whomod's answer, concerning itself with vehicle safety systems, not fuel economy, is non responsive to my point.
Vehicle safety is not necessarily the same thing as fuel economy and is not subject to the same analysis.
Fuel economy, despite its environmental component, is ultimately based on market driven forces. If people don't want the little gas sippers they won't buy them, regardless of government mandates.
On the other hand, when the price of gas goes up, people tend to buy cars with better mileage and the companies make their cars accordingly. That tends to create better overall fuel economy than a government mandate.
Similarly, if there is sufficient profit to be made in alternate fuel technologies companies will research and develop those technologies.
Vehicle safety, on the other hand, is not particularly market driven. Certainly some people take things like drivers side airbags and passenger restraints into consideration when purchasing a vehicle, but many more do not. This is because, unlike MPG, the average person cannot see a direct economic benefit from safety devices. Therefore, there is, in fact, a greater need for reasonable safety regulations.
In short, whomod didn't actually address what I wrote. He simply created a strawman argument.
