• tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s not to mention the optics.

      https://www.quora.com/Where-does-the-M1-Abrams-have-the-optics-of-its-main-cannon-I-dont-know-anything-about-tanks

      #4 is the optic for the RWS. This cannot be used to aim the main gun, but it can be used as an alternate form of CITV, especially since it’s so damned high off the ground, it may be able to see over obstacles. Not as good as CITV in the thermal range, though.

      That being said, some civilian vehicles are gonna have their own camera systems too, so…

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Civilian vehicles should all have thermals and a night driving HUD. If I’m paying 30,000 dollars then they can damn well put some actual stuff in there. Headlights being weaponized isn’t something we have to tolerate.

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

          Sorry, no can do, also cupholders are extra, best we can do is plastic hubcaps and a 10,000/6 month warranty.

    • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is misleading because being higher up you can see much better further ahead, and over obstacles and barriers. Your special awareness is much better at distances that are relevant for avoiding collisions. If something is 1.5m away its too late anyway.

      The angle is also incorrect because they are putting the eyes of the driver straight in line with the hood, which is not how its been in any vehicle I’ve ever driven, the head should be higher or further forward.

      • Voyajer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        2 months ago

        The origin of the line is at head height…

        Also these vehicles gain in distant visibility at the expense of everyone else on the road, blocking their views.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          The best way to avoid getting into an accident is to see it long before you get there. But situational awareness is not something the vast majority of drivers actually practice or have…

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        You don’t want to see “over” obstacles close to your vehicle when said obstacles are in fact human beings standing in front of your car.

        At parking lot speeds, 1.5 meters is also not “too late,” and it certainly isn’t when you are at a standstill but need to determine if it is safe to move or if there is a small person in front of your vehicle, i.e. in the school pickup line, or in a parking lot, or your own driveway.

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

          Ooo ooo we can do it like buses do. We’ll put a bar on the front that folds out. 3 year olds totally know what that is right? They’ll just get out of the way!

          (/s)

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have conservative family members who deliberately go for the biggest SUV with the lowest gas mileage available just to “stick it to the government.” If the government told them that they couldn’t drive a small car, they’d be out there shopping for a small car. It’s incredibly childish.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah, a lot of stupid culture war crap is now tied up into the car your own.

      If people actually prioritized performance, handling, visability, cost to drive, and cabin features, then a LOT of people would probably be better off with a sedan.

      If you don’t need the space, you can get so much more bang for your buck with a smaller car. The $10k more you spend on the larger form factor could go toward a nicer power train and cabin luxury features.

      • Hobbes@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most other countries I’ve been to, all the trades use these, and seem to have no problem getting projects done.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Japanese Kei trucks are pretty rad, but they don’t fly with US highway safety regulations. They’re meant for slower roads / slower collisions speeds.

          That said, most American trucks do not need to be remotely as big as they are.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Let’s ignore the lack of crush zones, air bags, seat belts, re-enforced door panels and cabin pillars, for a moment. (The lack of any safety features is why they are mostly illegal to operate on roads in the US.)

          How far do you think that roller skate could pull my empty 24,000lbs tandem axle tilt bed trailer? Or even my 4000lbs trailer? On a highway at highway speeds.

          • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s almost like that it isn’t the intended purpose of these vehicles… you don’t need 19ft long 10ft tall super duty ford f-250s and up to pull a 4klb trailer though… a 70s f150 half that size could do it just fine and modern engines in that size vehicle would be even better

            Kei trucks and vans are the perfect vehicles for most jobs and most tradesman not hauling loads meant for real trucks not light truck frames

            • bluewing@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Most tradesmen DON’T use a 250 Super Duty unless they really need one. They prefer the standard 1/2 ton base models because they are cheaper and “good enough”.

              Kei trucks, while they do have their place and uses in some cities, are NOT the “perfect vehicles” for most tradesmen in many parts of the world. They do not carry enough items and tools for most tradesmen to make all the repair calls they may need to do in one day. They often need to drive well over 100 miles a day to get to all the appointments they can have. And the design of the those little trucks are patently unsafe at highway speeds.

              Vans are sometimes popular, but they are just weird looking trucks. And they can be difficult to access tools and items from. Requiring you to either unload a bunch of stuff to get at something or you need to crawl over everything.

          • Hobbes@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Fair point. Though if they weren’t needing to go up against oversized trucks, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.

        • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          “15 minutes could save you 15% or more 100% on car insurance”

          (by leaving the scene of the accident as rapidly as possible. ‘Geico’? No no, ‘Guy, Go’.)

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Or a hatchback or a station wagon…

        Oops, nobody makes station wagons anymore. We stopped making them because, uh, people stopped buying them. Yeah, that’s the ticket. People stopped buying them because we stopped making them.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ya know it probably says something that the concept of “cabin luxury features” made we want to burn the inside of a car. Ill stick to my lack of cupholders in my 30 year old car thanks, but seriously when I see the interior of modern cars they make me want to rip into them with wire cutters. Bunch of useless crap like lane assist, cruise control, and addaptive road assist, powered stearing is the only luxury I need.

        Fun fact I am only 24, I just am tech literate in the way that causes me to think 90% of technology is worthless crap that shouldve never been created and needs to be recycled.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          True. I’m mostly saying that you could probably take that cash and upgrade to a nicer car that isn’t covered in creaking injection molded plastic inside, or something with nicer seats and upholstery.

          AKA decent materials, and not the cheap garbage you get on a base model American SUV.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I get that its just the concept disgusts me, but then again my Scottish ancestors would rise from the dead and kill me for wasting money on such superfluous things. Profligacy is quite literally killing the planet, ya aint gonna catch me wasting money on stupid pointless shit too often. My grandmother though aint bound by such ancestral limits and it annoys me.

        • ensoniqthehedgehog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m almost 40 and a lot of my cars in my teens and 20s were from the '80s and '90s. Almost everything I’ve owned has had at least a rudimentary cruise control although there are some ('80s Bronco II, '95 Miata, early '90s 240sx, 99 Impreza Wagon) where it was broken or I just never used it.

          All that said, I LOVE the radar controlled cruise control on my current vehicle. I’ve used it for at least 20,000 miles of driving at this point. Interstate, highway, city, you name it… Pretty much any time I want to maintain a steady speed over 28 and there’s not a lot of stop and go traffic. I hate thinking about life without it now (and I hate using standard cruise control without radar)!

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, at some point we’re going to have to crank up gas prices

  • workerONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why do little cars have to withstand a collision with a huge truck but trucks just get bigger and bigger? The new Hummer is over 9,000lbs (4,090 kg)

    • krippix@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      wtf in Europe that thing couldn’t be driven with a regular class B drivers license

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

        Commercial license requirements for full sized trucks over a certain size and weight would be an excellent solution. In addition to the increased effort and cost to get one, commercial licenses are way easier to lose.

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

          I agree. It’s felt weird each time I’ve rented a moving truck and was able to drive it myself. They are giant and I’m not used to driving something so big plus no visibility out of the rear of the vehicle. And on top of that, they are so massive that mistakes will hurt more and will be harder to notice while they are happening.

          Though even normal licenses are too easy IMO. I haven’t been tested or trained on driving in decades. Most people don’t know how 2 way stop signs work, I’ve even had a cop wave me through when it was their right of way. The bar should be higher for getting and keeping a license and lower for losing it. And “but people need cars to get to work and such” addressed with better mass transportation and city planning.

    • HBK@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Regardless of truck size, I don’t think tractor trailers are going anywhere. Even if we made trucks smaller those would still be out there

      Smaller trucks would still get in accidents though, and I imagine they would be less deadly

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Man, if only we could separate freight from commuter traffic. Like, imagine if all those tractor trailers were on their own separate road, but make it out of, IDK, metal or something so it can withstand the weight better. You could even just have metal right under the wheels, to reduce costs. But what do I know, I’m just some pie in the sky nobody who doesn’t know what he’s talking about

        • MasterMediasRes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          That sounds like a neat idea—here’s a wild thought, what would happen if we tried the same thing with passengers? Eh, you’re right, sounds positively un-American.

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

          Not to mention it would reduce all the underride crashes.

          All these improved vehicle safety standards are generally for bumper-to-bumper collisions, not windshield-to-truck-bed. Frontline released a well-done 2023 episode on it. Highly recommend.

          Edit: md link

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Tractor trailers are heavily regulated with training, licensing, driving hours and sleep break logging etc. Are they really a significant source of pedestrian collisions?

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

          You should check out the safety stuff with them and cars. You’ll stay near one on the road again.

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even if we made trucks smaller those would still be out there

        If we made them smaller there’d just be more of them on the road. There’d also be higher prices for everything to compensate for the extra expense of having those extra trucks and bodies to pilot them.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 months 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
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

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

  • Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months 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
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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
          3
          ·
          2 months 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
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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
      6
      ·
      2 months 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
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months 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.

  • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 months 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
      3
      ·
      2 months 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
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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.)

    • ghen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months 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.

  • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months 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.

  • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months 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.

    • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months 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
        2
        ·
        2 months 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
          3
          ·
          2 months 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.

    • helopigs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months 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 😂

  • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s out of control. I drive a 2019 Kona and I moved to that from my 2013 Elantra. Last time I was at the dealer was looking at the new Konas and they’re bigger, too big for me.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months 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
      3
      ·
      2 months 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
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’m Canadian… avoiding tax??

      Hahahahahaha I want what you’re smoking.

      We literally get taxed on tax