3 ms·

Same with "ultra" and "hyper" cars

by iancmceachern 4y ago

kennywinker 4y ago
Those cars are way worse. It’s not just flashing money around, it’s actively making your wealth other people’s problem. From the noise they make, the extra gas they burn, to having to drive careful around them because you’re going to get sued into oblivion if you fuck them up
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  I've always thought that there should be a property damage liability limit on public roads. If you want to drive a $250k lambo why do I have to buy extra insurance because you brought an expensive toy out to play on vital public infrastructure? Pass the extra liability beyond, say, $100k to the owner of the toy car. If some shitty driver plows into my crappy old car, they are out maybe $3k in property damage. If they happen to hit a supercar, then somehow the same action nets them a liability that could buy them a starter home? Mind you, I live in BC, where there is only one liability insurance company, and they have a government mandate to insure everyone with a license, no matter how bad their driving record is. Which means that every idiot's risk gets spread onto my bill.
user_7832 4y ago
I would actually disagree with this one even though I agree with the overall sentiment. Hypercars are much better than regular/sports cars, and should be considered the atomic clock equivalent to the quartz watch - far more accuracy/performance albeit at a significant literal cost. I do not know the real world implications of hyper cars on fuel consumption (I can't expect it to be very good, but I don't expect too many such vehicles either). For better or for worse there are many more mundane things that can have a much larger improvement for human life (eg reducing food waste).
- fomine3 4y ago
  I believe hypercars are much worse for every practical point like reliability, noise, ... Performance is superior but won't work on most public road.

3 ms·

Same with "ultra" and "hyper" cars

by iancmceachern 4y ago

Same with "ultra" and "hyper" cars

kennywinker 4y ago
Those cars are way worse. It’s not just flashing money around, it’s actively making your wealth other people’s problem. From the noise they make, the extra gas they burn, to having to drive careful around them because you’re going to get sued into oblivion if you fuck them up
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  I've always thought that there should be a property damage liability limit on public roads. If you want to drive a $250k lambo why do I have to buy extra insurance because you brought an expensive toy out to play on vital public infrastructure? Pass the extra liability beyond, say, $100k to the owner of the toy car. If some shitty driver plows into my crappy old car, they are out maybe $3k in property damage. If they happen to hit a supercar, then somehow the same action nets them a liability that could buy them a starter home? Mind you, I live in BC, where there is only one liability insurance company, and they have a government mandate to insure everyone with a license, no matter how bad their driving record is. Which means that every idiot's risk gets spread onto my bill.
user_7832 4y ago
I would actually disagree with this one even though I agree with the overall sentiment. Hypercars are much better than regular/sports cars, and should be considered the atomic clock equivalent to the quartz watch - far more accuracy/performance albeit at a significant literal cost. I do not know the real world implications of hyper cars on fuel consumption (I can't expect it to be very good, but I don't expect too many such vehicles either). For better or for worse there are many more mundane things that can have a much larger improvement for human life (eg reducing food waste).
- fomine3 4y ago
  I believe hypercars are much worse for every practical point like reliability, noise, ... Performance is superior but won't work on most public road.