or not we want these technologies.

The problem is that if I choose to pay for an AEB system and the person behind me doesn't I still get injured in the accident. It is the governments job to protect citizens, not only on the military side but also from a safety and society side to make sure products are safe and meet requirements.  Should the government allow lead paint, asbestos, or something as basic as non GFCI outlets in bathroom and kitchens under the premises that its their choice? Or if that person that hit me injures me should I be allowed to take his primary residence and sell all his positions and toss them and their family on the street to pay for my care. 

On top of just a protection; Countries have a socialized health care system net. The idea is to keep the cost low for injury and post accident care as society is taking care (paying for with tax dollars) of those people that can no longer work. When someone becomes so disabled they can't work they fall over onto state medicare system for the care of their treatment once they have excused the insurance they have. The only place where you can get a decent cost of this care is Michigan as our insurance fund for car accidents is for unlimited benefits so those people never roll over onto the State Medicare system.  This cost is spelled out on our insurance, it is paid every year when you renew your policy -- it is $192 per vehicle and next year it will most likely be higher. If the systems are required and costs go from 600 million dollars a year to 400 million dollars is it worth 200million dollars in cost savings to make them required? Not to mention the cost savings from people that no longer need other goverment services or assistance,  increased productive as a society as those individuals are no longer injured. Michigan system does have higher cost, but even if it is only $140 / vehicle there is a substantial cost there.

The Jeep meets all basic safety requirements, thought to be honest they really skirt around a lot using "Off road use only"  It is allowed to be sold as it meets those. Jeep made the choice to take the negative PR rather than make the systems available or even offered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×