8/18/08 - Why make threewheeled vehicles? Are they legal? Should they be? - ABG.com

[Matthijs]

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/18/editorial-why-make-three-wheeled-vehicles-are-they-legal-shou/

As was initially mentioned, Aptera (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/aptera/) is the manufacturer which first comes to mind. It's important to note that Aptera's initial product, the Typ-1 e, will be sold only in California - a state which will allow the three-wheeler to be lumped into the motorcycle category. Officials from Aptera are quick to point out that their offerings are in fact crash tested and proven safe. Still, there are no official standards that the vehicle must meet in order to be sold to the growing list of early-adopters looking to save some money when it comes time to fill up their tanks... or charge up their batteries. Steve Fambro, co-Founder and CEO of Aptera, says, "From the start, the focus of our design and engineering has been on achieving groundbreaking efficiency and safety regardless of vehicle classification." Even if Aptera does offer safe products (and we have no reason to doubt that it will), will the next manufacturer looking to capitalize on the new market do the same?

Are in fact crash tested and proven safe? It seems they are reporting ahead of themselves or they must mean the crash test simulations.

[curbowman]

I'm confident the Aptera will pass real tests as soon as they can do them. They are using the same software employed by major manufacturers as BMW. The idea of this is not to eliminate but to reduce real crash tests. So, instead of crashing 10 vehicles it's enough to crash 2 or 3.

Eventually, two Apteras would need to be crashed if they are going to be offered as a car. Theoretically they could perform well, and I wish so. It would be good to be able to buy and drive it anywhere!

[curbowman]

After reading the article, I'd like to add something: not all cars sold in America comply all the requirements of the federal law. Most Chinese cars can't perform within minimumduring crash tests, but they still can be sold. I do agree with the 'autocycle' category, though I'd like to see them tested with less stringent laws than cars.

[BrianK]

After reading the article, I'd like to add something: not all cars sold in America comply all the requirements of the federal law. Most Chinese cars can't perform within minimumduring crash tests, but they still can be sold. I do agree with the 'autocycle' category, though I'd like to see them tested with less stringent laws than cars.
Not to split hairs, but... I believe all new CARS must pass all NHTSA, DOT, & EPA regs to be permanently registered as on-road vehicles in the US. 3 wheeled, enclosed motorcycles may not have to pass all or any of those regs.

I do know how difficult it is to import a car into the US that wasn't intended for the US from the manufacturer. It's non-trivial to say the least. This is largely due to the fact that said cars have not gone through safety or environmental testing in the US.

[KarenRei]

Personally, I wish they'd just skip all these categories like "car", "motorcycle", "autocycle", and so on, and just let automakers choose to try to qualify for different nationally-standardized emissions, performance, and safety brackets (each higher bracket having tougher requirements to meet). Laws could then be based on *any* vehicle that fits into a given set of brackets. For example, they could require that on all commercials or published literature about a vehicle, and in the vehicle's window on the lot, the safety and emissions standards need to be published. Vehicles in lower emissions or performance brackets could be banned from particular kinds of use. Things of that nature.

In my view, things like the number of wheels or weight of a vehicle should be irrelevant in terms of what sort of safety and emissions requirements it needs to achieve. And as long as people know how safe (or unsafe) what they're buying is, what's the harm? I see the current system as stifling innovation and personal freedom by pigeonholing manufacturers into particular designs.

[n_dawg]

I take a libertarian stand on this issue – if I want to buy a vehicle made out of expanded polystyrene foam, that's between me, the seller, and my insurance company. I'm in favor of standardized crash tests, but for me that's an issue of preventing fraudulent sale – someone can't claim that the car is safer than it actually is, and the buyer is provided with the information they need to make an informed decision.

As long as drivers are required to have insurance, I don't see where additional external regulation is necessary. Seatbelts, airbags, etc will all become de facto mandatory due to the insane insurance premiums you'd have without them.

[BrianK]

a good point
A fantastic idea. You need a lobbyist. :)

Maybe a bi-yearly inspection to be sure that you car has not left its intended bracket & either penalize or reward based on movement.

[wolfdoggy]

Personally, I wish they'd just skip all these categories like "car", "motorcycle", "autocycle", and so on, and just let automakers choose to try to qualify for different nationally-standardized emissions, performance, and safety brackets (each higher bracket having tougher requirements to meet).

Absolutely! Being a Libertarian, I couldn't agree with you more. Then look at the unhindered innovation come out and the free market would handle those products that did not meet the consumers needs.

[Ceazar77]

That works fine if you are going to be the only occupant of the vehicle, however, some vehicles may require the sales person to call CPS after the final purchase has been made. In my line of work I see way to many kids who have been injured by the poor dicisions of their parents. I don't really care if someone doesn't want to ware a seatbelt, but buckle up you kids.

[wolfdoggy]

Unfortunately we can not pick our parents. Even so, I think we should respect within reason the decisions of the parents or the goverment because you know how bright they are! I did not wear a seat belt when I was a kid, and I certainly know that my parents were not bad parents and neither were most parents. I agree that kids should generally wears seat belts, but parents should have the last decission.

[iwannaptera]

Unfortunately we can not pick our parents. Even so, I think we should respect within reason the decisions of the parents or the goverment because you know how bright they are! I did not wear a seat belt when I was a kid, and I certainly know that my parents were not bad parents and neither were most parents. I agree that kids should generally wears seat belts, but parents should have the last decission.


Uhh, you think parents should have the last decision on whether their kids wear seat belts?
Do you also think parents should have the last decision on whether to spend money buying them food?
I suppose you also think parents should have the last decision on whether their kids should be able to buy and use heroin?
whatever....:scared0011:

Kids should ALWAYS wear seat belts. EVERYONE should always wear a seat belt. It is the single easiest dang thing you can do to save lives. Who cares if you survived growing up not wearing them. Clearly you have a warped misunderstanding of statistics.

[wolfdoggy]

Uhh, you think parents should have the last decision on whether their kids wear seat belts?
Do you also think parents should have the last decision on whether to spend money buying them food?
I suppose you also think parents should have the last decision on whether their kids should be able to buy and use heroin?
whatever....:scared0011:

Kids should ALWAYS wear seat belts. EVERYONE should always wear a seat belt. It is the single easiest dang thing you can do to save lives. Who cares if you survived growing up not wearing them. Clearly you have a warped misunderstanding of statistics.


So...let me get this straight. You iwannaptera are saying that my parents were bad parents, cause how else could you interpret what you said, and they should be punished by you and the governemt! Oh, and all the parents that did not make there kids wears seat belts when I was growing up were bad parents and should be puniched by you and the government. Yup... Why don't you just come out and say it. You and the government (CPS) should determine parents day to day decision making.

So are you saying my parents were bad parents??

[Ceazar77]

Not bad parents, just misinformed (I still have to check myself when sitting in the back seat because I was brought up thinking you don't need a seatbelt back there).

People used to thing that smoking was good for you (my Dr. recomends Camel ;) ), but we know better now. The idea with seatbelt laws is not to take the place of parenting, but to encourage parents to make evidence based dicisions who might not otherwise be looking at the evidence.

[wolfdoggy]

Not bad parents, just misinformed (I still have to check myself when sitting in the back seat because I was brought up thinking you don't need a seatbelt back there).

People used to thing that smoking was good for you (my Dr. recomends Camel ;) ), but we know better now. The idea with seatbelt laws is not to take the place of parenting, but to encourage parents to make evidence based dicisions who might not otherwise be looking at the evidence.

Yes, I understand that, but the encourage part is not true. The way the laws are set up it is to punish them, not encourage them. If someone needs a ride with a small kid and the owner of the car does not have a car set, the parents can be punished very seriously, as can the driver of the car. That is not just encouraging someone, this is you making someones life more difficult and micro manageing their life. Seat belts are good, but this is not something the government should be responsible for.

When you say people used to think that smoking was good for them, that simply is not true and you know it. People always knew smoking was not healthy for you. And now look how overboard we have gone. You can not even smoke in some public parks where "second hand smoke" would have no impact, but car exhausts do. Again you people going overboard and making such ridiculous laws that it make our every day lives more difficult. I don't smoke and never have except for cigars once in a while.

Our kids now have to wear safety helmet were ever they go so their heads are protected or worry their bikes will be confiscated. Again you or well meaning people micro manageing our lives. I never did wear a bike helmet, but I sure learned to be careful.

Aptera has the same problem because well meaning people created so many laws "for our safety" that we are now stuck jumping thru hoops to get this car "approved".

In my oppinion, most of these ridiculous laws just complicate our lives more, and do not help to teach our kids personal responsibility. Later in life this type of programming hurts us all as a society.

JMO

[jstdadd]

I am willing to take the Libertarian view on this...starting with motorcycle helmets. Down with helmet laws!

[wolfdoggy]

I agree jstdadd! Personal responsibility. I always wear a helmet, but that should not be a function of the government. It is my choice and I take responsibility for it. Most people do wear helmets.

[KarenRei]

I'm actually sympathetic to nanny laws when it comes to children. Just because a kid has an idiot for a parent doesn't mean that they should be put in undue risk. But when it comes to adults, my view is, *hands off*. Adults can make their own decisions in life, and so long as they're only hurting themselves, the government has no business being involved.

Again, with the tiers of safety in vehicles, I wouldn't be opposed to a law saying that children under a certain age aren't allowed to ride in a vehicle that doesn't have "silver" certification or higher. However, adults should be able to choose if they want diamond, platinum, gold, silver, bronze, or even no safety certification. As long as they're not posing an undue risk to other drivers on the road, it's *their choice*. I don't care if an adult is riding at 120mph on an unbalanced motorcycle on an unpaved surface without a helmet on the edge of a cliff on a windy day, so long as it's their cliff and their estate will clean up the mess.

[Ceazar77]

I agree with Karen, however I would also want to make sure that the road is closed so that when the front tire comes of the vehicle it would run into me :).

[wolfdoggy]

I do basically agree with you Karen. Kids do need a chance to survive those few parents that are idiots. I am also sympathetic with "nanny laws" for children if they are sensible and don't punish good parents for exceptions sometimes. Unfortunately, most of those laws don't use any common sense when they are implemented.