Australia

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 3 years ago (5 children)

How about we allow them in, but make them work in our interests through high taxes and other ownership requirements that more than offset the damage they do.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[+] Fluid@aussie.zone 16 points 3 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 5 points 3 years ago

Yeah, if it was simply environmental, then maybe there could be some sort of offset scheme introduced. However unlikely it would be to actually make it to 1:1.

But adding the extra, and unnecessary, road danger, yeah.. old mates weekend can go stick it.

parent

[–] Lintson@aussie.zone 3 points 3 years ago

Can you please write all public policy for the country?

parent

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Also disallow tax writeoffs on 'em

parent

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 1 point 3 years ago

The problem is the tax writeoffs are for businesses. You can't close that loophole unless the govt gets into the weeds of defining exactly what a "work truck" is. Those people who claim tax writeoffs on these yank tanks actually do use them for work or appear to. ~~Even if the use is just driving to work.~~

parent

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 26 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

A cautionary tale of what we don't want to become (and are on our way to becoming): These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us

[–] nobodyspecial@kbin.social 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

F = ma, or net force is equal to mass times acceleration. That's the physics driving adoption of land barges. Have to have lots of mass to avoid being subjected to deadly amounts of acceleration when the distracted, texting, makeup applying, breakfast juggling driver plows into you in their lifted F350.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 years ago

Crashes are actually a shitload more complicated than that. Impulse is a big deal and then you have to factor in the meat geometry of a human and the specialness of various bits of meat.

Don't throw scientifish nonsense around. Just say big car scary make get big car.

parent

[–] elkazz@aussie.zone 15 points 3 years ago

Are we all just going the ignore the fact that the FCIA director's name is Peter Griffin?

[–] Kittybird@aussie.zone 11 points 3 years ago (4 children)

Make a suitable alternative for the soccer mums. Most suvs never go outside the city these days

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Lintson@aussie.zone 9 points 3 years ago (3 children)

It's a symptom of the ride height war. When everyones giant arse car is blocking your view of oncoming traffic you either follow suit or literally risk death every time you pull out of your kids daycare.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 years ago (5 children)

We bought an electric recently. Was very upset to have to choose the Kona in order to fit 2 tall people and 2 big dogs. It's a great car but being realistic there's no need for it to be so big.

It seems like the styles now being sold are small hatchback, sedan, and everything else is SUV. Very disappointing to see there's not much middle ground lile the station wagon space or slightly larger hatchbacks. Especially with EVs. Most of my trips are like 40 km at most. I don't need 500 km range with a full car...

hideshow 5 child comments

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 7 points 3 years ago

Just a reminder to keep discussions civil and respectful - This includes dog-piling, everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you notice the conversation degenerate it is fine just to agree to disagree.

[–] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.ml 7 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

What's actually going to ruin adoption are the new electric vehicle taxes being introduced

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] nickiam2@aussie.zone 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

EVs are much heavier than ICE cars of the same size and wear roads faster so more funding will be needed to maintain everything. Walkability/cycling and PT are the way forward

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] lordriffington@aussie.zone 20 points 3 years ago

While it's true that EVs are generally heavier than equivalent ICE vehicles, it doesn't actually make much difference. Heavy trucks account for the vast majority of road wear and tear. Even a comparatively heavy EV doesn't weigh anywhere near as much as a truck.

The "EVs will wear the roads out!" argument is generally trotted out by people who have been influenced by those who have a vested interest in keeping ICE around.

It's true that active transport and PT are better in most respects, its naive to think we'll be getting rid of cars any time soon. When people do need to drive, an EV is always a better choice from an environmental standpoint.

parent

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] yoz@aussie.zone 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I was at a shopping center and the car park was almost full. Then i saw this dumb bitch in her big ford Raptor , trying to get into the parking lot which is already busy. Looking at her driving skill and face , I knew she'll do something dumb so I took out my phone and started recording. 5 minutes in she side swiped another car. The guy who was driving a VW golf got out and yelled at her in some asian language. I recorded the full thing, its really fun to watch

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Would they not be driving gas-powered SUVs if not for the availability of electric ones? Are electric SUVs not more efficient than a gas-powered vehicle of the same mass? If so, then that's still a win, just less of one than was hoped for.