I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or minivan, not a four wheel drive Suburban.
The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
31–40 of 104 posts
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#32Great news. Long needed simple fix for climate. The highest sector for GHG emissions in California for example, is transport.
As much as I agree that this is great news, I would like to see something that isn't focused exclusively on emissions - or even weight for that matter. As important as those are, I would also like to see something that focuses on size as well. There is so much potential in small vehicles, but it is stymied by the proportion of over-sized vehicles on the road. Something to short circuit the 'visibility arms race' woul…
As much as I like hatchbacks and wagons, when a CR-V gets the same gas mileage as an Accord, I'm going to go with the CR-V. More stuff, more ground clearance.
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#33Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#34I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or m…
>Bring back the more efficient sedans.
Is that a type of wagon I am unfamiliar with?
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#35Larger 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 chang…
A better observation than “maybe they’re scared to drive or have a good reason for getting a very large vehicle” would be: why does society force people who don’t want to or who are scared to drive into the drivers seat of a vehicle in order to participate in society?
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I work hard not to run into people. So far, I've had a 100% success rate. I can't say as much for the people around me, so "safer for the occupants" is a strong selling point.
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#37I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or m…
>Bring back the more efficient sedans. Is that a type of wagon I am unfamiliar with?
Wagons have hatches, sedans have trunks.
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#38So 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?
No the regulations did not cause people to buy trucks/suvs. It exempted them from fuel efficiency requirements. People want to drive tanks but if we make tanks expensive they won’t. I’m not sure though if it’ll work since the average truck/suv is 50k with many close to 80k.
What they need to do is increase visibility requirements and make the trucks safer for pedestrians.
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
1980 and 2021 civic get basically the same mpg.
Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars
#40So 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?
No the regulations did not cause people to buy trucks/suvs. It exempted them from fuel efficiency requirements. People want to drive tanks but if we make tanks expensive they won’t. I’m not sure though if it’ll work since the average truck/suv is 50k with many close to 80k. What they need to do is increase visibility requirements and make the trucks safer for pedestrians.
Whether the regulation gives +1 to category A or -1 to category B the net result is the same. The reduced relative compliance burden on category A makes the end result have more bang for its buck than category B.
You can see this in all sorts of corners of the economy where goods subject to different levels of regulation compete.