Author Topic: Bigger SUVs and pickups are outgrowing home garages, public parking spaces!  (Read 10151 times)

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not?  What bearing does it have on your life?
Larger vehicles, compared to smaller:
- require more resources to manufacture
- require more resources to keep going
- wear out roads more, something like 20 times faster than regular cars (source 1)
- are more likely to kill people; "the relative risk of death among occupants of passenger cars that are involved in crashes with light trucks is approximately 47:1 compared to crashes involving similar size vehicles" (source 2)
- while driving, they are slower to start and stop, which slows the flow of traffic
- while driving, they obscure the view of other drivers, which slows the flow of traffic (I don't know if it's safe to turn if I can't see past the turning vehicle in front of me)
- while parked, they obscure the view of other drivers, making collisions with pedestrians walking out from between parked vehicles more likely
- as the article notes, they take up more parking space and don't fit in garages, which means they'll make road space smaller, making it more difficult to drive down regular streets
- their larger size will force shopping centres etc to offer fewer but larger parking spaces, meaning less parking for everyone else


Larger vehicles cause more environmental damage, road damage, death and injury, and inconvenience than smaller vehicles. And most people who get them simply don't need them just to get from A to B.

bigblock440

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
snip
- wear out roads more, something like 20 times faster than regular cars (source 1)

snip

Yeah, that's BS.  A Hummer H2 doesn't weigh a ton and a half more than a Chevy Tahoe.  It is a Chevy Tahoe with different sheetmetal.  1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks don't even weigh 8,600 lbs. 
The road damage a vehicle causes is axle weight to the 4th power.  Assuming a 3k lb car and a 6k lb truck, both with 2 axles, the truck will cause 15.8x the damage of the car.  Sounds big, but move on to what else is on the roads, semi trucks and buses.  A 33k lb bus causes 12,850x the damage of a car, and a smaller 20k lb bus still causes 1,961x the damage.  An 80k lb semi truck coincidentally falls into the same range as the bus, thanks to 3 more axles to spread the load.

Fishindude

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2628
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yeah, I guess they need large vehicles so they can fit their mobility scooters in them.

The_Big_H

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.

Make y'all a deal then.  Not one dime of of taxes collected on rural communities leaves the countryside.  Not one dime of tax collected in the suburbs leaves the suburbs... and not one dime of taxes collected from a big city dweller & big city business goes to subsidize suburban/rural life.

Lets see how that works out.

That bike lane costs a fraction of a percent of the high speed highway network (rural highways are not cheap)

« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 06:10:56 PM by The_Big_H »

The_Big_H

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Yeah, I guess they need large vehicles so they can fit their mobility scooters in them.

How else will they get to the gun show where they will single handedly protect their freedom from the big city government.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 06:15:34 PM by The_Big_H »

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Location: Germany
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.

They would, if you would just take away all those 20 times more expensive roads!

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Alternately, the people in pickups could get on their bicycles. Given that 70% of the Western world is overweight or obese, spending a bit more time moving under your own power could be good for you. And improved cardiovascular and lung fitness is protective against communicable lung disease, you know.

What's good for the environment turns out to be good for our bodies. Who would have thought it?

Turnbull

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
8' truck beds have been the standard for decades; it's only recently that short beds have gotten popular because of the prevalence of quad-cabs. I had actually done some research on this a couple months ago as I spotted a new standard cab, long bed Chevy in the wild and it looked awkward as hell. If you really want to see ungainly, the Tundra is still offered in this config but I've never seen one in the flesh.

IMO, you lose a TON of utility with anything less than full-size, even with the tailgate down (this is where I think the new GMC Multipro tailgate really shines). Then you get the knuckleheads that throw a hard tonneau cover on them (just about everyone in the parking lot here at work) which restricts their usefulness even further. Silly.


A few years ago I bought a 2006 Tundra because that was the last year they offered the long bed with the six speed stick. I think I paid $4800 and I couldn't be happier with it. I live on ten acres with an orchard in a rural area and use that long bed all the time.

Turnbull, I think you might have a collector's item on your hands. I didn't realize Toyota ceased production of those in '18. According to one article, out of 43,800 sold in 2017, only 175 were long-box.

I tip my hat to a guy where I work...in a sea of fancy-pants King Ranches and Denalis, he ordered himself a new Chevy truck. Standard cab, long box, painted bumpers, cloth seats and crank windows. Bet it's got vinyl floormats, too.


Only 175 out of 43,800?!? That's wild.

I do see standard cab, long bed Tundras like mine out on the road every once in a while but of course there's no way to know if it's a six speed when it's just driving the opposite way.

GreenToTheCore

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.

Cool, I'd be happy to go back to riding straight in the middle of the lane.
Bike lanes were created to increase comfort, they wouldn't be needed if we all shared the road we already had.
I find all the bike lane hate kinda funny since many BLs are using the pre-existing shoulder/gutter that was already there. Now there's just a bike symbol painted in 'em.

Do they get angry at all the medians and suicide lanes, too? In my neck of the woods, they're generally larger than BLs.
I feel like there's something wrong with our traffic design when trees and bushes get their own protected area that are huge compared to lanes for bicyclists...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 01:34:04 PM by GreenToTheCore »

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Bike lanes were created to increase comfort, they wouldn't be needed if we all shared the road we already had.

Yup, basically every state has laws that say you need to give cyclists 3'+ when you pass them. Bike lanes exist because too many people were breaking the law, and often killing cyclists.

mwulff

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
I think it's time to revisit these posts:

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-work-truck-say-about-you/

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/

As a European here is my take on the whole thing:

1. The usage of large pickups, suvs and partly cars in the US is complete and utter bullshit. They are too big for their own good.

2. There is no need for a normal sized family (2 parents, 2 kids) to be driving anything much larger than a Toyota Corolla.

3. Pickup trucks and vans are work-vehicles. They are not intended as private vehicles.

4. Optimal family car is somewhere around a VW Golf. Small-ish, nimble, safe and relatively cheap to run/own. A tow-hitch improves on utility enormously. See https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/12/08/turning-a-little-car-into-a-big-one/

5. Rent larger vehicle if needed

6. If you have 3 children or more you are allowed a bigger vehicle. :)

But I don't get the american car habit, it's just costing people a crap ton of money and it brings nothing but service costs and financial misery. Plus obviously huge parking-problems and garages that are too small.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3358
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
As a European...I don't get the american car habit


Edited your post for accuracy.

Iíve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldnít get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we donít generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you donít have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.

The_Big_H

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
As a European...I don't get the american car habit


Edited your post for accuracy.

Iíve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldnít get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we donít generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you donít have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.

In the us we adapted our environment to suit the cars
In Europe they adapted the cars to suit their environment

The gas should be priced to account for the actual (environmental and financial) cost. . The trucks are cheap because of an asinine loophole they get out of being regulated like private vehicles because our law assumed they would only be used for work. The law should be amended to account for actual use of the vehicle.

Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both.  Look at key west. Perfect example of a constricted space where you could have easily built the whole place to be carefree and not lose any mobility and gain a ton of space (like a euro city). Nope our slavish car culture affects any place regardless of space availability.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Location: Germany
Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both.
This.

The difference between the USA and bycicle country netherlands?
They stopped building "car combatible" cities and build a bycicle compatible country.
Traffic death und noise plummeted, health skyrocketed.

Build it and they will use it. (Which is btw. why more roads don't solve traffic jams in the long run. It just means that people can now travel farer into the suburban sprawl in the same time.)

mwulff

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
As a European...I don't get the american car habit


Edited your post for accuracy.

Iíve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldnít get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we donít generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you donít have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.

:)

I've travelled quite extensively in the US and while you are definitely correct with the regards to non-urban space and gas prices, the fact remains that people are draining their wallets with car payments, crazy gas consumption and insuring huge expensive vehicles.

So I stand by my statement that most US citizens would benefit from adopting a more european attitude towards vehicles. Smaller is actually sometimes better and most of the time it's cheaper too.

So the american car habit actually still makes no sense ;)

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4423
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
We've owned a VW Golf and its a very good car. That said by American standards it is not a good long distance family car. I'd have to go up a class size to the next bigger car for long distance travel if there were more than a couple of people in it.

We drove our's many hours to the beach once. Two adults plus baby and a week's worth of stuff. Perfectly capable car but packed tight. A Passat wagon would have been much more comfortable.

The Golf would be an excellent general purpose commuter or car for two people for even long distances.

The back seat is either a luggage area or seating - can't be both.

Cadman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
  • Location: Midwest
Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both.
This.

The difference between the USA and bycicle country netherlands?
They stopped building "car combatible" cities and build a bycicle compatible country.
Traffic death und noise plummeted, health skyrocketed.

Build it and they will use it. (Which is btw. why more roads don't solve traffic jams in the long run. It just means that people can now travel farer into the suburban sprawl in the same time.)

Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield. Many engineers travel 30-60 miles each day on interstates from all directions to get to work. "Designing for people" like many EU countries doesn't actually solve any of these problems. 

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2370
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both.
This.

The difference between the USA and bycicle country netherlands?
They stopped building "car combatible" cities and build a bycicle compatible country.
Traffic death und noise plummeted, health skyrocketed.

Build it and they will use it. (Which is btw. why more roads don't solve traffic jams in the long run. It just means that people can now travel farer into the suburban sprawl in the same time.)

Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield. Many engineers travel 30-60 miles each day on interstates from all directions to get to work. "Designing for people" like many EU countries doesn't actually solve any of these problems.
European cities, unlike US cities, started and grew in an era where most of the population got about by foot. This was prior to the invention of the bicycle, in an era where horses, oxen, and wagons were scarce. Long distance travel wasn't a regular thing, and it took months or years to get across a continent. Walled cities and fortresses were a necessity due to centuries of warfare that began before the introduction of flat trajectory weapons and continued through the development of the cannon. Those walls didn't become obsolete until after the Crimean War or perhaps WW1. People were packed in very closely and the population density tended to be high. So smallpox and cholera were rampant but so was public transit and cities are highly walkable even now.

By contrast, most of the cities in the United States were developed after the invention of the steam driven locomotive and the internal combustion engine. Walled forts existed on the frontier because of retaliatory attacks from First Nations tribes who objected to the ongoing presence of settlers who were surging across the border in defiance of their own country's laws and some very clearly worded treaties. Ongoing land based sieges weren't an everyday occurrence. Most people who migrated across long distances had access to horses and/or oxen. The big population expansions in the West didn't come until after WW1 when automobiles were commonplace. Things therefore were built in a car-centric way. Except in HCOL areas where the population density is very high, people still don't live in close proximity to each other. This has unfortunately deterred the development of non-car transit infrastructure. Furthermore, as development progressed it was done without easements or other provision for public transit. The longer municipalities delayed subway or light rail projects, the more businesses and homes were affected by the construction and the more difficult it became to move the capital improvement projects forward. Most cities in the United States are about 100 years behind the times in terms of public transit for these reasons.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3358
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Weíre also seeing the limits of public transportation suddenly. I commute via train, but elected to drive in to downtown Chicago today for some meetings I had (will WFH rest of the week) but weíre being told to stay off of public transportation.  You can laugh at a car all you want but sure was nice to have that flexibility today even though the drive sucked.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Location: Germany

Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.

There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8633
As a European...I don't get the american car habit


Edited your post for accuracy.

Iíve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldnít get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we donít generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you donít have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.
We were there this summer, and we got a "free upgrade" to a small SUV (Nissan something or other).  It was a PITA!  Our AirBNB had underground parking and it took a 15 point turn to get into it every time we left.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5868

Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.

There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.

A large percentage of people see "rural" as "not in a city next to the coasts."

The word basically is meaningless now imo.

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.

Yup. I've spent time in rural Scotland. Do you know how many full size pickup trucks I've seen? Zero. Even on sheep farms.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
It's cultural, not practical.

six-car-habit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391

Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.

There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.

LennStar - do you have regular bus or train service between the place you were born and the small city 40 km away ?    Here, as i'm sure you know, many people would not think twice about living 40Km away from their job in the city if they owned a car / truck to bring them there.

 Also, I imagine it is a small % of the population, but some of the folks seeing that US sized truck would feel their hearts moved by lust and desire to own something similar

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Location: Germany

Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.

There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.

LennStar - do you have regular bus or train service between the place you were born and the small city 40 km away ?    Here, as i'm sure you know, many people would not think twice about living 40Km away from their job in the city if they owned a car / truck to bring them there.

 Also, I imagine it is a small % of the population, but some of the folks seeing that US sized truck would feel their hearts moved by lust and desire to own something similar

Yes, of course there are such things like buses and trains. We in Europe think it's better to have those.

Still don't know what that has to do with pickup trucks. Hundreds, of not thousands of people have to commute daily, including to the 2 big cities both 40km away. Most drive by car. And in the last years increasingly in SUVs, unfortunately.

Nobody is denying that there are many people who might love to drive such a truck. (Those who have changed to SUVs now for example).
What we do say that those trucks are stupid.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6097
  • Location: Avalon
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Location: Germany
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.

This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.

And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).

six-car-habit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391

Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.

There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.

LennStar - do you have regular bus or train service between the place you were born and the small city 40 km away ?    Here, as i'm sure you know, many people would not think twice about living 40Km away from their job in the city if they owned a car / truck to bring them there.

 Also, I imagine it is a small % of the population, but some of the folks seeing that US sized truck would feel their hearts moved by lust and desire to own something similar

Yes, of course there are such things like buses and trains. We in Europe think it's better to have those.

Still don't know what that has to do with pickup trucks. Hundreds, of not thousands of people have to commute daily, including to the 2 big cities both 40km away. Most drive by car. And in the last years increasingly in SUVs, unfortunately.

Nobody is denying that there are many people who might love to drive such a truck. (Those who have changed to SUVs now for example).
What we do say that those trucks are stupid.

 I realize you have buses and trains, just as we do. What i meant was, are there bus / train schedules+ routes that run between your hometown and the city ? [ on a fairly regular basis - such that those working a different shift than dayshift can use them ] .  I think you answered my question by saying most folks drive by car.  In my area there are no trains. A Person can't get 40km by bus after 7pm.  So we drive. And some choose to use a pickup as their method of transport. And some choose an SUV, which you are now seeing increased popularity in your area.  I suppose you could anticipate seeing more personal trucks in your country in the next several years, despite the general disdain for them.

bigblock440

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.

This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.

And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).

Hell, he just banned compact cars too, anything bigger than a Dodge Neon would be over the limit.

Optimiser

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Age: 37
  • Location: PNW
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.

This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.

And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).

Base model 2020 Prius is 3010 lbs. So pretty damn close to 1.5 tons. Older models are even lighter.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.

This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.

And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).

Base model 2020 Prius is 3010 lbs. So pretty damn close to 1.5 tons. Older models are even lighter.

Leafs, Bolts, Volts, Model 3s, Prius Primes, etc. all are considerably over 1.5t (3500-4000lb+). Batteries are _heavy_.

We can argue the specifics all you want, but we'd be blowing past the actual point. Arbitrary limits based on the needs of only a subset of the population are intrinsically counter-productive.

A very large subset of folks do, in fact, require more than a compact ICE vehicle. A smaller, but still significant subset of folks even need giant full size trucks for non-commerical uses.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2020, 02:12:56 PM by MilesTeg »

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3848
  • Location: State: Denial
Heh, under 1.5 tons?  I think the only vehicle that matches that description that would also transport our family of eight would be one of those oversized golf carts.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17212
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.

Great.  Now I want a sword to carry around.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are, excluding motorcycle and marine

Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)

Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Location: Germany
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.

This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.

And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).

I admit in hindsight that I should have marked the Irony. In regards of stupid and legal/illegal. Still interesting result. 

Quote
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this.
And if complaining does not work, they lobby for regulations that fit their advertising "needs".
For example my 1083kg car is efficiency class D while most SUVs are B. I may use 1/4 less fuel even with a 10 year older car, but I only move half the tons, so of course it is less efficient.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17212
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are, excluding motorcycle and marine

Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)

Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.

Yep.  This is a great idea.  Might also get some people who drive large top heavy SUVs like they're small cars to figure out what they're doing wrong too.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are, excluding motorcycle and marine

Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)

Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.

Yep.  This is a great idea.  Might also get some people who drive large top heavy SUVs like they're small cars to figure out what they're doing wrong too.

No, this is another arbitrary hoop to jump through that will accomplish nothing (edit: other than better driver education, of course). The solution is very straightforward: make drivers bear (and be privy to) the full cost of operating their vehicles and the problem will be solved (as much as any complex problem can be solved). That means no subsidies on fuel, funding all road building and construction with taxes directly on vehicles, an ownership tax that scales with weight/usage not age/value of the vehicle, etc. Commercial use can remain tax deductible to mitigate those cost issues.

It will also have the happy side effect of reducing related problems such as commuter culture and the idiocy of Amazon, et al. that will happily send you a single item with 100 lbs of packaging.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 10:32:20 AM by MilesTeg »

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
In Australia the spending on roads etc jumps around madly year to year. The revenue comes at the state level from vehicle registration fees of around $1,000 (depending) and fuel excise (ie some cost per litre). This tells us that the road spending is about $69 billion and the revenue $45 billion. Motorists already pay most of the costs of roads. The excise is $0.423/lt on ordinary petrol. Let's say we double it so that the total revenue exceeds the road costs - the fuel price would rise $0.423/lt. Now, that sounds like a lot, but in the last year before the OPEC price war and virus, fuel prices have varied between $1.20 and $1.75/lt, and it didn't have much effect at all on consumption. That is, the normal price variation over the course of a year was greater than what a doubling of the fuel excise would achieve - and people still drove a lot.

Now, I don't object to this as such. People should pay for what they use. But if you want to discourage people from driving larger vehicles, or from driving a lot, a simple consumption tax with no accompanying measures doesn't work. Taxes on tobacco worked to reduce consumption because you don't have to smoke. But you do have to have transport, particularly if we've designed cities so that our workplaces are far from our homes - good old residential suburbia full of NIMBYs.


If I've bought a house 30km from work (because that's the only place I can afford to buy) and there's no local public transport to that workplace, well then I'm going to drive whether petrol is $1 a litre or $3. Because spending that money on transport enables me to earn more money than the cost of that transport.

Obviously, if the price of transport exceeded my earnings, I would then stop. If it costs $200 to get to work and I earn $150 at work I'll stay home and not burn fuel. And there's probably some point of cost before my daily earnings of $150 where I'll stop and not bother. However, the basic issue is: I have no alternative.

So if we were to increase the petrol tax (or vehicle registration, or bring in a congestion charge, whatever, same shit, different shovel) then we'd have to use the revenue to offer options. Give me cheaper housing closer to work, and/or improve public transport. It's like with my kids: if I just tell them to eat their dinner, they don't. If I tell them, "dinner, or bed? your choice!" then they scarf it down.

Don't merely tax the thing you want to discourage, offer alternatives you want to encourage. Like the people I train in the gym: I don't just tell them, "don't do that", I add, "do this."




VaCPA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 253
We have a 1970 house, with a small 1 car garage addition. Our Toyota Sienna minivan won't fit. Luckily the Nissan Rogue I drive does fit, so I guess I won(inadvertently)

BigIslandGuy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: Texas
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not?  What bearing does it have on your life?

Iím legitimately trying to understand why people are so invested in how other people spend money. I understand the environmental thing, but there difference here is negligible. So what is it?

Trucks > minivans > cars in terms of danger to pedestrian and bicyclists. That's more than enough by itself.

As a lifelong truck guy it bugs me how many people here bag on trucks. In fact I just bought a (new to me) 2014 F-150 Supercab with a 6.5" bed 4x4.  It allowed be to get rid of both a F350 dually and a Nissan Leaf electric.  Yes its big, yes inefficient. But I use it when i do drive (not often), I like it, and there's no way in hell I would drive a minivan. And its not blocking anyones sidewalk. Here in Texas, its the "go-to" vehicle, and it makes alot of sense for my lifestyle. So all you anti truck fascists can kiss my grits!  :) 

And now that I think about it, I bet 99% of the complainers live in a house thats 10x the size of mine. I built a 200 sq. feet tiny house because that works for me. But I dont run around calling normal house dwellers "anti-social" or rude for choosing a regular size home ((wasteful, inefficient, consumptive)). So quit complaining about people who choose a larger vehicle than you do.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2020, 12:16:14 PM by BigIslandGuy »

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3848
  • Location: State: Denial
I'm genuinely curious--what is your objection to driving a minivan?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17212
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are, excluding motorcycle and marine

Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)

Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.

Yep.  This is a great idea.  Might also get some people who drive large top heavy SUVs like they're small cars to figure out what they're doing wrong too.

No, this is another arbitrary hoop to jump through that will accomplish nothing (edit: other than better driver education, of course). The solution is very straightforward: make drivers bear (and be privy to) the full cost of operating their vehicles and the problem will be solved (as much as any complex problem can be solved). That means no subsidies on fuel, funding all road building and construction with taxes directly on vehicles, an ownership tax that scales with weight/usage not age/value of the vehicle, etc. Commercial use can remain tax deductible to mitigate those cost issues.

It will also have the happy side effect of reducing related problems such as commuter culture and the idiocy of Amazon, et al. that will happily send you a single item with 100 lbs of packaging.

I like your idea too . . . but think that driving a loaded F350 towing stuff is wildly different than driving a Geo metro.  Driver's safety is the main reason that a separate license should be required for the vehicle, but that this additional step would likely also discourage (at least some) people who don't really have a need for a heavy truck from buying one.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14037
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not?  What bearing does it have on your life?

Iím legitimately trying to understand why people are so invested in how other people spend money. I understand the environmental thing, but there difference here is negligible. So what is it?

Trucks > minivans > cars in terms of danger to pedestrian and bicyclists. That's more than enough by itself.

As a lifelong truck guy it bugs me how many people here bag on trucks. In fact I just bought a (new to me) 2014 F-150 Supercab with a 6.5" bed 4x4.  It allowed be to get rid of both a F350 dually and a Nissan Leaf electric.  Yes its big, yes inefficient. But I use it when i do drive (not often), I like it, and there's no way in hell I would drive a minivan. And its not blocking anyones sidewalk. Here in Texas, its the "go-to" vehicle, and it makes alot of sense for my lifestyle. So all you anti truck fascists can kiss my grits!  :) 

I'm genuinely curious--what is your objection to driving a minivan?

Count me curious too.  Why not a minivan?

The_Big_H

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
In Australia the spending on roads etc jumps around madly year to year. The revenue comes at the state level from vehicle registration fees of around $1,000 (depending) and fuel excise (ie some cost per litre). This tells us that the road spending is about $69 billion and the revenue $45 billion. Motorists already pay most of the costs of roads. The excise is $0.423/lt on ordinary petrol. Let's say we double it so that the total revenue exceeds the road costs - the fuel price would rise $0.423/lt. Now, that sounds like a lot, but in the last year before the OPEC price war and virus, fuel prices have varied between $1.20 and $1.75/lt, and it didn't have much effect at all on consumption. That is, the normal price variation over the course of a year was greater than what a doubling of the fuel excise would achieve - and people still drove a lot.

Now, I don't object to this as such. People should pay for what they use. But if you want to discourage people from driving larger vehicles, or from driving a lot, a simple consumption tax with no accompanying measures doesn't work. Taxes on tobacco worked to reduce consumption because you don't have to smoke. But you do have to have transport, particularly if we've designed cities so that our workplaces are far from our homes - good old residential suburbia full of NIMBYs.


If I've bought a house 30km from work (because that's the only place I can afford to buy) and there's no local public transport to that workplace, well then I'm going to drive whether petrol is $1 a litre or $3. Because spending that money on transport enables me to earn more money than the cost of that transport.

Obviously, if the price of transport exceeded my earnings, I would then stop. If it costs $200 to get to work and I earn $150 at work I'll stay home and not burn fuel. And there's probably some point of cost before my daily earnings of $150 where I'll stop and not bother. However, the basic issue is: I have no alternative.

So if we were to increase the petrol tax (or vehicle registration, or bring in a congestion charge, whatever, same shit, different shovel) then we'd have to use the revenue to offer options. Give me cheaper housing closer to work, and/or improve public transport. It's like with my kids: if I just tell them to eat their dinner, they don't. If I tell them, "dinner, or bed? your choice!" then they scarf it down.

Don't merely tax the thing you want to discourage, offer alternatives you want to encourage. Like the people I train in the gym: I don't just tell them, "don't do that", I add, "do this."

So, we tax the snot out of gas, private-non-business trucks, other needlessly large vehicles, ...
Use the money to build efficient bus/tram public transportation and walk/bike lanes all over the place.

I can go with that.


BigIslandGuy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: Texas
I'm genuinely curious--what is your objection to driving a minivan?

I've never liked the look or ride of a minivan. They are designed for a family that I don't have. I am a solo, single, person. And lack key features I need, such as 4x4, ability to tow 10,000 pounds. Also, they seem wimpy to me in a way that I cant put my finger on., although I had no issue driving a little Nissan Leaf EV hatchback, but for some reason a minivan is repulsive.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
So, we tax the snot out of gas, private-non-business trucks, other needlessly large vehicles, ...
Use the money to build efficient bus/tram public transportation and walk/bike lanes all over the place.

I can go with that.
Pretty much, yes.

Though interestingly, recent events might make all this talk redundant. We're learning that a lot of jobs that couldn't possibly be done from home, said the middle managers - well it now turns out they can. Which means less people driving around and less people using public transport. But lots more people walking and cycling for leisure.

Large shopping centres are also becoming less attractive to people, and smaller shops more. So we may see some changes there.

I don't think the changes will be dramatic, people aren't going to send their cars off to scrap just yet. But there'll be less use of them.