The more I think on this, the more I wonder if it’s truly unpopular “here,” but it certainly is in public.
Headlights should be no more than 2 feet off the ground. Yes, your SUV will look dumb. No, you won’t be able to see as far. But you also won’t be blinding everyone.
And no, adjusting angles does not solve this for monster trucks in the US.
I think you should need a unique license, determined by purpose and usage, to own an SUV in the first place and all crossover models should be sent into the sun.
It’s wild that I need to ask the state permission to fish but not for permission to own a uselessly oversized vehicle that doesn’t even increase cabin or cargo space versus smaller vehicles and creates more dangerous road conditions by design.
Edit: furthermore, anyone responsible for the touch screen disaster in the Ford Edge should be persecuted to the fullest extent with prejudice under this new law.
furthermore, anyone responsible for the touch screen disaster in the Ford Edge should be persecuted to the fullest extent with prejudice under this new law.
The most correct answers on this are Apple (Steve Jobs) and Tesla (Elon Musk) for pushing the idea of touchscreen everything. Although an honorable mention goes to federal safety regulators who saw no problem with taking your eyes and mind off of the road for basic driver-controlled functions like changing the radio station or adjusting the temperature.
Because of freedom, I prefer punitive taxation of large vehicles like SUV unless associated with a documented need for a vehicle of that capacity.
Why a tax instead of a ban?
“Sure, you can have this dangerous, child-crushing, planet destroying machine that externalizes most of its costs to society, and you can use it in public and be a dick with it, but only if you are rich.”
I just feel taxation is a better mechanism to change behavior than outright bans. Both are authoritarian solutions but optional taxes that can be avoided are less so. I favor these solutions over bans for the same reasons I prefer harm-reduction tax-and-regulate schemes over drug prohibitions.
In addition the tax money can be earmarked to do some good, perhaps rebate programs to encourage right-sized vehicle purchases.
As an example, extra taxes on sugary sodas reduce consumption most places they have been tried.
Recent study on sugar taxes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161017/
Cigarette taxes work too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/
I dislike the tax idea because it makes it available to the rich without needing a purpose. Taxes are only punitive to the poor. The wealthy should have fewer rights than the underprivileged.
Edit: I think one could suggest a scaling tax based on income, but I don’t think this adequately addresses the problem. The purchasing power of a single dollar doesn’t scale for income, so the wealthy still benefit from this arrangement even if they have to pay more.
What if taxes or fines were tied to personal wealth rather than a nominal flat fee?
I know there are some European countries that tie fines to annual income. That would do better at equalizing the effects of undesirable behavior regardless of wealth. If a parking ticket or speeding ticket or excessively polluting vehicle is going to cost a wealthy person tens of thousands of dollars extra, maybe they’ll find a more suitable and community-centric behavior.
You still have to get past the upper class tricks of driving “income” down by taking out loans to live off of, but that’s another conversation… maybe tie it to net wealth and make the wealthy sell stocks to pay the fines…
