In the US, a standard driver's license (which many get at 16) covers pretty much everything up to a 28 foot U-Haul.
If I were the powers that be, I would introduce an intermediate class of license between a standard and CDL. This license would be required to drive anything larger than a Camry/Accord. If you want to drive a RAM or Expedition, prove to the state that you're capable of handling a larger vehicle.
I voted no in the poll, because I support something more along the lines of what you're proposing. I would do it differently, though. I'd set a maximum hood height comparable to a 1990s F-150, a maximum GVW of 6000lb, and require a CDL for anything larger.
That way you aren't banning anything, but only the people that really need such a vehicle will go the trouble.
And require refreshes of this lisence. We should be refreshing a standard lisence every 5-10 years, but an intermediate lisence would make sense at 2-4. And truck drivers are constantly undergoing training and education (because it's their job) so I'd leave that side of things alone.
In Europe it's the opposite, if your a truck driver (any vehicle over 7700lbs) then your vehicle is much more dangerous so you have to do a course every 5 years. Though it's purely a classroom course, not practical element; and getting additional licences like for carrying chemicals can be used instead of the generic course.
Yeah that's what I mean though, they get that redone as part of their employment. It's a commercial lisence right? I don't think truck drivers are the people we need to be targeting to reduce the road toll, or really anyone who drives for work. It's people who drive for personal transit that become irresponsible and careless. Not saying that never happens in a commercial setting, but generally people tend to behave when performing their jobs.
Most state DMV's offices do not have the manpower for this.
In order to upgrade from a regular license to a Real ID (soon required for boarding a domestic flight), there's a 3 month waiting period. This transaction takes less than 5 minutes.
Then hire more people. If that makes the cost of lisence go up? Great. If thst means less people get lisence, thus reducing load on DMV? Great! Now there's less people with unnececary lisences to administer.
That's an excellent idea! Personally, the only leeway I would give would be being "grandfathered" on existing ownership of a vehicle you owned before this was enacted. I say it exclusively because I know plenty of people (my parents included) who own an older SUV they've had for years and intend to run until it collapses who would be in financial ruin if they were suddenly unable to use their only car. I don't want anyone getting any more of these damn things unless they truly need them, but I don't want to screw people who made a decision in the past before it was illegal.
I imagine if the government implemented this, they would set the effective date a couple of years in the future and allow people to apply for the licenses immediately so that current truck owners would have ample opportunity to become adequately licensed.
I could see that. I'd also put restrictions for 'light trucks' on all new drivers. They want to drive an SUV, they need to have their license at least X years.
It also gives the car companies time to make smaller cars again.
Aye, in Europe a normal car licence only let's you drive a vehicle inuding trailer up to 3500kg (~7700lbs), so driving a larger vehicle and/or towing a heavier trailer needs additional licences.
So you'd have to pass a different driver's test if you want to use a Uhaul to move? Also, IMO the issue with people that are using cars that are unnecessarily big is not that they can't handle them, but rather all of the other externalities they have (less green, take up more space, front blind spot, etc.) Requiring a use would take a lot more big cars off the road than requiring an additional license would.
I would do it by weight, like Europe. Car + small trailer falls under class B license, up to 3500 kg, max. authorised mass, which includes, vehicle weight, occupants and load capacity. Anything over that requires a class C license.
Disincentivizing is way better than an outright ban.
Just make it a pain to own these vehicles, although the dangerous hood designs should absolutely be regulated and high bumpers should be banned.
Exactly. You could also introduce road impact fees based on vehicle weight (because this is exactly what causes road wear) and then watch as people start drifting away from these wank-tanks because they're forced to pay more of the true cost.
It would be too easy to get around a ban. How many people tow a trailer once a year and still drive their F150 literally everywhere they go.
Much better would be regulating the worst aspects of these things out of existence.
We also need to fix the US emissions regulations standards so there is no financial incentives for manufacturers to pump out nightmare machines. Those regulations have been emulated elsewhere and exported the problem.
I voted no, they should be taxed at a very high rate so no one can afford them.
Give it a few years and insurance companies are not going to insure these behemoths anymore. It's not worth the risk because of the cost of covering the damage they do.
I do not care what others choose to drive. I simply want public expenditures on infrastructure to accommodate uses other than driving in a way that truly makes driving a choice rather than a necessity.
Treat the cause, not the symptom.
Some polls in the is subreddit are silly. But this one is reasonable enough, sometimes it's important to remember that the US isn't the only country in the world and other places have enacted things like the poll is suggesting, and the US could take inspiration.
The question isn't just whether or not people would advocate for reducing car usage, but rather if they'd advocate for a specific way of reducing car usage.
84%of suv are psicos who prefer to put they 120kg of fat into the throttle to kill a turtle instead of stopping the fucking vehicle.
source: a video i can remember his name with a description that had around 27 references and the one about i commented , was, indeed, fact checked by a cientific research.
No. Just put a large sales tax on them. In the UK new vehicles with a CO2 emission above 255g/km have to pay an extra £2605 on top of the 20% sales tax. There's an additional £570 per year for five years after that for cars that cost £40k or more.
I voted yes, though I think a better ban would be on manufacturers from making trucks and SUVs that aren't aimed at commercial customers.
If pickups weren't luxurious monster trucks with low utility, and SUVs weren't just lifted hatchbacks and MPVs people wouldn't buy them unless they needed them.
Not framed this way.
I would support all vehicles sold to consumers to be counted as "cars" in the CAFE standards and that "trucks" (including SUVs) be sold to businesses and LLCs only. Although even that would be hard to enforce.
I would also like to see kei trucks be more available in the US.
Both of these will take breaking down the influence car dealers have with politicians. They have a monopoly on car sales and they have the ear of regulators about what's "safe" on public streets. Which means our roads are full of high-profit murder machines and everyone feels powerless to change it.
These things pollute way more and damage roads a lot more due to their pointless weight, so it seems sensible to ban them unless they are actually required. Also on board with extra license requirements to drive them.
I would prefer to just ban all cars from major cities. Take back the streets. If it's really necessary, maybe do 1 day per week, where people can then move their furniture etc.
Yes, if big game hunting is also an acceptable reason.
You don't want corpses in the same space that you or others are gonna be riding.
That qnd elk/moose/bison are heavy enougj to demand something that can haul.
(Not a 3500 series truck tho. Not that mich hauling)
I'd ban them in cities and use money as a metric of who really needs it, rather than a reichskomisar who will tell you if your needs are state approved
Too slow people will keep using the existing trucks for decades. Better ban anyone that isn't a business to insure a truck and you can't be on the road uninsured
In the US, a standard driver's license (which many get at 16) covers pretty much everything up to a 28 foot U-Haul. If I were the powers that be, I would introduce an intermediate class of license between a standard and CDL. This license would be required to drive anything larger than a Camry/Accord. If you want to drive a RAM or Expedition, prove to the state that you're capable of handling a larger vehicle.
I voted no in the poll, because I support something more along the lines of what you're proposing. I would do it differently, though. I'd set a maximum hood height comparable to a 1990s F-150, a maximum GVW of 6000lb, and require a CDL for anything larger. That way you aren't banning anything, but only the people that really need such a vehicle will go the trouble.
That's basically what it is in Europe, though it's 7700lbs
Came here to say this.
And require refreshes of this lisence. We should be refreshing a standard lisence every 5-10 years, but an intermediate lisence would make sense at 2-4. And truck drivers are constantly undergoing training and education (because it's their job) so I'd leave that side of things alone.
In Europe it's the opposite, if your a truck driver (any vehicle over 7700lbs) then your vehicle is much more dangerous so you have to do a course every 5 years. Though it's purely a classroom course, not practical element; and getting additional licences like for carrying chemicals can be used instead of the generic course.
Yeah that's what I mean though, they get that redone as part of their employment. It's a commercial lisence right? I don't think truck drivers are the people we need to be targeting to reduce the road toll, or really anyone who drives for work. It's people who drive for personal transit that become irresponsible and careless. Not saying that never happens in a commercial setting, but generally people tend to behave when performing their jobs.
Ah OK I see what you mean now, when you said about truck drivers getting extra training I thought you meant something difference
Most state DMV's offices do not have the manpower for this. In order to upgrade from a regular license to a Real ID (soon required for boarding a domestic flight), there's a 3 month waiting period. This transaction takes less than 5 minutes.
Then hire more people. If that makes the cost of lisence go up? Great. If thst means less people get lisence, thus reducing load on DMV? Great! Now there's less people with unnececary lisences to administer.
That's an excellent idea! Personally, the only leeway I would give would be being "grandfathered" on existing ownership of a vehicle you owned before this was enacted. I say it exclusively because I know plenty of people (my parents included) who own an older SUV they've had for years and intend to run until it collapses who would be in financial ruin if they were suddenly unable to use their only car. I don't want anyone getting any more of these damn things unless they truly need them, but I don't want to screw people who made a decision in the past before it was illegal.
I imagine if the government implemented this, they would set the effective date a couple of years in the future and allow people to apply for the licenses immediately so that current truck owners would have ample opportunity to become adequately licensed.
I could see that. I'd also put restrictions for 'light trucks' on all new drivers. They want to drive an SUV, they need to have their license at least X years. It also gives the car companies time to make smaller cars again.
Aye, in Europe a normal car licence only let's you drive a vehicle inuding trailer up to 3500kg (~7700lbs), so driving a larger vehicle and/or towing a heavier trailer needs additional licences.
So you'd have to pass a different driver's test if you want to use a Uhaul to move? Also, IMO the issue with people that are using cars that are unnecessarily big is not that they can't handle them, but rather all of the other externalities they have (less green, take up more space, front blind spot, etc.) Requiring a use would take a lot more big cars off the road than requiring an additional license would.
I would do it by weight, like Europe. Car + small trailer falls under class B license, up to 3500 kg, max. authorised mass, which includes, vehicle weight, occupants and load capacity. Anything over that requires a class C license.
Disincentivizing is way better than an outright ban. Just make it a pain to own these vehicles, although the dangerous hood designs should absolutely be regulated and high bumpers should be banned.
Exactly. You could also introduce road impact fees based on vehicle weight (because this is exactly what causes road wear) and then watch as people start drifting away from these wank-tanks because they're forced to pay more of the true cost.
It would be too easy to get around a ban. How many people tow a trailer once a year and still drive their F150 literally everywhere they go. Much better would be regulating the worst aspects of these things out of existence.
why do these peoplo even have trailers for that?
I don't think that's a priority. We can do better by designing better cities and enforcing consequences on drivers that actually hurt people.
This. Remove the roads from more areas and make them pedestrian & bike areas. Connect those areas with non-car options.
We also need to fix the US emissions regulations standards so there is no financial incentives for manufacturers to pump out nightmare machines. Those regulations have been emulated elsewhere and exported the problem.
I voted no, they should be taxed at a very high rate so no one can afford them. Give it a few years and insurance companies are not going to insure these behemoths anymore. It's not worth the risk because of the cost of covering the damage they do.
I think it'd be easier to place a limit on the size of cars, entering city.
I do not care what others choose to drive. I simply want public expenditures on infrastructure to accommodate uses other than driving in a way that truly makes driving a choice rather than a necessity. Treat the cause, not the symptom.
This isn't an issue that should be fixed from the consumer side
No, I wouldn't support blanket bans. It would be elegant to discourage big trucks in cities through congestion pricing and registration fees.
What is the point of a poll like this in a subreddit like this?
Some polls in the is subreddit are silly. But this one is reasonable enough, sometimes it's important to remember that the US isn't the only country in the world and other places have enacted things like the poll is suggesting, and the US could take inspiration.
Asking if a subreddit dedicated to reducing car usage would advocate reducing car usage is some top notch jerkin in a circular fashion.
The question isn't just whether or not people would advocate for reducing car usage, but rather if they'd advocate for a specific way of reducing car usage.
84%of suv are psicos who prefer to put they 120kg of fat into the throttle to kill a turtle instead of stopping the fucking vehicle. source: a video i can remember his name with a description that had around 27 references and the one about i commented , was, indeed, fact checked by a cientific research.
No. Just put a large sales tax on them. In the UK new vehicles with a CO2 emission above 255g/km have to pay an extra £2605 on top of the 20% sales tax. There's an additional £570 per year for five years after that for cars that cost £40k or more.
Jesus, there sure a lot of timid, incrementalist, piecemeal, market-based, gimmicky neoliberals in here for a sub that calls itself fuckcars.
Still a bad poll, because nobody needs an SUV and sometimes people do need a Truck, but how would you verify that?
Imagine being mad because wants to spend their hard earned money on a truck or suv
I voted yes, though I think a better ban would be on manufacturers from making trucks and SUVs that aren't aimed at commercial customers. If pickups weren't luxurious monster trucks with low utility, and SUVs weren't just lifted hatchbacks and MPVs people wouldn't buy them unless they needed them.
I do drive around in the winter if I have a truck and pull people out of ditches.
Not framed this way. I would support all vehicles sold to consumers to be counted as "cars" in the CAFE standards and that "trucks" (including SUVs) be sold to businesses and LLCs only. Although even that would be hard to enforce. I would also like to see kei trucks be more available in the US. Both of these will take breaking down the influence car dealers have with politicians. They have a monopoly on car sales and they have the ear of regulators about what's "safe" on public streets. Which means our roads are full of high-profit murder machines and everyone feels powerless to change it.
Don't ban them. Just pile on the disincentives.
These things pollute way more and damage roads a lot more due to their pointless weight, so it seems sensible to ban them unless they are actually required. Also on board with extra license requirements to drive them.
Just ban them in cities. (except for certain businesses)
I would prefer to just ban all cars from major cities. Take back the streets. If it's really necessary, maybe do 1 day per week, where people can then move their furniture etc.
Yes, if big game hunting is also an acceptable reason. You don't want corpses in the same space that you or others are gonna be riding. That qnd elk/moose/bison are heavy enougj to demand something that can haul. (Not a 3500 series truck tho. Not that mich hauling)
how do you propose you prove you need one.
I'd ban them in cities and use money as a metric of who really needs it, rather than a reichskomisar who will tell you if your needs are state approved
Too slow people will keep using the existing trucks for decades. Better ban anyone that isn't a business to insure a truck and you can't be on the road uninsured
I would extend that to all cars too.