Importing a grey market vehicle to become easier if Ford gets theirway?

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#axzz2Mrr0UMv3

Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US and
vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE regs
so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming LHD.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 05/13/2013 05:22 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#axzz2Mrr0UMv3
>
>
> Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
> UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US and
> vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE regs
> so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming LHD.

and?

attention-seeking retard.


--
fact check required

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> On 05/13/2013 05:22 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#axzz2Mrr0UMv3
>>
>> Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
>> UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US and
>> vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE regs
>> so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming LHD.
>
> and?
>
> attention-seeking retard.

And the irony meter pegs.

On 05/13/2013 11:24 AM, . wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 05/13/2013 05:22 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#axzz2Mrr0UMv3
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
>>> UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US and
>>> vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE regs
>>> so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming LHD.
>>
>> and?

That's bad, because that would not mandate the clearly safer amber turn
signals or rear fog lamps in the US, for two. (I'm not sure if the
latter will work, without some kind of PSAs informing motorists that
rear fog lights are only for use in fog. "This means you too, Audi
driver.") Would also not mandate self-levelers and headlight washers
for HID lights in the US, only for vehicles that are sold as conforming
to ECE regs. These are all things that have a real safety benefit but
NHTSA is resistant to for some reason. (and I'm just discussing
lighting here, but to my knowledge this is in fact where ECE regs and
various FMVSS's diverge the most.)

>>
>> attention-seeking retard.
>
> And the irony meter pegs.
>

Indeed... kinda sad.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

>
> Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
> UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US
> and vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE
> regs so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming
> LHD.
>


Is there any practical difference between the two? Imagine this for-
instance: We could end up with ECE headlamps.

Having said the above, though, I can't see Ford's scheme ever being
realized. The sorts of people who become government regulators are imbued
with complete certitude, and are almost religiously convinced of their own
absolute correctness, importance, and right to tell other people how to run
their lives. If they started to admit that maybe the other guys' (less
rigid!) regulations were just as acceptable as their own, their legitimacy
might be questioned. And they can't have that.


--
Tegger

On 05/13/2013 06:50 PM, Tegger wrote:
> Nate Nagel > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
>> UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US
>> and vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE
>> regs so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming
>> LHD.
>>
>
>
> Is there any practical difference between the two? Imagine this for-
> instance: We could end up with ECE headlamps.

Well, there's one difference.

I've been reading up on a lighting forum that I probably should have
started reading ages ago (which is where I found the news article,) and
there are also other differences - the side retroreflectors and lights
are not required by UNECE regs but are by FMVSS 108. Also FMVSS 108
allows red rear directionals, and allows them to be shared with the
brake lights, two things that aren't allowed in Europe (and I don't see
why they would want to bend on that, either.) Rear fog lights and front
fender directional repeaters are not required here but are in Europe, as
are self-levelers and headlight washers for HIDs. Finally, there's a 50
cm^3 luminous area requirement for some of the rear light functions here
in the US but not in Europe, so ECE lights are not always compliant with
FMVSS 108.

And that's just lighting...

>
> Having said the above, though, I can't see Ford's scheme ever being
> realized. The sorts of people who become government regulators are imbued
> with complete certitude, and are almost religiously convinced of their own
> absolute correctness, importance, and right to tell other people how to run
> their lives. If they started to admit that maybe the other guys' (less
> rigid!) regulations were just as acceptable as their own, their legitimacy
> might be questioned. And they can't have that.

Indeed... but in the case of ECE I would say they should stand their
ground on the repeaters, rear fogs, etc.

Really I would say that the only lighting reg where FMVSS 108 is clearly
superior in terms of safety is the requirement for lighting to the side
of the car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 05/13/2013 03:50 PM, Tegger wrote:
> Nate Nagel > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
>> UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US
>> and vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE
>> regs so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming
>> LHD.
>>
>
>
> Is there any practical difference between the two? Imagine this for-
> instance: We could end up with ECE headlamps.
>
> Having said the above, though, I can't see Ford's scheme ever being
> realized. The sorts of people who become government regulators are imbued
> with complete certitude, and are almost religiously convinced of their own
> absolute correctness, importance, and right to tell other people how to run
> their lives.

not true. they're all carefully selected to comply with political interests

#1. the oil companies who LOVE heavier and heavier cars being mandated
in the name of "safety", even though they can actually be more
dangerous. [heavier cars have longer braking distances, are less
maneuverable and are thus more accident prone for instance. like
heavier roof columns and higher window lines restrict visibility.]

#2. the car manufacturers who can get away with dangerous manufacturing
practices [red rear turn signals] because it saves them money.


> If they started to admit that maybe the other guys' (less
> rigid!) regulations were just as acceptable as their own, their legitimacy
> might be questioned. And they can't have that.

true, for political reasons.


--
fact check required

On 05/13/2013 09:17 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 11:24 AM, . wrote:
>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 05/13/2013 05:22 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#axzz2Mrr0UMv3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately it seems that Ford is simply asking that the US consider
>>>> UN/ECE compliant vehicles to be approved to be registered in the US and
>>>> vice versa, not that there be a push to harmonize FMVSS's and ECE regs
>>>> so that one vehicle could be fully compliant with both assuming LHD.
>>>
>>> and?
>
> That's bad, because that would not mandate the clearly safer amber turn
> signals or rear fog lamps in the US, for two. (I'm not sure if the
> latter will work, without some kind of PSAs informing motorists that
> rear fog lights are only for use in fog. "This means you too, Audi
> driver.") Would also not mandate self-levelers and headlight washers
> for HID lights in the US, only for vehicles that are sold as conforming
> to ECE regs. These are all things that have a real safety benefit but
> NHTSA is resistant to for some reason. (and I'm just discussing
> lighting here, but to my knowledge this is in fact where ECE regs and
> various FMVSS's diverge the most.)

that's about as relevant as blathering about spare tires that you've
never used...


>
>>>
>>> attention-seeking retard.
>>
>> And the irony meter pegs.
>>
>
> Indeed... kinda sad.

says the anosognosia-afflicted retard - no irony there!


--
fact check required