10 ms·

Why can't the government put a limit on car sizes?

32 points by samemail88 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Geonode 4y ago
Why can't they government fix my pet peeves? This kind of thinking is what's leading us to a prison society without privacy or freedom, one little whiny step at a time. The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level.
- mbg721 4y ago
  American government, to be fair, is hamstrung by design. It is meant to be bad at its job in order to limit the damage it might otherwise cause.
- yohannparis 4y ago
  I am curious at which level vehicle safety/requirements should be regulated in your opinion?
- kixiQu 4y ago
  In my household we typically use the phrase "pet peeve" to refer to things that are meaningfully below the impact threshold of killing humans https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-more-dangerous-to-pedestrians-while-turning-than-cars-iihs-says/ https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-m...
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The article did not take issue with the safety of large vehicles.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      It should have.
- rndmind 4y ago
  big trucks are so cliche and should go the way of steam engines, but the government doesn't have the right to limit how big they can be. The registration fee's should be much, much higher. Tragedy of the commons is a real thing, it's not a pet peeve, you disingenuous dumbass
  - Geonode 4y ago
    @dang
- celtain 4y ago
  I know some libertarians are more extreme than others, but I thought it was generally still agreed that the government has a role to play in stopping people from killing other people.
- eertami 4y ago
  The government built the roads, to a specific specification of assumed car sizes. If cars get so big that they break these assumptions then roads start getting blocked, or you start to have streets that some cars are too big to fit through (already happens in older cities in Europe) - and this would adversely affect other people. What next, are speed limits also leading us to a prison society, because people don't have the freedom to drive at 100mph through the city? It's a shared public infrastructure that needs rules to keep people safe and alive. You could always build your own private roads if you want to be free of these oppressive regulations on the shared public highway.
  - samemail88 4y ago
    Exactly, if I can afford it, can I drive a tank around that hogs two lanes? Why is that illegal? Why is nobody protesting the government banning Juul?
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    As a society where we all pay for these things, we all get a say. If you want to live in a place where large vehicles are banned, you can always go build your own private roads...
  - spoils19 4y ago
    It sounds more like the older cities in Europe are outdated and need to update their aging infrastructure than us Americans need to take drastic action against larger vehicles. Nobody in the US has ever had a problem with large vehicles previously.
    - kixiQu 4y ago
      We didn't have large vehicles in the way we do now. Going back and looking at the sizes of trucks – real, functional, agricultural/construction use pickup trucks – over the decades shows dramatic size increases.
  - pandaman 4y ago
    The cars on the road still fit these specifications, you cannot build an arbitrary large car and drive it around. If you really cared about specifications mismatch then the first thing you needed to ban would be buses, each several times bigger and heavier than the biggest SUV offered to consumers.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  It's not really a pet peeve, the government actually subsidizes large vehicles, many of which do a disproportionate amount of roadway damage. So maybe not a restriction, but at least let's end the subsidies. A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. The US is constantly shooting itself in the foot with what I'd argue aren't too many regulations... but regulations prioritizing the wrong things.
  - carlmr 4y ago
    >A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. All for it, but this will hurt EVs quite a lot.
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
      Then continue to subsidize EVs. I will note though, that the EV Hummer weighs nearly 10,000lbs. We're already seeing the same problem.
    - sliken 4y ago
      Sure, a bit, which is fair. Sure maybe EV incentives make sense to burn less gas, but have them pay full share of road wear. A model 3 RWD is 3800 pounds, a somewhat similar sized Toyota Camry is 3,300 pounds. Tesla's just starting to ship the 4680 batteries with their structural battery pack which should decrease the vehicle weight for a given range, which should decrease the weight penalty further.
- toss1 4y ago
  Nonsense, particularly in this case - the SUV is not some act of god but a result of prior necessary regulation that needs adjustment. The SUV was basically created by the govt when CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Efficiency) standards specified higher fuel efficiency for cars vs "light trucks" (27.5 vs 21mpg, IIRC). So, instead of promoting the previously ubiquitous station wagon as a family-hauler, automakers started promoting the SUV under the "Light Truck" category. The appropriate response is to adjust the rules to account for the unintended consequences, not to simply say "whatever - we shouldn't do anything!". Tho, TBF, the article was also missing these key historical details.
  - njarboe 4y ago
    There is also the 25% "Chicken Tax"[1] on imported light trucks started in 1964 and still in force today. Domestic auto manufactures were highly motivated to get the public to buy trucks/SUVs instead of cars for the last 60 years and they did a pretty good job at it. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Chicken%20Tax,issued%20by%20President%20Lyndon%20Johnson https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text....
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      Is that why I can't buy a Toyota Hilux?
- sebazzz 4y ago
  > The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level. Look at where that got the biggest country on the planet.
  - spoils19 4y ago
    The biggest economy on the planet? The most free country on the planet?
- sliken 4y ago
  Sure, but to be fair infrastructure should be "free" to all citizens (like public schools) or some approximation of fair/usage based. The cost of road related infrastructure (roads, highways, parking, tunnels, bridges, etc) and the land consumed by that infrastructure is considerable. I can see flat rate being something like the wear and tear you'd expect from a normal/popular vehicle, like say a honda accord or toyota camry. But if people buy something huge (that takes up more space) and is heavier they should pay more for it to support the increased cost of the wear and tear on the infrastructure. That can be substantial, I believe the wear and tear on a road scales with the 4th power of the weight.
rpmisms 4y ago
I'm the oldest of 10 kids. My family needed a 15-passenger van to travel. Why can't the government stay out of my business?
- gcapu 4y ago
  Do you drive it on a private road?
  - sfe22 4y ago
    Weird question, but they probably do from time to time.
    - frankbreetz 4y ago
      The question is implying if they use it on government funded roads, then the government should get a say on what is allowed.
      - gpt5 4y ago
        This is silly reasoning. Of course the government has the authority to dictate their life, even if they didn’t drive in public roads. This doesn’t mean that it’s good for them to do so in this case.
  - rpmisms 4y ago
    Does the road being public mean that my family should have been forced to drive two cars, thus polluting more, all because of some people who can't stay out of other's business? I understand the argument here, but I think it's bad. Government does get a say in what is driven on roads: safe cars that are often inspected and pose less danger to those around and inside them. That's already a lot of restriction, now we let the gov't pick favorites too? Government is not your fairy godmother, things you don't like will happen.
    - happytoexplain 4y ago
inanutshellus 4y ago
The government addressed this a few years ago by raising taxes on larger car chassis, making vehicles like the Hummer more expensive. This led to the instantaneous rise in popularity of so-called "crossover" vehicles. Puffy vehicles that looked kinda SUV-ish and were elevated for higher road visibility but were built on a smaller (lower tax rate) car chassis. The article of course wants to go to the next step, banning them outright which is just not going to happen. We don't live in a dictatorship and so absolutes like "never make an SUV" bans this don't really happen. Especially because... there are plenty of real-world non-edge-case scenarios in which having one vehicle for a lot of people and stuff is much more efficient than multiple sedans. We could keep raising taxes on those SUV chassis though, I guess.
- mbg721 4y ago
  Another comment mentioned this, but SUVs only exist because they were a regulatory exception to energy-hogging large sedans.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  > We don't live in a dictatorship and so absolutes like "never make an SUV" bans this don't really happen. I can’t tell if you’re being hyperbolic, but banning SUVs isn’t a sign of a dictatorship, and it’s frankly a bit ridiculous to even make the comparison. The US government has and does ban products all the time for all sorts of reasons. See: alcohol, marijuana/other drugs, incandescent bulbs, etc.
  - inanutshellus 4y ago
    I don't think it's terribly hyperbolic. OP wants to get rid of something he doesn't use and presents a black-and-white statement for why it's rational, but SUVs have so many proponents that the govt'd have to override all of them without their opinion weighing in to get it passed as law before they had a chance to kick you out of office. (See, say, the efforts in the 1970s to get the USA to use the metric system as an example.) Is it possible? Yes, that's why I used the weasel words of "don't really happen" instead of "don't ever happen". I also pointed out that the more likely way to get OP's way would be to continue raising taxes on those vehicles to illicit the same result without outright making SUVs illegal to produce.
roleplayer 4y ago
The massive car sizes we see are because of government emissions regulations to begin with. That’s right, the “big truck to make up for lack of X” phenomenon was actually caused by people attempting to regulate how trucks are made without thinking through thr consequences. People who reach for regulations tend to be bad with incentives, not always, but usually.
- abakker 4y ago
  to add to this, there is a hilarious plague of "second order" thinking in government, while ignoring first order. We got into this mess with things like the 21 year old drinking age. The federal government doesn't have the authority to make that rule, so instead they provide a highway funding incentive to the states who offer it. The issues is that it has become the federal government's only tool - provide incentives and try to encourage behavior which can't be directly regulated. As a result, they are basically left with cash handouts to get what they want and must fund those rules out of taxation or the deficit. if we wanted to have a more sane system, we'd remove second order incentives in favor of direct first order regulations. but, that would require constitutional amendments which are unlikely to pass.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > if we wanted to have a more sane system, we'd remove second order incentives in favor of direct first order regulations. but, that would require constitutional amendments which are unlikely to pass. I detest both arguments. The drinking age didn't stop under-21's from drinking. They just don't do it publicly. You're correct in that governments shouldn't use legislative carrots and sticks to influence state policies. But I disagree that direct federal control is a replacement for philosophical reasons as well as the fact that the government already tried the more honest approach of passing a constitutional amendment to regulate the consumption of alcohol only to have it blowback on them. And due to the resulting backlash and unenforcability, the government passed another amendment to deregulate it. As the old saying goes, prohibition doesn't work.
    - 4y ago
eatonphil 4y ago
I'm also curious why (required) speed limit regulators aren't a thing, especially in cities. Why are cars physically allowed to go more than 25 MPH in NYC? I thought speed limit regulators are required on some kinds of scooters and electric bikes. Cars are a lot more dangerous. It's not that I think NYC or the US is very progressive when it comes to dealing with potential car crashes (we aren't) but I'm also curious why this hasn't shown up in other countries/cities in Europe/Asia that are more safety conscious.
- anshorei 4y ago
  Because there are scenarios where you need to go over the speed limit to keep yourself and others safe On top of that I personally want as little "smart" in my car as possible, so I'd rather they didn't pass such regulation.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The limiters on scooters and bikes is to let them ride as a bike - many localities say that a mike that can go over X MPH is a motorbike and treated as such (requiring licenses, etc). I'm surprised that insurance companies haven't offered discounts to people willing to limit their vehicle to certain speeds; but my guess is that the hassle isn't worth it.
- kps 4y ago
  > I'm also curious why this hasn't shown up in other countries/cities in Europe It is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996148
  - eatonphil 4y ago
    Woah, thanks for the link!
0xBombadilo 4y ago
Why can't the government put a limit on the expression of clueless technocrats?
tacostakohashi 4y ago
There are already many incentives in place for smaller cars: * Use less fuel * Easier to park * Cheaper to buy There is generally not much point in having the government incentivize "good" things. Whatever makes them good is already the incentive, and if that's not enough, then there are probably other issues at play that some feel-good government initiative isn't going to overcome.
- sfe22 4y ago
  if statists always got their way, this thinking would be illegal. How come you use this much common sense.
- kcb 4y ago
  * Die when hit by a lifted pick up
  - kps 4y ago
    Perhaps regulations should require all on-road vehicles have bumper and headlight heights compatible with regular cars.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- uluyol 4y ago
  Unfortunately there are also incentives against small cars [1]. [1] 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...
- planede 4y ago
  Right, but make sure that all externalities are properly payed by fuel/road/vehicle taxes, so individual incentives are not distorted by not having to pay those.
elicash 4y ago
I prefer approaches that incentivize positive climate behavior, like taking the bus or bikes. Make it more convenient to charge electric vehicles in cities. Etc.
egberts1 4y ago
Counterpoint: “why can’t government limit what people can mandate out of cars … for very good safety reasons”?
sfe22 4y ago
Government encourages businesses to buy heavy cars. Read section 179. How about we get started by removing stupid government regulations.
jleyank 4y ago
They can, indirectly. Put a tax on gas which will penalize low mileage and let the marketplace do the rest. Size/cost of parts and safety will be handled via the insurance business and peoples chequebook. Clean, safe big honking trucks are better than not clean not safe and would result in lower costs(payments) across the board.
ibejoeb 4y ago
No substance. How could the government limit the size of vehicles? > Companies will never voluntarily reduce their SUV sizes unless outside forces pressures them to do (like $10 oil). If oil (say, brent crude) goes to $10, something has gone very awry.
- samemail88 4y ago
  The government can levy large taxes on new big vehicles just like they did with cigarettes. If the largest SUVs had a 25% tax on it, I think most people will not buy it (basically limiting it). Or if the gas prices went to $10 a gallon, people will ditch their big vehicles.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The government can just directly subsidize the vehicles they like, as they are attempting to do with electric cars. Define a weight and drop taxes/offer refunds for people who buy them, see more of them appear.
    - celtain 4y ago
      The government should tax/regulate things that have negative externalities, and the greater the externality, the harsher the restrictions should be. Subsidizing smaller cars is a bad idea because they still have negative externalities, just less so. The government shouldn't be favoring driving a small car over walking, but that's exactly what a small (or electric) car subsidy does. The reason we subsidize EVs instead of taxing gas-powered cars is because the latter is politically unpopular, not because the former is a better designed policy.
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    Sure. The post says nothing about that though. Just a bunch of baseless assertions about cars being bigger than ever, but the '90s versions were super comfortable. OK. > Consumers who fear for their safety and buy big cars and rest assure nobody else will be driving an even bigger car. Sounds like a middle-schooler banging out a 3-point persuasive essay asap so he can use the rest of the time to play drug wars on his ti-82.
Aelfsyg 4y ago
Why ban things when you could just tax them through the nose? That way, people who _really_ want them get them, and also pay to reverse whatever harm they cause.
flopit 4y ago
This is reminding me of the kei cars in Japan : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
- samemail88 4y ago
  Kei cars are awesome but sadly they will never be safe on American roads even if they're street legal. The speed of our roads and the sizes of our cars will basically kill you if you get into an accident in a Kei car. If our speed limits were lowered and our cars were smaller, I would love to own one of those.
uberman 4y ago
While I applaud the motivation, it is incorrect (at least in the US) to say that government "should" limit the size and weight of cars as this suggests that it does not already do so which it clearly does. It is also incorrect to state that anyone is forced to buy a big car. Even in the US, there is a selection of sub-compact cars that are fun to drive and tend to be on the cheaper side to buy let alone drive. I'm all for making the roads safer and reducing petrol use so perhaps we can reframe this as "Governments should continue to work toward increased efficiency and safety".
- giobox 4y ago
  What meaningful limits does the US government put on size/weights of cars? A rivian R1T has a gross kerb weight of like 9000lbs, the new electric hummer over 10000. With the move to electric cars, especially large commercial ones, they will generally get a lot heavier as batteries plus motor is typically much, much heavier than combustion engine + gas tank. A quick google says you can pretty much drive anything on a single axle in the US so long as its 20,000 lbs or less- thats so huge there might as well not be a limit...
  - uberman 4y ago
    Most states restrict non-commercial licensed drivers to well less than 20k an axle so I'm guessing you might have mixed up per axle limits and non-commercial license limits. Not to worry though I get your point and non-commercial licenses vs commercial ones were not part of the discussion. Perhaps it is a distraction to even mention them at this point. I only bring them up as they also serve as practical governmental restriction on vehicle size. I don't really see there being a demand for commercial driver's licenses so that one can drive a bus for fun. I do agree that the maximum for a non-commercial driver is "a lot" in the context of everyone driving a motor coach around town. However, as you point out, there is a limit to weight and I can assure you there is also a limit to size. We can agree that we feel that the limits are not restrictive enough but they are clearly there and I feel it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. YMMV as they say.
thegrim33 4y ago
I feel like this would fall into the "foot in the door" political pattern I've been seeing everywhere where they're just trying to get their foot in the door with some minimal legislation. Whether it's supposedly "for the kids" or "for the environment" or whatever, they're just trying to set a precedent with some legislation that's really minimal (right now) so it's hard to argue against. However, once they get their way, once they've set their precedent, then they just spend years pushing it further and further to get to where they really want to be. Maybe one year they lower the weight limit. The next they lower the size limit. Maybe they start issuing hard to acquire "permits" to own a "large" vehicle. They they redefine what "large" means the next year. Maybe they start demanding new fees to own large car the next year. And so on, and so on. What's the saying? Boiling the frog alive? They'll never at any point make a jump that's too far that would cause people to resist it. Every step is just one more tiny little tightening that people will begrudgingly accept. I see this pattern literally everywhere.
vehemenz 4y ago
A larger vehicle full of passengers is often more efficient than a smaller one. Are we going to regulate minimum passengers per vehicle size? I'm not sure this proposal solves the intended problem in a meaningful way. I'd rather see hefty taxes on fuel. This might yield better incentives toward urbanization, alternative transportation, and mass-transportation infrastructure.
- samemail88 4y ago
  What happens when people see the high cost of gas and switch to big electric cars instead?
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    Good point. Either way we wouldn't be any worse off, and we'd have cleaner air to boot.
rndmind 4y ago
I believe the government should increase yearly registration costs exponentially based on lower MPG. If you get 10-18 MPG... you must pay 10 times the registration fee that a 40-50 MPG hybird pays.
- workingdog 4y ago
  As long as it's measured by MPG per occupied seat. Our family fills our Dodge Durango and gets better MPG per occupied seat than a single driver Smart car. 20 MPG * 6 > 42 MPG * 1
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- uluyol 4y ago
  There is an environment cost to manufacturing a car, any car. Sure in the long term, more efficient is better is better for the environment, but you want to amortize the harmful costs of manufacturing (and discarding) cars by getting as much use as possible. In other words, a policy like this would require a fair bit of balance (make sure cars stay on the road for long enough), otherwise it risks increasing pollution.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Luckily, I can move to a state where they don't do that.
havblue 4y ago
I might as well repeat the overprotective parent perspective. Fatalities are higher if you're in a sedan in an accident with a pickup or semi. There are a lot of trucks on the road as well. Finally, road accidents are the one of the biggest risks young people face. So ignoring the fact that this makes it into an arms race of weight and size, a parents desire for child safety wins against someone's desire to lower carbon emissions.
- samemail88 4y ago
  You break the arms race by limiting the size.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Now limit the size of pickups and semis. They're the other side of that arms race. And in fact, you're never going to succeed at limiting the size of either one. Not even pickups. Pickups need to be the size they are to be able to haul the things that people buy pickups to be able to haul. So don't hold your breath at being able to limit the arms race. And that means that, to the degree that people buy SUVs defensively, to that degree limiting the size of SUVs is a really tough sell.
    - samemail88 4y ago
      But are the people who are buying the big SUVs in an arms race against Semis/Big Pick ups? Everybody knows their cars can't compete in size compared to Semis/Big pick ups. I believe their arm races are against other consumers who are driving big SUVs. They're looking to have the biggest SUVs on regular roads (outside the highway).
  - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
    No, you break the arms race by making people understand that size is not the only game in town. GT cars have steel cages built around the driver, also carbon fiber reinforcements.
    - 4y ago
d--b 4y ago
There are limits on car size...
ortusdux 4y ago
I've wondered if some moving violations should have a vehicle weight multiplier. We police speeding and failure to stop mostly because those actions put others at risk. Heavier vehicles pose an increased risk, so maybe they should be fined at higher amounts? Do vehicle insurance rates factor in car size? I would imagine that larger vehicles result in higher payouts to 3rd parties in collisions. Maybe it is canceled out by a decrease in payouts to the policy holder.
kodah 4y ago
> There were 35,766 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2020 in which 38,824 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.7 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.34 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The fatality rate per 100,000 people ranged from 4.9 in Massachusetts to 25.4 in Mississippi. The death rate per 100 million miles traveled ranged from 0.63 in Massachusetts to 1.97 in South Carolina. Footnote Source: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state... This is just an overall death statistic in cars, not ones where the size of the car was actually to blame for a death. Given such a small number, I think the government can forgo regulation. Edit: Yes this covers pedestrian deaths
- samemail88 4y ago
  But does this include pedestrians and bikers who are killed by vehicles?
  - kodah 4y ago
    Yes, at least one of the tables explicitly mentions that the statistics they use cover pedestrian deaths and the whole page is built using that single data set.
gorkish 4y ago
If gasoline cost $10/gal like it ought to, then we'd have smaller cars.
- samemail88 4y ago
  I agree but I think consumers will jump to electric cars instead now that they're an option.
incomingpain 4y ago
The government already has limits on car sizes. They literally say how wide cars may be and how much size is inside. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class So really the blog should be, 'why do they limit the size of cars, but not to my own personal preferences?' Frankly I also read this blog as a bad actor. >This limit would truly help with the environment, reduce road damage (lighter cars mean less road damage) and be overall for drivers (people can drive a bigger car than others). The real reasoning is revealed here. Not because 'I'm ok with a 100,000lb overloaded dump truck driving next to me but that rich person driving the escalade... it's toooo big.' Political activism under guise.
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, we’ll use more government regulation." Now they have two problems.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  And others think: "we'll let the free market sort it out". Now you have 3 problems. 1. There exists an entrenched monopoly with political influence 2. Customers are being price gouged as a result of monopolistic price setting 3. Regulatory capture through lobbying by the monopoly ensures there's no competition going forward.
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
kube-system 4y ago
1. The US federal government has relatively little ability to regulate vehicles as compared to other countries. The US government, for instance, does not license drivers or register vehicles. 2. States do have limits on vehicle sizes (i.e the GVWR) that can be driven without a commercial drivers license. 3. We do have many limits that apply differently to cars vs. trucks. The response from the auto industry has been to build more vehicles that are classified as trucks because they have more relaxed regulations. It is very difficult to allow industry to buy the utility vehicles they need while simultaneously forcing families to not buy them. > $10 oil You mean $10 gas? with $10 oil, everyone would drive a tank :)
8jef 4y ago
Try to limit it and tax people who buy monstrous passenger vehicles, they will turn to utility vehicles. Tax all large rides and give tax breaks to businesses to compensate, people will grow businesses just for the kick of a giant ride, or ride some rv. It will end when people realize real life impacts of their ways, probably when the day they die. Find a gentle way around that and save the world!
Pakdef 4y ago
they can... when they make gas and electricity used to charge cars more expensive? since they use more of it

32 points by samemail88 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Why can't they government fix my pet peeves? This kind of thinking is what's leading us to a prison society without privacy or freedom, one little whiny step at a time. The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level.

mbg721 4y ago
American government, to be fair, is hamstrung by design. It is meant to be bad at its job in order to limit the damage it might otherwise cause.
yohannparis 4y ago
I am curious at which level vehicle safety/requirements should be regulated in your opinion?
kixiQu 4y ago
In my household we typically use the phrase "pet peeve" to refer to things that are meaningfully below the impact threshold of killing humans https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-more-dangerous-to-pedestrians-while-turning-than-cars-iihs-says/ https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-m...
- kube-system 4y ago
  The article did not take issue with the safety of large vehicles.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    It should have.
rndmind 4y ago
big trucks are so cliche and should go the way of steam engines, but the government doesn't have the right to limit how big they can be. The registration fee's should be much, much higher. Tragedy of the commons is a real thing, it's not a pet peeve, you disingenuous dumbass
- Geonode 4y ago
  @dang
celtain 4y ago
I know some libertarians are more extreme than others, but I thought it was generally still agreed that the government has a role to play in stopping people from killing other people.
eertami 4y ago
The government built the roads, to a specific specification of assumed car sizes. If cars get so big that they break these assumptions then roads start getting blocked, or you start to have streets that some cars are too big to fit through (already happens in older cities in Europe) - and this would adversely affect other people. What next, are speed limits also leading us to a prison society, because people don't have the freedom to drive at 100mph through the city? It's a shared public infrastructure that needs rules to keep people safe and alive. You could always build your own private roads if you want to be free of these oppressive regulations on the shared public highway.
- samemail88 4y ago
  Exactly, if I can afford it, can I drive a tank around that hogs two lanes? Why is that illegal? Why is nobody protesting the government banning Juul?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  As a society where we all pay for these things, we all get a say. If you want to live in a place where large vehicles are banned, you can always go build your own private roads...
- spoils19 4y ago
  It sounds more like the older cities in Europe are outdated and need to update their aging infrastructure than us Americans need to take drastic action against larger vehicles. Nobody in the US has ever had a problem with large vehicles previously.
  - kixiQu 4y ago
    We didn't have large vehicles in the way we do now. Going back and looking at the sizes of trucks – real, functional, agricultural/construction use pickup trucks – over the decades shows dramatic size increases.
- pandaman 4y ago
  The cars on the road still fit these specifications, you cannot build an arbitrary large car and drive it around. If you really cared about specifications mismatch then the first thing you needed to ban would be buses, each several times bigger and heavier than the biggest SUV offered to consumers.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
It's not really a pet peeve, the government actually subsidizes large vehicles, many of which do a disproportionate amount of roadway damage. So maybe not a restriction, but at least let's end the subsidies. A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. The US is constantly shooting itself in the foot with what I'd argue aren't too many regulations... but regulations prioritizing the wrong things.
- carlmr 4y ago
  >A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well. All for it, but this will hurt EVs quite a lot.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    Then continue to subsidize EVs. I will note though, that the EV Hummer weighs nearly 10,000lbs. We're already seeing the same problem.
  - sliken 4y ago
    Sure, a bit, which is fair. Sure maybe EV incentives make sense to burn less gas, but have them pay full share of road wear. A model 3 RWD is 3800 pounds, a somewhat similar sized Toyota Camry is 3,300 pounds. Tesla's just starting to ship the 4680 batteries with their structural battery pack which should decrease the vehicle weight for a given range, which should decrease the weight penalty further.
toss1 4y ago
Nonsense, particularly in this case - the SUV is not some act of god but a result of prior necessary regulation that needs adjustment. The SUV was basically created by the govt when CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Efficiency) standards specified higher fuel efficiency for cars vs "light trucks" (27.5 vs 21mpg, IIRC). So, instead of promoting the previously ubiquitous station wagon as a family-hauler, automakers started promoting the SUV under the "Light Truck" category. The appropriate response is to adjust the rules to account for the unintended consequences, not to simply say "whatever - we shouldn't do anything!". Tho, TBF, the article was also missing these key historical details.
- njarboe 4y ago
  There is also the 25% "Chicken Tax"[1] on imported light trucks started in 1964 and still in force today. Domestic auto manufactures were highly motivated to get the public to buy trucks/SUVs instead of cars for the last 60 years and they did a pretty good job at it. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Chicken%20Tax,issued%20by%20President%20Lyndon%20Johnson https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text....
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Is that why I can't buy a Toyota Hilux?
sebazzz 4y ago
> The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level. Look at where that got the biggest country on the planet.
- spoils19 4y ago
  The biggest economy on the planet? The most free country on the planet?
sliken 4y ago
Sure, but to be fair infrastructure should be "free" to all citizens (like public schools) or some approximation of fair/usage based. The cost of road related infrastructure (roads, highways, parking, tunnels, bridges, etc) and the land consumed by that infrastructure is considerable. I can see flat rate being something like the wear and tear you'd expect from a normal/popular vehicle, like say a honda accord or toyota camry. But if people buy something huge (that takes up more space) and is heavier they should pay more for it to support the increased cost of the wear and tear on the infrastructure. That can be substantial, I believe the wear and tear on a road scales with the 4th power of the weight.

rpmisms 4y ago

I'm the oldest of 10 kids. My family needed a 15-passenger van to travel. Why can't the government stay out of my business?

gcapu 4y ago
Do you drive it on a private road?
- sfe22 4y ago
  Weird question, but they probably do from time to time.
  - frankbreetz 4y ago
    The question is implying if they use it on government funded roads, then the government should get a say on what is allowed.
    - gpt5 4y ago
      This is silly reasoning. Of course the government has the authority to dictate their life, even if they didn’t drive in public roads. This doesn’t mean that it’s good for them to do so in this case.
- rpmisms 4y ago
  Does the road being public mean that my family should have been forced to drive two cars, thus polluting more, all because of some people who can't stay out of other's business? I understand the argument here, but I think it's bad. Government does get a say in what is driven on roads: safe cars that are often inspected and pose less danger to those around and inside them. That's already a lot of restriction, now we let the gov't pick favorites too? Government is not your fairy godmother, things you don't like will happen.
  - happytoexplain 4y ago

inanutshellus 4y ago

The government addressed this a few years ago by raising taxes on larger car chassis, making vehicles like the Hummer more expensive. This led to the instantaneous rise in popularity of so-called "crossover" vehicles. Puffy vehicles that looked kinda SUV-ish and were elevated for higher road visibility but were built on a smaller (lower tax rate) car chassis. The article of course wants to go to the next step, banning them outright which is just not going to happen. We don't live in a dictatorship and so absolutes like "never make an SUV" bans this don't really happen. Especially because... there are plenty of real-world non-edge-case scenarios in which having one vehicle for a lot of people and stuff is much more efficient than multiple sedans. We could keep raising taxes on those SUV chassis though, I guess.

mbg721 4y ago
Another comment mentioned this, but SUVs only exist because they were a regulatory exception to energy-hogging large sedans.
wbsss4412 4y ago
> We don't live in a dictatorship and so absolutes like "never make an SUV" bans this don't really happen. I can’t tell if you’re being hyperbolic, but banning SUVs isn’t a sign of a dictatorship, and it’s frankly a bit ridiculous to even make the comparison. The US government has and does ban products all the time for all sorts of reasons. See: alcohol, marijuana/other drugs, incandescent bulbs, etc.
- inanutshellus 4y ago
  I don't think it's terribly hyperbolic. OP wants to get rid of something he doesn't use and presents a black-and-white statement for why it's rational, but SUVs have so many proponents that the govt'd have to override all of them without their opinion weighing in to get it passed as law before they had a chance to kick you out of office. (See, say, the efforts in the 1970s to get the USA to use the metric system as an example.) Is it possible? Yes, that's why I used the weasel words of "don't really happen" instead of "don't ever happen". I also pointed out that the more likely way to get OP's way would be to continue raising taxes on those vehicles to illicit the same result without outright making SUVs illegal to produce.

roleplayer 4y ago

The massive car sizes we see are because of government emissions regulations to begin with. That’s right, the “big truck to make up for lack of X” phenomenon was actually caused by people attempting to regulate how trucks are made without thinking through thr consequences. People who reach for regulations tend to be bad with incentives, not always, but usually.

abakker 4y ago
to add to this, there is a hilarious plague of "second order" thinking in government, while ignoring first order. We got into this mess with things like the 21 year old drinking age. The federal government doesn't have the authority to make that rule, so instead they provide a highway funding incentive to the states who offer it. The issues is that it has become the federal government's only tool - provide incentives and try to encourage behavior which can't be directly regulated. As a result, they are basically left with cash handouts to get what they want and must fund those rules out of taxation or the deficit. if we wanted to have a more sane system, we'd remove second order incentives in favor of direct first order regulations. but, that would require constitutional amendments which are unlikely to pass.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > if we wanted to have a more sane system, we'd remove second order incentives in favor of direct first order regulations. but, that would require constitutional amendments which are unlikely to pass. I detest both arguments. The drinking age didn't stop under-21's from drinking. They just don't do it publicly. You're correct in that governments shouldn't use legislative carrots and sticks to influence state policies. But I disagree that direct federal control is a replacement for philosophical reasons as well as the fact that the government already tried the more honest approach of passing a constitutional amendment to regulate the consumption of alcohol only to have it blowback on them. And due to the resulting backlash and unenforcability, the government passed another amendment to deregulate it. As the old saying goes, prohibition doesn't work.
  - 4y ago

eatonphil 4y ago

I'm also curious why (required) speed limit regulators aren't a thing, especially in cities. Why are cars physically allowed to go more than 25 MPH in NYC? I thought speed limit regulators are required on some kinds of scooters and electric bikes. Cars are a lot more dangerous. It's not that I think NYC or the US is very progressive when it comes to dealing with potential car crashes (we aren't) but I'm also curious why this hasn't shown up in other countries/cities in Europe/Asia that are more safety conscious.

anshorei 4y ago
Because there are scenarios where you need to go over the speed limit to keep yourself and others safe On top of that I personally want as little "smart" in my car as possible, so I'd rather they didn't pass such regulation.
bombcar 4y ago
The limiters on scooters and bikes is to let them ride as a bike - many localities say that a mike that can go over X MPH is a motorbike and treated as such (requiring licenses, etc). I'm surprised that insurance companies haven't offered discounts to people willing to limit their vehicle to certain speeds; but my guess is that the hassle isn't worth it.
kps 4y ago
> I'm also curious why this hasn't shown up in other countries/cities in Europe It is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996148
- eatonphil 4y ago
  Woah, thanks for the link!

0xBombadilo 4y ago

Why can't the government put a limit on the expression of clueless technocrats?

tacostakohashi 4y ago

There are already many incentives in place for smaller cars: * Use less fuel * Easier to park * Cheaper to buy There is generally not much point in having the government incentivize "good" things. Whatever makes them good is already the incentive, and if that's not enough, then there are probably other issues at play that some feel-good government initiative isn't going to overcome.

sfe22 4y ago
if statists always got their way, this thinking would be illegal. How come you use this much common sense.
kcb 4y ago
* Die when hit by a lifted pick up
- kps 4y ago
  Perhaps regulations should require all on-road vehicles have bumper and headlight heights compatible with regular cars.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
uluyol 4y ago
Unfortunately there are also incentives against small cars [1]. [1] 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...
planede 4y ago
Right, but make sure that all externalities are properly payed by fuel/road/vehicle taxes, so individual incentives are not distorted by not having to pay those.

elicash 4y ago

I prefer approaches that incentivize positive climate behavior, like taking the bus or bikes. Make it more convenient to charge electric vehicles in cities. Etc.

egberts1 4y ago

Counterpoint: “why can’t government limit what people can mandate out of cars … for very good safety reasons”?

sfe22 4y ago

Government encourages businesses to buy heavy cars. Read section 179. How about we get started by removing stupid government regulations.

jleyank 4y ago

They can, indirectly. Put a tax on gas which will penalize low mileage and let the marketplace do the rest. Size/cost of parts and safety will be handled via the insurance business and peoples chequebook. Clean, safe big honking trucks are better than not clean not safe and would result in lower costs(payments) across the board.

ibejoeb 4y ago

No substance. How could the government limit the size of vehicles? > Companies will never voluntarily reduce their SUV sizes unless outside forces pressures them to do (like $10 oil). If oil (say, brent crude) goes to $10, something has gone very awry.

samemail88 4y ago
The government can levy large taxes on new big vehicles just like they did with cigarettes. If the largest SUVs had a 25% tax on it, I think most people will not buy it (basically limiting it). Or if the gas prices went to $10 a gallon, people will ditch their big vehicles.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The government can just directly subsidize the vehicles they like, as they are attempting to do with electric cars. Define a weight and drop taxes/offer refunds for people who buy them, see more of them appear.
  - celtain 4y ago
    The government should tax/regulate things that have negative externalities, and the greater the externality, the harsher the restrictions should be. Subsidizing smaller cars is a bad idea because they still have negative externalities, just less so. The government shouldn't be favoring driving a small car over walking, but that's exactly what a small (or electric) car subsidy does. The reason we subsidize EVs instead of taxing gas-powered cars is because the latter is politically unpopular, not because the former is a better designed policy.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  Sure. The post says nothing about that though. Just a bunch of baseless assertions about cars being bigger than ever, but the '90s versions were super comfortable. OK. > Consumers who fear for their safety and buy big cars and rest assure nobody else will be driving an even bigger car. Sounds like a middle-schooler banging out a 3-point persuasive essay asap so he can use the rest of the time to play drug wars on his ti-82.

Aelfsyg 4y ago

Why ban things when you could just tax them through the nose? That way, people who _really_ want them get them, and also pay to reverse whatever harm they cause.

flopit 4y ago

This is reminding me of the kei cars in Japan : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

samemail88 4y ago
Kei cars are awesome but sadly they will never be safe on American roads even if they're street legal. The speed of our roads and the sizes of our cars will basically kill you if you get into an accident in a Kei car. If our speed limits were lowered and our cars were smaller, I would love to own one of those.

uberman 4y ago

While I applaud the motivation, it is incorrect (at least in the US) to say that government "should" limit the size and weight of cars as this suggests that it does not already do so which it clearly does. It is also incorrect to state that anyone is forced to buy a big car. Even in the US, there is a selection of sub-compact cars that are fun to drive and tend to be on the cheaper side to buy let alone drive. I'm all for making the roads safer and reducing petrol use so perhaps we can reframe this as "Governments should continue to work toward increased efficiency and safety".

giobox 4y ago
What meaningful limits does the US government put on size/weights of cars? A rivian R1T has a gross kerb weight of like 9000lbs, the new electric hummer over 10000. With the move to electric cars, especially large commercial ones, they will generally get a lot heavier as batteries plus motor is typically much, much heavier than combustion engine + gas tank. A quick google says you can pretty much drive anything on a single axle in the US so long as its 20,000 lbs or less- thats so huge there might as well not be a limit...
- uberman 4y ago
  Most states restrict non-commercial licensed drivers to well less than 20k an axle so I'm guessing you might have mixed up per axle limits and non-commercial license limits. Not to worry though I get your point and non-commercial licenses vs commercial ones were not part of the discussion. Perhaps it is a distraction to even mention them at this point. I only bring them up as they also serve as practical governmental restriction on vehicle size. I don't really see there being a demand for commercial driver's licenses so that one can drive a bus for fun. I do agree that the maximum for a non-commercial driver is "a lot" in the context of everyone driving a motor coach around town. However, as you point out, there is a limit to weight and I can assure you there is also a limit to size. We can agree that we feel that the limits are not restrictive enough but they are clearly there and I feel it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. YMMV as they say.

thegrim33 4y ago

I feel like this would fall into the "foot in the door" political pattern I've been seeing everywhere where they're just trying to get their foot in the door with some minimal legislation. Whether it's supposedly "for the kids" or "for the environment" or whatever, they're just trying to set a precedent with some legislation that's really minimal (right now) so it's hard to argue against. However, once they get their way, once they've set their precedent, then they just spend years pushing it further and further to get to where they really want to be. Maybe one year they lower the weight limit. The next they lower the size limit. Maybe they start issuing hard to acquire "permits" to own a "large" vehicle. They they redefine what "large" means the next year. Maybe they start demanding new fees to own large car the next year. And so on, and so on. What's the saying? Boiling the frog alive? They'll never at any point make a jump that's too far that would cause people to resist it. Every step is just one more tiny little tightening that people will begrudgingly accept. I see this pattern literally everywhere.

vehemenz 4y ago

A larger vehicle full of passengers is often more efficient than a smaller one. Are we going to regulate minimum passengers per vehicle size? I'm not sure this proposal solves the intended problem in a meaningful way. I'd rather see hefty taxes on fuel. This might yield better incentives toward urbanization, alternative transportation, and mass-transportation infrastructure.

samemail88 4y ago
What happens when people see the high cost of gas and switch to big electric cars instead?
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Good point. Either way we wouldn't be any worse off, and we'd have cleaner air to boot.

rndmind 4y ago

I believe the government should increase yearly registration costs exponentially based on lower MPG. If you get 10-18 MPG... you must pay 10 times the registration fee that a 40-50 MPG hybird pays.

workingdog 4y ago
As long as it's measured by MPG per occupied seat. Our family fills our Dodge Durango and gets better MPG per occupied seat than a single driver Smart car. 20 MPG * 6 > 42 MPG * 1
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
uluyol 4y ago
There is an environment cost to manufacturing a car, any car. Sure in the long term, more efficient is better is better for the environment, but you want to amortize the harmful costs of manufacturing (and discarding) cars by getting as much use as possible. In other words, a policy like this would require a fair bit of balance (make sure cars stay on the road for long enough), otherwise it risks increasing pollution.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
Luckily, I can move to a state where they don't do that.

havblue 4y ago

I might as well repeat the overprotective parent perspective. Fatalities are higher if you're in a sedan in an accident with a pickup or semi. There are a lot of trucks on the road as well. Finally, road accidents are the one of the biggest risks young people face. So ignoring the fact that this makes it into an arms race of weight and size, a parents desire for child safety wins against someone's desire to lower carbon emissions.

samemail88 4y ago
You break the arms race by limiting the size.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Now limit the size of pickups and semis. They're the other side of that arms race. And in fact, you're never going to succeed at limiting the size of either one. Not even pickups. Pickups need to be the size they are to be able to haul the things that people buy pickups to be able to haul. So don't hold your breath at being able to limit the arms race. And that means that, to the degree that people buy SUVs defensively, to that degree limiting the size of SUVs is a really tough sell.
  - samemail88 4y ago
    But are the people who are buying the big SUVs in an arms race against Semis/Big Pick ups? Everybody knows their cars can't compete in size compared to Semis/Big pick ups. I believe their arm races are against other consumers who are driving big SUVs. They're looking to have the biggest SUVs on regular roads (outside the highway).
- Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
  No, you break the arms race by making people understand that size is not the only game in town. GT cars have steel cages built around the driver, also carbon fiber reinforcements.
  - 4y ago

d--b 4y ago

There are limits on car size...

ortusdux 4y ago

I've wondered if some moving violations should have a vehicle weight multiplier. We police speeding and failure to stop mostly because those actions put others at risk. Heavier vehicles pose an increased risk, so maybe they should be fined at higher amounts? Do vehicle insurance rates factor in car size? I would imagine that larger vehicles result in higher payouts to 3rd parties in collisions. Maybe it is canceled out by a decrease in payouts to the policy holder.

kodah 4y ago

> There were 35,766 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2020 in which 38,824 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.7 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.34 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The fatality rate per 100,000 people ranged from 4.9 in Massachusetts to 25.4 in Mississippi. The death rate per 100 million miles traveled ranged from 0.63 in Massachusetts to 1.97 in South Carolina. Footnote Source: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state... This is just an overall death statistic in cars, not ones where the size of the car was actually to blame for a death. Given such a small number, I think the government can forgo regulation. Edit: Yes this covers pedestrian deaths

samemail88 4y ago
But does this include pedestrians and bikers who are killed by vehicles?
- kodah 4y ago
  Yes, at least one of the tables explicitly mentions that the statistics they use cover pedestrian deaths and the whole page is built using that single data set.

gorkish 4y ago

If gasoline cost $10/gal like it ought to, then we'd have smaller cars.

samemail88 4y ago
I agree but I think consumers will jump to electric cars instead now that they're an option.

incomingpain 4y ago

The government already has limits on car sizes. They literally say how wide cars may be and how much size is inside. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class So really the blog should be, 'why do they limit the size of cars, but not to my own personal preferences?' Frankly I also read this blog as a bad actor. >This limit would truly help with the environment, reduce road damage (lighter cars mean less road damage) and be overall for drivers (people can drive a bigger car than others). The real reasoning is revealed here. Not because 'I'm ok with a 100,000lb overloaded dump truck driving next to me but that rich person driving the escalade... it's toooo big.' Political activism under guise.

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, we’ll use more government regulation." Now they have two problems.

antisthenes 4y ago
And others think: "we'll let the free market sort it out". Now you have 3 problems. 1. There exists an entrenched monopoly with political influence 2. Customers are being price gouged as a result of monopolistic price setting 3. Regulatory capture through lobbying by the monopoly ensures there's no competition going forward.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

1. The US federal government has relatively little ability to regulate vehicles as compared to other countries. The US government, for instance, does not license drivers or register vehicles. 2. States do have limits on vehicle sizes (i.e the GVWR) that can be driven without a commercial drivers license. 3. We do have many limits that apply differently to cars vs. trucks. The response from the auto industry has been to build more vehicles that are classified as trucks because they have more relaxed regulations. It is very difficult to allow industry to buy the utility vehicles they need while simultaneously forcing families to not buy them. > $10 oil You mean $10 gas? with $10 oil, everyone would drive a tank :)

8jef 4y ago

Try to limit it and tax people who buy monstrous passenger vehicles, they will turn to utility vehicles. Tax all large rides and give tax breaks to businesses to compensate, people will grow businesses just for the kick of a giant ride, or ride some rv. It will end when people realize real life impacts of their ways, probably when the day they die. Find a gentle way around that and save the world!

Pakdef 4y ago

they can... when they make gas and electricity used to charge cars more expensive? since they use more of it