Unpopular Opinion

6394 readers

6 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

205

Headlight height should be regulated (lemmy.nowsci.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] eksb 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

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/