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

141–150 of 158 posts

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

#141

Post by slenk »

bjourne wrote: post #114
margalabargala wrote: post #22

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…

Isn't most road damage caused by climate and weather and not vehicles?

Really depends if you live somewhere with seasons or not.

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

#142

Post by Ajedi32 »

_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.

Totally agreed that construction costs should be distributed in a manner proportional to usage.

I'm curious though; is road damage based on total vehicle weight, or just the weight on each tire? If the latter, I think the formula should reflect that in order to incentivize vehicles to distribute weight across more tires in order to minimize road damage where that makes sense.

I'm also curious about how much wear is caused by vehicles vs other factors, like the weather. I'd guess that probably depends a lot on the local climate in each state.

I should also point out that maintenance costs aren't the only cost associated with road usage; even light cars take up space on the road, creating traffic and thus reducing the utility for other drivers. Any charges should thus include the cost of additional lanes needed to accommodate those vehicles regardless of their weight.

In an ideal world I'd probably base the cost on miles driven, plus an additional charge based on an estimate of additional maintenance costs incurred depending on mileage, vehicle weight, number of tires, and the local climate. But then you also have to take into account the bureaucratic cost of enforcement, and how complicated you can make things before those costs exceed the benefits of accurate distribution of costs to consumers. Definitely a complex issue.

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

#143

Post by fho »

Timshel wrote: post #129
fho wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy that basically no "fast Velomobile" is in the market. Something shaped like a velomobile (goes 100 km/h downhill by gravity alone), but some what bigger, with a motor and more safety features.

With such height I would expect it to be almost invidible to cars (let's not even think of a collision). Unless more regulation like the one discussed in the article are passed to stop the suv trends, I would never even consider riding something like this.

> With such height I would expect it to be almost invidible to cars

That's the first thing that comes up every time VMs are mentioned. It's definitely not false, but I feelel that some points should be mentioned:

1. Over all VMs are a lot safer than bicycles: 1.1. If a car touches your bicycles handbar you've lost. In a VM the handlebar is inside. 1.2. You ride feet first which increases the length of your "crumble zone" significantly. Watch this and tell me you would have survived in a normal bicycle: https://youtu.be/5aujzL__SZE

2. Huge trucks are not as common in Europe. Everybody here is worried about SUVs getting too big here, but our SUVs are tiny compared to (some) American trucks.

3. Due to the E-Bike boom, cycling infrastructure is becoming a lot better with huge stretches of smooth, paved bicycle lanes along major roads. We are getting there.

4. Some sports cars are only slightly heigher compared to Velomobiles (e.g. Mango: 0.9m vs. Porsche 911 1.2m) and are often painted super bright colors. If a driver overlooks a VM he will probably also overlook a sports car.

(To be fair, I think that there is some "this object does not participate in traffic" recognition happening in the brain that just marks VMs as unimportant. I did a test drive some time ago were we were shouted at because we "drove towards [the other guy] at high velocity" ... while we were literally waiting to pass a parked car. I assume that we just "appeared" for him and his brain decided that therefore we must have been moving at high velocity.)

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

#144

Post by fho »

wink wrote: post #137
fho wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that basically every velocar is vaporware atm. Here in Germany regulations are unnecessarily complex and your best option is to get 10-20 year old Velomobiles that can legally be driven as S-Pedelecs (up to 45 km/h) because they were at some point certified for that speed. But getting a new velomobile, that you can easily drive faster than 45 km/h by muscle power alone, certified to be powered electrically is…

Except that most cyclists I know (me included) would be too scared to use one.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37036224

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

#145

Post by _ea1k »

PinkMilkshake wrote: post #53
_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.

That's true, but a key component would be to decouple the payment from the process of paying for fuel.

Once those are separated, providing a tax reduction system for lower incomes would become possible.

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

#146

Post by Timshel »

fho wrote: post #143
Timshel wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With such height I would expect it to be almost invidible to cars (let's not even think of a collision). Unless more regulation like the one discussed in the article are passed to stop the suv trends, I would never even consider riding something like this.

> With such height I would expect it to be almost invidible to cars That's the first thing that comes up every time VMs are mentioned. It's definitely not false, but I feelel that some points should be mentioned: 1. Over all VMs are a lot safer than bicycles: 1.1. If a car touches your bicycles handbar you've lost. In a VM the handlebar is inside. 1.2. You ride feet first which increases the length of your "crumble z…

1. In city I believe that bicycle might be safer mainly due to agility at lower speed (might be wrong here never used a VM) and the ability to just leave the bike; but I expect this disappear quickly as the speed increase.

2. I know but still too big ^^

4. I think width play an important part too, on motorcycle I had cars merge on me as if I was not there multiple times :(; easier to disappear in the blindspot.

(Funny anecdote, I would have expected the reverse with people ignoring VM because they underestimate the speed :).

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

#147

Post by Timshel »

reducesuffering wrote: post #139
Timshel wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt all roads are built to the same specification and they should not. 18 wheelers have no place in city center or suburb.

How do you think goods are getting into a Target or Costco? 30 delivery vans an hour?

I'm not living in the US but I was under the impression that Target&Cosco were already not in the city center or the middle of suburbs but more like close to an interstate or other main road ?

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

#148

Post by timbit42 »

FTFA: “If we can redistribute these resources—instead of putting them in a Hummer, put them in smaller cars or e-bikes—that’s preferable,” said Jay Turner

Or even PHEVs which typically have 1/10th the batteries and 1/10th the range of an EV, yet reduce fuel usage by 90% since most people's daily driving is under 50 kilometres or 30 miles.

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

#149

Post by WillAdams »

mjhay wrote: post #140
WillAdams wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bald tires won't pass inspection.

That's not a thing in most of the US.

Given that some 1 in 5 accidents are caused by a lack of maintenance, I would argue that it's a threat to public health/safety that they are not.

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

#150

Post by fho »

Timshel wrote: post #146
fho wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With such height I would expect it to be almost invidible to cars That's the first thing that comes up every time VMs are mentioned. It's definitely not false, but I feelel that some points should be mentioned: 1. Over all VMs are a lot safer than bicycles: 1.1. If a car touches your bicycles handbar you've lost. In a VM the handlebar is inside. 1.2. You ride feet first which increases the length of your "crumble z…

1. In city I believe that bicycle might be safer mainly due to agility at lower speed (might be wrong here never used a VM) and the ability to just leave the bike; but I expect this disappear quickly as the speed increase. 2. I know but still too big ^^ 4. I think width play an important part too, on motorcycle I had cars merge on me as if I was not there multiple times :(; easier to disappear in the blindspot. (Funn…

I frequent a (German) VM forum ... there definitely are accidents. The only fatal one was on a crossing on fields were the high crop covered the VM ... not sure how high the crop was and if e.g. a child on a bike would have been visible.

Other accidents like the one in the video above are surprisingly non-fatal ... iirc the guy in the video was doing ~60km/h when he collided feet-first with the tree ... got up and recorded a youtube video about his accident :-)

Post reply on HN