• GissaMittJobb
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    172
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.

    Adding such a tax, where every vehicle paya relative to what they do to the road surface they roll on, would instantly make all SUVs unviable. It would also increase the incentives for shipping freight by rail by an incredible amount.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes please, apply the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle

      The absence of it’s application means you make others pay for the costly decisions of a few, incentivizing and subsidizing damaging behaviour.

      The absence also often means wealth transfer from poor to rich, as you need to have some wealth to be able to cause significant ‘pollution’.

      It makes so much sense. “You want this? Ok, then pay for what it entails, all the consequences.” Only then people make informed decisions.

      • Kage520@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude, we are still stuck with half of America thinking more CO2 is good because it’s “extra plant food”. This policy you suggest would have them countering saying they should pay less for helping to feed the forests with their vehicle’s emissions.

        It’s a great solution, but I don’t know how we could get it passed.

        • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can start from several points in parallel.
          There’s no need to wait for Aramco.

    • Anekdoteles@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.

      Road wear comes from weight and power, so does pollution. Add size to the equation and you can estimate a cars dangerousness. Look only at size and you can see a cars damage to urban spaces. Hence, private vehicles should be taxed based on their size, weight and power. Bonus points for tire width, because tires are a non-recycable environmental problem and super-wide tires add nothing to the world but damage.

        • Jaccident@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s relevant to certain rural communities, but I see a lot more wide tyres on suspension lowered BMW with bad chrome jobs.

          Feels like the kind of thing that shouldn’t be encouraged for Inner City vehicles, I wonder what the correlation is between these vehicles and the kinds of arsehole tearing up a 20mph at 60mph at 4am.

        • Anekdoteles@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ceteris paribus, it mostly does. But that also means, that they can be used to driver faster holding the probability of an accident constant, while raising the severity of damage in case of an accident. Incidents where they would have prevented an accident are likely to be insignificant, while at the same time, more grip is likely to induce more risk-seeking driving, hence resulting in a net-negative to overall safety.

          However, keep in mind that super wide tires are never installed for safety reasons anyway, but mostly for cosmetic purposes and the drivers couldn’t care less for the risks and damages that come with wider tires. Therefore society has to prohibit it in self-defence.

    • leaf@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dutch cars are taxed on weight, with temporary exceptions for EVs.

      • taladar@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could always tax by emissions and weight. EVs are not really the solution to the general car problem anyway. Mass transit is, at least in cities and other densely populated areas.

        • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think we agree but I still need to point out: Individual transport will always be a requirement for living in rural areas. The “fuck cars” sentiment only makes sense in cities with more than ~3 million inhabitants.

          • Arbic@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            While I agree with the sentiment on cars in the city, I’d say that it is already viable in much smaller cities. I live in a city with 350k inhabitants and I’m doing quite well without a car.

            • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              For sure. But forbidding cars doesn’t make sense until you have several millions of people in a single city.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you smoking lmao, do you seriously think anything below 3 million people is rural?

            rural is when it takes you an hour to reach the nearest grocery store by car.

            • andrai@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not rural, that’s ultra remote wilderness. Like what place doesn’t have a grocery store in a 100km radius? Some place deep in the Australian outback?

              • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Village of ~10k, nearest grocery store is 25min walk, 10min bike, 5min car.

                There are also three smaller stores a 2 min walk away. Europe for reference

                • andrai@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I sincerely doubt there is a a place in Europe outside of maybe remote Scandinavia or Russia where you can’t get to a grocery store after driving for an hour.

                • andrai@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My definition of rural is a place with some semblance of human habitation that is not urban. A speck of land characterized by villages, farms or forestry. Where you have limited access to the amenities found in cities.

                  However, what village does not have a grocery store? Or at least not one in the next bigger village?

                  Do you have some examples of villages without a grocery store an hour of driving away?

          • ECB@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            3 million is gigantic! The country I’m in currently barely has that many people

            You can do car-free at any size if its planned right.

      • lemmyingly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        All UK residents pay road tax, whether they own a vehicle or not. You’re referring to emissions tax, which only the vehicle owner pays.

        • bug@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically correct, but everyone colloquially still refers to the tax that you pay on your car as road tax even though it’s now emissions-based

          • lemmyingly@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s called ‘vehicle exercise duty’. At least get it right if you’re going to be pedantic. It is directly related to emissions, therefore emissions tax is more appropriate for a nickname.

      • tartinki_szwertowi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Small diesel car is much better than huge EV car in any city. Just look at any comparision on effectiveness of transport means and how cars are the least effective. If we allow to have now even bigger cars on our roads, then we end with even less effective communication, especially in places where buses get stuck in traffic.

        • uint8_t@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Small diesel car is much better than huge EV car in any city. [citation needed]

          • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d rather a quiet EV than a noisy & polluting combustion engine personally.

            Living on a busy road has honestly made me dislike cars much more though, they are SO NOISY, and people around here rev their motorbikes and car engines so damn much especially at night time. I’m a deep sleeper so I don’t hear it unless I’m awake, but I feel sorry for the neighbours.

            Even the buses that go past are way quieter than the cars (the electric ones are completely silent), dunno if they’re using more expensive tyres or something 🤷‍♂️.

            Also I can forget opening windows during rush hour periods. The exhaust smell takes over the house pretty quickly, especially when there’s start/stop traffic ☹️

      • GissaMittJobb
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s probably likely that EVs are inherently a little heavier than ICEs, but I don’t think it explains all of the weight growth trend of EVs. If we want to make sure that EVs do not become uncompetitive in relation to ICEs under this type of scheme, you could simply give them the first N kilograms off. This makes sure that the property of road wear still gets priced in for relatively heavier EVs, without making them directly uncompetitive.

    • SquashyO@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’d need some carve out for electric vehicles, they are super heavy compared to a gas car of the same size. (Assuming you want to encourage electric over gas)

    • Trihilis@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As someone who lives in a country that actually has this system. No. It’s a shitty system. It results in old shitty cars that pollute like insanity. Some cars are more economical and safer than some badly built cars with less safety features and those safer cars are actually punished with this system.

      You are literally better off buying an old banger that is falling apart and a road hazard than a new car because of our stupid tax system. And the people who drive SUVs here are usually rich and don’t care about higher road tax.

  • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They should not be allowed in cities at all because they encourage irresponsible driving and when they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, the injuries are more deadly. Make people with these cars stop at the city border and use public transport.

    SUVs are a paradox: while many people buy them to feel safer, they are statistically less safe than regular cars, both for those inside and those outside the vehicle. A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving.

    I want to add that they also have greater blind spots. I got run over by an SUV driving out of a parking space, because the driver said she didn’t see me. I am an old, fat woman with a walking aid with four wheels and had multiple colorful bags from shopping with me and was wearing a white, big summer hat. She would have overlooked an elephant, because her car is as huge as a tank. My walking aid saved me and I only had minor injuries, a kid would have died.

    • quaddo@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon.

      Was “sedan” meant here and not “saloon”?

      Try as I might, I can’t think of why anyone would want to compare SUV’s to a western drinking establishment of a bygone era. Although I do see how being in a saloon at the wrong time would have also come with it’s own deadly risks.

      • raptir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s funny because you could have checked this yourself by just searching “saloon car” but you chose to be rude instead.

        • Misconduct@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did they change their comment since you replied or something? I’m just nosy and their comment doesn’t seem very rude lol

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Was “sedan” meant here and not “saloon”?

        They don’t use the term on some of the colonies, but in the King’s English, saloon is a term for a luxury sedan.

        • quaddo@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay that’s actually pretty cool, thanks.

          Just now checked with my Kiwi wife. She’s filling me in now with examples.

        • quaddo@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wild. I wouldn’t have made it there without the help from helpful folks like yourself.

          When I searched DDG in “saloon” just now, the extracted summary was this:

          A place where alcoholic drinks are sold and drunk; a tavern. A large room or hall for receptions, public entertainment, or exhibitions. The officers’ dining and social room on a cargo ship.

          When I searched on “regular saloon” I get this as the first hit:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(automobile)

          I wouldn’t have thought to search on “saloon car” as others have suggested.

  • filister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not to mention that they are extremely wasteful and not good for the environment and our roads. If a small car and SUV went into a head collision the chance of survival of the passengers in the smaller car are much lower.

    • bug@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bigger car = safer is exactly the kind of backwards thinking which causes so many people to unnecessarily buy big cars. The entire concept of Chelsea Tractors comes from middle-class parents thinking they need to do the school run in a tank so little Tarquin and Lilliput will be safe. We have Euro NCAP safety ratings for cars, judge the safety based on the actual tests!

      • omgarm@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why I drive a tank. Fuck other people, only I matter.

        Once the shells come in I am firing at construction sites to keep housing prices high.

        • JTheDoc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Plus you’ll own a weapon to protect yourself from other people’s Tanks too… we should all buy tanks, to protect ourselves.

          That logic worked before somewhere.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not the reason why I bought a truck. Just one of its benefits.

          It’s funny how you come up with this imaginaty caricature of me in your head and then get angry at it for absolutely no reason.

      • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the same logic Americans use with gun ownership and look how well that’s working out.

            • Final Remix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because maybe I want to relive my glory days as a youth with a toy projectile-thing and not go deaf because our laws require the gun be fucking loud as shit and big over here in murica. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ohh. You’re complaining you can’t own a less lethal weapon, I interpreted it as you couldn’t own a lethal weapon at all where you lived. I don’t understand why you’d want a lethal weapon at all, that’s insane to me.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        93
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uh… The best case scenario is two smaller cars. Riding a bigger car to protect yourself is not only extremely selfish, but entirely counterproductive as you encourage other people to do the same. This is very much a tragedy of the commons situation.

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not the one with significantly higher rollover fatalities, that’s for sure.

        Just admit you’re scared to drive and stop driving.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And this is why i avoid roads whenever possible, god bless my city for having so many bike/pedestrian underpasses so we don’t have to even come close to the death boxes most of the time.

      • doggle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for demonstration how being a parent can actually make you a worse person. Your children, or OPs for that matter, deserve to be safe and secure only as much as anyone else’s, despite what your hormones may have convinced you.

    • Final Remix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My parents got a contemporary Highlander and I hate every minute of driving it. There’s zero visibility out of it, the “lane assist” shit hates curves in the roads, and it feels like I’m in a giant-but-claustrophobic spaceship with all these fucking computer systems that can’t be turned off. Spatial awareness is fucking hard when you can’t see a goddamned thing out most of the windows, and entire cars regularly disappear behind the A-pillar.

  • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do they get parking fine for not fitting in the space ? It’s an easy way to limit the obesity epidemic on cars

    • jimmux@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The building I live in has started doing this for the private parking spots. Any vehicle not within the lines is hit with $80. Their hand was forced since some started parking trucks that leave the entire bed hanging out.

  • trankon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The largest SUV weighs 2,000kg, compared with about 1,200kg for a family hatchback.

    That doesn’t seem right. Modern SUVs are approaching (and sometimes exceeding) 3t, while my very normal, 2016 hatchback weights nearly 1400kg too.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    While the size of the standard parking bay has remained static for decades, cars have been growing longer and wider in a phenomenon known as “autobesity”.

    There is growing debate about car size and road safety, after two eight-year-old girls, Selena Lau and Nuria Sajjad, died when a Land Rover crashed through a school fence in south-west London in July.

    The research also revealed that 27 models are too wide for drivers to comfortably open their doors when parked between two other cars.

    The Land Rover Discovery measures 2.073 metres wide, leaving a narrow 16.35cm space between the doors and the bay’s borders.

    Often nicknamed “Chelsea tractors”, their use in city centres has long been criticised, with some road safety campaigners calling for them to be banned in busy pedestrian areas.

    Campaigners have questioned why drivers need such large and dangerous cars in the city, particularly when dropping children off at school, with some going to extreme measures to get their message across.


    The original article contains 603 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The trend of “autobesity” is forcing car park providers to think of new ways to accommodate larger cars, such as introducing wider bays.”

    That’s the most disgusting part of this. They are adapting the infrastructure to accommodate the child killers when the sensible approach is #fuckBigCars.

    #fuckCars in general.