5 ms·

> Most states do this already with the registration. Of course there's the second order taxation on the increased fuel usage. Do more of it, then. :) > This s

> Most states do this already with the registration. Of course there's the second order taxation on the increased fuel usage. Do more of it, then. :) > This should be done for all vehicles since the tests are a joke. Agreed, but I still think there is value in even higher standards for larger vehicles, from both a deterrent perspective and a competency one. > Not to mention there's the possibility that the smaller cars involved in the crashes could be at fault (ie not all truck involved crashes are the fault of the truck and increased training just for the larger vehicle won't help them). Also consider that more onerous licensing requirements will (hypothetically) deter people from buying the regulated vehicles, meaning there will be less of them on the road, meaning it's less likely that one will be involved in any given collision. > I don't really see the point of this. If anything the disclaimer would be promoting the safety for the prospective buyer, providing incentive to buy it. If the restrictions are "you cannot advertise them" then I think it would be very effective in slowing or reversing their proliferation. Surely there is some happy medium. > What would that look like beyond the current requirements? I'd probably look at Europe as an example. Beyond that, I might approach the problem by establishing a baseline in certain collision tests with practical and reasonably sized cars that achieve a high safety standard, e.g. frontal pedestrian impact for something Camry-sized, and ban or more stringently regulate any configuration that (when tested) presents a statistically significant relative increase in risk to the other participants in the collision. > I could see some utility in this. Is there any data to show the frequency with which non-illegal modifications where a contributing factor so that cost benefit analysis could be performed? I'm not aware of any such studies. They'd be hard to do comprehensively, since modifications are so variable, but I imagine some straightforward correlations could be proved out with some effort e.g. ride height vs. crash danger. It would be expensive data to gather, but what's a human life worth? We also might consider simply banning certain kinds of modifications, e.g. those that significantly change vehicle geometry relative to stock and/or remove safety features. Roads are public infrastructure, not a private playground, and the onus should be on those who wish to modify their vehicles outside of regulated configurations to prove that they are safe.

giantg2 5y ago
"Do more of it, then. :)" If it's not working, they why continue? At levels where it does work, you will just disadvantage the less wealthy as the people who can afford it will choose to buy it. "Agreed, but I still think there is value in even higher standards for larger vehicles, Also consider that more onerous licensing requirements will (hypothetically) deter people from buying the regulated vehicles, meaning there will be less of them on the road, meaning it's less likely that one will be involved in any given collision." If that's the case, then why not remove commerical trucks altogether since they are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes (11%)? I don't really like the concept of restricting people for the purpose of reducing their freedoms. Boths sides use it on issues they feel should be abolished but are protected (abortion, guns). I'd rather see progress that addresses the real issues than tries to restrict people for the sake of restricting them. It just seems lazy. "If the restrictions are "you cannot advertise them" then I think it would be very effective in slowing or reversing their proliferation. Surely there is some happy medium." How many people actually buy their type of vehicle due to advertising? In my experience, people know they want a sports car, SUV, or truck. "I'd probably look at Europe as an example." To my knowledge, they still allow larger vehicles, but they just aren't as popular. Is there a specific regulation? "practical and reasonably sized cars" This is highly subjective. A truck is a reasonable and practical size if you live on a farm or participate in specific activities. Using this type of language makes it seem like you have bias against larger vehicles. "It would be expensive data to gather, but what's a human life worth?" Why not just ban vehicles altogether if that's the basis? "We also might consider simply banning certain kinds of modifications, e.g. those that significantly change vehicle geometry relative to stock and/or remove safety features." There can be areas where higher ground clearance is required. Many people still live on dirt roads that can be rough. There are also areas with significant snowfall that this can be useful for. Should we also make handicap vans illegal because they're modified. Even then, what if the geometry change is actually beneficial (rebuilding older cars with modern suspensions, or lowering a truck)? I don't think bans are really going to make a difference and would just be a ham-handed "fix". "Roads are public infrastructure, not a private playground, and the onus should be on those who wish to modify their vehicles outside of regulated configurations to prove that they are safe." States do require this. They have safety regulations and many have safety inspections. Again, I think safety mostly hinges on good decisions and I don't see any data suggesting that specific vehicles or modifications will make a significant difference.

giantg2 5y ago

"Do more of it, then. :)" If it's not working, they why continue? At levels where it does work, you will just disadvantage the less wealthy as the people who can afford it will choose to buy it. "Agreed, but I still think there is value in even higher standards for larger vehicles, Also consider that more onerous licensing requirements will (hypothetically) deter people from buying the regulated vehicles, meaning there will be less of them on the road, meaning it's less likely that one will be involved in any given collision." If that's the case, then why not remove commerical trucks altogether since they are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes (11%)? I don't really like the concept of restricting people for the purpose of reducing their freedoms. Boths sides use it on issues they feel should be abolished but are protected (abortion, guns). I'd rather see progress that addresses the real issues than tries to restrict people for the sake of restricting them. It just seems lazy. "If the restrictions are "you cannot advertise them" then I think it would be very effective in slowing or reversing their proliferation. Surely there is some happy medium." How many people actually buy their type of vehicle due to advertising? In my experience, people know they want a sports car, SUV, or truck. "I'd probably look at Europe as an example." To my knowledge, they still allow larger vehicles, but they just aren't as popular. Is there a specific regulation? "practical and reasonably sized cars" This is highly subjective. A truck is a reasonable and practical size if you live on a farm or participate in specific activities. Using this type of language makes it seem like you have bias against larger vehicles. "It would be expensive data to gather, but what's a human life worth?" Why not just ban vehicles altogether if that's the basis? "We also might consider simply banning certain kinds of modifications, e.g. those that significantly change vehicle geometry relative to stock and/or remove safety features." There can be areas where higher ground clearance is required. Many people still live on dirt roads that can be rough. There are also areas with significant snowfall that this can be useful for. Should we also make handicap vans illegal because they're modified. Even then, what if the geometry change is actually beneficial (rebuilding older cars with modern suspensions, or lowering a truck)? I don't think bans are really going to make a difference and would just be a ham-handed "fix". "Roads are public infrastructure, not a private playground, and the onus should be on those who wish to modify their vehicles outside of regulated configurations to prove that they are safe." States do require this. They have safety regulations and many have safety inspections. Again, I think safety mostly hinges on good decisions and I don't see any data suggesting that specific vehicles or modifications will make a significant difference.