• n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Saw a lady driving a truck which its hood was taller than my veloster and all I saw was knuckles. This old lady probably couldn’t even see the road.
    Fuck these people and fuck the companies that make em

    Large trucks like that should be like transports. Ya should have to take a special license course to even be able to own to prove you can drive it. 90% of truck owners can’t so they own the biggest POS to ensure their safety at everyone’s else’s safety.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I see A LOT of older people who can’t see over the dash. I bet they don’t know their seat raises vertically. their eyes line up with the top of the steering wheel, no way they’re paying attention enough to what’s going on beyond 15 feet, much less around them.

  • zeekaran@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Every time I see a movie from the 90s and older, and they show a parking lot, I get sad. Everyone used to drive reasonably sized sedans. Family vehicles were wagons. Fuck SUVs and trucks.

  • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Bumper height needs to be standardized so they match up properly. One of the biggest safety issues is how modern SUV bumpers don’t align with cars bumper bars.

    • helopigs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Maybe this is the point, but that might cause SUVs to be prohibitively unsafe, because their center of momentum would be so high relative to impact height. For example, if an SUV with one of these low bumpers hit a barrier, it would probably perform a front flip over it 😂

    • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      My Sequoia is like 2.5x the size of my Honda fit. If I ever hit my Honda while pulling into the driveway I’ll total it.

      I fully agree with your statement.

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Do you like your Sequoia? I have been thinking about trading in my Explorer for one. Or an Expedition.

        Know this is a hate thread about SUV’s, but those of us with large families don’t have any other options.

        • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 minutes ago

          I have a 2012 platinum it’s amazing. I get 12-15mpg…lol yea I have a 5 person family with the 7 seater Sequoia.

  • auzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    20 hours ago

    They need to do that here too in Australia

    If you’re driving a larger vehicle, you should be putting in more care.

    But they don’t seem to here in Australia. They’ll park badly and put less effort into fixing it than a small sedan

    It’s tiring that this is even still a thing

  • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    “MUH FREEDOM. FUCKIN COMMIES”

    I can just see the pavement princess brigade seething because their next emotional support penismobile won’t be exaggerated anymore and they will actually be able to see pedestrians and cyclists.

  • aloeTGL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    It’s like a negative feedback loop I want an SUV because of a truck or another SUV hit me. I feel like I might be able to survive that but if I’m in my geometro, or a small compact car. I don’t think I’m coming out of that alive if a giant trucker or suv hit me And I know that’s not gonna change. They’re not gonna suddenly recall thousands of oversized pick up trucks those trucks are gonna be on the road for the next 10 to 15 years to come, even if something changes soon. It would take a while to phase them out.

    I just want public high-speed rail everywhere 15 minutes cities please

  • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    For the first time ever, manufacturers would be required to study the impact of test dummies hit outside of vehicles. The rules would likely change the design of what America drives permanently.

    That’s all the article says about the actual rule changes. Based on this information alone, I know very little about what will actually change.

    I feel like the NHTSA should do way more if they can and argue for limits on light truck sizes in their length, height, weight, and perhaps classification.

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Well, for one thing, an M1 Abrams main battle tank has better front sightlines than most trucks on the road today.

      And it isn’t even that much more dangerous to get hit by because of the giant flat-face front impact planes of the trucks. Used to be if you got hit by a car it would roll you up over the hood, now you just die.

      I have to imagine that will impact the testing and design at least somewhat.

      Edit: fixed the image link

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Not sure about the second part, tanks are built to go over things. Their “negative slant” seems more likely to push things under than a car’s hood or a truck/SUV’s flat face.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Oh sure if you get run over by a tank you’re going under the treads and it’s lights out for you. No question. My point was though, with sedans or older smaller trucks, the point of impact would hit around waist level on most adults and you’d be thrown up and over the hood, which would bleed off a lot of the lethal impact damage. These days the full weight of the truck is going to hit you in the chest and shoulders and you’re not getting thrown anywhere but forward and under.

          If you’re a child, you’re pretty screwed either way, but modern big trucks are way, way more dangerous in a frontal impact than they used to be just based on the shape of the things. That big flat face is like getting slammed directly into a wall at 80mph.

    • grudan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The other thing it mentioned was the “head-to-hood” test. AFAIK car manufacturers are only required to meet the collision safety requirements for collisions involving the same class of vehicle. Vehicles in different classes are not made to impact with each other, making, for instance, a sedan to pickup truck collision much more dangerous for the sedan driver. The only way they can still meet those safety requirements is to make the front of the SUVs and trucks much much smaller and probably lower.

      Edit: I was thinking of the AP article about this.

    • USSMojave@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      For the first time ever, manufacturers would be required to study the impact of test dummies hit outside of vehicles

      But that will reveal a LOT of corroborating information for what we know, which is how dangerous they are. It’s a good thing to have more data

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I suspect the only “change” that will happen is a large amount of money changing hands so they don’t have to bother.

      Double the price of petrol. That will make Americans desire small cars again.

  • demizerone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yay we will have the return of small trucks. These behemoths are good for towing and work, but not everyday driving.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Hey buddy! Without a Ford F150 that’s taller than the average elementary school student and a box that can barely fit an average grocery store trip, how else am I supposed to tell people I have a tiny penis?

    • Shapillon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Most of the behemoths aren’t even good as utilitary vehicles…

      I’ve got a 15yo Renault Kangoo which could beat almost any oversized suburban pedestrian flattener in all metrics except price.

    • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I want so much to ditch my Jeep Grand Cherokee for a truck (I drive to work once a week but pull a camper on the weekends), sadly a lot of them might not fit in my 1970’s garage.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    There should really be a redistribution gas tax, another dollar per gallon on gas which then goes back split evenly to every American. Incentivizes less gas usage while avoiding the regressive nature of a sales tax. Canada has something like this.

    Ruinous politically so it would never happen but it would be a good plan.

    • Grappling7155@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s the carbon tax and carbon rebate in Canada. When paired with a carbon tariff, it’s a great market friendly solution to reduce emissions. Beware though, it really really triggers regressive petrosexual conservatives and the ones in Canada keep trying to trigger an election over it so they can get rid of it ASAP and pollute more.

    • Lobreeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’m Canadian… avoiding tax??

      Hahahahahaha I want what you’re smoking.

      We literally get taxed on tax

    • ghen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      As was designed by the people who actually wrote those laws, the lobbyists. More profitable cars to sell as America moves farther and farther away from reality with car prices.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    My dream car: An EV version of the 1955 Nash Metropolitan, seen here in this silly ad photo:

    (Sorry, it’s hard to find pictures that give a true indication of the smallness of the car. Also, mine would be the red and white two tone variety.)

    • I just want a tiny electric hatchback, like, Honda fit sized, that has like 150+ mile range, and doesn’t use an outdated charging standard. I’ve considered a Nissan Leaf but they are still sticking with the chademo charger port, which is way less common.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Yes!

      Even that was in an era or needlessly ego-boosting giant cars, going utilitarian to get a better product, better lives on average, even save resources - amazing (but with the cardinal sin of not being expensive enough and thus not as financially profitable).

      For the same reason I would love to get a normally viable car of much smol.

      Like a bit more modern version of Figaro:

      Or a sexy mid-engine Autozam:

      Kei cars are qewl!

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Sounds good now, but we’ll just end up with bigger pickup trucks that have cowcatchers installed.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 days ago

    As it is the US has no pedestrian safety standards at the federal level. I’m pretty sure if GM wanted to put out a truck with running chainsaws all over it then it would be perfectly legal as far as the NHTSA is concerned, although some state regulators might have a problem with it which is probably why it doesn’t happen in reality.

    • modeler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re in the process of describing a Cybertruck, just the misfitting panel ‘teeth’ aren’t rotating

  • Tiefling IRL@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I have a Honda Fit (compact 4 seater) and absolutely LOVE the little car, plus it’s easier to park. But holy shit looking for a compact is hard! Everything is a fucking SUV or truck these days! Just count the number of sedans vs SUVs next time you’re out and about. My favorite cars, the 2 door Mini Cooper and VW Buggy, aren’t even made any more.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        Some of that is crumple zones and airbags, but yes there’s pretty much nothing for “small” cars (10 to 14 feet long) in the US.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Since the fuel efficiency standards are based on the vehicles footprint, going a few inches bigger allows for a slightly more powerful but also slightly less fuel efficient engine. So the car is roomier, more powerful, and doesn’t get penalized for lower mpg.

          Small trucks are penized for not being fuel efficent enough. I really wish that lead to smaller electric or hybrid trucks like the Maverick, but people have been conviced that those smaller efficient trucks are bad.

          I wish the standards were not based on size, but by vehicle type. Same end result for trucks being popular, but at least smaller trucks would be viable alternatives to sedans again.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Or hell, just base it on straight up fuel efficiency. If there’s a small car that’s already more fuel efficient than everything else on the market, there should be no disincentive to sell more of them, even if that fuel efficiency doesn’t improve over time.

            A larger vehicle is only better if it’s being used to move more people (that would otherwise be using another vehicle). Maybe instead of mpg (miles per gallon) it should be pmpg (person miles per gallon), where it not only depends on the vehicle itself but how many people are expected to ride in it regularly (which the manufacturer can add seats for but is more dependent on the owner).

            • snooggums@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Going by seats would encourage the already annoying four door pickup trend since it means every truck needs to be longer to compensate. I mean, wouldn’t a smaller two seater truck that gets better mileage be an improvement over a full size four door truck?

              A small two door pickup that gets mileage close to a similarly sized hatchback would be awesome. But it would be hard to do in the US right now because of mpg standards being tied to size, which are also the reason so many tiny cars are underpowered to squeeze out that last few mpg.

              • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 hours ago

                That’s what I meant about it being more dependent on the owner rather than the number of seats. You can’t tell at the point of sale how many people each buyer is going to be transporting regularly, but it plays a huge role in how efficient that vehicle will ultimately be.

                A four seater truck is horrible if it’s just the owner riding alone in it, but pretty good if it’s full and being driven instead of 4 single occupier trucks.

                Though a 4 seater sedan is even better, so I was referring mostly to higher occupancy vehicles, like vans that can seat 7+. One of those could replace two sedans if filled to capacity. Or a 50 seater bus, or a 300 seater train (or whatever capacity mass transit options have).

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    But how will all of these guys compensate for their average or less than average penis?