The main problem with U.S. emission controls is that European
manufacturers didn't try to reduce emissions without reducing power or
efficiency. This is while American manufacturers were installing catalytic
converters, which have little effect on power or efficiency. IMHO, the
best thing Europe has going for it in the way of pollution reduction is
the emphasis on public transportation instead of driving everywhere.
Of course, you're quite right, Egil, that the old regulations requiring
sealed-beam headlights were ridiculous, partly because it used to be
impossible to get sealed halogens. Unsealed beams are now legal,
fortunately.
Jim Ruwaldt
'72 TR6 (being restored, but will be drivable when the transmission's
back in)
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Egil Kvaleberg wrote:
> On 13 Mar 1997, ArthurK101@aol.com wrote:
>
> > The US laws are, by and large, pretty good and have resulted in
> > forcing car makers to produce safer, cleaner and more efficient cars that
> > they would have on their own.
>
> I know I should not involve myself into this ;-), but at least AFAIK I
> would not think YES is necessarily the right answer to this.
>
> My case in point, the US regulations re. headlights have been (and
> probably still are) pure silliness, and would really place safe nighttime
> driving in jeopardy. More liberal (and sensible) legislation in Europe
> have meant that the industry have had the opportunity to develop proper
> lighting decades before the US.
>
> The really important development re. passive safety, the seat belt, was not
> some result of US laws. Some rather silly passive safety devices have
> been, but I'm not sure if they should all be regarded as a benefit to
> mankind. Some would even claim that some of the efforts to "save" people
> that couldn't be bothered by using seatbelts would be against the very laws
> of nature, "survival of the fittest" and all that ;-).
>
> Re. efficiency: The US smog laws did reduce emissions when they were
> introduced, but at an enormous cost in efficiency. Compared to the rest of
> the world, US automakers have traditionally ignored any concern for
> efficient use of fossile fuels. The gas-guzzler legislation have just been
> a poor excuse to try to get on par with the rest.
>
> In general, it seems that a conscious and competitive market bring much
> more benefit than restrictions introduced by lawmakers. IMHO, of course.
>
> Egil
> --
> Email: egilk@sn.no Voice: +47 22523641, 92022780 Fax: +47 22525899
> Snail: Egil Kvaleberg, Husebybakken 14A, 0379 Oslo, Norway
> URL: http://home.sn.no/home/egilk/ PGP: finger:egilk@sn.no
>
>
|