[Dr. Sivana]

Is this simply a matter of never really looking deeply into the subject, or am I missing something more obvious from your argument?

I think we are discussing different philosophical underpinnings. I am not a radical libertarian, particularly when it comes to the public roads. On the other hand, I am not a utopianist either, and accept that driving two tons vehicles at highway speeds will result in some number of accidents and even deaths.

I have had 1965-1976 cars as daily drivers for most of my adult life, well into the 2000s, and appreciate the comparative simplicity and ability to have true ownership of the car compared to the cars that are largely built around mandates and electronics.

I also fear that introducing new features to fix a problem creates unintentional new problems.

For example, newer automobiles are required to have a higher belt line in order to contend with taller light trucks. That reduced window visibility so much that rear view cameras and monitors are practically mandated in all new vehicles. Fixing one safety problem creates another safety problem. Both additions add to the weight of that automobile, which makes it harder to meet CAFE standards.

Just one more thing sometimes means more than one more thing.

[Melinator2]

I absolutely agree with your points about simplicity and unintended consequences. What if research shows that front brake lights have a significant effect on reaction times and save lives just like rear brake lights. In that specific circumstance if you were presented with that evidence, would you support adding a simple set of green front brake lights?