41–50 of 158 posts
F=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.
Agreed, all road taxes should be based on weight and miles driven. Make sure that it is non-linear, since road damage and weight aren't linear. And make sure that it affects fuel delivery trucks in the same way that it affects other heavy vehicles. Anything else would be plainly unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> the truckers will all go bankrupt I still think the alternative to pay per weight*distance is good - trucks should be last-mile delivery, not the primary source of transportation for goods in North America. Cargo trains are much better in many different dimensions, even more-so if they're electrified (Though, that's an impossibility in this market)
At 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…
How much damage does a 7,000 lb vehicle do to a road designed for 80,000 lb? Or is the real measure ground pressure? Apparently semi trucks run 6000lb up front per wheel and 4300lb in the rear. The Rivian runs 1400lb. With asphalt, which is softer, I imagine the road damage more readily accumulates over time. Whereas the concrete on freeways I guess has an actual sheer strength and either breaks or it doesn’t. I am n…
Agreed, all road taxes should be based on weight and miles driven. Make sure that it is non-linear, since road damage and weight aren't linear. And make sure that it affects fuel delivery trucks in the same way that it affects other heavy vehicles. Anything else would be plainly unfair.
Yes. That extends to motorcycles which, in comparison to all cars, do virtually zero damage to roads. Getting everyone out of cars and onto reasonable motorcycles, even sportbikes, would likely do more for the environment than the current plan of everyone driving electric tanks.
Two wheel motorcycles today as they stand should be outlawed.
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.
This. Ignorant dweebs like the type who write for Slate fail to understand that the growing size of vehicles is not driven by demand, it's driven by EPA policy.
A 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?
1) Government taxation model.
Tax payer X makes $100. The government takes $40 (excluding for now the additional taxation on every purchase, sale, savings, etc). The government spends $20 of that just to fund itself. The government spends the other $20 on whatever. X has $60, and things he cares about MIGHT have been given a fraction of that $20.
2) Other.
Tax payer X makes $100. He spends $40 on whatever the hell he wants to support or fund. He still has $60. Something he actually cares about, for example a local hospital, has $40.
No matter what other factors you add to complicate matters, the existence of any middle men add cost and reduce efficiency.
Strange they skipped the step of 1) taxing cars which cause more injuries per mile, 2) taxing resources (including externality cost) so that if you use more, you pay more. Instead they are taxing a pretty bad proxy for those actual policy goals. i.e. this incentivizes companies to reduce weight rather than add safety measures, and to use light materials regardless of if they cause more environmental damage. Hypotheti…
and in a democracy, this can't happen because those being taxed have political power to prevent it, or dilute it. Therefore, a proxy gets taxed indirectly, which also dilutes the said tax to more constituents, thus spreading it out thinly enough to not "cause" the ruckus in said group of constituents.
1. The Hummer EV is not going to do a ton of volume. Compared to other vehicles on the road, esp commercial, it's a drop in the bucket. "in 2022, GMC delivered 854 Hummer EV Pickups. Currently, the cumulative number is 857."
2. People do not consider the weight of the vehicle when purchasing. No one cares. And it's not something we should need to consider. The Rivian (a 'quarter ton' truck) weighs 7,000 lbs, a good 2,000 lbs more than my RAM 1500 (a 'half ton' truck). This is counter intuitive and not obvious to most buyers.
3. Batteries are the problem, but battery tech is truly in its infancy. They will continue to get lighter and more efficient.
Why would we want to penalize the transition to EV with more taxes and fees on owners? Ignore the fact that Hummer owners "can afford it" - what about other EVs? We want more adoption of EVs. We need to figure out another strategy. Manufacturers should carry the burden here because they are the ones producing these heavy vehicles. That is a slippery slope though because again it will stifle innovation.
This will be a messy transition but progress is progress.
Darn the 7.5k rebate has income limits only up to 300k