38 ms·

You can beat physics. Big cars means more energy to dissipate in a crash. If the regulators had half a brain they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass. La

You can beat physics. Big cars means more energy to dissipate in a crash. If the regulators had half a brain they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass. Large cars also reduce visibility which further reduces safety. There has been a car size arms race for the past 30-40 years. Cars are getting bigger so you get an even bigger one to feel safe and have enough seat height to see around you.

tbihl 5y ago
They do tax cars based on weight (in the US). If your car weighs too little, it's a personal vehicle. If it's heavy enough to be "transportation equipment" (large SUV) you can get effective tax breaks by deducting its cost from your income to a much greater degree than for reasonable passenger vehicles[0]. [0]https://bradyware.com/business-vehicle-deductions-2020/ https://bradyware.com/business-vehicle-deductions-2020/ (not a primary source but it should give an idea.)
- ruddct 5y ago
  For those surprised by this (as I was when I first heard about it), this is talking about Section 179, which allows someone to fully deduct the purchase price of heavyweight vehicles (e.g. a Ford F-150) if it’s used for business. These vehicles are also not subject to the pedestrian safety requirements that 3-box vehicles (sedans, etc) are in the US.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    > of heavyweight vehicles (e.g. a Ford F-150) I don't think a heavyweight vehicle has been built since the 1930s, when they started building lightweight vehicles. Today, if you see a passenger vehicle referred to as heavyweight that is likely due to a marketing spin on how well it performs or the load it can carry. Even in that sense, a Ford F-150 is marketed as a lightweight and F-250 is a medium.
    - bratcomplex 5y ago
      150 from f150 refers to its carting and load capacity.. not its actual weight. the weight difference between a 150,250,350 is not a very significant one. This issue is a 150 is being used outside its original use case. And dose the job a Corolla is intended for. But with twice the weight and size.
      - IncRnd 5y ago
        Thank you. I know what the 150 stands for. But, it is not a heavyweight vehicle. That term refers to a type of vehicle that hasn't been made since the 1920s-1930s. The conversation I replied to was about deducting "the purchase price of heavyweight vehicles (e.g. a Ford F-150)". A Ford F-150 is not a heavyweight vehicle.
        1a2a3agg 5y ago
        I think in the context of this discussion heavyweight is defined by Section 179 as having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating greater than 6000 lbs. While the curb weight of a F150 is less, the GVWR is 6,010 to 7,150 lbs.
        IncRnd 5y ago
        That makes sense. Thank you.
- elihu 5y ago
  To add to that: light trucks imported from other countries are also subject to a 25% tariff known as the the "chicken tax"[1], and if I understand correctly, light trucks are subject to more stringent MPG standards to the point that auto manufacturers won't make them. Whether this latter is "environmental regulation gone too far" or just a matter of regulatory capture by an industry that doesn't want to compete in a market where small, cheap trucks are a thing that exists is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. I lean towards the regulatory capture interpretation myself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    I don't think anyone can look at what F150 sales do for Ford and interpret it any other way...
zzt123 5y ago
EVs come with a mandatory increase in vehicle weight (for equal range), no?
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  For equal range at equal volume, but there are of course lightweight designs that are good people movers, just can’t throw a bicycle into the back. One example is Aptera https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22358355/aptera-ev-three-wheeled-doe-atvm-loan-program https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22358355/aptera-ev-three-w...
dzhiurgis 5y ago
> Large cars also reduce visibility Buses and vans are huge, yet their design helps with visibility ahead. I propose we force trucks to be designed like vans.
- addicted 5y ago
  You’re right. It’s not so much the cars are larger that lowers visibility. It’s the design with the massive fronts and massive grilles that are higher than the average male’s height. Some of these cars are really insane and it really worries me for the kids in these people’s houses.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "It’s the design with the massive fronts and massive grilles that are higher than the average male’s height." This seems sensationalist unless you're talking about class A or B vehicles. Especially with your think-of-the-children remark. Do you have data to back it up?
    - ketzo 5y ago
      I don’t mean this rudely — have you been around many trucks recently? They’re fucking massive. The newer F-150s, while maybe not 6ft tall at the front, easily obscure a child or a short person. I have personally seen extremely close calls at gas stations/grocery store parking lots multiple times because of this.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "The newer F-150s, while maybe not 6ft tall at the front, easily obscure a child or a short person." Which is not what the parent is claiming. Edit: people are really downvoting factual statements now?
        ketzo 5y ago
        Okay, so new trucks don’t exclusively have a hood height of 5’9”+. I still think the broader point of “it’s really hard to see people, even adults, right in front of you” is 1) demonstrably true 2) extremely scary.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 5y ago
The other issue is that due to the crumbling state of U.S. infrastructure, normal cars with ~5.5 inch ground clearance are basically impossible to drive without ruining them by bottoming out all the time. I have zero desire to have an SUV or crossover with ~8.5 inches of ground clearance, but unfortunately there are very limited options with 6.5 or 7 inches.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Most SUVs or crossovers (especially crossovers) don't even have very good clearance compared to smaller cars, it seems.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  > ruining them by bottoming out all the time My daily driver has a spec of 5.9” ground clearance. In 21K miles, I don’t think I’ve ever scraped the bottom (except on snow piles, which aren’t an infrastructure issue).
- zdragnar 5y ago
  My wife's daily driver is a kia optima with 5.3" of ground clearance. Road quality has never been a problem and we have driven it to at least a dozen states, and to get to our house requires driving 1/3 a mile of gravel road.
- lttlrck 5y ago
  Where do you live? My factory spec 4-door sedan has 5" clearance at the front and I've never had a clearance issue. It's pretty low but it's not even a sports car
  - Alex3917 5y ago
    Connecticut. To be fair the most common issues I have are where the bottom of driveways meets the road, and also going over manhole covers during road milling. In the latter case you can obviously also just go around them, but it's much safer if you can just drive over them rather than swerving erratically between lanes.
giantg2 5y ago
"Large cars also reduce visibility which further reduces safety." This is a flawed mindset. Anyone who has taken driver's ed knows that the proper solution is to leave more following distance if you can't see. "There has been a car size arms race for the past 30-40 years." Actually, car sizes have been getting smaller over that time frame. However more people are opting for larger types of vehicles like trucks or SUVs. You can't find a car today that has the same capacities and space that my old 89 Caprice had. Edit: why downvote? Edit 2: I guess there are a lot of bad drivers who won't leave proper following distance and don't want to admit it by commenting. It's always someone else fault when they can't see or otherwise safely operate their vehicle...
- charles_f 5y ago
  > the proper solution is to leave more following distance if you can't see. The article is about collision with pedestrians and cyclists. How do you leave more distance with them?
  - jimmaswell 5y ago
    Stop shorter of the intersection?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    They were talking about larger vehicles blocking the visibility of people in smaller vehicles. Visibility of pedestrians by someone in a large vehicle is not really an issue (it's a small blind spot that one should be tracking objects/people as they move in/out of it, just like for the other blind spots).
unstatusthequo 5y ago
Does taxing more on big cars stop pedestrian accidents? Where does that tax go? Improving crosswalks? So they say. Who oversees that actually happening? Can’t trust the government to do that efficiently and effectively. Should we also tax pedestrians who look right at moving cars and summarily dip their toes into the crosswalk, expecting said car to slam brakes on for their stroll? It’s a two way street, pun intended. Drivers need to watch the fuck out and slow down in high foot traffic areas, and pedestrians need to make sure it’s safe to cross. You know, like when we were 5 years old. Look both ways. Only now, do that and put your smartphone in your pocket for the crossy street journey.
clairity 5y ago
> "...they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass." yes, something i also heartily advocate (or any alternative that would effectively internalize these sorts of hidden costs). it goes beyond lives (although that's most important, obviously) to things like how big our paved surfaces are, how much space we devote to parking, and how far apart everything is.
- filoleg 5y ago
  This proposed approach of taxes based on volume+mass also addresses the problem of getting funding for road repairs. For a specific example of how much better that approach would be compared to what we have now, let me pick WA state (because that's where I live, so I am familiar with how it works here). In WA, road repairs are funded through gasoline tax. There is one big problem with that: EVs. EVs don't use gas, so they effectively don't pay the gas tax used for funding road repairs. As time goes, more people switch to EVs, and funding for road repairs dries down. To solve that problem, WA instituted a flat EV fee that you pay along with your early registration fee. It would have been ok, but that EV fee is flat, so it doesn't matter whether you drive the newest most powerful Tesla Model S or a budget entry-level Nissan Leaf, you pay the same EV fee. That flat fee is around $150 or so (iirc from the last year). This pushes the cost of annual registration fees for Nissan Leaf up by over 50%. Which is ridiculous, given it is a small and fairly light car, and it doesn't seem fair to charge it the same amount of fees for road repair purposes as you would charge a much larger car (because heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear for roads). However, dropping the EV fee and switching registration fees to be based off mass+volume would solve this problem perfectly and would be much more fair, since mass is pretty much the primary variable directly affecting the amount of wear and tear caused to the road (in addition to how much the vehicle has been driven in a given year, but I don't think that charging annual registration fees based on your mileage is that much of a great idea for multiple reasons).
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    I’m confused why you’re so willing to ignore mileage. A Nissan Leaf driven daily as a commuter car will do a lot more wear and tear on the roads than a Ford F-150 driven occasionally to the store. We have the data to track mileage. Odometers are regulated and DMV already records mileage at various checkpoints. Why wouldn’t we use it?
wldcordeiro 5y ago
Also think registration fees shouldn't just be based on a year of a car. If someone has a 2020 Toyota Corolla why is registering it just as much as registering a 2020 Mercedes S63. I think generally economical cars should cost the lowest amount to register regardless of age.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  It varies based on state. The more progressive states have a portion of their vehicle tax (aka registration fees) based on weight of the vehicle.
- analog31 5y ago
  In one state where I lived, part of the car tax was a property tax based on some estimate of the value of the car.
tshaddox 5y ago
Isn’t it kinda weird to simply charge more money to allow people to be more dangerous?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- koolba 5y ago
  That’s literally how all well functioning insurance products work.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Yes indeed. We weren’t talking about car insurance, where prices are (at least somewhat) based on risks.
- WillDaSilva 5y ago
  The idea is to disincentivize the dangerous thing without outright banning it, or imposing complicated regulations such as assessing whether a person has a legitimate need for the dangerous thing.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> If the regulators had half a brain they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass. Higher taxes on fossil fuels would have more easily accomplished this, along with killing many more birds with one stone.
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
Taxation alone isn't enough. Larger pickups and SUVs should have much more stringent licensing requirements akin to a CDL.
- GiorgioG 5y ago
  I currently drive a pickup - my first truck in the 25 years I’ve been driving. There’s no need for more stringent licensing - people just need to pay attention to the road and stop behaving like they’re on a formula 1 track. My soon to be 15 year old daughter has been learning to drive my pickup (crew-cab F-150) and has no difficulties at all driving it responsibly.
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    There's no need for any sort of law enforcement, people just need to be nice to each other.
  - throwaway4220 5y ago
    If you see her texting and driving what will you do?
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Take her out back and shoot her, obviously. Driving and texting in a full size car or a crossover isn’t any less dangerous to pedestrians than texting and driving in a truck. Full blackouts (the effect of driving and texting) means full speed hits and reduced visibility is irrelevant.
      - fuzxi 5y ago
        Full speed hits are a greater threat to other people when you're in a larger vehicle. More mass means more force to impart at the same speed.
        leetcrew 5y ago
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
> If the regulators had half a brain they would.... No, stop this asinine cycle!!!!! This sort of "well akshually I know best" thinking is exactly how we got into this f-ing mess. You have a whole litany of things cars must to do be legally sold. In order to do those things and provide acceptable space and performance they have grown leading to the current predicament.
alamortsubite 5y ago
Additionally, penalties for moving violations should be proportional to GVWR, at least for non-commercial vehicles.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Why? You can kill a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorcyclist just as easily with any of them. Why not improve the drivers test to actually test people? That should cut down on accidents across the board.
  - alamortsubite 5y ago
    F=ma. I agree that U.S. states should provide far more driver's training and have much stricter testing requirements before issuing licenses. We also need additional tiers to our licensing.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "We also need additional tiers to our licensing." What and why?
      - alamortsubite 5y ago
        Two examples: In my state, a sixteen year-old with a newly minted standard car driver's license can by themselves legally operate a loaded 26' box truck, including one towing a trailer. With a motorcycle endorsement, they're permitted to pilot a bike with an engine of any displacement.
        giantg2 5y ago
        Ok? The motorcycle endorsement is already a separate tier. I don't think there's anything wrong with operating a box truck on a regular license. There's not that much difference in vehicle operation (still hydraulic brakes, etc), just some additional emphasis on load distribution, engine braking, and speed/braking distance - which is still important in many smaller vehicles. I do think the regular license test should be more rigorous, since it doesn't even cover these topics sufficiently for the smaller vehicles.
john_moscow 5y ago
Or alternatively focus on smart safety features like automatic radar-triggered braking and pedestrian recognition. Unlike the general self-driving that needs to be 100% accurate, "brake when on a collision course with what appears to be a pedestrian" will save lives even if it works in 50% of the cases. And if you only engage it on straight road when the driver is not actively maneuvering, it will nicely cover the "got distracted" cases and won't cause any new crashes by braking when you are changing lanes or passing.
- giantg2 5y ago
  It depend if that braking produces false positives and cause additional accidents, like eith Tesla's early phantom braking .
aejnsn 5y ago
> Enough seat height to see around you. Almost like they are trying to help with visibility for pedestrians. No, vehicles should not be taxed based on size. There should be an even and fair road usage tax. Traditionally, that has been in the form of fuel taxes. Furthermore, vehicle sizing has been driven by safety features inside and out, crumple zones, improvements for side-impact, and airbags tucked in every interior crevice. Those vehicles that work in a city are not the vehicles that work for the 95% of the US landmass that is considered rural.
- 8note 5y ago
  Safety features for the people in the vehicle, at the expense of those outside of it*
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  > Traditionally, that has been in the form of fuel taxes. The fuel tax has three major issues: - the US one is a flat fee not indexed to inflation and has not increased since 1993, so the purchase power of it has gone down as well as its percentage of the sale price since gas prices have risen a lot since 1993. no politician at the federal level is brazen enough to suggest actually raising the gas tax and hitting Americans in the pocketbook. In fact the fury is so bad that Massachusetts voters repealed inflation indexing for its state gas tax, because everyone wants the better roads but no one wants to pay for them. - the wear and tear on the roads is not linear with weight. The federal government estimates that one 18-wheeler causes the same amount of road damage as 9,600 cars. The relationship between fuel price and road damage (which is what ultimately impacts the maintenance expense) is not reflected in a gas price even if trucks are less fuel efficient. - the decrease in gasoline needed. Fuel efficiency is very good, and transitioning away from fossil fuels even better, but those cars and trucks will end up paying less money while causing the same amount of road damage as they did before.
  - aejnsn 5y ago
    > fuel price and road damage is not reflected in a gas price even if trucks are less fuel efficient It’s almost like you’re saying a fuel tax shouldn’t incentivize fuel efficiency. I am saying it should. Broadly, heavier vehicles do definitely burn more fuel, hence why diesels are more prevalent with heavier workloads.
ARandomerDude 5y ago
Taxing vehicle volume without regard to other factors unfairly penalizes families and carpoolers.
- bobby_bob 5y ago
  Volume / Passenger Capacity With a lower limit and some way of subsidising a portion back for verifiable, occupational need.
WalterBright 5y ago
> Cars are getting bigger Really? My old Dodge is a giant compared to modern cars, though it was of modest size in its day. Parking slot sizes have shrunk considerably over the years.
- kqr 5y ago
  Parking slot sizes have not shrunk, it is the cars parked in them that have grown bigger. This is well-documented.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    I don't believe that. I've seen it myself when a store will restripe their lot to squeeze more parking in. I never had to grease the sides of the car to park it in the 70's.
    - kqr 5y ago
      That store may well have been the exception, but I'm still curious: what process did you use to come up with the idea that the restriped slots were smaller?
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        My car's fit in them.
        kqr 5y ago
        You have a car from the '70s? And this is not when there are more modern cars next to it that make it feel more cramped because they are bigger?
robocat 5y ago
> they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass Taxing status goods can be paradoxical (Veblen good): if people buy cars to show off their wealth, then many people may still buy large vehicles because they are a symbol of high wealth. I guess it really depends on what was done with the extra taxes - there are a variety of ways money could be spent to reduce accidents (although the cynic in me says any extra tax wouldn't be used that way).

tbihl 5y ago

They do tax cars based on weight (in the US). If your car weighs too little, it's a personal vehicle. If it's heavy enough to be "transportation equipment" (large SUV) you can get effective tax breaks by deducting its cost from your income to a much greater degree than for reasonable passenger vehicles[0]. [0]https://bradyware.com/business-vehicle-deductions-2020/ https://bradyware.com/business-vehicle-deductions-2020/ (not a primary source but it should give an idea.)

ruddct 5y ago
For those surprised by this (as I was when I first heard about it), this is talking about Section 179, which allows someone to fully deduct the purchase price of heavyweight vehicles (e.g. a Ford F-150) if it’s used for business. These vehicles are also not subject to the pedestrian safety requirements that 3-box vehicles (sedans, etc) are in the US.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  > of heavyweight vehicles (e.g. a Ford F-150) I don't think a heavyweight vehicle has been built since the 1930s, when they started building lightweight vehicles. Today, if you see a passenger vehicle referred to as heavyweight that is likely due to a marketing spin on how well it performs or the load it can carry. Even in that sense, a Ford F-150 is marketed as a lightweight and F-250 is a medium.
  - bratcomplex 5y ago
    150 from f150 refers to its carting and load capacity.. not its actual weight. the weight difference between a 150,250,350 is not a very significant one. This issue is a 150 is being used outside its original use case. And dose the job a Corolla is intended for. But with twice the weight and size.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      Thank you. I know what the 150 stands for. But, it is not a heavyweight vehicle. That term refers to a type of vehicle that hasn't been made since the 1920s-1930s. The conversation I replied to was about deducting "the purchase price of heavyweight vehicles (e.g. a Ford F-150)". A Ford F-150 is not a heavyweight vehicle.
      - 1a2a3agg 5y ago
        I think in the context of this discussion heavyweight is defined by Section 179 as having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating greater than 6000 lbs. While the curb weight of a F150 is less, the GVWR is 6,010 to 7,150 lbs.
        IncRnd 5y ago
        That makes sense. Thank you.
elihu 5y ago
To add to that: light trucks imported from other countries are also subject to a 25% tariff known as the the "chicken tax"[1], and if I understand correctly, light trucks are subject to more stringent MPG standards to the point that auto manufacturers won't make them. Whether this latter is "environmental regulation gone too far" or just a matter of regulatory capture by an industry that doesn't want to compete in a market where small, cheap trucks are a thing that exists is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. I lean towards the regulatory capture interpretation myself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  I don't think anyone can look at what F150 sales do for Ford and interpret it any other way...

zzt123 5y ago

EVs come with a mandatory increase in vehicle weight (for equal range), no?

jazzyjackson 5y ago
For equal range at equal volume, but there are of course lightweight designs that are good people movers, just can’t throw a bicycle into the back. One example is Aptera https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22358355/aptera-ev-three-wheeled-doe-atvm-loan-program https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22358355/aptera-ev-three-w...

dzhiurgis 5y ago

> Large cars also reduce visibility Buses and vans are huge, yet their design helps with visibility ahead. I propose we force trucks to be designed like vans.

addicted 5y ago
You’re right. It’s not so much the cars are larger that lowers visibility. It’s the design with the massive fronts and massive grilles that are higher than the average male’s height. Some of these cars are really insane and it really worries me for the kids in these people’s houses.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "It’s the design with the massive fronts and massive grilles that are higher than the average male’s height." This seems sensationalist unless you're talking about class A or B vehicles. Especially with your think-of-the-children remark. Do you have data to back it up?
  - ketzo 5y ago
    I don’t mean this rudely — have you been around many trucks recently? They’re fucking massive. The newer F-150s, while maybe not 6ft tall at the front, easily obscure a child or a short person. I have personally seen extremely close calls at gas stations/grocery store parking lots multiple times because of this.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "The newer F-150s, while maybe not 6ft tall at the front, easily obscure a child or a short person." Which is not what the parent is claiming. Edit: people are really downvoting factual statements now?
      - ketzo 5y ago
        Okay, so new trucks don’t exclusively have a hood height of 5’9”+. I still think the broader point of “it’s really hard to see people, even adults, right in front of you” is 1) demonstrably true 2) extremely scary.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Alex3917 5y ago

The other issue is that due to the crumbling state of U.S. infrastructure, normal cars with ~5.5 inch ground clearance are basically impossible to drive without ruining them by bottoming out all the time. I have zero desire to have an SUV or crossover with ~8.5 inches of ground clearance, but unfortunately there are very limited options with 6.5 or 7 inches.

epistasis 5y ago
Most SUVs or crossovers (especially crossovers) don't even have very good clearance compared to smaller cars, it seems.
sokoloff 5y ago
> ruining them by bottoming out all the time My daily driver has a spec of 5.9” ground clearance. In 21K miles, I don’t think I’ve ever scraped the bottom (except on snow piles, which aren’t an infrastructure issue).
zdragnar 5y ago
My wife's daily driver is a kia optima with 5.3" of ground clearance. Road quality has never been a problem and we have driven it to at least a dozen states, and to get to our house requires driving 1/3 a mile of gravel road.
lttlrck 5y ago
Where do you live? My factory spec 4-door sedan has 5" clearance at the front and I've never had a clearance issue. It's pretty low but it's not even a sports car
- Alex3917 5y ago
  Connecticut. To be fair the most common issues I have are where the bottom of driveways meets the road, and also going over manhole covers during road milling. In the latter case you can obviously also just go around them, but it's much safer if you can just drive over them rather than swerving erratically between lanes.

giantg2 5y ago

"Large cars also reduce visibility which further reduces safety." This is a flawed mindset. Anyone who has taken driver's ed knows that the proper solution is to leave more following distance if you can't see. "There has been a car size arms race for the past 30-40 years." Actually, car sizes have been getting smaller over that time frame. However more people are opting for larger types of vehicles like trucks or SUVs. You can't find a car today that has the same capacities and space that my old 89 Caprice had. Edit: why downvote? Edit 2: I guess there are a lot of bad drivers who won't leave proper following distance and don't want to admit it by commenting. It's always someone else fault when they can't see or otherwise safely operate their vehicle...

charles_f 5y ago
> the proper solution is to leave more following distance if you can't see. The article is about collision with pedestrians and cyclists. How do you leave more distance with them?
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  Stop shorter of the intersection?
- giantg2 5y ago
  They were talking about larger vehicles blocking the visibility of people in smaller vehicles. Visibility of pedestrians by someone in a large vehicle is not really an issue (it's a small blind spot that one should be tracking objects/people as they move in/out of it, just like for the other blind spots).

unstatusthequo 5y ago

Does taxing more on big cars stop pedestrian accidents? Where does that tax go? Improving crosswalks? So they say. Who oversees that actually happening? Can’t trust the government to do that efficiently and effectively. Should we also tax pedestrians who look right at moving cars and summarily dip their toes into the crosswalk, expecting said car to slam brakes on for their stroll? It’s a two way street, pun intended. Drivers need to watch the fuck out and slow down in high foot traffic areas, and pedestrians need to make sure it’s safe to cross. You know, like when we were 5 years old. Look both ways. Only now, do that and put your smartphone in your pocket for the crossy street journey.

clairity 5y ago

> "...they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass." yes, something i also heartily advocate (or any alternative that would effectively internalize these sorts of hidden costs). it goes beyond lives (although that's most important, obviously) to things like how big our paved surfaces are, how much space we devote to parking, and how far apart everything is.

filoleg 5y ago
This proposed approach of taxes based on volume+mass also addresses the problem of getting funding for road repairs. For a specific example of how much better that approach would be compared to what we have now, let me pick WA state (because that's where I live, so I am familiar with how it works here). In WA, road repairs are funded through gasoline tax. There is one big problem with that: EVs. EVs don't use gas, so they effectively don't pay the gas tax used for funding road repairs. As time goes, more people switch to EVs, and funding for road repairs dries down. To solve that problem, WA instituted a flat EV fee that you pay along with your early registration fee. It would have been ok, but that EV fee is flat, so it doesn't matter whether you drive the newest most powerful Tesla Model S or a budget entry-level Nissan Leaf, you pay the same EV fee. That flat fee is around $150 or so (iirc from the last year). This pushes the cost of annual registration fees for Nissan Leaf up by over 50%. Which is ridiculous, given it is a small and fairly light car, and it doesn't seem fair to charge it the same amount of fees for road repair purposes as you would charge a much larger car (because heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear for roads). However, dropping the EV fee and switching registration fees to be based off mass+volume would solve this problem perfectly and would be much more fair, since mass is pretty much the primary variable directly affecting the amount of wear and tear caused to the road (in addition to how much the vehicle has been driven in a given year, but I don't think that charging annual registration fees based on your mileage is that much of a great idea for multiple reasons).
- akerl_ 5y ago
  I’m confused why you’re so willing to ignore mileage. A Nissan Leaf driven daily as a commuter car will do a lot more wear and tear on the roads than a Ford F-150 driven occasionally to the store. We have the data to track mileage. Odometers are regulated and DMV already records mileage at various checkpoints. Why wouldn’t we use it?

wldcordeiro 5y ago

Also think registration fees shouldn't just be based on a year of a car. If someone has a 2020 Toyota Corolla why is registering it just as much as registering a 2020 Mercedes S63. I think generally economical cars should cost the lowest amount to register regardless of age.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
It varies based on state. The more progressive states have a portion of their vehicle tax (aka registration fees) based on weight of the vehicle.
analog31 5y ago
In one state where I lived, part of the car tax was a property tax based on some estimate of the value of the car.

tshaddox 5y ago

Isn’t it kinda weird to simply charge more money to allow people to be more dangerous?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
koolba 5y ago
That’s literally how all well functioning insurance products work.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Yes indeed. We weren’t talking about car insurance, where prices are (at least somewhat) based on risks.
WillDaSilva 5y ago
The idea is to disincentivize the dangerous thing without outright banning it, or imposing complicated regulations such as assessing whether a person has a legitimate need for the dangerous thing.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> If the regulators had half a brain they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass. Higher taxes on fossil fuels would have more easily accomplished this, along with killing many more birds with one stone.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

Taxation alone isn't enough. Larger pickups and SUVs should have much more stringent licensing requirements akin to a CDL.

GiorgioG 5y ago
I currently drive a pickup - my first truck in the 25 years I’ve been driving. There’s no need for more stringent licensing - people just need to pay attention to the road and stop behaving like they’re on a formula 1 track. My soon to be 15 year old daughter has been learning to drive my pickup (crew-cab F-150) and has no difficulties at all driving it responsibly.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  There's no need for any sort of law enforcement, people just need to be nice to each other.
- throwaway4220 5y ago
  If you see her texting and driving what will you do?
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Take her out back and shoot her, obviously. Driving and texting in a full size car or a crossover isn’t any less dangerous to pedestrians than texting and driving in a truck. Full blackouts (the effect of driving and texting) means full speed hits and reduced visibility is irrelevant.
    - fuzxi 5y ago
      Full speed hits are a greater threat to other people when you're in a larger vehicle. More mass means more force to impart at the same speed.
      - leetcrew 5y ago

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

> If the regulators had half a brain they would.... No, stop this asinine cycle!!!!! This sort of "well akshually I know best" thinking is exactly how we got into this f-ing mess. You have a whole litany of things cars must to do be legally sold. In order to do those things and provide acceptable space and performance they have grown leading to the current predicament.

alamortsubite 5y ago

Additionally, penalties for moving violations should be proportional to GVWR, at least for non-commercial vehicles.

giantg2 5y ago
Why? You can kill a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorcyclist just as easily with any of them. Why not improve the drivers test to actually test people? That should cut down on accidents across the board.
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  F=ma. I agree that U.S. states should provide far more driver's training and have much stricter testing requirements before issuing licenses. We also need additional tiers to our licensing.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "We also need additional tiers to our licensing." What and why?
    - alamortsubite 5y ago
      Two examples: In my state, a sixteen year-old with a newly minted standard car driver's license can by themselves legally operate a loaded 26' box truck, including one towing a trailer. With a motorcycle endorsement, they're permitted to pilot a bike with an engine of any displacement.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Ok? The motorcycle endorsement is already a separate tier. I don't think there's anything wrong with operating a box truck on a regular license. There's not that much difference in vehicle operation (still hydraulic brakes, etc), just some additional emphasis on load distribution, engine braking, and speed/braking distance - which is still important in many smaller vehicles. I do think the regular license test should be more rigorous, since it doesn't even cover these topics sufficiently for the smaller vehicles.

john_moscow 5y ago

Or alternatively focus on smart safety features like automatic radar-triggered braking and pedestrian recognition. Unlike the general self-driving that needs to be 100% accurate, "brake when on a collision course with what appears to be a pedestrian" will save lives even if it works in 50% of the cases. And if you only engage it on straight road when the driver is not actively maneuvering, it will nicely cover the "got distracted" cases and won't cause any new crashes by braking when you are changing lanes or passing.

giantg2 5y ago
It depend if that braking produces false positives and cause additional accidents, like eith Tesla's early phantom braking .

aejnsn 5y ago

> Enough seat height to see around you. Almost like they are trying to help with visibility for pedestrians. No, vehicles should not be taxed based on size. There should be an even and fair road usage tax. Traditionally, that has been in the form of fuel taxes. Furthermore, vehicle sizing has been driven by safety features inside and out, crumple zones, improvements for side-impact, and airbags tucked in every interior crevice. Those vehicles that work in a city are not the vehicles that work for the 95% of the US landmass that is considered rural.

8note 5y ago
Safety features for the people in the vehicle, at the expense of those outside of it*
bobthepanda 5y ago
> Traditionally, that has been in the form of fuel taxes. The fuel tax has three major issues: - the US one is a flat fee not indexed to inflation and has not increased since 1993, so the purchase power of it has gone down as well as its percentage of the sale price since gas prices have risen a lot since 1993. no politician at the federal level is brazen enough to suggest actually raising the gas tax and hitting Americans in the pocketbook. In fact the fury is so bad that Massachusetts voters repealed inflation indexing for its state gas tax, because everyone wants the better roads but no one wants to pay for them. - the wear and tear on the roads is not linear with weight. The federal government estimates that one 18-wheeler causes the same amount of road damage as 9,600 cars. The relationship between fuel price and road damage (which is what ultimately impacts the maintenance expense) is not reflected in a gas price even if trucks are less fuel efficient. - the decrease in gasoline needed. Fuel efficiency is very good, and transitioning away from fossil fuels even better, but those cars and trucks will end up paying less money while causing the same amount of road damage as they did before.
- aejnsn 5y ago
  > fuel price and road damage is not reflected in a gas price even if trucks are less fuel efficient It’s almost like you’re saying a fuel tax shouldn’t incentivize fuel efficiency. I am saying it should. Broadly, heavier vehicles do definitely burn more fuel, hence why diesels are more prevalent with heavier workloads.

ARandomerDude 5y ago

Taxing vehicle volume without regard to other factors unfairly penalizes families and carpoolers.

bobby_bob 5y ago
Volume / Passenger Capacity With a lower limit and some way of subsidising a portion back for verifiable, occupational need.

WalterBright 5y ago

> Cars are getting bigger Really? My old Dodge is a giant compared to modern cars, though it was of modest size in its day. Parking slot sizes have shrunk considerably over the years.

kqr 5y ago
Parking slot sizes have not shrunk, it is the cars parked in them that have grown bigger. This is well-documented.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I don't believe that. I've seen it myself when a store will restripe their lot to squeeze more parking in. I never had to grease the sides of the car to park it in the 70's.
  - kqr 5y ago
    That store may well have been the exception, but I'm still curious: what process did you use to come up with the idea that the restriped slots were smaller?
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      My car's fit in them.
      - kqr 5y ago
        You have a car from the '70s? And this is not when there are more modern cars next to it that make it feel more cramped because they are bigger?

robocat 5y ago

> they would of taxed cars based on volume + mass Taxing status goods can be paradoxical (Veblen good): if people buy cars to show off their wealth, then many people may still buy large vehicles because they are a symbol of high wealth. I guess it really depends on what was done with the extra taxes - there are a variety of ways money could be spent to reduce accidents (although the cynic in me says any extra tax wouldn't be used that way).