5 ms·
Decades of focusing on safety are being unwound because of ~decade plus (so far) focus on efficiency and environmental regulation. You can't maximize both.
by beerandt 2y ago
Decades of focusing on safety are being unwound because of ~decade plus (so far) focus on efficiency and environmental regulation.
You can't maximize both.
- lostlogin 2y agoWhat efficiency and environmental aspects of car design do you see as causes car accidents?
- beerandt 2y agoDozens. #1 most obvious atm is autostop. Starter gives you enough juice to enter the intersection, but engine sputters and you get tboned. Same for not providing enough acceleration/ hp. Also 1 pedal driving. Electric cars that outweigh the 'old' 'inefficient' light trucks because batteries are heavy. Harder to stop, more wear on roads. Tires that are designed to extract breaking energy over stopping. Lithium fires (not cause but much more dangerous result). Aluminum crush zones in cars not big enough to have crush zones. Every design decision is a compromise.
- dmd 2y agoThat's right. It's definitely those darn environmental regulations. Nothing at all to do with short-term profits and MBA-syndrome.
- beerandt 2y agoYet you probably loved cash for clunkers.
- Retric 2y agoGetting old cars off the road meaningfully improved safety even if it didn’t do much for the environment.
- d110af5ccf 2y agoIt actively harmed the environment. Once the thing has been manufactured doing anything less than driving it into the ground is wasting the upfront environmental cost.
- Retric 2y agoNot always. The average car in Wyoming gets driven 24,000 miles a year something getting 12 MPG is burning 2,000 gallons a year directly and another 30% indirectly from manufacture transportation and extraction of oil. That’s a lot for a 5 year old car you could easily be saving 30,000+ gallons of oil. Obviously, that’s average many cars are significantly worse. Run the numbers and swapping a high mileage but poor fuel economy car for a hybrid/EV and the payback can be a net positive.
- dmd 2y agoEr, no? A program designed mostly to enrich automakers that had little or even negative environmental effect? Why would I love that?
- ahartmetz 2y agoYeah, 50+% of new cars being SUVs (gas guzzlers, kill pedestrians, easily roll over) is because of those damn environmentalists.
- djbusby 2y agoAnd those killer Class 2b and 3+ pickups. Manufacturers push those because of less environmental regs on those vs the perfectly viable Class 1.
- beerandt 2y agoOr don't try to regulate 'class 1' into something people don't want to buy. And FYI those trucks are bigger because you need more volume and moment-arm when building them out of lighter aluminum instead of heavier steel- a direct consequence of CAFE standards.
- djbusby 2y agoYea, I know why. And I'm mad about it. And I love my Class 1 and am mad they are hard to find. I imagine we'd agree that CAFE was poorly done.
- philwelch 2y agoThis is actually true though; it’s a case of unintended consequences.
- beerandt 2y agoIf you regulate 'normal' cars into things people don't want to buy, don't be surprised if they want suvs or trucks instead.
- dylan604 2y agoIf you price gasoline higher, people don't want those SUVs or trucks. Gasoline is too damn cheap in the US. Gov't regulations work on multiple levels.
- core_dumped 2y agoFocus on “efficiency” and environmental regulation? I think you mean to say cutting back on costs due to corporate greed?