449
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
449 points (96.1% liked)
Not The Onion
20128 readers
1485 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is kinda misleading, the complaint is that cars are too expensive. They're not saying cars should be less safe, just that the extra safety isn't worth the financial cost.
(Still not a good position to take in my opinion)
That's par for the course for Republicans. Are things too expensive? Let them be shittier so they are cheaper.
And the act all surprised when they just get shittiee, but not cheaper.
Then it becomes shittier but the price stays the same while the manufacturer pockets the difference.
and then they buy tacky, gaudy expensive things.
Yeah, and the thing is I'd be a lot more receptive to that argument if they were willing to support funding the sort of road and transit infrastructure that actually make cars less dangerous.
Its not misleading. They could cut costs in multiple areas, but specifically chose safety.
Yeah. Right wing positions are wrong enough without the constant, panicky extremification of them that goes on. It’s not really persuasive to anyone when we distort these positions and then crow about how bad they are. It’s all just part of the outrage-engagement complex that is rapidly rotting all our brains.
You're assuming what they're saying is true. Many other countries have those same safety features without their cars costing nearly as much
I'd have to argue that cars are less safe when there is a giant tablet bolted to the dash and every setting is buried in menus.
See Tesla front end crash stats.
Swipe..swipe...submenu, press...swipe...crash.
it's not misleading, it's pointing out the GOPs actual position, which is to reduce costs that the manufacturer can't avoid to save them money. If safety regs are gutted, manufacturers get to keep the prices the same, but make more money. If instead more regulations are put in that necessitate reducing costs in other areas it will just cost the manufacturers money.
Safety is basically self-certified in the US. What evidence is there that the extra cost is related to safety?
I understand that Republicans are often prohibited by their own belief systems to look at the profit margins of the things they occasionally pretend to want to make affordable, but in the US that's exactly where a lot of the problem lies.
You can argue with the evidence if you want to but it is offered right there, at the top of the article.
The amount of lives saved isn't what I was interested in. I was interested in the purportedly added cost. US car safety regulations are toothless compared to the EU. That's partially why our roads are filled with monster truck sized pedestrian flatteners.
I see - so you’re arguing with the Republican premise that safety features add cost. It seems obvious that more features will add some cost, but how much is the question. The number of lives saved is also pretty important to understanding that cost, I would add.
Naturally the GOP are trying to deflect general economic outrage at Democrats and “nanny state” regulators any way they can.