8 ms·

I hate to say the "R" word, but, I think we need more regulation. It's clear that manufacturers and consumers aren't trending in the right direction here in pr

I hate to say the "R" word, but, I think we need more regulation. It's clear that manufacturers and consumers aren't trending in the right direction here in protecting all members of society on the streets (not just those in vehicles), so the government needs to step in and mandate it. The increasing prevalence of large pedestrian-unfriendly vehicles is a terrifying trend. Another change in concert that might help is much higher gasoline taxes. Gasoline can cost upwards of $8 per gallon in many parts of Europe. When fuel is that expensive, you really don't want to get a vehicle any larger than necessary. By contrast, fuel here in the US is way too cheap, and way too many people get large vehicles who have no real need for them, and aren't charged nearly enough extra for the privilege.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
People buy large vehicles more than they otherwise would because these are the least regulated so they have less compliance costs baked into their price and there are less compliance based trade-offs in their design so dollar for dollar you're getting more car than you do with something small (which has to meet more stringent fuel economy and emissions requirements and has a larger proportion of it's cost made up of mandatory safety equipment). When it comes to safety manufacturers are optimizing for tests. Change the tests and you'll change what they optimize for.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  >People buy large vehicles more than they otherwise would because these are the least regulated In what way are large vehicles less regulated? Legitimate question.
supergauntlet 7y ago
Gas taxes disproportionately affect the poor though. I agree with your premise that we have too many large vehicles and there's no good incentive to pick a vehicle that's "just" large enough for your uses (so of course everyone picks these enormous trucks and SUVs), but I just think there has to be a better way of regulating than a gas tax.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  A "carbon tax with dividend" is the progressive version of the regressive carbon tax.
  - supergauntlet 7y ago
    Sure. I'd also be interested in any kind of incentives for poor people to get in fuel efficient small newer cars. A carrot rather than a stick, if you will.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      I keep harping on that. Raising the gas tax punishes poor and working class people for decisions they (or other people made for them) back when there wasn't any rational choice. Consider a working stiff driving a 10 year old car. Living in a place with no good public transportation. Raising the gas tax assumes he has/had options he doesn't not in fact have. And policy changes that would give him an alternative have time lines a 100 times longer than next months rent. Opinion: Gas taxes are based on wishful ideologically driven thinking that free markets can solve public policy failures.
      - bryanlarsen 7y ago
        OK, I'll consider that working stiff. Let's say he lives in Saskatchewan, family of 4, rural area. That means he gets a carbon tax rebate of $670 in 2019, which would cover the carbon tax for 4408 gallons of gas. The average family in Saskatchewan pays $403 in carbon taxes over the year. That working stiff may drive more than average, but his carbon footprint is unlikely to be more than average because he probably is heating a smaller house, flying less than normal and buying less stuff than rich people. Of course this working stiff can't afford to buy a new Tesla, but in my experience poor people turn over their cars faster than the middle class. Their junker breaks down and it'll cost more to fix it than it's worth so they sell the old one to a wrecker and buy another 10 year old car. Maybe the next 10 year old car is a used Leaf? Awful range, but it gets him to work and back, and it saves a good bit of money...
nrook 7y ago
One possible fix would be to increase the requirements for car insurance. Currently, minimum car insurance requirements are nowhere near enough to cover a catastrophic accident. If car owners had to buy enough insurance to cover $1 million in injury damages, that could incentivize them to buy cars which are safer for pedestrians.
tropo 7y ago
We have those big vehicles due to regulation. The CAFE regulations for fuel economy take into account the vehicle's weight and the area on the pavement contained within the tires. Without that regulation, station wagons would still be viable in the US market, and Ford wouldn't have discontinued nearly all cars.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  That's a small part of it, but realistically most of it is that people legitimately do want big vehicles. It's a cultural thing; big is popular. Hell, a lot of pickup trucks aren't big enough for people, and they go ahead and lift them (which coincidentally makes them even more dangerous for pedestrians). But yes, of course it's important to have the right regulations. CAFE regulations are pretty shitty as far as that goes. A much more sensible regulation would be to add a sales tax and annual registration tax inversely proportional to the fuel mileage of the vehicle, which plenty of European countries have done: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/transport/vehicles-taxation/appropriate-taxes-and-incentives-do https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/transport/vehicles-taxation... But the fact that some shitty regulations were passed with huge loopholes because of lobbyist efforts doesn't mean that better regulations can't (and don't) work.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

People buy large vehicles more than they otherwise would because these are the least regulated so they have less compliance costs baked into their price and there are less compliance based trade-offs in their design so dollar for dollar you're getting more car than you do with something small (which has to meet more stringent fuel economy and emissions requirements and has a larger proportion of it's cost made up of mandatory safety equipment). When it comes to safety manufacturers are optimizing for tests. Change the tests and you'll change what they optimize for.

brokenmachine 7y ago
>People buy large vehicles more than they otherwise would because these are the least regulated In what way are large vehicles less regulated? Legitimate question.

supergauntlet 7y ago

Gas taxes disproportionately affect the poor though. I agree with your premise that we have too many large vehicles and there's no good incentive to pick a vehicle that's "just" large enough for your uses (so of course everyone picks these enormous trucks and SUVs), but I just think there has to be a better way of regulating than a gas tax.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
A "carbon tax with dividend" is the progressive version of the regressive carbon tax.
- supergauntlet 7y ago
  Sure. I'd also be interested in any kind of incentives for poor people to get in fuel efficient small newer cars. A carrot rather than a stick, if you will.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    I keep harping on that. Raising the gas tax punishes poor and working class people for decisions they (or other people made for them) back when there wasn't any rational choice. Consider a working stiff driving a 10 year old car. Living in a place with no good public transportation. Raising the gas tax assumes he has/had options he doesn't not in fact have. And policy changes that would give him an alternative have time lines a 100 times longer than next months rent. Opinion: Gas taxes are based on wishful ideologically driven thinking that free markets can solve public policy failures.
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      OK, I'll consider that working stiff. Let's say he lives in Saskatchewan, family of 4, rural area. That means he gets a carbon tax rebate of $670 in 2019, which would cover the carbon tax for 4408 gallons of gas. The average family in Saskatchewan pays $403 in carbon taxes over the year. That working stiff may drive more than average, but his carbon footprint is unlikely to be more than average because he probably is heating a smaller house, flying less than normal and buying less stuff than rich people. Of course this working stiff can't afford to buy a new Tesla, but in my experience poor people turn over their cars faster than the middle class. Their junker breaks down and it'll cost more to fix it than it's worth so they sell the old one to a wrecker and buy another 10 year old car. Maybe the next 10 year old car is a used Leaf? Awful range, but it gets him to work and back, and it saves a good bit of money...

nrook 7y ago

One possible fix would be to increase the requirements for car insurance. Currently, minimum car insurance requirements are nowhere near enough to cover a catastrophic accident. If car owners had to buy enough insurance to cover $1 million in injury damages, that could incentivize them to buy cars which are safer for pedestrians.

tropo 7y ago

We have those big vehicles due to regulation. The CAFE regulations for fuel economy take into account the vehicle's weight and the area on the pavement contained within the tires. Without that regulation, station wagons would still be viable in the US market, and Ford wouldn't have discontinued nearly all cars.

CydeWeys 7y ago
That's a small part of it, but realistically most of it is that people legitimately do want big vehicles. It's a cultural thing; big is popular. Hell, a lot of pickup trucks aren't big enough for people, and they go ahead and lift them (which coincidentally makes them even more dangerous for pedestrians). But yes, of course it's important to have the right regulations. CAFE regulations are pretty shitty as far as that goes. A much more sensible regulation would be to add a sales tax and annual registration tax inversely proportional to the fuel mileage of the vehicle, which plenty of European countries have done: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/transport/vehicles-taxation/appropriate-taxes-and-incentives-do https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/transport/vehicles-taxation... But the fact that some shitty regulations were passed with huge loopholes because of lobbyist efforts doesn't mean that better regulations can't (and don't) work.