If one thing is allowed, other things of a piece are likelier to follow. This works for good and bad. Examples of the bad include the forcing of “masks” on people’s faces, which laid the groundwork for the pushing of drugs into people’s bodies. The commonality here is the pushing of the underlying idea that our bodies aren’t ours; that they are collectively owned and it is the government that owns them and thus gets to decide what will be done with them.
But A leads to B can also work to our advantage.
President Trump recently announced that regulations prohibiting the sale for use on public (that is, government) roads of so-called “tiny cars” will be rescinded or rendered inapplicable somehow, perhaps by a Fuhrer Order (i.e., an executive order). This as such would be no great affront – to assuage the constitutionalists out there – because after all, regulations are pretty much the same thing. That is to say, a regulation is a decree issued by a regulatory bureaucracy, such as the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or the EPA. These regulatory decrees have the force and effect of laws – as in you had better obey them, or else. Yet they are not actually laws in the sense that they were never put forward by a legislature and voted on. They are simply decreed and that is all.
So why not un-decree them?
That appears to be what Trump intends. It is at least what he said. Whether it will be done is another thing. But if it is, the implications are good – and grand.
As things stand, every vehicle that is offered for sale for use on the government’s roads (proper language is important; you and I – the “public” – do not own the roads) is required by federal decree to have driver and front seat passenger air bags, among other things. It is illegal to offer for sale a vehicle that does not have them and – more finely – that does not comply with every single Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). These “standards” are regulations – which are requirements.
They must be complied with.
Period.
Well, Trump and the head of the chief bureaucracy that emits regulations pertaining to what is allowed (and required) with regard to vehicles intimate that so-called (by Trump) “tiny cars” will be exempted from the regulations that require at least driver and front seat passenger air bags. This would have to happen in order for these “tiny cars” (meaning, the small, inexpensive cars and pickups available in Japan and Europe and other parts of the world) to be legal to sell here, because many of them do not have even one air bag.
If the regs remain in force, the manufacturers would be obliged to install them, which is not easy or cheap to do. The cost would rise to parity with the cars that are “compliant” and then there would be little point in buying a tiny car because you’d just be getting a much smaller car for about the same money as you’d spend on a (complaint) larger car.
So the air bag requirement has to go (along with probably a number of other federal requirements that these tiny cars and pick-up trucks aren’t compliant with). Consider the beautiful – to use one of Trump’s favorite words – implications.
If the government allows some cars to be sold without air bags then why not allow all of them to be sold without them? It would be like Florida’s allowing people to walk around in public without a “mask” on. Once that was allowed there, it became much harder to maintain “mask” requirements elsewhere.
It would be especially hard with regard to air bags because if tiny cars and small trucks can be sold without them, then it is particularly ridiculous to require that larger cars and trucks must have them because larger cars and trucks are fundamentally safer, even without air bags – because they are larger. Size is itself a “safety” feature. A larger vehicle protects occupants more effectively because the structure of the vehicle absorbs impacts forces more effectively. Tiny cars are more fragile is another way to put this.Most have stubby front and rear ends so that when you run into something (or something runs into you) there isn’t much cushion.
Without air bags, there is even less cushion. This doesn’t mean that tiny cars aren’t “safe” to drive. Were VW Beetles – millions were sold – “unsafe”? It simply means that if you hit something – or something hits you – the car won’t hold up as well to the forces imparted.
Most of us used to understand the distinction.
Anyhow, if tiny cars can be safely sold without air bags then – surely – larger cars could also be sold without them. Those who are afraid to drive a car of any size without an air bag would not be prevented from paying extra for an air bag-equipped car. What would change – one hopes – is that no one would be forced to pay extra for an air-bag-equipped car. It would be as it was, once – when America was a much freer country – at least as regards the options people had when contemplating the purchase of a new vehicle.
There was a time – believe it or not – when Americans could choose to buy an air-bag-equipped car, if they felt the extra cost was worth it. Or not, if they felt it was not worth it. Americans were allowed to weigh risks and rewards. This was before the government began emitting regulations requiring every new vehicle to be “safe” – irrespective of how the buyer felt about paying more to be “safe.”
Wouldn’t it be . . . beautiful if we could somehow resurrect that better, vanished time?
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
And don’t forget the safety concerns of our tiny fragile planet! As CA and its gang of 15 Bolshevik states are demonstrating when they play the “too old to register” trick on Americans and so blight their property. All to streamline the emissions testing regime and force people into buying $100k DOA touch screens on wheels. How long will any cars be sold when only oligarchs can afford them?
No one has mentioned the fly in the ointment, which is that a growing number of US states are prohibiting kei vehicles from their roads on safety grounds. Some, such as Rhode Island, have actually revoked existing registrations and license plates for those keis approved in the past.
The feds might allow importing keis over 25 years old and exempting them from safety standards, but there’s nothing requiring states to register these vehicles for the road. And no state allows their use on Interstates.
In Japan, keis in the 1980s had a low maximum speed limit of 80 km/h (50 mph), increased to 140 km/h (87 mph) for later models. The newer versions also have to pass impact tests similar to those required for larger vehicles elsewhere.
Based on all this, if Trump gets new versions of similar cars legalized, you can expect tighter speed limits for them and restrictions on which roads they can use. But I believe many states will balk at his proposal to allow them.
Trump could do an end run around the state mafioso, too. If he had the DOT issue plates for holders of Certificate of Origin (COO) that every vehicle comes with originally, (that your dealer “helpfully” trades for a Title) it could bypass all those state rules. It would function the same as federal tags they issue for their own agencies.
/Users/peterelias/Pictures/Photos Library.photoslibrary/resources/derivatives/6/66C7C16E-6C0D-4734-A938-54621DCC6875_1_105_c.jpeg
Testing testing did this picture make it through?
Morning, Expat!
I can’t see it. Do you have a direct link?
Too Bad ,
Lots of SuperKool Pictures from around the World…
kenny is old and confused…What ever happened to control c, control v.??
F trying to upload pictures from a “Supereasy” Apple MacBook Air..
It used to be copy and paste…with the other os system…..
Just more Jerk off limp wrist apple crap BS ( twice as expensive!) as Microsoft
AND if you used before, apple it’s is actually Harder to learn!
Sorry Awipes I’m from Missoura…And somebody’s got to” SHOW ME”…..
HOW THIS APPLE SHIT picture upload …..IS SO EZ!!!!
Klass Dismissed…please proceed to your scheduled kumbaya session…..
Get me the F out of this POS area (Gutless pussy Southern New England)…PLEASE.
More crap from dump always talks a good game but does the opposite government never gives back freedom only takes more.
More BS from angelo…
Sorry Joe, I’ve got to agree with Angelo on this one.
Yep. I still maintain that instead of repealing regs (He can’t even do that….) and allowing us to have toonerville tiny trucks and such, what we are really witnessing is essentially the outlawing of many current mid and full-sized trucks and SUVs, by reason of decreeing that now trucks must meet the same “safety” standards which cars do.
How could the bastard possibly expect us to believe that regs are being relaxed for tiny trucks and cars….while those regs were in fact just exacerbated so as to affect even more standard-sized vehicles.
As the relative of a pathological liar, I am well familiar with the truism that if something doesn’t make sense, it’s because it is not true.
Amen, Arthur –
Everything that man does is self-serving and often malicious. He’s a dangerous ignoramus. I cannot find the words to express the regret and embarrassment I feel, having been fooled (again) by him. But it will be the last time.
I thought Obama was a reprehensible arrogant liar the likes of which we’d never seen before…but but this orange sack of shit has taken it to new levels. I think what makes it seem even worse, is that the prick is not only evil, but that he is such an ignoramus too.
A lot of politicians just play dumb because it’s better to be thought an idiot than an malicious evil crook who’s serving a cadre of puppet masters, but Donald Fuck is not only all of those things….but genuinely stupid as well.
And add to that, that he shames any of us who are conservative [NOT “a Conservative”] by association.
I believe you when you say that you’ve learned your lesson. You had to touch that hot stove and go back for more and get a third-degree burn, but it’s worth it- and you’ll be an even more effective evangelist of liberty now than you already were.
I can’t imagine how you must feel. He almost got me too; I was briefly almost tempted to register and vote [for the first time in my life] in ’16. Thank goodness I didn’t! I have been permanently cured of ever having such a thought again! I don’t care if Ron Paul runs, I will NEVER vote for a ruler; I will never vote for anyone to shepherd an authoritarian system and or maintain fidelity to a constitution that enshrines a ruling class and the right of that class to “lay taxes”. The fact that a percent of the population elects that ruling class in no way makes the establishment of such a class legitimate nor entitle it to have dominion over our lives and property.
It’s got to start somewhere- and if not with us, then with whom?
Amen, Arthur!
Nixon was at least an intelligent, thoughtful man. Trump has feral cunning; the instincts of a hyena. He also has the glib charm of Clinton, which is how he fools so many – who believe he’s “authentic” and a “regular guy.” I have no doubt Trump sneers with contempt (internally) as he smiles at them. His Christian-pandering is particularly vile. Truly, the manis a cult leader and – like all cult leaders – a fundamentally evil person who uses others to achieve his ends, then casts them aside when they are no longer useful.
Not buying it!
Are they going to not only get rid of the air bags, but….
The back-up cameras?
The MANDATED TPMS?
The recently-enacted rollover protection specs?
The emissions bullshit?
The minimum tire size?
Car seat attachyment points?
Automatic emergency braking?
….etc.
The insurance Mafia would not have it, as some of the dictates do result in lower rates of injury and death if one is involved in an accident; and medical bills and wrongful death payments make mere property damage pale in comparison.
When those tiny-toon vehicles get into accidents people are going to start getting crushed; losing limbs, etc. It would make the cost of insurance go up yet more- to the point where resistance would start becoming more common…and the insurance companies know it. (Funny, how in so many industries and spheres of endeavor, we seem to be right at the critical point where all it’ll take is one more tiny feather landing on the steaming pile to make everything go south).
Many states would have to rewrite their entire “safety” and emission inspection rules, or exempt the tiny vehicles. I don’t see that happening…..
Hey, would this mean we could drive Roxors? 🙂
As usual, I’m sure Trump is speaking out of his ass.
When this doesn’t happen, I can picture him standing on a stage saying “Well, they’re free to manufacture and sell and use these vehicles here; they just have to make them met our ‘safety’ standards!”.
As usual, I’m sure Arthur is speaking out of his ass.
Your cogent observation and articulate comments on this subject are so enlightening. I hope that you will be favoring us with more of the same, which so vividly illustrate the quality of your character and sparkling intellect, so that we all may be enlightened and entertained.
The government isn’t going to unwind its regulations, it’s simply impossible. Government is a ratchet strap, which can only tighten.
There are regulators tasked with “saving lives” or “improving safety”, everything else be damned, and they measure their success by imputed “lives saved”. They’ve got the Karens on their side, and all will collectively screech that Trump wants to kill babies if he rescinds any regulations. If Trump does unwind them vie EO, his successor will put them right back, so Trump would have to gut the regulatory agency somehow. His power base is falling apart, he won’t be able to do that, so the best we can expect is a momentary reprieve.
You are correct, OL. It boils down to ignoring The Law of Diminishing Return.
That’s been the case since ~1995. Any and all regs since then have been a net loss in the most basic cost/benefit analysis since then.
Current FMVSS regs need not be altered to allow Kei cars in the US. In fact, we’ve already seen it with vehicles from Vanderhall, Polaris, etc – or “autocycles”. A separate exempt vehicle classification was created to allow 3-wheeled autocycles on US roads WITHOUT meeting FMVSS. This can easily be done again with Kei cars/trucks.
No pass crash test=no approval sorry
‘It is required by federal decree to have driver and front seat passenger airbags.’ — eric
Among other things:
‘There are over 60 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), with specific numbers like FMVSS 101 (Controls & Displays), FMVSS 208 (Occupant Crash Protection), and FMVSS 302 (Flammability) covering various vehicle parts, systems, and performance aspects, categorized into Crash Avoidance, Crashworthiness, and Post-Crash Survivability, with dedicated standards for school buses and heavy trucks too.’ — AI Overview
You can bet that kei trucks will need exemption from probably half of these 60 FMVSS, including for sure crashworthiness. Probably they also need exemption from emissions regs.
Trump’s idle whim has handed Transport Sec Sean Duffy a real can of worms. NHTSA ‘crats will regard authoring this document as a career killer. The D-party will rip into it like a hungry bear demolishing a picnic cooler, with decrepit old Ralph Nader leading the charge like a zombie escaped from a wax museum.
I somewhat doubt that it will ever see the light of day. Like Eric, Big Gov recognizes that it would set a precedent — a BAD precedent, from a control freak perspective.
great explanation, thx
There is a company in my neck of the woods that sells foreign mini-trucks. I believe they get away with it because they are all 25 years or older which is the current law. He is getting $12-15K for these. All right-hand drive.
https://www.nwminitrucks.com/inventory/body_type/Truck
I am all for the choice. I would chose not to have them.
If they are allowed not to have them, I don’t see a way out for Manuf. vs lawyers.
I can see it now………. he/she was killed ‘because’ they didn’t have an airbag…..
In my early days, I wrecked so many cars…. the worst was a CRX Si that I centerpunched a pole around 20-30mph. Anyone that knows physics knows that it’s all about how fast or slow something stops. Walk into a wall is an example, it’s nasty. I call it sudden stop. And why I educate young parents that dirtbikes are way safer than quads for our youth (they think opposite). Dirtbikes deflect mass, 99%, when they hit a tree, quads do not, they stop.
Anyway, I was not wearing a seatbelt either. The pole went into the car and pushed the engine back, bad. I think the only thing that saved me was stiff arming the steering wheel which pivoted my mass enough. My head dented the metal sunroof.
Also I hit the wall at pocono raceway at 80-100mph. It was all about the angle that I hit it. Any 1 degree towards 90 lessoned my survival. I broke everything and barely survived, and walked 9 months later. They line that wall with ‘airbags’ now………
ohhh, BTW, motorcycle racers, street and dirt, are wearing airbags now. Basically just the core area. how effective they are, are debatable.
would they have saved me at pocono? probably not, legs still destroyed, but maybe have helped with my upper body smashing when the other bike hit me? Would the airbags on the wall have helped, for sure the legs, but maybe not the secondary bike hit, cause they deflate a lot after the initial hit.
Maybe it is just me, but I NEVER thought is was a good idea to have an explosive device embedded in my steering wheel. It is an added danger (risk) I’m not interested in.
This coming from a guy who at 15yo literally wrapped a 1971 Chevy Caprice around a tree at high speed.
I’m a man not a baby… can make my own decisions thank you.
Centerpunched a tree.
“The pole went into the car and pushed the engine back, bad”
Yup, that’s what I did to the Caprice!
Then a friend pulled up to my wreck, I got in his car and we went back to the party.
To be fair.. I did go to the hospital the next morning and got a few stitches in my chin.
It was a simpler time.. the dollar was strong. 😀
I have seen the argument that insurance companies WANT all the expensive safety features and tech to be required. Not because it makes cars safer, but BECAUSE it makes them more expensive to repair. The argument puts forth the belief that the insurance industry is regulated in a way that they are allowed a percentage of their gross as profit. That means if their profit only goes up if their gross expense goes up. Having more expensive tech in automobiles means their gross expense goes up when that tech needs to be repaired.
I really have no idea if that argument is true as I don’t really follow the goverment/industrial regulation world that closely, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me. I know in the state where I live, utilities are regulated in that manner and therefore don’t mind switching to expensive forms of energy production because it just means more profit for them. (At least until consumers can no longer pay the bills…)
This begs the question, who is making the money. Insurance companies from forced auto insurance. Car is in an accident, airbags deploy, car is totaled, even though the vehicle is not in too bad of condition and could be repaired, airbags are too costly to replace so it is junked. Auto manufacturers are making the money too. Insurance and auto companies, two big lobbying interests in the U.S. I’ve been driving since 1972 and have never totaled a vehicle I was driving. Makes me wonder what percentage of vehicles are totaled out of all purchased. Seems like a lot of “safety” precautions for a small percentage, and a big cost. How about making airbags optional?
Amen, John!
Air bags ought to be optional. Just the same as going to the gym out to be optional. People ought to be free to assume risks and be responsible for the consequences, if any, of their choices. It is painful that this concept is so apparently alien to many Americans.
Totaled doesn’t necessarily mean what people think it means.
In most states it’s statutorily required to total the car when the repair costs meet/exceed a fraction of the market value, usually around 50-70%. The insurance companies (who asked for this law) usually opt to total it anyway when the cost estimate “approaches” this number, because it’s easier to write a check than to go back & forth with the body shop having to approve additional repairs (because there’s always more stuff broken, underneath what the adjuster can actually see).
My car has 11 air bags. I wouldn’t buy a car that didn’t have them. What about seatbelt and car seat laws? What about cell phone laws? Just throw them all out? I don’t see that happening. Too much money in fines.
Hi Daniel,
You have every right to buy as many air bags as you like! The issue is whether vehicle manufacturers ought to be forced to install them in every vehicle they make. Whether everyone ought to be forced to buy them (effectively).
Same as regards seatbelts – and seatbelt usage. Buy (and use) seat belts if you want to. The wrong enters the picture when others are forced to buy/wear them. Americans used to get the importance of this difference.
These things ought to be left too the individual to decide. And for the individual to be responsible for, in the event their decision leads to harm. I use italics to make an important point. It is that this business of forcing people to pay for harms they have not caused (or injuries that have not happened) because someone is “concerned” that might happen is an outrage against responsible adulthood. We are not children to be schoolmarm’d by some old bag who is “concerned” about our “safety.”
Damned straight Eric!
I am so tired of the safety cult and the tyranny that it brings along for the ride. I’m an avid deer/bear hunter. I refuse to wear that ridiculous orange vest and hat. It’s my ass to risk. If I hunted crowded public areas I would probably wear it. I do not wear it on private land where I hunt. If I’m ever caught I’ll pay the fine and go on about my business.
Land of the free my ass!
100 percent, CG!
I used to let my neighbors hunt on my land (they recently moved) and the old guy would ask about “hunting season.” I told him: It’s my land and you have my permission to take my deer anytime you like.
Is hunter orange a good idea? Probably. I know a few people who claim it’s kept them out of trouble. But forcing everyone to wear it is ridiculous and stupid.
And most states don’t require it during turkey season anyway, because turkeys can see color.
It’s not about safety. It’s about reminding everyone who’s in charge.
Not to defend airbag mandates, but it occurs to me that if one intends to drive around a tiny car, they might want more airbags, not fewer. For when some vaccinated pink haired broodmare driving an X7 strokes out and hits you head on. F = ma and all.
I survived driving 250,000 miles in a Chevy G10 van with the drivers seat located directly over the front wheel and my feet about 6 inches behind the headlights:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3HplovefD6A/maxresdefault.jpg
But the exposure in the event of a front-end collision did make me a little nervous. The same comment applies to many kei trucks. I, too, advocate that F = ma.
I like the way you think, Eric. Another aspect is the recalls of Takata airbags and others. These Claybrook Claymores have long-term issues as regards sudden failure.
I’ll never forget the article in AutoWeek in the spring of ’74. Swedish engineers took infant piglets and sat them near an airbag as they ignited it. Of the 24 test pigs, 8 of them died from injuries from the concussion of the explosion that triggered the airbag. None were in actual contact, just nearby. That’s why kids can’t be in the front seat, but what about those “B” pillar and seat bags? Costly, dangerous and, if you wear a seatbelt as mandated by law, very limited benefit. It’s the perfect GovCo product.
I still can’t understand why if one wears a seatbelt (often mandated by law) why airbags would be necessary.
They keep you in place so the airbags don’t kill you.
well played
While the end of air bags for tiny cars is a good start it does engender further questions.
The first of course is how the insurance cost will be affected without airbags?
Secondly will they be restricted to only certain roads?
My guess is that you will only be allowed to drive them on urban/ suburban roads that are posted below a certain speed limit. Sadly the reason these cars seem popular is because most people can no longer afford to buy a new car. Thanks GovCo.
I see that also, Landru –
Bill Meyer and I were discussing this on his show the other day. I think the solution is ending the mandate to buy insurance; in other words, giving people the right to say NO to the mafia. If that right is granted, then the mafia would be obliged to charge good drivers reasonable rates. No more of this constantly jacking up premiums, because of the damage you “might” cause.
>say NO to the mafia.
Yeah, well…
If you dislike the “insurance mafia” you will *really* hate the hoss spittle mafia, should you have the misfortune to get in a wreck, through no fault of your own, (drunk driver, out of control AGW, etc.) and get carted off, unconscious, by the body snatchers.
A hospital *will* bankrupt you, in short order, if you have no (“insurance mafia”) “family” to protect you. Then you will be homeless, and unlikely to afford a bicycle, let alone an automobile.
Roger that, Adi –
But what are we supposed to do? Bankrupt ourselves paying for “coverage” – for just in case? I’m ok with running the risk of getting into a wreck. I think that, as an ostensibly free man, that’s my right. The problem is that others seem to believe they have the right to force me (and others) to buy “coverage” for just in case, even if it bankrupts us.
Eric,
I do understand the concept of “not affordable.”
When I was running my business, I looked into the possibility of professional liability insurance. Lloyd’s of London was the only company my broker found that was willing write a policy, and it was prohibitively expensive. I had no choice but to “go naked,” and protect my assets. BTW, it *is* possible to “pierce the corporate veil,” so mere incorporation will not protect you. If you own *anything*, you need a qualified asset protection attorney to advise you.
Fast forward to summer 2025. I did see a significant increase in my HO premium, even though I do not live anywhere near a “high fire risk” area. Insurance companies took *huge* losses due to the fires, and have to recover somehow, or else go out of business.
What happens if your house burns down, but your fire insurance company goes bankrupt? It could happen, and then you (and any mortgage holders) get screwed.
Insurance, they say, is the only game of chance where you bet against yourself, and hope to lose the bet.
Hi Adi,
“What happens if” is not how I live my life. Others have every right to live their lives according to a different standard. We’re all dead in the end. I prefer not to live my life paying for “what might happen” … and going broke (for sure) in the process. I would rather run the risk that nothing will happen – and not got broke, for sure!
You wrote: “Insurance companies took *huge* losses due to the fires, and have to recover somehow, or else go out of business.”
So? Screw them! Their losses are not my burden. Many of us are being “insured” into the poorhouse – yet haven’t cost the mafia (or anyone else) a cent. In January, I have to renew the hosting/related services that make this web site possible. The cost is just shy of $2k for the coming year. I wish I had the equivalent sum I was forced to pay to “cover” my old truck and my motorcycles for the prior three years, which would have covered this. Instead, I have to pay both, which makes me poorer than I would otherwise be.
If I were free to say NO to coverage, the cost of a liability only policy would be next-to nothing (because it would have to be – because otherwise I would not pay for it). That is how it ought to be. Instead, the cost of my liability only policy has tripled over the past three years. Why? I have not done anything to justify this. But the mafia has me over a barrel – because I cannot (legally) tell them NO.
>In January, I have to renew the hosting/related services that make this web site possible. The cost is just shy of $2k for the coming year.
You are getting screwed, Eric.
If you go to my personal website:
https://www.corvus-rising.net
you will find a link to Tiger Technologies, which is my domain name & hosting service provider.
Tiger Tech is a (deliberately) small American company located in Berkeley, CA. I have been well satisfied with their services and pricing. I highly recommend you check them out.
Recent billing (email dated 10/2/2025):
Dear ***********,
This is a courtesy notice about your Web hosting service for **********. You’ve chosen to prepay for 12 months in advance, and a payment of $143.40 will be due on November 1.
I don’t know what other services you require, but I expect you will do much better with Tiger Tech than whoever you are now using. Just a guess…
Hi Adi,
I don’t think I am getting screwed. It is one thing to host a small personal web site; it is another to run a high traffic site such as this one. The service provide you mention is no doubt great for a personal web site or small blog that gets not much traffic. I am not in that situation, which is good – and bad.
Eric-
Did you try contacting them?
Never hurts to shop around.
https://www.tigertech.net/plans.shtm
>We offer different Web hosting plans to meet different needs, from a small personal site to a busy business site.
If you are concerned about security, as you no doubt are, you might have a look at ThreatStop. I have no need of their services, but you might.
https://www.threatstop.com/pricing
Please note I actually have two web sites, one for business, and the personal site URL I link to here.
However, neither of them is “high traffic” as yours no doubt is, in part because a) my business is BTB, not consumer oriented, and b) I have disabled comments on the Word Press blogs on both sites, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to curate comments.
Those who know me already have the appropriate email address, and a landline phone w/voicemail.
“Just leave a message, and maybe I’ll call.” (channeling Joe Walsh).
(I WILL call you back if I know you, and voicemail filters out the phone spam.)
Obviously, my messaging choices would not work for you, since you are doing your best to make a living from your website.
BOL2U
Fuck that dreck. Have taken the time and effort to organize as an LLC. Learned a lot about it the last year, created a few of them among family. Not really that hard to do. You don’t even need some shitbag lawyer to do this. Most states corporation commissions make it easy. I am now mostly bullet proof, with the exception of actual bullets. And why, pray tell would anyone want to play along with such a rigged game? When Emergency room services are rendered, then routinely discharged for our uninvited guests, it’s an easy call to say NO.
>I am now mostly bullet proof
You hope. What is “mostly”?
If ten shots are fired at you, nine miss you entirely, and one hits you between the eyes, I guess your adversary “mostly” missed his target.
>When Emergency room services are rendered, then routinely discharged for our uninvited guests, it’s an easy call to say NO.
Not if you are unconscious. I was dragged off to Riverside (CA) Criminal Hospital in 2014 by the body snatchers, following a minor auto accident which rendered me unconscious. Details of accident are unimportant.
Hospital money clock started @ $34,000 the minute they rolled me through the door, unconscious, and went up rapidly from there. I soon woke up, and had no complaints. Eighteen hours later, charges totaled over $100,000, including more than $50,000 for (5) CAT scans with purely fraudulent “justifications” which in fact contradicted the attending physician’s notes. I was *NOT* injured by the accident, except for a concussion and very minor nose bleed resulting from being struck by the driver side airbag.
Eighteen hours included spending the night, because I was too tired to walk home. The overnight room charge was ~$3500, IIRC.
I walked out early the next morning, with a clerk screeching at me to sign a form stating I was leaving “against medical advice” which I readily signed.
The body snatchers destroyed all my clothing except for shoes, undershorts and belt, so I had to walk home wearing hospital “clothes” and carrying my personal articles (wallet, keys, etc.) in a plastic bag which the hospital thoughtfully provided.
Fortunately, I had some change, and managed to snag an RTA bus on Magnolia Avenue, so I did not have to walk the entire distance.
I despise the Medical-Industrial Complex and all it stands for.
Riverside Criminal (officially “Community”) Hospital is part of Hospital Corporation of America, now known as HCA Healthcare.
When you own your very own U.S. Senator, many things become possible. A US$2,000,000,000 fine for defrauding Medicare is just an ordinary business expense. The then CEO, Rick Scott, got a nice $300,000,000 retirement bonus, and went on to become Governor of Florida.
Will agree ADi, if you are unconscious and don’t have a loved one standing by as an advocate, you are fooked. Sorry to hear your story.
Mostly bullet proof is as you said. But I would rather have them miss me the first nine times than a guaranteed hit with the first shot.
Tolling of all public roads is coming, and the optical systems which make the mulcting possible measure vehicles down to the cm. Charging tiny cars more to access the roads would be easy to achieve technically, but I believe the demand for that category is coming from Trump’s friends and other wealthy people who want toys more than the masses seeking affordable transportation.
Charging tiny cars more to use the roads may or may not be a problem politically.
Airbags have a limited range. Below a certain speed, they are not needed. Above, they cannot inflate fast enough to provide a cushion. If they are still sodium azide based, that starts at around 43 mph, depending on how far forward you run the seat.
I think the best case for airbags on interstates is they can keep deer from coming through the windshield.
Hi Steve.
Airbags minimize the need for seat belt use. So if all cars have airbags why do we need seat belts?
As for the deer coming through the windshield issue I doubt it would stop it. A 30-30 might but not an airbag.
Hi Landru,
I answer these questions by asking one: Why is this anyone else’s business? If you (or anyone else) want seat belts or air bags, by all means. But if I don’t want either, then it’s my right to not have them. No one is my parent except my parents – and they are dead and I am a grown man.
>it’s my right to not have them
It’s your right to commit suicide any way you like, Eric.
Back in 1989, I was hit head-on by an out of control
AGW driving his county issue Kawasaki on the wrong side of the road. He was at fault.
The wreck totaled the bike *and* my 1985 Ford Ranger. I was wearing my seatbelt, and walked away from the accident with no physical injuries. The deputy died in hospital 2 hours later, of massive internal injuries.
Had I not been wearing a seat belt, likely my head would have gone through the windshield. I do not like my chances, in that scenario.
Hi Adi,
With respect, I think you’re being a bit dramatic. I am not committing suicide by driving a vehicle without air bags – and not wearing a seatbelt. We survived. I drove such a vehicle every day in DC traffic for years, back in the ’90s – and here I am, still intact. I have also been riding motorcycles for decades. My parents never owned a car with airbags when I was growing up and never forced us to “buckle up.” We’re fine. Yes, there is risk. What happened to you was awful. But the risk of such an event happening to me is not high. We are not talking about swimming in a shark tank or walking along the rim of an active volcano.
Again, my main point is that everything in life entails a degree of risk. The question is whether we – as individuals – choose to take a given risk because we regard the risk as not so high as to be probable or even likely and therefore, worth taking the risk.
Here’s another way to look at this: There is a risk that you will suffer an injury if you work out with heavy weights or run. I choose to do both things because I judge the risk relative to the benefit (fitness/god health) to be worth taking. Similarly, I judge the risk of a catastrophic accident to be small (my decades of accident-free driving being the basis for this judgment) and so consider it not worth spending thousands to “cover” what might happen. I would rather save the money, so that I have it and could just pay for what happens, if it ever does – and if it doesn’t I will still have the money!
>But the risk of such an event happening to me is not high.
How can you be so sure? I am an excellent, highly experienced driver, who was motoring safely, minding my own business, when it happened to me.
Your choice, of course, but I find it somewhat ironic that you mercilessly ridicule poor drivers, yet somehow believe that their collective stupidity and incompetence can never harm you. Seems illogical, to me.
>I would rather save the money, so that I have it and could just pay for what happens,
Yes, but a) will you? and b) will you be able to save *enough*? Self insurance (what you are talking about) is always your best option, *IF* you can afford it. Insurance is for when you cannot.
Checked many prices lately? In our inflationary environment, it is not only the cost of groceries which has risen dramatically.
Just sayin’…
Why didn’t you steer around the Idiot. Steering is always better than braking. I have avoided hundreds of collisions in my 45 years of driving. It can be done.
Though I’m sure DC traffic was no picnic during the 1990s, I bet it’s a lot worse now; it’s a NIGHTMARE! It’s so bad that, if I want to visit DC, I get a room in the DC suburbs of NoVA and take the Metro in.
That’s the beauty of pre 1968 cars as seat belts weren’t mandated and if it’s an orphan brand good luck on them proving they were ever there in the first place if you remove them and replace any carpet and trim that was needed for them. 🙂
Call him a president or an emperor, that one man has this power is a simple example of how far we’ve fallen since the destruction of the republic in 1861 by America’s Caesar.
Compared to the relative handful of men who put those regs in place to start with? 1 or 0.01%, what’s the diff?
“America’s Caesar”
I like that! Dishonest Abe was a dirty tyrannical bastard. My Confederate ancestors fought him and the feds hard, many of them were killed and maimed.
That was the title of a book by Greg Durand.