4 ms·

In EU in some countries because of extra taxes it's really expensive to buy a bigger car so 3+ kids can fit in. But those rich people who sit alone in huge luxu

by preciz 2y ago

In EU in some countries because of extra taxes it's really expensive to buy a bigger car so 3+ kids can fit in. But those rich people who sit alone in huge luxury SUVs they still sit alone. They have the money while families usually don't. I just hope this doesn't go in this wrong direction.

ak217 2y ago
What's wrong with taxing dangerously oversized/overweight/unsafe trucks out of existence?
- frankharv 2y ago
  OK whats next. Regulate everything? Geez your computer looks to be using alot of power. We need people to register their computer to estimate your computer footprint. Then we can regulate it.
  - chemeril 2y ago
    Last I checked my desktop doesn't slam into pedestrians/bicyclists trying to use what public infrastructure we have in the US. If unbounded vehicle bloat is systematically contributing to the deaths of citizens then yes, we have a collective responsibility to regulate it.
  - ak217 2y ago
    Your computer is not unsafely designed in a way that kills tens of thousands of people a year in accidents. Also, your computer's power consumption is in fact regulated on a semi-voluntary basis via a program called Energy Star. People are fine with it because Energy Star certification saves them money. By contrast, the problem with trucks is that their unsafe design is subsidized by the government, so smaller more efficient vehicles that would normally save people money end up being penalized.
  - piva00 2y ago
    Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason...
  - christkv 2y ago
    Dude we are literally doing calculations of the power usage of our employees at their home office for a ISO 14001 certification. It’s beyond ridiculous
  - dml2135 2y ago
    I can’t think of many consumer products more dangerous and widespread than cars. Going from a suggestion that we make them safer to “What’s next, regulate everything?” is quite the jump.
- wizee 2y ago
  Many people have legitimate needs and uses for pickup trucks and SUVs, and the definition of "dangerously oversized" and unsafe is rather subjective. Should semi trucks be banned because they are "dangerously oversized"? What should people use to move large and heavy items? Should farmers be prevented from having the vehicles they need to do their job? While I agree that large pickup trucks and SUVs pose an increased risk to pedestrians, particularly in urban areas, and should be discouraged as single person commuter vehicles, particularly in urban areas, there are a lot of other use cases. What should someone who needs to move bulky/heavy/rough things with regularity and can only afford to have one vehicle use? Discouraging negative externalities through taxation makes sense, but setting taxes to be so punitive that they make it difficult for people to afford the vehicles they need to do what they need to do is also harmful. As an example, I have a pickup truck and a regular car. Driving around town I use my regular car, but when I need to move large or heavy things I use my truck. It's much more convenient to be able to use my truck when I need it rather than having to rent one every time or hire a company to move things for me. The pickup truck is large (RAM 1500), and some would argue it's dangerously oversized, but its size is needed when I need to do truck things with it. The truck being affordable means I can afford to have a regular sized vehicle for tasks that don't involve moving big/heavy/dirty things.
  - ak217 2y ago
    It's not subjective. RAM 1500 and trucks like it kill more pedestrians and cyclists in collisions because they have a larger frontal cross-section that limits the driver's view in front of the cab and is more likely to cause fatalities when a collision does occur. I agree that trucks like the RAM 1500 are useful in many applications. They should be taxed appropriately (in a way that offsets or negates what currently amounts to subsidies in the US market), and manufacturers should be required to enable the driver to see a certain minimum distance in front of the vehicle and obstruct a certain maximum angle around A pillars. Trucks and SUVs over a certain size should also have speed limiter governors that activate on city streets. It is not acceptable to have drivers of these vehicles - which were originally developed for specialized industry applications - speed in areas where it directly endangers pedestrians and cyclists.
    - 2y ago
piva00 2y ago
Families here in the EU buy station wagons or minivans with 7 seats though.
- preciz 2y ago
  They are just as expensive due to taxes.

by preciz 2y ago

ak217 2y ago

What's wrong with taxing dangerously oversized/overweight/unsafe trucks out of existence?

frankharv 2y ago
OK whats next. Regulate everything? Geez your computer looks to be using alot of power. We need people to register their computer to estimate your computer footprint. Then we can regulate it.
- chemeril 2y ago
  Last I checked my desktop doesn't slam into pedestrians/bicyclists trying to use what public infrastructure we have in the US. If unbounded vehicle bloat is systematically contributing to the deaths of citizens then yes, we have a collective responsibility to regulate it.
- ak217 2y ago
  Your computer is not unsafely designed in a way that kills tens of thousands of people a year in accidents. Also, your computer's power consumption is in fact regulated on a semi-voluntary basis via a program called Energy Star. People are fine with it because Energy Star certification saves them money. By contrast, the problem with trucks is that their unsafe design is subsidized by the government, so smaller more efficient vehicles that would normally save people money end up being penalized.
- piva00 2y ago
  Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason...
- christkv 2y ago
  Dude we are literally doing calculations of the power usage of our employees at their home office for a ISO 14001 certification. It’s beyond ridiculous
- dml2135 2y ago
  I can’t think of many consumer products more dangerous and widespread than cars. Going from a suggestion that we make them safer to “What’s next, regulate everything?” is quite the jump.
wizee 2y ago
Many people have legitimate needs and uses for pickup trucks and SUVs, and the definition of "dangerously oversized" and unsafe is rather subjective. Should semi trucks be banned because they are "dangerously oversized"? What should people use to move large and heavy items? Should farmers be prevented from having the vehicles they need to do their job? While I agree that large pickup trucks and SUVs pose an increased risk to pedestrians, particularly in urban areas, and should be discouraged as single person commuter vehicles, particularly in urban areas, there are a lot of other use cases. What should someone who needs to move bulky/heavy/rough things with regularity and can only afford to have one vehicle use? Discouraging negative externalities through taxation makes sense, but setting taxes to be so punitive that they make it difficult for people to afford the vehicles they need to do what they need to do is also harmful. As an example, I have a pickup truck and a regular car. Driving around town I use my regular car, but when I need to move large or heavy things I use my truck. It's much more convenient to be able to use my truck when I need it rather than having to rent one every time or hire a company to move things for me. The pickup truck is large (RAM 1500), and some would argue it's dangerously oversized, but its size is needed when I need to do truck things with it. The truck being affordable means I can afford to have a regular sized vehicle for tasks that don't involve moving big/heavy/dirty things.
- ak217 2y ago
  It's not subjective. RAM 1500 and trucks like it kill more pedestrians and cyclists in collisions because they have a larger frontal cross-section that limits the driver's view in front of the cab and is more likely to cause fatalities when a collision does occur. I agree that trucks like the RAM 1500 are useful in many applications. They should be taxed appropriately (in a way that offsets or negates what currently amounts to subsidies in the US market), and manufacturers should be required to enable the driver to see a certain minimum distance in front of the vehicle and obstruct a certain maximum angle around A pillars. Trucks and SUVs over a certain size should also have speed limiter governors that activate on city streets. It is not acceptable to have drivers of these vehicles - which were originally developed for specialized industry applications - speed in areas where it directly endangers pedestrians and cyclists.
  - 2y ago

piva00 2y ago

Families here in the EU buy station wagons or minivans with 7 seats though.

preciz 2y ago
They are just as expensive due to taxes.