Yeah, everyone thought that Chinese cars would have terrible safety and quality, and then the Chinese cars actually turned up and they didn’t. And the auto industry collectively made a whoopsie in their pants.
They’re still pushing the narrative that Chinese cars are garbage though, because that and tariffs are all that they’ve got.
What you’ve claimed very much contradicts what I personally have in mind about strict safety requirements in EU. And you do not provide any links to your claims either… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Here is an abstract from a reply by Claude 3.7 Sonnet:
European type approval is generally considered more demanding, requiring vehicles to meet requirements before being sold across the EU.
North American certification is more self-certification based, with manufacturers declaring compliance to NHTSA/Transport Canada standards.
Thanks! It’s quite ironic, that you present your opinions only, but obviously expect people to offer something else, like (scientific?) materials or links to some research results. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’d agree, that it is definitely curious to see the factual comparison of european and N.american safety requirements.
But since it’s an exchange of opinions - i guess it’s fair it’s not only you who is sharing your views)
Ps:
Using LLM is interesting (at least, for me):
the AI tool replies might be the representation of public views. Thus, these are statistically coherent with what most people think /say on certain topic. Or this is my understanding of how this technology works.
And i will certainly trust the report by an AI tool more, than what an unknown user has to offer as an anecdotal evidence.
Yeah, but basic safety standards will.
Yeah, everyone thought that Chinese cars would have terrible safety and quality, and then the Chinese cars actually turned up and they didn’t. And the auto industry collectively made a whoopsie in their pants.
They’re still pushing the narrative that Chinese cars are garbage though, because that and tariffs are all that they’ve got.
I don’t get how people who are apparently so pro capitalism seem so upset about competition.
Because the other guy is winning, of course
That’s easy, their real belief is that they need to make as much money as possible. They’re only pro-capitalism when it means making more money.
BYD sells in Europe. They do ok. It’s no Chery Amulet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H9jeF_ADG4
Making a safe inexpensive car is easy when you don’t over inflate the price of basic safety equipment like airbags.
And in Australia, we don’t have any tarrifs on Cars. BYD keeps rocketing up the sales charts, along with Geely under all its combined labels.
No Seagulls here though.
They have pretty high tariff rates in the EU tbf[0], obviously not anything like 104%, but still very high compared to normal rates.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly20n4d0g9o
We need to return the magical amulet to the bu-nana king, Chhhaarrrliieeeee!
Safety standards aren’t the same in Europe and North America and Europe is less restrictive on very small vehicles.
What you’ve claimed very much contradicts what I personally have in mind about strict safety requirements in EU. And you do not provide any links to your claims either… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Here is an abstract from a reply by Claude 3.7 Sonnet:
“by Claude”
Lulz, off to the block list with you
Thanks! It’s quite ironic, that you present your opinions only, but obviously expect people to offer something else, like (scientific?) materials or links to some research results. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’d agree, that it is definitely curious to see the factual comparison of european and N.american safety requirements. But since it’s an exchange of opinions - i guess it’s fair it’s not only you who is sharing your views)
Ps: Using LLM is interesting (at least, for me): the AI tool replies might be the representation of public views. Thus, these are statistically coherent with what most people think /say on certain topic. Or this is my understanding of how this technology works. And i will certainly trust the report by an AI tool more, than what an unknown user has to offer as an anecdotal evidence.