4 ms·
Colorado Law Would Charge Owners for Driving Giant Trucks and SUVs
- paulpauper 3y agoThe libertarian in me is opposed to this on principle, yet these large vehicles impose a lot of externalities: road wear and damage due to increased weight accidents between pedestrians due to high hood height and less visibility, other motorists of smaller cars congestion less parking space
- mgarfias 3y agoI’d be inclined to be ok with this, if bicyclists didn’t ride like douchebags expecting cars to avoid them. I had one last week zoom out of an alley just in front of me. Had my reflexes been slower he’d have been a flap jack
- wizerdrobe 3y agoI don’t track the logic… shit bag cyclist (whom I would also hate) did something bad so “none deserve protection?” Full Caveat: I’m a current mom-van driver and former 8-mile by bicycle commuter… so I’ve got experience and skin in both games here.
- wizerdrobe 3y ago> road wear and damage due to increased weight Given gas taxes typically fund roads, it would be good to what the MPG vs. Weight ratios look like. Is my Honda Pilot 2x, 3x worse than my old Honda Civic given fuel economy?
- Zigurd 3y agoWhile I deeply dislike these stupidly large trucks that are hardly ever used for carrying stuff or towing, the fact is that even the Hummer EV creates negligible road wear. It's all down to 18-wheelers. But they do create problems for people on foot and on bikes.
- notacoward 3y agoLibertarians do not necessarily oppose usage-based fees to pay for externalities. In fact, many actively propose them as an alternative to regulatory mandates. I you oppose that "on principle" I suggest you reconsider whether that particular strain of libertarianism is really moral or viable in the real world.
- ensignavenger 3y agoMy F150 takes up the same parking space as my Kia Rio...
- bri3k 3y agoThe current CAFE calculations include the FOOTPRINT of the vehicle, giving bigger vehicles lower mpg rates to pass regulations. It makes a strong incentive to keep trucks big, as more efficient engines are hard to make. Truly the calculation is quite odd, the formula includes the Natural Log to the power of the footprint of the vehicle. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-531/section-531.5 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...
- throwawaymaroon 3y ago[dead]
- starbase 3y agoHere's the relative risk of pedestrian death per vehicle mile, broken down by vehicle type. (all ages) cars: 1 buses: 7.97 motorcycles: 1.93 light trucks: 1.45 heavy trucks: 0.96 (age 0-14) cars: 1 buses: 11.85 motorcycles: 3.77 (age 85 and older) cars: 1 buses: 16.7 source: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232
- alphabettsy 3y agoThat data is 20 years old. Maybe stats are the same or similar, but the makeup of vehicles on the road has certainly changed since 2002.
- Mindless2112 3y agoThe average truck/SUV driver has also changed.
- Zigurd 3y agoDespite being old data, what they call "light trucks" are the gigantic pickups and SUVs of today. "Heavy trucks" are almost all commercial vehicles.
- camel_gopher 3y agoSo the term “hit by a bus” reflects reality
- sokoloff 3y agoAnyone care to wager that “We’re addressing this from a data-based perspective,” [words of the bill's sponsor], will not impose these proportionally higher fees upon buses?
- snorlaxle 3y agoIf you look into pedestrian fatalities per mile travelled per pessanger, buses are most probably still far safer than any of the vehicles listed.
- jmccaf 3y ago'proposed law' is more accurately called a 'bill' .
- felipelemos 3y agobill noun /bɪl/ a written suggestion for a new law that is presented to a country’s parliament so that its members can discuss it
- tantalor 3y agoBlogspam, original article is here: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/10/18/colorados-vehicle-weight-fee-could-tame-megacar-crisis-and-protect-vulnerable-road-users https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/10/18/colorados-vehicle-wei...
- DudeOpotomus 3y ago[dead]
- monkaiju 3y agoSounds good
- margalabargala 3y agoThe article opens with: > It’s already well-established that heavier vehicles do more damage to roads than lighter ones, so it only makes sense for them to pay extra for the privilege of driving, say, a GMC Hummer EV. Which as far as I can tell misrepresents the situation. A hummer does about 20x the damage as a regular car. An 18-wheeler does 400x the damage of a regular car. Source: https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh... Of course that's just road damage, and doesn't account for the increase in likelihood of pedestrian deaths. But as far as I can tell, 18-wheelers cause the vast majority of road damage on any paved roads, and if we're charging vehicles fairly, then normal cars pay "almost nothing", a hummer EV pays "20x almost nothing which is still very little", and the very large trucks are the only ones paying a substantial amount. So then the options are: 1) Make deliveries or other services such as garbage pickup much much more expensive because we're honestly charging vehicles by road damage. 2) Acknowledge that smaller consumer vehicles are actually subsidizing road damage caused by garbage pickup etc, but pretend that's not the case and use claims of "heavy EVs are destroying our roads" to make heavier consumer vehicles be the only group paying that subsidy. 3) Acknowledge that smaller consumer vehicles are actually subsidizing road damage caused by garbage pickup etc, and raise money based on that so that we have a functioning road network which benefits everyone with a vehicle. Personally I prefer (3) but anecdotally I've seen a lot of people out there pushing for (2). I'm fine with taxing higher weight vehicles to discourage their use and save cyclist/pedestrian lives (like mine!), but let's not lie about it.
- legitster 3y ago18 wheelers already pay additional tax based on weight and mileage.
- margalabargala 3y agoNot if they're under 55k lbs. A 54,000 truck will cause thousands of times more damage than a Hummer EV. Does the tax you refer to reflect four orders of magnitude of damage differential? Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hvut/mod1/whatishvut.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hvut/mod1/whatish... Here's the amount paid for being over 55k lbs: > $100 plus $22 per 1,000 pounds over 55,000 lbs If that's the going rate for weight-based road damage, then scaled down to a residential vehicle, no one without a CDL would ever pay more than pennies. Since gas taxes and vehicle registration fees are needed to fund road construction, I have to conclude that residential vehicles are subsidizing road damage caused by trucks. Which, again, is fine. But let's be honest about it.
- unstatusthequo 3y agoPossible to charge putz Prius drivers for going 35 in a 60 zone as well? I have no SUV so put the pitchforks away. But there has to be a balance between not moving much min a wimp mobile and blowing a gallon a minute on a massive semi-tank.
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoRelated one from earlier in the year: Steal This Idea: The Larger the Car, the More You Pay to Park https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36039364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36039364
- mhandley 3y agoI think the correlation between vehicle weight and injury to pedestrians requires some nuance. The comments in the article imply that being hit by a heavy vehicle involves more force than being hit by a light vehicle but, other things being equal, the difference is likely to be negligible. Sure the heavy vehicle has more momentum, but neither will slow down significantly from hitting you, so the acceleration applied to a pedestrian that is hit will be more or less the same. Note this isn't true when one vehicle hits another - mass will matter then. So what does make a difference? The shape of the front of the vehicle. With a regular car, you'll almost certainly be swept off your feet and go over the roof. Your legs will take the full force, but your torso never experiences a huge acceleration, so your chances of internal injuries are less. With a truck, there's a pretty good chance the front is vertical where it hits your torso, meaning the acceleration is much higher, and so the chance of internal injuries is much higher. After you're hit by the flat front of the truck, where do you go then? There's a pretty good chance you go under it. Now, heavier vehicles are also more likely to be taller, but the impact on pedestrian safety is a second order effect. If you really want to encourage safer roads for pedestrians and cyclists, maybe tax the height of the front of the bonnet (hood)?
- margalabargala 3y agoThis makes sense. An additional consideration along the same lines are that drivers of high-hooded cars have reduced sightlines and are more likely to hit someone dimply due to blindspots, and that likelihood should be be multiplied by the likelihood of injury. I would support taxing reduced driver sight and/or hood height.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- karaterobot 3y ago> A bill currently moving through the Colorado legislature would, for the first time, impose a “vulnerable road user protection fee” on heavy passenger cars, trucks and SUVs registered in the state, a reflection of research that shows such vehicles are significantly more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists in a crash. (That quote is from the article the linked one is a hasty rewrite of) This fees appears to be related to the weight of the vehicle, rather than any objective measurement of its danger to pedestrians. I think this is saying that a heavier electric vehicle with a battery bank would pay more than a lighter, combustion-powered vehicle. For example, an F-150 lightning weighing 6000 lbs, would pay more than a gasoline F-150, weighing 4000 lbs. Is the former significantly more dangerous to pedestrians? A new Tesla Model X weighs more than a 1984 Chevrolet Suburban—which has better braking? Which is safer to pedestrians? That is, when driven by a human...