3 ms·

NHTSA regulation is only part of the story. The blurb at the bottom saying the reason isn't lack of consumer interest is wrong from my experience. Driving is da

NHTSA regulation is only part of the story. The blurb at the bottom saying the reason isn't lack of consumer interest is wrong from my experience. Driving is dangerous and roads are poorly designed so Americans are only interested in having a car bigger than the one driving next to you to protect themselves. Every time I see a Fiat on the road or even a VW buggy, the first thnig I hear from the people I'm driving with is "if they get in an accident they're dead." Poor regulation is how we got here but I don't see a way back.

alistairSH 2y ago
"Easy button" - increase the weight/tax curve on vehicle registrations or gasoline tax. It should be more expensive to operate a large SUV.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  Without the public infrastructure to support this, this is political suicide and a tax on families.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    A family can make do with a Civic-sized car. They don't NEED a Canyonero. Which is the whole point. :shrug:
    - rimunroe 2y ago
      Is that possible for families with three kids under the age of ~8? The requirements for how large a child must be before they can ride without a car seat have gone up significantly since I was a child, and it seems like strollers have gotten much bigger as well. I remember my two siblings and I being squeezed into the rear seats of the station wagon. Even when just one of us was in a car seat it was a tight fit. My siblings and I are roughly spaced 2.5 years apart. These days we would certainly have all been in car seats at the same time which would just not have worked. I have two short friends who live in the city and have two kids. When their second arrived (and their first was a toddler) they replaced their sedan with a "mini"-SUV specifically because it became difficult to fit all the things required for taking both kids somewhere at once, especially if they were flying.
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        It's been ages since I looked at child seats, and that is a valid concern. But, it doesn't change my stance on increasing the cost of owning a larger vehicle. Having a child is massively expensive as is it, adding a bit of cost to car ownership would hardly be a dent in that total. Right now, it's just too darn cheap to own one in the US, leading us to policy decisions that prevent smaller, more efficient, cheaper vehicles. And diminishing safety for non-car uses of public spaces. We'd all be safer, richer, and healthier if more of us could get by without owning large vehicles. And note you said "mini-SUV". I'm more concerned about the Escalade EXTs and super-cab pickup trucks and things.
        rimunroe 2y ago
        > But, it doesn't change my stance on increasing the cost of owning a larger vehicle. Makes sense, and fwiw that's not something I was trying to rebut. The article I read a while back argued that it might be good to relax the height/weight requirements on car seats. I can't remember exactly but I think it argued that a modest reduction in the requirements would result in an increase of ~30 deaths of child car occupants per-year and some larger number of injuries, but that the externality of reducing incentive for sizing up the family car would result in fewer childhood deaths in general (as well as reduce them for other age cohorts). > Right now, it's just too darn cheap to own one in the US, leading us to policy decisions that prevent smaller, more efficient, cheaper vehicles. And diminishing safety for non-car uses of public spaces. We'd all be safer, richer, and healthier if more of us could get by without owning large vehicles. Agreed. I'm really glad I live in a town with a centrally located bike path > And note you said "mini-SUV". I'm more concerned about the Escalade EXTs and super-cab pickup trucks and things. I ended up getting the same one (Hyundai Ioniq 5) but it's still larger than I'd like. Our other car is a Honda Fit, which--other than the legroom being a bit cramped and it not being electric--is the ideal car for me. The Ioniq doesn't have the insane completely vertical Everest-sized grills you see on the giant vehicles, but it's still much larger than the Fit. It also doesn't offer the driver the visibility of the Fit which makes me a smidge more nervous around small children, though it has cameras to somewhat compensate.
- falcolas 2y ago
  Not a disagreement, but `weight/tax curve on vehicle registrations` would disproportionately impact electric vehicles because of the weight of the batteries being included in their GVW. There's the argument that they shouldn't be on the road due to their higher weight, but I'll disagree with that line of argument in advance.
  - waynesonfire 2y ago
    that sounds live a desirable property given the loss of tax revenue on gas.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      There's definitely a gap to be filled there, but one lump sum yearly is a much bigger burden than a few cents every week or so.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Yep, there's a balance there somewhere and I haven't done anywhere near enough research to have a strong opinion. So, I'd tend to fall back on "mass is dangerous" when it comes to vehicles, regardless of ICE or EV. And my primary goal is making walking, cycling, or using alternative transportation (electric scooters, etc) more viable. Tangent: I'd love to replace my wife's BMW 2-series with a lightweight EV. Like an electric Miata or similar. But no such thing exists. :sad-trombone: The BMW is a porker - 3500lbs or so - beating that with an EV should be easy. It's our second car, so range could be a bit lower than some current offerings. No need for 300 mile range on a car that's primarily used to make 10 mile round-trips to the office during the week and 40 mile round-trips to family/friend's homes on the weekends.

alistairSH 2y ago

"Easy button" - increase the weight/tax curve on vehicle registrations or gasoline tax. It should be more expensive to operate a large SUV.

BadHumans 2y ago
Without the public infrastructure to support this, this is political suicide and a tax on families.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  A family can make do with a Civic-sized car. They don't NEED a Canyonero. Which is the whole point. :shrug:
  - rimunroe 2y ago
    Is that possible for families with three kids under the age of ~8? The requirements for how large a child must be before they can ride without a car seat have gone up significantly since I was a child, and it seems like strollers have gotten much bigger as well. I remember my two siblings and I being squeezed into the rear seats of the station wagon. Even when just one of us was in a car seat it was a tight fit. My siblings and I are roughly spaced 2.5 years apart. These days we would certainly have all been in car seats at the same time which would just not have worked. I have two short friends who live in the city and have two kids. When their second arrived (and their first was a toddler) they replaced their sedan with a "mini"-SUV specifically because it became difficult to fit all the things required for taking both kids somewhere at once, especially if they were flying.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      It's been ages since I looked at child seats, and that is a valid concern. But, it doesn't change my stance on increasing the cost of owning a larger vehicle. Having a child is massively expensive as is it, adding a bit of cost to car ownership would hardly be a dent in that total. Right now, it's just too darn cheap to own one in the US, leading us to policy decisions that prevent smaller, more efficient, cheaper vehicles. And diminishing safety for non-car uses of public spaces. We'd all be safer, richer, and healthier if more of us could get by without owning large vehicles. And note you said "mini-SUV". I'm more concerned about the Escalade EXTs and super-cab pickup trucks and things.
      - rimunroe 2y ago
        > But, it doesn't change my stance on increasing the cost of owning a larger vehicle. Makes sense, and fwiw that's not something I was trying to rebut. The article I read a while back argued that it might be good to relax the height/weight requirements on car seats. I can't remember exactly but I think it argued that a modest reduction in the requirements would result in an increase of ~30 deaths of child car occupants per-year and some larger number of injuries, but that the externality of reducing incentive for sizing up the family car would result in fewer childhood deaths in general (as well as reduce them for other age cohorts). > Right now, it's just too darn cheap to own one in the US, leading us to policy decisions that prevent smaller, more efficient, cheaper vehicles. And diminishing safety for non-car uses of public spaces. We'd all be safer, richer, and healthier if more of us could get by without owning large vehicles. Agreed. I'm really glad I live in a town with a centrally located bike path > And note you said "mini-SUV". I'm more concerned about the Escalade EXTs and super-cab pickup trucks and things. I ended up getting the same one (Hyundai Ioniq 5) but it's still larger than I'd like. Our other car is a Honda Fit, which--other than the legroom being a bit cramped and it not being electric--is the ideal car for me. The Ioniq doesn't have the insane completely vertical Everest-sized grills you see on the giant vehicles, but it's still much larger than the Fit. It also doesn't offer the driver the visibility of the Fit which makes me a smidge more nervous around small children, though it has cameras to somewhat compensate.
falcolas 2y ago
Not a disagreement, but `weight/tax curve on vehicle registrations` would disproportionately impact electric vehicles because of the weight of the batteries being included in their GVW. There's the argument that they shouldn't be on the road due to their higher weight, but I'll disagree with that line of argument in advance.
- waynesonfire 2y ago
  that sounds live a desirable property given the loss of tax revenue on gas.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    There's definitely a gap to be filled there, but one lump sum yearly is a much bigger burden than a few cents every week or so.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Yep, there's a balance there somewhere and I haven't done anywhere near enough research to have a strong opinion. So, I'd tend to fall back on "mass is dangerous" when it comes to vehicles, regardless of ICE or EV. And my primary goal is making walking, cycling, or using alternative transportation (electric scooters, etc) more viable. Tangent: I'd love to replace my wife's BMW 2-series with a lightweight EV. Like an electric Miata or similar. But no such thing exists. :sad-trombone: The BMW is a porker - 3500lbs or so - beating that with an EV should be easy. It's our second car, so range could be a bit lower than some current offerings. No need for 300 mile range on a car that's primarily used to make 10 mile round-trips to the office during the week and 40 mile round-trips to family/friend's homes on the weekends.