this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
892 points (98.9% liked)

News

22625 readers
3636 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 158 points 7 months ago (10 children)

There needs to be regulations on the size of personal vehicles for a shit ton of reasons...

But this one by itself should be enough.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 7 months ago (2 children)

There are… but there are loopholes. Which is why the vehicles get bigger every year. They’re all using loopholes to continue not bothering to meet the standards the regulations set forth.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Loopholes are always going to happen...

But if you close them, then the problem is fixed.

Currently we just ignore them, instead of passing regulations that close the loophole and clarify

We could even go a step further and require plans to be approved by a regulatory agency before mass production can start.

Boom, problem solved forever.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Even better would be if the US switched from "letter of the law" to "spirit of the law" because as it stands, there's a lot of lawmakers just throwing their hands in the air and saying "well they're not breaking the letter of the law, so there's nothing we can do" while completely ignoring that it's clear that the person in question is breaking the spirit of the law when it was written.

It allows for laws to be endlessly re-interpreted, and at this point even the Supreme Court has tossed out the idea of previous decisions actually mattering. They'll just re-interpret every law to be beneficial to their purposes every time they need to re-interpret it.

At a certain point you have to stop and admit the loopholes are being left open on purpose.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you think law has too much room for interpretation when we care about it says, what makes you think anything would improve if we instead cared only about what it meant to say?

The spirit of the law is important in American jurisprudence, but there's a reason that no serious legal academic advocates for abandoning black-letter interpretation: a cornerstone of jurisprudence is predictability. In order to be justly bound by the law, a reasonable person must be able to understand its borders. This gives rise to principles in US law concerning vagueness (vague laws are void ab initio) and due process. We can't always ascertain what the "spirit of the law" is, should be, or was intended to be, but we can always ascertain what the law is. Even in common law and case law, standards must be articulated, and the state must give effect to what is actually said, and not what it wishes had been said. Abandoning this principle in order to "close loopholes" is just inviting bad actors who currently exploit oversights to instead wield unbridled power against ordinary people who could never have even anticipated the danger.

That loopholes are left open deliberately is not a failure of legal interpretation. It's a direct consequence of corruption and regulatory capture. Rewriting American jurisprudence won't solve those problems. Hanging oil magnates and cheaply purchased bureaucrats will.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"loophole" implies that regulators are trying to restrict them, but manufacturers are finding ways to work around those restrictions. There is no "loophole" here: CAFE standards are specifically driving manufacturers to produce larger cars.

CAFE standards gradually tighten emissions standards. The problem is that they tighten the standards on smaller cars faster than on larger cars. CAFE are making it harder and harder to make small, compliant vehicles, and easier to produce larger compliant vehicles.

This isn't a loophole. This is incompetent, counter-productive regulation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 77 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Road taxes should increase after certain dimensions and weights. Bonnet/hood height should be one.

Also, safety ratings should give equal weighting to the a vehicle's impact absorbtion and impact contribution. It's insane that something is considered safe solely because the occupant is protected.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Agreed. They should but there are these Cafe Standards that need to be dealt with. The cars have to be larger to be exempt because we're using wheel base to help determine fuel economy (it should be weight not wheelbase) These exemptions need to go away.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 73 points 7 months ago

, I felt physically threatened just standing next to some of the products

Yes, that’s why they make them like that.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (13 children)

No shit? I forget where I saw the comparison but the length of the view that is blocked when being in a big ass truck is absolutely insane. There could be a gaggle of kids in front of you and you would never know until you hit them.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mentioned this is another comment, but the crazy thing is that's the driver's view from M1 Abrams. Typically, in hatches open operation you'd either have a Crew Commander (and/or gunner) standing with their torso out of the turret for better visibility (and a second set of eyes), or a ground guide watching where you go.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Perhaps we should introduce a commander's hatch to help large pickup trucks safely navigate around neighborhoods.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

Ooh, we should introduce Maritime Pilots to cars!

Just pick up a spotter who knows the territory when you enter a town and they can safely navigate your massive ego truck around the tricky streets.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago

Was seriously considering a pickup as my next car until my partner pointed me to similar research a while back.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

They also seriously injure the people they do hit.

A car tends to hit low and send people onto the hood. A truck hits high (head and torso injuries) and knocks people to the ground where they get run over.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A truck has to have a nose that looks like a big slab of concrete to oncoming traffic. If it doesn't men will be forced to wear dresses, sing show tunes while sitting to pee. Thems the rules.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (10 children)

I sit to pee because I'm lazy. The dresses I wear while belting out ballads from Skykid shows are just to assert my dominance in the workplace.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

It is honestly a major failure of US society (comedians I am looking at you) that people aren’t made fun of for driving these trucks so mercilessly that most people feel too ashamed to drive them.

I mean lots of other failures too, it shouldn’t be legal especially because there is zero reason for the high hood height from a vehicle function perspective. Unless of course you consider your vehicle being more efficient at killing pedestrians a reason to have them that way. I suppose we have entered that stage of things here in the US haven’t we.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (14 children)

Definitely. Builders and contractors in Europe drive vans; same as everyone else on the planet except the insecure yanks. If you pulled up to a site in one of these in any other country, I fuckin guarantee remarks will be made about your penis size and your penchant for the cock

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 7 months ago

This according to a study published in the journal "No Shit Quarterly".

[–] Socsa 38 points 7 months ago (2 children)

But i Like sITTinG uP hIGhEr

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (5 children)

This is a legitimate desire, I think. Being able to see more of what’s ahead is really luxurious and makes the whole driving experience feel safer (for drivers, anyway.) That said, now that every car on the street is a damned SUV, you’d need a damned semi truck to gain any real visibility advantage. Driving a “normal” car is like being the only dwarf in the NBA.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago

Sitting up higher only makes you feel safer. A taller car (especially a hatchback on stilts like most crossovers are) makes you more likely to roll over, and less able to make defensive maneuvers.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago

And sitting higher doesn't necessitate a ridiculously high hood; look at any van ever.

!okay there are probably exceptions but you get my point!<

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My 5 year old son loves Monster Trucks. We walked past one of these behemoth in stock form and he thought it was a monster truck. He wasn't far off.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Try the all new Dodge Pedestrian Rammer.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ford F-150... the best selling child mulcher in the United States.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

Now with optional add on to munch 20% more child per child!

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Pedestrian infrastructure is not typically great either

[–] Grass 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I just biked home and cars were in the bike lane for 90% of it. The plows pulled all the reflectors off the road and now drivers can't tell where the lanes are. Even though that entire lane is the dedicated right turn lane, they go in the bike lane. When we had snow a few days ago, pedestrians were in the road because the snow was plowed into the bike lane and sidewalk. Fuck 99.9% of US and Canadian infrastructure

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago

Trucks like this are like having a huge gut, where you haven't seen your ...uhhh feet for years.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (3 children)

We got rid of pop-up headlights because they were causing pedestrian deaths, but I don't think we'll do anything about these monstrosities because not only are they deadly, they're not fun. And our regulators want to prevent fun more than they want to prevent death.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I hadn't heard this before. How were pop-up headlights killing pedestrians?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A pedestrian’s body doesn’t slide up the hood obstruction-free. It gets mangled by a sconce.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

It's ok though, in about 30 years after 2 million children are dead, we'll make a law that limits the height of hoods, effective 5 years from then.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

We’ll also add exclusions for cars above a certain wheel well distance, which will only further incentivize carmakers to make bigger cars.

/s but not really, because this is literally how emissions regulations work. Emissions regulations are less strict as wheel well distance increases, so larger cars can be less efficient. Which is why car makers have heavily pushed for larger cars via marketing, astroturfing, etc, because it means regulatory compliance is easier.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I'm fairly confident the folks over at [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected], could have told anyone that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_ 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The automotive industry must be jealous of firearms killing so many Americans and beating the annual death toll of vehicles, so they're upping their game to really push us into an increasingly dystopian and dangerous world. How dare you walk or ride a bike!?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Last time I was visiting family in Toronto, I noticed the speed limit on major streets had been lowered to 40 kph (25 mph). So the same as residential streets, in other words.

I asked my brother about this. He said that in spite of measures taken by the city to improve infrastructure, pedestrian and cyclist fatalities were on the way up due to the heavier and higher off the ground vehicles people drive today. The city admitted they did not expect people to drive that slow, but if they could start ticketing people doing over 60, that might save some lives? It's pretty sad.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Pedestrians need to duck, not jump.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They know. And those vehicle owners like to bully people and other cars with that.

Tax it hard like a luxury tax or vice tax.

Call it a Bully Tax so that we can look at them for what they are.

load more comments
view more: next ›