this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024

100 points (91.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9505 readers

8 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

uthredii@lemmy.ml

uthredii@beehaw.org

100

A 7,000-Pound Car Smashed Through a Guardrail. That’s Bad News for All of Us. (slate.com)

submitted 5 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] anothercatgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 5 months ago (2 children)

vehicles over 5000 lbs should pay a tax, which should be used to upgrade infrastructure. This tax would likely be very steep.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, because rich assholes who drive these guided missiles would just pay the tax and continue to put us all at risk.

They should be banned, unless required for work... while at work... with proof that this work requires such a large vehicle to be used.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And also a specialised license with mandatory training and a harder exam to make sure the person operating the vehicle is able to do so.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago

Yes, a large vehicle licence/training should be mandatory for those who can prove they need to drive such a large vehicle. I think the days of SUVs being "cute" family vehicles is long gone. Now, they are just M1 Abrams' that just happen to have rubber tires and go fast.

[+] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

I have to drive a pickup for work, why should I have a very steep tax for helping to build and fix your housing?

[–] tophneal@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can't tell if /s or not... Infrastructure isn't housing, it's roads, bridges, etc

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Great, but the question stands, why should I be penelized for needing a vehicle that fixes and builds your housing?

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what they do where you live, but here we have license plates for work vehicles and personal vehicles. Work vehicles are subject to different tax and rules. This tax would apply to personal vehicles, ideally, as those are the problem.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why should work vehicles be harder to use and get higher taxes?

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why should my tax dollars go to maintaining your highways when I don't own a car?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Gas tax does that.

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, it doesn't. Gas tax goes into the tax pool which is used to pay for most things that taxes pay for. We all pay for roads just as we all pay for hospitals, regardless of if we personally use them.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The taxes for larger vehicles is already done, it goes into the same pool that pays for maintenance. If you think the government is not fixing the roads as it should, that is a sepperate issue.

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

You have a 1 ton truck. The article refers to a 3.5 ton vehicle, presumably a personal car. Why are you fighting as if this is directed at you?

I've read the rest of your comments and must simply conclude that you are either here to troll or have literally no insight into how countries are run. The rest of your profile (because I did look, I'm a loser) gives off an 'arguing for the sake of arguing' / Devils Advocate vibe. If you are actually here in good faith, I recommend you look up what roads cost and hopefully realize that roads and subsidized and a net loss. If your "gas tax" actually did pay for your road usage, you would not be able to afford gas, and the 3.5 ton vehicles roaming around out there certainly do not pay their fair share in terms of damage to the roads. Road damage is exponential to vehicle weight.

[–] simpleTailor@startrek.website 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Great question.

The better pitch is to consider the "tax" like an additional permit with increased costs, including mandatory more expensive insurance. It's the cost of doing business, wrapped into your overhead. The disparity between the large pickups and the smaller sedans of yesteryear are staggering; imagine if you could buy and operate a semi truck with the same costs and licensing as a sedan. Trailers parked in front of your house completely obscuring the street, or taking up extra spots at the grocery store. People who don't know the size of their vehicle knocking over signs and mailboxes. More roadkill, dead pets, and pedestrian fatalities because there are so many blind spots for such a big truck.

Obviously, pickups and semis are still quite different in size, but the point is that pickups and large SUVs are now so much bigger than sedans--bigger than what we built our streets and bridges for--that they present additional danger.

Larger vehicles cause more wear and tear on the road just by driving on them
collisions and accidents are more destructive and fatal due to the more deadly shape and weight
blind spots are bigger, making the vehicle more dangerous for anyone outside of it
effects of distracted driving are compounded
irresponsible drivers get to drive these larger vehicles without any additional barrier to entry

In short: these machines can be used to perform specific tasks, but they are not the same size, shape, or weight of our lived environment. Additional regulation is needed to offset the real effects on people and infrastructure (e.g., more difficult licensing, higher registration fees, higher tolls, etc.).

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Everything you mention should be accounted for by higher insurance and the gas tax.

I think what we are running into is the conflict between freedom vs safety. I think it will get more apparent as people are not able to afford things that we have reached the point where we have too much regulation and things will get too expensive for people to afford.

[–] Landsharkgun@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nah. People can't drive a bus or a semi without a CDL. It's not hard to get, sure, but you still have to go through at least some training and weeding out process, because those vehicles are more dangerous than a car. Bigger SUVs are now reaching that point, particularly if standard safety infrastructure is not designed for them. Once you hit that point, any person's freedom to drive it is outweighed by the freedom of everyone else to not be threatened by it. We can either redo every damn road in America, while also accepting much higher death rates, or we can limit these larger vehicles. Pretty obvious what the better option is.

[–] simpleTailor@startrek.website 1 points 5 months ago

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "regulation". Increasing the cost, such as by mandating higher and more comprehensive insurance, or instituting a gas tax are both regulatory measures.

[–] DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why should you AS a member of society contribute to its betterment? You must know that driving over potholes with a pickup truck full of Materials and equipment tends to have negative consequences

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The gas tax should about pay for the potholes. But do you really think the cost of filling potholes is that much relative to the size of the government?

[+] LovesTha@floss.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] ajsadauskas@aus.social 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

@LovesTha @CableMonster @DriftinGrifter Okay, let's break this one down a little bit:

The typical size and weight of pickup trucks has increased massively since the '90s:

"Since 1990, U.S. pickup trucks have added almost 1,300 pounds on average. Some of the biggest vehicles on the market now weigh almost 7,000 pounds — or about three Honda Civics."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/the-dangerous-rise-of-the-supersized-pickup-truck

"Moreover, pickups’ weight increased by 32% between 1990 and 2021 ... In the 1980s, about half of pickup trucks were categorized as small or midsize. But by the 2010s, small pickups had nearly vanished as Americans increasingly bought into the big truck lifestyle."

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/23/pickup-trucks-f150-size-weight-safety

Pick-ups are also larger than their '90s counterparts:

"A [Consumer Reports] analysis of industry data shows that the hood height of passenger trucks has increased by an average of at least 11 percent since 2000 and that new pickups grew 24 percent heavier on average from 2000 to 2018. On some heavy-duty trucks, such as the Ford F-250, the front edge of the hood is now 55 inches or more off the ground—as tall as the roof of some sedans."

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/

Paradoxically, pick up trucks made before the '90s had more capacity for transporting construction supplies and equipment than their new counterparts:

"As pickups transitioned from workhorses to lifestyle vehicles, their design shifted accordingly: Cabs expanded to accommodate more passengers, while beds shrank.

"The first generation of F-150s was 36% cab and 64% bed by length. By 2021, the ratio flipped, with 63% cab and 37% bed."

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/23/pickup-trucks-f150-size-weight-safety

Each time you double the weight of a vehicle, you cause roughly 16 times as much pavement damage:

"The generalized fourth-power law explains why road damage is disproportionately inflicted by the heftiest vehicles. Developed after extensive federal roadway testing during the 1950s, the law is a rule of thumb showing that roadway stress caused by two vehicles is a function of their relative weight per axle scaled to the fourth power. As a result, a single 80,000-pound auto hauler with five axles can cause around 4,000 times the destruction of a two-ton car."

https://slate.com/business/2023/06/electric-vehicles-auto-haulers-weight-capacity-roads.html

In Australia, main roads are generally funded by federal and state governments through a mix of fuel excise and consolidated revenue. Local streets, which account for most of the road network, are funded by local councils through rates.
Despite the added cost, receive several tax breaks under Australia's tax code.

"Temporary Full Expensing allowed for vehicles to be claimed as an immediate, one-off tax deductible expense, and while that deduction was capped at $60,000 for passenger vehicles, there was no limit for vehicles that can carry at least a tonne.

"And the Loss Carry Back tax offset allows a business to claim the purchase of a new vehicle against the previous year's profits if that vehicle creates a net loss for the business."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-09/australian-cars-getting-bigger-should-government-intervene/103287604

(1/3)

[–] ajsadauskas@aus.social 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@LovesTha @CableMonster @DriftinGrifter So pick-up trucks are now typically larger, heavier, and cause more road damage than their '90s counterparts.

All while having smaller cabs, making them less effective tools for transporting construction supplies and equipment.

Then there's the higher pollution. This leads to more frequent and severe bushfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes and heatwaves.

"Currently, automakers must hit a fleet-wide target for cars of 181 grams of CO2 emitted per mile, but 261 for light trucks, a 36 percent difference. By 2026, cars must average out to 132 grams of CO2 per mile compared with 187 for light trucks, a 34 percent difference."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abk7b/bidens-new-fuel-economy-standards-still-allow-cars-to-pollute-more-if-theyre-not-called-cars

The 2023 Australian floods alone, which were directly linked to ocean warming (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/18/everything-is-saturated-whats-driving-the-latest-floods-in-eastern-australia ), had a cost of $5 billion:

"Treasurer Jim Chalmers has warned economic pressure from natural disasters will continue through 2023 after modelling showed severe flooding across the country last year cost the economy $5 billion."

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/floods-cost-economy-5-billion-last-year-20230112-p5cc1t.html

Then there's the added costs of higher fatalities from larger, heavier vehicles:

"More than 7,500 pedestrians were killed by drivers last year — the highest number since 1981. The final tally may be even greater given that Oklahoma was unable to provide data due to a technical issue."

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deaths-high-traffic-car

"The chances of a pedestrian dying in a single-vehicle crash were 68 percent higher when that vehicle was a light truck relative to a car, all else being equal.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/

More tailpipe emissions means more deaths and hospitalisations:

"Tailpipe pollution contributes to the premature death of 11,105 Australians every year, according to new research.

"The modelling from the University of Melbourne claims vehicle emissions in Australia are also to blame for more than 12,000 hospitalisations annually due to cardiovascular issues, along with almost 7000 respiratory hospitalisations per year."

https://www.drive.com.au/news/emissions-kill-10x-more-australians-than-road-toll/

So that's 10 good reasons right there.

(2/3)

[–] ajsadauskas@aus.social 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

@LovesTha @CableMonster @DriftinGrifter So let's sum this up then.

Modern pickup trucks are substantially larger and heavier than their '90s counterparts, with a smaller cab.

That means they weigh far more, are far bigger, and yet carry less than the vehicles that did the same job 30 years ago.

At least in Australia, they are directly subsidised by the federal tax system. Federal and state taxes pay for main roads.

And they're giant economic externality machines.

On local streets, which are funded by local councils, they cause additional road damage that is cross-subsidised by local councils.

They generate externalised costs from higher emissions, in the term of more frequent and severe bushfires, floods, droughts, and hurricanes.

They generate externalities in terms of pedestrian injuries and deaths that are subsidised by the healthcare system.

They generate higher health costs from air pollution. Again, these costs are cross subsidised.

That's without even getting into the massive subsidies at play with car-dependent suburban sprawl.

Or how modern pickup trucks are a massively inefficient use of road space.

Or how businesses are forced to cross-subsidise car ownership by needing to have large parking lots for motorists.

So yeah, it's probably not unreasonable to ask you to pay your fair share for some of those costs.

(3/3)

[–] MrLee@aus.social 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@CableMonster @anothercatgirl
Just out of curiosity, what sort of truck do you drive?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Just a standard 1 ton pickup.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

So not a 7000lb+ EV then?

[–] MrLee@aus.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@Rediphile @CableMonster
Yes those too!
There is probably some scientific way to do this. Measure the impact on roads, society, other road users and the environment. and tax the vehicles with the worst impact more.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

The entire article is about an EV truck specifically.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, just standard fuel. Are you guys against EVs now?

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

This whole thread started because someone mentioned the idea of taxing vehicles over 5000lbs, which a normal gas f150 is not. So this hypothetical tax probably wouldn't apply to your work truck.

And yeah, I also was poking fun at the people giving you shit because they are accidentally showing implied support for combustion engines.

And I'm having a giggle in general about how often people don't read the article or get sidetracked from what is actually even being talked about.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago

that's a quarter of the size of the vehicle in the headline though

[–] MrLee@aus.social 4 points 5 months ago

@CableMonster
Thanks.
You can probably see where I am going with this.
There is a big difference between a smaller practice work truck and a giant monster truck.
The aim of any taxes should be to discourage certain trucks and encourage others.

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago

IMO, you should be exempt. The vast majority of jobs don't require a truck, yet the F150 is the most-sold vehicle in the US. So you're in the minority.

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

I mean you kinda have a point. There absolutely are smaller, safer vehicles that would fit your needs. But unfortunately those aren't available in a lot of places (like the US).

I'd be down for a large vehicle tax, but you would need a way for people who genuinely need a truck to have it waived.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Video:

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

like a knife through butter

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

"The problem is that thousands of miles of guardrails installed alongside American highways were designed decades ago"

Ah, yes, that is the problem. Cars becoming heavier with little to no added value are not the problem, its the guardrails and not enough tax dollars being spent.

[–] Blep@hexbear.net 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The obvious solution is that cars should habe a maximum weight of 40kg

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ! Reminds me of those videos where bunker busters smoothly glide through thick concrete walls.

[–] barbaramorrigan@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

As someone who has used Autobidmaster to sell a junk vehicle in the past, I can speak to their commitment to satisfied clients and quick resolution of issues. By appealing to a wider audience, this tactic revolutionizes the salvage auto industry. Autobidmaster caters to both experienced buyers and those who are bidding for the first time. A combination might be appealing to some. At https://www.autobidmaster.com/en/search/salvage-cars/porsche/911/, you may be able to discover some interesting vintage automobiles. Getting back into cars doesn't need going into debt.

[–] dnick@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago

Sounds like a self correcting problem? Maybe just replace the ones that protect traffic below them....

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago