There are a lot of personal preferences we regulate away. I prefer to drive drunk home from the bar, but that's illegal. I prefer to build buildings without obeying fire safety building codes, but apparently that's also illegal.
30k / year die in car accidents in the USA. This is a real problem with a huge human toll, akin to drunk driving or building codes.
Step 1 is slow the vehicles down. As soon as they slow down, one of the main drivers of size - fear of an accident with a bigger vehicle - will be greatly decreased and we can do step 2: shrink them.
What's the alternative? Should he choose to risk dying in a crash for the nebulous greater good of lowering the average size of vehicles on the road? This problem will not be solved by individual drivers acting against their own self-interest. It needs to be solved at a societal level, probably with regulations on maximum vehicle size (which already exist, but are being worked around by mfrs)
Signed, A Miata driver. If I ever get in a wreck, I'm guaranteed to lose, but at least I'll go out in style.
I think there's one of two ways to make roadways safer:
1. Add these safety feature mandates that increase the price of vehicles
2. Move towards banning larger and larger vehicles and create limits on height and clearance for non-commercial vehicles.
The latter doesn't seem politically popular, so the former is the only choice.
With regard to alcohol, the government, federal or state, shouldn't have a place in it.
With respect to other matters, it would depend on the circumstances. In the context the article at hand, I doubt writing legislation dictating that a car should be only so high and only so wide would be effective. Legally, speaking, even if such a law were passed, it would be unenforceable. It would hurt the automotive industry and kill hundreds of not thousands of jobs. And with regards to safety, smaller cars are more cramped wouldn't fit a wide-berthed family of five.
Countries with low vehicular fatalities per person make it difficult for anyone but the rich to own a car in the first place usually via high import taxes or a yearly vehicle licensing or excise tax. But that goes back to our original point in that direct policies would immediately receive pushback and legal challenges where as more indirect policies that "solve" the immediate and medium-term issue but will eventually cause economic consequences that fully aren't grasped until it's too late. Both approaches eventually lead to undesirable outcomes.
Talk to car salespeople. Large american vehicles have nothing to do with law and everything to do with the american consumer preferring larger vehicles. You can see it in this very thread, they want to "feel" safer.
We really need to add a special license requirement for vehicles over a certain size. You shouldn't be able to drive something so dangerous without additional training and restrictions. In addition we should enforce safety standards similar to commercial vehicles. Reduced speed limits, additional licensing fees, and stricter inspections. Also, traffic laws should be more heavily enforced for this class of vehicle with licensing revoked if they cannot keep a clean record.
Driving a truck or an SUV that weighs more than 4 tons is a huge responsibility and we treat it the same as driving a half ton econobox. If a cop sees a 4 ton SUV breaking the speed limit on a residential zone the penalties should be much harsher than a small car, motorcycle or cyclist doing the same.
You misunderstand. I want the government to prevent you from driving a car that is more likely to kill me in an accident. We are enemies here.
Not natural enemies, of course, because banning large cars makes you safer, even if you drive a large car, since otherwise everyone must drive large cars for safety, and two large cars colliding is more dangerous.
You can import new tiny cars and drive them all you want on a farm or private grounds, you just can’t take them on roads if they don’t meat road safety standards.
Even the advocate highlighted in this article (Economist) admits his would probably be a “death trap” on a busy highway.
Maybe the US should create separate standards for city streets and roads with low speed limits, that could be a good way to bring down vehicle sizes. But just allowing these things just anywhere seems like a recipe for increased fatalities. For every HN reader who would use theirs wisely there are 10 average Americans who would risk maiming.
They aren’t a wholesome lecture away, but they are a law, tax, or regulation away. Removing tax loopholes for large cars, tightening emissions standards, and perhaps adding extra licensing requirements for oversized vehicles could reduce the environmental hazard and the safety hazard these vehicles create.
A better way to make cyclists and pedestrians safer would be more stringent laws against dangerous car designs, and some enforcement of the existing laws. We are starting to see US-style monster pickups and SUVs here in Belgium and they are a fucking abomination - far too large for city streets - and their extra weight and height plus reduced visibility make them dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
I wish these laws were enforced where I live. Every day I deal with ridiculous situations like motorcyclists passing me on the left and right at the same time. If they crash into my car, the justice system will blame me for it because "cars are bigger and the bigger vehicle is responsible for the smaller vehicle". Makes absolutely no sense and it's so demoralizing.
Similarly, I hope folks will reach out with ANY additional data around the lack of danger caused by large / heavy vehicles as opposed to any other non-commercial vehicle.
I'm sorta tired of people regulating or trying to regulate every aspect of life. Maybe just let people make their own decisions.
We haven't met in person, but hi! Part of why I own a sedan rather than an SUV (although not the only reason) is safety of others. It's also part of why I avoided car ownership for many years!
I'd prefer that this safety consideration be handled via regulation, though. I'd love to see cars that recklessly endanger the lives of those outside the car banned, limited, or taxed.
Absolutely, but successfully enacting such measures would mean political violence, which is a whole different thing from traffic deaths, and even attempting it would probably lead to a wave of elections going toward the party promising not to do it (and likely to do a bunch of other things that are the governance equivalent of punching yourself in the face—god, our politics are dumb in this country). You think people get upset about any hint of gun regulation, look out if you go after big trucks. No-one's going to be crazy enough to try it, though yes, we definitely should take measures to drastically reduce the number of large personal vehicles on the road, in an ideal world.
30k / year die in car accidents in the USA. This is a real problem with a huge human toll, akin to drunk driving or building codes.
Step 1 is slow the vehicles down. As soon as they slow down, one of the main drivers of size - fear of an accident with a bigger vehicle - will be greatly decreased and we can do step 2: shrink them.
reply