Home » We Should Have The Right To Put Ourselves In Danger With Our Cars

We Should Have The Right To Put Ourselves In Danger With Our Cars

Righttodanger Top
ADVERTISEMENT

The fairly recent boom in importing Kei-class cars to America (for those unfamiliar, this is a class of Japanese Domestic Market cars that are very small and have engines that max out at 660cc/64 hp) has brought up a lot of interesting ideas. First, there’s the idea that these tiny cars and trucks are desirable and useful to a surprising number of Americans; Kei trucks are in a lot of demand for people who just want a utilitarian, cheap little workhorse for farms or delivery use or any number of other important jobs. They’re just handy and fun.

Then there’s the other ideas these little cars have brought up, ideas about the role of governments in dictating what we should or shouldn’t drive, often under the aegis of safety. A significant number of states have already banned registration of Kei-class cars and trucks (a number that seems to range from 16 to 31 states, depending on where you look) and often the reasoning given is safety. Specifically, that Kei cars are just not safe.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

For example, this is from the Georgia Department of Revenue’s Motor Vehicle Division bulletin sent out to all their license plate and registration offices:

NOTICE TO COUNTY TAG OFFICES
Japanese Kei Vehicles and Minitrucks
The purpose of this bulletin is to notify County Tag Offices of the Department’s policy that prohibits the titling and registering of Japanese kei vehicles, minitrucks and similar vehicles (collectively, Kei Vehicles) in Georgia. Kei Vehicles are imported (primarily from Japan) for use as farming vehicles and off-road recreational vehicles in the United States. Periodically customers attempt to title and register these vehicles. Kei Vehicles are not compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Therefore, they are not “street legal.” Kei Vehicles are barred from titling and registration.

The reasoning given why the state of Georgia does not want Kei cars on the roads is that they “are not compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS),” which is a government-y way of saying that the Kei vehicles are unsafe. Now, let’s just clarify some things here: a 25-year-old Kei vehicle is as exempt from FMVSS as any other 25 year or older car. A 1966 Volkswagen Beetle or a 1971 Corvette or a 1978 Skoda 120 Estelle are also all cars that do not meet American safety standards, not by a long shot, but you can still register any of those in Georgia without any guff whatsoever.

So what’s the difference here?

ADVERTISEMENT

There’s also a vocal group of people who seem to revel in the idea that Keis are unsafe and should be banned, for strange reasons that probably trace back to some formative erotic experiences when they were hall monitors, or something:

Keitweet 1

That particular tweet has been removed because the tweeter’s account got dinged for something, but that meme has shown up other places as well. There’s some segment of the population that does agree with such bans, and they like to make that clear. It’s not like they’re exactly wrong; a kei truck is tiny and inherently will be less safe than a full-sized, modern F-150. But, by the same logic, every single motorcycle on the road should be banned, too, because they’re vastly greater deathtraps than any Kei truck is.

If we really want to get into it, I could also point to studies like this one that found that for most real-world accidents, Keis aren’t appreciably that much less safe than anything else on the roads, generally, but that’s beside the bigger point. The bigger point is that you should be able to choose to drive something unsafe, as long as the lack of safety only affects you.

I should clarify here what I mean by “unsafe” because this is important: your right to unsafety cannot extend to anyone else. This means you do not have a right to drive a truck with a frame rusted out so badly it may leave its rear axle on the road and go pirouetting into a playground; that’s unsafe for people outside of your car.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cs Bongo 7

The way I see it, cars can be safe in two ways: internally and externally. I first wrote about this concept a few years back for The Old Site, when I was driving my (unsafe) Nissan Pao and was almost in a head-on collision with a huge SUV. Here’s how I described it then, and since they’re my words anyway, I’m just going to quote myself:

“That SUV, for example, has exemplary internal safety; in an accident, everyone inside is extremely well-protected, which is wonderful.

But that big SUV also does an awful lot to insulate the people inside from the reality of the world. I’ve driven plenty of modern SUVs, and I understand what they’re like: comfortable, quiet, roomy, tall cocoons, and when you’re in them, barreling along at 80 mph, you feel like you’re in a leather-slathered living room, and not at all like you’re hurtling down an asphalt ribbon at more than a mile-a-minute.

That’s why cars like that have terrible external safety. The only reason anyone would pull a stupid attempted overtaking move like the one that I encountered is because, inside the car, it just doesn’t feel like that big a deal. The person driving that SUV clearly saw me ahead as they drove into oncoming traffic, but instead of attempting to get out of the way, they doubled down, and kept on going, even though they clearly saw a car heading right at them.

That’s not the kind of shit you pull in an old, unsafe car.”

Essentially, a car with good internal safety is just safe for the people inside the car, and the outside world – other cars, pedestrians, pets, bollards – be damned. A car with good external safety may be a deathtrap for whoever is inside, but it’s not really going to hurt anyone else. Kei cars and motorcycles and many vintage cars are examples of this kind of safety – the only people at risk are those inside.

And these are the kinds of cars that I think people have a right to put themselves in danger in. My Pao, for example, is just this sort of car:

Cs Pao What 2

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s bigger than a Kei-class car, but not by much. I drive it in town and on the highway, but I am fully aware that in any sort of high-ish speed wreck, I’m likely quite thoroughly boned. It’s a risk I understand and accept because, for me, the experience of owning and driving and using this car more than makes up for the chance that I may end up killed in it, which, I think/hope (an assumption I never bother to investigate the truth of) is pretty remote.

Now, the subject of passengers can get sort of sticky; when people ride with me in my car, they’re aware it’s an old, tiny car and I do not believe they have the same expectations of safety that they do in a more modern car. I do have friends who will happily ride with me in the Pao around town, but won’t go on the highway with me in it. That’s more than fair, and I respect their informed decision.

I also take my child in this car, and that may be a more gray area; I’ve driven him in it since he was a little kid, and I’m sure didn’t have much conception of safety factors in cars. I of course used all the required child seats and restraints when he was small enough for them, but it was all still in a car not built to modern safety standards. Was I right to take him in such a car? I was driven around in far worse deathtraps as a kid, without the benefit of child seats or anything, but does that make it right? That part, I really don’t know the answer to.

So, I’m content to leave that part blurry if it means making this part clear: we, as drivers, should always have the right to Personal Danger, as long as it remains personal. Whatever you want to drive should be fine (well, accepting the 25-year import rule) regardless of how much you’ll resemble a puddle of chili after a wreck. As long as you’re not taking anyone else with you, what’s the problem?

Cs Mitsu360 Brochure

ADVERTISEMENT

This feels like a strange, self-destructive cause to rally behind, and it certainly bleeds into other contentious areas of motoring culture, like motorcycle helmet laws, which I do feel have value, but I also realize that may be a bit hypocritical. This isn’t clear, or easy, but I want to still defend the general idea that if you have a vehicle that could be dangerous to you and no one else, have at it, friend. I just don’t see who is being hurt by having legal kei cars, and I suspect there are other factors at play in laws like the one in Georgia or any of those other states, perhaps pressure from ATV dealers or other utility vehicle sales companies – of course, that’s just speculation.

Drive what makes you happy, even if there’s a possibility it could make you very unhappy – as long as you’re well aware and accept that possibility.

 

Relatedbar

In A Surprise Move, Massachusetts Makes It Legal To Register Kei Trucks And Imported Cars Again

Michigan Is Banning Random Japanese Cars Because It Has No Idea How To Identify Imported Trucks

Massachusetts Reviews Its Ridiculous Japanese Car Ban After Enthusiasts Fight Back

 

ADVERTISEMENT
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
202 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ADDvanced
ADDvanced
1 month ago

See:…. “motorcycles”

A PHEV Named Phevelyn
A PHEV Named Phevelyn
1 month ago

I started this, and my word it is longer than I thought. TLDR; driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Kei vehicles are vehicles, and as such require proper privileges. Privileges are conditional and need to be setup between the people and the government. It is easier for the government to ban Kei vehicles under the guise of safety than to do all the work to properly understand them, their risks, and regulate them reasonably. We can regulate them however we decide – it is our society and all these rules are made by people for people, but it’s hard and resource intensive to get it done and done right, especially with such a lack of appetite for compromise in contemporary politics.

(1) Operating a motor vehicle on public roadways is a privilege, not a right. You do not have any right to put yourself in danger in your car. What you are asking for is to have the privilege of putting yourself in danger in your car. Splitting hairs? Yes, but the distinction is important. Privileges are conditional – you are not entitled to them.

(2) Different types and classes of motor vehicles require different criteria to be met in order to operate them on public roadways. The motor vehicles themselves need to meet certain criteria, and the operator has to have a valid license and insurance.

(3) Kei vehicles are motor vehicles, and operating one on public roadways is a privilege. No matter how safe or unsafe, it’s a privilege just the same. Attaining said privilege means meeting certain criteria and demonstration that you are qualified to have that privilege.

(4) By all accounts, the logic behind being able to import then operate Kei vehicles over 25 yrs old is pretty sound – all vehicles 25+yrs old aren’t subject to FMVSS anyway no matter where they were originally sold, and there are plenty of vehicles that are objectively more dangerous to operate than Kei vehicles. So why not reconcile this and end the legal uncertainty around Kei vehicles?

(5) It is far easier for state government officials to ban Kei vehicle registration and operation on public roadways under the guise of public safety than it is to make the necessary policies and regulations to put an end to the legal uncertainty around Kei vehicles. Especially when industry thinks tanks and policy advocacy groups like AAMVA are willing to entirely write out and describe the reasons for them to do so. Doing this the right way means engaging legislators and transportation department bureaucrats over time to work with them on what the requirements and framework should be for Kei vehicle driving privileges. All that takes time, effort, and resources from both the Kei truck advocates and the government. What government agency has the appetite for that? Does your state’s DMV/BMV/DOT have a bunch of extra personnel and financial resources in their budget to dedicate to solving the issue of *checks notes* registration of a small number of incredibly niche 25+ yrs old imported vehicles? No. They do not, at least not without fighting for those resources.

(6) Kei Ownership advocacy groups and federal/state government officials need to suck it up and get this figured out. I believe that the safest way to manage driving privileges for Kei vehicles is to have consistent policies and regulations that are clear for all of the stakeholders involved. There will be no fair regulations without Kei vehicle advocates at the table helping to negotiate the terms of Kei registration privileges. At that negotiating table is the place to hash out those safety questions.

(7) We can strike a compromise between the real risks and real thrills of operating a dangerous (or dangerous adjacent) vehicle. We can require safety belts to be worn, and if there are no safety belts, we can mandate them to be installed before they can be operated. We can limit vehicle occupancy to a maximum of 2 adult occupants and prohibit children under a certain age. We can also waive those age and occupancy restrictions for specific emergencies and other unavoidable circumstances. We can have age restrictions to operate, like raising it to 21 or 25 or something so we can keep inexperienced teenagers that are famously terrible at calculating and managing risks. If that is unreasonable, we can require additional safety training to describe and understand the risks and realities of Kei vehicle ownership in a balanced and reasonable way so all registering drivers have at least had the opportunity to learn and comprehend the safety risks unique to that type of vehicle. We can prohibit Kei vehicle use on freeways and highways of a certain speed limit. We can specify and require a certain type of insurance coverage if necessary. We can allow some safety requirements to be waived if the vehicle is registered a certain way that limits its use. And best of all, we can decide to apply some, all, or none of these requirements to domestically produced vehicles over 25 years old. Hopefully we figure it out, because I think all involved will be safer and happier if we do. But compromise is a dirty word in politics, if not society at large. Especially when special interest groups and large industries get involved to push a discussion one way or they other. Some are honest, others lie and twist the truth to advocate for their agenda. Both add more complication and nuance to the process.

Ron888
Ron888
1 month ago

In a country like mine where free healthcare is a thing i would understand such bans.After all,others taxes are paying your medical costs.
But in the US of A it doesnt make sense. You take the risks and pay for the consequences yourself

IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron888

This is partially true. Patients who suffer catastrophic injuries in car accidents usually end up on Medicare and/or Medicaid after their other insurance benefits are exhausted. I personally do not see that as a good reason to ban kei cars because there are so many other ways people can wind up on public insurance through risks they decide to take. Kei cars make up a tiny percentage of the US vehicle market and banning them has more to do with government laziness than public safety IMO.

Curtis Loew
Curtis Loew
1 month ago

I’d consider owning a newer JDM Kei car, but just don’t like driving from the wrong side of the car. I used to have a USDM Subaru 360 Kei and liked it. Give me a new LHD Jimny like Mexico gets and I would be happy.

We have a Mirage now. It’s only slightly bigger than Kei size, I don’t see why I can have that but some in other states can’t have an imported Kei. Oh and Florida lets you plate and drive a golf cart on the road. I’m sure a Kei is safer than that.

Robert Runyon
Robert Runyon
1 month ago

Great article. To be honest, I’ve not given much thought to safety comparisons to other vehicles, such as my motorcycles or those 3 wheel contraptions. In Nanny state Ca., I can ride a trike helmet less. That is insane but part of the regulatory mess that is California. These trucks seem to be a great opportunity for states to decrease both exhaust gasses and mileage figures. We need to be given options if we are going to go forward with alternatives to fuel sucking monstrosities. Come on Newsom you useless waste of human form. Do something truly useful and quit dumping billions on people that don’t pay taxes. Sorry, I digress..

Last edited 1 month ago by Robert Runyon
Widgetsltd
Widgetsltd
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Runyon

Yeah, I’d like to see the California prison population reduced too. Those are the people who don’t pay taxes, right? Also: I’d love to have a 1969 Subaru 360 pickup. Kinda rare, and kinda expensive.

Thevenin
Thevenin
1 month ago

The way kei cars are subjected to bullshit double standards makes me suspect ulterior motives.

But before we go off the deep end with “we should have the right to personal danger,” don’t forget that argument was used against seatbelt laws, too. Risking your life is an inalienable right, but driving on public roads while doing so isn’t. Safety laws are not categorically invalid, just excessive.

Col Lingus
Col Lingus
1 month ago

Okay. Let’s call this what it truly is. Legislative interference in your right to choose.

Does this concept sound sort of familiar to anyone else? Seriously?

S0crates82
S0crates82
1 month ago
Reply to  Col Lingus

I’d say bureaucratic interference, rather than legislative, in the GA case.

Goblin
Goblin
1 month ago

All the Ninja ZX-10R riders that pass me on the highway in Connecticut with no helmet and no eyewear on do salute the safety concerns of the lobby trying to ban Kei cars.

SonOfLP500
SonOfLP500
1 month ago

I have posted this twice before on Mercedes’s posts about kei-car bans, but it still applies:

Besides the obvious logic chasm between allowing motorbikes and banning kei vehicles, vehicle type is just one piece of the overall picture.
I live in Japan, where kei vehicles of all types and ages drive on all roads – including expressways – in all weathers. When I first arrived here in the late 1980s, there were more than 10,000 traffic fatalities every year, which seemed like slaughter. By various means, that is now down to 2,610 fatalities in 2022. US traffic fatalities in 2022? 42,795.
Even allowing for the relative population sizes*, if you turn those numbers into fatalities per million population, you get 20.9 in Japan vs. 126.5 in the US.
OK, so people in the US drive a lot more than people in Japan, so how about fatalities per billion passenger km**? That still comes out as Japan: 3.39, US: 6.53 and can never be a direct comparison, because a larger proportion of those km in the US are on relatively safe expressways. (… and it is also an indirect advocacy for improving public transportation?)
How about a more direct comparison, of traffic fatalities per 100,000 population in major urban areas? Tokyo: 0.94 (2022); New York: 3.01 (2018).
I know I am preaching to the converted here but clearly kei cars are not the problem.
A major reason that fatalities dropped so fast in Japan is that the government and the police came down like a ton of bricks on DUI after some horrible incidents, including a whole family drowning after being rammed off a bridge by a drunk driver***. For a start, focusing on DUI might be a better place to start than the weird obsession with one class of relatively (compared to motorbikes) safe vehicles.
*Population in 2022: Japan: 125,170,000; US: 338,289,857
**Passenger km traveled (billions): Japan: 769.4; US: 6,558.3
***Ton of bricks = big fine and likelihood of jail for the driver. Equal penalty for any passengers of driving age. Prosecution and temporary closure of the restaurant or bar that supplied the drinks if they didn’t take any measures to discourage DUI.

Rob Schneider
Rob Schneider
1 month ago
Reply to  SonOfLP500

Love the footnotes, SonOfLP500. Nicely done.

SonOfLP500
SonOfLP500
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob Schneider

Thank you! This is a subject that bugs me more than it should, especially as I am from the UK and live in Japan. I was gobsmacked by the recent slaughter on US roads and spent a morning trawling the internet for info.

EmotionalSupportBMW
EmotionalSupportBMW
1 month ago

The whole problem with the safety argument is it’s such a weird place to start. Is it maybe the easiest, sure. But, like why? It’s like going into a 7/11 and banning orange juice for being unhealthy. Can I see a situation where it’s applicable, sure. We’re really starting there?

And Maine’s JDM ban is so lazy. There was zero appetite for it, so they just sorta banned Delicas then just sort of stopped. Like I just say a Acty with normal plates and a current inspection sticker. As long as it’s got a title from any Canadian province or US state it’s fine. I’m convinced the real reason we made the law is titling is handled though the Town Office, and your standard office employee is going to take one look at some Japanese import paperwork and nope right out.

Mercedes Streeter
Mercedes Streeter
1 month ago

Officially, Maine’s law bans all imports, not just JDM vehicles. Back when I reported on that in 2021 I received reports of BMW wagons and other Euro imports losing their plates and such. If there are Kei trucks with Maine plates on them it’s because the person at the DMV didn’t follow the law for one reason or another.

Apparently, that remains a sort of problem in Georgia right now as not every DMV office knows or cares about the state’s ban.

Totally not a robot
Totally not a robot
1 month ago

So what happens if a driver takes their Kei vehicle that’s properly registered in a nearby state drives to Georgia and spends the day puttering about, then returns home at night? Does the state of Georgia have any legal standing to take action against that driver?

Freelivin2713
Freelivin2713
1 month ago

I’m guessing it’s only for those who live in/register in the state. Yeah, it’s all so stupid

Eggsalad
Eggsalad
1 month ago

In every state in the US, it is perfectly legal to own, insure, and operate a 1912 Ford Model T on public roads. Would doing that be a good idea, as a daily driver? Probably not, but it’s entirely legal.

There is no legitimate argument that can be made to prove a 1999 Subaru Sambar is less safe than a 1912 Model T, but only one of those vehicles has a ban attempt.

Horizontally Opposed
Horizontally Opposed
1 month ago

this piece shows clearly how many things are upside down these days. “Don’t tread on me people” are the first to tread on others while being honest about their indignation. Your demarcation between “wrong for me, but not others” works so well, but would the Georgia Republican senate maybe care to ban, say, bungie jumping or smoking in your own home? But I digress, apologies. This is just people being ignorant, right?

SaabaruDude
SaabaruDude
1 month ago

It’s for this reason that I threw out my “don’t tread on me” shirt and replaced it with a “don’t tread on anyone” version. If we’re asking regulatory bodies to be consistent in their attempted bans, I sure ought to be consistent as an individual.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
1 month ago

Until *motorcycles* are banned for being unsafe, this nonsense is unmitigated bullshit.

SarlaccRoadster
SarlaccRoadster
1 month ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

Don’t forget that in half the states you can ride said motorcycle without a helmet, while in all the states you’re required to have a seatbelt on in a car.

FuzzyPlushroom
FuzzyPlushroom
1 month ago

Not all – here in New Hampshire anyone 18+ doesn’t need to wear their seat belt, although a car that came with seat belts must still have them in order to pass our safety inspection, at least.

I put mine on before I’ve left the driveway, as does everyone who rides with me, because hundreds of pounds of unrestrained meat flying around the cabin and likely worsening the outcome of a potential wreck? Homie don’t play that. But we aren’t required to, just as we aren’t required to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. Live free or die, I suppose.

Edit: I suspect the “unrestrained meat” angle could be why even someone driving alone is required to wear their seat belt in other places; it’s something other than your grip on the wheel and any bolstering/fabric friction from the seat holding you where you need to be. Someone sliding unbelted across the vinyl bench of a vintage boat can’t necessarily keep their foot on the brake, nor are they aiming the tiller so much as gripping for dear life.

Last edited 1 month ago by FuzzyPlushroom
SarlaccRoadster
SarlaccRoadster
1 month ago
Reply to  FuzzyPlushroom

Since you missed my point by at least one nautical mile, I will explain it to you in a (hopefully) more accesible way: when driving around in a 3ton metal cage with crumple zones and airbags, that had to pass multiple crash tests before being allowed on the road, you are required by law to use an additional safety device called ‘safety belt’ (except for maybe in NH), while at the same time riding on 2 wheels out in the open among those vehicles mentioned above^^ you are not required to even wear a helmet (except for a few states that mandate it).

Then, keeping in mind the lack of safety rules for 2-wheeled usage I just mentioned, some shitheads have decided that driving around in a kei car (enclosed 4-wheeled vehicles with seatbelts & airbags) is too dangerous to be permitted, because ‘safety’. /facepalm

Hope this helps.

Last edited 1 month ago by SarlaccRoadster
FuzzyPlushroom
FuzzyPlushroom
1 month ago

Wasn’t angling toward or away from the point, just offering additional context.

I agree with your point that it’s ridiculous to restrict people from driving cars that are ‘unsafe’ only for their occupants, and that laws around motorcycles are an easily-highlighted double standard.

Last edited 1 month ago by FuzzyPlushroom
Matt Sexton
Matt Sexton
1 month ago

There’s an excellent article that appeared in Cycle magazine a few decades ago that addresses this topic pretty nicely. It’s titled Our Brother’s Keeper, written by Peter Egan.

https://magazine.cycleworld.com/article/1996/3/1/our-brothers-keeper

The first time I read it, I thought it was so outstanding I immediately read it again. And then I carefully tore it out of the magazine, framed it, and hung it on my wall, where it remains to this day. Every so often I stop at it and read it again. It’s kind of one of my personal mantras, I guess.

Col Lingus
Col Lingus
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt Sexton

Peter also wrote some fantastic stuff for Road&Track for years.
One of my all time favorite writers ever.

ReverendDC
ReverendDC
1 month ago

I’d agree with you if it weren’t for the fact that the person in the (very cool) JDM car will STILL sue me for a wreck they caused.

SarlaccRoadster
SarlaccRoadster
1 month ago
Reply to  ReverendDC

Granted there aren’t many dumb comments in this thread, so you got the dumbest award easily 🙂
Anyone can sue you about anything here, the catch is would they win? If they’re at fault in an accident involving you, then that’s not at all likely. Whether they’re in a kei car or a unicycle is completely irrelevant.

Last edited 1 month ago by SarlaccRoadster
ReverendDC
ReverendDC
1 month ago

Let’s not talk about stupidity. Unicycles don’t belong on the road. JDMs are motor vehicles that can’t reach the speed limit of many highways. They are slow and made of tin foil. If you hit someone from behind, even doing the speed limit, then you are at fault in most states. Slow down on calling people stupid unless you’re a lawyer until you have more understanding. Have a nice day.

SarlaccRoadster
SarlaccRoadster
1 month ago
Reply to  ReverendDC

The unicycle was in jest, obviously.

Yes, if you hit someone from behind you’re usually at fault, but what does this have to do with kei cars?
There are no kei cars on the highways around me (Chicago), yet there are plenty of people in cars & trucks with engines heavier than a whole kei car who are going below the speed limit (and way below the speed of traffic), sometimes in the left lane. Somehow they don’t get rear-ended in droves by the rest of us. If you feel like you can’t avoid rear-ending people going slower, maybe you should get your brakes fixed, or stop driving altogether.

JDMs are motor vehicles that can’t reach the speed limit of many highways

That’s flat-out wrong, any kei car (which is what I assume you actually meant by ‘JDM’) is faster than a VW Beetle (or countless other old-timers) that are registered and driven on public roads every day, not to mention plenty of small-engined single-cylinder motorcycles that are all legal to register and drive, including on highways.

Also I didn’t call you ‘stupid’, in fact there’s no such word in my comment, you can go back an re-read it. You don’t have to be dumb to say something dumb, everyone does it on occasion, especially when uninformed.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 month ago

You raise an interesting question. In Pennsylvania we have a lot of Amish. They only drive light weight horse drawn buggies. Frequency of families being wiped out because they are allowed road privileges are often. Now you get killed in a rear end collision and the other driver and his family is okay. However his car is totaled and he has to live with killing you and your passengers. He learns you left a wife and son. Should he then just forget about your family losing a great father? I hope you have enough insurance to take care of your family if you meet that big SUV to take care of your family especially if you are at fault and the SUV owner uses for pain and suffering from having killed someone in a crappy car.
I learned a long time ago always put yourself in the other guys play. Have you?

Taargus Taargus
Taargus Taargus
1 month ago

This is a fucking bananas take.

Ea Gregory
Ea Gregory
1 month ago

I am amazed there’s such contention about this topic. I think it’s simple, these small Japanese vehicles should absolutely be allowed on the road. After about 1-5 years the NHTSA should issue a finding of death and collision impact. If the number is under the number of motorcycle death and collision, let them be imported.

J. B. Crawford
J. B. Crawford
1 month ago

What worries me more right now is insurance. I have sort of an odd situation, I own something that looks very much like a Kei truck but was remanufactured in California as an LSV/NEV. It has a US Nader sticker and VIN and, besides, our DMV is lax, so I had no trouble at all titling and registering it.

The problem was liability insurance. The fact that it vaguely resembled a kei truck caused insurer after insurer to either write a policy and cancel it a week later, or tell us up front that they wouldn’t insure anything that was kei-truck-shaped. I almost gave up before getting State Farm to insure it; it’s been over a year now but I’m still worried that they’ll review the policy and cancel it. Perhaps this is a much worse problem in this small state (New Mexico) but it has me worried that registration is not going to be the only problem with these vehicles.

Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar
1 month ago

Is a kei truck really much more dangerous than the typical under $10k pickup truck in a state with no safety inspections (like Georgia)?

Because if I am shopping for a weekend house chore runabout, I am comparing the Honda Acty to a cheap Silverado, which usually means it is a stiff wind away from turning into a pile of burnt orange colored rubble.

We all know the kei truck battle has nothing to do with safety. It is the used truck and “power sports” dealers who are afraid of some competition. So they call in their favors to the pols they “support”, who lean on the DMV.

Enough with this. If a motorcycle is “safe”, then just about anything else is “safe”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vic Vinegar
ReverendDC
ReverendDC
1 month ago
Reply to  Vic Vinegar

Organ-Donor-mobiles (motorcycles) are not safe. Period. I disagree with them on public roads. I know, not a popular take, but there it is. Not safe for them, not safe for my soul. And most people riding these things are the definition of idiot.

Delorean859
Delorean859
1 month ago

I don’t quite agree about the wording chosen, but I have a suggestion if they’re so concerned for our safety. Treat the kei car legally as a motorcycle. If they don’t want to do so, have a waiver that needs to be signed by the owner upon any transfer of title claiming “I know that I am operating an unsafe vehicle”. If a Ford Model A, a Volkswagen Beetle, or even the “Detroit Diplomat” is legal; then a Honda Acty or a Suzuki Alto should be too.

No More Crossovers
No More Crossovers
1 month ago

I mean, what even complies as “safe” when it’s all assholes in their gigantic trucks and suvs making the case? My gti has great safety ratings but I don’t think I’m going to get out well from colliding with Chud Mcthud in his squatted gmc going 20 over and blinding every car in sight. And should that thing crash into a kei car, I don’t think the small one is the problem. My brother was concussed and had broken ribs because of an F150 hitting his mazda 6 in the side, and that’s only because it hit the rear and not the front. That was a modern car.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 month ago

I see that everyone seems to want to ignore the laws of physics and think that of someone is killed it is only an argument about who is at fault as opposed to who died and if money can replace the lost parents

Cerberus
Cerberus
1 month ago

I 100% agree. As long as it has a fuel tank located decently so it’s unlikely to immolate someone else in a wreck, I should be able to sign whatever waiver or acknowledgement of lack of meeting safety standards that they want and be able to buy even a new car that doesn’t pass safety (not that anyone would actually sell one). We’re all going to die and don’t know when or how. I prefer to enjoy the moments in between, the moments most people consider to be chores, forgetting that those moments can also be lived and for us car people, driving can be a chore or a joy (or at least not as much of a chore) in the right car, a car that’s likely considered less safe or even unsafe. I suppose I’m a bit different as just the annoyance of modern active “safety” nonsense makes me want to die and kill. Even if those ineffective systems guaranteed that I would be immortal behind the wheel, I’d rather toss them into the pit of hell as I have no desire to live a life of constant annoyance and being treated like a baby by legislated stupidity/insidious pacification. I watched my mother die slowly over years and my optimistic, fearless grandfather tell me he lived too long (103) after having to watch so many loved ones die. The times I thought I was going to die, I wasn’t worried or afraid, it was more of a shrug, so let me drive what I want and I’ll make sure it’s in good fettle for the other road users’ sakes.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 month ago
Reply to  Cerberus

Well great you are dead and have no worries. Is your family protected if it is your fault? You have a minimum insurance plan and the other party surs to collect your entire estate plus a judgement? Your wife and kids on the the welfare roll and collecting government handouts? Yes I think I will risk that to drive a crappy truck.

Space
Space
1 month ago

That’s a lot of what if’s there. I have good news on one of your what if’s. Since kei cars are externally safer you are much less likely to cause significant damage to others and get sued. In addition the lower HP and weight of the vehicle will likely net you significantly cheaper liability insurance, meaning you can get more than minimum coverage.

Cerberus
Cerberus
1 month ago

I have never for a moment in my life felt the slightest want for kids—I even hated being one—in spite of that stand costing me a few great women and I would never marry someone who didn’t have their own career and ability to survive on their own (maybe we should just throw her on my funeral pyre to save the poor helpless woman from such a slow death!), but I’ll play—why would a life insurance policy not payout where they presumably would in a “more safe” vehicle that I caused a crash in? I’m also far less likely to cause damage if it’s my fault in a less safe car than in any of these modern monster trucks, especially, say the POS danger that is the CT, which passes all current safety standards, for whatever good those truly are.

OttosPhotos
OttosPhotos
1 month ago

Cheap vehicle = probably can’t afford insurance. So the rest of us are stuck paying for your hospital stay after you get into an accident.

I love the idea of a kei car, but I also see the liabilities of one in this country of 7k lb pickup trucks.. Registering one should mean waiving your right to expect free/subsidized healthcare.

No More Crossovers
No More Crossovers
1 month ago
Reply to  OttosPhotos

You realize this is about the united states, right

Mercedes Streeter
Mercedes Streeter
1 month ago
Reply to  OttosPhotos

Ignoring the whole Kei part for a moment your take essentially amounts to punishing the poor for being poor, which doesn’t help anyone.

If you’re going to go that route, shouldn’t it be the other way around? If you buy a vehicle that’s so large it’ll win a fight against anything but a semi or a train, your insurance should be good enough to cover the cheap Mitsubishi Mirage you wipe off of the planet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mercedes Streeter
1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 month ago

So it is wrong to buy a vehicle that will protect your family? I get fair and safe but there is no way buying a safe vehicle for your family should be punished because someone bought a coffin and drove their family in it. You can’t blame somebody for buying a safe car because someone didn’t.

Cerberus
Cerberus
1 month ago

That’s outsourcing the safety to the other people. Why not just drive a tank around? Can you blame them for being safe? So what if they crush some people because they can’t see out of them, those people should have bought tanks, too, those stupid poors! That’s only a slight exaggeration of the attitude that has driven the selfish vehicular arms race we’re in. And it’s such a ridiculous argument here when the best selling vehicles are massive pansywagons driven by people who often don’t seem to pay attention while they are presumably concerned about safety (at anyone else’s expense) and the number of people choosing low-passenger-count tiny toy cars or largely urban/offroad work vehicles the owners are very likely to put few miles on (not to mention that they’re old and have limited parts availability) is an exceedingly small percentage of the vehicles on the road. Nobody’s threatening to take away the trucks, but they are trying to take away the choice of people to enjoy a drive with minimal cost and impact on those around them.

Mercedes Streeter
Mercedes Streeter
1 month ago

I’m not blaming anyone, just responding to the idea as presented. 🙂

Cheap vehicle = probably can’t afford insurance. So the rest of us are stuck paying for your hospital stay after you get into an accident.

The comment I responded to brought up the idea of basically punishing someone for registering a small car when this country is full of 7,000-pound trucks.

I’m ignoring the Kei car part because Keis aren’t cars you buy when you’re really poor. Dealers like Duncan Imports charge premium money for JDM cars, so that’s out. Doing it yourself? Even a high-mileage Honda Beat will cost you about $5,000 by the time it gets off of the boat two months after you buy it. Someone who just needs transportation to get to their 9-5 isn’t going to spend $5,000 and wait two months. They’ll be out of a job long before then.

So, we’re just left with the idea that registering a small car should waive your right to subsidized healthcare because other people have chosen to drive large pickup trucks. What benefit does punishing the poor person have, exactly? They already can’t afford a big truck or SUV, so they won’t be able to afford the medical bills after a big truck or SUV takes them out.

So, if we go with this idea of punishing someone for the vehicle they buy, shouldn’t it be the person who could afford higher insurance rates in the first place? I’m not saying I support this position of punishing people for buying vehicles, but that the person least able to afford it shouldn’t be the person punished.

Cerberus
Cerberus
1 month ago
Reply to  OttosPhotos

Who gets free healthcare in the US—broke people who aren’t buying toy kei cars? Where is the line drawn? Say someone can barely afford the car that they need to survive in this economy and it happens to be 30 years old. That’s unsafe! No healthcare for you. And a modern car is no guarantee of safety just as an older car is not a guarantee of injury in a crash. After all, hundreds of thousands of people survived wrecks in old “death traps” over more than a century. I’d even posit that, like Torch mentions, the safer car encourages more dangerous behavior, at least partly negating the increased safety.

Let’s go the other way. I have no vices whatsoever, so what if I get all self righteous and say that anyone who takes drugs (yes, marijuana), drinks, gambles, smokes, sleeps around, eats unhealthy, etc. get no healthcare? After all, those things cost the system a hell of a lot more than the possible injuries of a few people in some less safe cars that may have still been injured in something safer. Slipping a little further down, I don’t have kids! Why should I pay taxes that go to schools? Because we’re in this together—we’re a weak species on our own and we thrived to invasive extent in spite of wars and general shittiness because of our even greater amount of cooperation and the benefits that the differences between us can confer upon the group.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
1 month ago

The rational argument is that the government has a role in promoting the community good. A dead parent leaves a gap in society that will struggle to be filled. A missing parent can be shown to have an impact on the likelihood of “success” of the next generation. The country depends on that next generation’s success for its very existence. Without their success, the entire country faces failure. So there is arguable good in creating laws that do the best to encourage the success of each successive generation.

This argument falls flat on its face once you accept the hit and miss application of this principle. Cars are safer than motorcycles, period. But we have seatbelt laws that serve to increase your likelihood of survival even further over a motorcycle, but often balk at helmet laws. Vehicles over a certain number of years old need to be completely forbidden from being driven on public property because they no longer provide adequate protection for the government good. Kei cars fall under that same halo. So would perhaps a compact car, if it were up against a full size SUV. So where does it end?

And in that instance, maybe we just don’t even begin, and we let each person decide for themselves if they like the risk they take.

202
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x