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

The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#21

Post by pengaru »

bdcravens wrote: post #18
Paul-Craft wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-... 2. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportati…

2020 seems like an odd year to source those stats from considering how abnormal transportation was during COVID-19.

Particularly air travel, which is part of transportation, would have been way down vs. normal, artificially inflating the %age contributed by others including the fraction you're implying would go away.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#22

Post by Paul-Craft »

bdcravens wrote: post #18
Paul-Craft wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-... 2. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportati…

And how many years will that take? Hint: more than we've got, if we want to have a prayer of avoiding more than 1.5 degrees of warning.

Just read for yourself here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452

> “This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2C (3.6F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.”

Ain't happenin', and this isn't going to get us there. Only massive, worldwide action will save us.

Again, this is not a "fix" in any sense of the word. At best, by itself, it's a feel good measure. But I'm sure we won't commit to what it would really take.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#23

Post by hospitalhusband »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #17
derdlick wrote: post #16

So regulations on small cars forced people to buy larger vehicles, and their solution is even more regulations, just this time on larger vehicles? How about just relax regulations on the smallest vehicles, making them more feasible?

Surely those regulations still serve a purpose?

> The more hegemonic the system, the more the imagination is struck by the smallest of its reversals. The challenge, even infini­tesimal, is the image of a chain failure.

Seriously though, the purpose of those regulations is to prevent upstarts from making simple, cheap, reliable vehicles and to protect the incumbents. Gotta have a big bank account and a lot of lawyers to redesign and crash test a handful of vehicles every few years.

Modern hybrids still don't match (or barely match) the gas mileage of old, small, lightweight cars despite being substantially more complex, less recyclable, less repairable, and using substantially more (and more exotic) materials in production.

Ouroboros regulations only exist to justify their own continued existence. Cars get bigger? More regulations on smaller (less safe) cars, making cars bigger. Rinse and repeat.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#24

Post by dontlaugh »

hackernewds wrote: post #9
cozzyd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of taxing fuel, governments should tax mileage * weight (or perhaps mileage * weight^alpha for some alpha...)

Why? Truck seamlessly and scalably move cargo for thousands of customers at once. Distributing that to hundreds of smaller trucks for tax efficiency would be worse for the env

Neither compares in efficiency to trains.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#27

Post by prepend »

xqcgrek2 wrote: post #25

Larger vehicles are safer for occupants. This will lead to an increase in road deaths.

I frequently have a train of thought for “why so many SUVs” and then remember a line from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” speech [0]…

“ it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive.”

This specific speech changed my way of thinking from considering all these soccer moms in SUVs as jerks sucking up resources into more nuance that maybe they have reasons for why they want a big vehicle and don’t mind paying extra for gas because of it.

It also helped me when my adult child really wanted a big SUV as their first car even though they had no kids, no dogs, no sports with equipment. It was kind of inexplicable to me why they wanted a big SUV, but this quote made me relax and trust that they had a good reason.

[0] https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#28

Post by prepend »

Gigachad wrote: post #26
xqcgrek2 wrote: post #25

Larger vehicles are safer for occupants. This will lead to an increase in road deaths.

They aren't. They have a higher center of gravity and often roll.

They are. They also have a higher center of gravity and are more likely to rollover, but in genera SUV drivers are much more likely to survive crashes than car drivers [0].

But I think it’s hard to generalize as there are many safety factors and there are some cars that are safer than some SUVs (I survived a Chevy avalanche t-boning my Saab 9-3 that totaled both cars and had both avalanche driver and passenger taken away in stretchers and I took a cab home).

But, generally speaking, SUVs are safer because they have such greater mass. And SUVs also have safety features.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/suv-passenger...

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#29

Post by replygirl »

hackernewds wrote: post #9
cozzyd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of taxing fuel, governments should tax mileage * weight (or perhaps mileage * weight^alpha for some alpha...)

Why? Truck seamlessly and scalably move cargo for thousands of customers at once. Distributing that to hundreds of smaller trucks for tax efficiency would be worse for the env

trains

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#30

Post by kgermino »

prepend wrote: post #28
Gigachad wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't. They have a higher center of gravity and often roll.

They are. They also have a higher center of gravity and are more likely to rollover, but in genera SUV drivers are much more likely to survive crashes than car drivers [0]. But I think it’s hard to generalize as there are many safety factors and there are some cars that are safer than some SUVs (I survived a Chevy avalanche t-boning my Saab 9-3 that totaled both cars and had both avalanche driver and passenger taken…

*safer for the occupants. They’re much more dangerous to others around them due to higher and more aggressive front ends, more weight, and less ability to see people around you.
Post reply on HN