3 ms·
Don't need an outright ban - just negative incentives. It should cost an astronomical amount to drive a huge vehicle in a dense urban environment and dramatical
by blamazon 3y ago
Don't need an outright ban - just negative incentives. It should cost an astronomical amount to drive a huge vehicle in a dense urban environment and dramatically less in a rural environment. Today, in USA, that cost difference is generally not that much in practice.
Secondly, infrastructure is another much better solution than policy. Even if large personal vehicles were outright banned there will always be large vehicles in urban environments - transit buses, garbage trucks, etc.
Thus, to prevent crashes, it is most effective to just separate the large vehicles from the small with separated/protected bike lanes.
- Out_of_Characte 3y agoAlot of countries have something to that extent since vehicle weight causes exponentially more road wear.
- jakeinspace 3y agoPerhaps a CDL or similar license requirent for large SUVs/Pickups? Add some friction, cost, and minimum driving competency.
- giantg2 3y agoFrankly, the driving test in the US is a joke. Better testing/education standards for all would provide one of the most biggest improvements to safety given that it would apply to all situations and not just pedestrians/bicycles/[other singlular topic of the moment]. Proper safety training in school would be beneficial to other road users as well. After all, it's hard to be safe when you're ignorant. Even more so if both parties are.
- Zak 3y agoRight now, the incentive is opposite: bigger cars get a break on fuel economy standards. We could start by removing that. US fuel economy standards are, as I understand it on a sort of cap and trade model with respect to a car maker's average fuel economy. Much of Tesla's profit comes from selling fuel economy credits. The result of removing the break larger cars get wouldn't be that they all disappear, but their prices would trend upward.