• FireWire400@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      For real. The one car I’ve seen the most of in Oz was some kind of Ranger, with many even being Raptors.

      Runner up would be the Toyota (GT)68, but I really don’t mind those at all.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 days ago

    We should charge rego by weight and volume. We should measure safety by damage inflicted, not damage deflected.

  • dumbass@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Let us bully them again, these dipshits with their shit over sized vehicles used to be publicly mocked for their insecurities, bring that back and you will see a drop in sales for them, shame works wonders.

  • Sarah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    4 days ago

    Ban Ford Rangers at least. The drivers tend to be inconsiderate psychos.

    They can ride eBikes instead.

    • Salvo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      Ban F-trucks, Silverados and RAMs.

      I saw an F350 Super Duty parked in a suburban mains street the other day.

      It is so big, it needed Interstate Heavy Vehicle plates. It was not a tradies Utes; It was not a Tow Vehicle, It wasn’t even an Oversized Load pilot. It was just compensating someone’s inadequacy.

      It had a sticker on the window “Patriotism is not Racism” and it looked like a MAGA sticker but with an Australian Flag instead of the Stars and Stripes.

      With all my heart, I wanted to get a paint marker and write “GAGYGF Seppo Cunt”, but I was on work uniform and did not have a paint pen. Also, I am not a complete arsehole.

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    First, the “SUV loophole”: under US law, most SUVs are classified as light trucks, meaning they’re subject to less stringent fuel-efficiency and crash-safety standards than passenger cars.

    This has always been baffling to me. Make the standards universal and I reckon people would make very different choices.

  • rcbrk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Zero BAC requirement for vehicles exceeding various hazard thresholds? Say, 2.5T GVM, vehicle width/length, and a particular vision path requirement.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You don’t want to catch small EVs in the rule, I’d do it on dimensions and view angle and classify anything big or inefficient under a different category with different licence rules and conditions. I mean we don’t want drivers of big engined fast cars impaired any more than we want drivers of giant utes impaired

      • rcbrk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        On weight, why not? – because F=ma – weight influences the risk posed by the vehicle regardless of whether it is lithium or steel.

        Then again, newer cars have ANCAP pedestrian/vulnerable road user safety ratings which could override a weight threshold where available.

        • Salvo@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          ANCAP guidelines are pushing for larger and larger vehicles.

          Crumple Zones, and pedestrian protection add significantly to the size and weight of a vehicles, and negatively impact driver awareness.

          Driver Assistance is OK to provide an extra level of protection, but result in complacency.

          A compact vehicle with good visibility and visceral road awareness will be less destructive on the roads than an oversized SUV with a driver ignoring all the ADAS technology blithely unaware of their surroundings.

          That said, a compact vehicle with unobtrusive ADAS would be even safer.

          • rcbrk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’m just grappling for an objective measure of the impact hazard posed by a given vehicle which might be more accurate than weight alone.

            Impact hazard × Impact likelyhood could form a determination of whether a vehicle should be subject to a Zero BAC requirement.

            Impact likelyhood should be determined by dimensions and sight-lines – maybe there’s a good comprehensive measure of this that doesn’t give too much weight to things like ADAS?

            • Salvo@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Time for an anecdote. When Holden were designing the HQ, there was a design paradigm called “Passive Safety”.

              The reasoning was that if the driver did not feel safe driving at speed, they would drive more slowly, and therefore be safer.

              That is why the HQ had narrow A-Pillars that were unfortunately in the wrong position to observe cross traffic and a suspension geometry that caused terminal understeer.

              As terrible as this paradigm was (they reworked the geometry for the HZ) it was vindicated in the 1990s when inexperienced and unskilled Subaru WRX drivers felt so confident in their handling that they would push beyond the capabilities of their vehicles.

              I still believe that deliberately engineered flaws are a terrible idea, but I can tell you that I am ultra careful and ultra aware of the traffic in my tiny little Jimny with bad driver crash ratings and live axles front and rear.

  • shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    Speed limit Rangers to 40kph within city limits. They usually speed through school zones and roadworks so it won’t slow them down but we might get a few disqualified from driving which will help.

    • Tenderizer@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      People are surprisingly unkeen on tracking in their car. So kilometers driven wouldn’t work.

      I’d say just go with a fee based on the weight of the vehicle, exponential of course. We need fewer heavy cars, fewer kilometers driven will be a side effect. And as a bonus effect maybe I’d be able to buy an EV without a range that’s 8 times what I actually need.

      • Salvo@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Odometer reading is a relatively unobtrusive metadatum.

        It is recorded when the vehicle is serviced so it is already in someone’s database.

        If kms travelled had to be reported annually at the time of registration, no-one will complain (except sov-shit cookers, and they don’t pay rego anyway).

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Have you actually driven outside the city here? I need the 400km my EV has to get between capital cities

        • rcbrk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          A child’s skull doesn’t know whether it’s steel or lithium making up that extra 0.5T.

        • Tenderizer@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Why would you drive between capital cities? There’s public transport for that.

          I need to drive from the bush into the nearby major town and back again. 50km round trip.

      • rcbrk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Eh, people can submit odometer readings once a year with their rego renewal.

        Honesty based should be good enough. Penalties can apply if you’re caught tampering or severely underreporting.

  • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Pretty early the article points out that the top selling car in 2011 was far smaller than the best selling car now, in 2025, a Ford Ranger

    It then says:

    Four in five new cars sold in Australia are SUVs or utes – more than double the share of 20 years ago.

    And follows up by pointing out two parts of US legislation that are driving manufacturing in the US to produce larger cars and ends by pointing out the extra risks with larger cars and how the situation can be improved using local legislation.

    Why does the article ignore that the 2011 top selling car was from an Asian manufacturer and that Asian and European manufacturers exist. I went looking for data on sales from regions / brands over time but failed a bit. Anyone want to fill in the gaps? Obviously Mazda is no longer selling the top selling model and Ford is, but was there a swing in sales to Ford, a consolidation of sales on one model or maybe more that people that loved Ford just started buying the bigger cars? Any chance someone knows of some sort of data that helps fill in the gaps?

      • Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        $1.65 AUD/L (as per brief google search) is not that expensive. Although, I also find it funny that a Ranger is considered a “large” vehicle. That’s a mini truck in NA. The cousin humper trucks here could literally drive over a Ranger.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I thought that was specifically a North American issue. Damn. Stay safe pedestrians (those drivers of too-large vehicles won’t even see you when they run you over)!