Doesn't fix braking distance, doesn't fix the increased chance of serious injury if a collision with a pedestrian occurs.

>auto braking

The thing literally starts braking before my brain can process whats happening.

And finishes long after a similarly-equipped lighter vehicle would.

Ok and?

My vehicle is as safe or safer than older lighter vehicles currently permitted on the road.

Why should the goalposts run off into the distance? Surely I have now met the common definition of "safe". At what point is it enough? This just brings back to Jealousy or some kind of Tall Poppy syndrome again.

A larger vehicle is more of a hazard to others than a smaller vehicle, and the safety features you describe don't change that.

But, as you're in Australia, I'm not sure your definition of "large" matches the story's or mine. North America has a whole class of huge ass vehicles that are relatively rare elsewhere in the world. Are you driving an Escalade, F-150, or similar?

You're wasting your breath. This guy isn't going to give up his brodozer.

My normal sized car is at a significant disadvantage in a collision with a full-sized SUV. This creates higher injury risk for me and my family.

Larger vehicles also cause more road damage over time, which raises my taxes or reduces the quality of roads I drive on.

For those reasons, I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, to encourage more smaller, lighter vehicles.

>For those reasons, I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, to encourage more smaller, lighter vehicles.

I pay higher insurance and registration fees already, I think its covered where I am.

And I guess anyone who doesn't want to buy a brodozer can go to hell, right?

Jealous of what exactly? Sounds like you are trying to justify your needlessly large/heavy vehicle. Plenty of accidents still occur with vehicles that have all those features. And accidents involving large/heavy vehicles are deadlier. It’s not rocket science. On top of that they have other downsides, like increased pollution and road degradation.

>Jealous of what exactly?

Wish I knew.

>Sounds like you are trying to justify your needlessly large/heavy vehicle.

I drove a Honda Jazz until I literally couldn't fit everything in anymore. I found I could carry 4 1.2 meter galvanised steel poles at an angle before I ran out of capacity. Which worked fine for me, I wouldn't be anxious unless they were literally scraping the windshield. I could carry half a rack of servers in the back with the seats folded down, before the back of the thing would start to scrape pavement. I needed something that could do better than that when I upgraded. Most hatches and sedans were a backwards step, and Honda stopped selling the Jazz in Aus. But for whatever reason, people feel the need to comment on the large vehicle.

>Plenty of accidents still occur with vehicles that have all those features.

With reduced impact.

>like increased pollution and road degradation.

I get better distance per litre out of the big one, and if its more polluting then I don't understand why I struggle so hard with the DPF which is literally designed to bring the thing down to our honestly egregious emissions standards, I literally dream about getting it illegally removed. "Road Degredation" seems marginal at best, wider tires spreading the load out further. Seems like another engineering problem if it is a problem. The poms figured out how to prevent their CVR light tanks from causing road damage, I am sure big utes aren't that much of an issue.

None of that fixes an inattentive driver flying down the road playing with tiktok on their phone

Agreed. It definitely fixes backing over a toddler in your driveway though.

I have a newer crossover. I put a hitch mount cargo box on and went to back out of the driveway. It slammed the brakes on harder than I ever have.

>None of that fixes an inattentive driver flying down the road playing with tiktok on their phone

Automatic braking does alleviate this, but also, inattentive driving is already illegal?

Yup, since it is illegal everyone pays perfect attention.

no, it's the fact that in accidents (where you are not the cause), people die disproportionately under your giant vehicle. it's safer for you, but almost no one else.

and don't get me started on the environmental/political aspects.

why would someone questioning your selfish (I'm not targeting you personally, just voicing a general perspective) decision have anything to do with jealousy?

Political?

>it's safer for you, but almost no one else.

No its safe for everyone else too. It wont even let me run into a tree.

>have anything to do with jealousy

Wish I knew, its just the only thing left when driving an efficient, safe vehicle that just happens to be large.