I'm a big "free market" guy myself but there has to be some check/balance on any given industry. Just like previous posters want to stem government involvement (and I buy into this also to an extent), it would not be unreasonable for a similar check/balance to exist on the private side. Unilateral self-policing is not the answer, not even for the government, but they will try.

As for 3 wheelers, I was never into them so I have no insight into how their demise transpired. From what I can gather, however, is that the industry was cruising along, then some government smack down occurred. If this is true, do you really think that if the industry projected sufficient enough profits in that market that they would have voluntarily stopped producing them? If they could make money hand over fist on 3 wheelers, I would imagine they would have fought for every inch. Look at the tobacco industry. Even with well-documented and researched adverse health risk, the industry still continues to profit. I will concede that government had something to do with the 3 wheeler's demise but the industry itself had a part. Its part was to understand the economics behind the 3 wheeler market and recognize that the profit wasn't there and took the cues from the government's "involvement" as a reason to stop producing them….all the while claiming that it was all the government's fault.

With all that said, we are getting farther away from the intent of the original post. Moving forward, I'll try to keep my comments on point with those issues. Does anyone have insights into the science or technology involved here?

 

Just a quick thought. If the government says tobacco smoking is dangerous will they ever ban it? Probably not. Reason: they levee huge taxes on tobacco and would lose the revenue stream.

 

Maybe but the tax has an inherently deterring effect, i.e. make it too expensive for Joe Smoker and he won't buy as many cigarettes. What good is a tax if you can't get anyone to buy the product on which the tax is levied?

Several years ago, the CBO scored a potential excise tax for tobacco and while the tax alone would generate more revenue for the federal government, the inherent health benefits of the deterring tax on consumers also would increase revenue in the form of higher per capita taxable earnings due to being a more productive worker (because of improved health) and achieving higher earnings. Additionally, the health spend via publicly-sponsored health coverage such as Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, federal workers health coverage, etc. associated with smokers would decrease due to a healthier lifestyle. Further, if the government were to ban tobacco outright, it could eliminate public health spending dollars on programs such as anti-smoking campaigns, costs to regulate the industry, lobbying dollars, etc. It stopped short of saying that an out right ban would be budget neutral, however. Of course you would have a major coup if a ban was placed because of all the displaced workers that would result, but let's not get caught up on some of the government's other compelling reasons not to ban the industry.

And yes, I just broke my own rule and went down yet another rabbit hole.

 

This is a interesting read about the demise of the ATC and ATV standards, straight from the cpsc. Seems like the feds were going to sue the atc manufactures. Page 2 seems to sum it up.
"The consent decrees further stated that the case was being settled without any admission of fault or liability or any adjudication of fact or law."
https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/84803/atv2006_3.pdf

 

And the first paragraph on the very first page sums up where the 3 wheeler market was heading….

3 wheelers were on their way out anyways. The industry knew it. Good thing the government came along and made them look like they were forced out. Well-played 3 wheeler manufacturers, well-played.

 

Correct, the ATC market was taking a back seat to the ATV market. One could assume with no government interference 3 wheelers would still be a thing of the past. The fact of the matter is up until the 87 ban, 3 wheelers were being produced and sold. If the atc market was so horrible the manufactures would of voluntarily discontinued the atc before the feds got involved. But that was not the case. The reason why the 5 manufactures dropped 3 wheelers so fast is because they would not be held liable for the accidents.
On page 1 and 2 you see no distinction between atv and atc. Leading one to reasonably assume the ban would be both atv and atc.
Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
For any atv nut like myself the thought of the feds banning quads is rather frightening. So now because of the atc ban quads have to conform to safety standards. Nothing wrong with that. If sxs did not conform to standards you could not sell them.
With a sxs conforming to atv laws why would the cpsc have any desire to modify the standards?

 

Sure, but how fast do you think the manufacturers would have acted if the federal government didn't get involved? I'm betting not right away….all the while the trend and statistics on injuries and fatalities continue to develop. Maybe the government's timing to get involved when it did didn't prevent any injuries or deaths at all but the fact of the matter is, the government was responding to a trend in the form of increased ATV-related injuries and deaths. The government wasn't conjuring up an agenda, it was looking at the trend and for whatever reason, it decided to act. The consumers and manufacturers prompted the government to act…not vice versa.

I wouldn't call this "the" reason. It's likely "one" of the reasons. And given that the consent decree stipulated that no admission of liability on the part of the ATC manufacturers was made, the ATC industry may not have been liable to begin with.

Since you asked, I think your interpretation is wrong because atvs are still being sold today so obviously the "ban" didn't apply to both atc and atv. And to be clear, the "ban" prohibited the distribution of atcs but also provided that the marketing and sale of such vehicles would be permitted to the extent they meet mandatory standards. It's not that the government completely outlawed atcs, just that in order to sell them, manufactures had to be be held to some standards.



Standards change all the time. My house was 2 years old when we bought it. We thought for sure there would be minimal issues on inspection since it just passed inspections 2 years prior. We were shocked that so many items were out of code already. Go figure.

Great question though, one that deserves an answer, one that my feeble untrained engineering brain can't provide. Hopefully someone else can help dummy down the science for me.