- cross-posted to:
- fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Okay we get rid of them but then how will closeted gays solicit without being found out?
In before all the folks who argue that people want this thing and therefore they must be made
All hat, no cattle
Welcome to 30 years ago. This is the least new news I’ve seen in ages!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
American car buyers can’t get enough big, tall SUVs and trucks — but new data suggests that the downsides of this trend are growing increasingly deadly.
It also comes at a time when the auto industry is embracing bigger, more brutish designs for its SUVs and trucks, reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash.
There have been numerous studies and investigations examining how tall, flat-nosed trucks and SUVs are more likely to cause serious injury and death when they hit pedestrians.
Larger bodies and higher carriages mean pedestrians are more likely to suffer deadly blows to the head and torso, as opposed to the legs when struck by a shorter vehicle.
And front blind zones associated with large trucks and SUVs have contributed to the injury and death of hundreds of children across the country, studies have shown.
Recently, NHTSA said it would update its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), also known as the five-star safety rating, to include advanced driver-assistance system features like automatic emergency braking, blind-spot detection, and lane-keep assistance.
The original article contains 708 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Cars have been killing us for a long time.
I threw this in another chat talking about this, but some of these vehicles have poorer forward visibility than a literal fucking Abrams tank.
Driven by the exact same douche bags hoarding the guns that are killing us
Obligatory 'We need to diversify transportation options" comment.
Pedestrians should not be allowed outside without high vis, a helmet, and flashing lights after dark. Youngsters should never be permitted to be outside since they are invisible to motor vehicles.
In my experience, I’ve noted that truck drivers are on avg more likely to be shitty egotistical drivers.
I think it’s bc they have small dicks, and they feel safe in their giant metal death machine. Nice n cozy, perfectly ready to tailgate a Mazda MX-5
Sadly, we cannot really ban them as they are utility vehicles that a small portion of the population needs. However, I still see freakin’ ads that frame them as fancy cars.
“The new Amarok V6. Pick-up truck for every day. Powerful and comfortable”I suggest making it illegal to buy them without a registered company or have them in any color other than matte excavator yellow (for construction) or green camo (for hunting and forestry).
I disagree on all accounts. Instead of banning/restricting trucks, we should instead make them less convenient and more expensive. So:
- restructure cities to be transit and pedestrian first, not traffic first - see The Netherlands
- charge vehicle registration fees based on curb weight, since heavier vehicles destroy roads more; multiply this by miles driven, less any documentation the owner has about driving on private land
- charge an extra fee for vehicles falling net mpg targets; don’t special case SUVs and trucks, just tax them (and have certain exceptions to the tax, like if you actually use the higher passenger capacity of minivans, have a farm, etc)
The taxes would go toward pedestrian and transit infrastructure to offset the lower efficiency and greater danger larger vehicles pose.
They’re already expensive and inconvenient.
The problem is that (many) Americans are emotionally unfulfilled consumers first and contributing members of their communities second, or third… or last, if at all.
Most of the people driving these vehicles only care about themselves. They’ll removed and moan about these restrictions you’d like but they’ll still buy them because their egos are so utterly fragile.
And for those who have legit reasons to operate one of these vehicles, we’ll end up subsidizing the commercial fees as write offs with taxpayer dollars.As with many hot topic issues, it’s easy to apply band-aids detrimental to one group while appeasing another group – but the core of the issue still remains.
I’d argue that Americans are poorly compensated for their labor, our culture applauds those who work the hardest for the least reward, the family and community structures are sacrificed in exchange for appearing financially powerful. Our culture is about what you’ve acquired, not what you’ve given (other than your time). A big truck says you’ve acquired a lot.
Regulations for corporations permit them to grow and advertise without enough accountability – specifically in how their “freedom of speech” impacts the perception and lives of everyday Americans. Corporations are motivated by profits and returns more than they are consumer satisfaction or safety. As long as consumers keep believing these big trucks are what they need to show how much they’ve acquired, how financially powerful they are, vehicle makers will keep increasing prices while reducing costs to get a better return on Wall Street investments.
we’ll end up subsidizing the commercial fees as tax write offs with taxpayer dollars
That’s not really how it works though. All that does is move money from one bucket into another. Yeah, maybe your federal income tax receipts will go down marginally, but you’ll need to allocate less of your budget to infrastructure since that’s being funded by the tax.
It’s really not an issue.
the core of the issue still remains
A huge part of the core of the issue is our car-centric culture, as in we’ve equated driving a car with freedom somehow such that waiting in traffic is preferable to sitting on a train actually getting somewhere because you’re in your car.
To solve that, we need to drastically change city centers to be inconvenient to navigate by car. We do this by eliminating car corridors in cities, which pushes cars to the outside along a belt routes. Every part of the city is still accessible by car , it just takes longer. This allows lots of good things to happen, such as:
- lower taxes - fewer roads means less road maintenance
- safer streets for pedestrians, cyclists, etc
- more room for parks and other green space
- longer distance, high speed rail travel becomes cost effective - you’d need to ride an airplane (with the security nonsense) far less frequently
Once people no longer need cars to get around, the culture can change. That’s precisely what happened in the Netherlands (they used to be very car centric), and it can happen elsewhere too.
People will always want status symbols, but perhaps they’ll pick more environmentally friendly ones if cars aren’t as central to the culture, such as jewelry or designer clothing. Ideally they’d pick fully funded retirement accounts instead, but that’s not as flashy.
Corporations are motivated by profits
And that’ll always be true.
Instead of trying to restrict how they can make profits (they’ll just lobby for carveouts in any regulation that impacts them), governments should instead try to change the demand side of the equation. For example:
- If large cars are causing issues, redo the roads so big cars are less convenient. Also raise gas taxes, registration taxes, etc.
- If suburbs are causing too much sprawl, increase property taxes, build more high density housing, and build commuter rail to other dense cities.
And along with all this, government agencies should be producing high quality research to present to the populace in an effective way (hire an actual marketing team, don’t just publish papers).
The trick is to get the ball rolling. Someone needs to pilot these ideas to show they work, then others will follow suit.
huge part of the core of the issue is our car-centric culture, as in we’ve equated driving a car with freedom somehow such that waiting in traffic is preferable to sitting on a train actually getting somewhere because you’re in your car.
I’m sorry but you already lost me right here. This is an ignorant ideology in this vast country. I live in a city and don’t own a car, so I appreciate the sentiment (big fan of a Climate Town and Not Just Bikes). But man, it’s just ignorant.
As I said, no one cares about increased costs. Taxes are good for funding programs, not so much for restricting stuff.
If you think suburbs are cheaper to live than cities, you really are in need of some perspective. You think people want to live in cities? Or are you suggesting we force people to move to cities? Whut?People, sorry, Americans don’t want better public transportation or infrastructure. They want better ways to travel by themselves in large cars with the greatest convenience.
Again, I appreciate the idea that we need better public transportation and infrastructure (especially as I have travel for the holidays coming up). You’re just not going to ‘legislate away’ people’s desire to be independent. It’s the epitome of the United States’ culture.
I mean, you’ve got a better argument if you make claims that we should bring factory jobs back to inner-cities. That, or something similar, motivates populations to engage with cities at all and creates the demand for better transportation infrastructure. But most people already don’t need the cars they have. They buy their four door pick up truck for that one time they might need the capacity of the course of ownership. I’d venture to guess most sedan owners don’t ever even carry more than one passenger.
Granted, historically, persistent high gas prices have driven people to downsize their vehicles. So there’s some evidence that this has the desired effect. But legislators aren’t going to do this as a tax to force the public to buy smaller cars. They’re more motivated by generating profits for car makers so they can employ more people (in theory). Still, I think it’s up for debate if people would choose a smaller car or the same big car with a smaller (or electric) engine.
They are already expensive. People feel it is ok to have an insane monthly truck payment because they must have a massive truck.
In this region, forestry vehicles are either regular-green (more ‘crayola’ than ‘olive’) or just plain white.
The only people who drive camo trucks here are prepper weirdos or hunter rambos.
It’s trivial to setup a company. That’s not a real block.
Now, some kind of graduated licensing standard (below a CDL, but above the current standard), absolutely.
ah, must be that famous capitalist innovation I keep hearing about
Why do people feel the need to have a $60K+ massive behemoth? 99% of the time if I glance in the bed it is spotless. It is probably only used for commuting and carrying groceries. It might haul a load of mulch once a year. The things are so high that if they hit a car they are going to ride up over the hood and crush you. At least my state finally got its act together and banned those goddamn frontend lifted trucks that made it impossible to see anything within 50 ft and guaranteed a deadly collision. Now I know someone will say “But I need it for my building job/farm/etc”, you are the exception, the vast majority sold are not being used for that.
“reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash” Sounds like an arms race. Soon we will be driving armored personnel carriers.
It is bad enough they make them with ridiculously loud exhausts as bad as muscle cars and fart exhausts. Electric cars and trucks quieting everything can’t come fast enough.
A big part of the problem is that they just don’t make small affordable trucks anymore.
The tiny little Ford ranger of the 90s used to be the cheapest car at a Ford dealership. The current ranger is only a couple inches smaller than the f150 and costs a couple grand less, if you can even find one.
There’s clearly some demand for small trucks, too. I’ve been seeing an increasing number of imported kei trucks around me.
I had a 1986 Mazda B2000 for a while. Very useful, tough little thing, even though it only had like 75hp.
You know the answer. It’s insecure man children.
I have a simple question for people: if the truck bed can’t hold an eight foot wooden stud without half of it sticking out the back, why do you have a truck?
My dad always said that it should fit an 4x8 sheet of plywood laying down. Also that if you don’t need to haul 4x8 sheets of plywood on the regular then you probably don’t need a truck.
I’ve never owned a truck, and there honestly hasn’t been mant times when my Mazda 3 wont do. . Six drawer dresser - check. Queen size mattress-check. Hockey bags and kids- check. Visitors from the airport and luggage- check. Ikea furniture-sometimes sticks out the back.
