cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19668622
I personally prefer the solution that maximizes liberty. If both routes, ie regulating compensation for lack of vision and prohibition of that which causes the lack of vision, accomplish the same end, ie the ensurement of safety, I would choose for former, as it maximizes personal choice and freedom.
Except that a tablet sized screen is not accomplishing the same goal as proper visibility and people should have the freedom to use the public road safely first and foremost.
Except that a tablet sized screen is not accomplishing the same goal as proper visibility
I never said that I was specifically advocating for that as the only solution. All that matters is if the same end is accomplished. If it is indeed true that the safety of a vehicle is only maximized when objects are directly visible to the driver, then so be it. If not, that is an unnecessarily specific and restrictive regulation. And, in any case, regulating a limit, and letting the market work within it, accomplishes the same end with the benefit of freedom of choice. An equivalent example would be regulating the maximum allowed emissions for a vehicle rather than mandating a specific design of the engine, exhaust system, etc.
There’s also the issue that larger grills make collisions a lot more dangerous. I’d recommend watching this awesome video about Fortnine about this, mostly from the perspective of a motorcyclist. https://youtu.be/YpuX-5E7xoU?si=I9Iu_GEKynhsQsem
