Proposing Solutions

"Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert" (joshuagilbert) 05/21/2015 at 11:20 • Filed to: None

4

2

To fix !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , people with the initiative must maintain a dialogue to make united efforts in the democratic pursuit of making this world a better place through the creation of new solutions. I’m inviting some contributors to discuss below with me (you legal-people are welcome to input your knowledge. I need to redefine and re-word some of these to make them coherent. Most of these just seem, well, logical, to me.)

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

“Mirror-Spec” Rule

Premise; If a 25-year old example of a car is 97%-100% mechanically the same as a 2010 or 2014 model of the same vehicle... (given differences in electronics, stereo, lighting, - which can all be changed to match standards, etc.)

198X Defender = 201X Defender

If you can prove this, can’t you say that a 201X is essentially the same as a 198X-spec model, if not slightly safer and more efficient?

So it does follow the 25 year rule - because it’s the same car - right?

200X G8/GT/GTO = 200X HCommodore = Vauxhall blah blah

If the car can be proven to be mechanically the same, aren’t they the same car, making possible RHD configurations and Badging the only issues, the former can be changed for a fee (from stock GM parts for Pontiac and Chevy-UK?)

If the same car is already legal here, why shouldn’t we be able to bring another example of

“Already here” Rule

Premise; If an existing car is being driven, registered legally , and used in the United States as a commuter car (more than 2 or three examples)... hasn’t it proved that the car is safe on all fronts for use on our roads?

If said example could be examined, exempting or (importing non-US data) crash data to approve the further importation of me examples.

Since a car loses value after a certain number of miles have been driven (which makes it ‘age’ more than time, couldn’t these examples (above a certain milage) provide testimony that these cars are just as good as their USDM fraternal twins?

“Dad-Said-Yes” Rule

Manufacturers and factories can technically move their own products without scrutiny... can’t they approve the sale of their non-USDM cars here through factory orders? Could Ford Global approve for Ford US to sell Ford UK cars through limited orders? Ford could vet that the crash data and build standards of their non-US cars are consistent/safe/efficient and just as good as their US-products. Could a manufacturer-approved (this-is-ok-to-drive-in-America-after-we-modify-it) stamp legalize customer-initiated imports?

The factory could develop model-by-model modifications (procedures) that must be completed before the car is parked in the owner’s driveway?

“Know The Risks”

Could cars that do not meet US-crash standards be imported insurance companies approved (through good-history) to certain owners with good driving records. A waiver could be signed so that drivers acknowledge ‘weaknesses’’ in their car and promise to have them modified, knowing that the car could get them killed.

Summary;

Why does the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act exist again?

“Because of safety, you see.” (You can import crash-data, sign insurance waivers, or have your factory-approved shop make the necessary modifications, or make the case that the car is nearly the mechanical twin to a similar vehicle approved for use already.)

But wait... NOPE.

“The fact is that this has never been about safety or emissions. The law is about protecting car companies and their dealers. At one point, so-called “grey imports” were eating heavily into automakers’ domestic profits, luxury brands in particular.”

FINE!

Why can’t factory-direct dealers allow customers to order through them? We’ll pay the extra for the car we want. You, selfish, pudgy, penny-pinching, bastards. Fick dich, Mercedes!

THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

CAR A > CAR B. I want CAR A.

China already knows that Mercedes is trying to unscrupulously maximize profit at the expense of other people.

What about right now? Port Authorities, listen up.

What about what happens when the cars are rejected in-port? You can’t import a car to drive it on public roads if it is 25 years old. But what if I just imported it, because, I want to put it in storage until it is legal, or gift it to my baby brother in Canada, so I wanted to trailer-it-up over the border to meet him in Toronto?

There needs to be more communication between good-intentioned US-citizens and the federal authorities who sadistically destroy things for a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . If you don’t want us to bring it in here, allow us to pay for it’s return, clarify where it will be stored, or send it to a friend who can posses it for us. We worked for that money that we spent for that vehicle, that ART. Don’t waste our efforts. Why aren’t federal law enforcement chasing child-prostituion rings still rampant in major US cities and the cells ISIS keeps taunting us about? Why are they so preoccupied with the small things?

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I think the crushing of that 60s mini shows the DMV/TSA-ization of the attitudes of our federal government’s ‘public servants.’ Assholes in public offices will always advent and act in ways contrary to the public trust, but in the LAND OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICE this should be at an all time low. We are better than this. Federal agencies shouldn’t only interact with us on the level that we constantly feel suspicious, angry, cheated, or oppressed.

My next article is going to be about this subject.

We need to change laws that are unjust, even beyond the car world.

That was deep.

Textured Soy Protein > Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert 05/21/2015 at 11:44

1

Here’s the thing.

Generally people get motivated to change laws for two main reasons:

Enough people realize that by making a particular law, a bunch of people will benefit in some meaningful way, even if it comes at the expense of some other people. For example, the Clean Air Act gives us all better air to breathe, even if industrial polluters have to spend more money to comply with the law.

Enough people decide they really want to restrict other people from doing something the first group feels is undesirable, even if the first group is just being a bunch of jerks. For example, the “I DON’T WANT POOR PEOPLE USING MY TAX DOLLARS TO BUY SEAFOOD WITH FOOD STAMPS” bill the assembly just passed here in Wisconsin.

Giving people the ability to import cars newer than 25 years old doesn’t fit into either of these categories.

It would, however, benefit a small portion of people (car enthusiasts inclined to import cars) at the expense of the government and everyone else having to do all the administrative stuff associated with cars like tracking VINs for recalls and other administrative crap.

sony1492 > Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert 05/21/2015 at 11:46

1

Welcome to the land of ignorance. I bet if import laws got national attension there would be thousands defending current laws by any means simply because they believe what their told, or what bs argument the government has.

Not to mension laws designed to fuck with Tesla.