U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency standards administered by NHTSA have encouraged automakers to build larger vehicles. The bigger the vehicle, the lower the fuel efficiency target it has to meet.
That's some monkeys paw type of shit law
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
534 points (98.4% liked)
News
23310 readers
4858 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
Yeah preverse incentives. When doing the wrong thing makes the most sense for the individual. Happens often in tragedy of the commons situations.
If you hit a pedestrian it is better for you that they die. If you find an endangered animal on your land it is better for you to kill it. If you have a child with someone who makes minimum wage it is better for you to divorce.
Maybe it is too much to expect but for things like this, when public policy experts came up with a standard instead of just inheriting a situation, that they plan for these things in advance. Spend a few moments and look at where the incentives are before just hammering a new policy into place.
If you hit a pedestrian it is better for you that they die
Uh maybe in China. I would not say that in the United States. Manslaughter is a serious charge.
You aren't factoring in civil suits. Someone dead, their family can only get so much. Someone crippled can just keep going after you and might have to as they go into greater and greater levels of debt. What would you do if suddenly your income went down to about 14k USD a year and with each passing day the chances of you returning to work diminished, wouldn't you be desperate enough to try to win some money from the person who did this to you? Wouldn't you go along with any shyster lawyer who promised results?
Recently bought a new diesel silverado 3500 for my ranch. It's enormous, I'm glad I didn't get the dually option as it's hard enough to drive in the city. Most of its job however is pulling trailers around.
That said, on highway if I drive the speed limit and take it easy I can get 9L/100km. It's unreal that such a huge truck will get almost the same economy as our KIA SUV.
I didn't think that sounded right so I looked it up; Chevrolet themselves say it's between 11 and 12 litres/100km
I don't know what Kia you have, but their diesel Sorento SUV averages 6-7 litres/100km, nearly half what your tiny-penis truck uses
Funny also that people pull trailers in every country in the world using much smaller trucks without a problem
You don't need that truck, same way as nobody else on the planet, no matter what their profession, needs it
You don’t need that truck, same way as nobody else on the planet, no matter what their profession, needs it
Please stop this bullshit. There are most certainly reasons to own a truck that can haul big things. Including in Europe. It's just that 90% of the trucks you see in a Costco parking lot don't need to be that way.
I do occasionally see tiny-penis trucks here in Europe. Do you know what I've never, ever seen though? A dirty one. One used for work, rather than just showing off.
If you had to haul something heavy on a trailer, what would you use? A fuel-guzzling, heavy, unreliable shiny trinket, or a Toyota Hilux?
99% of workers with stuff to move use a van. Farmers use pickups like L200s. Accountants drive tiny-penis trucks for the tax break
Explain to me again why American contractors are the only contractors on the entire planet that need giant trucks?
What do those farmers use to move livestock around? Because you're generally looking at a 10,000lbs trailer for that, which is F450 territory.
What you really want to go after is the lower end the truck market. Circa 2002, the Ford Ranger had a curb weight around 3,300 lbs (exact number depending on the trim) and looked like this. The current one is around 4,200 lbs and looks like this. Small trucks have disappeared entirely in the US market, and there's no good reason for it.
But when you start hitting the Ford Superduty market (F250 on up), you're looking at people who actually use their trucks for the most part. They are big because they haul a lot of stuff and they have to be.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
That's Regulatory Capture. Laws made by and for the industry they're supposed to regulate.
No shit.
big thing smash more than small thing, news at 11
The US public has repeatedly demonstrated that it would rather die than make even minor adjustments in their lives. So don't expect anything to get done.
I have been thinking about getting some "Child Killer" stickers to start slapping on trucks that are particularly unsafe and huge. I don't get why in neighborhoods that in all kinds of other ways frowns upon putting kids at risk (no driving fast for example) dumbass men are allowed to own MASSIVE trucks that raise the risk of running a child over by a huge amount and no one shames them.
Time to start shaming these people more.
Go for it! The cost would be pretty inexpensive.
*Edit It's funny how the downvoters aren't okay with a simple sticker, but are okay with two ton vehicles killing more people than usual.
How much could a vandalism charge cost Michael? $10?
load more comments
(9 replies)
Yeah, but "ma freedom"
I have a small truck, and its A pillar has blocked my view of pedestrians more than once. I have to move my head to check. With big vehicles, I imagine there's even more of a problem.
I ran over my friend in high school while driving a Ford Ranger. She is 5'1 but still, if her hands hadn't flopped up in the air I might've killed her. Worst part is, I'd just dropped her off.
Always need to be careful driving a big vehicle. Learned that the hard way.
load more comments
(1 replies)
youdontsay.png
next they’re going to try to tell me tanks are more deadly than four door sedans. does anybody buy this stuff?
I miss pop up headlights
These flat fronted high up ones have made their way to Europe how are they legal
I read that as "Tall trucks, SUVs are 45% deadlier to US presidents, study shows", and was like: how did they do that study?
Maybe it's how they are designed. I've sat in a number of them that have ugly blind spots. Back left is a big problem on a lot of them.
I've responded to a bunch of "car vs pedestrian" calls. With adults a low speed hit is usually some minor injuries like lower legs, arms, etc. If they're hit hard sometimes their head hits the windshield. The victim ends up on top of the hood and rolls off the side or up and over the car.
If it's a truck their injuries are more serious. Hip, rib, shoulder/arm, spine, and head injuries. They get hit high and knocked into the ground -- and sometimes partially or completely run over.
Yes, it is.
Big cars are heavier, taller, and have larger blind spots. The first two make them deadlier in an accident, the last makes it easier to run someone over in a crosswalk, parking lot or driveway.
view more: next ›