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
|