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

119 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
61 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Well his idea was that they pay the same as a normal car, because they use the same road. What is even funnier was that he was just in america and praised their car centric culture.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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).

permalink
report
parent
reply

Weight, exhaust and distance driven should all be factors.

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points

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

permalink
report
reply
57 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Agreed! I wouldn’t say cars need to be ditched entirely, but they can be a less central part of life.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Bro, groceries can be ordered right to your door even in nowheresville USA.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Not an option when you are struggling to pay for essentials

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I guess I would have to see the math of gas and time vs delivery cost which is free after 75.00 around these parts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

For twice the price of already exorbitant prices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Bro, USA isn’t the only country in the world, and some people prefer to see the item before purchase.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Aye.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Maybe not relevant for this specific discussion, but a decent quantity of Americans are stuck with fucking Dollar General for their groceries and they sure as hell don’t deliver.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What kind of hell scape has this place become?

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
31 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
13 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

<Obnoxious Pedantic comment>

All your ideas would need to be legislated.

</Obnoxious Pedantic comment>

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Would be funny if an entire country made all it’s border crossings with 2m wide bamboo bridges above a moat. Car too wide or heavy? In the moat it goes. Sploosh!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This is precisely why I’d want my own kid driving a tank of a car, until laws are passed such that nearly all vehicles become smaller. I’d make him save up money to get a little car, and match whatever he’s saved to get him a far larger car.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Fuck Cars

!fuckcars@lemmy.world

Create post

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 Civil

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

2. No hate speech

Don’t discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass people

Don’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 topic

This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No reposts

Do 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:

  • [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
  • [article] for news articles
  • [blog] for any blog-style content
  • [video] for video resources
  • [academic] for academic studies and sources
  • [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
  • [meme] for memes
  • [image] for any non-meme images
  • [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories

Recommended communities:

Community stats

  • 5.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 635

    Posts

  • 12K

    Comments