Submitted by Larry Littlefield, Jun 22, 2007 08:32

You remember that, don't you? It made the owner of a car liable for any misdeeds done by the person using it, and was purportedly the reason why car leasing was unavailable and car rental was so expensive, especially in the outer boroughs.

Most of the discussion was about leasing, but to me the effect on rentals was more important. If you want people to drive less, you want them not to have a car, which is almost always the easiest way around if you already have one. But sometimes you need a car, so the ability to live without one depends on the ease and cost of renting.

Those hurt financially wanted vicarious liability gone, so they claimed that getting rid of it would reduce costs for consumers. Well did it? And if not, were they lying? And did lower prices and better service for consumers have anything to do with it in reality?

A think a great deal of political strategy is predicated on the assumption that once the deal is cut, the press will lose interest, and no one will remember what was claimed and promised, so no one will ever be held accountable for spouting self-interested BS. Why don't you go back to those who made statements at the time and record their excuses?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.