▲ 1685 ▼ The average car purchased in 2023 emits higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) than its 2013 equivalent. This is due to the large proportion of SUVs in the mix, which tend to be bigger and heavier. (english.elpais.com) submitted 2 years ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 371 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) The more I read about them, the worse it gets. It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency. It's like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admiralteal@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don't actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example -- they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny. People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer -- but that isn't really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly. The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you're in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn't matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms. And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse. Of course, the entire appeal to "safety" is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Incandemon@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 3 points 2 years ago I think you assumed that comment said something it didn't. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (5 children) Regulations literally brought us to this… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Regulatory capture brought us to this. permalink fedilink source parent [+] aniki@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this. You really blame the companies for following the law as written? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aniki@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 2 years ago Enforcement is also the EPA's responsibility, not the companies. And you can't enforce the 'spirit' of the law. That's not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused. permalink fedilink source parent [–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system. Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence permalink fedilink source parent [–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago I'd honestly say it's a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we're seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won't solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) The more I read about them, the worse it gets. It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency. It's like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admiralteal@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don't actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example -- they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny. People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer -- but that isn't really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly. The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you're in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn't matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms. And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse. Of course, the entire appeal to "safety" is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don't actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example -- they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny. People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer -- but that isn't really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly. The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you're in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn't matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms. And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse. Of course, the entire appeal to "safety" is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Incandemon@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 3 points 2 years ago I think you assumed that comment said something it didn't. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (5 children) Regulations literally brought us to this… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Regulatory capture brought us to this. permalink fedilink source parent [+] aniki@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this. You really blame the companies for following the law as written? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aniki@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 2 years ago Enforcement is also the EPA's responsibility, not the companies. And you can't enforce the 'spirit' of the law. That's not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused. permalink fedilink source parent [–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system. Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence permalink fedilink source parent [–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago I'd honestly say it's a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we're seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won't solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Steve@communick.news 3 points 2 years ago I think you assumed that comment said something it didn't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (5 children) Regulations literally brought us to this… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Regulatory capture brought us to this. permalink fedilink source parent [+] aniki@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this. You really blame the companies for following the law as written? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aniki@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 2 years ago Enforcement is also the EPA's responsibility, not the companies. And you can't enforce the 'spirit' of the law. That's not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused. permalink fedilink source parent [–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system. Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence permalink fedilink source parent [–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago I'd honestly say it's a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we're seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won't solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Regulatory capture brought us to this. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] aniki@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this. You really blame the companies for following the law as written? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aniki@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 2 years ago Enforcement is also the EPA's responsibility, not the companies. And you can't enforce the 'spirit' of the law. That's not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this. You really blame the companies for following the law as written? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aniki@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 2 years ago Enforcement is also the EPA's responsibility, not the companies. And you can't enforce the 'spirit' of the law. That's not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] aniki@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 2 years ago Enforcement is also the EPA's responsibility, not the companies. And you can't enforce the 'spirit' of the law. That's not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 2 years ago Enforcement is also the EPA's responsibility, not the companies. And you can't enforce the 'spirit' of the law. That's not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system. Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence permalink fedilink source parent
[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago I'd honestly say it's a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we're seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won't solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles. permalink fedilink source parent