• dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah well let’s quit making 7000 pound consumer vehicles. Small EVs would be more efficient and better for the environment because they need less materials to build and and less energy to recharge.

    • filister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Judging by the general trend I don’t think this is happening anytime soon. The overall car industry is obsessed with even bigger cars.

      And even in Europe it is sickening to see those half buses on our roads. And this is especially true for big cities, where parking space is very limited and usually those cars occupy park space for 1.5-2 cars.

      And knowing that the fertility rate is really going down I wonder what justifies those cars.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. If there are 7000lb passenger trucks on the highway around my compact car, I maybe start wanting to get a larger vehicle myself to protect myself from the idiots who drive them.

    • Eczpurt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      There has to be some sort of incentive either for smaller cars or against larger cars. Currently you can go into a dealer, tell them you want the biggest baddest truck/SUV that they have, and buy it all while having a normal license.

      You’d only be paying a slight premium on whatever road or fuel tax if that while having the benefit of not getting destroyed in a car accident. As it stands, there is little reason to buy a larger vehicle unless you actually don’t like driving a car that big.

  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    My first car had a curb weight of 2400 lbs. It’s absurd how fucking huge these planet-destroying, environment destroying, life destroying monstrosities have become.

  • TengoHipo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    We just need to not have these big ass trucks for the general public. You don’t need a ford 350 with rims jacked up to show you have money. You are a pavement princess.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      “But I need it for my work!”

      You don’t even have a toolbox on it. If it was an actual work truck, it would be a pickup with the bed replaced with one of those toolbox beds. Or you’d have a sprinter van like the actual plumbers and carpenters around here.

    • Syn_Attck@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Max weight load for commercial vehicles is actually 20k lbs more, at 80k total.

      And the drivers are trained, and most of them do well most of the time.

      But some companies run them like Amazon drivers… No matter what happens (brake problems, engine problems, stuck, accident traffic, etc you better get there by X time. That’s not such a problem until drivers start driving through their mandatory sleep times to stay awake.

      A bit before COVID they implemented an electronic tracker that reports any driving at all during mandated off-times (for sleep).

      Before that you’d have truckers either fighting sleep, or, stimulants were a big thing at truck stops, right up there with lot lizards.

      I had a girlfriend who’s dad was a long-haul trucker. I’ve heard some seriously fucked and sad stories. Thankfully there have been new safety implementations

  • DevCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    There was a discussion a couple of years ago around gasoline taxes and how they are supposed to pay for roadway maintenance. The question came up about EVs. There were discussions about how to include EVs in the taxation system so they would pay for their fair share of the road. One of the options was to impose a tax attached to your vehicle registration based upon the weight of the vehicle. The greater the weight, the more wear and tear it produces on the road surface. This might be one solution to the barrier problem, namely moving the extra cost to the reason for the extra cost.

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      A more logical way would be to tax a car based on how many km/miles it travels in a year, at least partially.

      I bet that my 1.5 tons car travelling 10.000 Km/year ruins the street a lot less than my neighbor’s 1 tons car that travel 30.000 Km/year

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      ah yes, another anti-environment tax. More barriers to fossil-fuel free adoption. As you would expect, Mississippi already has this tax. Don’t be like Mississippi.

      • eltrain123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Wouldn’t be anti-environmental… it would be for all vehicles including ICE and commercial, as well.

    • eltrain123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Tax tire sales. Heavy cars have more expensive tire s or tires that need to be replaced more often. Scales adequately for road maintenance because heavy vehicles cause more wear on roads.

      • CameronDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think you make want to go the other way. Making tires more expensive wont make people choose smaller cars, they will choose worse tires. And then they will crash into you because they cant stop.

        • eltrain123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          They’ll still have to replace them more often or won’t be able to drive their vehicles or pass a state inspection to get their annual registration completed unless their car is road-worthy, thus costing them more money in tickets and remedies of said ticket.

          • CameronDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Sure, but the problem is that you dont want to make safety equipment more expensive, as it encourages cheaping out and cutting corners. People already buy cheap and nasty tires that dont grip well or stop well (but still meet roadworthiness), its best to avoid further encouraging that.

            There is no reason not to just directly tax against the weight of the car, as defined by the manufacturer. There already is a yearly rego payments, just scale that directly against weight.

            A direct tax is also clear and obvious. If someone has a large car, the rego weight tax will clearly show they are paying more. Making tires more expensive just gets rolled into the price of the tire, which are already moderately expensive, so its easier to just rationalise it and ignore it.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s a good rule not to make essential safety items more expensive. Because consumers in general will always choose a cheaper, less safe option.

          • jdeath@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            yeah if anything a subsidy for safer tires and doing proper maintenance on brakes and other safety system would be what you want.

            what is subsidized, there is more of than there otherwise would be

            and the opposite is true for what is taxed.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Taking a guess, but it would lead to people replacing their tires less often, making cars more prone to accidents, and thus probably being counterproductive and more dangerous.

            It should be linked to what a driver has to do (e.g. registration) so they can’t try to minimize the cost by delaying it, especially with maintenance.

            • eltrain123@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Tire inspection is still part of vehicle registration inspections. You can’t delay more than a year, and states can always require a tire change within a certain % of being totally worn out if having tires within x-% is showing evidence of causing more accidents.

              Unless the argument is that any additional cost will prevent people from performing maintenance. Like, “gas prices can’t go up because people will stop buying gas”. Or “if you make registration more complicated, people won’t register their cars”.

              Taxes in the US also have a precedence of decreasing as you get into higher values. There is nothing saying taxes can’t be a higher % on low quality tires. Buy a better tire that last longer, lower percentage tax tier. The point of taxation is to deter behavior you don’t want while recouping the cost of operation over time. Cheap tires that only last 1k miles can be taxed at a much higher % than those rated at 50 or 100k miles. We do that shit all the time.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Not all states have regular inspection requirements. Some are only every couple of years. But even if they did all implement something, you still would be encouraging people to wait in until the last possible moment to do it, which might decrease the amount it increases the risk, but it would still do so.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Every mile an EV drives is already taxed as we already tax electricity consumption. There is no reason to add a tax for something already taxed.