4 ms·

I want a hilux champ to do odd jobs around town. It will never make it here because it doesn’t meet safety standards, I really wish the nanny state would let me

I want a hilux champ to do odd jobs around town. It will never make it here because it doesn’t meet safety standards, I really wish the nanny state would let me make my own decisions.

shermantanktop 2y ago
If it doesn’t meet safety standard that protect the driver of the vehicle, that’s one thing. But unsafe cars are sometimes unsafe for the other car.
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago
  Where I live you are much more likely to die getting hit by a logging truck than being harmed by a small utility truck without collision avoidance sensors. Hell I almost died in a head on collision with a semi truck if I didn’t swerve out of the way. Commercial trucking is where safety should be emphasized, not people who just want a small utility vehicle to do jobs around town.
  - shermantanktop 2y ago
    Aside from anecdotes, is there data on that? I suspect it’s a small minority of people that encounter a logging truck in a given year. I’m in the PNW and you don’t see logging trucks barreling through big cities. I found this: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2021 https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-t... 5k fatalities.
    - __turbobrew__ 2y ago
      https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/road-safety-rules-and-consequences/be-truck-aware#stats https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-an... > In an average year in B.C., large trucks are involved in less than one percent of all crashes – but they’re involved in nearly 20 percent of fatal crashes. If you exclude motorcycle fatalities (which is usually only the motorcycle rider is seriously hurt, and that is a known risk they take) the numbers get even worse for commercial trucking.
  - atoav 2y ago
    Unlikely since there are way less of them.
atoav 2y ago
Safety standards are not only for you, for the biggest part they are for pedestrians, other vehicles an people that happen to be in the car with you. When Americans complain about the "nanny state" I mentally replace it with "we collectively". Because that is what a state ought to be — a expression of collective will and common sense policy. If it isn't that way in your country currently, that isn't on the state, that is on the people who are supposed to hold the power. Quite frankly, an antagonistic perspective on "the state" might even help it becoming worse. Collective rules are not needed if anybody just would act informed and reasonable. But that is not the case and never has been the case. Without a state the next-big entity (a company, some local war lord, a gang, a king) will become the force where the buck stops. Unless you want to be at their whim collective and divided power (Rule of Law) is the way to go. I hope you do realize that what you're saying here could also be read as: "I really wish we (collectively) would let me (individually) make bad decisions that would hurt us (collectively) if everybody (individually) did it". But the ultra-individualistic insistance to not be part of society seems to be very trendy right now, and is usally made by people who rely on society to provide everything to them in ways they aren't even aware about.
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago
  A hilux champ without collision avoidance sensors is far from the most dangerous thing on the road. I dont like the choice to hamstring millions of businesses and individuals who need legitimate work trucks from having a cheap and reliable option when those trucks would not be even close to the most dangerous thing on the road.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Please explain why you think that type of car is a danger to others, because otherwise your entire argument doesn't apply.
  - atoav 2y ago
    Unlike you say, my argument is completely unaffected by that premise and could be about an entirely made up hypothetical car, the core ethical argument would still be equally valid. Why? Because the axiom that the car does not meet the safety standards was established by the poster I commented on. I do not need to proof an axiom someone else set up for the sake of discussion. Now you could argue that safety standards are discoupled from actual accident numbers (something I have never seen evidence for), but that is a different argument and thus the burden of proof that this is in fact the case is on you.
tpm 2y ago
I don't know what is 'here' in your case but individual imports/approvals exist and don't have to go through the same hurdles as type approvals.
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago
  Canada

I want a hilux champ to do odd jobs around town. It will never make it here because it doesn’t meet safety standards, I really wish the nanny state would let me make my own decisions.

shermantanktop 2y ago

If it doesn’t meet safety standard that protect the driver of the vehicle, that’s one thing. But unsafe cars are sometimes unsafe for the other car.

__turbobrew__ 2y ago
Where I live you are much more likely to die getting hit by a logging truck than being harmed by a small utility truck without collision avoidance sensors. Hell I almost died in a head on collision with a semi truck if I didn’t swerve out of the way. Commercial trucking is where safety should be emphasized, not people who just want a small utility vehicle to do jobs around town.
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  Aside from anecdotes, is there data on that? I suspect it’s a small minority of people that encounter a logging truck in a given year. I’m in the PNW and you don’t see logging trucks barreling through big cities. I found this: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2021 https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-t... 5k fatalities.
  - __turbobrew__ 2y ago
    https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/road-safety-rules-and-consequences/be-truck-aware#stats https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-an... > In an average year in B.C., large trucks are involved in less than one percent of all crashes – but they’re involved in nearly 20 percent of fatal crashes. If you exclude motorcycle fatalities (which is usually only the motorcycle rider is seriously hurt, and that is a known risk they take) the numbers get even worse for commercial trucking.
- atoav 2y ago
  Unlikely since there are way less of them.

atoav 2y ago

Safety standards are not only for you, for the biggest part they are for pedestrians, other vehicles an people that happen to be in the car with you. When Americans complain about the "nanny state" I mentally replace it with "we collectively". Because that is what a state ought to be — a expression of collective will and common sense policy. If it isn't that way in your country currently, that isn't on the state, that is on the people who are supposed to hold the power. Quite frankly, an antagonistic perspective on "the state" might even help it becoming worse. Collective rules are not needed if anybody just would act informed and reasonable. But that is not the case and never has been the case. Without a state the next-big entity (a company, some local war lord, a gang, a king) will become the force where the buck stops. Unless you want to be at their whim collective and divided power (Rule of Law) is the way to go. I hope you do realize that what you're saying here could also be read as: "I really wish we (collectively) would let me (individually) make bad decisions that would hurt us (collectively) if everybody (individually) did it". But the ultra-individualistic insistance to not be part of society seems to be very trendy right now, and is usally made by people who rely on society to provide everything to them in ways they aren't even aware about.

__turbobrew__ 2y ago
A hilux champ without collision avoidance sensors is far from the most dangerous thing on the road. I dont like the choice to hamstring millions of businesses and individuals who need legitimate work trucks from having a cheap and reliable option when those trucks would not be even close to the most dangerous thing on the road.
Dylan16807 2y ago
Please explain why you think that type of car is a danger to others, because otherwise your entire argument doesn't apply.
- atoav 2y ago
  Unlike you say, my argument is completely unaffected by that premise and could be about an entirely made up hypothetical car, the core ethical argument would still be equally valid. Why? Because the axiom that the car does not meet the safety standards was established by the poster I commented on. I do not need to proof an axiom someone else set up for the sake of discussion. Now you could argue that safety standards are discoupled from actual accident numbers (something I have never seen evidence for), but that is a different argument and thus the burden of proof that this is in fact the case is on you.

tpm 2y ago

I don't know what is 'here' in your case but individual imports/approvals exist and don't have to go through the same hurdles as type approvals.

__turbobrew__ 2y ago
Canada