Honestly this is absurd. These death machines shouldn’t be legal in europe. That thing doesn’t even fit in the parking space, even though the parking lot has the biggest spaces in the whole city. The Golf Polo is so small in comparison, it could even hide in front of the engine hood of the truck.

EDIT: It’s a Polo and not a Golf, I don’t know my cars, sorry for that!

  • LittleLordLimerick@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    You can’t possibly know each person’s reasoning on why they may need or not need a particular thing. Saying someone cannot get it at all will end up hurting the little guy. The person why can’t go through all the hoops to get some random exception for their specific use case.

    I absolutely can. Look at trucks from 50 years ago and compare them to the monstrosities of today 1970 ford F150 versus modern version

    The trucks being sold today are ridiculously oversized and I can say pretty confidently that no one actually needs a vehicle that size for 99.999% of use cases. Car manufacturers are the only ones that benefit from this arms race to sell bigger and tankier vehicles to people for commuting.

    You talk about it being dangerous, doesn’t every driver go through roughly the same certification process for that state? If you’re problem is the quality of their driving, you should be pushing for higher standards for getting a license

    They’re dangerous because of their size, not because of who drives them. A collision between a giant truck and a small passenger car has a high likelihood of severely injuring or killing the occupants of the small passenger car, A) because of the weight of the larger truck, and B) because the collision safety features of a small car are only engineered to protect well in a collision with another similarly sized vehicle.

    Also, the sight-lines for these behemoths is pathetic. The Abrams M1 Battle tank has better forward visibility than a modern F250.

    You say they are wasteful on gas. Wouldn’t that mean the owner would need to pay extra money out of pocket to maintain it’s use? They are bearing the cost extra cost of ownership, so why not let them use it? For example, you are probably paying for internet. Should I be allowed to stop you from using the internet you paid for because I don’t agree with your reasoning? No, and that’s completely ridiculous.

    We’re all paying for the environmental impacts of hydrocarbon usage. Low-efficiency vehicles should not be used for commuting.

    • Mtrad@lemm.eeEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      Looked at the image you provided. I can see your point about some of the sightlines. For regular commuting in most circumstances, I’ll give you it. But that’s the thing, you seem to be assuming a very specific circumstance and applying it to everything. You are trying to take a role of a general passenger vehicle for daily commute and applying it to a vehicle meant for work.

      So yes, for regular commuting I’d say you are 100% right. But there are uses outside of such a limited scope.

      • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        So everyone agrees then?

        The only difference between you two is that you have different beliefs about the owners of these vehicles.

        I also believe that these are mostly not used for work, but rather as ego-boosting commuter vehicles.