My original question was “How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs” but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn’t change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?

  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    As a former sound engineer, I am well aware of the dangers of volume and exposure limits.

    If a liesurly drive way in the mountains gives you hearing damage, your bigger concern is why you’re being dragged behind a car.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Dude, I already tore a similar article a new one weeks ago.

        If it’s anything like the last article, they cherry picked data and exaggerated results…

        See if this applies: linky

        Ohh … Turtle is done laying eggs and running away! Got to go!

        • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          You are correct and the thousands of scientists who have come to this same conclusion are wrong, totally bro

          • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Ahhh ok, because you asked so nicely.

            Nothing in the article mentions sound levels in the dangerous range.

            In fact, it can be sumed up with "This just in, traffic can be heard! More at 11!

            Around 100 million people are exposed to road traffic noise above 55 dB

            Drumroll Leeeeeeets check the charts!

            It basically says traffic can be heard in the distance.

            • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              I don’t know how to explain this to you this without resorting to crayons but let me try to put it succinctly:

              Low dB are still dangerous to health if they are constant and over a long period of time.

              You don’t have to reply, I know you disagree.

              • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Its easy to disagree with information that is wrong.

                You can listen to sounds at 70 dBA or lower for as long as you want. Sounds at 85 dBA can lead to hearing loss if you listen to them for more than 8 hours at a time. Source

                As I mentioned in my previous post about the subject, “Noise pollution” is (according to that article) defined as “unwanted” sounds, not dangerous. The “harmful” part, as it turned out, were simply distractions.

                Your article doesn’t define what they consider noise pollution nor any dangers ambient sound may cause. Before you claim any “danger to health”, you need to define what qualifies because we are both using these words very differently.

                • hitwright@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I’m pretty sure, the “danger for health” argument is not just hearing loss.

                  For a simple example. Try sleeping in a room with noise level at around 70dBA. Your sleep quality will suffer to say the least. In a longer time you will develop insomnia like symptoms.