- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.
Adding such a tax, where every vehicle paya relative to what they do to the road surface they roll on, would instantly make all SUVs unviable. It would also increase the incentives for shipping freight by rail by an incredible amount.
Yes please, apply the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle
The absence of it’s application means you make others pay for the costly decisions of a few, incentivizing and subsidizing damaging behaviour.
The absence also often means wealth transfer from poor to rich, as you need to have some wealth to be able to cause significant ‘pollution’.
It makes so much sense. “You want this? Ok, then pay for what it entails, all the consequences.” Only then people make informed decisions.
Dude, we are still stuck with half of America thinking more CO2 is good because it’s “extra plant food”. This policy you suggest would have them countering saying they should pay less for helping to feed the forests with their vehicle’s emissions.
It’s a great solution, but I don’t know how we could get it passed.
Great idea, I hear Aramco is the world’s biggest polluter, let’s start there.
You can start from several points in parallel.
There’s no need to wait for Aramco.
Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.
Road wear comes from weight and power, so does pollution. Add size to the equation and you can estimate a cars dangerousness. Look only at size and you can see a cars damage to urban spaces. Hence, private vehicles should be taxed based on their size, weight and power. Bonus points for tire width, because tires are a non-recycable environmental problem and super-wide tires add nothing to the world but damage.
Tyre width relates to grip and handling does it not?
That’s relevant to certain rural communities, but I see a lot more wide tyres on suspension lowered BMW with bad chrome jobs.
Feels like the kind of thing that shouldn’t be encouraged for Inner City vehicles, I wonder what the correlation is between these vehicles and the kinds of arsehole tearing up a 20mph at 60mph at 4am.
Ceteris paribus, it mostly does. But that also means, that they can be used to driver faster holding the probability of an accident constant, while raising the severity of damage in case of an accident. Incidents where they would have prevented an accident are likely to be insignificant, while at the same time, more grip is likely to induce more risk-seeking driving, hence resulting in a net-negative to overall safety.
However, keep in mind that super wide tires are never installed for safety reasons anyway, but mostly for cosmetic purposes and the drivers couldn’t care less for the risks and damages that come with wider tires. Therefore society has to prohibit it in self-defence.
deleted by creator
You could always tax by emissions and weight. EVs are not really the solution to the general car problem anyway. Mass transit is, at least in cities and other densely populated areas.
I think we agree but I still need to point out: Individual transport will always be a requirement for living in rural areas. The “fuck cars” sentiment only makes sense in cities with more than ~3 million inhabitants.
While I agree with the sentiment on cars in the city, I’d say that it is already viable in much smaller cities. I live in a city with 350k inhabitants and I’m doing quite well without a car.
For sure. But forbidding cars doesn’t make sense until you have several millions of people in a single city.
What are you smoking lmao, do you seriously think anything below 3 million people is rural?
rural is when it takes you an hour to reach the nearest grocery store by car.
That’s not rural, that’s ultra remote wilderness. Like what place doesn’t have a grocery store in a 100km radius? Some place deep in the Australian outback?
Village of ~10k, nearest grocery store is 25min walk, 10min bike, 5min car.
There are also three smaller stores a 2 min walk away. Europe for reference
I sincerely doubt there is a a place in Europe outside of maybe remote Scandinavia or Russia where you can’t get to a grocery store after driving for an hour.
All UK residents pay road tax, whether they own a vehicle or not. You’re referring to emissions tax, which only the vehicle owner pays.
Technically correct, but everyone colloquially still refers to the tax that you pay on your car as road tax even though it’s now emissions-based
deleted by creator
Small diesel car is much better than huge EV car in any city. Just look at any comparision on effectiveness of transport means and how cars are the least effective. If we allow to have now even bigger cars on our roads, then we end with even less effective communication, especially in places where buses get stuck in traffic.
Small diesel car is much better than huge EV car in any city. [citation needed]
Small dieser car is… smaller / shorter.
Dutch cars are taxed on weight, with temporary exceptions for EVs.
Does it scale to the fourth power? If yes, colour me impressed.
Tesla model S is heavier than my diesel truck. Many EVs probably are
I think it’s probably likely that EVs are inherently a little heavier than ICEs, but I don’t think it explains all of the weight growth trend of EVs. If we want to make sure that EVs do not become uncompetitive in relation to ICEs under this type of scheme, you could simply give them the first N kilograms off. This makes sure that the property of road wear still gets priced in for relatively heavier EVs, without making them directly uncompetitive.
You’d need some carve out for electric vehicles, they are super heavy compared to a gas car of the same size. (Assuming you want to encourage electric over gas)
As someone who lives in a country that actually has this system. No. It’s a shitty system. It results in old shitty cars that pollute like insanity. Some cars are more economical and safer than some badly built cars with less safety features and those safer cars are actually punished with this system.
You are literally better off buying an old banger that is falling apart and a road hazard than a new car because of our stupid tax system. And the people who drive SUVs here are usually rich and don’t care about higher road tax.
They should not be allowed in cities at all because they encourage irresponsible driving and when they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, the injuries are more deadly. Make people with these cars stop at the city border and use public transport.
SUVs are a paradox: while many people buy them to feel safer, they are statistically less safe than regular cars, both for those inside and those outside the vehicle. A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving.
I want to add that they also have greater blind spots. I got run over by an SUV driving out of a parking space, because the driver said she didn’t see me. I am an old, fat woman with a walking aid with four wheels and had multiple colorful bags from shopping with me and was wearing a white, big summer hat. She would have overlooked an elephant, because her car is as huge as a tank. My walking aid saved me and I only had minor injuries, a kid would have died.
A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon.
Was “sedan” meant here and not “saloon”?
Try as I might, I can’t think of why anyone would want to compare SUV’s to a western drinking establishment of a bygone era. Although I do see how being in a saloon at the wrong time would have also come with it’s own deadly risks.
Was “sedan” meant here and not “saloon”?
They don’t use the term on some of the colonies, but in the King’s English, saloon is a term for a luxury sedan.
It’s funny because you could have checked this yourself by just searching “saloon car” but you chose to be rude instead.
a regular saloon
I had to look it up too: https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/family-cars/saloon-cars/363/what-is-a-saloon-car
Not to mention that they are extremely wasteful and not good for the environment and our roads. If a small car and SUV went into a head collision the chance of survival of the passengers in the smaller car are much lower.
Bigger car = safer is exactly the kind of backwards thinking which causes so many people to unnecessarily buy big cars. The entire concept of Chelsea Tractors comes from middle-class parents thinking they need to do the school run in a tank so little Tarquin and Lilliput will be safe. We have Euro NCAP safety ratings for cars, judge the safety based on the actual tests!
That’s one of the reasons I prefer being in the big truck
This is why I drive a tank. Fuck other people, only I matter.
Once the shells come in I am firing at construction sites to keep housing prices high.
Plus you’ll own a weapon to protect yourself from other people’s Tanks too… we should all buy tanks, to protect ourselves.
That logic worked before somewhere.
It’s not the reason why I bought a truck. Just one of its benefits.
It’s funny how you come up with this imaginaty caricature of me in your head and then get angry at it for absolutely no reason.
This is the same logic Americans use with gun ownership and look how well that’s working out.
Hey, if I could own a welrod or even a goddamned slingshot without breaking the law here, I would.
Why?
Because maybe I want to relive my glory days as a youth with a toy projectile-thing and not go deaf because our laws require the gun be fucking loud as shit and big over here in murica. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ohh. You’re complaining you can’t own a less lethal weapon, I interpreted it as you couldn’t own a lethal weapon at all where you lived. I don’t understand why you’d want a lethal weapon at all, that’s insane to me.
It’s not why I bought a truck. Just one of its benefits.
which would you rather your children be transported in
Uh… The best case scenario is two smaller cars. Riding a bigger car to protect yourself is not only extremely selfish, but entirely counterproductive as you encourage other people to do the same. This is very much a tragedy of the commons situation.
Indeed. What happened with cars in the US is an “arms race” on the road. Everyone wants to be in the bigger car so they just get bigger and bigger and reach a point where that e=mc² equation is pegged.
max selfishness → max energy
As expected, right-wing U.S. republicans disproportionately drive big cars. While liberals tend to favor small cars or bicycles.
The EPA essentially banned station wagons and people realized you can have spacious, often luxurious, vehicles for their children and whatever shit they’re carrying. I prefer mid-sized sedans, but I only have dogs.
Wait, they banned estate cars? I’ve rented them at various points over the last ten years in the US, what exactly was banned about them?
This has some pretty good info on both. CAFE standards have perverse incentives (who could have guessed).
deleted by creator
which one would you rather have your kid cross the street in front of?
Not the one with significantly higher rollover fatalities, that’s for sure.
Just admit you’re scared to drive and stop driving.
Train, bike, bus, etc.
And this is why i avoid roads whenever possible, god bless my city for having so many bike/pedestrian underpasses so we don’t have to even come close to the death boxes most of the time.
Thanks for demonstration how being a parent can actually make you a worse person. Your children, or OPs for that matter, deserve to be safe and secure only as much as anyone else’s, despite what your hormones may have convinced you.
“The trend of “autobesity” is forcing car park providers to think of new ways to accommodate larger cars, such as introducing wider bays.”
That’s the most disgusting part of this. They are adapting the infrastructure to accommodate the child killers when the sensible approach is #fuckBigCars.
#fuckCars in general.
deleted by creator
My parents got a contemporary Highlander and I hate every minute of driving it. There’s zero visibility out of it, the “lane assist” shit hates curves in the roads, and it feels like I’m in a giant-but-claustrophobic spaceship with all these fucking computer systems that can’t be turned off. Spatial awareness is fucking hard when you can’t see a goddamned thing out most of the windows, and entire cars regularly disappear behind the A-pillar.
Do they get parking fine for not fitting in the space ? It’s an easy way to limit the obesity epidemic on cars
Nope. Just wait and see then make the parking spaces bigger.
The building I live in has started doing this for the private parking spots. Any vehicle not within the lines is hit with $80. Their hand was forced since some started parking trucks that leave the entire bed hanging out.
The largest SUV weighs 2,000kg, compared with about 1,200kg for a family hatchback.
That doesn’t seem right. Modern SUVs are approaching (and sometimes exceeding) 3t, while my very normal, 2016 hatchback weights nearly 1400kg too.
Keep in mind cars are MUCH smaller in Europe. (I don’t know if you’re American.)
He is, 3 tonnes cars are still not so common in Europe but we are going there slowly but surely.
Im actually not. I did exaggerate, but electric luxury SUVs are sitting at 2.5t, with the XM being quoted at 2.8t.
And then keep in mind that these weights usually include the lowest trim level only, a nicer interior, HUD etc. add weight too. Björn weighed an EQS SUV at 3t too (that seems to include himself and his equipment, but still): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzvvWJHrBS82echMVJH37kwgjE/htmlview?pli=1#
The heaviest I’m aware of is apparently 2.25-2.5 tonnes? Which is a similar weight to EV cars?
And they used to be much smaller and lightweight. Middle class and size models from the 80s are often just around 1000kg
All while probably carrying the same number or more people and having more cargo volume than today’s SUVs.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
While the size of the standard parking bay has remained static for decades, cars have been growing longer and wider in a phenomenon known as “autobesity”.
There is growing debate about car size and road safety, after two eight-year-old girls, Selena Lau and Nuria Sajjad, died when a Land Rover crashed through a school fence in south-west London in July.
The research also revealed that 27 models are too wide for drivers to comfortably open their doors when parked between two other cars.
The Land Rover Discovery measures 2.073 metres wide, leaving a narrow 16.35cm space between the doors and the bay’s borders.
Often nicknamed “Chelsea tractors”, their use in city centres has long been criticised, with some road safety campaigners calling for them to be banned in busy pedestrian areas.
Campaigners have questioned why drivers need such large and dangerous cars in the city, particularly when dropping children off at school, with some going to extreme measures to get their message across.
The original article contains 603 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Hmmmm, sounds like these cars need to go on a diet. 😂
Cars should be taxed based on their size.
deleted by creator
Out of curiosity: why is the size of cars in the UK relevant to the EU?
The article doesn’t mention the EU?
I think the community using the EU flag to describe the European continent may be confusing some people.
