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

101–110 of 158 posts

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

#101

Post by magicalhippo »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #96
magicalhippo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Norway we do have a weight tax. It's linear for normal cars[1] and paid once, for heavier vehicles it's yearly and quite non-linear[2]. edit: doing a quick fit, it seems to just be quadratic with weight though, while damage goes more like the fourth power as noted in sibling comment. As for miles driven, AFAIK there's nothing direct non-linear there, just some duty and taxes on the fuel. [1]: https://www.skat…

Is weight tax the same of different for electric and internal combustion cars?

Yes. ICE's have an additional CO2/NOx tax though.

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

#102

Post by bitbang »

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.

People you are talking to only care about image, they just buy into the macho image projected by marketing.

There are many tradesmen, farmers, etc who would love to buy one of the small trucks that used to be available. They are great for tossing tools into and going to fields, work sites, etc. But trucks with that wheel base now require an efficiency level that isn't feasible. Many have resorted to using UTVs in their place where it makes sense, but those can't completely fill the gap since they aren't street legal.

Regulations always have intended consequences.

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

#103

Post by darkteflon »

landemva wrote: post #90
darkteflon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh huh, nice word. And could you put some details around that, some specifics? What would our society look like, in your estimation, without regulation?

It could look like reciprocal easements throughout the entire town and the roads. The people own the infrastructure and use legal structures to cooperate with their neighbors.

That’s a great starting point. But how would you handle it if you were on a main thoroughfare with 4.5 tonne EVs rolling through from, and to, parts unknown?

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

#104

Post by darkteflon »

10g1k wrote: post #93
darkteflon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Perhaps just free markets, and individuals determining how those markets go. Individuals funding local community assets as they see fit. Perhaps a cartel like situation such as the Hanseatic League.

Okay so survival of the fittest-type thing. Essential services such as hospitals, schools, electricity, etc would have to handle their own fundraising and would live and die by their performance in the market. Competing for mindshare with Wendys and Facebook could be tricky, but yeah, I’m a believer that people are fundamentally good and I reckon we could find a way to make it work.

Would we need any coordination at all, you reckon? After a time, would people say, “hey, these hospitals shouldn’t have to go cap-in-hand every month looking for funds, we should set something up to make sure they get what they need”, or no coordination at all?

And what about “businesses” that inherently aren’t very profitable? Let’s say there are two schools in town - one profitable and one not. The profitable one is profitable because it optimises for profits. The unprofitable one optimises for things that are harder to measure - student experience, community, etc. Would people choose to help fund the unprofitable one out of their own pockets when there was another option that’s profitable? What would be the consequences of that over time?

And finally, how about bad actors - companies that produce a dangerous product that kills or harms people, or that negligently fail to maintain a nuclear power station? Or just really big, heavy cars that tear up roads and the planet and kill people more often than the alternatives. How would we handle such actors, or would we just not handle them - let the free market sort it out?

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

#105

Post by ghostpepper »

magicalhippo wrote: post #38
_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.

Here in Norway we do have a weight tax. It's linear for normal cars[1] and paid once, for heavier vehicles it's yearly and quite non-linear[2]. edit: doing a quick fit, it seems to just be quadratic with weight though, while damage goes more like the fourth power as noted in sibling comment. As for miles driven, AFAIK there's nothing direct non-linear there, just some duty and taxes on the fuel. [1]: https://www.skat…

Not sure how far you got in the article but Norway is specifically called out as the country with the best policy the US should mimic to address the problem.

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

#106

Post by c22 »

_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.

You could do this at the gas pump/charger with built in scales.

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

#107

Post by ben-schaaf »

coredog64 wrote: post #85
judge2020 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The AASHO test comes up frequently, but there’s an easier way to evaluate this: What’s the internal pressure required to inflate the tires? The higher it is, the smaller the contact patch and the more damage it will inflict on the road. Large trucks are between 80 and 100 PSI, while your typical passenger vehicle is going to be 35 PSI or under.

Road bicycles go over 100PSI. Motor bike tires have a similar pressure to cars.

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

#108

Post by tw04 »

>Slapping new taxes on EVs might seem like a head-scratcher, especially since around 4 in 5 cars on Norwegian roads are still gas-powered. But the country’s new weight-based car fees are a sensible move to address two critical drawbacks of oversize EVs: These models exacerbate climate change, and they endanger everyone else on the street. Other countries—and U.S. states—should follow Norway’s lead.

Just... no. That's a luxury we don't currently have. Get as many ICE cars off the road as quickly as you can, then worry about right-sizing by levying taxes based on weight. Why on earth would you give ANY disincentive to people from buying an EV? If someone wants to blow $150k on a hummer EV instead of buying another diesel pickup, great! Anyone claiming it's somehow more dangerous to a pedestrian is just being belligerent - if you get hit by the average 3/4 truck doing 60mph you'll be just as dead as the hummer despite the hummer weighing slightly more.

I think people in the US fail to realize that even the heaviest passenger vehicle does almost nothing to a road in comparison to a single semi-tractor. You can find various studies but even the most conservative put the average OTR truck at 2500X the damage of a passenger vehicle:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...

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

#109

Post by ghostpepper »

bitbang wrote: post #37
linsomniac wrote: post #21

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.

He says exactly this in paragraph 9. What article did you read?

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

#110

Post by landemva »

darkteflon wrote: post #103
landemva wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could look like reciprocal easements throughout the entire town and the roads. The people own the infrastructure and use legal structures to cooperate with their neighbors.

That’s a great starting point. But how would you handle it if you were on a main thoroughfare with 4.5 tonne EVs rolling through from, and to, parts unknown?

The easements allow other property owners to get to their houses. Everyone understands work trucks going to work at a house. A big advertising billboard truck going in circles would be trespass on my part of the "road". EV going to a residence seems to comply with easement to travel, within bridge weight limits.
Post reply on HN