this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
638 points (98.2% liked)

News

23305 readers
5390 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 112 points 9 months ago (4 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.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 53 points 9 months ago (4 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.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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 (3 replies)
[–] SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

There needs to be a social cost of owning these abominations. If we make it more expensive or more regulated, they'll still find the people who want to drive them. If we make them embarrassing, shameful, or otherwise costly in social standing, the market for them will soon collapse.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Other countries require a special license for vehicles that big.

It costs more, and requires frequent tests, written and driving. The large vehicles are also prohibited from driving down small side streets and using normal parking spaces.

Because at this size, they're only needed as commercial vehicles.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wodge@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I live in Basel, Switzerland, lovely old city, very unfriendly to cars, which is fine due to the great public transit. There is this one dickhead who has a bright, shiny red Dodge Ram. It's monstrous. And it doesn't fuckin' fit in the streets, I'd love to see how much in fines that idiot has had for blocking trams, traffic, and all the other nonsense I've seen it do, was actually stuck in traffic once because it got stuck on a corner, took 30 mins to get it backed up and out of the way.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (6 children)

The conservative Supreme Court is about to make that a lot harder in a few days. Get ready for the Canonaro to be real.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 58 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

[–] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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

[–] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

I haven't given it much thought before but you're right, that is insane.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MiDaBa@lemmy.ml 53 points 9 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.

[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (9 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 (9 replies)
[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 49 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (11 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.

[–] pageflight@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

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

[–] oatscoop@midwest.social 7 points 9 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 (9 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 34 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Wodge@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But they need their Emotional Support Vehicles!

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Refer to them as Gender Affirming Care, and watch the fragile pavement princesses lose their minds. Why do you drive the truck? Cuz you feel like it’s what a real man would drive? Congrats, that’s gender affirming care.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Bonus points if that truck has never seen a day of real truck work.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But i Like sITTinG uP hIGhEr

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (2 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.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 19 points 9 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.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 9 points 9 months ago

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.

Get one of those Google Street View cars with the 360 degree cameras on a pole and wear VR goggles or something.

[–] quinkin@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Try the all new Dodge Pedestrian Rammer.

[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 8 points 9 months ago

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

[–] bc1@lemmy.l0l.city 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Pedestrian infrastructure is not typically great either

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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 (1 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago (2 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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

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

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's 1998 Global Technical Regulation Number 9 deals with pedestrian safety sets out how countries should test the pedestrian safety of vehicle exteriors. The U.K.'s Individual Vehicle Approval framework, which is based on the aforementioned Global Technical Regulation, limits the size and presence of sharp edges on any surface where a pedestrian or cyclist is likely to impact in the event of a collision. According to the U.K. regulation, protrusions greater than 5 mm (0.195 inches) must have a radius of at least 2.5 mm (0.098 inches), and further rules prohibit protrusions on which pedestrians could get caught in the event on an impact. These and other regional E.U. laws made it prohibitively difficult to engineer pop-up headlights into a vehicle.

They weren't killing people, I don't think, but they were unnecessarily sharp protrusions. They can still be used, but you have to make them roundish and smooth, which is tougher to accomplish with a flush-with-hood-look. It's more that to meet EU regulations, they would look uglier.

I think the bigger issue isn't death but simply that you can get caught on them, instead of rolling over the vehicle, which causes less harm.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I'm fairly confident the folks over at !fuck_cars@lemmy.ml, !fuck_cars@lemmy.world, and !fuck_cars@lemmy.ca, could have told anyone that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pedestrians need to duck, not jump.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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)
[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

[–] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So cool. I'm gonna get an aftermarket hood height riser on my Ferd Fteenthousand

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›