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

41–50 of 104 posts

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

#41

Post by dsfyu404ed »

theGnuMe wrote: post #39
hospitalhusband wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What MPG does a 2021 sedan vehicle that compares in weight and frontal area to a 1980 civic get?

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

#42

Post by badRNG »

prepend wrote: post #27
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 chang…

> 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.

If part of the reason one wants a big vehicle is for safety, they are unwittingly participating in an arms race to ever larger, more dangerous vehicles. This arms race doesn't make everyone safer: it disproportionately harms those who either choose not to participate or cannot afford to: pedestrians, bicyclists, scooters, motorcyclists, children, etc. (which are the types of transportation that we should incentivize the most to combat climate change and congestion.)

> 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.

If we didn't litter our streets with absolutely massive vehicles, perhaps regular folks wouldn't need to drive a tank just to survive the daily commute. I don't fault consumers for making this choice. CAFE standards incentivized this [1], and regulation is what it will take to change incentives in a safer, climate-friendly direction.

[1] https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/cafe-standards-c...

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

#43

Post by dsfyu404ed »

What's always missing from this discussions is mention of the social norms of the upper middle class who do the bulk of the new car buying and who's preferences determine the shape of the new and used car market. Sure, the CAFE rules are dumb but the behavior of the people who who are spending $50k on midsize pickups and $40k on electric sedans can't solely be explained by a nudge at the margins of tax policy.

As long as the people who's demands and preferences do the lions share of shaping the new car market act like stuffing two car seats into anything less than a 3-row SUV or hauling bulk material on a tarp in a station wagon/crossover is some large burden SUVs/crossovers and pickups will continue to fly off the metaphorical shelves. And this is a self-reinforcing pattern. If people feel like buying a lot of vehicle is the kind of thing that successful white collar professionals do then that's what people with that kind of money will do, at least at the margins.

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

#44

Post by BobbyJo »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #22
bdcravens wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

"If I can't run a marathon then why leave the couch?"

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

#45

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

prepend wrote: post #27
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 chang…

Taking this to its logical conclusion, I commissioned a Landkreuzer P1000 for my family. It's the only way to be sure you have enough lebensraum on the road.

(I considered the M1A1 Abrams, but just didn't feel safe in the thing.)

I think women and girls especially should drive main battle tanks, given their psychological fragility and propensity to trauma. If you are such a person, and it makes you feel safer, you should absolutely secure oil fields in the Caucasus.

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

#46

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

argiopetech wrote: post #36
kgermino wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*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.

> So far, I've had a 100% success rate.

With blind spots that big, how would you really know?

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

#47

Post by paulryanrogers »

SyzygistSix wrote: post #32
tmnvix wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do they really get the same milage? Or are they just subject to a less stringent efficiency standard?

Higher ground clearance is usually associated with less fuel efficiency.

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

#48

Post by TheCoelacanth »

tmnvix wrote: post #5
baseline-shift wrote: post #2

Great 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…

How about some pedestrian safety requirements for a start?

A lot of these vehicles are killing machines with terrible visibility and hoods as high as an adult's head.

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

#49

Post by op00to »

TexanFeller wrote: post #31

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 m…

FORD RANGER! But the little tiny ford rangers. Or even a Bronco II.

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

#50

Post by paulryanrogers »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #22
bdcravens wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Only massive, worldwide action will save us.

Being apathetic at home isn't going to inspire others to do better. And there is no one silver bullet. The mess was made by many bad choices. It will take many better choices and laws to turn things around.

Post reply on HN