3 ms·

It does seem a bit propaganda but I think it highlights a larger issue and doesn’t go far enough! So many cars are so much bigger now. The entire guard rail sys

by tyleo 3y ago

It does seem a bit propaganda but I think it highlights a larger issue and doesn’t go far enough! So many cars are so much bigger now. The entire guard rail system probably needs to be reexamined in the face of new vehicle sizes.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
Or maybe cars for commuting shouldn't be 7,500 lb?
- ponector 3y ago
  In Europe car over 3500kg requires another driver's license class. It is not a car, it is a lorry!
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    3500kg translates to ~7716lbs, so their comment (and the Rivian covered by this topic) still applies within your confines.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      It's 3500kg including payload, so the car in question would be essentially unusable under the rule.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Or more simply just taxed like commercial vehicles. Make the tabs cost $1000 per year for anything with weight or height exceeding some limit.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    Yeah, this is what I meant. Slap taxes above a certain weight, and you will see manufacturers drop the weight to right below the threshold faster than you can blink.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Most states do their for pickup trucks regarding registration fees. It's about double the registration cost, but doesn't really factor in to most people's decision.
      - deaddodo 3y ago
        That's funny because when car manufacturers decided to do universal cars (versus the old California-edition/49-state cars), the whole country went up in arms about how CARB was costing them so much and how "Commiefornia" was dictating their lives. Despite the additional cost being 300-600usd (depending on the vehicle) or so.
        giantg2 3y ago
        Most of the car people were concerned about quality and not cost. Same reason people still opt for the non-CA brake cleaner and other solvents.
        deaddodo 3y ago
        When quality comes at the expense of pollutants, people measure their own priorities. The point is, you're welcome to shop for non-CA items, if they're legal in your region.
CuriousCosmic 3y ago
Alternatively we could fix the massive regulatory issues that lead to this. 1. Smaller vehicles have tighter emissions requirements and those requirements increase every year. So manufacturers of ICE vehicles have tended towards larger and larger vehicles year after year. 2. In the wake of Japanese auto manufacturers eating US manufacturer's lunch in the US we banned entire swaths of vehicles (minitrucks, microvans, kei cars). Because of this, in practice vehicles below a certain size that are produced by some of our main non-domestic (and maybe also domestic but I'm not sure) auto manufacturers (toyota, honda, mazda, nissan, subaru, etc) are illegal in the US unless they are a model that is 25 years old. So we've made it impractical or even in some cases impossible to even build, sell, and market smaller but just as practical vehicles. If we fix that issue first, I imagine the market will eventually trend back towards smaller, cheaper, practical, and more efficient vehicles.
- bloody-crow 3y ago
  I suspect there's going to be a lot of cultural resistance to any attempt to introduce smaller vehicles to US marker right now. Starting from inclusivity arguments centered around smaller cars not being able to fit "people of all sizes" and ending with safety concerns where key cars would just feel unsafe on any kind of american highway sitting in a 6000+lbs lifted F-250's blindspot. I think this ship has sailed and there's no coming down in vehicle sizes in US any time soon.
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    I think there's an argument to be made that large vehicles should face tolls when entering the city. Small vehicles as well but not nearly as substantial. I think some cities already do this to be fair. It's a good way to incentivise that local traffic be kept in as small vehicles as is practical. > Starting from inclusivity arguments centered around smaller cars not being able to fit "people of all sizes" Idk. I don't think there's substantially different cabin sizes past a certain point. The space any given seat has in an escalade or F-150 really isn't that different to the space a significantly smaller RAV4 has. And even between say a RAV4 and a camry the amount of space isn't massively different (however the rav does have more space). This isn't to say that you should be banning normal sized vehicles but there really should be some type of disincentive for 4000+ lb vehicles and maybe an incentive for ultralight vehicles as well.

by tyleo 3y ago

brucethemoose2 3y ago

Or maybe cars for commuting shouldn't be 7,500 lb?

ponector 3y ago
In Europe car over 3500kg requires another driver's license class. It is not a car, it is a lorry!
- deaddodo 3y ago
  3500kg translates to ~7716lbs, so their comment (and the Rivian covered by this topic) still applies within your confines.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    It's 3500kg including payload, so the car in question would be essentially unusable under the rule.
colechristensen 3y ago
Or more simply just taxed like commercial vehicles. Make the tabs cost $1000 per year for anything with weight or height exceeding some limit.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  Yeah, this is what I meant. Slap taxes above a certain weight, and you will see manufacturers drop the weight to right below the threshold faster than you can blink.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Most states do their for pickup trucks regarding registration fees. It's about double the registration cost, but doesn't really factor in to most people's decision.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      That's funny because when car manufacturers decided to do universal cars (versus the old California-edition/49-state cars), the whole country went up in arms about how CARB was costing them so much and how "Commiefornia" was dictating their lives. Despite the additional cost being 300-600usd (depending on the vehicle) or so.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        Most of the car people were concerned about quality and not cost. Same reason people still opt for the non-CA brake cleaner and other solvents.
        deaddodo 3y ago
        When quality comes at the expense of pollutants, people measure their own priorities. The point is, you're welcome to shop for non-CA items, if they're legal in your region.

CuriousCosmic 3y ago

Alternatively we could fix the massive regulatory issues that lead to this. 1. Smaller vehicles have tighter emissions requirements and those requirements increase every year. So manufacturers of ICE vehicles have tended towards larger and larger vehicles year after year. 2. In the wake of Japanese auto manufacturers eating US manufacturer's lunch in the US we banned entire swaths of vehicles (minitrucks, microvans, kei cars). Because of this, in practice vehicles below a certain size that are produced by some of our main non-domestic (and maybe also domestic but I'm not sure) auto manufacturers (toyota, honda, mazda, nissan, subaru, etc) are illegal in the US unless they are a model that is 25 years old. So we've made it impractical or even in some cases impossible to even build, sell, and market smaller but just as practical vehicles. If we fix that issue first, I imagine the market will eventually trend back towards smaller, cheaper, practical, and more efficient vehicles.

bloody-crow 3y ago
I suspect there's going to be a lot of cultural resistance to any attempt to introduce smaller vehicles to US marker right now. Starting from inclusivity arguments centered around smaller cars not being able to fit "people of all sizes" and ending with safety concerns where key cars would just feel unsafe on any kind of american highway sitting in a 6000+lbs lifted F-250's blindspot. I think this ship has sailed and there's no coming down in vehicle sizes in US any time soon.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  I think there's an argument to be made that large vehicles should face tolls when entering the city. Small vehicles as well but not nearly as substantial. I think some cities already do this to be fair. It's a good way to incentivise that local traffic be kept in as small vehicles as is practical. > Starting from inclusivity arguments centered around smaller cars not being able to fit "people of all sizes" Idk. I don't think there's substantially different cabin sizes past a certain point. The space any given seat has in an escalade or F-150 really isn't that different to the space a significantly smaller RAV4 has. And even between say a RAV4 and a camry the amount of space isn't massively different (however the rav does have more space). This isn't to say that you should be banning normal sized vehicles but there really should be some type of disincentive for 4000+ lb vehicles and maybe an incentive for ultralight vehicles as well.