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

61–70 of 158 posts

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

#61

Post by whalesalad »

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…

Who is being hurt? Deadly machines? This is a very unpleasant curmudgeonly take. The context of this discussion is regarding road use and wear and tear.

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

#62

Post by sagarm »

sandworm101 wrote: post #57
ckdarby wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bicycles and motorcycles aren't dangerous: cars are.

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

#63

Post by duskwuff »

sandworm101 wrote: post #42
_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.

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.

Motorcycles are shockingly fuel-inefficient. Some "touring" models get as little as 30 mpg, and few full-size motorcycles get above 60 mpg. While that isn't terrible, it's also not substantially better than a small car, and with much worse cargo capacity and crash survivability.

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

#64

Post by Dalewyn »

crazygringo wrote: post #6
paulpauper wrote: post #3

this 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.

America has income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, I could go on. And clearly taxes that fund roads are soon going to need to be completely revised, since they can't all come from gas anymore. Whatever the gas tax is replaced/supplemented with, I would be surprised if it doesn't take into account vehicle weight, since the whole point is to fund road maintenance. And remember that…

I would just like to mention for the non-Americans here that "America has tax" is a gross and possibly useless oversimplification.

There are federal taxes, which generally will be levied uniformly across the country.

There are state, county, and municipal taxes, of which the rates will all vary as well as whether any specific tax is levied at all (eg: Oregon has no sales tax).

Certain taxes will be levied by multiple levels of government, such as gasoline tax which is levied by both federal and state taxes.

Most countries' taxes are far simpler because their structures of governance are simpler, so it's worth keeping in mind that mindset shouldn't be applied to the US.

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

#65

Post by chasd00 »

10g1k wrote: post #17

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.

Could not agree more.

Everyone’s answer to anything they don’t like is “tax it moar!!” but it’s just throwing money away. I would be more OK with a mandatory donation to like the Girl Scouts rather than sending even more money to the government to just be wasted.

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

#66

Post by Dalewyn »

hersko wrote: post #2

"On Sunday, President Joe Biden directed his megawatt grin toward a worthwhile cause," that's really laying it on thick. Geez.

Slate is as left/progressive leaning as it gets, so that's not surprising and anyone reading them should keep it in mind.

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

#67

Post by sokoloff »

blamazon wrote: post #7
paulpauper wrote: post #3

this 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.

So, under this political hypothesis, how do you explain the many (popular) toll roads currently in the USA that charge higher prices for heavier vehicles? Does that not constitute acceptance of a similar type of taxation?

The tolls that I’ve seen have usually been by size/vehicle categories, not by weight. In particular, an empty flatbed 18-wheeler (~25k lbs) is usually tolled the same as an 80K lbs 18-wheeler.

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

#68

Post by TacticalCoder »

judge2020 wrote: post #28
metadat wrote: post #5

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…

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…

> 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.

OK so take a loaded semi-truck at 40 tons / 80 000 pounds. How much more damage does it do than the 4 tons W1 of your example?

How's the road still even there at all after the semi-truck passed on it?

The answer is: because even the W1 vehicle at 4 tons cannot even dent that road.

Now I'm not saying a 4 tons car is a good thing but honestly 1 ton to 2.5 tons, I don't think it's even possible to measure the tiny damage they do.

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

#69

Post by Gigachad »

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.

Agreed. I’m sure the family that has their kids killed by a brodoser feels better knowing the owner paid extra taxes on it.

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

#70

Post by sandworm101 »

sagarm wrote: post #62
sandworm101 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bicycles and motorcycles aren't dangerous: cars are.

Bikes are pretty bad. Basically everyone who has ever learned to ride a bike will at some point be injured, and not by cars but by user errors. They cannot be made safe. When you fall it will hurt. Ive seen horrible stuff from people riding bikes through woods. Speed+trees is dangerous.
Post reply on HN