I honestly don’t think this is enough. We also need to regulate the size of cars. And a tax incentive shouldn’t be the only deterrent: it should be a legal requirement. Big heavy cars are proven...
I honestly don’t think this is enough. We also need to regulate the size of cars. And a tax incentive shouldn’t be the only deterrent: it should be a legal requirement. Big heavy cars are proven to be dangerous. we need to get rid of SUVs and macro-trucks and replace them with something more like a kei car.
Sure we may still need big heavy trucks for businesses, but make those available only to corporations and require use of a more restrictive license.
I like the idea of more restrictive licensing, period. Make owning cars onerous enough you only want to do it if you need to. Golf cart? Whatever. Sedan? Renew with in person test every 5 years....
I like the idea of more restrictive licensing, period. Make owning cars onerous enough you only want to do it if you need to.
Golf cart? Whatever.
Sedan? Renew with in person test every 5 years.
SUV? Annual written exam as well
Any moving violations? Mandatory drivers ed course.
It also shows a lot of disregard for the hardships that poor folks in metro areas with a lot of sprawl and poor public transportation deal with, on top of all the other bullshit that poverty...
It also shows a lot of disregard for the hardships that poor folks in metro areas with a lot of sprawl and poor public transportation deal with, on top of all the other bullshit that poverty throws at them.
The pavement princesses are useless though. Any truck bigger than the Maverick is basically just bad at its ostensible job among 90% of the people who drive them. And if there is a real...
I'm sorry you have douchebags running pavement princesses in your city but that doesn't mean the vehicles are useless.
The pavement princesses are useless though. Any truck bigger than the Maverick is basically just bad at its ostensible job among 90% of the people who drive them. And if there is a real professional or fleet use case for it, it's not too much to require a special license or certification to operate those.
You don't need to drive a Kei truck. But even a Camry or, if you need a bed, something like a Hyundai Santa Cruz is gonna be just fine to get you over a gravel road.
Look dude, people got around on roads as bad as any that exist today on cars with a fraction of modern vehicles’ horsepower and torque for long before these design sensibilities dominated. It is...
Sometimes I feel like I live on a different planet than some of the other people here on Tildes.
Look dude, people got around on roads as bad as any that exist today on cars with a fraction of modern vehicles’ horsepower and torque for long before these design sensibilities dominated. It is going to be very hard to convince anyone that brodozers like a modern Silverado or F-150 are necessary for any real practical purpose. The F-150 in the 90s was basically the size of the Maverick today. What do you think people were doing then? It’s not as if everyone was cruising around in Range Rovers and G-Wagens back then.
Most of my family still lives in India. I visit often. We get to and from fathers ancestral village on top of a switchback road that turns into pure mud in the rainy season. Most of the time we get there in a Skoda sedan. When the weather is bad you need, like, a Scorpio which is maybe 5k lbs max. Which is a good 1,000 lbs less than the superduty brodozer. And we don’t need it, it’s a nice to have.
Even asserting random mining roads in the middle of bumblefuck constitute a meaningful fraction of truck sales borders on nonsensical. Almost everybody buying these is buying them as performative lifestylism. The ones who aren’t constitute a rounding error. When I said the Santa Cruz is more than enough for 90% of people who buy trucks I was being generous. It’s really probably more like 98%.
IMO will likely cause a great deal more harm and hardship than most people advocating for that here probably realize.
Yeah being light weight and nimble actually helps a lot in muddy conditions. Those moped get by because they simply go around the parts they might get stuck in.
Yeah being light weight and nimble actually helps a lot in muddy conditions. Those moped get by because they simply go around the parts they might get stuck in.
Nobody is saying this. The solution I suggested included exemptions for exactly your situation. Yes it is harder to get those qualifications, but only by a small amount. In many jurisdictions it’s...
Nobody is saying this.
The solution I suggested included exemptions for exactly your situation. Yes it is harder to get those qualifications, but only by a small amount. In many jurisdictions it’s extremely simple to get a DBA, which is enough to consider yourself a corporation, and there are many resources to get something like a CDL.
It’s fine that you need a big truck to do your work. It’s not fine when everyone is driving them because they’re fashionable and more profitable for the car companies. Especially when those designs are literally responsible for an increase of deaths. They are simply not worth it.
You drive 200km every day? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm fascinated as to what job requires you spend 4-6 hours a day driving along gravel roads, all the while carrying 38 six foot...
You drive 200km every day?
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm fascinated as to what job requires you spend 4-6 hours a day driving along gravel roads, all the while carrying 38 six foot long Pelicans? (also what's in the cases?!)
Especially when you can be ticketed without proof and fighting it is almost futile. It would be a great way for officers to just jack someone's life up at will.
Especially when you can be ticketed without proof and fighting it is almost futile. It would be a great way for officers to just jack someone's life up at will.
I'll counter with this: If they can't make a 30 minute appointment once every 5 years, maybe they shouldn't be operating a 2 ton hunk of machinery. The damage these things do even at slow speeds...
I'll counter with this:
If they can't make a 30 minute appointment once every 5 years, maybe they shouldn't be operating a 2 ton hunk of machinery.
The damage these things do even at slow speeds is ridiculous. Maybe people will learn to pay attention instead of fiddling with their phones if the punishment is more onerous than a fine. Frankly I think its more fair than a $200 fine because the rich can't escape it.
It's a 30 minute appointment now, without the US's 282.8 million drivers having to do it every five years. Now, let's drop an extra 127.4 thousand appointments every day into the system. I do...
It's a 30 minute appointment now, without the US's 282.8 million drivers having to do it every five years. Now, let's drop an extra 127.4 thousand appointments every day into the system. I do believe wait times will increase just a tad.
Sounds like a lot till you break it down. If an employee can do 10 30 minute tests in an 8 hour shift (3 hours of downtime), you need about 13,000 employees for the entire nation, or 254 per...
Sounds like a lot till you break it down.
If an employee can do 10 30 minute tests in an 8 hour shift (3 hours of downtime), you need about 13,000 employees for the entire nation, or 254 per state. My state alone has over 20 centers, so could handle the burden with less than 15 hires per center.
A small price to pay for the chance to lower the 102 traffic fatalities a day.
For the utilitarians, at the rough estimate of a human life being worth $1 million (on the low end), that's $37 billion being lost annually for something that is readily preventable by forcing people to be better drivers.
Sadly is the state of affairs. Everyone wants the benefits of beuracracy but not the expense. The car infrastructure we built is not sustainable, it's going to crumble eventually. We're just...
Sadly is the state of affairs. Everyone wants the benefits of beuracracy but not the expense.
The car infrastructure we built is not sustainable, it's going to crumble eventually. We're just starting to see the burden of the explosion that happened in the 60s through 80s. We thought our taxes were high before...
TBH my city is in the grip of a huge spike in pedestrian deaths, often caused by flagrantly unsafe drivers with a list of unpaid parking and speeding tickets as long as my arm. Any attempt to ramp...
TBH my city is in the grip of a huge spike in pedestrian deaths, often caused by flagrantly unsafe drivers with a list of unpaid parking and speeding tickets as long as my arm. Any attempt to ramp up traffic enforcement gets resisted by the baseline population of other reckless drivers and suburbanites and they wrap their arguments around shedding crocodile tears about "the working poor," but it's a total canard. They just hate the idea of any additional inconvenience being put on their ability to treat the city like their personal parking lot and driving track.
Traffic deaths are avoidable and there is no reason they should be as endemic as they are. Reckless drivers are a menace and automative design choices both encourage reckless driving and exacerbate the dangers of doing so. If enforcing traffic safety laws at all is a meaningful welfare loss for the poor this means there are problems with transit and urban planning. But cars are expensive to own and maintain. The working poor can't afford them here and we have plenty of perfectly good bus service and micromobility options.
Same in the UK for certain offences. You get to choose, points on your license or spend 4-5 hours on a "Speed Awareness" course. Obviously I did the course (I tripped a speed camera at 34mph about...
Same in the UK for certain offences. You get to choose, points on your license or spend 4-5 hours on a "Speed Awareness" course. Obviously I did the course (I tripped a speed camera at 34mph about 25 metres into a 30 zone, really stupid move on my part) and honestly it was pretty good. I learned some things and I really do think I'm a safer driver as a result.
I would add to this, zero "safe" amount of blood alcohol. The idea that you're OK to drive after a couple of drinks is utter madness with absolutely no evidence to suggest it's true. One drink,...
I would add to this, zero "safe" amount of blood alcohol. The idea that you're OK to drive after a couple of drinks is utter madness with absolutely no evidence to suggest it's true.
When I was young and dumb, I thought DUI laws were oppressive. Now I see its the people drinking and driving are just straight wrong. I'm OK with your life being ruined for drinking and driving....
When I was young and dumb, I thought DUI laws were oppressive.
Now I see its the people drinking and driving are just straight wrong. I'm OK with your life being ruined for drinking and driving.
Some prison time for my drinking and driving in my youth would have done me some good I think.
I honestly don’t think this is enough. We also need to regulate the size of cars. And a tax incentive shouldn’t be the only deterrent: it should be a legal requirement. Big heavy cars are proven to be dangerous. we need to get rid of SUVs and macro-trucks and replace them with something more like a kei car.
Sure we may still need big heavy trucks for businesses, but make those available only to corporations and require use of a more restrictive license.
I like the idea of more restrictive licensing, period. Make owning cars onerous enough you only want to do it if you need to.
Golf cart? Whatever.
Sedan? Renew with in person test every 5 years.
SUV? Annual written exam as well
Any moving violations? Mandatory drivers ed course.
It also shows a lot of disregard for the hardships that poor folks in metro areas with a lot of sprawl and poor public transportation deal with, on top of all the other bullshit that poverty throws at them.
The pavement princesses are useless though. Any truck bigger than the Maverick is basically just bad at its ostensible job among 90% of the people who drive them. And if there is a real professional or fleet use case for it, it's not too much to require a special license or certification to operate those.
You don't need to drive a Kei truck. But even a Camry or, if you need a bed, something like a Hyundai Santa Cruz is gonna be just fine to get you over a gravel road.
Look dude, people got around on roads as bad as any that exist today on cars with a fraction of modern vehicles’ horsepower and torque for long before these design sensibilities dominated. It is going to be very hard to convince anyone that brodozers like a modern Silverado or F-150 are necessary for any real practical purpose. The F-150 in the 90s was basically the size of the Maverick today. What do you think people were doing then? It’s not as if everyone was cruising around in Range Rovers and G-Wagens back then.
Most of my family still lives in India. I visit often. We get to and from fathers ancestral village on top of a switchback road that turns into pure mud in the rainy season. Most of the time we get there in a Skoda sedan. When the weather is bad you need, like, a Scorpio which is maybe 5k lbs max. Which is a good 1,000 lbs less than the superduty brodozer. And we don’t need it, it’s a nice to have.
Even asserting random mining roads in the middle of bumblefuck constitute a meaningful fraction of truck sales borders on nonsensical. Almost everybody buying these is buying them as performative lifestylism. The ones who aren’t constitute a rounding error. When I said the Santa Cruz is more than enough for 90% of people who buy trucks I was being generous. It’s really probably more like 98%.
Honestly I’m kind of over sacrificing urban lives for suburbanite performative masculinity.. The number of car buyers in rural areas who “need” these are a rounding error. They are not who are driving these design decisions and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Yeah being light weight and nimble actually helps a lot in muddy conditions. Those moped get by because they simply go around the parts they might get stuck in.
Nobody is saying this.
The solution I suggested included exemptions for exactly your situation. Yes it is harder to get those qualifications, but only by a small amount. In many jurisdictions it’s extremely simple to get a DBA, which is enough to consider yourself a corporation, and there are many resources to get something like a CDL.
It’s fine that you need a big truck to do your work. It’s not fine when everyone is driving them because they’re fashionable and more profitable for the car companies. Especially when those designs are literally responsible for an increase of deaths. They are simply not worth it.
You drive 200km every day?
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm fascinated as to what job requires you spend 4-6 hours a day driving along gravel roads, all the while carrying 38 six foot long Pelicans? (also what's in the cases?!)
Cool, so you do something in power electronics. Nothing so interesting as other people's jobs.. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Yeah... We can all agree cars are awful, but over punishing people without presenting a suitable alternative is just mean.
Especially when you can be ticketed without proof and fighting it is almost futile. It would be a great way for officers to just jack someone's life up at will.
I'll counter with this:
If they can't make a 30 minute appointment once every 5 years, maybe they shouldn't be operating a 2 ton hunk of machinery.
The damage these things do even at slow speeds is ridiculous. Maybe people will learn to pay attention instead of fiddling with their phones if the punishment is more onerous than a fine. Frankly I think its more fair than a $200 fine because the rich can't escape it.
It's a 30 minute appointment now, without the US's 282.8 million drivers having to do it every five years. Now, let's drop an extra 127.4 thousand appointments every day into the system. I do believe wait times will increase just a tad.
Sounds like a lot till you break it down.
If an employee can do 10 30 minute tests in an 8 hour shift (3 hours of downtime), you need about 13,000 employees for the entire nation, or 254 per state. My state alone has over 20 centers, so could handle the burden with less than 15 hires per center.
A small price to pay for the chance to lower the 102 traffic fatalities a day.
For the utilitarians, at the rough estimate of a human life being worth $1 million (on the low end), that's $37 billion being lost annually for something that is readily preventable by forcing people to be better drivers.
Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods they're reducing centers, not expanding them.
Sadly is the state of affairs. Everyone wants the benefits of beuracracy but not the expense.
The car infrastructure we built is not sustainable, it's going to crumble eventually. We're just starting to see the burden of the explosion that happened in the 60s through 80s. We thought our taxes were high before...
TBH my city is in the grip of a huge spike in pedestrian deaths, often caused by flagrantly unsafe drivers with a list of unpaid parking and speeding tickets as long as my arm. Any attempt to ramp up traffic enforcement gets resisted by the baseline population of other reckless drivers and suburbanites and they wrap their arguments around shedding crocodile tears about "the working poor," but it's a total canard. They just hate the idea of any additional inconvenience being put on their ability to treat the city like their personal parking lot and driving track.
Traffic deaths are avoidable and there is no reason they should be as endemic as they are. Reckless drivers are a menace and automative design choices both encourage reckless driving and exacerbate the dangers of doing so. If enforcing traffic safety laws at all is a meaningful welfare loss for the poor this means there are problems with transit and urban planning. But cars are expensive to own and maintain. The working poor can't afford them here and we have plenty of perfectly good bus service and micromobility options.
In California you can actually get your first minor ticket removed from the record if you take a licensed driver's ed course.
Or so I've heard.... 💦
Same in the UK for certain offences. You get to choose, points on your license or spend 4-5 hours on a "Speed Awareness" course. Obviously I did the course (I tripped a speed camera at 34mph about 25 metres into a 30 zone, really stupid move on my part) and honestly it was pretty good. I learned some things and I really do think I'm a safer driver as a result.
DUI? Revoke license for 5 years, mandate they sell their car and blacklist them at dealerships.
I would add to this, zero "safe" amount of blood alcohol. The idea that you're OK to drive after a couple of drinks is utter madness with absolutely no evidence to suggest it's true.
One drink, one drive, no license.
When I was young and dumb, I thought DUI laws were oppressive.
Now I see its the people drinking and driving are just straight wrong. I'm OK with your life being ruined for drinking and driving.
Some prison time for my drinking and driving in my youth would have done me some good I think.