r8lover, 16 October 2013, 19:14
Rivitography wrote:
No wonder why I haven't seen a 2013 Lotus yet. Why are THOSE illegal? A Smart Car is legal here, why not that?
They don't meet safety restrictions because there's no airbag. Probably some other junk too. Smart ForTwos are actually pretty safe, believe it or not. Their frame is quite strong.
Deleted account
Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 19:16
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
No wonder why I haven't seen a 2013 Lotus yet. Why are THOSE illegal? A Smart Car is legal here, why not that?
They don't meet safety restrictions because there's no airbag. Probably some other junk too. Smart ForTwos are actually pretty safe, believe it or not. Their frame is quite strong.
I think Top Gear did a test on that where they used a Smart Car and drove it through remote-control, and smashed it into a wall at 50 MPH, and it barely did anything to the frame. What I don't get is that if a car doesn't have airbags, doesn't that mean that classic cars aren't street legal?
r8lover, 16 October 2013, 19:17
Rivitography wrote:
I'm with you on that one. But no, the government can't take it that a car is unsafe.
If it is unsafe for the occupants, not to others, and the occupants know they're at risk, then I don't care. It's their money, and they've put themselves knowingly and willingly in that situation. So few would likely be bought anyway.
Deleted account
cartmen220, 16 October 2013, 19:18
If they really care about safety, all motorcycles should be banned. Where's the frame/airbag on those?
Last modified by cartmen220, 16 October 2013, 23:18
r8lover, 16 October 2013, 19:18
Rivitography wrote:
I think Top Gear did a test on that where they used a Smart Car and drove it through remote-control, and smashed it into a wall at 50 MPH, and it barely did anything to the frame. What I don't get is that if a car doesn't have airbags, doesn't that mean that classic cars aren't street legal?
Once a car gets to be 25 years old, it becomes legal in the US. The BMW Z1 could only be imported under the show and display license, same as the 959. Now that they're each 25 years old (or will be) they can be imported without an issue or driven without a mileage limit.
Deleted account
Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 19:19
cartmen220 wrote:
If they really care about safety, all motorcycles should be banned. Where's the frame/airbag on those?
THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 19:20
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
I think Top Gear did a test on that where they used a Smart Car and drove it through remote-control, and smashed it into a wall at 50 MPH, and it barely did anything to the frame. What I don't get is that if a car doesn't have airbags, doesn't that mean that classic cars aren't street legal?
Once a car gets to be 25 years old, it becomes legal in the US. The BMW Z1 could only be imported under the show and display license, same as the 959. Now that they're each 25 years old (or will be) they can be imported without an issue or driven without a mileage limit.
My dad's Honda CRX doesn't have airbags in it, and it is from 1990. It is 20 years old as of now. Does that make it not legal?
r8lover, 16 October 2013, 19:22
Rivitography wrote:
My dad's Honda CRX doesn't have airbags in it, and it is from 1990. It is 20 years old as of now. Does that make it not legal?
It's still legal. It was probably made before airbags became a commonplace. In fact, airbags didn't become mandatory in the United States until September 1, 1998. How Lotus got around that for so long, I don't know. I am also pretty sure that kit cars are exempt to some of these laws.
Deleted account
Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 19:25
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
My dad's Honda CRX doesn't have airbags in it, and it is from 1990. It is 20 years old as of now. Does that make it not legal?
It's still legal. It was probably made before airbags became a commonplace. In fact, airbags didn't become mandatory in the United States until September 1, 1998. How Lotus got around that for so long, I don't know. I am also pretty sure that kit cars are exempt to some of these laws.
Why are kit cars exempt from those laws? Aren't they just made of plastic?
DjShift, 16 October 2013, 19:25
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
I'm with you on that one. But no, the government can't take it that a car is unsafe.
If it is unsafe for the occupants, not to others, and the occupants know they're at risk, then I don't care. It's their money, and they've put themselves knowingly and willingly in that situation. So few would likely be bought anyway.
I've been saying that for years about drugs! If someone knows the risk they're taking and still wants to partake in the consumption, i think they should have the right to do so.
Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 19:26
DjShift wrote:
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
I'm with you on that one. But no, the government can't take it that a car is unsafe.
If it is unsafe for the occupants, not to others, and the occupants know they're at risk, then I don't care. It's their money, and they've put themselves knowingly and willingly in that situation. So few would likely be bought anyway.
I've been saying that for years about drugs! If someone knows the risk they're taking and still wants to partake in the consumption, i think they should have the right to do so.
I guess they are just trying to stop people from making self-destructive decisions.
DjShift, 16 October 2013, 19:28
Rivitography wrote:
DjShift wrote:
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
I'm with you on that one. But no, the government can't take it that a car is unsafe.
If it is unsafe for the occupants, not to others, and the occupants know they're at risk, then I don't care. It's their money, and they've put themselves knowingly and willingly in that situation. So few would likely be bought anyway.
I've been saying that for years about drugs! If someone knows the risk they're taking and still wants to partake in the consumption, i think they should have the right to do so.
I guess they are just trying to stop people from making self-destructive decisions.
It's our body and i think we should be able to destroy it if we want to.
Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 19:33
DjShift wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
DjShift wrote:
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
I'm with you on that one. But no, the government can't take it that a car is unsafe.
If it is unsafe for the occupants, not to others, and the occupants know they're at risk, then I don't care. It's their money, and they've put themselves knowingly and willingly in that situation. So few would likely be bought anyway.
I've been saying that for years about drugs! If someone knows the risk they're taking and still wants to partake in the consumption, i think they should have the right to do so.
I guess they are just trying to stop people from making self-destructive decisions.
It's our body and i think we should be able to destroy it if we want to.
Oh my god, that quote just reminded me of "We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus.
DjShift, 16 October 2013, 19:35
Rivitography wrote:
DjShift wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
DjShift wrote:
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
I'm with you on that one. But no, the government can't take it that a car is unsafe.
If it is unsafe for the occupants, not to others, and the occupants know they're at risk, then I don't care. It's their money, and they've put themselves knowingly and willingly in that situation. So few would likely be bought anyway.
I've been saying that for years about drugs! If someone knows the risk they're taking and still wants to partake in the consumption, i think they should have the right to do so.
I guess they are just trying to stop people from making self-destructive decisions.
It's our body and i think we should be able to destroy it if we want to.
Oh my god, that quote just reminded me of "We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus.
I have no idea what quote you're talking about because i happen to not listen to Miley Stripper (oops, autocorrect).
Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 19:43
DjShift wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
DjShift wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
DjShift wrote:
r8lover wrote:
Rivitography wrote:
I'm with you on that one. But no, the government can't take it that a car is unsafe.
If it is unsafe for the occupants, not to others, and the occupants know they're at risk, then I don't care. It's their money, and they've put themselves knowingly and willingly in that situation. So few would likely be bought anyway.
I've been saying that for years about drugs! If someone knows the risk they're taking and still wants to partake in the consumption, i think they should have the right to do so.
I guess they are just trying to stop people from making self-destructive decisions.
It's our body and i think we should be able to destroy it if we want to.
Oh my god, that quote just reminded me of "We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus.
I have no idea what quote you're talking about because i happen to not listen to Miley Stripper (oops, autocorrect).
Lol, this:
"This is our party, we can say what we want"
"This is our party, we can do what we want, we can kiss who we want, we can dance with who we want"
Last modified by Rivitography, 16 October 2013, 23:43
