• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    There needs to be regulations on the size of personal vehicles for a shit ton of reasons…

    But this one by itself should be enough.

    • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are… but there are loopholes. Which is why the vehicles get bigger every year. They’re all using loopholes to continue not bothering to meet the standards the regulations set forth.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Loopholes are always going to happen…

        But if you close them, then the problem is fixed.

        Currently we just ignore them, instead of passing regulations that close the loophole and clarify

        We could even go a step further and require plans to be approved by a regulatory agency before mass production can start.

        Boom, problem solved forever.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Even better would be if the US switched from “letter of the law” to “spirit of the law” because as it stands, there’s a lot of lawmakers just throwing their hands in the air and saying “well they’re not breaking the letter of the law, so there’s nothing we can do” while completely ignoring that it’s clear that the person in question is breaking the spirit of the law when it was written.

          It allows for laws to be endlessly re-interpreted, and at this point even the Supreme Court has tossed out the idea of previous decisions actually mattering. They’ll just re-interpret every law to be beneficial to their purposes every time they need to re-interpret it.

          At a certain point you have to stop and admit the loopholes are being left open on purpose.

          • Xhieron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            If you think law has too much room for interpretation when we care about it says, what makes you think anything would improve if we instead cared only about what it meant to say?

            The spirit of the law is important in American jurisprudence, but there’s a reason that no serious legal academic advocates for abandoning black-letter interpretation: a cornerstone of jurisprudence is predictability. In order to be justly bound by the law, a reasonable person must be able to understand its borders. This gives rise to principles in US law concerning vagueness (vague laws are void ab initio) and due process. We can’t always ascertain what the “spirit of the law” is, should be, or was intended to be, but we can always ascertain what the law is. Even in common law and case law, standards must be articulated, and the state must give effect to what is actually said, and not what it wishes had been said. Abandoning this principle in order to “close loopholes” is just inviting bad actors who currently exploit oversights to instead wield unbridled power against ordinary people who could never have even anticipated the danger.

            That loopholes are left open deliberately is not a failure of legal interpretation. It’s a direct consequence of corruption and regulatory capture. Rewriting American jurisprudence won’t solve those problems. Hanging oil magnates and cheaply purchased bureaucrats will.

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

              The law meant that it’s not a crime if you’re of a certain race, gender, economic status, or sexual orientation.

          • You999@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Following the spirit of the law would be extremely dangerous as one’s interpretation of the spirit of the law maybe comply differently from another. There’s also the issue of being punished for following what is written in the law only to be unjustly punished for something that’s not written anywhere in the law. How are you supposed to trust the law if you cannot rely upon that law to be accurate? The real issue is lawmakers not covering all of every edge case either that be out of ignorance or malice and allowing those loopholes to exist in the first place.

          • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I mean, the “spirit of the law” itself is extremely vague and allows for even more interpretation than the letter of the law.

            You can easily fix the letter of the law by just changing what it says. You can’t fix when the Supreme Court decides that the spirit of the law is contrary to the letter, which they have done repeatedly.

            In other words, you’re arguing that we shouldn’t care what the law says, and instead should govern on what we feel the law means.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        “loophole” implies that regulators are trying to restrict them, but manufacturers are finding ways to work around those restrictions. There is no “loophole” here: CAFE standards are specifically driving manufacturers to produce larger cars.

        CAFE standards gradually tighten emissions standards. The problem is that they tighten the standards on smaller cars faster than on larger cars. CAFE are making it harder and harder to make small, compliant vehicles, and easier to produce larger compliant vehicles.

        This isn’t a loophole. This is incompetent, counter-productive regulation.

    • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      There needs to be a social cost of owning these abominations. If we make it more expensive or more regulated, they’ll still find the people who want to drive them. If we make them embarrassing, shameful, or otherwise costly in social standing, the market for them will soon collapse.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Other countries require a special license for vehicles that big.

        It costs more, and requires frequent tests, written and driving. The large vehicles are also prohibited from driving down small side streets and using normal parking spaces.

        Because at this size, they’re only needed as commercial vehicles.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If the only reason people have them is for social status, you’d have a point. But, that fails as soon as anyone actually uses one for their intended purpose.

        • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          What’s the intended purpose of the higher hood? Cars exist that are safer for pedestrians, we should stigmatise those who choose not to opt for them.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Effective crumple zones, larger engine, higher engine increasing ground clearance necessary for longer vehicles. Driver and passenger safety: lower hoods throw deer, elk, and moose into the passenger compartment.

            How often are pedestrians involved in collisions? How often are they seriously injured? How often are driver and passenger involved in collisions, and seriously injured? Because there is always at least one occupant present and there is rarely a pedestrian involved, occupant safety is a far more important consideration than pedestrian safety. We can justify removing sharp, penetrating contours from the front of the vehicle, but we can’t justify anything that increases risks to occupants.

            I haul 6 customers, 3 crew members, and a 5000lb trailer with a Suburban on up to 9 trips a week. Ideally, I’d have a 4th crew member to help out, but I already have to throw one of the crewmembers in the back, in a jump seat behind the 3rd row, because a suburban only seats 8.

            No amount of social stigma against SUVs is going to convince me to go with something smaller.

    • Wodge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      I live in Basel, Switzerland, lovely old city, very unfriendly to cars, which is fine due to the great public transit. There is this one dickhead who has a bright, shiny red Dodge Ram. It’s monstrous. And it doesn’t fuckin’ fit in the streets, I’d love to see how much in fines that idiot has had for blocking trams, traffic, and all the other nonsense I’ve seen it do, was actually stuck in traffic once because it got stuck on a corner, took 30 mins to get it backed up and out of the way.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The conservative Supreme Court is about to make that a lot harder in a few days. Get ready for the Canonaro to be real.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          The Dobbs case of this session is Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, and it’s looking like the court is going to side with the conservatives.

          https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1224939610/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine

          Right now Congress gives regulatory agencies general guidelines, and the agencies work out the finer details. Soon it will likely be left to Congress and the courts to iron out those finer details. And both of those bodies are slow, and courts are fragmented across states.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            There will still be a degree of deference, it just won’t be absolute like Chevron requires. Agencies will still be presumed valid, but that assumption will become rebuttable.

            Everyone likes to point at the EPA with respect to Chevron deference. We need to look at the FCC under Ajit Pai. Chevron deference should not have protected the FCC when they decided to suspend Net Neutrality in 2017.

            We should also be able to challenge NHTSA’s CAFE standards, which are driving manufacturers to make larger cars because it’s harder to make small cars compliant than larger. But, because of Chevron deference, we can’t: the agency knows best.