Here Are The Worst Automotive Laws And Regulations

This morning, we asked you what you thought the worst automotive law or regulation was, and y'all certainly didn't disappoint. Sure, some of the responses were familiar — but certainly deserving — punching bags, but there were more than a few in the mix I've rarely or never considered. If Jalopnik was its own sovereign nation, it would probably last four years before being forcibly annexed by Luxembourg or something. But damn it, those four years would be a haven for drivers, thanks to you. Here were our favorite answers.

It is way too easy to get your driver's license in this country. We need laws that requires more skills behind the wheel and actually keep checking our driving skills well into old age. Just one day of driving around Florida will demonstrate the need for better driver training for new and older drivers.

With 54 stars, it seems many of you agree with 4jim here. And it isn't hard to understand why. I'll never forget that one episode of Top Gear where James May teaches us that you basically have to be an amateur rally driver to get your driver's license in Finland.

Submitted by: 4jim

How about a lack of a law concerning headlight brightness? There's a minimum, but, and I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, there seems to be no limit to how bright headlights can be.

Who among us can't relate? I drive a Fiesta, and in my 12 years on the road, I can never remember a time I was so regularly, completely blinded while driving at night. As another commenter, Weeks, explained, this issue isn't really about peak brightness, but rather the direction of beams and the legal protocol by which manufacturers set them:

The problem isn't so much the brightness, it's the aim. Manufacturers have been able to keep bumping up the brightness because they have been able to better manage the cut-off at the beltline of the vehicle. Unfortunately, they are aimed using their own beltline and do not take into account the retinas of every vehicle that is shorter than theirs. Also, any time another vehicle is below that cutoff point (like when going over a hill) everybody's low-beams look like high-beams because the headlights don't adjust for the terrain.

The allowance of adaptive beams courtesy of the infrastructure bill will help "steer" headlights going forward, but it's not likely that tech will be mandatory. This problem isn't going away until a priority is made in the law for the visibility of other motorists, not just the one behind the wheel of the car in question.

Submitted by: Midlife Miata Driver

The 25 year import law would get my vote

If it angered you before — and we know it did because you're reading this site — it'll infuriate you even more after reading Mercedes Streeter's recent deep dive.

Submitted by: PDM33

Lack of Safety Inspections.

I grew up in an area with strict safety inspections. Nothing like the TUV in Germany, but you had to have tires that weren't on the Nadar bumps, brakes that actually had pad/shoe left and suspension that is reasonably tight, and properly aimed lights.

When I moved out of that area, I was shocked at the lack of inspections anywhere else I've lived. It's insane that you can get in a car with bald tires, metal on metal brakes, suspension that visibly wobbles and lights that call aliens and go down the highway at 75 mph.

I wonder how many cars on American roads would be turned away by the TÜV. Fortunately, David Tracy provided us with some painful first-hand research into this question, as he is wont to do.

Submitted by: hoser68

The worst one is the probably the patchwork legislation between states but I'd put the second at civil asset forfeiture from normal traffic stops. The fact that you could be pulled over by an officer without cause, and have them take your money or even your car because "It may have been involved with illegal activity" and you have to fight to DISPROVE IT is insane.

If that's not abhorrent enough, lots of the time people (of color) have their assets seized, they're ultimately never charged with a crime. So it's just theft.

Submitted by: Bigburito

Chicken Tax!!

The Chicken Tax is a 25 percent tariff on light trucks (and originally on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy) imposed in 1964 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson in response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken.

It makes cool trucks harder to import. And makes for ridiculous waste, like Ford building Transit Connect vans in Turkey with back seats, then ripping them back out when they get here. See also: Subaru BRAT.

I dream of a country where we're able to buy the reasonably sized, not rage-faced trucks offered in other countries, like the Volkswagen Amarok and that Mercedes that's really a Nissan but looks so much better. Sadly, an antiquated, nonsensical tax won't allow it.

Submitted by: Unacceptably Dry Scones

This law is purely limited to one city in the US, Chicago, but it is so asinine that it bears mentioning.

The law that states pickup trucks, any pickup truck, cannot be driven on Lake Shore Drive.

The law is over 120 years old and it could easily be resolved by changing vehicle code.

But specifically the Chicago law which I believe is referred to as "Load Restrictions on Boulevards" prevents ANY pickup truck from driving on roads classified as Boulevards in downtown Chicago, and to be classified as a Boulevard they just have to have a median between the traffic.

The law is beneficial on the surface, it was designed to prevent commercial traffic from spoiling the views and ambiance of downtown Chicago... but the issue with pickup trucks relates to how they are plated. In Illinois it's mandatory that pickup trucks (including the Maverick) get a Class B Truck plate... and those technically fall under commercial vehicles.

So, due to the conflict between the Load Restriction law and Vehicle Class laws pickup trucks are banned from driving on Lake Shore Drive and several other major streets in downtown Chicago.

As someone not from Chicago, I wasn't aware of this. This call out gets an "F" for relevance to most people but an "A++" for complete idiocy, earning it a deserved place on this list.

Submitted by: JamesRL

Lack of global standards that lead to additional engineering / certification costs to deal with patchwork local legislation.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards spec, or more informally known as "Pride." If we conformed to UN regulations instead — you know, the ones followed by almost everyone else — it would also make the 25-year import rule moot.

Submitted by: FistFullofNeutral

Mandatory front plates. I've always hated this law. It seems so unnecessary and it basically only exists to help identify vehicles for the sake of ticketing purposes.

Okay, let's be honest. I also hate it because it looks bad. Seriously. Almost every car out there would look better without front plate provisions.

I bought my car in a front-plate state (New Jersey), but live in a rear plate-only state (Pennsylvania). But you can't un-drill a hole.

Submitted by: Jeremy Johnston via Facebook

Separate fuel consumption and emissions rules and exemptions for light trucks v.s. cars. What's the point of regulations for cars, if nobody buys them anymore anyway? The trucks people are buying instead should be held to the same standards.

Our Raphael Orlove summed this up in an old Answer Of The Day (from almost 10 years ago!)

CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. It defines how fuel efficient a car manufacturer's vehicles must be, and it is broken down into different categories based on size and weight. Each different kind of vehicle has a different standard.

CAFE started out in the 1970s with much lighter fuel economy standards for light trucks than full-size family cars. This seemed to make sense, as trucks were used for work, and businesses needed cheap, powerful engines. US carmakers, however, capitalized off the growing market for recreational trucks and started building SUVs intended for people to just drive around in. These SUVs were cheap to build and they didn't have to comply with the tough emissions and fuel economy standards of regular cars.

This loophole meant that Americans just switched from driving big, heavy sedans to big heavy SUVs, without effecting any real change in fuel economy.

And that loophole's only been exploited more and more since that article was published. Ford moved 726,001 F-Series trucks in 2021, the vast majority of which were light-duty F-150s, per Automotive News. In that same span, Honda shifted 263,787 Civics. That tells you everything you need to know.

Submitted by: andyindividual