America is not a nation of light vehicles, and that is largely due to the MPG standards that have been legislated for decades. An "out" was given based on vehicle weight, with heavier vehicles not having to meet as high a standard as lighter ones. Which is part of why trucks have gotten so huge over the past few decades.
If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
21–30 of 158 posts
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#22At a hefty 3.5T / 7,000 lbs, the Rivians* aren't much lighter than an E-Hummer (4.5T / 9,000 lbs). Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? Ever noticed how the trucker lanes on the highway are the first to get potholes? The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize luxury toys. Let the owners pay a fair amount relative to the strain they're adding to th…
> Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones?
This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical.
No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is functionally zero, and for a Rivian or Hummer, it remains essentially zero.
The weight of large electric vehicles is an important issue! It makes a huge difference in cases of, for example, striking a pedestrian. But road damage is not a major issue for electric vehicles.
One caveat would be that a lot of road repair is funded via gas taxes, so road damage per dollar paid towards road repair may be lower for electric vehicles. But if we make heavy vehicles pair "their fair share", the Rivians will pay pennies, and the truckers will all go bankrupt.
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#23Vehicle mileage is taxed at the pump and at the charging station. The material is taxed at sale. Charging an excess tax is just. . . In excess. The pedestrian crash problem has more to do with our terrible alternative transportation traffic mixing. If the US took a more serious approach for bike lanes and pedestrian accessible infrastructure, the injury rate would decrease. Heavy vehicles is not a new problem. Look a…
This I've heard several times recently but it's not really true. The current 4-door Bronco is larger in every direction and 900 pounds heavier than a 1976 Ramcharger, which we used to think of as a benchmark for way-too-big cars. The best-selling car from 1976 weighed 3700 pounds, only 3-5% more than the best-selling Toyota Camry of 2022. The 1976 Ford F-100 (the best-selling truck of that year) base weight is the same as a 2023 Ford F-150 base, at 4000 pounds.
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#24At a hefty 3.5T / 7,000 lbs, the Rivians* aren't much lighter than an E-Hummer (4.5T / 9,000 lbs). Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? Ever noticed how the trucker lanes on the highway are the first to get potholes? The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize luxury toys. Let the owners pay a fair amount relative to the strain they're adding to th…
> Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical. No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is…
[deleted]
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#25A left-inclined publication wants more government interference and more taxes? I'm shocked! How about just not taxing everything and everyone into oblivion? Reduce all the wasteful government spending, and remove most of the government.
And what do you think would happen then?
Freedom.
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#26this is America. any attempt at this sort of taxation is doa, even as far backs as the 70s. It's like " it worked in Norway (or other small, liberal, or collectivist or highly authoritarian country), it can work America too" um un no.
The problem is that the alternative isn’t working either. Americas infrastructure trajectory is highly unsustainable even without decimating the gas tax. Eventually something gives. Lately it’s been bridges.
It's not necessarily working to even raise it either - Pennsylvania has the highest gas tax and the second highest number of bridges in poor condition in the country.
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#27Darn the 7.5k rebate has income limits only up to 300k
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#28At a hefty 3.5T / 7,000 lbs, the Rivians* aren't much lighter than an E-Hummer (4.5T / 9,000 lbs). Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? Ever noticed how the trucker lanes on the highway are the first to get potholes? The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize luxury toys. Let the owners pay a fair amount relative to the strain they're adding to th…
I mentioned this in my comment, but the "AASHO Road Test" gave us something called the Generalized Fourth Power Law. Explained
> It’s a rule of thumb for comparing the amount of pavement damage caused by vehicles with different weights, in terms of axle loads:
> (W1/W2)^4
> In the equation, W1 is the weight of an axle on vehicle 1, which we would compare to W2, the weight of an axle on vehicle 2.
For W1 of 4 tons on an axle and W2 of 1 ton on an axle, vehicle 1 does 256 times as much damage to pavement as vehicle 2.
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#29F=mv^2
The problem is moreso speed, not mass, when discussing pedestrian fatalities.
Better yet, protect pedestrians from getting hit in the first place with better street design for more walkable cities. There are tons of examples of protected bike lanes, pedestrian islands, and more frequent crosswalks with stiffer penalties for blowing through them, regardless of what the vehicle is.
Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
#30this is America. any attempt at this sort of taxation is doa, even as far backs as the 70s. It's like " it worked in Norway (or other small, liberal, or collectivist or highly authoritarian country), it can work America too" um un no.
I think that is a record for the fastest I have seen a comment get to -4, which means it cannot be salvaged. I think the prior record was about Elon Musk.