this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
203 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3011 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines, their passenger vehicles would average 65 miles per gallon by 2031, up from 48.7 miles today. The average mileage for light trucks, including pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, would have to reach 45 miles per gallon, up from 35.1 miles per gallon. Selling electric vehicles and hybrids would help bring up the average mileage per gallon across their product lines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HornyOnMain@fedia.io 47 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This was absolutely necessary. Car manufacturers have been abusing the previous rules which had lesser requirements for "light trucks". Have you noticed how almost all 'cars' nowadays are the size of an SUV? This is a huge change and will affect so many more things positively(less fatal accidents for one) than JUST miles per gallon.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That truck loophole is terrible

[–] HornyOnMain@fedia.io 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is, and it's unfortunate that it hasn't been eliminated which needs to be the end goal. Still, I think this will have hugely positive impacts on the culture around cars, and even if I'm wrong EV's will lead the way which this bill still leads us to. If it's all electricity and the manufacturers don't need to worry about fuel conversion, I feel they'll be less incentivized to make monster size vehicles since added weight is decreased performance with no cost benefits for them.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

It’s an example of why over-complicated laws are terrible. Trying to get too specific with the law’s prescriptions makes a weird game that results in weird plays and inefficient solutions.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I hope we have a breakthrough and battery technology. EVs are awesome though not ideal for pedestrians nor guardrails. Very, very heavy.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

They really aren't that much heavier. It is just one downfall that people try to play up because they want to spread anti human propaganda.

Most of the people buying giant ass vehicles don't need them at all. If we took 90% of the trucks off the road and replaced them with electric cars the average weight would go down. So it would be good for "guardrails" if we care about them. The pedestrians wouldn't get hit as high anymore as well making fatalities go down there as well.

Edit: quick search returned this "The study finds that a 4 inch-increase in vehicle front-end leads to a 22% increase in fatality risk for a pedestrian."

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Disclaimer: I am an EV owner.

EVs are quite a bit heavier when comparing within size class. From checking just a couple curb weights across similarly-sized vehicles, you can expect between 15% and 30% heavier.

But, to your point... if you instead compare between vehicles with a similar pricetag, EVs are about 15% lighter. When people go to budget a new vehicle, I expect many people are less willing to do the math to realize that trucks are extremely expensive to fuel and maintain, and so they're lured in by the "utility" they provide, when in reality it's substantially cheaper to rent one for the 10 days a year they need it.

With that said... you know what's even better for humans than EVs? Trains. Buses. Diverse transit infrastructure!

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

"quite a bit"

vs.

merely about 15% to 30% more.

emotive language is fun!

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Isn't all non-quantitative language just... A Series Of Poor Choices? 😉

Love the name, BTW

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Ok then let’s make the point more concrete ….

  • the headline claims a 4t EV truck was too heavy for current guardrail standards. Ok, but the important part is the 4t, regardless whether it is EV
  • my EV is 2t. Sure, the battery added a lot of weight over what a similar ICE car would have, but it’s far less impact than the existence of so many giant trucks that are so much heavier. Current guardrail standards are plenty to stop my SUV, despite it being EV
  • current guardrail standards are enough to stop most EVs, except for a couple excessive models that are also excessive in size, poor efficiency, poor design. Even for a large EV pickup, most models weight well under 4t
[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yup. Most of the people complaining about EV weight didn't give a shit about ICE vehicles getting bigger and heavier for decades. They bought them by the parking lot.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I was complaining about it but I'm used to being a Cassandra now

[–] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

As a pedestrian that has been hit twice, I will confirm that getting hit by a GMC Yukon was a worse experience than getting hit by a Toyota Tercel.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah this is bad.

Will also share some data for folks from Ars.

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Crash tests indicate native guardrail system can't handle heavy ~~electric~~ vehicles

Fixed that headline for anybody who doesn't read the article (which is better at explaining some of the nuance). AP is good, but not totally immune to clickbait titles.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not wrong, though some data for context here.

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Awesome! Thanks!

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

There's no reason to think the weight premium is here to stay. Going much over 350 to 400 miles of range isn't really necessary, and there many models reaching that already. All further improvements in Wh/kg can go towards reducing weight, not increasing range.