7 ms·

> Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically whi

> Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance. Please don't. we don't need more idiots telling us how to live our lives and micro managing us on how you feel we should live.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Yes. I don't care how many pedestrians need to die. Just don't take away my freedom to drive to the grocery store in a vehicle larger than a WWII tank.
- biomcgary 4y ago
  Part of the reason why the United States had both a Senate and a House is to make sure that more rural states had adequate representation of their interests, which differ substantially from urban areas. Rural areas don't have pedestrians because the distances are too big. Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas. The distance I travel to get groceries would be a net waste (financial, environmental, etc) if I had to make multiple trips rather than packing two weeks of food in one trip. More broadly, I really wish activists / reformers (of any stripe) would recognize the limits of their own knowledge and experience and realize that the world has more diversity than dreamed of in their philosophy.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Are you feeding an army? I can't even imagine buying enough food at one time to even fill a small sedan
    - hdhuegau6hfhd 4y ago
      Fill is an interesting verb. I suppose you could try to tetris it up each trip to the store, but unpacking would just as inconvenient as packing. That said, if you buy a weeksworth of food for 3 kids, sedan may easily overflow.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      In their example they're buying groceries on a roughly two-week schedule. A family of four or so can go through a lot of food in two weeks. In college I'd get groceries about weekly and my roommate and I would fill the trunk of an Accord with groceries.
  - ProfessorLayton 4y ago
    It's difficult to square urban vs rural interests without creating a tyranny of a majority/minority on either side. Dense urban areas already subsidize rural and even suburban infrastructure and use less resources. Proposing that urban areas tax themselves even more to limit pollution isn't very equitable either. The fact of the matter is that current CO2 emissions are unsustainable, and we have no choice but to address the issue. That might mean that some may need to go to the grocery store more than bimonthly.
    - biomcgary 4y ago
      Want to avoid tyranny and environmental disasters? Limit the scope of laws and regulations. If a surgeon is removing cancer, does the patient want their chest cavity ripped open or a laparoscopy? In the absence of compelling additional evidence, I would go with the laparoscopy, which risks far fewer unforeseen complications. At the level of policy, I don't think history looks very kindly upon the 18th amendment to the US constitution (prohibition of alcohol) despite the very real societal problems it was intended to address. Part of my point was that, for me, going to the store more frequently, even in a smaller vehicle, would be a net environmental negative. Is there evidence (e.g., detailed simulations) that a blunt policy would have a better outcome (using your own definition!) than a narrowly craft one? I am pretty confident that narrow policies also have the long-term positive effect of reducing tribalism, because the average person ends up dealing with far fewer negative externalities of poorly crafted policy by "the other side".
    - eru 4y ago
      > It's difficult to square urban vs rural interests without creating a tyranny of a majority/minority on either side. Or how about letting each side decide what they want to do for themselves, but not to the other? Cities can pay for themselves. Rural areas can pay for themselves. See how Switzerland does it.
  - quadrifoliate 4y ago
    > Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas. Why? The majority of the US population (~80%) lives in urban areas [1]. Turning your suggestion on its head, rural areas and states could fix their supposedly over-penalized residents by providing them with money or other incentives to compensate. Maybe rural local governments could subsidize door-to-door vans that deliver groceries on a route, so the rural people can drive less. ---------------------------------------- [1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-ru...
nso 4y ago
Feel? And how do you think your post reads, as fact or sentiment? If a) vehicles cause pollution. b) pollution is bad. c) bigger vehicles cause more pollution than smaller vehicles. than naturally it would follow that d) if a vehicle is oversized for the owners use cases that is bad. How can we avoid d? Taxes seem to work as deterrent, just look how angry everyone gets when you add a new one. Literally this very form of tax is one of the main reasons why in countries where the avg. person is wealthier than the avg. american (norway is a good example) drive significantly smaller (and less polluting) cars.
- avalys 4y ago
  Who decides if the vehicle is oversized for the owner's use case? Why not leave that decision to the owner? There are lots of small cars you can buy. People don't buy them. They want bigger cars. I would rather make that decision myself, rather than some government bureaucrat deciding he is going to overrule my own preference.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    As someone who could potentially get killed by people driving cars, I would rather not let every random moron decide whether or not their vehicle is safe enough to drive on public roads.
    - hdhuegau6hfhd 4y ago
      But won't those morons just be replaced by morons on bikes, scooters and bicycles? Is that actually better for end user?
      - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
        My chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron in an SUV are astronomically higher than my chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron on a bike.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

Yes. I don't care how many pedestrians need to die. Just don't take away my freedom to drive to the grocery store in a vehicle larger than a WWII tank.

biomcgary 4y ago
Part of the reason why the United States had both a Senate and a House is to make sure that more rural states had adequate representation of their interests, which differ substantially from urban areas. Rural areas don't have pedestrians because the distances are too big. Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas. The distance I travel to get groceries would be a net waste (financial, environmental, etc) if I had to make multiple trips rather than packing two weeks of food in one trip. More broadly, I really wish activists / reformers (of any stripe) would recognize the limits of their own knowledge and experience and realize that the world has more diversity than dreamed of in their philosophy.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Are you feeding an army? I can't even imagine buying enough food at one time to even fill a small sedan
  - hdhuegau6hfhd 4y ago
    Fill is an interesting verb. I suppose you could try to tetris it up each trip to the store, but unpacking would just as inconvenient as packing. That said, if you buy a weeksworth of food for 3 kids, sedan may easily overflow.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    In their example they're buying groceries on a roughly two-week schedule. A family of four or so can go through a lot of food in two weeks. In college I'd get groceries about weekly and my roommate and I would fill the trunk of an Accord with groceries.
- ProfessorLayton 4y ago
  It's difficult to square urban vs rural interests without creating a tyranny of a majority/minority on either side. Dense urban areas already subsidize rural and even suburban infrastructure and use less resources. Proposing that urban areas tax themselves even more to limit pollution isn't very equitable either. The fact of the matter is that current CO2 emissions are unsustainable, and we have no choice but to address the issue. That might mean that some may need to go to the grocery store more than bimonthly.
  - biomcgary 4y ago
    Want to avoid tyranny and environmental disasters? Limit the scope of laws and regulations. If a surgeon is removing cancer, does the patient want their chest cavity ripped open or a laparoscopy? In the absence of compelling additional evidence, I would go with the laparoscopy, which risks far fewer unforeseen complications. At the level of policy, I don't think history looks very kindly upon the 18th amendment to the US constitution (prohibition of alcohol) despite the very real societal problems it was intended to address. Part of my point was that, for me, going to the store more frequently, even in a smaller vehicle, would be a net environmental negative. Is there evidence (e.g., detailed simulations) that a blunt policy would have a better outcome (using your own definition!) than a narrowly craft one? I am pretty confident that narrow policies also have the long-term positive effect of reducing tribalism, because the average person ends up dealing with far fewer negative externalities of poorly crafted policy by "the other side".
  - eru 4y ago
    > It's difficult to square urban vs rural interests without creating a tyranny of a majority/minority on either side. Or how about letting each side decide what they want to do for themselves, but not to the other? Cities can pay for themselves. Rural areas can pay for themselves. See how Switzerland does it.
- quadrifoliate 4y ago
  > Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas. Why? The majority of the US population (~80%) lives in urban areas [1]. Turning your suggestion on its head, rural areas and states could fix their supposedly over-penalized residents by providing them with money or other incentives to compensate. Maybe rural local governments could subsidize door-to-door vans that deliver groceries on a route, so the rural people can drive less. ---------------------------------------- [1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-ru...

nso 4y ago

Feel? And how do you think your post reads, as fact or sentiment? If a) vehicles cause pollution. b) pollution is bad. c) bigger vehicles cause more pollution than smaller vehicles. than naturally it would follow that d) if a vehicle is oversized for the owners use cases that is bad. How can we avoid d? Taxes seem to work as deterrent, just look how angry everyone gets when you add a new one. Literally this very form of tax is one of the main reasons why in countries where the avg. person is wealthier than the avg. american (norway is a good example) drive significantly smaller (and less polluting) cars.

avalys 4y ago
Who decides if the vehicle is oversized for the owner's use case? Why not leave that decision to the owner? There are lots of small cars you can buy. People don't buy them. They want bigger cars. I would rather make that decision myself, rather than some government bureaucrat deciding he is going to overrule my own preference.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  As someone who could potentially get killed by people driving cars, I would rather not let every random moron decide whether or not their vehicle is safe enough to drive on public roads.
  - hdhuegau6hfhd 4y ago
    But won't those morons just be replaced by morons on bikes, scooters and bicycles? Is that actually better for end user?
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      My chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron in an SUV are astronomically higher than my chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron on a bike.