Affordability Angst, and a Scapegoat Nobody Asked For
Echoes of old policy fights come roaring back here—every time car prices spike, somebody points at safety rules like they’re the boogeyman under the bed (and, yeah, it kinda ticks me off). Lawmakers have been poking at features like Auto Emergency Braking, and the broader affordability debate has gotten tangled up in politics and posturing. But Daniel Greene, the Senior Director of Consumer Protection and Product Safety Policy at the National Consumers League, isn’t buying the “safety made it expensive” line, not even a little. He calls federal safety and fuel economy standards a “convenient scapegoat,” basically because they don’t deliver the same return as shiny luxury, convenience, and tech add-ons. And honestly, that tracks—if you’ve watched how automakers upsell, you’ve seen this movie before, right?
Greene points to his organization’s report saying federal safety standards accounted for just 3% of the total cost increase between 2002 and 2019. Three percent. That’s not the monster in the closet. From where I sit, the bigger beasts are what he calls “trimflation” (nudging folks up the trim ladder, ya know, step by step) and the “shifting of vehicle mix.” Translation: fewer basic, no-frills options, more pricey configurations, and you’re left holding the bag. A shareholder sucker punch for buyers, and it’s huge, absolutely huge, when you’re staring at monthly payments.
Do Standards Kill Choice, or Does Packaging?
Here’s the part that gets weird, sort of like a corporate drama episode where everyone claims they’re the hero. People ask whether safety rules reduce consumer choice, and Greene’s answer is blunt: regulations matter because nobody “chooses” to be on the wrong end of a drunk driver, distracted motorist, or plain old driver error. That’s not a lifestyle decision. It’s a risk you inherit the second you roll onto public roads (and that’s the point). Safety features protect occupants, sure, but also other motorists. What’s not to like about that—unless you’re trying to sell the same protection only as a premium upgrade?
Greene also argues that safety features often don’t spread broadly until rules push them into the mainstream. Without standards, he says consumers would actually have fewer chances to buy vehicles equipped with the safety and efficiency features they want. And then he drops the real jab: the very industry complaining that federal standards limit choice is, at the same time, opposing legislation that would let consumers purchase optional safety features à la carte. Instead, features like ADAS suites get tied to higher trims or bundled with luxury bits. That bundling? Smells fishy. Because why make safety easy to pick when you can use it to steer people into pricier packages?
Auto Emergency Braking: Cost Driver, or Easy Punching Bag?
Suddenly, we’re at the heart of it: does Auto Emergency Braking drive costs up for manufacturers? Greene’s line is that NHTSA is only permitted to set a safety standard if benefits outweigh costs. That’s not some casual vibe; it’s the gatekeeping rule. And his organization’s analysis concludes the net benefits attributable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) between 1968 and 2019 were close to $12.8 trillion in today’s money. That’s a jaw-dropper, even if you’re skeptical by nature (I am). Big number. Big claim. But it’s grounded in their analysis, not a marketing slogan.
“In 2025 alone, FMVSS that came into effect between 1968 and 2019 generated $5,164.51 in net societal benefits per household,” Greene said.
He adds another punchy stat: for every dollar spent on adopting safety standards, the net benefit generated for society was over $24. To my mind, that’s the sort of ratio you don’t hand-wave away with a shrug. Could it still feel expensive at the sticker? Sure. But if you’re only staring at the price tag and ignoring the avoided wrecks, injuries, and chaos (plus the ripple effects), you’re missing the whole ledger. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket—cost isn’t the only basket worth watching.
Fuel Economy Rules: Wallet Math Meets Health Math
Greene ties fuel economy standards to pollution and healthcare costs, saying improved standards reduce harmful pollutants and lower healthcare expenses. He points out that vehicles that burn more gasoline generally emit more harmful pollutants—no kidding—and those pollutants raise risks like heart attack, respiratory illness, and cancer. He cites the EPA estimate that model year 2027 to 2032 standards will save $13 billion annually in public health expenditures due to improved air quality. Now, I’ll gripe a little: it’s maddening how these benefits get treated like invisible ink because they don’t show up as a line item on the dealer worksheet.
Then there’s the ownership-side savings. Greene says owners of model year 2024 cars save, on average, $9,099.75 in avoided gasoline expenditures, and owners of model year 2024 light trucks save, on average, $9,920.23. That’s real money. Not a flash in the pan. It’s the kind of savings that can keep a household from sweating every fuel price jump (and amid all this economic uncertainty, who isn’t sweating something?).
What Automakers Could Do, and the Tariff Gut-Punch
Greene’s advice to the industry is pretty straightforward: expand production of more affordable, entry-level trims, and double down on robust safety and fuel economy standards. He notes vehicle expenses take nearly twice the share of household budgets compared to what’s dedicated to just paying for a new or used vehicle—meaning the total cost of keeping a car going is the heavyweight, not just the initial purchase. And he argues the “modest” price increase tied to safety standards is dramatically eclipsed by the benefits. I’d wager a lot of families would agree if the choices on the lot didn’t keep sliding upscale, year after year, like a slow-motion cash grab.
Now, tariffs. This is where Greene stops being polite and starts swinging. He says estimates suggest tariffs have increased the price of new passenger vehicles by $3,000—nearly equivalent to the cost of all safety, fuel economy, and equipment upgrades made since 2002. That’s wild, and it’s also the kind of thing that makes shoppers feel like they’re trying to hit the jackpot just to find a reasonable deal. Greene criticizes the administration’s tariffs, saying it’s losing the affordability argument and is desperate to blame anything other than its policies. And me? I’ll just say it: watching safety take the blame while bigger pricing levers get shrugged off is the kind of nonsense that makes my coffee taste bitter.
Hang on a sec—where does that leave everyday buyers? If you want affordability, you chase real drivers: trim strategy, vehicle mix, and policy choices that add thousands. If you want safety, you don’t treat it like an optional garnish that only comes with leather seats. Cutting the BS, the best “choice” is having safer tech available without being forced into a higher trim. Otherwise, you’re paying for a bundle you didn’t ask for, and the market’s thrill ride outdoes any theme park—fun for exactly nobody.
