There needs to be regulations on the size of personal vehicles for a shit ton of reasons…
But this one by itself should be enough.
There are… but there are loopholes. Which is why the vehicles get bigger every year. They’re all using loopholes to continue not bothering to meet the standards the regulations set forth.
Loopholes are always going to happen…
But if you close them, then the problem is fixed.
Currently we just ignore them, instead of passing regulations that close the loophole and clarify
We could even go a step further and require plans to be approved by a regulatory agency before mass production can start.
Boom, problem solved forever.
Even better would be if the US switched from “letter of the law” to “spirit of the law” because as it stands, there’s a lot of lawmakers just throwing their hands in the air and saying “well they’re not breaking the letter of the law, so there’s nothing we can do” while completely ignoring that it’s clear that the person in question is breaking the spirit of the law when it was written.
It allows for laws to be endlessly re-interpreted, and at this point even the Supreme Court has tossed out the idea of previous decisions actually mattering. They’ll just re-interpret every law to be beneficial to their purposes every time they need to re-interpret it.
At a certain point you have to stop and admit the loopholes are being left open on purpose.
If you think law has too much room for interpretation when we care about it says, what makes you think anything would improve if we instead cared only about what it meant to say?
The spirit of the law is important in American jurisprudence, but there’s a reason that no serious legal academic advocates for abandoning black-letter interpretation: a cornerstone of jurisprudence is predictability. In order to be justly bound by the law, a reasonable person must be able to understand its borders. This gives rise to principles in US law concerning vagueness (vague laws are void ab initio) and due process. We can’t always ascertain what the “spirit of the law” is, should be, or was intended to be, but we can always ascertain what the law is. Even in common law and case law, standards must be articulated, and the state must give effect to what is actually said, and not what it wishes had been said. Abandoning this principle in order to “close loopholes” is just inviting bad actors who currently exploit oversights to instead wield unbridled power against ordinary people who could never have even anticipated the danger.
That loopholes are left open deliberately is not a failure of legal interpretation. It’s a direct consequence of corruption and regulatory capture. Rewriting American jurisprudence won’t solve those problems. Hanging oil magnates and cheaply purchased bureaucrats will.
Road taxes should increase after certain dimensions and weights. Bonnet/hood height should be one.
Also, safety ratings should give equal weighting to the a vehicle’s impact absorbtion and impact contribution. It’s insane that something is considered safe solely because the occupant is protected.
Agreed. They should but there are these Cafe Standards that need to be dealt with. The cars have to be larger to be exempt because we’re using wheel base to help determine fuel economy (it should be weight not wheelbase) These exemptions need to go away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy
We got rid of pop-up headlights because they were causing pedestrian deaths, but I don’t think we’ll do anything about these monstrosities because not only are they deadly, they’re not fun. And our regulators want to prevent fun more than they want to prevent death.
Not quite right. They became common due to a combination of aerodynamics and lamp height restrictions. Especially in the US, which used to require one of a small list of sealed beam designs which weren’t at all aerodynamic. They are still technically legal, but difficult to integrate with protrusion restrictions. The US also dropped the sealed beam restriction decades ago, so there wad no point in trying.
The automotive industry must be jealous of firearms killing so many Americans, so they’re upping their game to really push us into an increasingly dystopian world.
They really just want us to actually be living in Mad Max world, all guns and cars and “guzzoline.” They all fancy themselves an Immortan Joe.
Do not, my friends, become addicted to water. It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence!
pedestrian deaths
I believe they call those “bonus points”.
Brought to you by someone who ripped the mask right off your face, before the vaccine existed.
Who hurt you?
I have yet to actually be killed by it yet - so far - but several drivers seem to enjoy getting WITHIN INCHES of my body as I walk through a crosswalk, sometimes in heavy snow in sub-freezing temperatures where I struggle to even walk while they enjoy their climate-controlled cockpit with all the comforts of home, yet still want to shave off a few seconds of their commute. This has happened in both areas that heavily lean Democrat as well as ones that heavily lean Republican. In the former it is usually a smaller Lexus or BMW, while in the latter it is usually a giant vehicle, either truck or SUV. Also from what I have been told, the concept of “soccer mom” is a real one - a tiny person who can barely see over the wheel of a vehicle not made for tiny people, who drives perhaps once a month when their rotation comes up, not bothering to adjust the vehicle better for them, or to practice more often to become a safer driver.
In all of the above, as with the virus, the underlying attitude (whether rich or poor, liberal or conservative, whatever) is the same: I want MY way, the rest of you can deal with it as best you can - or die, whatever.
Somehow this idea of people abusing their vehicles with extreme negligence in the form of literally running over children like they are in a video game offends people’s sensibilities, yet the same identical thought applied elsewhere gets the opposite reaction. e.g. if you knew that you had COVID, and you visit someone anyway (your >80-year-old grandparents?; crucially: before the vaccine existed) over their explicit objection that you only come if you have no symptoms, and then they die, how is that not “murder”, or at least a form of almost murderous negligence? Not only did MANY people die (or get long-term symptoms) from exactly and precisely this scenario (a wedding, a funeral, a party or church service, etc.), but it also spread the pandemic much faster than it would have otherwise, flying in the face of the “flatten the curve” advice from scientists, affecting whole entire schools, churches, hospitals, and entire communities by the actions of just a few.
This is also btw the identical reason why groceries cost so much right now: they want to get THEIR way, so they just… do.
This is why society has rules: to provide a guiding light showing us how we all need to behave, or else experience the consequences (though anyone can be MORE friendly than those mandate, at any time). Hence why we might want an evidence-based policy on vehicles with higher hoods. Because people are literally dying here. We’ll see if anyone cares, more than simply saying platitudes I mean, in the sense of taking any action to help stop it.
I may have misunderstood your earlier post. Were you being sarcastic?
Last time I was visiting family in Toronto, I noticed the speed limit on major streets had been lowered to 40 kph (25 mph). So the same as residential streets, in other words.
I asked my brother about this. He said that in spite of measures taken by the city to improve infrastructure, pedestrian and cyclist fatalities were on the way up due to the heavier and higher off the ground vehicles people drive today. The city admitted they did not expect people to drive that slow, but if they could start ticketing people doing over 60, that might save some lives? It’s pretty sad.
Next up at 11: “Water is Wet”
Stay tuned
What about school busses? They have very high hoods and many danger areas where the driver cannot see, right?
Most of the buses around me (both school and other buses) have flat fronts, which give essentially zero front blind spot. I don’t think I’ve seen a long bus that was shaped like that in a long time (at least around where I live)
Buses actually have better sight lines than modern trucks because the driver is much higher and the hood is sloped. This is also why they have a bar on the front that extends when unloading kids, to make them walk outside that zone.
The craziest part about that too, is that militaries typically acknowledge these poor sight lines and have procedures in place. I drove a Bison in the Canadian Army, and we had to have either a crew command (up higher on the vehicle with a better view) or a ground guide (literally a personal walking in front of the vehicle).
Yeah; but you also need a special license to operate a bus.
Interesting, I did not know that.
I hope now that cameras are cheap and common that they will start adding them to busses to cover those blind spots. Not a perfect solution, but better than nothing.
It’s been a few years since I was doing that, so I didn’t get to drive them, but newer school busses my company was in the process of aquiring before I left did have blind spot camera systems.
It is honestly a major failure of US society (comedians I am looking at you) that people aren’t made fun of for driving these trucks so mercilessly that most people feel too ashamed to drive them.
Definitely. Builders and contractors in Europe drive vans; same as everyone else on the planet except the insecure yanks. If you pulled up to a site in one of these in any other country, I fuckin guarantee remarks will be made about your penis size and your penchant for the cock
They know. And those vehicle owners like to bully people and other cars with that.
Tax it hard like a luxury tax or vice tax.
BONNET
No shit? I forget where I saw the comparison but the length of the view that is blocked when being in a big ass truck is absolutely insane. There could be a gaggle of kids in front of you cb’s you would never know until you hit them.
I mentioned this is another comment, but the crazy thing is that’s the driver’s view from M1 Abrams. Typically, in hatches open operation you’d either have a Crew Commander (and/or gunner) standing with their torso out of the turret for better visibility (and a second set of eyes), or a ground guide watching where you go.
Perhaps we should introduce a commander’s hatch to help large pickup trucks safely navigate around neighborhoods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo&t=559s
There is a good visualization in this video (These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us by Not Just Bikes) at the timestamp I linked (roughly 9 minutes 19 seconds), cited from KidsAndCars.org
They also seriously injure the people they do hit.
A car tends to hit low and send people onto the hood. A truck hits high (head and torso injuries) and knocks people to the ground where they get run over.
Modern trucks have shitty visibility all the way around. I borrow my dad’s Colorado and my boss’s F-150 frequently and I always feel like I’m driving a school bus and feel like I can’t see shit. They have backup cameras but it’s not that great(and the idea that a backup camera should be required to operate a vehicle safely in the first place is abhorrent to me anyway). I never had any issues with my S10 back in the day and I could fit more shit in the bed.
There’s another extreme, when a friend of mine took me for a ride in a two-seat convertible BMW X2 it felt like I was barely above ground. When one of the SUVs was near us at a traffic light it felt like it was going to run over us without even noticing
it felt like it was going to run over us without even noticing
Yeah that’s because they have shitty visibility. Also the reason I’ll never ride a motorcycle in traffic.
But i Like sITTinG uP hIGhEr
This according to a study published in the journal “No Shit Quarterly”.
That’s the point 🤷
The point being it’s the owners that are buying these cars because they want to kill pedestrians or the designers intentionally create them with higher bonnets specifically to kill pedestrians?
The point being that owners are buying these vehicles to be the “winner” in any collision that may happen, and that includes with pedestrians.
