this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1686 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59599 readers
3107 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gigan 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The more I read about them, the worse it gets.

It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency.

It's like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don't actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example -- they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny.

People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer -- but that isn't really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly.

The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you're in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn't matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms.

And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse.

Of course, the entire appeal to "safety" is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, because free market capitalism has been working out great.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I think you assumed that comment said something it didn't.

[–] MindSkipperBro12 -5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Regulations literally brought us to this…

[–] grue 10 points 1 year ago

Regulatory capture brought us to this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I'd honestly say it's a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we're seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won't solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system.

Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence