this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
326 points (94.1% liked)

News

23367 readers
4585 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 275 points 9 months ago (19 children)

Hmm, these huge trucks are killing pedestrians, causing worse crashes due to crash incompatibility, destroying the climate, and now smashing through guard rails and flying off cliffs. We'd better change our entire country's infrastructure to accommodate them.

[–] bigbadmoose@lemmy.world 78 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's the good Christian thing to do

[–] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

Isn't this just the road trying to solve the problem for us? I say we should have more ditches and guardrail barriers!

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 135 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Tax the heavy cars much more, they cause more dammage in crashes and way more wear and tear in general.

[–] Rivalarrival 79 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Fuck that. The problem isnt that people want bigger cars. The problem is that NHTSA's CAFE standards favor manufacture of larger cars.

CAFE slowly reduces the amount of emissions that vehicles can have, but they fucked it up: the required reductions are greatest on the smallest, most efficient cars, and lowest on the largest vehicles. Manufacturers "comply" with these standards by dropping their smallest cars from their lineup, and increasing the sizes of everything left on the market.

Fix the fucking standards to favor smaller cars, and manufacturers will follow.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It would be great if the standards could be loosened a bit to allow more sedans to exist. A modern crown vic would be awesome, but it's impossible to make with the current rules.

[–] Rivalarrival 13 points 9 months ago

I'd like a new, S10-sized truck, or even smaller, perhaps closer to a Japanese Kei truck. The current crop of "compact" pickups are larger than the "full size" trucks from the 1990's.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] mean_bean279@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

At least here in Cali we do. My HD truck gets an extra $500~ a year tax on top of the Gas guzzler tax I paid when new. Plus the fuel costs/taxes for that. Compared to my other cars I pay about $600 more for newal on it. The Average car is like $245 a year but the truck is like $840.

Definitely fine with paying the extra taxes though. I use more infrastructure and I also require additional strengthening of crash systems and cause road damage so I’m not opposed.

[–] Sage_the_Lawyer@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

Meanwhile in Wisconsin I have to pay an extra $100/yr for registration because I drive a hybrid.

Why?

Because, I shit you not, driving a hybrid apparently costs the state too much money, because we have to fuel up less, and so they get less tax.

What the fuck.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 21 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Rather than tax them a bit more, which won't actually improve safety if people just opt to pay the tax and drive them anyway, why not just straight up legislate weight limits for private vehicles, with commercial licensing as done with cargo trucks expanded to fit more conventional vehicles driven for commercial purposes that have to be large and heavy? Car companies will start making smaller cars again real quick if they're not allowed to sell them otherwise

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 60 points 9 months ago (5 children)

The current version of MGS was developed to withstand cars weighing a maximum of 5,000 pounds

Seems like yet another case of a flawed study or a flawed article based on a misunderstanding of the study.

Statements like the quote above make no sense as "withstanding a 5,000lb vehicle" makes no sense. A 5k lb vehicle traveling at 70MPH is carrying several orders of magnitude more energy than a 5k lb vehicle traveling at 5MPH. Likewise a direct, perpendicular hit will impart more energy than a glancing parallel blow, so what are they really rated for?

In any case, these guardrails are used in places where 100k lb semis are traveling at highway speeds, and there have never been any other doom and gloom articles written about that. I don't think we need to completely rebuild our highway system simply because heavier cars exist.

[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

And they're not meant to stop cars but rather redirect them

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

It would be 5k lb at high speed. I would say higher than the speed limit just to be safe. There would also be specs for height, etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SapphironZA@lemmings.world 59 points 9 months ago (15 children)

Maybe car sales taxes should scale by vehicle weight.

If you consume more of the road, you pay more

[–] bier@feddit.nl 24 points 9 months ago

In the Netherlands you pay a road tax every 3 months. The amount is based on weight (because a heavier car does more damage to a road) but also on eco label. So an electric car that has the best eco label can have less tax than an old (but much lighter) diesel car.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 49 points 9 months ago (2 children)

we obviously need to take money from Amtrak and public transport grants to rebuild the interstate system. Guardrails upgraded everywhere, new lanes would be added to reduce congestion

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)

New lanes don't reduce congestion. When you add new lanes, drivers who had previously avoided those routes suddenly think "oh more lanes, it'll be less congested" and it just fills back up to capacity. Except it's worse because there's even more cars now in the extra lanes you just built. Adding lanes makes congestion worse, not better.

What we need to do is get people off the roads and onto public transportation. That's how you reduce congestion - get people off the roads. Unfortunately that means actually investing in public transportation, so that'll never happen in the US.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I agree with you but also woosh because OP also agrees with you.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

The guard rails are pretty good enough as is. When you hear of something like this it's very often caused by lack of maintenance/poor installation/assembly. There is a guy on youtube that has videos of a whole bunch of guardrails that are simply unsafe because they are missing bolts or were assembled incorrectly.

And remember - guard rails are meant to slow you down enough to try and prevent a worse situation rather than always turning you back into the roadway to create a larger accident with other traffic or stop you completely.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I know America has an obesity epidemic, but did it really have to be extended to our cars?

[–] Baines@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

fuel eff requirements tied to weight

just another oil company + car company scam

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The current version of MGS was developed to withstand cars weighing a maximum of 5,000 pounds, but many of today’s SUVs and trucks exceed that threshold.

MGS being what I've known as W beam guardrail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

But he noted that in the real world, a guardrail is much more likely to be placed next to a steep [drop-off] than a concrete barrier.

Thankfully it was a test, but there's probably already instances where an over-weight vehicle has smashed through safety devices.

[–] sizzler@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There's a guard rail guy on YouTube who investigates how the guard rails have been fitted. They often have bolts and the tension wire incorrectly installed so much so that they don't even effectively stop small vehicles. That guy lost a family member to this type of accident and so is on a crusade kinda.

[–] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] sizzler@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

https://m.youtube.com/@TheGuardrailGuy

It's sad because you can hear the frustration in his voice that for the sake of better training lives could be saved.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 23 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm willing to bet the super tall pickups and SUVs are more likely to hop over those steel guardrails, too. Related: Those sloped concrete dividers that have a slightly shallower slope at their wider bottom? Those are super effective, because that bottom slope deflects the vehicle's front wheel, causing it to turn slightly away from the barrier instead of continuing to smash through it.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 18 points 9 months ago (5 children)

It's called a Jersey barrier.

They have other issues though. They cost more to produce, cost more to install and cost more to maintain. They also accumulate snow, which would otherwise blow through an open W guard rail.

A third option are wire guards. They're cheaper on all accounts, don't get tagged with graffiti and statistically save more lifes. They work best on long straight stretches, but because of the flexibility, they are not ideal for inner city streets where it's best to avoid any lane breaches at all.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Guardrails, much like the crumple zones of cars, are designed to give way to dissipate energy. This is a safety feature which saves lives. There isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all-traffic guardrail. It's about statistically improving outcomes, but unfortunately they aren't going to help in all cases. Maybe they need to be updated, but it's going to take time to adjust to changing average vehicle weights.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/guardrailsafety/guardrail101.pdf

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Velomobiles weight 35kg (77 pounds) and offer very good protection compared to normal bicycles. Theoretically you could design single seat cars not much heavier. Of course for higher speeds you'd want more protection and a little bit wider.

I imagine the ideal self driving car or robo-taxi to be two seats that face each other, so when you get one alone you have plenty of space to stretch your feet or put your groceries. It could be totally luxurious, simple to call and use and fast too. And the embodied energy would be very small and the "mpg" would be insane.

It's just sad how badly we are tackling climate change by just letting the free market run wild.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 11 points 9 months ago

Eh, non-issue. Just slap a surgeon general warning that the car will go through guardrails if it is over 5k lbs. And put a big roadway improvement tax on pointless large SUVs, minivans, and massive trucks, which nobody actually needs. We've had smaller variants of vehicles for decades. Even kei vans can hold many grown ass adult men.

All this aside, we have ultra heavy truckers whose trucks already would and do go through guardrails. We should be de-emphasizing car and highway investment anyways, putting more funding towards rapid mass transit and rezoning metro areas to be walkable. Fuck $30 / hr street parking.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago

new vehicle weight tax to fund the new guardrails

[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago (33 children)

They should regulate the weight of cars. There's no reason passenger vehicles should be as heavy as they are. For EVs they honestly shouldn't have as much range as they do. 150 miles and improved charging infrastructure, make charging easier for folks who park on the street, is a better way to go. Folks who need to drive more than that a day should have a hybrid or ICE vehicle. Ideally a small fuel efficient one. Folks who need pickups for work should be able to buy the small European versions or work vans.

[–] Empyreus@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

150miles is no where close to enough range for people who travel regularly. In a 3 hour trip I can do 150 miles. Depending on weather, battery degrading, and elevation that trip now requires charging multiple times which just isn't acceptable. Let alone if you were trying to do a real road trip where you drive 1000+ miles, the amount of charge time is insane. And I want an EV for those road trips, extremely convenient for car camping.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (3 children)

250mi is a good number. Enough to do a lot of errands and medium trips in a day and charge overnight.

Bolt EV/EUV has that and it's a compact.

Better to charge higher registration fees by weight.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

I can think of no better way to kill EV adoption than to intentionally make their usage less appealing than the alternative.

load more comments (30 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›