I'll never understand how the popularity of car ownership has deflated, but I first read about it fifteen years ago in an article about Japanese hot rods (called, affectionately, "rice"). And the best theory was that teenagers since the late nineties were getting more excitement from sooping up their computers.

…But it's worse than that. Haidt cites Twenge and others: Since social media started coming into children's lives about ten years ago, the generation born after 1995 is growing into *everything* more slowly... Driver's licenses, employment, travel, drinking, dating, and even sex.

Yes, *that* sex… The one they used to make movies about. Kids have other things on their minds.

A culture of over-regulation certainly has something to do with it, but see also. Perhaps you will enjoy watching television from Monaco this weekend.

It’s not just cars which are overly regulated. Every aspect of your life is controlled by regulations, most of which you are unaware of. The annual regulatory burden in US is estimated at $4 Trillion. The US annual GDP is approximately $19.4 Trillion. In rough terms, about 1/5th of your income is spent covering the costs of the regulations promulgated by all the various local, state and federal agencies. Actually, in California, the burden is likely much higher, and the effects of the burden are higher on lower income groups since the cumulative costs are a higher percentage of their income. These regulations effectively stifle competition by increasing start up costs. Using cars as an example, there used to be a dozen or more car manufacturers. Now they exist only as brand names of the few remaining manufacturers, whose products look nearly alike and have essentially identical characteristics. And, the rest of your life is being conformed into similar sterility.

It’s not just cars which are overly regulated. Every aspect of your life is controlled by regulations, most of which you are unaware of. The annual regulatory burden in US is estimated at $4 Trillion. The US annual GDP is approximately $19.4 Trillion. In rough terms, about 1/5th of your income is spent covering the costs of the regulations promulgated by all the various local, state and federal agencies. Actually, in California, the burden is likely much higher, and the effects of the burden are higher on lower income groups since the cumulative costs are a higher percentage of their income. These regulations effectively stifle competition by increasing start up costs. Using cars as an example, there used to be a dozen or more car manufacturers. Now they exist only as brand names of the few remaining manufacturers, whose products look nearly alike and have essentially identical characteristics. And, the rest of your life is being conformed into similar sterility.

There IS only ONE optimum configuration for transporting a given number of people from one point to another on surface roads.

There is also a continuing need to evolve, not drastically change, manufacturing methods.

These are independent of the seperate need to generate consumer interest to finance production. "Does it have WiFi? I need my phone!"

It is entirely possible to produce a tube-frame, modular vehicle with enduring parts which are interchangeable, but there is no marketing muscle behind that. We have Igloo™ coolers, with different decals so we can tell which is ours, because we have been convinced to buy them. Something about the IIHS is in every ad for an SUV because, fear. If you get to redline in first gear in any of those breathtaking vehicles like Corvette, Hellcat, etc., your neighbors want you jailed and your car taken away. Fear.

The automotive/highway scene is so distorted that if Amy Alkon presents a credit card to a motorcycle dealer and has a learner's permit, she can buy a Kawasaki ZX-14 motorcycle with over 190HP and be on her way -- but can't ride a Kawasaki Mule to the grocery on any right-of-way, rollbar and seatbelt notwithstanding. (The bike will do over 100 in 1st gear.)

With modern technology, I wonder what cars will look like in the future. The front grill is no longer necessary as most modern internal-combustion engines draw sufficient air for their operation from the vehicle's slipstream. Will we see the end of such iconic automotive facia as BMW's dual kidney, Aston-Martin's pentagon, or Jeep's 7-slot grill?

Large round headlights as the focal point of the vehicle's facia are no longer necessary since slim LEDs provide more than enough light to illuminate the vehicle's path at speed and can be incorporated into almost any front-end design.

Once we're free of our preconception of what a car should look like, I wonder what cars will look like.

I remember when a car with 30,000 miles on it was ready for trade in, and if you managed to keep one running for 100,000 miles, you were some sort of automobile wizard. Fifteen miles to the gallon was considered efficient, a three thousand mile service interval was normal, and you had to do weird shit like set the valve lash and grease the wheel bearings.

Also, sometimes the damn thing just wouldn't start, and you accepted that as something that sometimes happens. The interiors were designed is such a way that if you got thrown into the dashboard (seatbelts were an option) there were a bunch of sharp things ready to rip your flesh to the bone. Exterior features could rip up a pedestrian as well.

Remember that black line down the middle of the freeway lane? That was the oil and grease dripping down off of the cars. And if you needed a muffler, there'd be one by the side of the road just up a ways.

Cars are more reliable, efficient, safer, quieter, more comfortable, and easier to maintain then ever before. "They don't make them like the use to." is true, and thank god for that.

(cars or pirates. heh)

What Steve said. Car makers have continued to innovate, sometimes nudged by regulation.

It seems that some manufacturers have no problem turning out good design. Take a look at Audi and other European marques that are, if anything, saddled with even more regulation.

You'd think if all this was true, Tucker could actually tweeze up ONE concrete example besides "government regulation." But he can't, and he doesn't.

The last time I bought a car, once I'd decided on the model, I was led to a lot of maybe two dozen of them, all in white, black or various shades of silver. There was one sparkly metallic blue model. I took it.

There's no governmental regulation when it comes to car colors; it comes down to cars looking the same because manufacturers are looking to appeal to the widest audience (or, rather, not to turn off potential buyers). A Honda Accord and a Toyota Altima are virtually indistinguishable. If you have the dosh, you can buy a Lambo or a Porsche, which still meet safety standards but have some style.

Tucker lost me completely at this: Americans used to take pride in our cars and laugh at the horrible cars produced under socialism in, for example, East Germany. The Trabant will go down in history as one of the worst cars ever. But as we look back at it, at least you could see out the windows and at least the plan seemed to put the interests of the actual driver above Mother Nature and the nondrivers. The socialist central planners had a bit more sense than the American regulators.

What's the point? Socialists produced better cars? Isn't that the ultimate in government regulation? And didn't he just say that the Trabant was one of the worst cars ever? Is he suggesting you can't look at the windows of American cars?

This dude ain't a good thinker.

I once had a '72 Vega.
This was a car made by people who did not like cars.
It contained something called an "engine", made by people who did not like engines.
The engine was attached to something called a "transmission", made by people who did not like cars, engines or transmissions. I had it replaced once, the mechanic claiming that there was no way any part of it was either functional or repairable.
Despite being modeled on the 1970-1/2 Camaro, the Vega was handicapped mightily. Rather than install the Pontiac 2.5L I4 or the 3.8L Buick V-6 (dreaming here!), people with official titles decided to put an aluminum-bore 2.3L I-4 in the car - without even balancing it.
Mine vibrated so hard the *carburetor* came loose.
GM wanted everyone to know how much they hated the Vega, so they didn't even wash the cutting oil off the body before painting it, which meant that you could often watch them rust in the showroom.
But the car had immense potential, and after several hours of applying Loctite™ and assorted glues, and tinkering with the engine, I got the top speed up from 88 to about 112.
(This was when going fast wasn't mass murder.)
I put a pair of 12" speakers in the back - for the 8-track player! - and off I went. Vegas are some of the most comfortable cars on the planet to drive, and I wish they'd put 'em back on the road with errors corrected.

One factor for uniformity is the requirement for good gas mileage which forces all cars to be aerodynamic. Another is the requirement to be impact resistant. The rearview mirrors on your car are outdated--new ones exist that include a wider view but they violate the standards. Sometimes safety rules prevent innovation.

1940’s automobiles are beautiful and stylish...a good friend had a 55 T bird. Beautiful car, but the whole passenger compartment reeked of gasoline fumes.

Did I mention they are also death traps?

I buy a car to get me from point a to point b in comfort and safety. Not a single vehicle made in the 20th century can do that as well as my 2018 Ford F-150.

Our Vega had none of those problems. The only thing wrong with it was the lack of liners in the cylinders, which meant it eventually started losing compression and burning oil. The engine was the only real shortcoming. For that, Chevy had a answer for the fortunate few: the Cosworth version.

You're right, there is one optimum shape for a car body - a flattened teardrop is the lowest drag coefficient achievable, and every maker is trying to triangulate in on that while maintaining usability and meeting consumer expectations. Cars are tools, but people (particularly Americans) treat them as rolling costume jewelry the purpose of which is to compensate for their real or perceived shortcomings in the desirability department.

Chrome don't get you home.