The fairly recent boom in importing Kei-class cars to America (for those unfamiliar, this is a class of Japanese Domestic Market cars that are very small and have engines that max out at 660cc/64 hp) has brought up a lot of interesting ideas. First, there’s the idea that these tiny cars and trucks are desirable and useful to a surprising number of Americans; Kei trucks are in a lot of demand for people who just want a utilitarian, cheap little workhorse for farms or delivery use or any number of other important jobs. They’re just handy and fun.
Then there’s the other ideas these little cars have brought up, ideas about the role of governments in dictating what we should or shouldn’t drive, often under the aegis of safety. A significant number of states have already banned registration of Kei-class cars and trucks (a number that seems to range from 16 to 31 states, depending on where you look) and often the reasoning given is safety. Specifically, that Kei cars are just not safe.
For example, this is from the Georgia Department of Revenue’s Motor Vehicle Division bulletin sent out to all their license plate and registration offices:
NOTICE TO COUNTY TAG OFFICES
Japanese Kei Vehicles and Minitrucks
The purpose of this bulletin is to notify County Tag Offices of the Department’s policy that prohibits the titling and registering of Japanese kei vehicles, minitrucks and similar vehicles (collectively, Kei Vehicles) in Georgia. Kei Vehicles are imported (primarily from Japan) for use as farming vehicles and off-road recreational vehicles in the United States. Periodically customers attempt to title and register these vehicles. Kei Vehicles are not compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Therefore, they are not “street legal.” Kei Vehicles are barred from titling and registration.
The reasoning given why the state of Georgia does not want Kei cars on the roads is that they “are not compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS),” which is a government-y way of saying that the Kei vehicles are unsafe. Now, let’s just clarify some things here: a 25-year-old Kei vehicle is as exempt from FMVSS as any other 25 year or older car. A 1966 Volkswagen Beetle or a 1971 Corvette or a 1978 Skoda 120 Estelle are also all cars that do not meet American safety standards, not by a long shot, but you can still register any of those in Georgia without any guff whatsoever.
So what’s the difference here?
There’s also a vocal group of people who seem to revel in the idea that Keis are unsafe and should be banned, for strange reasons that probably trace back to some formative erotic experiences when they were hall monitors, or something:
That particular tweet has been removed because the tweeter’s account got dinged for something, but that meme has shown up other places as well. There’s some segment of the population that does agree with such bans, and they like to make that clear. It’s not like they’re exactly wrong; a kei truck is tiny and inherently will be less safe than a full-sized, modern F-150. But, by the same logic, every single motorcycle on the road should be banned, too, because they’re vastly greater deathtraps than any Kei truck is.
If we really want to get into it, I could also point to studies like this one that found that for most real-world accidents, Keis aren’t appreciably that much less safe than anything else on the roads, generally, but that’s beside the bigger point. The bigger point is that you should be able to choose to drive something unsafe, as long as the lack of safety only affects you.
I should clarify here what I mean by “unsafe” because this is important: your right to unsafety cannot extend to anyone else. This means you do not have a right to drive a truck with a frame rusted out so badly it may leave its rear axle on the road and go pirouetting into a playground; that’s unsafe for people outside of your car.
The way I see it, cars can be safe in two ways: internally and externally. I first wrote about this concept a few years back for The Old Site, when I was driving my (unsafe) Nissan Pao and was almost in a head-on collision with a huge SUV. Here’s how I described it then, and since they’re my words anyway, I’m just going to quote myself:
“That SUV, for example, has exemplary internal safety; in an accident, everyone inside is extremely well-protected, which is wonderful.
But that big SUV also does an awful lot to insulate the people inside from the reality of the world. I’ve driven plenty of modern SUVs, and I understand what they’re like: comfortable, quiet, roomy, tall cocoons, and when you’re in them, barreling along at 80 mph, you feel like you’re in a leather-slathered living room, and not at all like you’re hurtling down an asphalt ribbon at more than a mile-a-minute.
That’s why cars like that have terrible external safety. The only reason anyone would pull a stupid attempted overtaking move like the one that I encountered is because, inside the car, it just doesn’t feel like that big a deal. The person driving that SUV clearly saw me ahead as they drove into oncoming traffic, but instead of attempting to get out of the way, they doubled down, and kept on going, even though they clearly saw a car heading right at them.
That’s not the kind of shit you pull in an old, unsafe car.”
Essentially, a car with good internal safety is just safe for the people inside the car, and the outside world – other cars, pedestrians, pets, bollards – be damned. A car with good external safety may be a deathtrap for whoever is inside, but it’s not really going to hurt anyone else. Kei cars and motorcycles and many vintage cars are examples of this kind of safety – the only people at risk are those inside.
And these are the kinds of cars that I think people have a right to put themselves in danger in. My Pao, for example, is just this sort of car:
It’s bigger than a Kei-class car, but not by much. I drive it in town and on the highway, but I am fully aware that in any sort of high-ish speed wreck, I’m likely quite thoroughly boned. It’s a risk I understand and accept because, for me, the experience of owning and driving and using this car more than makes up for the chance that I may end up killed in it, which, I think/hope (an assumption I never bother to investigate the truth of) is pretty remote.
Now, the subject of passengers can get sort of sticky; when people ride with me in my car, they’re aware it’s an old, tiny car and I do not believe they have the same expectations of safety that they do in a more modern car. I do have friends who will happily ride with me in the Pao around town, but won’t go on the highway with me in it. That’s more than fair, and I respect their informed decision.
I also take my child in this car, and that may be a more gray area; I’ve driven him in it since he was a little kid, and I’m sure didn’t have much conception of safety factors in cars. I of course used all the required child seats and restraints when he was small enough for them, but it was all still in a car not built to modern safety standards. Was I right to take him in such a car? I was driven around in far worse deathtraps as a kid, without the benefit of child seats or anything, but does that make it right? That part, I really don’t know the answer to.
So, I’m content to leave that part blurry if it means making this part clear: we, as drivers, should always have the right to Personal Danger, as long as it remains personal. Whatever you want to drive should be fine (well, accepting the 25-year import rule) regardless of how much you’ll resemble a puddle of chili after a wreck. As long as you’re not taking anyone else with you, what’s the problem?
This feels like a strange, self-destructive cause to rally behind, and it certainly bleeds into other contentious areas of motoring culture, like motorcycle helmet laws, which I do feel have value, but I also realize that may be a bit hypocritical. This isn’t clear, or easy, but I want to still defend the general idea that if you have a vehicle that could be dangerous to you and no one else, have at it, friend. I just don’t see who is being hurt by having legal kei cars, and I suspect there are other factors at play in laws like the one in Georgia or any of those other states, perhaps pressure from ATV dealers or other utility vehicle sales companies – of course, that’s just speculation.
Drive what makes you happy, even if there’s a possibility it could make you very unhappy – as long as you’re well aware and accept that possibility.
In A Surprise Move, Massachusetts Makes It Legal To Register Kei Trucks And Imported Cars Again
Michigan Is Banning Random Japanese Cars Because It Has No Idea How To Identify Imported Trucks
Massachusetts Reviews Its Ridiculous Japanese Car Ban After Enthusiasts Fight Back
Speculate no more, Torch.
Kubota, John Deere, Polaris and the like are deeply involved in lobbying various state governments to ban Kei vehicles. They have spent the last decade convincing farmers, ranchers and outdoor enthusiasts to buy their side-by-side utility vehicles and pay prices that are often greater than the $5-6k that a basic kei truck-even one with 4WD- can be had for.
And their side-by-sides can’t be registered for road use anywhere. The availability of road-legal kei trucks largely negates the reason for the side-by-side utility market to exist. Here in NC I can tell you that farmers are rapidly figuring that out.
There are a number of jurisdictions in which side by sides can be registered for road use, including where I live. It’s like half of the western US actually.
Really I had no idea.
Surprised those guys arent trying to make their own “kei” trucks.
If they’re lobbying against these, they probably are!
I have trouble with this one, Torch. On one hand, I agree with you. But more practically, alot of these people get into accidents, survive, and then become wards of the state where the rest of us taxpayers pay for them for the rest of their lives because they made poor decisions.
Now here’s the problem for me. Where’s that line? A kei car as a fun car because they could? Over that line. Someone who is driving a 1985 Chevette without airbags because that’s all they can afford. Not over the line. How to tell the difference? Hard. How to legislate the difference? Likely impossible.
“A lot of these people get into accidents, survive, and then become wards of the state…”
A lot of kei car drivers? Source?
What about me driving my 1974(or 1986, or 1989) Jeep without airbags for fun? Not a kei car, not the best car I could afford, but a US market vehicle nonetheless.
You asked ‘Where is the line?’.. well, the line has been legislated already with the 25 year rule. Not impossible at all and the legislation was made broad enough to not need any further rules.
Google says that there were about 7600 Kei car/trucks imported from Japan last year.
I would hypothesize that these were not purchased by people who ‘could only afford’ these vehicles as a primary car. I would say that they are niche vehicles being purchased by individuals with very specific use cases in mind.
Similar to something like a Jeep CJ or vintage Bronco or Scout. None of which are safe when compared to a modern vehicle. What makes a Kei special when compared to vintage vehicles already on the road?
The question I think should be. Why are there jurisdictions even thinking about these vehicles? Why try to legislate something so specific that has a near zero impact on people within their jurisdiction?
Imagine getting caught driving a kei car on the grounds of a GA school with a copy of Catcher In The Rye on the passenger seat.
That’s like two strikes in one.
Here’s just another recent study that fully supports your internal vs. external safety posit- https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2024/08/31/americans-love-affair-with-big-cars-is-killing-them
The plot of fatalities in own vehicle and other vehicles vs. weight should be shown repeatedly to anyone talking about anything related to road safety, and “for every life that the heaviest SUVs and trucks save, more than a dozen lives are lost in other vehicles” pretty well sums it up.
Seen this in person. Corolla got t-boned by a guy in a suburban with an offroad bumper. Corolla got crushed in about a foot right on the driver’s door (injuring the driver). The Corolla was obviously totaled, but the Suburban guy drove away with maybe a scratch on their bumper.
If they consider a ban on Kei cars because they are unsafe for their drivers, they must first ban pickup trucks because they are a real danger to everyone else due to size and weight and the average driving style of those driving these things.
I also feel bad about banning things. However, the guiding principle should be cost to others not ego-centric cost to yourself. There is a cost to society, family&friends, insurance that can be significant if you decide to ride without a helmet or seatbelt. My suggestion is you dont get a ticket but your insurance go up 2000% if you elect to ride without.
I’ve always felt this way about seatbelts and helmets. Though in my opinion, under 18 you must wear a seatbelt (if the car has one) and a helmet on a bike. Over 18 should be your choice.
Of course, if you are ejected from the car, you are now an external safety hazard!
Well yeah but no more than anything else flying through the air XD
Why is it so hard to take 3 seconds to dramatically improve your “I’m not gonna die today” chance?
I think they should ban giant SUVs and trucks before they ban kei cars.
THIS
(which will bring the side benefit of making Kei cars/trucks that much safer)
You don’t need trucks 20 ft long and 9 ft high just to move 5 people and groceries people!!!
It’s always confused me because I’ve always assumed that a 25 y/o Japanese car is probably much safer than a 25y/o American car. Also, Kei cars are legal across Europe and the UK, which have much more stringent safety and maintenance rules.
It just smacks of a ‘chicken tax’ type situation, where an established US business didn’t want to have to compete, so they bought a politician and had that competition banned.
A 25yo 1500lb Japanese car with 2.5″ of crumple zone is certainly not safer than a 25yo 3500lb American car with 3.5′ of crumple zone, at least for the people inside.
Now, if they are comparable size, like a Taurus vs a Camry? I wouldn’t say one is grossly safer than the other.
Not to mention motorcycles that these “its unsafe” guys keep forgetting about…
Treat it the way Florida does motorcyclists without helmets. Wanna put yourself in danger? Then you need hospital coverage on your insurance so you’re not a liability to hospital resources.
The whole “public good” argument falls flat on it’s face because vehicle crashes aren’t the major cause of health care costs and Kei cars aren’t even a rounding error of that. The real major drivers of health care costs are chronic diseases and overpriced ineffective treatments for them.
Key word in there is “right” and it’s one of the most common presuppositions that’s glossed over in controversial discussions like this: Individual/Exclusive Right or Group/Claim Right? The former places no obligation on anyone other than yourself, while the latter dictates some sort of action to others.
There are a LOT of people who reject the concept of Group/Claim Rights. Often those “rights” are objectively good things, and perhaps worthy obligations of a well-functioning society, but that doesn’t make them Rights. This strikes at the heart of what the proper role is for a Government and is unlikely to be resolved in a comments section on the internet.
If I choose to bring in a vehicle that does not meet current safety regs – That’s my choice.
However if a manufacturer decides to produce and/or import new vehicles that do not meet current safety regs – that’s where we have a problem.
It’s a fine line.
In this particular case, that line is 25 years wide.
I have no practical or moral issue with the latter as long as buyers are made fully aware of their decisions and the implications of said decisions. Kinda weird that unsafe vehicles are only okay if they’re old.
I get your point – but there’s a lot of people who will say that would make safety affordable only for rich people…
Not more than it already is. Cars that do not meet current safety standards(old cars) are already much much cheaper than car that do meet current safety standards(because those start at about $25k).
Great way to eliminate the hardworking half-decent part of society if I ever saw one.
Motor Cyclists want the very same right to put themselves in danger while driving as well. I would like to think that the Kei Car might have a bit more protection.
I would argue a ’57 Chevy Bel-Air is less safe than a kei car but no one is trying to ban them (I hope)!
You saw the crash test of a 59 Impala vs a newer Malibu, Yes?
Yes indeed. Not pretty (although the 59 was far more attractive before the crash).
Hmm, not sure I could go with that Torch.
You see, whenever you’re on the road, it’s never always just about you. A single car/person accident still affects many other road users in some way or another.
I’m with the J man here.
A car with no brakes is a problem as it may create a crash.
A car with no crumple zone isn’t. It’s not more likely to create a crash but will take my legs away in one. It’s something I make my peace with everytime I take my classic Z or ride my motorcycle.
Yes, but taking risk mitigation to the extreme, we’d have to ban people from walking across roadways, and instead provide pedestrian bridges or tunnels all over the place.
Logically, we’d also need to ban ground level crossings of railroad tracks, for both vehicles and pedestrians. Not to mention heavy trucks would need their own roadways, to keep the light weight vehicles (and pedestrians) safe from all that moving mass. And on and on…
None of that is at all practical, so it’s assumed we’re all going to have to accept some level of risk in our daily lives – both risk to ourselves, and risk to which we subject others. Torch’s line sounds reasonable to me, but I can also see the argument for that line being a little farther in the “for safety’s sake” direction.
Then again I used to live right under the approach to an airport runway, and never really gave much thought to a jet liner crash landing on my house. What were the odds?
Risk is everywhere.
Can you explain how driving(and potentially crashing) a kei truck is realistically going to negatively affect other road users, particularly the safety of other road users?
Such outstanding claims require further explanation or citation.
I’m swimming upstream with my opinion, but I disagree with the “but my freedoms” attitude towards regulation. Regulations are written in blood.
Even if you think your unsafe actions only affect you, there is a true cost to the community when an MVA (even a single vehicle) has injuries. We have to dispatch resources to clean up the bloody mess, resources that are no longer available to other people.
That said, targeting a specific type of vehicle is truly dumb. I can’t really improve on Nvoid82’s comment
Then we should ban motorcycles, put speed limiters on every car, forbid high horse power vehicles, alcohol, LSA, base jumping ….
It’s not a cut and dry issue, the line is blurry and is worth discussing
My wife’s friend is dealing with her third round of skin cancer being cut off her face. She regrets all the time she spent in tanning booths when she was younger, so don’t forget that (avoidable) risky behavior. And cigarettes.
I’m not advocating for diving in vats of acid. I just mean that a riskless life (if that can be a thing) is a sad one.
Heck, I almost died once eating a steak! Had I died at that very moment, I’d have found solace in the fact that I lived a full life in which I followed many misguided dangerous dreams that failed to kill me.
My point is everyone has his own tolerance for risk, and one person’s happy balance isn’t the same as someone else’s
A riskless life is a life strapped in a hospital bed unconscious, and even that has risks. Risks are just part of life. I’d be willing to take the kei-truck risk for general low-speed crap haulin’.
and the consequences of risk are a part of life … for everyone in your life.
Also I failed to mention that getting critically injured affects your family, critically. And getting a TBI may destroy the financial and mental well being of everyone you love.
I’m not advocating for a zero risk lifestyle (which is almost always a [possibly bad faith] rebuttal to my opinion), I’m illustrating some reasons why lawmakers are compelled to enforce safety standards.
Driving a motorbike is less safe than a kei truck, -IMHO- and yet nobody has an issue with them. I think people are scared because it’s foreign and “unknown”. I think they use “it’s unsafe” as a statement to back up their xenophobia instead of safety actually being the main issue. Seriously is driving a kei car/truck more dangerous than stradling a motorcycle without seatbelts or an enclosure of any kind?
These are not written in blood though – these rules were written by AAMVA out of pure pearl-clutchiness.
I can bike, motorcycle, or drive a Malaise-era car or a fifties car or whatever. Kei cars are utterly irrelevant, what are there, a couple of thousand in use? No one dailies their kei car, because getting parts for a 25-yo JDM import is often impossible. 90% of them are weekend fun cars, with some being used as farm trucks.
To double down, the banning of kei cars isn’t about safety, and if we reduce the argument to this we miss the forest for the trees and hurt people for no reason. Public safety is a good, and if we want to make roads safer the places to look are daylighting, pedestrians safety, vehicle inspections, licensing requirements, and traffic enforcement. Banning one type of enthusiast vehicle is an irrational place to improve general road safety when the average car on US roads is about 11 years old and pedestrian deaths are increasing.
Why are we arguing about the number of angles on the head of a pin (kei car safety) when what’s at issue is the ballpoint industry (Side by sides) is worried that the fountain point industry (kei cars) is gonna take their business?
I think banning Keis (or really anything importable which passes a standard safety inspection) is stupid for all the reasons listed above. But I also think it’s a pretty reasonable pushback against a very vocal group of anti-car people who’ve settled on Kei trucks as their beloved example of what people should buy. I mean, why try and convert someone from a 3-ton full-size truck to a normal North American sized vehicle with a bed tacked on the back (like a Maverick) when you can insist that a wheeled 6-foot platform with a couple barstools out front that’s as capable of going on the highway as I am of running a marathon is perfectly interchangable for that Ferd Fteenthousand?
TLDR; I liked Kei cars better when it was a niche thing a few beautiful nerds loved as a neat little oddity.
Life is about living, and banning kei cars doesn’t help with that at all. If you want safer roads, make driving education better and actually make having a license mean something.
Honestly, the lack of driver training and the loose requirements to get a license in the US are probably more dangerous than driving a small car. My driving test less than a decade ago was: drive down to the cul-de-sac and follow the curb around the cul-de-sac, turn into a parking lot, parallel park, perform a k-turn, and drive back to the inspection station. That, combined with the lacking inspection requirements (no CEL and emissions within the limits), are likely causing more injuries/death than a kei car ever could.
First off I don’t need my government protecting me from myself. Second there is no consistency, if its legal to drive a motorcycle it should be legal to drive any car.
While I can’t speak to a Skoda 120, a 1966 Beetle or a 1971 Corvette met whatever safety standards were required at the time they were offered for sale new in the United States. Kei class cars were never offered for sale in the states, beyond those off-road use only utility vehicles rebranded as one of the golf cart brands.
I don’t care one way or the other about Kei cars or JDM cars for that matter. There is a dealer around the corner from me who has invested big in an inventory of Keis, and another business that is occupying what was one the oldest VW dealer in the country dabbling in JDM products. I hope they’re recouping their investments or making some money. I just get a chuckle out of most of the same people who always want the newer, safer option to be braying about something that is the opposite.
It’s a weird kink.
Being from the midwest (Chicagoland) and seeing the rusted out hoopties that are only held together by hopes and dreams (or ratchet straps haha) on the road with Illinois, Indiana and Michigan pates I am perfectly fine with Kei cars being on the road as long as it is in areas they keep up with traffic. Shit my dad’s twin has a 1931 Packard that is road legal that he has restored (it has been in the family since the 50s). So you cannot tell me that is safer then a 80s or 90s (and soon to be early 2000s) kei car.
I say yes to a point. I am cool with someone driving an unsafe car but they must be doing it in a safe mater. If seatbelts are available use them and don’t drive like you stole it ect. Here in Michigan we have the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association that pays for health care in really bad car crashes. When someone is doing something stupid like not wearing a motorcycle helmet and ends up in the ER we all have to pay through higher insurance rates. I should not have to pay more money for and moron riding their motorcycle 100 Mph with no helmet and ends up a quad.
The only thing I can think of that would make them less safe than comparably sized other vehicles is being right hand drive in a country that drives on the right. This may be statistically less safe due to driver error. Is there any data out there regarding frequency of accidents when driving a rhd vehicle on a right lane road system or vice versa?
I agree with this.
When I had my ’81 RX-7, I was painfully aware of how dead I’d be if I ever got hit. I wouldn’t be keen on putting my daughter in there.
Instead I opted for my w126, which actually is quite safe, to cart her around in vintage luxury.
The solution is to enjoy my deathtraps solo until she can evaluate those risks for herself, and keep the land barge of protection as the family vintage cruiser.