The fairly recent boom in importing Kei-class cars to America (for those unfamiliar, this is a class of Japanese Domestic Market cars that are very small and have engines that max out at 660cc/64 hp) has brought up a lot of interesting ideas. First, there’s the idea that these tiny cars and trucks are desirable and useful to a surprising number of Americans; Kei trucks are in a lot of demand for people who just want a utilitarian, cheap little workhorse for farms or delivery use or any number of other important jobs. They’re just handy and fun.
Then there’s the other ideas these little cars have brought up, ideas about the role of governments in dictating what we should or shouldn’t drive, often under the aegis of safety. A significant number of states have already banned registration of Kei-class cars and trucks (a number that seems to range from 16 to 31 states, depending on where you look) and often the reasoning given is safety. Specifically, that Kei cars are just not safe.
For example, this is from the Georgia Department of Revenue’s Motor Vehicle Division bulletin sent out to all their license plate and registration offices:
NOTICE TO COUNTY TAG OFFICES
Japanese Kei Vehicles and Minitrucks
The purpose of this bulletin is to notify County Tag Offices of the Department’s policy that prohibits the titling and registering of Japanese kei vehicles, minitrucks and similar vehicles (collectively, Kei Vehicles) in Georgia. Kei Vehicles are imported (primarily from Japan) for use as farming vehicles and off-road recreational vehicles in the United States. Periodically customers attempt to title and register these vehicles. Kei Vehicles are not compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Therefore, they are not “street legal.” Kei Vehicles are barred from titling and registration.
The reasoning given why the state of Georgia does not want Kei cars on the roads is that they “are not compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS),” which is a government-y way of saying that the Kei vehicles are unsafe. Now, let’s just clarify some things here: a 25-year-old Kei vehicle is as exempt from FMVSS as any other 25 year or older car. A 1966 Volkswagen Beetle or a 1971 Corvette or a 1978 Skoda 120 Estelle are also all cars that do not meet American safety standards, not by a long shot, but you can still register any of those in Georgia without any guff whatsoever.
So what’s the difference here?
There’s also a vocal group of people who seem to revel in the idea that Keis are unsafe and should be banned, for strange reasons that probably trace back to some formative erotic experiences when they were hall monitors, or something:
That particular tweet has been removed because the tweeter’s account got dinged for something, but that meme has shown up other places as well. There’s some segment of the population that does agree with such bans, and they like to make that clear. It’s not like they’re exactly wrong; a kei truck is tiny and inherently will be less safe than a full-sized, modern F-150. But, by the same logic, every single motorcycle on the road should be banned, too, because they’re vastly greater deathtraps than any Kei truck is.
If we really want to get into it, I could also point to studies like this one that found that for most real-world accidents, Keis aren’t appreciably that much less safe than anything else on the roads, generally, but that’s beside the bigger point. The bigger point is that you should be able to choose to drive something unsafe, as long as the lack of safety only affects you.
I should clarify here what I mean by “unsafe” because this is important: your right to unsafety cannot extend to anyone else. This means you do not have a right to drive a truck with a frame rusted out so badly it may leave its rear axle on the road and go pirouetting into a playground; that’s unsafe for people outside of your car.
The way I see it, cars can be safe in two ways: internally and externally. I first wrote about this concept a few years back for The Old Site, when I was driving my (unsafe) Nissan Pao and was almost in a head-on collision with a huge SUV. Here’s how I described it then, and since they’re my words anyway, I’m just going to quote myself:
“That SUV, for example, has exemplary internal safety; in an accident, everyone inside is extremely well-protected, which is wonderful.
But that big SUV also does an awful lot to insulate the people inside from the reality of the world. I’ve driven plenty of modern SUVs, and I understand what they’re like: comfortable, quiet, roomy, tall cocoons, and when you’re in them, barreling along at 80 mph, you feel like you’re in a leather-slathered living room, and not at all like you’re hurtling down an asphalt ribbon at more than a mile-a-minute.
That’s why cars like that have terrible external safety. The only reason anyone would pull a stupid attempted overtaking move like the one that I encountered is because, inside the car, it just doesn’t feel like that big a deal. The person driving that SUV clearly saw me ahead as they drove into oncoming traffic, but instead of attempting to get out of the way, they doubled down, and kept on going, even though they clearly saw a car heading right at them.
That’s not the kind of shit you pull in an old, unsafe car.”
Essentially, a car with good internal safety is just safe for the people inside the car, and the outside world – other cars, pedestrians, pets, bollards – be damned. A car with good external safety may be a deathtrap for whoever is inside, but it’s not really going to hurt anyone else. Kei cars and motorcycles and many vintage cars are examples of this kind of safety – the only people at risk are those inside.
And these are the kinds of cars that I think people have a right to put themselves in danger in. My Pao, for example, is just this sort of car:
It’s bigger than a Kei-class car, but not by much. I drive it in town and on the highway, but I am fully aware that in any sort of high-ish speed wreck, I’m likely quite thoroughly boned. It’s a risk I understand and accept because, for me, the experience of owning and driving and using this car more than makes up for the chance that I may end up killed in it, which, I think/hope (an assumption I never bother to investigate the truth of) is pretty remote.
Now, the subject of passengers can get sort of sticky; when people ride with me in my car, they’re aware it’s an old, tiny car and I do not believe they have the same expectations of safety that they do in a more modern car. I do have friends who will happily ride with me in the Pao around town, but won’t go on the highway with me in it. That’s more than fair, and I respect their informed decision.
I also take my child in this car, and that may be a more gray area; I’ve driven him in it since he was a little kid, and I’m sure didn’t have much conception of safety factors in cars. I of course used all the required child seats and restraints when he was small enough for them, but it was all still in a car not built to modern safety standards. Was I right to take him in such a car? I was driven around in far worse deathtraps as a kid, without the benefit of child seats or anything, but does that make it right? That part, I really don’t know the answer to.
So, I’m content to leave that part blurry if it means making this part clear: we, as drivers, should always have the right to Personal Danger, as long as it remains personal. Whatever you want to drive should be fine (well, accepting the 25-year import rule) regardless of how much you’ll resemble a puddle of chili after a wreck. As long as you’re not taking anyone else with you, what’s the problem?
This feels like a strange, self-destructive cause to rally behind, and it certainly bleeds into other contentious areas of motoring culture, like motorcycle helmet laws, which I do feel have value, but I also realize that may be a bit hypocritical. This isn’t clear, or easy, but I want to still defend the general idea that if you have a vehicle that could be dangerous to you and no one else, have at it, friend. I just don’t see who is being hurt by having legal kei cars, and I suspect there are other factors at play in laws like the one in Georgia or any of those other states, perhaps pressure from ATV dealers or other utility vehicle sales companies – of course, that’s just speculation.
Drive what makes you happy, even if there’s a possibility it could make you very unhappy – as long as you’re well aware and accept that possibility.
In A Surprise Move, Massachusetts Makes It Legal To Register Kei Trucks And Imported Cars Again
Michigan Is Banning Random Japanese Cars Because It Has No Idea How To Identify Imported Trucks
Massachusetts Reviews Its Ridiculous Japanese Car Ban After Enthusiasts Fight Back
Human beings are very poor at assessing risk, no matter what the context. Among the reasons: Optimistic bias, where we think our risk is much lower than anyone else’s. False sense of control. This is why people feel that driving is safer than flying in a plane, even though, objectively, it isn’t. Confirmation bias: we seek out and believe sources that confirm the way we want to feel, and ignore the sources that don’t. We can argue all we want about whether something is safe or isn’t, but it’s unlikely that as individuals, we will assess it the same way.
and governments, made up of human beings, are really only good at losing other people’s money and killing people. Centralized & micromanaged decision making isn’t generally a recipe for success.
George is in his office at Yankee stadium, he pushes ‘play’ on a cassette
recorder. The voice on the tape sounds exactly like George.
Voice: Chapter one. In order to manage risk we must first understand risk.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk and what makes it so risky?
George: This guy sounds just like me.
Voice: To understand risk, we must first define risk.
George: This is horrible.
Voice: Risk is defined as–
George (banging the recorder): Stop it! Stop it!
FIDLAR – F#ck It, Dude, Life’s A Risk
And if you flip your car, it would be FIDLAR on the roof.
“Well of course,” I think, then ponder the sad state of affairs where such small personal freedoms have to be defended.
I have this thought every time I look at my pickup truck. (As well as when I see that guy get into his Ford Tempo.)
there’s a lot of things as Americans that we should be able to do as consenting adults that we are not able to do.
as it pertains to cars, they’ve become far too safe for occupants these days and we end up seeing a lot more unsafe driving than we should.
I think when people get in accidents for doing negligent things (drunk driving, or distracted driving), they shouldn’t have their license revoked or anything like that, just replace the driver’s airbag with a big rusty spike.
that constant reminder of mortality may help them be a bit more vigilant about the seriousness of being safe on the roadways.
A somehow worse article than the cruise control and hydroplane take from a number of years back
The bigger point is that you should be able to choose to drive something unsafe, as long as the lack of safety only affects you.
Not so fast. If YOU die or get gravely injured you leave others behind or those others get stuck caring for you, perhaps to a life changing level. Shouldn’t they get veto power?
Thats between you and them, the government should not be involved.
That’s not the point. The point is not to draw the line with close ones on just the potential for physical injury but financial and psychological as well.
Sort of. The government definitely has an advisory role but it should be just that.
Pretty sure if it was as dangerous as the DMV thinks nobody would issue policies or they’d be priced so high the DMV fight would be moot.
These are classic cars, 25+ years old, they should be treated the same as any other classic car. I just drove a 1964 Chevy econobox through 3 states over the weekend and nobody said boo about it, 2 of those states will not register a 1995 Suzuki Alto
I would bet that every 25yo Kei car is safer than the ’74 Triumph Spitfire I drive all summer year, and have for 28 years now.
The pussification of the US continues.
If any of the states that that refuse to register Kei trucks allow Model Ts to be registered, they have absolutely no ground to stand on. As you said; by the 25-year rule, they have no real safety ground to stand on.
I’m not aware of any state that won’t register a Model T – mine will technically allow them out onto a 65mph highway (where the prevailing speed is really more like 80), since there’s no posted minimum speed.
However, you cannot ride a higher performance 50cc motorcycle like a Yamaha RX50 or Aprilia RS50 on it, even though they’re a lot faster than a Model T, because anything under 55cc is barred from limited access highways
The point was that if they’re willing to look the other way on things like: the lack of ANY safety devices, actual functional brakes, or anything that resembles normal vehicle controls, they really don’t have much ground to stand on to claim Kei trucks are “unsafe”.
There’s definitely more air-cooled VWs on US roads than Kei trucks, and I’d argue that the VWs are less safe than a lot of the Kei vehicles out there. Clearly they’re the bigger threat! That’s why this is all so weird: there’s so many old, unsafe cars on the road. You can drag a vintage car out of a field, get it going, and put it back on the street, no problem. Why should importing a Kei truck be any different?
The simple answer is that it’s easier to ban 25-year-rule imports than cars that were sold here originally. So not any different from a safety standpoint, but easier from a legislative standpoint.
The less simple answer is that the pressure for these bans is coming from people who don’t want competition (like side-by-side manufacturers who want to sell you a $25k utility vehicle plus a $4k upgrade for a heated cab without you saying “hey, wait a second, I can buy a whole vehicle for that 4 grand”).
The second answer makes more sense, because no 25+ year old import meets current FMVSS standards, so why wouldn’t they bad all of them?
Yeah, the fact that they’ve specifically targeted one type of 25+ year old import seems to suggest the second answer is more accurate. I wonder how much cross-shopping of Kei trucks there is with side-by-sides though, and if any manufacturers have actually seen a sales hit they could attribute to Kei trucks.
That’s a good question. I started seeing more op up around me a few years back. I think popularity was increasing – in part because of better vehicles being available (an early to mid-90s kei truck being more modern and easier to live with than one a few years older) and a snowball effect of more people realizing they were an option as they saw more around. My buddy got one in another state a while back, and he said it was great for Home Depot runs unless he was in a hurry, because he’d spend half an hour in the parking lot talking to full-size pickup drivers that were enthralled by it.
I’ve been looking at getting a Kei truck for my property and am quite aware of the price advantage over a side by side. I prefer the Kei truck for several reasons beyond price though, chief of which is a manual transmission, it’s a road worthy quality vehicle, and the platforms are better suited to doing actual work. I plan to mount a snowblower and mowing deck on the front of mine.
An added advantage is that I can make it road legal in PA with an antique vehicle plate of which there is no option for on a side by side.
Fine, just sign away your right to sue, right to emergency care, and whatever else might go wrong that will cost the rest of us money.
You may as well demand that of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, pretty much anyone who dares to go near a street.
That’s a different issue. All of those people are operating equipment that is up to the national standards.
What national standards?
“The reasoning given why the state of Georgia does not want Kei cars on the roads is that they “are not compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS),” which is a government-y way of saying that the Kei vehicles are unsafe. Now, let’s just clarify some things here: a 25-year-old Kei vehicle is as exempt from FMVSS as any other 25 year or older car. A 1966 Volkswagen Beetle or a 1971 Corvette or a 1978 Skoda 120 Estelle are also all cars that do not meet American safety standards, not by a long shot, but you can still register any of those in Georgia without any guff whatsoever.
So what’s the difference here?”
25 year old kei vehicles are up to national standards, the national standard is there isn’t one, since they’re antiques
National Bicycle standards?
There are national standards for pedestrians?
Why? If somebody else is at fault, it’s their fault. Why would I waive my right to emergency care? I pay for insurance. Do they get to mandate that I wear a bike helmet to walk on a sidewalk?
If your emergency care is paid for by you 100%, then okay.
If you walk into a County hospital after crashing your out-of-compliance go-cart, then should the residents of that county pay for your care?
Absolutely. Just like they would if I accidentally chopped off a finger with my table saw, or if I broke my leg because I fell off a ladder, or any other of the million reasons I could get hurt living day to day. Those two examples would have been my fault, and are extremely common ways to get injured. Besides, I DO 100% pay for my emergency care, through insurance, and through taxes to that same hospital. It’s just impossible to ban every single thing that may harm you individually, and I don’t want to live in a world where we try to.
Any what of the millions of new occupants of the country that find their way to a hospital in need of medical attention but “ci, no hablo inglés”
We welcome them with open arms and to question “who’s paying for this?” Means you’re a deplorable bigot…
Seriously how backwards are you? Who cares if the motorist is insured or not? Or their choice of motor vehicle is old enough to have graduated medical school. It’s a human being. If they lack paperwork do you just write them off?
I really dislike this argument. But I feel I’ve got a lot of good reasons to dislike it. To wit:
There is no perfectly mitigated risk. If I stay inside, I’ll probably end up with heart disease. If I get on the treadmill, I might slip off and hit the wall behind it. If I run outside, I might get taken out by one of those sneaky Prii or Teslarati roaming my local roads. If I get on a stationary bike, it might by the gateway drug to outdoor biking and reckless disregard of traffic laws.
You get the point. I don’t buy the conspiracy that Kei-car imports are being banned thanks to funding of campaigns by UTV makers (I’ve addressed that in previous posts), nor do I think that DMV bureaucrats are particularly knowledgeable enough on the subject to determine “safety.” In fact, if you ever wind your way through the NHTSA reports (one such here: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813560), you’ll find the following:
There’s a strong argument that having more people driving Kei cars would actually make the roads safer, not less so; even though Kei cars are less safe when hit by other cars, they are likely more in single vehicle accidents due to an inability to reach excess speed and they are likewise safer for cyclists and pedestrians (for the same reason).
On the plus side, a driver in a Kei pickup or van is likely to do FAR less damage to a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or any other motorist than if that same driver were driving even the smallest of currently available USDM pickup trucks, never mind the real volume sellers. An even moderately intelligent Kei driver would likely also be more aware of their own vulnerability and thus be more invested in the act of driving as opposed to when in an airbag filled 5000lb+ cocoon.
I mostly agree, with a few caveats. I’m confident with my abilities, and don’t buy the whole “YOUR SAFETY COULD COST OTHERS MONEY”. BUT: New vehicles should be built with fairly stringent safety standards. Vehicles sold as new in the United States should meet those safety standards. Thats why I tend to agree with the 25 year import rule, even if I find it annoying. 25 years is long enough to basically ensure that the only reason people importing cars from foreign countries is for enthusiast reasons, not as a “cheap alternative” to something that was sold domestically.
I have a 1977 Jeep Cherokee. It was built to the safety standards that were required in the US at the time. Is it comparably safe to something built today? Ab-so-fuckin-lutely not. Should I be banned from driving it, because it’s old and unsafe? Fuck no, leave me alone.
I think the obvious answer is to take a Kei car body and put on a full-size 4×4 pickup motor and chassis, so it’s high up off the ground and therefore ‘safe’.
/s
I do want to see this done now though
The Kei truck and car debate always seems like a strange hill to die on for the anti-Kei vehicle AAMVA and motor vehicle department activists. There are so many other vehicle types they have jurisdiction over that carry similar safety risks in various ways:
Oh, and then the US has no problem allowing bicycles and motor vehicles to vie for space on public roads everywhere, unlike, say, the Netherlands which has an excellent safety-focused approach to bicycling and limiting contention between motor traffic and cyclists in congested areas. In the US, it’s you on the bike versus the bro-dozers.
Kei vehicles have seat belts and safety glass and various other safety equipment generally recognized throughout the world as essential when they were built — altogether better than some of the other still-road-legal cars in the US.
About the only thing they have going against them is that they’re small and they’re primarily made in Japan. Haven’t we gotten over that mindset since the previous century? Perhaps some folks in authority haven’t?
some stuffed gov’t officials simply seem to look for reasons for being.
What is interesting is that Georgia does offer registrations for UTV’s on county roads. Safety on these roads seems inherently more unlikely.
Wait, I’m confused. Are they useful? ;-P
oy, that’s a lot of usefuls
IMO ‘useful’ is a word one should use fully.
Alternatively, it’s fine to use ‘useful’ fully.
As a Motorcycle rider I thoroughly agree. I’m also against helmet laws for similar reasons, when I lived in a state without the law I would actually wear one most of the time, but if I’m putzing up the street to grab a bite it seems like overkill, yeah someone could still blow through a red light or stop sign and ruin my day(life) but that could even happen if I’m just crossing the street, should I just wear my helmet all the time in public? Maybe an orange safety vest too?
Earlier in the year I was out cruising on my bike(with my helmet) and coming down this side road see a dude on an electric unicycle, we both stopped at the same light and pulled up next to him and chatted, he said the thing could do 50, and once the light turned green he took off faster than me. He was also wearing full gear but just to the point of, let people live dangerously, especially if it’s reduced risk to others. Also that unicycle was pretty sweet.
I see the argument for helmet laws the same way as seatbelt laws. Do you know that you’re putting yourself at risk and understand the risks? Yeah, maybe. But a lot of people don’t, and are just lazy. They don’t use a belt because they are lazy. They don’t use motorcycle safety gear because they are lazy. Or they are just uninformed – some people still think that it’s safer to be thrown from a car. That’s what I appreciated about the way Michigan legalized riding without a helmet – you had to carry an increased insurance policy and sign up as an organ donor. Did it make any difference for most riders? I’m sure it didn’t. But for some people ,at least, it made them think about what they were signing up for.
The argument most people make is that helmet or not, if you get hit by an SUV going 50mph you’re toast. The argument I make is: I don’t want to be killed from smacking my head on the curb going 6mph when some idiot pulls out of a parking spot without looking.
That’s a nice concept on the law but how does the insurance part work? Like how do the know if you’re driving without a helmet? I guess if you don’t when you actually have an accident they could refuse to cover? Still like it better than just blanket requirement.
That’s a good question – I don’t know. Seems like a tag for your registration would be easy enough, but at the end of the day it would still need to be periodically checked. So yeah, maybe just after an incident has occurred.
I preface this by saying that I think Kei cars/trucks should be allowed since this “Pandora’s box” was already opened with motorcycles, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of laws on the books whose only job is to save people from themselves (the seatbelt and helmet laws being mentioned in the comments already are a good example of this).
However, it’s important to remember that car accidents affect way more people than just the few directly involved. To just put it in an incredibly cold way, in my state if someone dies in an accident on a freeway, that section of the freeway is shut down completely. If a kei car causes an accident to go from an injury to a fatality, suddenly that choice is affecting tens of thousands of people, possibly more depending on how large your metropolitan area is. While motorcycles fall into this same sort of category, I’d argue that if they didn’t exist in the US and were in the same position of being introduced to the US for the first time right now, they would also be facing the same hurdles and likely banned from public roads.
Any closure of public roads or freeways places a large hurdle on emergency services, and it goes without saying that if there are first responders at an accident that was made worse by someone being in a Kei car, those are people that can not respond to other emergencies.
All this to say, the only really valid Kei car argument is “they’re marginally safer than motorcycles, which are legal and accepted on all roadways.” The argument proposed in this article, while interesting, assumes too much happens “in a vacuum” when in reality, it does not.
So we should ban BMWs, Mustangs, and Altimas.
They aren’t marginally safer than motorcycles. They are *massively* safer than motorcycles. They are marginally less safe than other small cars that are sold in the US. And massively safer than the vast majority of old classic cars, like the ’74 Spitfire I drive around all summer. A car whose seatbelts largely serve to make the coroner’s job easier by keeping the body in place in an era where a typical family car can weigh 5000lbs and up.
This whole thing is just completely and utterly stupid, and there will never be enough of these things in the country to make a hill of beans difference.
“While motorcycles fall into this same sort of category, I’d argue that if they didn’t exist in the US and were in the same position of being introduced to the US for the first time right now, they would also be facing the same hurdles and likely banned from public roads.”
Yeah, but they aren’t banned from public roads. “Because they are already legal” is not a valid excuse to have nonsensical and inconsistent legislation.
I don’t know if this needs an argument that also calls into question seatbelt and helmet laws, but it is an incongruity that needs some consistency at least. I mean, it’s not illegal to register 25 year old vehicles that aren’t imported or don’t meet modern safety regulations. How about we compromise and shorten the import time limits to 12 or 13 years so that there’s less lagging behind safety standards?
This is so beautifully put, bravo Torch! I have a garage full of small, old cars and I accept that any one of them could be what I die in. I park them next to by boss’ F-350 and it becomes intensely clear that my single brain cell wrapped in a fragile little skull is right about at the height of his bumper in most of my cars. In a collision with most normal vehicles around here, I will be seriously injured or dead. But this is a risk I’m willing to take. I also put my kid in those cars and yes, there is danger, but there’s likely even more danger in the three streets she will cross to walk home from school, where a modern vehicle with poor frontal visibility could run her over. Life is full of danger, but life is also made more joyful by enjoying our tiny vintage cars. I am happy in my cars, my kid is happy in my cars, and these are memories we get to make together. “Am I willing to die in this car” is a question I’ve asked myself more than once. I’d rather my obituary say “Andrea Petersen died in a vintage Italian car crash” than any other cause of death.
To approach this from the other side, as an F350 driver, if you pull out in front of me in a minicar while I’m towing 10,000 lb, and you and your kid end up dead, it’s me who lives with the guilt forever.
I’m not going to go so far as to say small cars or kei trucks or motorcycles should be banned, but I think the framing of “This decision to drive this car affects only me regardless of the consequences” is not really true.
Eh, It’s my fault for pulling out in front of a loaded truck and trailer. I think I’d be screwed regardless of what I’m driving.
But the kid, what about the kid, it’s not his fault. To be fair, almost any car pulling in front of a loaded F-350 towing 10k lbs is going to be obliterated.
True, but:
1- The kid isn’t at fault
2- We’re discussing proactively writing laws giving the freedom to drive something that expressly does not meet safety regulations
3- I’m going to live with the guilt regardless, which is my argument that the right to take one’s own safety in one’s hands isn’t cost free to others.
So it’s better if it’s a brand-new motorcycle with the kid on the back that pulls in front of you? That is perfectly legal and “up to safety standards”.
You’re right, it’s probably impossible to guard against every conceivable safety hazard.
One way to respond to that would be to throw up your hands and allow everything on the road (the view expressed in the article).
Another would be to acknowledge that there are tradeoffs to maximum freedom which I’ve laid out in two posts and you’ve ignored.
Again, my position is not “ban kei trucks” or “ban motorcycles”. But it’s also not “Driving whatever I want only has consequences for me”.
With some really stupid and inconsistent exceptions, you can ALREADY drive nearly whatever you want in most states. And those exceptions are only because the automakers don’t want the competition. For example, in my home state of Maine, which went down the path of banning KEI cars for a bit, but has recently back-peddled, you can build a car from *scratch*, following no Federal requirements at all, and as long as it has minimal lights and a horn, register it as a Hot Rod and drive it however and wherever you want. if you think a Kei car is a deathtrap, you should see the “’32 Ford” that my neighbor built in his shed that literally has the GAS TANK as the rear bumper You can drive literally anything other than one of these that is more than 25 years old. For example, you can import a 1927 Austin 7 or a 1990 Citroen 2CV or any other deathtrap crapcan and drive it on any public road in the state 100% legally, since it can go the minimum speed required on the Maine Turnpike of 45mph. More than 25 years old doesn’t even need an annual safety inspection.
So you can take your pearl-clutching about “what you do affects others” and stick it where the sun don’t shine. This is nonsense, and needs to stop. Or find some way to have a *consistent* and logical policy around what is and is not allowed to be driven on public roads if there is some real public policy rationale that means doing that makes sense – which would absolutely include banning motorcycles from the road at a minimum.
This is a lot of words dedicated to not understanding a word I said, so be well.
You said nothing of value, so be well yourself.
The thing is, driving an old car makes you FAR less likely to do something that stupid. I drive a ’74 Spitfire all summer every year. I can assure you that I am FAR more aware of what is going on around me than I am when I drive my ’14 Mercedes wagon, never mind the average phone-twiddling crossover-driving moron.
Ultimately, this is another case where as Tim Walz said recently “people need to mind there own business”.
That problem is easily solved by logically thinking about it and concluding that you are at zero fault for running into the person who pulled out in front of you.
Look, I get it. I’ve owned, and enjoyed, objectively unsafe vehicles in the past and I currently own (and regularly drive) a 20+ year old Nissan that lacks pretty much most rudimentary safety features – side impact beams, offset intrusion beams, functioning traction control, non-Takata airbags, stability control – but is an analog driving experience and is useful around town to carry stuff, etc.
So, with my credentials out of the way, you’re just wrong here Torchinsky.
Yes, Torchinsky getting yourself injured/killed – and you’ve proven time and time again you don’t need a vehicle to get yourself into the hospital for an extended stay – driving an old/unsafe (not necessarily the same thing but whatever) vehicle is a CHOICE. But when you do injure/die you cause significant financial harm to others. It’s much more likely that if you’re driving your old/unsafe vehicle on public roads and get into a collision you will be injured/killed. That cost of is then directly paid by Medicaid/Medicare, hospital, and the funeral costs, rehabilitative costs, physical therapy costs are paid by your car insurance, written-off by the hospital, or paid by your health insurance (if even covered). Then these costs are all borne by OTHERS. Your position, Torchinsky, is selfish and narcissitic.
Now, if you want to just tow your old/unsafe Jeep to an off-road course and crash and die, then at least you’re not involving others to the same degree as operating on a public road but the costs are still present – if diminished.
Don’t be a dick to others.
Yikes, that’s a bit of a spicy take that I don’t agree with (which is fine; you’re entitled to your view, and I appreciate you sharing it). Question: Are you also against motorcycles?
This is always my argument. If you’re banning Kei vehicles for being “unsafe”, you should have already banned motorcycles, side by sides, snowmobiles, etc.
I never said to ban Kei cars.
You wrote “I just don’t see who is being hurt by having legal kei cars” and that is what I took issue with.
Absolutely not. Ridden motorcycles many times. Even have the motorcycle endorsement on my license.
I think the issue is that a person’s death affects many other people. And some people might say it’s kind of selfish for any individual to completely disregard that fact.
So, to say “I know the risk to me and the pain it will cause others and I’m OK with it” is one thing compared to “I just don’t see who is being hurt by having legal kei cars” which seems to totally gloss over the impact on others.
I don’t get the sense they are against it (kei cars or motorcycles), just maybe trying to call out the way you approached defending it. In a spicy way, for sure.
Knew this was coming. If you take that argument to it’s ultimate logical conculsion, we should all just stay in bed every day. Because God forbid you get sick from going outside or drop a steak knife and cut yourself. Because it’s gonna raise everyone’s insurance rates. Nah. Not buying it. Shit happens. Thats why we pay for insurance in the first place.
Your argument suggests that screens and cell phones be banned from any road vehicle.
Don’t be a dick to others.
If you drive your 2024 Camry 20,000 miles in a year, you ARE more likely to be injured in a car crash and take up a hospital bed than the guy who drives 1,000 miles a year in a Subaru Sambar.
Banning kei cars only makes sense if we also ban driving non-kei cars more than a certain amount. And motorcycles. And roller skating, and walking up stairs. All of which are more likely to put you in the hospital and negatively affect others.
It also brings into question seat belt laws along with the helmet laws you pointed out.
This sounds like it could have come from an anti-seatbelt law screed in the 60s.
and the anti-helmet motorcycle brigade
That was specifically mentioned in the article, and seems to have some backers here.
I’d be surprised to see anyone seriously advocate for repealing seatbelt laws, although the principle of individual risk is exactly the same as what’s outlined here.
Yeah, I was going to delete my comment because I posted it after only reading the headline, but couldn’t figure out how 🙂
I’m not in favor of the logic used in this article. That said, it’s illogical to allow a US-made car from 1960 to be driven on the road, but then exclude a Kei from 1990 because it’s “not safe”.
I’m against the anti-Kei vehicle rules because they are arbitrary, at best based on protectionism, at worst based on racism.
Oooh I’d advocate for that! I’m an absolutely habitual seatbelt wearer, and believe that people who choose to forego the incredibly simple step of buckling are complete morons. However, I don’t really see the argument for ticketing solo drivers for not buckling up. Passengers in the car? Different story.
I’ve just seen seatbelt laws used for revenue generation too much, bothers me.
Two of my old cars have only lap belts. (legally) One car has no belts at all. In my state you are only required to have the safety equipment the vehicle came with. So which is less safe, a 64 Austin Healey convertible with a lap belt or pretty much any Kei car?
I wouldn’t put my kids in either on the highway.
Well neither would I or any other rational person.
I will advocate for repealing seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws even more than the kei car thing(which is to say, I’m too lazy to actually take either issue to my state legislature).
Seatbelt laws(like so many of our laws) exist almost exclusively for immoral profiteering.
Your insurance should determine your risk / danger, just as capitalists intend.
Yeah, but what if you wish to properly mow down cyclists? Can’t do that in a Kei truck.
That’s why here at Jimmy Bob Chrysler Jeep Dodge RAM have the perfect RAM 3500 Cummins with 0% financing for 94 months during our TRUCKTOBER Sales Event, only at Jimmy Bob Chrysler Jeep Dodge RAM.
Well said, I think these Kei cars and old cars as “slightly more water resistant” motorcycles when it comes to safety. I also appreciate the clarity around not endangering others not inside the car with you. If I had to stretch a reason it would be the community good of not having to pay the hospital/medical/public/insurance costs of people getting hurt in these small cars, but that breaks down when we allow motorcycles and old crap cans. I drive old jeeps for fun off-road so I do not tell others to avoid unsafe things, but I do like helmet laws. In other words, this is complicated.
I also support helmet laws, but I also understand the position that you should be able to be an idiot if you want to, and not wear one. I also think we need more organ donors, which is a good reason not to have helmet laws. If you’re gonna be an idiot, at least let someone benefit from your idiocy.