271–280 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just tax fuel (or emissions etc) No, because that harm small fun sports cars. The problem is big cars. Just ban big cars.
Fuel tax is the best solution. Pay as you go. More fuel you consume more emissions you produce, more distance you go, more road your wear occurs. Do you want to get 8l V8 engine? Fine, just pay your fuel taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People had no choice. When they come out with a new generation of car model they stop producing the old.
No choice? They can get Camry. Or van. Or wagon. Yet massive trucks have higher demand than ever.
The design of the physical environment is in no small part responsible for this. Don't believe me go to Europe and Japan where kids are still allowed to walk and bike to school, to friends places and just in general play and exist outside unattended to a much higher degree than in the US. Because in the US they would be roadkill, and even if they somehow survived outside of a car, car centric design means there's now…
Why does HN love this narrative so much? The article is about very different causes, cars are mentioned only once in passing. It's getting really stale to have to read this same comment over and over rather than people discussing the topics that TFA is actually about.
Because it distracts from the parts that many people don't like to talk about because it goes against their personal beliefs (such as religious conservatives being more connected with their communities and overall happier than everyone else)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need reforms to the method the EPA uses to calculate and enforce fuel efficiency requirements. It's the direct driver of the gigantifucation of vehicles.
Yes, if by 'reform', you mean abolish. As you can see, those requirements just get gamed. Instead of complicated rules, just tax fuel (or emissions etc), and consumers will institute their own personal fuel efficiency requirements.
That's not likely to succeed, because:
1. People — individuals and companies — try to game the tax system at least as much as they do pollution regulations, and probably much more so because tax obligations are largely self-reported with only sporadic auditing to catch cheaters and gamers.
2. Certain political elements are always trying to defund the tax auditors (e.g., the IRS). We might well ask why that is.
3. Politically, tax hikes are always harder to get through Congress — and to keep in force — than sensible standards for products and behaviors that voters can see are beneficial to them (e.g., pollution prohibitions).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if by 'reform', you mean abolish. As you can see, those requirements just get gamed. Instead of complicated rules, just tax fuel (or emissions etc), and consumers will institute their own personal fuel efficiency requirements.
> just tax fuel (or emissions etc) No, because that harm small fun sports cars. The problem is big cars. Just ban big cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only we made killing children with your car a crime.
Alas. See the comment above, where a driver in a huge SUV got away scott-free for killing a child. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644209
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People's desires are the direct driver of gigantification of vehicles. I assure you nobody buying a RAM or F150 gives two shits about EPA or fuel efficiency.
People had no choice. When they come out with a new generation of car model they stop producing the old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My particular bugbear here is the absolutely insanity of truck and SUV heights, to the point that even full-grown adults are no longer clearly visible from inside new vehicles ( https://i.imgur.com/1dHWVxn.png ).
There was a case recently where a little girl was crushed by a SUV making a right turn at a pedestrian crossing. She was walking right behind her parents, but the driver could not see her because the vehicle was too high, so thought the road was free when the parents had passed through. The court decided that the driver was at no fault as it was impossible to see the girl from his position.
The design of the physical environment is in no small part responsible for this. Don't believe me go to Europe and Japan where kids are still allowed to walk and bike to school, to friends places and just in general play and exist outside unattended to a much higher degree than in the US. Because in the US they would be roadkill, and even if they somehow survived outside of a car, car centric design means there's now…
Why does HN love this narrative so much? The article is about very different causes, cars are mentioned only once in passing. It's getting really stale to have to read this same comment over and over rather than people discussing the topics that TFA is actually about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My particular bugbear here is the absolutely insanity of truck and SUV heights, to the point that even full-grown adults are no longer clearly visible from inside new vehicles ( https://i.imgur.com/1dHWVxn.png ).
I'm in Eastern Europe; I've only seen an "American-style" SUV once I think two decades ago. I still can't get that image out of my mind. It was like a tank in front of my car. I couldn't understand how it fits our streets, how it parks, I couldn't see around it. Just... wow, honestly. I have no idea what car it was, but it was like a huge pick-up.
In the 1990s, I had a sweet little Honda Civic hatchback that got great mileage and handled beautifully.
But towards the end of the decade, the roads in my area were filled with aggressive drivers in Ford and Jeep SUVs who just were obnoxious. I felt forced to switch to a larger car just to feel safe on the road.