4 ms·

> Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? (1) Many people can't afford larger vehicles. (2) It is a bad idea to make everyone spend more money on tra

> Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? (1) Many people can't afford larger vehicles. (2) It is a bad idea to make everyone spend more money on transportation. (3) Larger vehicles have worse gas mileage and are thus worse for the environment. (4) How do you implement the "baselineing"? Does congress pass a law that says all cars on the road must weigh more than X lbs? Seems like an odd policy. (5) Moving more people to SUVs will increase pedestrian and bike deaths, not decrease. (6) So everyone has a SUV. Won't some people just buy bigger SUVs to regain their previous safety status? Doesn't this just cause a race to the bottom? Why would you want to encourage that?

giantg2 5y ago
I'm not actually advocating this. The other person is saying the mismatch in size/weight is immoral, so SUVs should be banned. I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. That eliminates the mismatch and provides use to the most people.
- mike00632 5y ago
  And also ban walking and bikes you mean?
  - oefnak 5y ago
    Or maybe genetically engineer people to be bigger.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    No, but clearly society has accepted the risks with cars, right? They could change city design be safer, or change the drivers test to be less of a joke. After all people do still die when hit with smaller vehicles. And looking at the study, you cloud just limit speed. Pedestrian outcomes are the same for cars and SUVs under 20 mph.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  That's kind of like saying that instead of denuclearization, let's just make having nuclear warheads the default and everyone else can get warheads too.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  Probably because most modern societies agree that cars serve an extremely useful function that is worth some amount of added public risk. But if SUV purchases are mostly driven by vanity and comfort, it's much harder to morally justify them. Also, banning cars completely simply isn't a realistic policy goal, whereas limiting or eliminating SUVs could plausibly get some political traction. Why let perfect be the enemy of good?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    It's also possible to change city designs to be more safety friendly, or to limit speed (under 20mph has the same outcomes whether it's a car or SUV). These changes would be beneficial across the board and not just for a single vehicle type. These would also be more achievable than trying to eliminate SUVs (the ones on the road currently could last decades).
fho 5y ago
I guess (some) people don't recognize how much gas SUVs guzzle (your point 3). To be fair, gas mileage is a fairly opaque topic, but if anything is clear it is that going faster and having more drag is very bad for your mileage. So going 200 km/h in your SUV (common sight on German Autobahns) is the worst thing you can do.

giantg2 5y ago

I'm not actually advocating this. The other person is saying the mismatch in size/weight is immoral, so SUVs should be banned. I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. That eliminates the mismatch and provides use to the most people.

mike00632 5y ago
And also ban walking and bikes you mean?
- oefnak 5y ago
  Or maybe genetically engineer people to be bigger.
- giantg2 5y ago
  No, but clearly society has accepted the risks with cars, right? They could change city design be safer, or change the drivers test to be less of a joke. After all people do still die when hit with smaller vehicles. And looking at the study, you cloud just limit speed. Pedestrian outcomes are the same for cars and SUVs under 20 mph.
jjeaff 5y ago
That's kind of like saying that instead of denuclearization, let's just make having nuclear warheads the default and everyone else can get warheads too.
SkittyDog 5y ago
Probably because most modern societies agree that cars serve an extremely useful function that is worth some amount of added public risk. But if SUV purchases are mostly driven by vanity and comfort, it's much harder to morally justify them. Also, banning cars completely simply isn't a realistic policy goal, whereas limiting or eliminating SUVs could plausibly get some political traction. Why let perfect be the enemy of good?
- giantg2 5y ago
  It's also possible to change city designs to be more safety friendly, or to limit speed (under 20mph has the same outcomes whether it's a car or SUV). These changes would be beneficial across the board and not just for a single vehicle type. These would also be more achievable than trying to eliminate SUVs (the ones on the road currently could last decades).

fho 5y ago

I guess (some) people don't recognize how much gas SUVs guzzle (your point 3). To be fair, gas mileage is a fairly opaque topic, but if anything is clear it is that going faster and having more drag is very bad for your mileage. So going 200 km/h in your SUV (common sight on German Autobahns) is the worst thing you can do.