- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Sounds about right for SUV drivers
“unfazed by risks for pedestrians” would have been more accurate though.
Sell me a properly, >22cm ground clearance station wagon with 1.8 tons of towing in fully electric and I’ll buy it. And no, I have decided, I am not going back to a used ICE car.
We had that kind of cars, they have gone the way of the dodo.
So, it’s either some dumb electric SUV with no ground clearance at all or the electric Audi SUV that I have now with at least the airride that I can lift going offroad.
Apart from that: This right here is a glaringly visible example, but all over their lives, people make decisions based on tribal closeness. Everybody using something from China accepts slave labour or at least extremly unfavorable working conditions for some unknown people. Everybody wearing brand sneakers (and offbrand sneakers) accepts some kids manufacturing them instead of going to school. Every chicken nugget from a fast food chain includes extremely bad living condictions for the contents of the nugget before being puréed and fried.
Imho, all of this should be questioned from time to time and usually not having/eating/experiencing something is the honest answer that everybody has to work out for themselves. Feeling extremely superior because one’s own answers differ from the the next person’s answers is not something I can see anything good coming out of, for the entire society.
The findings indicate that if governments want to reduce the number of large, dangerous vehicles on the roads, it is likely to require financial penalties, according to the psychologists at Swansea University who led the research.
Much of the risk comes from their higher and blunter front ends.
Why would you try to deter someone?
If the front of a vehicle is sufficiently unsafe that it shouldn’t be out there, just update safety standards to require a safer front.
I can’t think, offhand, of any instance where the accepted approach to dealing with an auto safety issue is to increase prices.
Not specifically for car safety, but there are some other things where governments try to reduce dangerous or unhealthy things by making them more expensive rather than outright banning them. Main difference is that those usually are addictive, e.g. alcohol and tobacco, which makes a strict ban very hard to enforce; should be a lot easier for needlessly dangerous cars.
How should Trucks than be handled? I don’t like big SUVs as the next one, but increasing price does nothing but outright banning them is also a bit odd while there are big trucks on the road. At least for trucks you would need another drivers license. That might be an interesting option. Higher licenses with more frequent and more rigorous testing and requirements. That might be a better deterrent and also makes those who drive it a safer driver?
Yeah uuhh thats exactly what i expect from the kind of people that buy SUVs. Lack of empathy is a defining feature for them.
Well because of course they are a safe and sensible driver, it’s just everyone else on the road who those warnings are for
You might have a better chance in a crash if you’re in the bigger vehicle. You need to watch out for yourself before thinking about the others? Not that easy to regulate, especially with the need to have even bigger trucks for transport.
One word: regulation
and all of that to drive a “Sports-Utility-Vehicle” that isnt half as sporty or utilitarian as an old Volvo wagon XD
Shocker.
I do appreciate that you need studies even for stuff that seems obvious … but man, duh. If you weren’t egoistic, you wouldn’t be driving unnecessarily large and expensive cars.
