5 ms·

Why can't they government fix my pet peeves? This kind of thinking is what's leading us to a prison society without privacy or freedom, one little whiny step a

Why can't they government fix my pet peeves? This kind of thinking is what's leading us to a prison society without privacy or freedom, one little whiny step at a time. The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level.

mbg721 4y ago
American government, to be fair, is hamstrung by design. It is meant to be bad at its job in order to limit the damage it might otherwise cause.
yohannparis 4y ago
I am curious at which level vehicle safety/requirements should be regulated in your opinion?
kixiQu 4y ago
In my household we typically use the phrase "pet peeve" to refer to things that are meaningfully below the impact threshold of killing humans https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-more-dangerous-to-pedestrians-while-turning-than-cars-iihs-says/ https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-m...
- kube-system 4y ago
  The article did not take issue with the safety of large vehicles.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    It should have.
rndmind 4y ago
big trucks are so cliche and should go the way of steam engines, but the government doesn't have the right to limit how big they can be. The registration fee's should be much, much higher. Tragedy of the commons is a real thing, it's not a pet peeve, you disingenuous dumbass
- Geonode 4y ago
  @dang
celtain 4y ago
I know some libertarians are more extreme than others, but I thought it was generally still agreed that the government has a role to play in stopping people from killing other people.
eertami 4y ago
The government built the roads, to a specific specification of assumed car sizes. If cars get so big that they break these assumptions then roads start getting blocked, or you start to have streets that some cars are too big to fit through (already happens in older cities in Europe) - and this would adversely affect other people. What next, are speed limits also leading us to a prison society, because people don't have the freedom to drive at 100mph through the city? It's a shared public infrastructure that needs rules to keep people safe and alive. You could always build your own private roads if you want to be free of these oppressive regulations on the shared public highway.
- samemail88 4y ago
  Exactly, if I can afford it, can I drive a tank around that hogs two lanes? Why is that illegal? Why is nobody protesting the government banning Juul?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  As a society where we all pay for these things, we all get a say. If you want to live in a place where large vehicles are banned, you can always go build your own private roads...
- spoils19 4y ago
  It sounds more like the older cities in Europe are outdated and need to update their aging infrastructure than us Americans need to take drastic action against larger vehicles. Nobody in the US has ever had a problem with large vehicles previously.
  - kixiQu 4y ago
    We didn't have large vehicles in the way we do now. Going back and looking at the sizes of trucks – real, functional, agricultural/construction use pickup trucks – over the decades shows dramatic size increases.
- pandaman 4y ago
  The cars on the road still fit these specifications, you cannot build an arbitrary large car and drive it around. If you really cared about specifications mismatch then the first thing you needed to ban would be buses, each several times bigger and heavier than the biggest SUV offered to consumers.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
It's not really a pet peeve, the government actually subsidizes large vehicles, many of which do a disproportionate amount of roadway damage. So maybe not a restriction, but at least let's end the subsidies. A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. The US is constantly shooting itself in the foot with what I'd argue aren't too many regulations... but regulations prioritizing the wrong things.
- carlmr 4y ago
  >A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. All for it, but this will hurt EVs quite a lot.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    Then continue to subsidize EVs. I will note though, that the EV Hummer weighs nearly 10,000lbs. We're already seeing the same problem.
  - sliken 4y ago
    Sure, a bit, which is fair. Sure maybe EV incentives make sense to burn less gas, but have them pay full share of road wear. A model 3 RWD is 3800 pounds, a somewhat similar sized Toyota Camry is 3,300 pounds. Tesla's just starting to ship the 4680 batteries with their structural battery pack which should decrease the vehicle weight for a given range, which should decrease the weight penalty further.
toss1 4y ago
Nonsense, particularly in this case - the SUV is not some act of god but a result of prior necessary regulation that needs adjustment. The SUV was basically created by the govt when CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Efficiency) standards specified higher fuel efficiency for cars vs "light trucks" (27.5 vs 21mpg, IIRC). So, instead of promoting the previously ubiquitous station wagon as a family-hauler, automakers started promoting the SUV under the "Light Truck" category. The appropriate response is to adjust the rules to account for the unintended consequences, not to simply say "whatever - we shouldn't do anything!". Tho, TBF, the article was also missing these key historical details.
- njarboe 4y ago
  There is also the 25% "Chicken Tax"[1] on imported light trucks started in 1964 and still in force today. Domestic auto manufactures were highly motivated to get the public to buy trucks/SUVs instead of cars for the last 60 years and they did a pretty good job at it. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Chicken%20Tax,issued%20by%20President%20Lyndon%20Johnson https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text....
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Is that why I can't buy a Toyota Hilux?
sebazzz 4y ago
> The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level. Look at where that got the biggest country on the planet.
- spoils19 4y ago
  The biggest economy on the planet? The most free country on the planet?
sliken 4y ago
Sure, but to be fair infrastructure should be "free" to all citizens (like public schools) or some approximation of fair/usage based. The cost of road related infrastructure (roads, highways, parking, tunnels, bridges, etc) and the land consumed by that infrastructure is considerable. I can see flat rate being something like the wear and tear you'd expect from a normal/popular vehicle, like say a honda accord or toyota camry. But if people buy something huge (that takes up more space) and is heavier they should pay more for it to support the increased cost of the wear and tear on the infrastructure. That can be substantial, I believe the wear and tear on a road scales with the 4th power of the weight.

mbg721 4y ago

American government, to be fair, is hamstrung by design. It is meant to be bad at its job in order to limit the damage it might otherwise cause.

yohannparis 4y ago

I am curious at which level vehicle safety/requirements should be regulated in your opinion?

kixiQu 4y ago

In my household we typically use the phrase "pet peeve" to refer to things that are meaningfully below the impact threshold of killing humans https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-more-dangerous-to-pedestrians-while-turning-than-cars-iihs-says/ https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-m...

kube-system 4y ago
The article did not take issue with the safety of large vehicles.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  It should have.

rndmind 4y ago

big trucks are so cliche and should go the way of steam engines, but the government doesn't have the right to limit how big they can be. The registration fee's should be much, much higher. Tragedy of the commons is a real thing, it's not a pet peeve, you disingenuous dumbass

Geonode 4y ago
@dang

celtain 4y ago

I know some libertarians are more extreme than others, but I thought it was generally still agreed that the government has a role to play in stopping people from killing other people.

eertami 4y ago

The government built the roads, to a specific specification of assumed car sizes. If cars get so big that they break these assumptions then roads start getting blocked, or you start to have streets that some cars are too big to fit through (already happens in older cities in Europe) - and this would adversely affect other people. What next, are speed limits also leading us to a prison society, because people don't have the freedom to drive at 100mph through the city? It's a shared public infrastructure that needs rules to keep people safe and alive. You could always build your own private roads if you want to be free of these oppressive regulations on the shared public highway.

samemail88 4y ago
Exactly, if I can afford it, can I drive a tank around that hogs two lanes? Why is that illegal? Why is nobody protesting the government banning Juul?
vorpalhex 4y ago
As a society where we all pay for these things, we all get a say. If you want to live in a place where large vehicles are banned, you can always go build your own private roads...
spoils19 4y ago
It sounds more like the older cities in Europe are outdated and need to update their aging infrastructure than us Americans need to take drastic action against larger vehicles. Nobody in the US has ever had a problem with large vehicles previously.
- kixiQu 4y ago
  We didn't have large vehicles in the way we do now. Going back and looking at the sizes of trucks – real, functional, agricultural/construction use pickup trucks – over the decades shows dramatic size increases.
pandaman 4y ago
The cars on the road still fit these specifications, you cannot build an arbitrary large car and drive it around. If you really cared about specifications mismatch then the first thing you needed to ban would be buses, each several times bigger and heavier than the biggest SUV offered to consumers.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

It's not really a pet peeve, the government actually subsidizes large vehicles, many of which do a disproportionate amount of roadway damage. So maybe not a restriction, but at least let's end the subsidies. A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. The US is constantly shooting itself in the foot with what I'd argue aren't too many regulations... but regulations prioritizing the wrong things.

carlmr 4y ago
>A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. All for it, but this will hurt EVs quite a lot.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Then continue to subsidize EVs. I will note though, that the EV Hummer weighs nearly 10,000lbs. We're already seeing the same problem.
- sliken 4y ago
  Sure, a bit, which is fair. Sure maybe EV incentives make sense to burn less gas, but have them pay full share of road wear. A model 3 RWD is 3800 pounds, a somewhat similar sized Toyota Camry is 3,300 pounds. Tesla's just starting to ship the 4680 batteries with their structural battery pack which should decrease the vehicle weight for a given range, which should decrease the weight penalty further.

toss1 4y ago

Nonsense, particularly in this case - the SUV is not some act of god but a result of prior necessary regulation that needs adjustment. The SUV was basically created by the govt when CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Efficiency) standards specified higher fuel efficiency for cars vs "light trucks" (27.5 vs 21mpg, IIRC). So, instead of promoting the previously ubiquitous station wagon as a family-hauler, automakers started promoting the SUV under the "Light Truck" category. The appropriate response is to adjust the rules to account for the unintended consequences, not to simply say "whatever - we shouldn't do anything!". Tho, TBF, the article was also missing these key historical details.

njarboe 4y ago
There is also the 25% "Chicken Tax"[1] on imported light trucks started in 1964 and still in force today. Domestic auto manufactures were highly motivated to get the public to buy trucks/SUVs instead of cars for the last 60 years and they did a pretty good job at it. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Chicken%20Tax,issued%20by%20President%20Lyndon%20Johnson https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text....
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Is that why I can't buy a Toyota Hilux?

sebazzz 4y ago

> The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level. Look at where that got the biggest country on the planet.

spoils19 4y ago
The biggest economy on the planet? The most free country on the planet?

sliken 4y ago

Sure, but to be fair infrastructure should be "free" to all citizens (like public schools) or some approximation of fair/usage based. The cost of road related infrastructure (roads, highways, parking, tunnels, bridges, etc) and the land consumed by that infrastructure is considerable. I can see flat rate being something like the wear and tear you'd expect from a normal/popular vehicle, like say a honda accord or toyota camry. But if people buy something huge (that takes up more space) and is heavier they should pay more for it to support the increased cost of the wear and tear on the infrastructure. That can be substantial, I believe the wear and tear on a road scales with the 4th power of the weight.