Doing that would also price out all EVs, because they are all heavy because of batteries.
2023 Tesla Model 3 weight: 3,648 to 4,250 lbs depending on trim level.
2023 Ford F150 weight: 4,021 to 5,740 lbs depending on trim level.
Most of the Model 3s sold are the dual-motor variety, because of performance and range, and most of those weigh more than the 2wd F150s.
We should build our roads to handle that and stop shaming weight. The future is going to involve heavier cars for both emission and safety reasons. Fixating on weight is a bad idea.
>Doing that would also price out all EVs, because they are all heavy because of batteries.
They are slightly more heavy, but I'm not convinced it's all because of batteries. Fwiw, there are plenty of EVs that are much, much lighter - you just forgot to include them: e-bikes (regular and cargo), e-scooters and electronic microcars. In any case, we could just have a different "starting point" when considering electric cars, making this a non-issue.
>We should build our roads to handle that and stop shaming weight. The future is going to involve heavier cars for both emission and safety reasons. Fixating on weight is a bad idea.
I doubt that this is an engineering problem that can actually be solved in an economically feasible manner. If you have any evidence of being able to do so, go ahead.
Barring that, there are plenty of other reasons besides road wear to fixate on and shame weight for vehicles - energy consumption and collision lethality being two important ones that come to mind.
Because if you want people to buy EVs, higher taxes are a disincentive.
If you put people in a position where an F150 costs as much to own as a Model 3, they will almost always choose the F150. Is that really what you want?
You can have regulations either completely banning fossil-powered vehicles, or keep raising carbon pricing to encourage the move to EVs. But if those EVs cause road damage, people should pay for that damage.
All that is being done in both cases is forcing people to pay the true cost of these things (pollution, road damage), and bringing to light what have been externalities until this point. Let The Market™ decide.
If people want to reduce pollution, and not have to pay for the damage their vehicles cause, then perhaps they should use lighter vehicles like (e-)bikes or (e-)scooters / -motorcycles. Or transit.
And it doesn't have to be a legal ban: just bring in the cost of externalities. You can drive an Old School Hummer all you want: just be willing to pay for the pollution you are causing.
You can drive the New School EV Hummer all you want: just be willing to pay for the road damage you are causing.
I think everyone knows the deadlines that are set for phasing out fossil fuel vehicles are not going to actually be enforced. They are nothing but virtue signalling from politicians.
If those things are actually enforced, you can expect a blowback that will make the election of Trump look like a minor detail compared to the insane populists that an angry population will put in power.
Manufacturers are planning to phase out fuel-powered cars (perhaps completely, but at least in some countries/regions), so governments may not have to do much enforcement themselves:
Heavier cars are safer than lighter cars but it's an arms race. People keep buying bigger cars until their wallets are drained, the planet is paved, and pedestrians are all murdered.
> Heavier cars are safer than lighter cars but it's an arms race
Only when hitting "light" "objects" like people and smaller cars, against trees, building, reinforced poles all that mass behind you will crush the driver.
> The future is going to involve heavier cars for both emission and safety reasons. Fixating on weight is a bad idea.
This part implies that future safer cars will have to be heavier to be safer better.
I do not particularly want an EV future, I do want a future with less ICE cars on the streets, I would prefer less car dependence and stronger public transit.
EV ameliorate a lot of problems of ICE, but are not a panacea. In particular I would consider myself lucky if I would never have to see an electric SUV.
And if we wanted more fair taxes to pay for "roads", we should add an average vehicle weight (empty weight + fully loaded weight / 2 ) times miles driven. And it should probably be "regressive". The rate goes higher as the average weight does since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads (it's not linear). This would also require going in occasionally to have odometers read.
> But let's be honest, you didn't actually care about that. You just hate large vehicles and you believe you should be able to control the decisions other people make. That is a bad impulse and the government should not enable it.
There's no reason to be like this. The parent is just pointing out an external cost of driving larger vehicles and suggesting a mechanism to pass on some of the cost to the owner. They did not suggest that a Camry should somehow be exempt from this same requirement.
For what it's worth I drive a large vehicle. In my country I do pay a larger registration tax for the priviledge to drive it, and I was also required to prove that I had a place to park it when I bought it (street parking isn't really a thing here). This doesn't bother me in the least, because I recognize that there are real social costs associated with driving a larger vehicle, and I am happy to pay my fair share.
