The more I think on this, the more I wonder if it’s truly unpopular “here,” but it certainly is in public.

Headlights should be no more than 2 feet off the ground. Yes, your SUV will look dumb. No, you won’t be able to see as far. But you also won’t be blinding everyone.

And no, adjusting angles does not solve this for monster trucks in the US.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      furthermore, anyone responsible for the touch screen disaster in the Ford Edge should be persecuted to the fullest extent with prejudice under this new law.

      The most correct answers on this are Apple (Steve Jobs) and Tesla (Elon Musk) for pushing the idea of touchscreen everything. Although an honorable mention goes to federal safety regulators who saw no problem with taking your eyes and mind off of the road for basic driver-controlled functions like changing the radio station or adjusting the temperature.

    • meyotch@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because of freedom, I prefer punitive taxation of large vehicles like SUV unless associated with a documented need for a vehicle of that capacity.

      • eksb@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why a tax instead of a ban?

        “Sure, you can have this dangerous, child-crushing, planet destroying machine that externalizes most of its costs to society, and you can use it in public and be a dick with it, but only if you are rich.”

        • meyotch@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just feel taxation is a better mechanism to change behavior than outright bans. Both are authoritarian solutions but optional taxes that can be avoided are less so. I favor these solutions over bans for the same reasons I prefer harm-reduction tax-and-regulate schemes over drug prohibitions.

          In addition the tax money can be earmarked to do some good, perhaps rebate programs to encourage right-sized vehicle purchases.

          As an example, extra taxes on sugary sodas reduce consumption most places they have been tried.

          Recent study on sugar taxes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161017/

          Cigarette taxes work too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

        • eltrain123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What if taxes or fines were tied to personal wealth rather than a nominal flat fee?

          I know there are some European countries that tie fines to annual income. That would do better at equalizing the effects of undesirable behavior regardless of wealth. If a parking ticket or speeding ticket or excessively polluting vehicle is going to cost a wealthy person tens of thousands of dollars extra, maybe they’ll find a more suitable and community-centric behavior.

          You still have to get past the upper class tricks of driving “income” down by taking out loans to live off of, but that’s another conversation… maybe tie it to net wealth and make the wealthy sell stocks to pay the fines…