7 ms·

Not Just Bikes video on the same subject today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo It's crazy to see how m

Not Just Bikes video on the same subject today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo It's crazy to see how much trucks have blown up in the last few years. They clog up parking lots, barely fit in parking garages (let alone personal garages), blind me at night with their too-high too-bright headlights, and completely block cross-street vision for anything except other trucks when they park on the street. A complete failure of US govt regulation. At this point I hope gas prices go through the roof and punish these truck owners for their selfish decisionmaking.

yowzadave 4y ago
[flagged]
- twblalock 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > That's funny, because if you look at things from a bird's eye view quite a few SUVs take up less space than a Camry. They are just taller. > But let's be honest, you didn't actually care about that. The long Camry would be charged just as much as the long truck if that's the system we went with, and would be completely fair. And a Camry is 0.25cm longer than a RAV4: * https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017-sedan-vs-toyota-rav4-2019-suv-swb/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017... But a Ford F-150 (the #1 selling vehicle in the US in 2022) is 1m longer than a Camry (plus wider): * https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017-sedan-vs-ford-f150-2014-4-door-pickup-supercrew-5.5/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017...
  - freetime2 4y ago
    > But let's be honest, you didn't actually care about that. You just hate large vehicles and you believe you should be able to control the decisions other people make. That is a bad impulse and the government should not enable it. There's no reason to be like this. The parent is just pointing out an external cost of driving larger vehicles and suggesting a mechanism to pass on some of the cost to the owner. They did not suggest that a Camry should somehow be exempt from this same requirement. For what it's worth I drive a large vehicle. In my country I do pay a larger registration tax for the priviledge to drive it, and I was also required to prove that I had a place to park it when I bought it (street parking isn't really a thing here). This doesn't bother me in the least, because I recognize that there are real social costs associated with driving a larger vehicle, and I am happy to pay my fair share.
  - yowzadave 4y ago
    > You just hate large vehicles and you believe you should be able to control the decisions other people make. No, I live in a city where space is constrained, and therefore its use must be negotiated between the inhabitants.
- occz 4y ago
  Vehicle tax should arguably be relative to the amount of road tear caused by said vehicle, aka weight to the fourth power. This would immediately price these travesties out of existence, over night.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Doing that would also price out all EVs, because they are all heavy because of batteries. 2023 Tesla Model 3 weight: 3,648 to 4,250 lbs depending on trim level. 2023 Ford F150 weight: 4,021 to 5,740 lbs depending on trim level. Most of the Model 3s sold are the dual-motor variety, because of performance and range, and most of those weigh more than the 2wd F150s. We should build our roads to handle that and stop shaming weight. The future is going to involve heavier cars for both emission and safety reasons. Fixating on weight is a bad idea.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      > Doing that would also price out all EVs, because they are all heavy because of batteries. And? If they're heavier they cause more damage to roads: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law So why shouldn't they be charged proportionally to the wear they cause?
      - twblalock 4y ago
        Because if you want people to buy EVs, higher taxes are a disincentive. If you put people in a position where an F150 costs as much to own as a Model 3, they will almost always choose the F150. Is that really what you want?
        throw0101a 4y ago
        > Is that really what you want? You can have regulations either completely banning fossil-powered vehicles, or keep raising carbon pricing to encourage the move to EVs. But if those EVs cause road damage, people should pay for that damage. All that is being done in both cases is forcing people to pay the true cost of these things (pollution, road damage), and bringing to light what have been externalities until this point. Let The Market™ decide. If people want to reduce pollution, and not have to pay for the damage their vehicles cause, then perhaps they should use lighter vehicles like (e-)bikes or (e-)scooters / -motorcycles. Or transit.
- euroderf 4y ago
  This would be a great way to implicitly subsidize small vehicles without explicitly subsidizing small vehicles. Win!
- jrs235 4y ago
  And if we wanted more fair taxes to pay for "roads", we should add an average vehicle weight (empty weight + fully loaded weight / 2 ) times miles driven. And it should probably be "regressive". The rate goes higher as the average weight does since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads (it's not linear). This would also require going in occasionally to have odometers read.
renewiltord 4y ago
Well, yeah, US government regulation (the chicken tax) ruined consumers' ability to get a nice small truck. Truly a case of failed regulation since we could have had a better result without it.
- twblalock 4y ago
  It was a bad regulation but we still can buy all the small trucks anyone else can. Aside from Japanese kei trucks (which are basically golf carts and rightly fail safety requirements), what kind of small trucks can't Americans buy?
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    They make them not price competitive. Which is a classic thing that regulation does. Less regulation here would have been better.
  - toast0 4y ago
    Is anybody selling a single cab small truck in america? Toyota sells them in australia: https://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/workmate https://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/workmate
    - twblalock 4y ago
      Toyota sells them, so does Chevy.
      - toast0 4y ago
        Got a link to 2023 +/-1 Toyota truck for sale in the US that has only one row of seats? I couldn't find it on their website, but maybe it's hidden away somewhere? Chevy's small truck doesn't come with a regular cab either. I expect you can probably get a chevy commercial truck with a single cab, but those are big trucks. EDIT: I looked on a bigger screen, and Chevy does sell the Silverado with a regular cab; but that's a full size pickup. You used to be able to get an actual small truck in America. And you can still get one in Australia.
greggsy 4y ago
At this stage, they’re so intertwined with every day life that additional regulation—or removal of subsidies—will cause widespread impacts across many commercial industries, let alone unnecessary personal transport. The only ‘saviour’ from the environmental perspective is the introduction of electric platforms like Rivian. The thought of the battery market being further constrained by mall creepers terrifies me.
- nayuki 4y ago
  Electric cars are here to save the auto industry, not the environment or society. Powering a 2000-kg vehicle to move a 100-kg human is beyond wasteful.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Weight is not waste. Where is the wastefulness? How does driving a 2000kg car harm anyone?
    - nayuki 4y ago
      More mass means more kinetic energy when moving. In the vast majority of cars, all the kinetic energy is wasted as heat when braking. More mass means more rolling friction on the tires. More energy wasted means more gasoline burned, more resources used, more pollution generated. Here's another way to frame it: If weight is not waste, would you volunteer to manually pedal a 2000-kg quadricycle to drive yourself to work? Do you not appreciate the vast increase in energy to move a heavier vehicle? Finally, look at the GMC Hummer EV versus their e-bike: https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev/insider/awd-ebike https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev/insider/awd-ebike . The car weighs 4100 kg and has a 213 kWh battery. The bike weighs 43 kg and has a 48 V × 17.5 Ah = 0.84 kWh battery. In this case, one car battery has as much capacity as 250 bike batteries. Every electric car manufactured takes away natural resources that could transport many more people on lighter vehicles.
      - twblalock 4y ago
        Obviously heavier things require more energy to move. But why is that a bad thing when we have the energy and are capable of using it without emissions? Again, who is harmed?
barbazoo 4y ago
> They clog up parking lots I live in a dense residential area with bays that either fit 3 or 4 cars. If there's a truck, those numbers go down to 2 and 3.
Dig1t 4y ago
>In the last few years They have been this way for a generation. This guy makes some good points, but jeez he is so condescending and pretentious. It's really easy for a guy who makes YouTube videos and lives in a crowded European city to pass judgement on people who live lives completely different than his. I am literally going to take my F150 and haul some lumber after work today, and the economic opportunities that having that ability affords me are so valuable to me as someone trying to build a home for myself and my family. It just smacks of condescension to me when this guy writing this script sitting in a European cafe pretends that he understands all the possible uses that normal hard-working people use these cars for. I'm not even disagreeing with him on a lot of his points, there are plenty of people who don't truly need one of these big cars, but there are also TONS of people who have uses for them.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > This guy makes some good points, but jeez he is so condescending and pretentious. It's really easy for a guy who makes YouTube videos and lives in a crowded European city to pass judgement on people who live lives completely different than his. He has lived in those "completely different" places. He grew up in one of those areas: he moved to a crowded European city. He grew up in London, Ontario ("fake London")—which has typical post-WW2 car-centric layouts which he features regularly in his vides—, lived in Toronto, lived all over the world. He used to consult all over the world and has visited many cities around the world: see his video "Why City Design is Important (and Why I Hate Houston)" for some of the backstory: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 After seeing all the different options, and initially trying to settle in Toronto—see his video "Suburbs that don't Suck - Streetcar Suburbs (Riverdale, Toronto)": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 he and his wife decided to move to Amsterdam to raise their kids. It wasn't random chance that he ended in Europe, but a conscious choice. He looked at the options and chose the one that he though was best. And he has been asked about the 'tone' of this videos: his answer was/is: he doesn't care about how he comes off because (in his opinion) trying to be "nice" to the dumbasses that try to justify the stupidity of car-centric society that is destroying our planet is pointless. Either you have a brain and can see how bad this way of thinking/designing is, or you don't have a brain. He's tired of pussy footing around the (in his view) stupidity: there is no reason to bankrupt cities/society and destroy the planet for this lifestyle when you can (and people do) have high quality of life without car-centric living (in his view).

yowzadave 4y ago

[flagged]

twblalock 4y ago
[flagged]
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > That's funny, because if you look at things from a bird's eye view quite a few SUVs take up less space than a Camry. They are just taller. > But let's be honest, you didn't actually care about that. The long Camry would be charged just as much as the long truck if that's the system we went with, and would be completely fair. And a Camry is 0.25cm longer than a RAV4: * https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017-sedan-vs-toyota-rav4-2019-suv-swb/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017... But a Ford F-150 (the #1 selling vehicle in the US in 2022) is 1m longer than a Camry (plus wider): * https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017-sedan-vs-ford-f150-2014-4-door-pickup-supercrew-5.5/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2017...
- freetime2 4y ago
  > But let's be honest, you didn't actually care about that. You just hate large vehicles and you believe you should be able to control the decisions other people make. That is a bad impulse and the government should not enable it. There's no reason to be like this. The parent is just pointing out an external cost of driving larger vehicles and suggesting a mechanism to pass on some of the cost to the owner. They did not suggest that a Camry should somehow be exempt from this same requirement. For what it's worth I drive a large vehicle. In my country I do pay a larger registration tax for the priviledge to drive it, and I was also required to prove that I had a place to park it when I bought it (street parking isn't really a thing here). This doesn't bother me in the least, because I recognize that there are real social costs associated with driving a larger vehicle, and I am happy to pay my fair share.
- yowzadave 4y ago
  > You just hate large vehicles and you believe you should be able to control the decisions other people make. No, I live in a city where space is constrained, and therefore its use must be negotiated between the inhabitants.
occz 4y ago
Vehicle tax should arguably be relative to the amount of road tear caused by said vehicle, aka weight to the fourth power. This would immediately price these travesties out of existence, over night.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Doing that would also price out all EVs, because they are all heavy because of batteries. 2023 Tesla Model 3 weight: 3,648 to 4,250 lbs depending on trim level. 2023 Ford F150 weight: 4,021 to 5,740 lbs depending on trim level. Most of the Model 3s sold are the dual-motor variety, because of performance and range, and most of those weigh more than the 2wd F150s. We should build our roads to handle that and stop shaming weight. The future is going to involve heavier cars for both emission and safety reasons. Fixating on weight is a bad idea.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > Doing that would also price out all EVs, because they are all heavy because of batteries. And? If they're heavier they cause more damage to roads: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law So why shouldn't they be charged proportionally to the wear they cause?
    - twblalock 4y ago
      Because if you want people to buy EVs, higher taxes are a disincentive. If you put people in a position where an F150 costs as much to own as a Model 3, they will almost always choose the F150. Is that really what you want?
      - throw0101a 4y ago
        > Is that really what you want? You can have regulations either completely banning fossil-powered vehicles, or keep raising carbon pricing to encourage the move to EVs. But if those EVs cause road damage, people should pay for that damage. All that is being done in both cases is forcing people to pay the true cost of these things (pollution, road damage), and bringing to light what have been externalities until this point. Let The Market™ decide. If people want to reduce pollution, and not have to pay for the damage their vehicles cause, then perhaps they should use lighter vehicles like (e-)bikes or (e-)scooters / -motorcycles. Or transit.
euroderf 4y ago
This would be a great way to implicitly subsidize small vehicles without explicitly subsidizing small vehicles. Win!
jrs235 4y ago
And if we wanted more fair taxes to pay for "roads", we should add an average vehicle weight (empty weight + fully loaded weight / 2 ) times miles driven. And it should probably be "regressive". The rate goes higher as the average weight does since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads (it's not linear). This would also require going in occasionally to have odometers read.

renewiltord 4y ago

Well, yeah, US government regulation (the chicken tax) ruined consumers' ability to get a nice small truck. Truly a case of failed regulation since we could have had a better result without it.

twblalock 4y ago
It was a bad regulation but we still can buy all the small trucks anyone else can. Aside from Japanese kei trucks (which are basically golf carts and rightly fail safety requirements), what kind of small trucks can't Americans buy?
- renewiltord 4y ago
  They make them not price competitive. Which is a classic thing that regulation does. Less regulation here would have been better.
- toast0 4y ago
  Is anybody selling a single cab small truck in america? Toyota sells them in australia: https://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/workmate https://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/workmate
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Toyota sells them, so does Chevy.
    - toast0 4y ago
      Got a link to 2023 +/-1 Toyota truck for sale in the US that has only one row of seats? I couldn't find it on their website, but maybe it's hidden away somewhere? Chevy's small truck doesn't come with a regular cab either. I expect you can probably get a chevy commercial truck with a single cab, but those are big trucks. EDIT: I looked on a bigger screen, and Chevy does sell the Silverado with a regular cab; but that's a full size pickup. You used to be able to get an actual small truck in America. And you can still get one in Australia.

greggsy 4y ago

At this stage, they’re so intertwined with every day life that additional regulation—or removal of subsidies—will cause widespread impacts across many commercial industries, let alone unnecessary personal transport. The only ‘saviour’ from the environmental perspective is the introduction of electric platforms like Rivian. The thought of the battery market being further constrained by mall creepers terrifies me.

nayuki 4y ago
Electric cars are here to save the auto industry, not the environment or society. Powering a 2000-kg vehicle to move a 100-kg human is beyond wasteful.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Weight is not waste. Where is the wastefulness? How does driving a 2000kg car harm anyone?
  - nayuki 4y ago
    More mass means more kinetic energy when moving. In the vast majority of cars, all the kinetic energy is wasted as heat when braking. More mass means more rolling friction on the tires. More energy wasted means more gasoline burned, more resources used, more pollution generated. Here's another way to frame it: If weight is not waste, would you volunteer to manually pedal a 2000-kg quadricycle to drive yourself to work? Do you not appreciate the vast increase in energy to move a heavier vehicle? Finally, look at the GMC Hummer EV versus their e-bike: https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev/insider/awd-ebike https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev/insider/awd-ebike . The car weighs 4100 kg and has a 213 kWh battery. The bike weighs 43 kg and has a 48 V × 17.5 Ah = 0.84 kWh battery. In this case, one car battery has as much capacity as 250 bike batteries. Every electric car manufactured takes away natural resources that could transport many more people on lighter vehicles.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      Obviously heavier things require more energy to move. But why is that a bad thing when we have the energy and are capable of using it without emissions? Again, who is harmed?

barbazoo 4y ago

> They clog up parking lots I live in a dense residential area with bays that either fit 3 or 4 cars. If there's a truck, those numbers go down to 2 and 3.

Dig1t 4y ago

>In the last few years They have been this way for a generation. This guy makes some good points, but jeez he is so condescending and pretentious. It's really easy for a guy who makes YouTube videos and lives in a crowded European city to pass judgement on people who live lives completely different than his. I am literally going to take my F150 and haul some lumber after work today, and the economic opportunities that having that ability affords me are so valuable to me as someone trying to build a home for myself and my family. It just smacks of condescension to me when this guy writing this script sitting in a European cafe pretends that he understands all the possible uses that normal hard-working people use these cars for. I'm not even disagreeing with him on a lot of his points, there are plenty of people who don't truly need one of these big cars, but there are also TONS of people who have uses for them.

throw0101c 4y ago
> This guy makes some good points, but jeez he is so condescending and pretentious. It's really easy for a guy who makes YouTube videos and lives in a crowded European city to pass judgement on people who live lives completely different than his. He has lived in those "completely different" places. He grew up in one of those areas: he moved to a crowded European city. He grew up in London, Ontario ("fake London")—which has typical post-WW2 car-centric layouts which he features regularly in his vides—, lived in Toronto, lived all over the world. He used to consult all over the world and has visited many cities around the world: see his video "Why City Design is Important (and Why I Hate Houston)" for some of the backstory: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 After seeing all the different options, and initially trying to settle in Toronto—see his video "Suburbs that don't Suck - Streetcar Suburbs (Riverdale, Toronto)": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 he and his wife decided to move to Amsterdam to raise their kids. It wasn't random chance that he ended in Europe, but a conscious choice. He looked at the options and chose the one that he though was best. And he has been asked about the 'tone' of this videos: his answer was/is: he doesn't care about how he comes off because (in his opinion) trying to be "nice" to the dumbasses that try to justify the stupidity of car-centric society that is destroying our planet is pointless. Either you have a brain and can see how bad this way of thinking/designing is, or you don't have a brain. He's tired of pussy footing around the (in his view) stupidity: there is no reason to bankrupt cities/society and destroy the planet for this lifestyle when you can (and people do) have high quality of life without car-centric living (in his view).