this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
657 points (96.7% liked)

Not The Onion

18756 readers
1985 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:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Just had a bit of a realization on this one. The point of this is for them to do nothing, isn't it? Specifically blame it one something people will push back on (safety features), so they can throw up their hands and say, "we tried, but they won't let us bring down the cost of cars!"

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Republicans wake up in the morning trying to write down that idea in their dream where they hurt people and made money.

[–] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ah yes, it's definitely the regulations that are making those costs go up, not tariffs or CEO paychecks.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Won't anyone think of the shareholders?!

[–] JPSound@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What the fuck is with this title? This has zero to do with being "too safe" and everything to do with cost. Inflammatory title.

That said, I highly doubt any cost that's saved on the car makers side will be passed down to the consumer.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

while yes, it is an inflammatory title, it's kind of the reverse of what the republicans are doing, which is phrasing that cars are too expensive in order to gut safety regs that cost car manufacturers money rather than make them money.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Obviously not. They don't want to bring prices down, they want to bring profits up. Representatives and senitors don't give a shit about your safety in a car, but do care a lot about the big three car manufacturers stock buyback options. We're less than worthless. We're annoying voters they don't need anymore, compated to a stock but back you're a nuisance.

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

Qhy are cars more expensive?

I mean last I checked they fall under the category of "everything".

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Ted Cruz is blaming life-saving car safety regulations for the rising cost of cars

This is correct. They will be cheaper. The question is not how much money is spent, but it is what you get for that money.

I'm sure if we get rid of all food safety laws there will be cheaper food available as well. It will make manufacturing much easier.

Likewise, if we eliminate the EPA and the huge amount of environmental protection laws we have, manufacturing will be much cheaper and feasible to do in the USA.

Chesterton's Fence remains in effect, as ever. Fiddle with these rules at your own risk. Consequences don't care about your feelings and the universe will make sure to pay you back.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

But the prices won't go down. Reductions in production costs are only reflected in sale prices when there's a market force driving the costs down. Right now, people have to own cars, and the barriers to entry into the matlrket are too high for new competitors. There's no reason for the auto manufacturers to lower prices if their costs go down. They can just pocket the difference.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

They'll get rid of the safety mechanisms to make the cars cheaper... to produce.

But you and me will still pay the same prices.

Because its corporate profits they are concerned about, not personal savings.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ah yes, it's safety that makes newer cars expensive you see. Not the wireless key-fobs, power seats, built in ipad to replace the perfectly fine knobs and buttons, autonomous driving features...

[–] Paulemeister@feddit.org 14 points 1 day ago (5 children)

From what I've heard the lack of buttons is actually a cost saving measure, if you put in an infotainment system anyway

[–] Scribbd@feddit.nl 9 points 1 day ago

Thank god EU is starting to get involved in the matter.

For now it is only that cars only get a 5 star safety rating when they include buttons for a few things form 2026.

I hope there will be laws that follow after.

[–] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That might be true as I haven't looked into it in detail. Though even then, if the goal is to make cars more affordable, there's lots of other features you can cut down on that has nothing to do with safety

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, good buttons are ridiculously expensive

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

And nobody is selling the basic no frills subcompact cars in the US anymore

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Shareholders are the primary reason!

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

For the passenger? Very safe.

For the pedestrians that get hit? Ha! They're literally death machines. At this point, I'm surprised we're not putting spikes on the front of the car Mad Max style to ensure the pedestrians' death.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Y'all can buy these right now.

[–] Seaguy05@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

These certainly do have a use on freight trucks but not your urban crawler tho. They help identify loose and rotating lugs and give you a little means to know when you're too close to a curb. Plus as you drive you can shred other people's tires.

Edit: these being the silver spikes not the ghetto push on hubcaps

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Those look like they're far more likely to destroy your rims when they tangle up a branch or bundle of fencing wire on the road than ever do you an ounce of good.

[–] H3mp79@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Saw these idiotic rims on a smol penis indicator the other day.

[–] scala@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

I like to call them "Plus Sized" they get much more annoyed than calling them small pp mobiles

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Give credit where credit is due. Death race 2000 came out 4 years before mad max.

[–] Devconsole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

The average Lemmy user seems to want more dead car owners.

Also, this thread has a lot of people voicing their opinions about what they want in a car. I too would prefer a much more basic auto for a cheaper price. But what do normal people actually want? They want all the bullshit. Auto makers also make great money on the bullshit, so they want to sell it to us. They also make great money when the bullshit breaks so they make more money on the back end.

[–] obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 days ago (6 children)

American safety standards have led to an insane game of cat an mouse wherein I need my car to be bigger to keep me safe. But my bigger car is more dangerous to you. So you need a bigger car to protect yourself from my dangerously large car. But now I need a bigger car to protect me from your giant car.

And 30 years later everyone is driving around a 60 thousand dollar crumple zone so tall it can't see pedestrians over the hood and needs a 6 liter engine just to move.

Same for child seats. Planning on having 3 kids under 10? Better plan on a truck or van with a 3rd row, because somehow, you can't fit seats 3 small children in the back seat of a family sedan or crossover.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 26 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Is it really the safety standards? I thought it was a combination of all the stupid "truck" exceptions and our equally stupid culture where the iamverybadasses choose their 3-ton grocery and kindergarten shuttles out of fear because they want to "win" any collisions.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 days ago

My siblings in sin, American cars and street scapes are dangerous for everyone.

load more comments
view more: next ›