4 ms·

Absolutely the same with RAMs in Germany. Big toys for rich guys to compensate something small. Takes at least 2 parking spots and doesn’t fit anyway. On other

by lnsru 11mo ago

Absolutely the same with RAMs in Germany. Big toys for rich guys to compensate something small. Takes at least 2 parking spots and doesn’t fit anyway. On other hand the RAMs are not relevant for the average citizen. Crazy fuel consumption is a showstopper. And the ones with some extra cash will continue to import with German „Individual Vehicle Approval“ equivalent. In my eyes it’s another useless European regulation. Let poor people import cheap Toyotas from overseas.

CalRobert 11mo ago
They're relevant for the average citizen because they're killing average citizens. A Ram was certainly relevant for this dead woman - https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/binnenland/artikel/5521908/rouveen-ongeluk-vrouw-overleden-aangereden https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/binnenland/artikel/5521908/rouveen...
- lnsru 11mo ago
  Would be the end different if it was another oversized car like X7, G-Klasse or Cayenne? Edit: I am really curious why there is no real vehicle physical size tax in Germany. Let’s take reference as VW Golf. Smaller cars cost less, bigger more. I agree to pay more, but current insanity with RAMs and vans should be somehow regulated.
  - ricardobeat 11mo ago
    It’s possible. Visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists in these trucks is horrendous. It’s so ridiculously bad that even an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spots: https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140dgn8/many_popular_trucks_have_a_bigger_dead_spot_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140dgn8/many_popu...
    - arp242 11mo ago
      A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? Weight also matters of course. Hopefully this relatively simple ruling will fix some of that too.
      - potato3732842 11mo ago
        >A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? It's hard because the people pushing for new rules very transparently want rules far beyond what the public wants or considers sensible. If they were simply asking for that it'd probable be done already.
      - ricardobeat 11mo ago
        EU Regulation 2019/2144 [1] covers field of vision requirements. This is exactly the kind of regulation the USA wants the EU to drop. > there shall be no obstruction in the driver's 180° forward direct field of vision below a horizontal plane passing through V1, and above three planes through V2, one being perpendicular to the plane X-Z and declining forward 4° below the horizontal > For vehicles with high driving positions (driver's eye points more than 1,650 mm above the ground), a 1,200 mm tall cylindrical object with a diameter of 300 mm must be visible when placed 2,000 mm in front of the vehicle According to Claude a Dodge RAM fails both of these. At 80cm (2-year old, a dog, or someone crouching down), depending on driver position, an object might be obscured by the hood in a comically large 5-8 meter area ahead. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:42018X0116&from=FR https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
    - potato3732842 11mo ago
      Tanks are famously dangerous to be anywhere other than directly in front of. The angular front blind spot isn't terrible, but from the front corners on back they're massive hazards to the point where infantry gets trained on it so they don't get run over. Speaking or fun over, whoever made that illustration should be run over by a tank. Fix the size of the goddamn kid or fix the distance and change the size of the kid. Having both variables move serves to only add confusion and annoyance.
      - ricardobeat 11mo ago
        The kids are the same size - the number above is the distance at which they become visible. It could indeed be a little less confusing.
        potato3732842 11mo ago
        That makes far more sense.
    - lan321 11mo ago
      > an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spots Absolutely not. You can't even turn around in the driver position of a tank.
    - trollbridge 11mo ago
      It seems this could be largely mitigated with relatively simple lidar.
  - nonamesleft 11mo ago
    G-klasse W465 is shorter than the equivalent medium sized sedan (E-klasse W214, and even shorter than my W212), and the hood is nowhere near as high as those overseas pickup trucks. The monstrously large (5.8 meters) G63 6x6 is considerably rarer (i have never seen one in person).
    - patrickk 11mo ago
      > The monstrously large (5.8 meters) G63 6x6 is considerably rarer (i have never seen one in person). Those kinds of exotic variants are for the Dubais of the world, for rich Arabs to power up and down sand dunes, not for the Autobahn and narrow medieval streets. I’ve only seen it at a motorshow.
  - jstsch 11mo ago
    Yes. Just take a look at this picture of the accident. You can instantly see where the proportions go wrong. Not survivable, even at low speeds. https://cldnr.prod.webx.talpa.digital/talpa-network/image/fetch/ar_16:9,c_fill,dpr_2.0,f_webp,g_face:auto,h_235,w_auto/https://images.ctfassets.net/mwdlh7x5m54h/4zS5WEBPnpqBQCJvrrOy7D/745b84e246fc58b99d7d09b4f5a4d37a/20250805_harmmeter_AanvullendbeelddodelijkongewvalRouveen_frame_638.jpeg https://cldnr.prod.webx.talpa.digital/talpa-network/image/fe...
  - throw0101a 11mo ago
    > Would be the end different if it was another oversized car like X7, G-Klasse or Cayenne? For one, typical pickup trucks seems to have much worse forward visibility than most SUVs. To the point that even an M1 tank sees forward better: * https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visibility-than-a-ford-super-duty/ https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
  - Snafuh 11mo ago
    They are not even in the same ballpark size wise https://www.carsized.com/en-us/cars/compare/porsche-cayenne-2017-suv-vs-ram-1500-2018-4-door-pickup-crew-cab-5/ https://www.carsized.com/en-us/cars/compare/porsche-cayenne-... But or course you are correct this is not only about American cars. Europeans can build big cars as well. Cars are taxed by engine displacement in Germany. It's rather low compared to insurance and gas cost though. Indirectly larger cars are taxed through high gas tax.
    - _yb2s 11mo ago
      A lot of German SUVs are heavier than full sized American pickup trucks, even when they look much smaller.
      - abenga 11mo ago
        At least you can see the ground ahead of you, weight is not the only thing affecting safety.
        _yb2s 11mo ago
        Yes, large heavy unibody SUVs like the Q7/Touareg/Cayenne with all of the safety tech of a high end German luxury car are likely the safest cars possible- for the passengers at least.

by lnsru 11mo ago

CalRobert 11mo ago

They're relevant for the average citizen because they're killing average citizens. A Ram was certainly relevant for this dead woman - https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/binnenland/artikel/5521908/rouveen-ongeluk-vrouw-overleden-aangereden https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/binnenland/artikel/5521908/rouveen...

lnsru 11mo ago
Would be the end different if it was another oversized car like X7, G-Klasse or Cayenne? Edit: I am really curious why there is no real vehicle physical size tax in Germany. Let’s take reference as VW Golf. Smaller cars cost less, bigger more. I agree to pay more, but current insanity with RAMs and vans should be somehow regulated.
- ricardobeat 11mo ago
  It’s possible. Visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists in these trucks is horrendous. It’s so ridiculously bad that even an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spots: https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140dgn8/many_popular_trucks_have_a_bigger_dead_spot_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140dgn8/many_popu...
  - arp242 11mo ago
    A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? Weight also matters of course. Hopefully this relatively simple ruling will fix some of that too.
    - potato3732842 11mo ago
      >A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? It's hard because the people pushing for new rules very transparently want rules far beyond what the public wants or considers sensible. If they were simply asking for that it'd probable be done already.
    - ricardobeat 11mo ago
      EU Regulation 2019/2144 [1] covers field of vision requirements. This is exactly the kind of regulation the USA wants the EU to drop. > there shall be no obstruction in the driver's 180° forward direct field of vision below a horizontal plane passing through V1, and above three planes through V2, one being perpendicular to the plane X-Z and declining forward 4° below the horizontal > For vehicles with high driving positions (driver's eye points more than 1,650 mm above the ground), a 1,200 mm tall cylindrical object with a diameter of 300 mm must be visible when placed 2,000 mm in front of the vehicle According to Claude a Dodge RAM fails both of these. At 80cm (2-year old, a dog, or someone crouching down), depending on driver position, an object might be obscured by the hood in a comically large 5-8 meter area ahead. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:42018X0116&from=FR https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    Tanks are famously dangerous to be anywhere other than directly in front of. The angular front blind spot isn't terrible, but from the front corners on back they're massive hazards to the point where infantry gets trained on it so they don't get run over. Speaking or fun over, whoever made that illustration should be run over by a tank. Fix the size of the goddamn kid or fix the distance and change the size of the kid. Having both variables move serves to only add confusion and annoyance.
    - ricardobeat 11mo ago
      The kids are the same size - the number above is the distance at which they become visible. It could indeed be a little less confusing.
      - potato3732842 11mo ago
        That makes far more sense.
  - lan321 11mo ago
    > an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spots Absolutely not. You can't even turn around in the driver position of a tank.
  - trollbridge 11mo ago
    It seems this could be largely mitigated with relatively simple lidar.
- nonamesleft 11mo ago
  G-klasse W465 is shorter than the equivalent medium sized sedan (E-klasse W214, and even shorter than my W212), and the hood is nowhere near as high as those overseas pickup trucks. The monstrously large (5.8 meters) G63 6x6 is considerably rarer (i have never seen one in person).
  - patrickk 11mo ago
    > The monstrously large (5.8 meters) G63 6x6 is considerably rarer (i have never seen one in person). Those kinds of exotic variants are for the Dubais of the world, for rich Arabs to power up and down sand dunes, not for the Autobahn and narrow medieval streets. I’ve only seen it at a motorshow.
- jstsch 11mo ago
  Yes. Just take a look at this picture of the accident. You can instantly see where the proportions go wrong. Not survivable, even at low speeds. https://cldnr.prod.webx.talpa.digital/talpa-network/image/fetch/ar_16:9,c_fill,dpr_2.0,f_webp,g_face:auto,h_235,w_auto/https://images.ctfassets.net/mwdlh7x5m54h/4zS5WEBPnpqBQCJvrrOy7D/745b84e246fc58b99d7d09b4f5a4d37a/20250805_harmmeter_AanvullendbeelddodelijkongewvalRouveen_frame_638.jpeg https://cldnr.prod.webx.talpa.digital/talpa-network/image/fe...
- throw0101a 11mo ago
  > Would be the end different if it was another oversized car like X7, G-Klasse or Cayenne? For one, typical pickup trucks seems to have much worse forward visibility than most SUVs. To the point that even an M1 tank sees forward better: * https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visibility-than-a-ford-super-duty/ https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
- Snafuh 11mo ago
  They are not even in the same ballpark size wise https://www.carsized.com/en-us/cars/compare/porsche-cayenne-2017-suv-vs-ram-1500-2018-4-door-pickup-crew-cab-5/ https://www.carsized.com/en-us/cars/compare/porsche-cayenne-... But or course you are correct this is not only about American cars. Europeans can build big cars as well. Cars are taxed by engine displacement in Germany. It's rather low compared to insurance and gas cost though. Indirectly larger cars are taxed through high gas tax.
  - _yb2s 11mo ago
    A lot of German SUVs are heavier than full sized American pickup trucks, even when they look much smaller.
    - abenga 11mo ago
      At least you can see the ground ahead of you, weight is not the only thing affecting safety.
      - _yb2s 11mo ago
        Yes, large heavy unibody SUVs like the Q7/Touareg/Cayenne with all of the safety tech of a high end German luxury car are likely the safest cars possible- for the passengers at least.