c/Cars is the largest automotive enthusiast community on Lemmy and the fediverse. We're your central hub for vehicle-related discussion, industry news, reviews, projects, DIY guides, advice, stories, and more.
they literally banned pop-up headlights because of "pedestrian safety". how about having a real driving school system instead of letting people drive if they pass the test after the 1200th time by random chance?
i do agree that a multi-ton stainless steel bomb is dangerous, but cars are inherently dangerous. that's just something that needs to be adressed by proper training and infrastructure that makes collisions less likely.
how about having a real driving school system instead of letting people drive if they pass the test after the 1200th time by random chance?
I would love to make it more difficult for people to get (and keep!) a driver's license, but I think we need to invest more in public transit first. Otherwise people will be stranded and unable to work, go to school, go to the store, etc. So many things require a car, and we need to get rid of that requirement first.
You have a bit of a chicken and egg problem here: Nobody wants to invest in public transport because everybody is driving by car, while nobody wants to use public transport, because it is shit. Increasing the lobby for better public transport by making it harder to drive could be useful there, assuming you make the state take care of the problem cases during the transition (here in Europe some countries cover costs of taxi fare for kids who can't reach school within a reasonable time by public transit, for example)
you make it sound like the public transport system runs on donations by civilians. any reasonable politician would funnel some of the tax money into the system.
Not when car dealerships pay so much in sales taxes, and they get more money from the feds for highways than they do for trains
The DMV is not the public works/transit department
Yup, driving is a privilege, not a right.
What does that have to do with my comment?
The DMV, which handles licensing, does not develop public transit
Nah; do it now. There's never going to be enough political will for public transit until people are suffering for the lack of it.
they literally banned pop-up headlights because of "pedestrian safety".
This is a really cool TIL!!
Thanks for that tidbit
This seems to be a great time to have that discussion. I think historically in the US, people just couldn’t get around with a car as our mass transit has been historically terrible but things are improving with ride share now (not nearly as good but better than nothing). Now that there are actually real alternatives to driving, we should be actively increasing the threshold to obtain a drivers license. I mean, we won’t, but we should.
our mass transit has been historically terrible
It wasn't always terrible, it was gutted and attacked by auto-makers to pave way for the car.
I forgot about that and yeah I remember reading about how car companies bought out trolly lines just to close them and force people into cars. So I shall amend my statement to our mass transit has been terrible across the past few decades.
General Motors is the guilty party.
Uber is NOT an acceptable replacement for public transport and acting like it is, is foolish. A public transit system seeks to move people around, and make enough money to keep themselves alive. A rideshare app only seeks profit, and will move people around as a means to that end. They are diametrically opposed. Further privatizing things in America that should be public utilities is a very bad, no good, awful idea.
Driving ability comes second behind vehicle design and systemic car dependency.
I've got a Volvo wagon, which is not exactly a tiny car. I parked next to a new GMC Sierra 2500 and the hood of that truck is level with the roof of my car.
Nice! What year?
I used to have an ‘03 V70R. I could fit all my band gear in it at the time: amp, 4x12, several guitars, an 88 key piano, two 61 key synths, keyboard stands, AND my singer in the front seat!
Not tiny at all!
I've got a '16 v60. A little smaller than your v70 but still fantastic to drive and cavernous
Ive got an 08 V70. Specifically didnt go to a v60 because I saw someone move a single door fridge in their v70 and I thought "I want that"
Most big trucks have bumpers that are a good foot or so above my normal sized car's.
That shit shouldn't be legal.
Add to the fact that the cybertruck doesn't have crumple zones, which are a basic safety feature in practically all cars and trucks made since the 2000s.
If that thing hits you as a pedestrian or if you're in a car, you will lose. Only having your own car crumple to absorb the impact will do little to dissuade the 7000 lb behemoth barreling towards you, either in a frontal collision or worse, a driver side impact.
There are videos online clearly showing the front crumpling in a crash test.
The main danger to pedestrians over other such trucks is the sharp edges.
The danger to other cars is the same age old problem with SUVs amplified by current battery density.
Doesn't have crumple zones? How does this thing possibly meet safety standards?
Normally pickup trucks and SUVs in the USA are considered "light trucks" which have easier safety and emissions standards.
I don't really know the ins and outs if it though, I just watch videos on the internet.
Yeah, "light trucks" also includes full size vans, minivans, SUVs. Which is a big reason why there are so many of those on the road: manufacturers don't have to meet the same fuel economy or safety standards as passenger cars.
This is why full size pickups are getting bigger. Each year the regulation requirements adjust so manufacturers adjust to avoid the to comply. This is why the incoming 2024 Toyota Tacoma is roughly the same size as full sized pickups in the 90’s.
By design.
"Don't believe every comment you read on Lemmy." -Abraham Lincoln
compared to an f-150 lightning, it has roughly the same amount of crumpling. i think the panels around the front are just a little thinner than the steel panels the f-150 uses.
but both are far more dangerous than your average hatchback due to the visibility alone. you are literally allowed to remove all rear-view mirrors in america.
Iirc you only have to have one functional mirror, but that may vary by state.
A rear-view mirror really isn't super necessary, though. If you angle your side view mirrors right, you can see enough to drive safely.
i do know the cybertruck has backup cameras and all that, but a little silver-coated piece of glass is hard to replace with cameras.
but if it's allowed to be sold, and people are buying it, i don't have any say in that. i just wish people would be more aware of their surroundings.
No, what I'm saying is that having a rear view isn't necessary at all to drive safely. Panel vans, delivery trucks, semis, etc. don't have them.
Add to the fact that the cybertruck doesn't have crumple zones
This is a absolutely false and you can see it in videos and there is even an engineering discussion that describes how it works.
The castings themselves have areas that begin weaker, and becoming increasingly stronger as the crash moves further into the casting.
It disperses the energy as it crumples.
This isn't even new to their CT castings, it's designed into their other vehicles as well.
Man just posts straight misinformation to the internet, how could he.