Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 158 posts

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#51

Post by Gigachad »

whalesalad wrote: post #49

I think that its foolish to over-legislate at this stage in the game. 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 c…

> People do not consider the weight of the vehicle when purchasing. No one cares. And it's not something we should need to consider.

Of course they don’t care. Because it’s only others being hurt. Which is why we need to push the problem back to the source. We shouldn’t allow deadly machines to be operated around urban spaces. If you need one out on the farm, that’s fine. But it’s not appropriate to take in to the city.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#52

Post by etrautmann »

whalesalad wrote: post #49

I think that its foolish to over-legislate at this stage in the game. 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 c…

EVs could be treated separately from IC vehicles (e.g., battery weight doesn’t count or something)

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#53

Post by PinkMilkshake »

_ea1k wrote: post #4

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.

> and miles driven

That may unfairly impact people who already cannot afford to live close to where the jobs are.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#54

Post by Gigachad »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #46
bitbang wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anecdotally, this is false for anyone I have talked to. They want bigger vehicles, they want to sit up high. There exists demand for bigger vehicle, whether or be to feel safer or superior.

You can tell with the aggressive aesthetic of these new trucks that there is clearly some appeal to fragile egos as well.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#55

Post by msandford »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #46
bitbang wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anecdotally, this is false for anyone I have talked to. They want bigger vehicles, they want to sit up high. There exists demand for bigger vehicle, whether or be to feel safer or superior.

They may want big, but big doesn't have to be heavy. We could have big and relatively light vehicles. Most of a cars volume is air.

But big is higher drag and higher drag is less mpg and the only way to be allowed less mpg is heavy as per EPA rules.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#56

Post by darkteflon »

10g1k wrote: post #47
darkteflon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what do you think would happen then?

The government, at best, and excluding any other criticisms, is a middle man. At the very least, it absorbs money and decreases efficiency. 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…

Yep, totally agree that government is both expensive and wasteful. Absolutely no disagreement there.

Let’s say we do away with government and regulating companies then, in the interests of efficiency and liberty. What’s the state of play a few years into that experiment, do you reckon?

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#57

Post by sandworm101 »

ckdarby wrote: post #45
sandworm101 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except the additional cost via health care either publicly or private via insurance premiums. Two wheel motorcycles today as they stand should be outlawed.

And so should bicycles too. The per-mile injury rate, the stat used when comparing a given journey, for bicycles is several times higher than that of motorcycles. And skateboards... they are per-mile death traps. Rollerblades are likely more dangerous per-mile than driving drunk while smoking. If you have to cover a given distance, the safest is not always the slowest. Often the faster means limits risk exposure and come out safer despite the increases in energy and perceived danger.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#58

Post by [deleted] »

Gigachad wrote: post #51
whalesalad wrote: post #49

I think that its foolish to over-legislate at this stage in the game. 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 c…

> People do not consider the weight of the vehicle when purchasing. No one cares. And it's not something we should need to consider. Of course they don’t care. Because it’s only others being hurt. Which is why we need to push the problem back to the source. We shouldn’t allow deadly machines to be operated around urban spaces. If you need one out on the farm, that’s fine. But it’s not appropriate to take in to the ci…

[deleted]

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#59

Post by [deleted] »

epivosism wrote: post #9

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…

[deleted]

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#60

Post by sokoloff »

neilv wrote: post #12

Taxes and fees just let the wealthy do whatever they want, while putting the less-wealthy at even further disadvantage. Regulations that say a normal household passenger vehicle can't weigh over X can be made to apply to everyone.

Beware of unintended consequences. Such a policy would tend to work against EVs and PHEVs, which have their own benefits to society.
Post reply on HN