It does:

That’s what the IIHS did when they added the new small offset crash test, and also why neither the NHTSA nor IIHS test rear crash tests beyond testing the fuel tank integrity. 

My understanding is that the IIHS buys all the cars themselves from real dealerships, and it’s not provided by the automaker.

A pop quiz style test would be fantastic.

As soon as you increase the standards, there will be folks who will complain about how this is classist and racist because it will disproportionately affect poor people who can’t afford additional training and Asians (and yes I do see the irony in the latter complaint).

I for one am incredibly excited for the new test. This will be yet another data point to expose which automakers build cars just to pass the current tests (I’m looking at you, Toyota), and which automakers build for situations beyond the laboratory tests.

If not even more. The Prius Prime with its 8.8kWh battery gets 4502; if the RAV4 uses something bigger like a 12 kWh battery (which I would imagine they’d have to for more range and power), you’re looking at almost $6000 in federal credits.

I agree with you on that, but here in San Francisco 99% of the time a car stops in an active lane of traffic not because there’s a pedestrian crossing, but because its either an Uber dropping off someone (or waiting to pick up someone), or a car is making an unprotected left without using a turn signal. To be safe I…

TIL I’m a massive cheapskate when it comes to buying cars.

You can drum up any number of what-if scenarios to rationalize things, but often times the simplest explanation is the correct one.

As a taxpayer paying for public housing, I care.

Well I see it parked there with its windows covered in overnight dew every morning on my way to work, so yes there’s a pretty good chance that they live there. What do you suppose it’s doing there?

For the same reason someone who buys a Maserati shouldn’t also be able to qualify for food stamps. If you have enough money to buy one, you have enough money to buy your own damn food (or in this case, pay your own damn rent).

I saw a white one parked in (of all places) the parking lot of a public housing project...

In the context of the law, “unfair” refers to fraud, misrepresentation, anti-trust, and other such things that all require intent. It has nothing to do with the Merriam-Webster definition of the word. In this context, negligence does not equal unfair, unless the negligence was purposeful, in which case it would…

Fraud requires intent. Just because someone screwed up or did a bad job isn’t fraud unless they intended to deceive the person. Mistakes = negligence.

A mistake does not mean they were being deceptive. Deception requires intent; unless you can prove that the mechanic/shop purposely did not tighten the lugs, it cannot possibly be deceptive.

Nobody said it’s acceptable. If you look at the original comment, he says it is negligent, but it does not constitute fraud, which is what the MVSRA is designed to address.

What you described is negligence, not fraud. Fraud requires material intent to deceive, and unless this shop has made a habit of not tightening lug nuts, there’s no way this could constitute fraud. It’s like if a cook forgot to put cheese on your cheeseburger; that’s a mistake (i.e. negligence), and not fraud.

It’s really really slow, especially with passengers. It somehow manages to be slower in real life than on paper, especially with the CVT.