Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Vehicle tax should arguably be relative to the amount of road tear caused by said vehicle, aka weight to the fourth power.

This would immediately price these travesties out of existence, over night.




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.


> Doing that would also price out all EVs, because they are all heavy because of batteries.

And? If they're heavier they cause more damage to roads:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

So why shouldn't they be charged proportionally to the wear they cause?


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?


> 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.


Go ahead and try to ban the things people want, and see who gets elected next time.

Even in Silicon Valley it seems like half the vehicles I see are trucks.


> Go ahead and try to ban the things people want, and see who gets elected next time.

* https://abcnews.go.com/Business/states-banning-sale-gas-powe...

* https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/25/california-bans-the-sale-of-...

* https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-ban-sale-new-f...

* https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/eu-law...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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.

No ban needed.


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:

* https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/six-major-carmakers-agr...


Heavier cars for safety reason is an oxymoron.


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.


Who said they were heavier for safety reasons?

Batteries are heavy, and if we want a realistic EV future we need to accept that.


> 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.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: