this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
259 points (93.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9593 readers
425 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

THE NEXT time you are stuck in traffic, look around you. Not at the cars, but the passengers. If you are in America, the chances are that one in 75 of them will be killed by a car—most of those by someone else’s car. Wherever you may be, the folk cocooned in a giant SUV or pickup truck are likelier to survive a collision with another vehicle. But the weight of their machines has a cost, because it makes the roads more dangerous for everyone else. The Economist has found that, for every life the heaviest 1% of SUVs or trucks saves in America, more than a dozen lives are lost in smaller vehicles. This makes traffic jams an ethics class on wheels.

Each year cars kill roughly 40,000 people in America—and not just because it is a big place where people love to drive. The country’s roads are nearly twice as dangerous per mile driven as those in the rest of the rich world. Deaths there involving cars have increased over the past decade, despite the introduction of technology meant to make driving safer.

Weight is to blame. Using data for 7.5m crashes in 14 American states in 2013-23, we found that for every 10,000 crashes the heaviest vehicles kill 37 people in the other car, compared with 5.7 for cars of a median weight and just 2.6 for the lightest. The situation is getting worse. In 2023, 31% of new cars in America weighed over 5,000lb (2.27 tonnes), compared with 22% in 2018. The number of pedestrians killed by cars has almost doubled since 2010. Although a typical car is 25% lighter in Europe and 40% lighter in Japan, electrification will add weight there too, exacerbating the gap between the heaviest vehicles and the lightest.

Archive

https://archive.is/qnsl5

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 120 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Tax by weight. These things destroy roads so it'll be easy to avoid the "government overreach" yapping.

Yeah I'll pay more in taxes for my fat sedan, but it'll be worth it.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 61 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

The fourth power law (also known as the fourth power rule) states that the greater the axle load of a vehicle, the stress on the road caused by the motor vehicle increases in proportion to the fourth power of the axle load.

Basically a big ass pickup that weighs twice as much as a car should be taxed at 2^4 = 16 times as much by this metric

edit: source

[–] Steve@communick.news 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds reasonable.
That'll work to make them less popular.

[–] Contort3860@links.hackliberty.org 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

People won't understand the math, though. They'll just blame the libs for depriving them of their overcompensation-mobile.

[–] Steve@communick.news 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Some will even if they do understand the math.

Becides that's an argument against all laws.
The people who a law is bad for, will always hate and fight it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Just to clarify, this "fourth power" rule is reasonable because that is approximately how road damage scales with per axle weight (last I checked it's not an exact integer exponent but it is about 4)

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Yup. We can of course exclude semis, construction vehicles, and shit that actually serves a purpose. But it's the fairest way to tax vehicles overall

[–] superkret@feddit.org 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Compared to the damage semis cause to roads, everything else is a rounding error.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which is why they are only allowed on specific roads right now.

My goal is to get rid of useless vehicles, not the ones that deliver goods. And I don't think my city is going to lay track to every store.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Steve@communick.news 14 points 2 months ago (4 children)

No. No exclusions.
It doesn't matter if they serve a purpose; All the damage they still do still happens, and needs to be accounted for. Rolling it into the cost of the purpose is fair.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

That's actually how a lot of people get around these taxes in some European countries. It's not unusual to see a self employed accountant driving a Hilux

[–] br3d@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Here in the UK, I've seen bloody sushi restaurants and hairdressers drive branded pickup trucks FFS. No tax exemptions for businesses. As another poster noted, the damage is being done and needs to be paid for - it doesn't magically not matter because it was done in the course of somebody using the road for their business

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Stop using vehicle footprint for trucks on CAFE standards.

Starting in 2012 truck fuel economy standards changed to being based on vehicle footprint, which essentially outlawed small trucks and encouraged manufacturers to keep making them bigger and bigger.

It's why the Ranger, Dakota, and S10 were all suddenly discontinued. The Ranger eventually came back, but is now bigger than the F150 was before.

It's hit cargo vans too. Between 2021 and 2023, all small cargo vans (Transit Connect, Promaster City, and NV200) were discontinued as they got passed by stricter fuel economy standards that penalized them for not having a larger footprint.

[–] addictedtochaos@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Yeah, somehow the MPG count as well, they have a formula where a bigger car has higher MPG in the end, smaller cars are lower MPG by that formula.

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What people do here is they use the loophole that they are super cheap in insurance and road taxes because they are A: "work" trucks. And B: they only count the usable space and not the bed or some stupid shit. Which means a ridiculous dodge ram is cheaper than a smart four four that i use to drive around for work. If they would just stop that it would help A LOT. But talking to these insane people just hurts my head. Some guy told me that bicycles should pay as much road taxes as cars, because they also use the road.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I am more than happy to pay road tax by fourth power law axle weight on all my bicycles.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Since currently I pay for roads in my property taxes AT THE SAME RATE AS EVERY MOTORIST, this would result in a tremendous household savings for me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds good but as a person who drives a wheelchair-modified minivan, which was already twice as expensive, is heavier, and is the smallest vehicle that can accommodate a power chair, I hope you'll remember a carve-out for disability-access vehicles.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 months ago

There would be lots of carve outs I imagine. The goal wouldn't be to remove useful vehicles from the road.

If I'm wish listing laws then those vans would just be given to people who need them, or at least the mods would be covered.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago

Specifically, this is what the yearly road tax should be. It should scale faster than linear, and be agonistic to gasoline or electric powertrains (since road tax is already part of the price of gasoline).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] assembly@lemmy.world 53 points 2 months ago (15 children)

“Where people love to drive”. I hate driving but damn try getting around without a car and spend your whole day just getting groceries.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 57 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was NOT always like this and now the regime made it so that vast majority of Americans have no choice unless you are "lucky" enough to live in a select few cities that were designed pre WW2 and region with some rail infrastructure.

3 generations of malinvestment and chronic infrastructure issues to show for it.

First world country.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are some truly beautiful areas to drive through. But that also means it would be beautiful for buses and trains too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Steve@communick.news 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

When I lived in the rural northeast, driving was fun. The bendy roads with low traffic were a blast to drive.
Now that I live in a southwest city, not so much. It's merely the least inconvenient way to get anywhere.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

I've said this before, but create a new license requirement for these, "light duty trucks," that are causing all these problems. Right now a standard Class D allows any chud to drive one of these things. If you want to drive something that weighs more than 5,000 pounds, you should have to get a special license that teaches you about how huge their blind spots are and why they aren't crash-compatible with normal cars.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

That is kinda like a prisoner's dilemma. If we all go smaller we all win, but if one person goes big they win and others lose.

We cannot rely on people to do the right thing because there is an incentive to do the wrong thing. Change has to be through legislative incentive.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Don't need legislation. Simply needed mechanical sorting. Place barriers only reasonably-sized vehicles can fit through without being damaged. Added bonuses: traffic calming, driver competency testing.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlueLineBae@midwest.social 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I read a different article a few months ago about how cars are now so heavy that guardrails do absolutely nothing to stop them anymore. And while I'm all about small cars for a number of reasons, electric cars are super heavy even if small which of course is growing in demand. I'll just be glad to move back to the city soon where I can take public transit.

[–] sparky1337@ttrpg.network 10 points 2 months ago

They were not designed for vehicles over 5000 lbs allegedly. Which is weird since lots of the older cars pushed that threshold. Maybe they meant 80’s cars.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 20 points 2 months ago (9 children)

1 in 75? That math seems pretty off.

40,000 fatalities would be a sample size of 3 million. The USA is 335 million, 110x larger.

1 in 8,250 is more like it.

[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Try thinking about the math a little differently. Instead using a by mile approach I get a similar result.

  1. Average American drives 15,000 miles/year
  2. Over 60 years, that's 900,000 miles total
  3. Using a death rate of 1.33 per 100 million miles:
  4. So for 900,000 miles: (1.33 / 100,000,000) * 900,000 = 0.01197
  5. Convert to percentage: 0.01197 * 100 = 1.197%
  6. 1/75 is about 1.3% which is not far from my guess.
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Lifetime vs annual.

You have a 100% chance of your life ending in death. That doesn't mean it'll happen this year.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 19 points 2 months ago

Same thing they do with everything else. Glorify it and double down.

SUVs for toddlers. Wear a car pin whenever an accident happens nearby.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 14 points 2 months ago

Economics will catch up to many of these people at least for vanity ICE trucks. When did the blue collar workers started buying 60-90k luxury vehicles?

But people will die while that self resolves. EV will likely grow and there is no solution to that besides public transit. But US is way behind on transit so the next generation of workers, most will need a car to be able to work.

EV as transportation solution were always a red herring even if the product tech has use cases as family car or delivery truck.

Public transit is the proper transportation solution and US seriously under investing in that.

[–] bassad@jlai.lu 14 points 1 month ago

they forgot to add deathsand chronic illness from air pollution caused by cars, not only nasty particles from gas combustion but brakes and tires dust, aggravated with weight

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

The good thing is that new generations can't afford new cars. And if they can afford them, then can't afford to crash their only home. So I predict that people will be more careful with their homes as they drive them from time to time according to parking laws.

[–] geegaw@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›