Comment by kalleboo

Comment by kalleboo 3 hours ago

7 replies

Part of me has also been thinking "let people drive their imported huge trucks but with the understanding that if they kill someone in an accident its not just an accident, its a murder charge for willingly driving such a dangerous vehicle on public roads".

wasmitnetzen 2 hours ago

I'm not sure the type of person who imports such a vehicle would have the appropriate amount of foresight to let such a law affect their behaviour.

  • [removed] 2 hours ago
    [deleted]
2muchcoffeeman an hour ago

That’s putting unnecessary burden on the victim.

If you want a silly huge car you should pay silly huge fees for it. You must compensate the public for your nuisance vehicle.

master-lincoln 3 hours ago

You could argue this for any car as moving such a heavy object at such speeds close to people is inherently high risk.

  • kalleboo 2 hours ago

    Yeah there are always levels of risk we as a society have chosen to allow. My thinking was along the lines of how to self-regulate these imports of cars that do not follow the common safety standards our society has chosen if they are forced upon us by trade agreements or well-intentioned loopholes.

    ("murder" is a bit an extreme reaction but the more realistic idea may be to make harsher judgements the more pointlessly large and dangerous the vehicle is)

    • dmurray an hour ago

      Presumably there's some level at which this can be solved in a purely monetary way.

      If the average Dodge Ram causes X millimorts of deaths per year (per km? per km on suburban roads?) and every dollar spent on public healthcare (drug interventions? road safety? Fire departments?) saves Y lives, you can increase the tax by X/Y, trust the government to spend the extra revenue in the most effective way, and everyone comes out better off.

    • lukan 2 hours ago

      Easier might be to just not give exemptions when public safety is the tradeoff?