Comment by x3ro

Comment by x3ro 3 hours ago

> How can we quantify the penalty faced by consumers in EU with to increased costs due to regulation?

I really hate that everything has to be seen from the consumers' lens, especially the consumer of luxury goods (I'm talking SUVs and the like, cheap cars exist in Europe).

What if we didn't just look at it from the POV from people who buy or want cars? I don't own a car, nor do I plan to. I have to pay for roads, which I understand to an extent. But why should my life be at risk from people wanting to buy SUVs cheaper?

Edit: Also, looking at "cars" without distinction really just obfuscates the real issue. The most dangerous cars (for pedestrians) are the biggest (and sometimes the fastest) ones. Plus most pedestrians die in cities, not on a Highway. So yeah, if you want to drive an SUV in a dense city, then I'm all for making it 10x more expensive for you, because it makes no sense (to me) and puts me in danger :)

simianwords 3 hours ago

I agree with everything you said but

> But why should my life be at risk from people wanting to buy SUVs cheaper?

What if the risk is not that much greater? That's what I'm questioning.

Reply View 10 replies

CalRobert 3 hours ago

But it is much greater - more than double the odds of killing a kid in a collision, for instance.

Reply View | 8 replies
- simianwords 2 hours ago
  
  what if reducing the size of a ball point pen by half reduces the rate of death by ball point pens by 50%.
  
  Reply View | 7 replies
  
  Naillik 2 hours ago
  
  If the ball point pen was responsible for ~40,000 deaths per year (in the USA), and reducing its size by half did not meaningfully diminish its function as a pen for most users… I’d rather not kill an extra 20,000 people a year just to have a bigger pen.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  simianwords 2 hours ago
  
  I agree if this is true
  > and reducing its size by half did not meaningfully diminish its function as a pen for most users
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  kelnos 2 hours ago
  
  I'm not sure why you're responding to a measured, factual rate of death with some random weird thing that you just made up.
  So ok, I'll do it too: what if reducing the size of a ball point pen by half reduces the rate of death by ball point pens by 0.01%? (Answer: you don't do it, because the benefit to doing so is low, and that measured effect could be well within the margin of error anyway.)
  (And my weird made-up number sounds a lot more likely than your weird made-up number.)
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
x3ro 3 hours ago

Makes sense. And I'm glad I don't have to make that choice. But as mentioned in my edit, I think that the "low hanging fruit" are still plentiful, so we won't have to think about this for a while (talking about pedestrian deaths).

Reply View | 0 replies