FireRetardant

Truly powerful men would have strong armed the government into paying it for them. Smdh its like modern men aren't even trying to be CEO.

I bring up north america mostly because it has the most egregious offenders with high hooded SUVs and trucks.

during annual checks

Most of north america doesn't do that. Some place require a safety check to initiate insurance, after that most just wait for things to break or get pulled over by a cop/ministry of transportation.

Im also a little iffy about #2. We already subsidize drivers enough, making them pay for their lights or at least partly pay sounds reasonable.

I think a middle ground solution would be add the regulations for new cars and enforce the regulation when a noncompliant car changes owners. This way buyers of used cars should be able to research if that cost is likely to impact their model or not. It doesn't take all the headlights off the road at once but it starts phasing out the problematic cars.

The US is far more likely to be involved in starting WW3 than russia's part in it. The US also probably thinks its the only way to "be great again" by having another post war economic miracle.

Do you have a source for fewer EV fires? The graphic doesnt seem to have any comparisons to ICE car fire rates.

Thats kinda my point. If my current car dies I'd like to replace it with an EV, but if even the ones used and 5 years old have this shit I'm not sure I'd want to compromise my privacy like that. My only options would likely be used plug in electric hybrids or early models of EVs that will likely need battery replacements/upgrades.

Rural places and bigots will still need or want personal cars. Some things like a trades work van or delivery service will still need a car/truck. These might as well be developed as electric. EVs are not the solution to our transportation and environmental issues but they are part of it.

I think ive heard of glasses that do something similar in the sunlight. I think auto makers will be hesisitant because if it fails to revert back the low visibility could be hazardous and result in a lawsuit. I think we can solve this problem with proper regulation rather than add even more tech to new cars. Along with lumen limits the "warmth" (kelvin) of the lights may be regulated as well.

Part of the problem is those fires are significantly harder to put out than other vehicle fires are. Fire departments are going to need to invest in new fire fighting chemicals and equipment. Some regulations may be useful as well such as some fire supressants installed near the battery or a battery eject and roll foward/back feature. The main goal there being buying more time to get people, especially kids in seats, out of the car.

Headlight height regulations and lumen limits. If a transport truck can have reasonably placed head lights, so can the f250.

These details don't clear much up about the firearms used. My theory is they were all owned by the mother. She either aquired more since the guns were returned or the police never got all the guns the first time they were siezed, very possible given there is no real registry and the soft registries are incomplete. The investigation is on going of course but I wouldn't be surprised if police keep these details muddy to prevent more questions about the confiscations and subsequent return of firearms.

New cars gonna come with used zyns trays and air pod chargers instead of ashtrays and cigarette lighters.