5 ms·

We could take these vehicles off the road. They have to be registered with the state department of motor vehicles. Either charge them a differentially higher

by mslate 4y ago

We could take these vehicles off the road. They have to be registered with the state department of motor vehicles. Either charge them a differentially higher vehicle registration fee, or ban them outright. Another front is questioning whether car insurance rates reflect the real legal liability that drivers of these vehicles incur? If they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?

chongli 4y ago
We could take these vehicles off the road. That’s a political non-starter in the U.S. You’d have better luck taking away personal firearms.
- justinator 4y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that protects one's right to own and drive a car (there is for owning firearms). But car ownership is seen as a right, rather than a privilege, and that comes with it a hugely entrenched feeling of entitlement, privilege, and exceptionalism. A way to feel this is to go car-free for a week in the US. Some places are easier than others. But compare this to going car-free for a week in Europe. It will probably be a much different experience for most places in Europe, as compared to the US.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Driving at all is specifically and overtly considered a privilege and not a right by the law. We are told that more than once on our way to getting a license. I would be in favor of governments taking that more seriously.
    - justinator 4y ago
      It takes a lot to lose one's driver's license. You can be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter and the idea of losing a license is seen as inhumane - as if that's what's going to ruin one's life. "How will they get to work? How will they do any other daily activity? We couldn't do that to them!"
    - dancingvoid 4y ago
      What makes you think that rights come from “the law”? Do you think that because some people you never met wrote something on a piece of paper, it becomes right or wrong? What if those people that wrote it believe that killing babies is good for the environment? Is it okay now?
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        You're conflating two different things -- the law, and the concepts of right and wrong. But the majority of the things people think of as "rights" do, in fact, come from the law. "The law" is just us collectively deciding what the rules we live by are. There is a small set of fundamental human rights, but that's a bit of a different thing and I think it's very hard to argue that driving a vehicle on public roads is one of them.
        dancingvoid 4y ago
        I reject that anyone else can tell me what rules to live by. I only respect other peoples requests if they claim and show that my actions are causing harm. Otherwise, the “collective” is just a bunch of people I never met ganging up and telling me how to live my life at the point of a gun. And they don’t even have the courage to hold the gun themselves in most cases but go crying to father government to punish people they don’t agree with. I define “rights” as what I may do morally, not a code, act, statue or “collective” decision. Words can have multiple meanings. What you are calling rights, I am calling arbitrary rules made by other people against my will. Edit to reply to below: I am that I am. I don’t take titles like anarchist, but sure, that’s a decent title if you insist. Anarchy isn’t a system. It’s just a word. It means no rulers. I don’t think that we should abolish the government (nor could we, it doesn’t exist), I just wish people would grow up morally, so we (conscious beings) didn’t feel the need to play ruler and ruled. I wish to see a world where each being understands morality and what is right and wrong “to the bones” or “from the soul”, so the idea of abstracting away and externalizing our morality and violence was no longer the accepted normal.
        JohnFen 4y ago
  - dancingvoid 4y ago
    Rights don’t come from the constitution. They just are. If someone is not causing harm, then there is no harm being done. Doing (or threatening) violence against people you may think will cause harm using “the government” seems to be more and more popular every day. Edit since I can’t reply further down: “Reproductive rights” as you call them are also something that doesn’t come from laws or the constitution, whether the constitution protects it or not. Regardless of one’s moral standing, it is never up to other people to decide what is right or wrong for me. That is for me to decide. My rights end when I cause harm to another being, as as defined by the other being who claims to be harmed. No government or papers are needed.
    - justinator 4y ago
      Well, I wrote rights protected by the Constitution. Reproductive rights aren't protected by the Constitution, and look what happened there.
    - alamortsubite 4y ago
      "Doing and threatening violence" seems to encapsulate the American fetish for pickup trucks nicely.
      - dancingvoid 4y ago
        Haha you’re not wrong. That gave me a good laugh. I do wish fewer people would operate such large machines in cities.
asdfadsfgfdda 4y ago
Private car insurance companies are pretty sophisticated, so they certainly know if a certain vehicle is causing higher claims and will price accordingly. But, IMHO, the legal minimum liability insurance policy is way too low. A serious car accident could easily cause millions in personal injury damage. Most US states require only ~$50k personal injury coverage.
- WirelessGigabit 4y ago
  35K in CA. So don't hit that Rolls in Los Angeles.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Exponentially scaling property taxes and especially moving violation fines for heavier vehicles seems like a great way to align incentives. The heavier the vehicle, the more-strongly you're encouraged to drive safely (which makes sense, as heavier vehicles are more dangerous); if you have multiple vehicles, it encourages you to use lighter ones unless you really need a heavy one for a given trip; and they'd remain a viable option for safe drivers who really need one (but even those drivers would be encouraged to get the smallest one that'll get the job done).
CalRobert 4y ago
"if they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?" Typically the dead child is held liable.
mikrotikker 4y ago
We could take pushbikes off the road. It's too dangerous for our soft squishy bodies to not be encased in faux leather and crumple zones. Since most people need to get from a to b in a shorter time and potentially carrying goods, maybe its safer to remove cyclists from the roads for their own protection. After all its not just SUVs that pose a danger to cyclists. Don't worry though, we will still be able to ride our bicycles at dedicated bike parks where motorised vehicles aren't allowed.

by mslate 4y ago

chongli 4y ago

We could take these vehicles off the road. That’s a political non-starter in the U.S. You’d have better luck taking away personal firearms.

justinator 4y ago
I don't disagree with you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that protects one's right to own and drive a car (there is for owning firearms). But car ownership is seen as a right, rather than a privilege, and that comes with it a hugely entrenched feeling of entitlement, privilege, and exceptionalism. A way to feel this is to go car-free for a week in the US. Some places are easier than others. But compare this to going car-free for a week in Europe. It will probably be a much different experience for most places in Europe, as compared to the US.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Driving at all is specifically and overtly considered a privilege and not a right by the law. We are told that more than once on our way to getting a license. I would be in favor of governments taking that more seriously.
  - justinator 4y ago
    It takes a lot to lose one's driver's license. You can be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter and the idea of losing a license is seen as inhumane - as if that's what's going to ruin one's life. "How will they get to work? How will they do any other daily activity? We couldn't do that to them!"
  - dancingvoid 4y ago
    What makes you think that rights come from “the law”? Do you think that because some people you never met wrote something on a piece of paper, it becomes right or wrong? What if those people that wrote it believe that killing babies is good for the environment? Is it okay now?
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      You're conflating two different things -- the law, and the concepts of right and wrong. But the majority of the things people think of as "rights" do, in fact, come from the law. "The law" is just us collectively deciding what the rules we live by are. There is a small set of fundamental human rights, but that's a bit of a different thing and I think it's very hard to argue that driving a vehicle on public roads is one of them.
      - dancingvoid 4y ago
        I reject that anyone else can tell me what rules to live by. I only respect other peoples requests if they claim and show that my actions are causing harm. Otherwise, the “collective” is just a bunch of people I never met ganging up and telling me how to live my life at the point of a gun. And they don’t even have the courage to hold the gun themselves in most cases but go crying to father government to punish people they don’t agree with. I define “rights” as what I may do morally, not a code, act, statue or “collective” decision. Words can have multiple meanings. What you are calling rights, I am calling arbitrary rules made by other people against my will. Edit to reply to below: I am that I am. I don’t take titles like anarchist, but sure, that’s a decent title if you insist. Anarchy isn’t a system. It’s just a word. It means no rulers. I don’t think that we should abolish the government (nor could we, it doesn’t exist), I just wish people would grow up morally, so we (conscious beings) didn’t feel the need to play ruler and ruled. I wish to see a world where each being understands morality and what is right and wrong “to the bones” or “from the soul”, so the idea of abstracting away and externalizing our morality and violence was no longer the accepted normal.
        JohnFen 4y ago
- dancingvoid 4y ago
  Rights don’t come from the constitution. They just are. If someone is not causing harm, then there is no harm being done. Doing (or threatening) violence against people you may think will cause harm using “the government” seems to be more and more popular every day. Edit since I can’t reply further down: “Reproductive rights” as you call them are also something that doesn’t come from laws or the constitution, whether the constitution protects it or not. Regardless of one’s moral standing, it is never up to other people to decide what is right or wrong for me. That is for me to decide. My rights end when I cause harm to another being, as as defined by the other being who claims to be harmed. No government or papers are needed.
  - justinator 4y ago
    Well, I wrote rights protected by the Constitution. Reproductive rights aren't protected by the Constitution, and look what happened there.
  - alamortsubite 4y ago
    "Doing and threatening violence" seems to encapsulate the American fetish for pickup trucks nicely.
    - dancingvoid 4y ago
      Haha you’re not wrong. That gave me a good laugh. I do wish fewer people would operate such large machines in cities.

asdfadsfgfdda 4y ago

Private car insurance companies are pretty sophisticated, so they certainly know if a certain vehicle is causing higher claims and will price accordingly. But, IMHO, the legal minimum liability insurance policy is way too low. A serious car accident could easily cause millions in personal injury damage. Most US states require only ~$50k personal injury coverage.

WirelessGigabit 4y ago
35K in CA. So don't hit that Rolls in Los Angeles.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Exponentially scaling property taxes and especially moving violation fines for heavier vehicles seems like a great way to align incentives. The heavier the vehicle, the more-strongly you're encouraged to drive safely (which makes sense, as heavier vehicles are more dangerous); if you have multiple vehicles, it encourages you to use lighter ones unless you really need a heavy one for a given trip; and they'd remain a viable option for safe drivers who really need one (but even those drivers would be encouraged to get the smallest one that'll get the job done).

CalRobert 4y ago

"if they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?" Typically the dead child is held liable.

mikrotikker 4y ago

We could take pushbikes off the road. It's too dangerous for our soft squishy bodies to not be encased in faux leather and crumple zones. Since most people need to get from a to b in a shorter time and potentially carrying goods, maybe its safer to remove cyclists from the roads for their own protection. After all its not just SUVs that pose a danger to cyclists. Don't worry though, we will still be able to ride our bicycles at dedicated bike parks where motorised vehicles aren't allowed.