4 ms·

If they want to buy big trucks, we need to consider those trucks' negative externalities. A bigger, faster, heavier, and more deadly vehicle, imposes costs on e

If they want to buy big trucks, we need to consider those trucks' negative externalities. A bigger, faster, heavier, and more deadly vehicle, imposes costs on everyone around it.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
That is the point. You are showing you are in a position to impose costs on everyone around you, especially with a Hummer.
xerxex 4y ago
People are selfish. I keep hearing communism is a nice idea but fails in practice. Well, unchecked capitalism is a nice idea until the world collapses.
- lliamander 4y ago
- akomtu 4y ago
  Capitalism is well suitable to people at their current level, which is about developing a strong ego with intelligence and clear boundaries. Communism was appropriate in the past, when people had weak notion of self, is not appropriate now, and will be appropriate in the future when people want to give more and take less. "I think my nature was always one that strove to yield itself to the great whole of which it was such a small part - and by yielding itself, to draw back into it the sustenance of life." - a pretty good allegory on the essense of communism done right.
  - albatross13 4y ago
    > and will be appropriate in the future when people want to give more and take less ..5000 years later... > people still suck > lol guys communism will work eventually just trust me bro, it's not the system it's the people that make up the system
    - akomtu 4y ago
      Way more than 5000 years. People don't change that quickly.
      - albatross13 4y ago
        Lol, touche. I hope for all our sake that you are eventually correct, though I fear we'll be extinct before that's ever the case
      - pawsforthought 4y ago
        Given that all of recorded history has taken place in the last 10500 years, and that time has seen a huge diversity of social structures in civilizations across the globe, I think your pessimism is unfounded. Yes, people are selfish. People also have a great capacity for cooperation and altruism, given sufficient cause to bind them together. I rather hope that the impending collapse of the biosphere that sustains all life is just such a cause. Then again, we appear to be setting the world on fire at an ever greater pace.
lliamander 4y ago
Aren't those negative externalities already factored into things like the cost of fuel and liability insurance?
- my_usernam3 4y ago
  And registration! I have a large truck for only occasional dirt bike trips and I pay up A LOT of money to the government for it.
lvass 4y ago
I too only buy food that reached my town via horseback. Who cares about how useful trucks are when they could kill people?
- plankers 4y ago
  nobody here is talking about freight vehicles
  - lvass 4y ago
    What are pick-ups used for, then? In my country they're mostly owned by farmers.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - _whiteCaps_ 4y ago
      Around here they're used to drop kids off at elementary schools.
    - corrral 4y ago
      They're popular in the US: 1) As status symbols (because they're expensive, and because their "truck = freedom" advertising has been very successful) that still read as blue-collar / "red"; and, 2) Explicitly because of their size—they're perceived (pretty accurately) as being far more likely to "win" a crash than a smaller car, and they also put you up high, so you have better visibility. Not sure if the latter actually translates to more safety, but it's certainly perceived to. This is also a big reason SUVs sell well. There may be some related "I like to intimidate other drivers" factor here, too (not my uncharitable guess, as I've heard it seriously expressed by truck owners, and I'm also not saying this is extremely common—but it's common enough that I've encountered it several times). For that last part, see again: status symbol. Some portion of the population owns trucks for the same reasons people own trucks in other rich countries, but that's not the reason they're unusually popular here. It's largely a form of class & political signaling ("I'm in your tribe, and also not poor") coupled with some tragedy-of-the-commons personal/family safety concerns. [EDIT] 3) Aspirational purchases and poor cost/benefit analysis. Think: the lettuce you buy then don't eat before it goes bad. "I really want to get into [x activity that is easier with a truck] and I need to buy a vehicle of some kind, so I should get a truck" -> buys truck -> does not actually use truck-specific functionality anywhere near enough to justify purchase vs. use of paid services or rentals.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Insurers aren’t properly internalizing the liability costs and therefore are pricing premiums too low for the risk these vehicles create. Maybe judgements need to be higher for deaths and injuries caused by overweight vehicles? I don’t have enough context to say. If they’re significantly more dangerous, it should be priced accordingly (based on claims data).
- lliamander 4y ago
  They would certainly be leaving a lot of money on the table if that were true.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Right, if big vehicles are more dangerous, where is that uninternalized cost being squeezed out if not the vehicle owner’s premium.
    - slg 4y ago
      Who says more dangerous equals more expensive? Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        Or more commonly, someone who drives a compact car drunk habitually through a dangerous neighborhood is higher risk than a high-income person with a good driving record who drives a heavy car in a quiet suburb. The people who cause the most insurance losses are often people who really don't have their lives together. They're driving cheap pieces of junk and wrecking them frequently.
      - lliamander 4y ago
        > Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person. Maybe, but I am rather skeptical of this claim being true under most circumstances. And even if it is true that the payout from insurance is bigger in the case of injury than death, there's potentially lost revenue if the insured goes to jail.
Swizec 4y ago
If those externalities were priced correctly, people would stop buying big cars. That’s why they’re not. This is the sort of things governments can be good at if they choose. Otherwise gas/energy prices will eventually do it for us. And it won’t be pretty.
- lliamander 4y ago
  > If those externalities were priced correctly, people would stop buying big cars. That isn't what it means to "price externalities correctly". Pricing them correctly means that the price covers the cost of the externality. That doesn't stop people who are willing and able to pay the price from doing so. > This is the sort of things governments can be good at if they choose. Otherwise gas/energy prices will eventually do it for us. And it won’t be pretty. This is exactly the sort of thing you want a market to sort out. Rising energy prices would naturally create the market pressure needed to find alternatives. It's the kind of problem firms would see coming a long way off and prepare for.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    > Pricing them correctly means that the price covers the cost of the externality My argument is that current fuel and energy prices do not cover all externalities. And I'm suggesting that maybe they should. > This is exactly the sort of thing you want a market to sort out. Yes and that doesn't work very well when fuel, roads, and the car industry are heavily subsidized in an effort to make car culture more affordable. Part of the problem is that knowing the true price of relevant externalities is currently difficult or impossible. We'll find out eventually one way or another. Through the price of habitable real estate and lower crop yields if nothing else.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
Not only only we not pricing in those externalities, the current regulations are structured in a way that actively incentivizes bigger vehicles, above and beyond consumer preferences: https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-are-fuel-economy-regulations-to-blame https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...

If they want to buy big trucks, we need to consider those trucks' negative externalities. A bigger, faster, heavier, and more deadly vehicle, imposes costs on everyone around it.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

That is the point. You are showing you are in a position to impose costs on everyone around you, especially with a Hummer.

xerxex 4y ago

People are selfish. I keep hearing communism is a nice idea but fails in practice. Well, unchecked capitalism is a nice idea until the world collapses.

lliamander 4y ago
akomtu 4y ago
Capitalism is well suitable to people at their current level, which is about developing a strong ego with intelligence and clear boundaries. Communism was appropriate in the past, when people had weak notion of self, is not appropriate now, and will be appropriate in the future when people want to give more and take less. "I think my nature was always one that strove to yield itself to the great whole of which it was such a small part - and by yielding itself, to draw back into it the sustenance of life." - a pretty good allegory on the essense of communism done right.
- albatross13 4y ago
  > and will be appropriate in the future when people want to give more and take less ..5000 years later... > people still suck > lol guys communism will work eventually just trust me bro, it's not the system it's the people that make up the system
  - akomtu 4y ago
    Way more than 5000 years. People don't change that quickly.
    - albatross13 4y ago
      Lol, touche. I hope for all our sake that you are eventually correct, though I fear we'll be extinct before that's ever the case
    - pawsforthought 4y ago
      Given that all of recorded history has taken place in the last 10500 years, and that time has seen a huge diversity of social structures in civilizations across the globe, I think your pessimism is unfounded. Yes, people are selfish. People also have a great capacity for cooperation and altruism, given sufficient cause to bind them together. I rather hope that the impending collapse of the biosphere that sustains all life is just such a cause. Then again, we appear to be setting the world on fire at an ever greater pace.

lliamander 4y ago

Aren't those negative externalities already factored into things like the cost of fuel and liability insurance?

my_usernam3 4y ago
And registration! I have a large truck for only occasional dirt bike trips and I pay up A LOT of money to the government for it.

lvass 4y ago

I too only buy food that reached my town via horseback. Who cares about how useful trucks are when they could kill people?

plankers 4y ago
nobody here is talking about freight vehicles
- lvass 4y ago
  What are pick-ups used for, then? In my country they're mostly owned by farmers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - _whiteCaps_ 4y ago
    Around here they're used to drop kids off at elementary schools.
  - corrral 4y ago
    They're popular in the US: 1) As status symbols (because they're expensive, and because their "truck = freedom" advertising has been very successful) that still read as blue-collar / "red"; and, 2) Explicitly because of their size—they're perceived (pretty accurately) as being far more likely to "win" a crash than a smaller car, and they also put you up high, so you have better visibility. Not sure if the latter actually translates to more safety, but it's certainly perceived to. This is also a big reason SUVs sell well. There may be some related "I like to intimidate other drivers" factor here, too (not my uncharitable guess, as I've heard it seriously expressed by truck owners, and I'm also not saying this is extremely common—but it's common enough that I've encountered it several times). For that last part, see again: status symbol. Some portion of the population owns trucks for the same reasons people own trucks in other rich countries, but that's not the reason they're unusually popular here. It's largely a form of class & political signaling ("I'm in your tribe, and also not poor") coupled with some tragedy-of-the-commons personal/family safety concerns. [EDIT] 3) Aspirational purchases and poor cost/benefit analysis. Think: the lettuce you buy then don't eat before it goes bad. "I really want to get into [x activity that is easier with a truck] and I need to buy a vehicle of some kind, so I should get a truck" -> buys truck -> does not actually use truck-specific functionality anywhere near enough to justify purchase vs. use of paid services or rentals.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Insurers aren’t properly internalizing the liability costs and therefore are pricing premiums too low for the risk these vehicles create. Maybe judgements need to be higher for deaths and injuries caused by overweight vehicles? I don’t have enough context to say. If they’re significantly more dangerous, it should be priced accordingly (based on claims data).

lliamander 4y ago
They would certainly be leaving a lot of money on the table if that were true.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Right, if big vehicles are more dangerous, where is that uninternalized cost being squeezed out if not the vehicle owner’s premium.
  - slg 4y ago
    Who says more dangerous equals more expensive? Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Or more commonly, someone who drives a compact car drunk habitually through a dangerous neighborhood is higher risk than a high-income person with a good driving record who drives a heavy car in a quiet suburb. The people who cause the most insurance losses are often people who really don't have their lives together. They're driving cheap pieces of junk and wrecking them frequently.
    - lliamander 4y ago
      > Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person. Maybe, but I am rather skeptical of this claim being true under most circumstances. And even if it is true that the payout from insurance is bigger in the case of injury than death, there's potentially lost revenue if the insured goes to jail.

Swizec 4y ago

If those externalities were priced correctly, people would stop buying big cars. That’s why they’re not. This is the sort of things governments can be good at if they choose. Otherwise gas/energy prices will eventually do it for us. And it won’t be pretty.

lliamander 4y ago
> If those externalities were priced correctly, people would stop buying big cars. That isn't what it means to "price externalities correctly". Pricing them correctly means that the price covers the cost of the externality. That doesn't stop people who are willing and able to pay the price from doing so. > This is the sort of things governments can be good at if they choose. Otherwise gas/energy prices will eventually do it for us. And it won’t be pretty. This is exactly the sort of thing you want a market to sort out. Rising energy prices would naturally create the market pressure needed to find alternatives. It's the kind of problem firms would see coming a long way off and prepare for.
- Swizec 4y ago
  > Pricing them correctly means that the price covers the cost of the externality My argument is that current fuel and energy prices do not cover all externalities. And I'm suggesting that maybe they should. > This is exactly the sort of thing you want a market to sort out. Yes and that doesn't work very well when fuel, roads, and the car industry are heavily subsidized in an effort to make car culture more affordable. Part of the problem is that knowing the true price of relevant externalities is currently difficult or impossible. We'll find out eventually one way or another. Through the price of habitable real estate and lower crop yields if nothing else.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

Not only only we not pricing in those externalities, the current regulations are structured in a way that actively incentivizes bigger vehicles, above and beyond consumer preferences: https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-are-fuel-economy-regulations-to-blame https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...