No more US-street-legal Lotuses after this year

Flyin Mikey J wrote: IMO, lighter cars are safer for everyone else. Its the heavy vehicles that make everyone else less than safe. As a pedestrian or cyclist I'd much rather get hit with a sub-2000 pound Lotus than a 5000 pound "safe" SUV. Actually, same as a motorist.

I'd be fine with the driver of a heavier vehicle charged with manslaughter in the event of a fatal TA with a lighter one.

Because, and I wish I was making this up, the reason I keep being given for people driving huge SUVs is "I am not a good driver so I want to be safe in a crash." They are expecting to crash into people. They would rather kill the other guy than be bothered to learn how to drive.

Knurled wrote:

Flyin Mikey J wrote: IMO, lighter cars are safer for everyone else. Its the heavy vehicles that make everyone else less than safe. As a pedestrian or cyclist I'd much rather get hit with a sub-2000 pound Lotus than a 5000 pound "safe" SUV. Actually, same as a motorist.

I'd be fine with the driver of a heavier vehicle charged with manslaughter in the event of a fatal TA with a lighter one. Because, and I wish I was making this up, the reason I keep being given for people driving huge SUVs is "I am not a good driver so I want to be safe in a crash." They are expecting to crash into people. They would rather kill the other guy than be bothered to learn how to drive.

Are you going to file the same charges against the Lotus or Miata driver as well? Or at least attempted manslaughter? I'm willing to bet in relation to the # built sports cars have a higher incidence of accidents than SUV's mainly because people who buy a sports car want to driver a sports car.

Also the people aren't buying SUV's because they expect to crash, but because the insurance companies, magazines, news outlets, main stream media etc. all keep publishing the FACT (not hearsay but fact) that you are safer in a larger vehicle all else being equal. I realize the rest of you are driving gods with better spacial awareness than Hamilton, Senna, Prost and Alonso combined, but I realize I'm a mere mortal and that not only am I fallible, but so are others and there may well be a time when I get T boned by a drunk doing 50 through a red light in a 25 zone. At which point I want every safety nanny aid I can get.

Yes there are times I will risk the odds and dive an old, inherently less safe vehicle, but that's not my daily, in traffic gridlock car.

Duke wrote: From a politician's / bureacrat's viewpoint, nothing is *ever* safe enough. If things were allowed to be "safe enough", how would legislators and regulators continue to justify their existences?

Houses have pretty much been "safe enough" for a long time, regulation on houses moves at a glacial pace compared to cars. Some toxic or carcinogenic material gets banned once every few decades and that's basically it.

So, in other words, we should all keep buying the largest, heaviest, most overbuilt tank we can afford? Where does that end?

93EXCivic wrote: People should be able to make their own decisions about safety

That's the theory.

People want freedom of choice but won't accept the responsibility for the consequences of their decision. They buy something exciting, then sue anyone and everyone associated with it if they get hurt.

We've done this to ourselves.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Duke wrote: From a politician's / bureacrat's viewpoint, nothing is *ever* safe enough. If things were allowed to be "safe enough", how would legislators and regulators continue to justify their existences?

Houses have pretty much been "safe enough" for a long time, regulation on houses moves at a glacial pace compared to cars. Some toxic or carcinogenic material gets banned once every few decades and that's basically it.

Actually, that's not really true. As part of recently renovating my kitchen, touching approximately 10% of my house, I was required to put hardwired, interconnected smoke detectors in all 4 bedrooms and in the halls outside. I previously had battery-powered smoke/CO2 detectors, which were perfectly functional and valid. But even though I wasn't doing any work at all in the rest of the house, they had the opportunity to mandate something, and so they did.

They also have another, easier target at the moment - mandated energy efficiency. Some of the new insulation requirements are insane, and very difficult to implement in construction. Continuous insulation requirement, anybody? How about having to build a house, cover the entire outside in uninterrupted rigid insulation board (2" thick), then glue all your exterior finishes onto that and hope for the best? That is effectively the way the new energy code requirements are written.

Before that it was handicap accessibility. Not that I have anything against accessibility (and in fact I always design for it), but nothing screams "over-regulation" like spending $100,000 putting wheelchair-accessible bathrooms on the third floor of a building with no elevator.

And there is still a significant lobby to require fire sprinklers in all new residences. I bet that sees legislation within the decade.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Knurled wrote:

Flyin Mikey J wrote: IMO, lighter cars are safer for everyone else. Its the heavy vehicles that make everyone else less than safe. As a pedestrian or cyclist I'd much rather get hit with a sub-2000 pound Lotus than a 5000 pound "safe" SUV. Actually, same as a motorist.

I'd be fine with the driver of a heavier vehicle charged with manslaughter in the event of a fatal TA with a lighter one. Because, and I wish I was making this up, the reason I keep being given for people driving huge SUVs is "I am not a good driver so I want to be safe in a crash." They are expecting to crash into people. They would rather kill the other guy than be bothered to learn how to drive.

Are you going to file the same charges against the Lotus or Miata driver as well? Or at least attempted manslaughter? I'm willing to bet in relation to the # built sports cars have a higher incidence of accidents than SUV's mainly because people who buy a sports car want to driver a sports car. Also the people aren't buying SUV's because they expect to crash, but because the insurance companies, magazines, news outlets, main stream media etc. all keep publishing the FACT (not hearsay but fact) that you are safer in a larger vehicle all else being equal. I realize the rest of you are driving gods with better spacial awareness than Hamilton, Senna, Prost and Alonso combined, but I realize I'm a mere mortal and that not only am I fallible, but so are others and there may well be a time when I get T boned by a drunk doing 50 through a red light in a 25 zone. At which point I want every safety nanny aid I can get. Yes there are times I will risk the odds and dive an old, inherently less safe vehicle, but that's not my daily, in traffic gridlock car.

The very remote possibility of that happening is not enough to me off of a motorcycle or interesting car.

Control through fear!!! We may as well be in communist Russia. I should be able to choose my level of risk. I'd rather have a TVR with zero nannies and aids than a Camry or Accord. Yes I feel I should be allowed to make that choice.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Duke wrote: From a politician's / bureacrat's viewpoint, nothing is *ever* safe enough. If things were allowed to be "safe enough", how would legislators and regulators continue to justify their existences?

Houses have pretty much been "safe enough" for a long time, regulation on houses moves at a glacial pace compared to cars. Some toxic or carcinogenic material gets banned once every few decades and that's basically it.

I'm pretty sure that if 30,000 people were killed each year by their houses, and over a hundred thousand seriously injured, there'd be more (and more frequent) regulation

I like Lotuses (Loti?)

kb58 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: People should be able to make their own decisions about safety

That's the theory. People want freedom of choice but won't accept the responsibility for the consequences of their decision. They buy something exciting, then sue anyone and everyone associated with it if they get hurt. We've done this to ourselves.

I agree and would add that Insurance companies also play a role. The positive of the safety rules is that we don't have Tata and china cars invading our country.

Any of you people who oppose the safety regulations hate people, and by extension you hate clean air and clean water.

And you're obviously far too stupid to make the correct choice in these matters, so laws will be passed to keep you neanderthals from trying to kill and poison the rest of us.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Duke wrote: From a politician's / bureacrat's viewpoint, nothing is *ever* safe enough. If things were allowed to be "safe enough", how would legislators and regulators continue to justify their existences?

Houses have pretty much been "safe enough" for a long time, regulation on houses moves at a glacial pace compared to cars. Some toxic or carcinogenic material gets banned once every few decades and that's basically it.

You obviously haven't tried to build or remodel a house in an earthquake prone area of the US. The rules and regulations surrounding all of that are a nightmare to sort through and they change yearly.

OldGray320i wrote: Any of you people who oppose the safety regulations hate people, and by extension you hate clean air and clean water. And you're obviously far too stupid to make the correct choice in these matters, so laws will be passed to keep you neanderthals from trying to kill and poison the rest of us.

So riddle me this: At what point do we reach the Law of Diminishing Returns? How safe is safe enough? How clean is clean enough? Can there be such a thing? Is it worth a billion dollar change in industry standards to save 1 life? 1000 lives? 100,000 lives?

In reply to OldGray320i:

I do hate people and clean air. You're absolutely correct

I especially hate clean water. You're right. What I need is a group of people to force me into living correctly. Highly educated people who know much more about these things than myself. I must be told what to drive and where to go and when and what to eat because I'm too stupid to know better myself.

So, now we need safer airbags to protect us against airbags?

nderwater wrote: I'm pretty sure that if 30,000 people were killed each year by their houses, and over a hundred thousand seriously injured, there'd be more (and more frequent) regulation

If you put together all the accidents with stairs, bathtubs, ladders, pools, home electrical equipment, house fires...I'm pretty sure it would be close. I found a stat from 2002 that says it's 20k people killed per year in the US, but that includes some things that aren't really related to the house itself.

turboswede wrote:

I believe it, and that's a good thing without question. Now, let's see the statistics since, say, 2000.

I don't fit in Loti, so I guess I don't care?

Interesting news. I was in the local Lotus dealer this past Friday and they said the dealership had been sold and would be relocating to a new location. They currently have 4 Evoras on the lot.

Safety arguements aside, they definitely don't seem to sell very well. I see a few Elises on the road now and then (usually the same 2 or 3), but Evoras are rare. Despite the fact Lotus has been around for a number of years longer, I see more Teslas during my average commute by far.

Duke wrote: I believe it, and that's a good thing without question. Now, let's see the statistics since, say, 2000.

Down 19% since 2000 alone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

I'm not even sure if I have seen an Evora in the wild. I have seen several Teslas and a couple Elises.

OldGray320i wrote: Any of you people who oppose the safety regulations hate people, and by extension you hate clean air and clean water. And you're obviously far too stupid to make the correct choice in these matters, so laws will be passed to keep you neanderthals from trying to kill and poison the rest of us.

Pretty sure that's the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum.

I'm going to assume sarcasm rather than lobotomy.

Duke wrote: So riddle me this: *At what point do we reach the Law of Diminishing Returns?* How safe is safe enough? How clean is clean enough? Can there be such a thing? Is it worth a billion dollar change in industry standards to save 1 life? 1000 lives? 100,000 lives?

I've wondered the same thing about another sensitive topic, health care. Parents being allowed to spend millions of other people's money (insurance dollars) treating a gravely ill child. While I very much understand where they're coming from, it's begs the question, just how much public money should be available to save one person? One million, ten million, 100 million? Where do you draw the line?