7 ms·

SUVs should cost like 10 times more than regular cars to insure. They destroy the environment and kill people and the only benefit is slightly better status sig

by ajuc 3y ago

SUVs should cost like 10 times more than regular cars to insure. They destroy the environment and kill people and the only benefit is slightly better status signaling.

cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
They're also more dangerous to their occupants than mid-sized sedans. There should also be an SUV tax.
splitstud 3y ago
[dead]
Pxtl 3y ago
Why outsource that cost to the private sector? Make a point-system for external-risk value on the road to other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. Figure in mass (yes, Teslas are risky too with their mass), bumper compatibility (SUV bumpers don't hit car bumpers), thick a-pillar blind-spots, pedestrian-hood-impact-behavior, frontover risk, stopping distance, etc. Then assign vehicles with high external-risk-score a stricter regimen for infractions like speeding and higher registration fees. You drive a Yaris like an absolute maniac? You can get busted a lot more times than the guy in the Rivian before they take your license away.
the_doctah 3y ago
They are better at snow driving
- jkaptur 3y ago
  They're really no better than plenty of reasonably-sized cars.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  Then that leaves a huge part of the US that has no (or an extremely rare) need for that advantage. I can't haul a couch in my sedan, but I'm not going to buy an F-250 "just in case"
  - fooker 3y ago
    2023 saw more than 70% of the lower 48 states covered in snow. If you include Alaska, the largest state, it’ll increase a bit more.
    - lapetitejort 3y ago
      What percentage of counties? My state got snowed on because it has a mountain range, but not my county since it's in the desert near sea level.
    - bdcravens 3y ago
      Large states like Texas may as well be considered several states for purposes of identifying trends. Houston hasn't had any snow since the freeze in 2021; we commonly go several years without snow that doesn't melt in an hour. So again, it wouldn't make sense to base a purchase on a rare event. I'd like to see a statistic that shows what percentage of the US has persistent snow (say, 24 hours).
- kelnos 3y ago
  My AWD sedan is only worse than an SUV for snow driving in a single dimension: ground clearance. I can't drive over snow berms quite as high as those an SUV can. In practice this doesn't matter much, and the sedan is more (vertically) stable in the snow than an SUV. (Yes, I've driven both in these conditions, and vastly prefer the sedan.) The main issue is that AWD/4WD in sedans isn't that common, while they're nearly standard on an SUV. But that's a matter of market dynamics (people think that SUVs are required for this sort of driving, which is laughable), not any inherent technological or cost limitation.
- mrmuagi 3y ago
  Tires make or break snow driving, no?
nickthegreek 3y ago
They obviously have real tangible benefits. I regularly use my SUV to haul stuff that would not fit in a car while also maintaining the ability to fit passengers when I am not using that space. While being lighter than a van.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Minivans usually have a very low front hood with decent visibility. I'm not sure why SUVs don't have the same.
  - hnav 3y ago
    Because it makes them look uncool. See how Mazda discontinued the 5 for a bunch of CUVs that fit less stuff in the same footprint. Somehow a lifted compact car with slats for windows is cooler to the average person.
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    Electic minivan costs over 100k, while tesla model y around 40…
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      EVs usually feature a frunk, so I don't see any reason they can't have a nice low front hood with good visibility and pedestrian safety.
      - dzhiurgis 3y ago
        It's impossible to even see front hood on tesla model y which sorta sucks for parking
    - ddlatham 3y ago
      You can get the Pacifica plug-in hybrid for about 50k before tax credits, or a used one for 25k.
bdcravens 3y ago
A lot of people drive compact SUVs, and most of the planned EVs fall into that category. I feel like sporty cars like the Mustang, Charger, modified Civics, etc are a greater risk.
1-6 3y ago
Not only do they destroy the environment, they tear up paving with the gross vehicle weight and heftier tires.
everybodyknows 3y ago
Well, there is the penalty at purchase time of the "gas guzzler tax": https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100F3YZ.PDF?Dockey=P100F3YZ.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100F3YZ.PDF?Dockey=P100... But guess what, the rates have not been raised since 1991! There's been some CPI inflation since then. The irrationality of Congressional energy policy continues evergreen.
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  Looking again, current regulation is even worse than first appears: > This tax does not apply to minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pick-up trucks. Congress did not impose a gas guzzler tax on these vehicle types because in 1978, at the time the law was enacted, they represented a relatively small fraction of the overall fleet of passenger vehicles and were used more for business purposes than personal transportation. And the proffered list of current vehicles is a 404! www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler
manonthewall 3y ago
I assure you that stuff is all considered into actuarial determination of how much the person is paying to get the SUV insured.

by ajuc 3y ago

SUVs should cost like 10 times more than regular cars to insure. They destroy the environment and kill people and the only benefit is slightly better status signaling.

cvccvroomvroom 3y ago

They're also more dangerous to their occupants than mid-sized sedans. There should also be an SUV tax.

splitstud 3y ago

[dead]

Pxtl 3y ago

Why outsource that cost to the private sector? Make a point-system for external-risk value on the road to other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. Figure in mass (yes, Teslas are risky too with their mass), bumper compatibility (SUV bumpers don't hit car bumpers), thick a-pillar blind-spots, pedestrian-hood-impact-behavior, frontover risk, stopping distance, etc. Then assign vehicles with high external-risk-score a stricter regimen for infractions like speeding and higher registration fees. You drive a Yaris like an absolute maniac? You can get busted a lot more times than the guy in the Rivian before they take your license away.

the_doctah 3y ago

They are better at snow driving

jkaptur 3y ago
They're really no better than plenty of reasonably-sized cars.
bdcravens 3y ago
Then that leaves a huge part of the US that has no (or an extremely rare) need for that advantage. I can't haul a couch in my sedan, but I'm not going to buy an F-250 "just in case"
- fooker 3y ago
  2023 saw more than 70% of the lower 48 states covered in snow. If you include Alaska, the largest state, it’ll increase a bit more.
  - lapetitejort 3y ago
    What percentage of counties? My state got snowed on because it has a mountain range, but not my county since it's in the desert near sea level.
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    Large states like Texas may as well be considered several states for purposes of identifying trends. Houston hasn't had any snow since the freeze in 2021; we commonly go several years without snow that doesn't melt in an hour. So again, it wouldn't make sense to base a purchase on a rare event. I'd like to see a statistic that shows what percentage of the US has persistent snow (say, 24 hours).
kelnos 3y ago
My AWD sedan is only worse than an SUV for snow driving in a single dimension: ground clearance. I can't drive over snow berms quite as high as those an SUV can. In practice this doesn't matter much, and the sedan is more (vertically) stable in the snow than an SUV. (Yes, I've driven both in these conditions, and vastly prefer the sedan.) The main issue is that AWD/4WD in sedans isn't that common, while they're nearly standard on an SUV. But that's a matter of market dynamics (people think that SUVs are required for this sort of driving, which is laughable), not any inherent technological or cost limitation.
mrmuagi 3y ago
Tires make or break snow driving, no?

nickthegreek 3y ago

They obviously have real tangible benefits. I regularly use my SUV to haul stuff that would not fit in a car while also maintaining the ability to fit passengers when I am not using that space. While being lighter than a van.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Minivans usually have a very low front hood with decent visibility. I'm not sure why SUVs don't have the same.
- hnav 3y ago
  Because it makes them look uncool. See how Mazda discontinued the 5 for a bunch of CUVs that fit less stuff in the same footprint. Somehow a lifted compact car with slats for windows is cooler to the average person.
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  Electic minivan costs over 100k, while tesla model y around 40…
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    EVs usually feature a frunk, so I don't see any reason they can't have a nice low front hood with good visibility and pedestrian safety.
    - dzhiurgis 3y ago
      It's impossible to even see front hood on tesla model y which sorta sucks for parking
  - ddlatham 3y ago
    You can get the Pacifica plug-in hybrid for about 50k before tax credits, or a used one for 25k.

bdcravens 3y ago

A lot of people drive compact SUVs, and most of the planned EVs fall into that category. I feel like sporty cars like the Mustang, Charger, modified Civics, etc are a greater risk.

1-6 3y ago

Not only do they destroy the environment, they tear up paving with the gross vehicle weight and heftier tires.

everybodyknows 3y ago

Well, there is the penalty at purchase time of the "gas guzzler tax": https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100F3YZ.PDF?Dockey=P100F3YZ.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100F3YZ.PDF?Dockey=P100... But guess what, the rates have not been raised since 1991! There's been some CPI inflation since then. The irrationality of Congressional energy policy continues evergreen.

everybodyknows 3y ago
Looking again, current regulation is even worse than first appears: > This tax does not apply to minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pick-up trucks. Congress did not impose a gas guzzler tax on these vehicle types because in 1978, at the time the law was enacted, they represented a relatively small fraction of the overall fleet of passenger vehicles and were used more for business purposes than personal transportation. And the proffered list of current vehicles is a 404! www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler

manonthewall 3y ago

I assure you that stuff is all considered into actuarial determination of how much the person is paying to get the SUV insured.