• teft@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    In the army you have to have a ground guide for vehicles that big. A ground guide is a soldier that walks in front of the big vehicle and watches for obstacles. The ground guide helps the driver navigate obstacles they are unable to see due to blind spots.

    I propose we legislate that all vehicles that big require a ground guide to walk in front of them.

    Then everyone will buy small vehicles so the newly formed ground guide union will have less power.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    This makes me wonder if there could be a regulation mandating front facing cameras on vehicles where vision is obstructed when moving at low speeds. Perhaps collision alert systems are sufficient. At any rate, there should probably be something that mandates some form of compensation for the lack of vision.

    • Spur4383@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      There is no need for cameras, that is solving a problem that did not need to exist. They should not raise the front ends as they do for aesthetic reasons.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Fillicia@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            4 months ago

            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.