07-23-2008, 02:57 PM
quote:No, Bob, none of the dramatic things that you ask about will happen. The only thing that will happen is the cost of the device will be added to the vehicle. If you do a little research, you can find after-market equipment being proposed for this purpose, but it costs a lot more than $5. Think in the hundreds of dollars range. Perhaps if it was only $5 I wouldn't think it was such a big deal, but I don't think you can get a plastic replacement cup-holder for $5 on a new car, much less a safety item.
Originally posted by Bob Orts
...what impact will it have on you?...
Regardless of the cost, which I believe you underestimate, there's an underlying issue of good governance. If the attitude that, "It's only $5" were to govern how we enact legislation, I bet there'd be lots of little $5 trinkets mandated by law to adorn our cars, our houses, and our workplaces. Manufacturers and vendors and their lobbyists are very good at finding out what those kinds of lower limits are, and marketing the "need" for their products to legislatures.
So let me ask a hypothetical: if I get the idea in my head that red and green cars are somehow dangerous to those with red-green color blindness, should we ban red and green cars? Or should we perhaps study whether or not people with red-green colorblindness actually are endangered BEFORE we enact legislation banning red and green cars?
As a general hypothetical, should our laws bear some relationship to the world which we actually live in, or is it the right thing to do to pass whatever law a special interest group wants, just because it wants the law?
Disclaimer: I have absolutely no grudge to bear against people with red-green colorblindness. That particular disability was selected for no good reason other than I couldn't think of another piece of silliness to compare to the (as-yet) undocumented threat to blind pedestrians by hybrid cars.[8D]
Aloha! ;-)
Aloha! ;-)