Australians need to take this seriously—rules like this were a big factor in these killer machines becoming the norm in the US.
This is thankfully only about imports so it will limit the damage, but the coming fuel efficiency standards carve out an exception too (although I believe they are more stringent than the US standards at least).
EDIT: I was under the impression the tax only applies to private imports, but it actually doesn’t. See my below comment. But it is limited to higher priced vehicles at least.
The US also has this loophole, all SUVs are classified as ‘light trucks’ and therefore don’t have to follow the more strict emissions laws. This is what led to these massive cars and trucks.
Also, the roads in many US states are falling apart and larger vehicles and trucks drive better over potholes and bad road conditions.
People prefer big SUVs and trucks when the roads are badly maintained and it will damage normal cars. The trend of larger rims with a thinner sidewall almost guarantees normal cars will have much worse ride quality and be more prone to damage and costly repairs.
The new trucks are so tall and have a massive blind spot in front, you can’t see anything. They are a danger to pedestrians and children in addition to having blinding headlights that shine directly at eye level for any normal car.
Australia doesn’t manufacturer cars any more. All cars in Australia are imported. Unless I’m misunderstanding your comment?
The law refers to cars that aren’t directly sold in Australia, i.e. through private imports. So if you buy from a dealer that has a presence in Australia, the import tax doesn’t apply. And it only applies to cars above a certain price I should add, hence the name: Luxury Car Tax (LCT).EDIT: Actually, I’m wrong on this. It applies to retailers and wholesalers too, see: https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/luxury-car-tax/when-lct-applies
I just don’t get modern truck culture. They’re so big, and ugly! They are such an inconvenience to everyone else on the road. And I doubt even half the people who own then do truck stuff with them. They’re way to tall, the giant tall grilles look stupid. Their stupid headlights shine in my face. A 2024 Colorado is bigger than a 1994 Silverado. Why? I hate them even more than people who wear pajamas in public.
You can tell which ones aren’t used for anything. Bed is spotless and unused, tires are clean, and the heaviest load it carries is its obese driver and his similarly obese family. We call them pavement princesses.
Me feel small. Me worry about masculinity. Big truck make me feel big. Big truck make me feel good.
And this is exactly why I have started referring to the massive pickup trucks as gender affirming care. It simultaneously makes fun of the “me need big truck because man” mentality, while also pissing off the types of guys who are most likely to buy the trucks. Because the guys who buy the trucks are the same guys protesting trans healthcare.
Better slap a pair of rubber testicles on the hitch receiver so people know you’re for sure a big, masculine man very secure in your manliness.
Inconveniencing everyone else is the point. That, and the belief that being in the biggest car makes you safer in a collision (by doing more damage to the other vehicle[s])
I hate these things. I’m driving around the suburbs of Melbourne in a 900kg hatchback carrying 3 kids and their schoolbags. I find myself constantly overtaking these things as it’s the only means of seeing past them. I’m not even courteous about it anymore.
Ok, fuck trucks and everything but this makes no sense. You can’t see past them? Why do you need to see past them? Are you tailgaiting?
I don’t tailgate, but I want to see what’s happening up ahead. Positioning plays a large part in road safety. Maintaining a safe road position requires getting in front of visual obstructions.
I should also be able to go faster. Compared to a Ford Ranger doing 100km/h, I would need to be doing 147km/h in my car to leave the same sized dent in a collision.
No offense but your arguments are not rational. You don’t need to “get in front of visual obstructions” if you’re following at a safe distance. Speed is not limited simply because “faster means more damage”, it’s limited because faster speeds means you have less time to react.
Obstructed view means you have less time to react.
Then follow at a safer distance. I’m sorry but this is driving school 101. We can complain about pickup trucks being hard to see past but it’s not like you can see past buses, or delivery vans, or other large trucks. Aggressively passing a vehicle because you can’t see past it it moronic.
You should always be leaving enough space between you and the vehicle in front of you to allow you to stop in case of an emergency. Even a convertible that you can see perfectly overtop of might have to stop unexpectedly and if you haven’t left enough space you will rear end them.
If you don’t feel safe following a vehicle you can’t see past, it’s probably because you’re tailgaiting. Stop tailgaiting! And I know some of you are tailgaiting because it seems like 50% of drivers on highways tailgait.
I don’t follow closely. I try not to follow at all.
ok lol. Nice talking with you.
Imagine thinking other drivers won’t cut you off for attempting safe follow distance. The masses move in bumper-to-bumper pods and the only way to achieve safe following distance is to get out ahead of them, or luck into being already at the head of one of their pods.
Also, imagine thinking the only way to get and stay in front of these schmucks is to speed wrecklessly. I can pace a car in my rear-view and keep them at a safe distance even if they would rather not be. Control what you can control, or embrace the un-safe standard drone behavior, but if you evangelize the latter, you’re going to get well-deserved pushback, and likely mocked.
Vehicles should be taxed by weight.
