Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Ok, here's how you fix it:
Just saying there are new requirements would be unfair to poor people that both a car before the new regulation. They would have to spend extra money now to fix something they are not responsible for.
Saying that car manufacturers have to fix all their cars would be unfair because they were selling car that complied with all regulations. This would not stand in court.
That's why there's no quick fix. Doing it fairly will be complicated and it will cost money. It's easier for politicians to ignore the issue.
Just put the onus on car and bulb sellers going forward, then tack on a req for antiques that goes into effect in stages, probably paired with registration renewals. That way it's not an all-at-once burden, and most people can know about the transition well in advance. No surprises.
Most of north america doesn't do that. Some place require a safety check to initiate insurance, after that most just wait for things to break or get pulled over by a cop/ministry of transportation.
Im also a little iffy about #2. We already subsidize drivers enough, making them pay for their lights or at least partly pay sounds reasonable.
I think a middle ground solution would be add the regulations for new cars and enforce the regulation when a noncompliant car changes owners. This way buyers of used cars should be able to research if that cost is likely to impact their model or not. It doesn't take all the headlights off the road at once but it starts phasing out the problematic cars.
Clearly, a solution for civilized countries :)
But I agree, you can either pay and get the problem solved faster or pass the cost to drivers and wait a decade or more to phase out problematic cars.
I bring up north america mostly because it has the most egregious offenders with high hooded SUVs and trucks.
Yes but US regulates so few things they will obviously not even try to solve this issue. With current administration it's even less likely.