• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    If there isn’t a weight limit, nothing else matters. Limit truck to <3500lbs, ban cameras and require ~130 degree unobstructed view for all mirrors.

    • LovesTha🥧@floss.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      @PowerCrazy @return2ozma I like where you are heading. Probably better to define being able to see a set of targets around the vehicle. Easier to define, harder to game.

      I wouldn’t ban cameras, but I would require the visibility be obtained without them. Cameras can give vision that is useful and implausible without them.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I wouldn’t ban cameras, but I would require the visibility be obtained without them. Cameras can give vision that is useful and implausible without them.

        Yea this is probably the better play. But too often with modern cars they use the existence of the camera’s to make the sight lines impossibly dangerous (the infamous front facing camera on the f150 for example).

        • LovesTha🥧@floss.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          @PowerCrazy Yeah.

          And why aren’t they putting in more useful cameras. My new car has at least 6 exteria cameras, but why isn’t their a pair of cameras at the rear pointing sideways? Getting that view when reversing out of a perpendicular parking space would be *really* valuable.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m of the opinion that vehicle registration should be by mass. I think that adding extra for use case and for expected hauling is also reasonable. We can allow the gas tax to slowly fade into a carbon tax while making registration be both the way we fund roads and a progressive tax on those who do more damage to them. We can even have different vehicle categories with different weight costs for incentives.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Cars didn’t used to weigh that much and the safety regulations can still exist, it just requires car manufactures to fix their safety issues without adding more weight ultimately making everyone less safe.

        A 1990 Ford Ranger weighed <3000 lbs.

    • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      But that also mean truck can’t electrify. Tesla Model 3 weight around 3500lbs, a Ford F150 Lightning weight 6500lbs. That’s mean a “small” pickup truck like Nissan Navara/Frontier, which weight around 3500lbs, when turned into electric vehicle it will be around 4900lbs. A toyota Hilux 1998 also weight around 3600lbs.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It can electrify, it just can’t be carrying around batteries that will give it 300miles of range. A ford Ranger from 1990 weighs <3000lbs.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            “Pointless” god I wish we lived in that society.

            Off-road vehicles don’t need to be registered or conform to any safety standards so if you are designing something for off-road use, none of this stuff matters, you just can’t ALSO drive it on-road.