4 ms·

I think the jury is still out on self driving vehicles, but the ever larger trucks and SUV's on our streets are a clear and present danger to life and limb. I'd

by davidw 3y ago

I think the jury is still out on self driving vehicles, but the ever larger trucks and SUV's on our streets are a clear and present danger to life and limb. I'd focus on those in terms of street safety, as well as safe infrastructure for people walking or biking.

wardedVibe 3y ago
I'd rather see them deflating the tires on any trucks beyond a certain size parked in cities
- on-demand-econ 3y ago
  this is a thing! https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/tyre-extinguishers-why-are-climate-activists-targeting-dublin-suvs/a606780334.html https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/tyre...
  - safestreetrebel 3y ago
    Yes! We fully support this, but we really need the EPA to close the monster SUV /truck loophole. Otherwise there is economic incentive for people to keep buying these insane trucks
- 13of40 3y ago
  There are people who believe we shouldn't have personal vehicles at all. Would it be OK for them to deflate the tires on Priuses and Nissan Leafs they find parked in their city?
  - aledue 3y ago
    1. The chance of getting popular support for a protest like this diminishes with the number of people you piss off. You may be able to earn some sympathy by targeting SUVs only, but doing the same with all cars wouldn't be a good strategy. 2. There are good reasons to own a car, and in some places a significant number of people may be justified in using one. Blanket targeting everyone would be unfair to those who really need it. By contrast, SUVs don't have any (significant?) utility over a regular car (other than ego boosting maybe...).
vrosas 3y ago
There seems to be very little incentive to buy a compact car in the US, especially when the calculus involves _every other driver_ is in 6000 lb death machine, with 400 more horsepower than they need and vision-blocking A-pillars the size of small cars themselves. Oversized vehicles and non-commercial trucks need to be taxed to death.
- tzs 3y ago
  I know that larger cars need stronger A-pillars because the A-pillar is supposed to keep the cabin from getting smushed in a roll-over, and so the A-pillar needs to have a larger cross section. But why don't they get that increased cross section by extending the A-pillar in the directions toward and away from the driver and keep its size perpendicular to that the same? That should give a stronger A-pillar without changing how much it blocks. It would slightly reduce the interior volume of the cabin bit that would come from space that normally isn't used.
louwrentius 3y ago
I think I have a solution against coning! Each AV will be equipped with a person that will prevent the unicornification or removes the cone after-the-fact. I do wonder if those cones act as a reusable catalyst, once the car goes in failure mode, you just remove the cone and use it again. Anyway, there is something more revolutionary than an AV. It’s called not driving. It requires working from home, or decent public transport. Or it requires walkable/bikeable cities. Unfortunately this really solves actual issues but it isn’t as sexy from a technological standpoint I guess.

by davidw 3y ago

wardedVibe 3y ago

I'd rather see them deflating the tires on any trucks beyond a certain size parked in cities

on-demand-econ 3y ago
this is a thing! https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/tyre-extinguishers-why-are-climate-activists-targeting-dublin-suvs/a606780334.html https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/tyre...
- safestreetrebel 3y ago
  Yes! We fully support this, but we really need the EPA to close the monster SUV /truck loophole. Otherwise there is economic incentive for people to keep buying these insane trucks
13of40 3y ago
There are people who believe we shouldn't have personal vehicles at all. Would it be OK for them to deflate the tires on Priuses and Nissan Leafs they find parked in their city?
- aledue 3y ago
  1. The chance of getting popular support for a protest like this diminishes with the number of people you piss off. You may be able to earn some sympathy by targeting SUVs only, but doing the same with all cars wouldn't be a good strategy. 2. There are good reasons to own a car, and in some places a significant number of people may be justified in using one. Blanket targeting everyone would be unfair to those who really need it. By contrast, SUVs don't have any (significant?) utility over a regular car (other than ego boosting maybe...).

vrosas 3y ago

There seems to be very little incentive to buy a compact car in the US, especially when the calculus involves _every other driver_ is in 6000 lb death machine, with 400 more horsepower than they need and vision-blocking A-pillars the size of small cars themselves. Oversized vehicles and non-commercial trucks need to be taxed to death.

tzs 3y ago
I know that larger cars need stronger A-pillars because the A-pillar is supposed to keep the cabin from getting smushed in a roll-over, and so the A-pillar needs to have a larger cross section. But why don't they get that increased cross section by extending the A-pillar in the directions toward and away from the driver and keep its size perpendicular to that the same? That should give a stronger A-pillar without changing how much it blocks. It would slightly reduce the interior volume of the cabin bit that would come from space that normally isn't used.

louwrentius 3y ago

I think I have a solution against coning! Each AV will be equipped with a person that will prevent the unicornification or removes the cone after-the-fact. I do wonder if those cones act as a reusable catalyst, once the car goes in failure mode, you just remove the cone and use it again. Anyway, there is something more revolutionary than an AV. It’s called not driving. It requires working from home, or decent public transport. Or it requires walkable/bikeable cities. Unfortunately this really solves actual issues but it isn’t as sexy from a technological standpoint I guess.