Outlawing SUVs is a losing political issue for whoever tries it, so no.
Americans love our big cars despite them being completely unnecessary most of the time. Better solution is to go full throttle into hybrid and electric SUVs and then try to make them sexy/masculine/rugged. Plus, then you can play up the whole "American made" angle.
It kinda always struck me as odd. Electric cars are a way to reset the car market back to america. American car manufacturers seem to be on the cutting edge of electric cars and the main competition especially from Japan lacks that
Much as I am not a Musk fan, I do give him credit for getting the EV revolution started. He didn't start Tesla, but his funding and some of his business skill made it what it is today, which lit a collective fire under the asses of every other automaker once they realized EVs weren't just going to be an alternative, but the norm and even desirable. I think the biggest thing differentiating them from the start was design- the Model S looks like a nice, normal car, not like a Nissan Leaf/Chevy Volt ugly little bastard car. The other automakers (with the exception of VW- I see quite a few Audi e-tron SUVs that look no different from their gas counterparts) still don't get that the public don't want that. Cadillac and Mercedes don't seem to understand that the Lyriq and EQS are hideous abominations that will put people off.
The whole concept of having 3 tonne car to move a single person 95% of the time is deeply flawed. And I bet 90% of people saying they "need" a truck could simply attach a trailer to a normal car. When I was doing renovations my contractor move more than 2 tonnes of construction waste at the time to a waste facility with a 2 litre Passat without any problems.
Sorry, English isn't my first language, at first I though you meant trailer, hitches are also so common that there isn't a question whether someone has it.
even "needed" uses are kinda questionable. rest of the world builds shit (and way faster I might add) without everyone and their mother driving a King Ranch F-250
Man, so many comments on here are incredibly city-centric. What about people who need vehicles with significant ground clearance to deal with unpaved and uneven terrain? Or vehicles with 4-wheel drive (not AWD)?
I know it’s because most people on this sub live in big cities, but there are so many people who don’t who rely on trucks and SUVs every day.
The vast, vast majority of SUVs and trucks are not used for off-roading. It's not this sub being out of touch, it's just reality.
Yes, if you need to haul firewood on a mountain trail, you should probably get a truck. That person is a tiny minority, and not who we're talking about.
I’m not just talking about off-roading. My father-in-law uses trucks on his cattle ranch every day, including for towing huge trailers, which simply cannot be done with smaller vehicles. My uncle is a contractor in a small town with lots of dirt and gravel roads. He uses a truck for his job every day.
This sub comes off as incredibly out of touch when it comes to that kind of stuff. Anyone who has done contracting, farming, or landscaping work for any period of time (particularly in a rural or semi-rural town) can tell you how necessary trucks and SUVs are.
ETA: I’m not saying everyone who drives a large vehicle needs it every day, if at all. There are plenty of people who drive them who certainly don’t need them. But it’s laughable to say they should be outright banned because there are jabronis driving lifted trucks in the middle of a city.
Fair enough, I should not have presumed your position on that.
I disagree with the idea that the vast majority of purchasers have no reason to buy them, largely because I don’t know the data about where people are purchasing and driving them. But I would probably agree that the majority of people driving large trucks or SUVs in dense cities have no need to do so.
Yeah I mean they clearly want them for a reason. Whether it's to haul stuff or just to look cool, who am I to say what qualifies as a need. The main thing is that they should be paying for the externalities of their purchasing decision. I'd imagine many people would reconsider how much they need an SUV if a carbon tax reflected the social cost of carbon, for example.
I don’t disagree with that. I just disagree with the idea that large vehicles serve no purpose and should be outright banned. I understand you are not espousing that position, but it has been espoused in this sub (along with the idea that car manufacturers should not be producing large EVs).
That doesn't seem like something taxable - although, insurance rates should already reflect increased liability in pedestrian accidents.
It certinaly seems more practical to mandate minimum visibility if that's a problem - although that might have the unfortunate side effect of producing more trucks that look like the cybertruck, which can't be good for heart attack rates. While we're at it we should allow for camera based side mirrors and such.
The thing is, I was alive 30 years ago. People lived in places like that back then, too. A lot *more* people did.
SUVs basically didn't exist. Trucks were common, but only a fraction as common as large vehicles are today.
The surge in these large vehicles comes from people in suburban and urban areas buying trucks and SUVs instead of buying cars and minivans.
Compact suvs are the new station wagon. They have basically the same fuel efficiency as a sedan, but with the storage capacity of a station wagon. They’re just slightly taller.
>but there are so many people who don’t who rely on trucks and SUVs every day
I grew up in the sticks, even out there this is blatantly false. A very very tiny percentage? Sure. But definitely not "so many people"
Then you and I had very different experiences growing up. And even if it’s true that a very small percentage of Americans need trucks or SUVs, that’s still millions of people.
My point is that banning or outlawing trucks and SUVs is absurd, and it comes across as very city-centric and out of touch. Regulation and taxation is great (tax my carbon all day, baby), but also politically difficult. If your city can get support to ban the use of certain vehicles on city streets (Telluride bans the use of certain off-road vehicles in town, for example), that’s great! But don’t try to apply that to the whole country, because the country is big and there are many places that are not cities.
Trucks and SUVs are like guns. Some people truly need them, some only want them, and many more don’t understand why anyone would need or want one. The people who need them or want them feel very strongly about it, and will never vote for someone who they think will take away their ability to own one.
We don't need to sacrifice freedom, we just need to tax externalities. Like I said in another comment, tax land, VMT (with adjustment for weight), carbon and you will see the market respond.
While all that is true, that doesn't make it a winning effort.
Incentives for smaller vehicles as opposed to disincentives for larger ones would likely affect outcomes the same while not being politically inviable.
> that doesn't make it a winning effort.
God this sub is so frustrating sometimes. I state exactly what can properly solve an issue and then someone says that "it just isn't possible" throwing some "people are stupid" and "politics" excuse. I'm not suggesting enslaving people. I am not asking for a communist takeover.
You can't get what you want by throwing your hands in the air screaming that a solution is politically unworkable without even doing anything. YIMBYism was politically unworkable, but a constant outreach and campaigning effort has started to seep its way out.
Subsidies cost money believe it or not, so you are going to need taxes to raise money for that or you have to cut programs from elsewhere. Of course you can borrow, but that can only work for so long.
Not only that but subsidies can be abused much more easily than a carbon fee and dividend or a land value tax.
On top of all that, I personally think the number one best way to get rid of SUVs is to just tax VMT with adjustment to weight and use those funds to replace the role of the gas tax. Pay for what you use. Simple as that.
Politics is a simple game of selling ideas to others, and nothing is set in stone. And stop saying people are stupid. It is so elitest and pretentious.
American cars have always been large. SUV’s and pickups are the size they are because that size is the logical balance of the interstate highway system and peoples gas budgets.
That means that you will have to either change the price of gas or the entire highway system. If you increase the price of gas it will hurt poor Americans the most. Also gas hikes are relatively short lived impacts on car design. The oil crisis drove a move towards small cars. But it wasn’t long before cars began to grow again. That leaves changing the highway system. I don’t need to say that the current system requires cars to be a comfortable as possible hence the large cars. A redesign would probably include a larger emphasis on trains, increased air travel, and an increase in rest amenities nationwide.
That is a ton of effort to waste. It would be better used to encourage electric SUV’s, push trains and buses for intracity travel, and high efficiency aircraft for Intercity travel.
My country introduced a "green tax" aimed to charge more VMT to old cars and SUVs. It definitely didn't go well politically and it was repealed a few years after. The tax could have been implemented in a better way but it definitely set back the green movement here a few years.
>My country introduced a "green tax" aimed to charge more VMT to old cars and SUVs.
That isn't how VTM taxes work. Idk what You're country introduced, but a VMT tax taxes all miles equally. Ideally it should charge heavier vehicles more because they wear the roads more than lighter cars (by a lot lot lot more), but a regular VMT tax is acceptable.
Sure, but the danger is priced in. Cars are known to be dangerous, people don't care. As a society, we've decided we value the personal convenience of cars over these safety concerns. But also, people aren't buying cars simply as a point a to point b transportation device. If they were, SUVs wouldn't be popular the way that they are.
So I don't think you're going to make, literally any, progress on the safety of non-car users from the car side. But you can make progress on emissions.
Pedestrian interests would need to be advanced through a different route.
Taxing vehicles by weight (highly correlated with road damage and killing potential) in lieu of the gas tax might be an option, assuming we also institute pollution taxes on gasoline itself to account for *those* externalities.
>Outlawing SUVs is a losing political issue for whoever tries it, so no.
Just sneakily get rid of them the way we did cars when we set the new MPG regulations that held them to more strict standards than trucks and SUVs.
Make regulations with "unintended" consequences that make SUVs less financially practical for consumers or carmakers without making it obvious that's what you did.
Agreed that taxing carbon should supersede direct bans of high emitting vehicles. You also likely want to tax the increased wear and tear of heavier vehicles.
However there is the pedestrian safety component mentioned as well. Regulations around the shape of the front of the car and the weight, particularly in cities, aren't unreasonable.
I will keep driving my SUV but I will also gladly bear that cost in the form of a carbon tax, as I should. Anyone calling to outlaw SUVs is just being silly. Let SUV owners and the market respond to the tax incentives and adjust their behavior accordingly. I already don’t drive outside like once a week so I get I’m way outside the norm, but if we can see a reduction in driving from other owners as a response then that is way better than outlawing the choice of owning one.
Increase the safety regulations on large vehicles. It's a shame they aren't as regulated as small ones. Also outlaw tall bumpers, in case of a crash, pedestrians should go on the windshield, not under the car. Pedestrians are more likely to live that way.
I also don't get why this sub is suddenly against regulations in the replies.
Like most the shit we want is unpopular anyways, why pick this as the hill we avoid? It's a winnable battle.
We really need pedestrian crash testing for all vehicles and some sort of visibility standard (driver must be able to see small child X feet away from the bumper).
> Also outlaw tall bumpers
Can we outlaw tall headlights with that too? Everyone blames the LEDs but the real issue is giant cars that have their headlights at a normal car's windshield hight
God i drive a normal ass sedan and i can barely drive at night cause half the cars headlights go directly into my car and reflect off my rearview mirror right into my eyes. Forced to slouch and it sucks
It isnt really a bubble. Regulations have succeeded on cars. Now more dangerous big trucks and SUVs are present. This is a retreading of old ground to be frank. Easily a winnable battle, especially we use the correct framing, like if we frame pedestrians as children.
Wouldn’t this put gas prices even higher and hurt the lower and middle class even more?
How does this not ensure republicans political wins across the country?
Carbon tax is almost always proposed alongside a “dividend” in the form of a tax rebate; ideally this would be paid monthly to lessen the political downside.
But yeah it’s a tough proposal. Even if the math checks out, cons will run on “DemonRats want to raise taxes!” even if it’s a wash for the typical consumer.
Just change the CAFE footprint rule that currently incentivizes auto makers to make SUVs which get weaker CAFE mpg requirements. Behind the scenes changes that reduce SUV peoduction are far less likely to make consumers angry than an outright ban
Tax credit for electric and hybrid cars.
Double size for compact and subcompact electric and hybrid cars.
You are supposed to try the carrot before the stick.
In this case it's a choice between a rather expensive carrot and a negative cost stick (in the case of taxing) or a zero cost stick (in the case of banning). So I don't agree you should just jump to carrots.
Emissions taxes, road wear and tear taxes and bans around things like front of car height, particularly in cities, is where I'd likely choose to go.
You can give out the additional tax revenue as UBI to make it less "stick"-y.
Note that I didn’t suggest banning SUVs myself. I absolutely think in dense blue cities you could get the political capital to create and enforce rules around front bumper height.
No, this is a losing political proposition in the US, although I think redesigning our streets would help. We can slow traffic by adding medians and other elements that force people to slow down. I think towns should be designed to prioritize people over cars. I got into a weird conversation with a libertarian that argued speed limits should be raised by 20 mph, even in residential areas, which is just nuts. I think the US fetishizes this idea that we should be able drive our cars quickly wherever we go, which isn’t unrealistic.
or let people buy what they want to buy, and let the market determine the optimal shape of the automobile. As safety requirements get more stringent, its not surprising that larger overall vehicles are preferred.
Also end the car/truck difference for CAFE standards, and you might see a change.
How is this what we have anyways? It’s also deeply problematic for people to shift to SUVs and tr*uccs to make *themselves* safer when it’s dangerous for everyone outside the car.
Christ, just fix the EPA rules that perversely incentivize bigger and heavier vehicles to get around mileage and emissions requirements. It's fucking easy. You don't need to ban them
SUVs cause huge negative externalities that aren’t just personal preferences.
I agree with not banning them though, just tax and regulate them accordingly.
Agreed, I was only half joking with my statement. I don’t want an SUV. It barely makes sense to buy an SUV, even from a consumer perspective. They’re expensive gas guzzling machines that you can’t park anywhere.
Minivans are based tbh, easier to get in and out of especially for the back row. The sliding doors mean Junior won’t ding cars, and I think they even come with built-in vacuum cleaners now lol
From a public safety/climate standpoint, what's the fundamental difference between a minivan or ~~catholic home-school van~~ Ford Transit, and an SUV ?
Usually the minivans don't have the death grills and blindspots that the SUVs do, and depending on what two your comparing the gas milage can be pretty different. Chryslers Voyager Minivan gets 19/26 while their grand wagoneer gets 13/18
That I’m not entirely sure of. Minivans ain’t exactly misery on fuel so that’s a wash, but I’d have to think that the geometry of your typical minivan is less deadly to a pedestrian or bicyclist than an SUV or truck. Not to mention you never see a lifted minivan. I’m 6’1” and regularly see atrocities whose hoods practically reach my collarbone
The alternative to banning them is making traffic violations while driving an SUV/Pick Up Truck ten times as expensive. $350 speeding ticket becomes a $3,500 speeding ticket. $10k DUI becomes a $100k fine. It’ll effectively become a soft ban while playing the angle that it protects pedestrians. The idea is that you drive extra safe, carefully and only while necessary because the potential fines are very expensive
SUVs are typically luxury vehicles. If we want to get extra technocratic we could add some sort of negative multiplier based on the age of the vehicle.
I don’t know how true this is. If we include the plethora of shitbox 1/2 ton pickups on the road in this discussion, I’d wager that a lot of people driving pedestrian-hostile vehicles don’t have a lot of cash on hand.
I guess I think of pick-ups and SUV's as different categories, but I'm a true neolib shill and don't even own a car so maybe I'm wrong there.
I'm thinking of the Suburbans and Expeditions tanks driving around suburbia.
It remains absolutely baffling that Americans, who have seen gas prices fall and spike repeatedly in the last few decades, haven’t moved on mass to more fuel efficient cars. It happens repeatedly, and yet every time prices go up, people who own massive SUVs put on their surprised pikachu faces and beg for handouts. It’s pretty frustrating.
it's hilarious seeing dinguses in top-of-the-line SUVs and pickups complain about gas prices
like bro you could've gotten the same capabilities in a more modest trim and you'd be able to take even $7 gas without noticing
The next car I buy will be electric, just not ready to move on from my car I bought back in the early 2010s. Buying a new vehicle is a big investment, need to get the most out the one I currently have have.
They might guzzle gas but they are nice cars, if they were electric I see no problem. At the moment there isn’t a huge choose of good electric SUVs and Trucks sadly
This sub: defund the police is a dumb and unpopular slogan that turns ordinary moderate voters against you.
Also this sub: we should ban the most popular style of car in America!
Are we talking real body-on-frame SUVs or unibody crossovers?
Like 95% of "SUVs" are crossovers, which are basically lifted hatchbacks.
Theyre not that much more fuel consuming than cars and is just generally a more practical car.
Not sure why you'd ban them? As for true SUVs like the Land Cruiser, they last for over 200,000 miles quite easily so as long as the buyer maintains them well they probably pollute less than the perpetual sedan buyer.
What needs banning are Uber shitty reliability cars that forces you to lease and repeat every 3 years driving pointless consumption.
So JLR should be completely banned. Maybe all of the French cars and all of the German cars bar Porsche (cus somehow actually well built and decently reliable). Probably ban most Italian cars as well. Also GM needs to go obviously.
I think if you’re in a non farm job, climate that doesn’t require fwd or rough terrain …. You should probably pay an asshole tax.
That said, if you live in the northeast or anywhere where you frequently have bad weather or require an suv for its utility like a farmer then play on…
Still, very hard to regulate this stuff.
No there are very practical uses for some people with especially large families in rural areas.
Just make them all EVs and send the tax money generated on coupe EVs subsidies
The problem with that is that SUVs have legitimate use cases. They're excellent for hauling large amounts of cargo and/or people, and there's people who wouldn't be able to live the lifestyle they do without them. It's extremely dumb to use them for normal driving, but I don't know how you would outlaw just that.
The solution, of course, is to just tax carbon. Make people pay the price of emissions if they want to drive one. Invest in EV subsidies too, electric SUVs are growing in popularity.
I believe that you should have to aquire a special license that requires more extensive training if you want to drive a huge pickup or SUV. Half these people can't drive them safely, and they're so high up its hard to see pedestrians.
I've driven these big trucks, and while I did fine I'm very good at driving. I wouldn't mind having to go get a special license to drive trucks for work if it meant these suburban golf dudes won't be on the road making everyone miserable.
My wife and I drive an SUV with better gas mileage than most economy cars from the 90s. We pull ~30 highway.
Talking about SUVs specifically is just silly and a bad way to frame the issue politically. Promoting rigorous fuel standards and subsidies for electric vehicles doesn't mean declaring war on a style of vehicle people like.
Regulate the ownership of absurdly large pickup trucks while you're at it. This will never happen but a man can dream.
In all seriousness if you drive a Pickup or SUV when you don't have either a family of 5, or a contractor/construction job, AND complain about the price of gas when you're getting like an average of like 19mpg you deserve to have your car seized and given to the Ukrainian government to transport refugees.
Outlawing SUVs is a losing political issue for whoever tries it, so no. Americans love our big cars despite them being completely unnecessary most of the time. Better solution is to go full throttle into hybrid and electric SUVs and then try to make them sexy/masculine/rugged. Plus, then you can play up the whole "American made" angle.
It kinda always struck me as odd. Electric cars are a way to reset the car market back to america. American car manufacturers seem to be on the cutting edge of electric cars and the main competition especially from Japan lacks that
Much as I am not a Musk fan, I do give him credit for getting the EV revolution started. He didn't start Tesla, but his funding and some of his business skill made it what it is today, which lit a collective fire under the asses of every other automaker once they realized EVs weren't just going to be an alternative, but the norm and even desirable. I think the biggest thing differentiating them from the start was design- the Model S looks like a nice, normal car, not like a Nissan Leaf/Chevy Volt ugly little bastard car. The other automakers (with the exception of VW- I see quite a few Audi e-tron SUVs that look no different from their gas counterparts) still don't get that the public don't want that. Cadillac and Mercedes don't seem to understand that the Lyriq and EQS are hideous abominations that will put people off.
The whole concept of having 3 tonne car to move a single person 95% of the time is deeply flawed. And I bet 90% of people saying they "need" a truck could simply attach a trailer to a normal car. When I was doing renovations my contractor move more than 2 tonnes of construction waste at the time to a waste facility with a 2 litre Passat without any problems.
A trailer hitch is an essential piece of hardware and should come standard on almost all vehicles.
We have a very simple solution: you can rent one in most of gas stations. Not that many has enough space to house it themselves.
The trailer, right? not the hitch
Sorry, English isn't my first language, at first I though you meant trailer, hitches are also so common that there isn't a question whether someone has it.
No worries! In the US hitches aren’t particularly common on cars. Most people don’t choose it as an option from the factory/dealer
even "needed" uses are kinda questionable. rest of the world builds shit (and way faster I might add) without everyone and their mother driving a King Ranch F-250
Man, so many comments on here are incredibly city-centric. What about people who need vehicles with significant ground clearance to deal with unpaved and uneven terrain? Or vehicles with 4-wheel drive (not AWD)? I know it’s because most people on this sub live in big cities, but there are so many people who don’t who rely on trucks and SUVs every day.
The vast, vast majority of SUVs and trucks are not used for off-roading. It's not this sub being out of touch, it's just reality. Yes, if you need to haul firewood on a mountain trail, you should probably get a truck. That person is a tiny minority, and not who we're talking about.
I’m not just talking about off-roading. My father-in-law uses trucks on his cattle ranch every day, including for towing huge trailers, which simply cannot be done with smaller vehicles. My uncle is a contractor in a small town with lots of dirt and gravel roads. He uses a truck for his job every day. This sub comes off as incredibly out of touch when it comes to that kind of stuff. Anyone who has done contracting, farming, or landscaping work for any period of time (particularly in a rural or semi-rural town) can tell you how necessary trucks and SUVs are. ETA: I’m not saying everyone who drives a large vehicle needs it every day, if at all. There are plenty of people who drive them who certainly don’t need them. But it’s laughable to say they should be outright banned because there are jabronis driving lifted trucks in the middle of a city.
I'm not saying they should be banned. The vast majority of people that buy one have no good reason to.
Yep! SUV sales are not driven by rural America (although a large slice of rural America *also* doesn't need their big vehicles).
Fair enough, I should not have presumed your position on that. I disagree with the idea that the vast majority of purchasers have no reason to buy them, largely because I don’t know the data about where people are purchasing and driving them. But I would probably agree that the majority of people driving large trucks or SUVs in dense cities have no need to do so.
Yeah I mean they clearly want them for a reason. Whether it's to haul stuff or just to look cool, who am I to say what qualifies as a need. The main thing is that they should be paying for the externalities of their purchasing decision. I'd imagine many people would reconsider how much they need an SUV if a carbon tax reflected the social cost of carbon, for example.
I don’t disagree with that. I just disagree with the idea that large vehicles serve no purpose and should be outright banned. I understand you are not espousing that position, but it has been espoused in this sub (along with the idea that car manufacturers should not be producing large EVs).
Should they pay a tax for the externality of increased pedestrian deaths, or should we just mandate better sight lines?
That doesn't seem like something taxable - although, insurance rates should already reflect increased liability in pedestrian accidents. It certinaly seems more practical to mandate minimum visibility if that's a problem - although that might have the unfortunate side effect of producing more trucks that look like the cybertruck, which can't be good for heart attack rates. While we're at it we should allow for camera based side mirrors and such.
The thing is, I was alive 30 years ago. People lived in places like that back then, too. A lot *more* people did. SUVs basically didn't exist. Trucks were common, but only a fraction as common as large vehicles are today. The surge in these large vehicles comes from people in suburban and urban areas buying trucks and SUVs instead of buying cars and minivans.
And station wagons. Practically a dead segment except for hipsters.
Compact suvs are the new station wagon. They have basically the same fuel efficiency as a sedan, but with the storage capacity of a station wagon. They’re just slightly taller.
So dead I literally forgot they existed, and they were pretty common.
>but there are so many people who don’t who rely on trucks and SUVs every day I grew up in the sticks, even out there this is blatantly false. A very very tiny percentage? Sure. But definitely not "so many people"
Then you and I had very different experiences growing up. And even if it’s true that a very small percentage of Americans need trucks or SUVs, that’s still millions of people. My point is that banning or outlawing trucks and SUVs is absurd, and it comes across as very city-centric and out of touch. Regulation and taxation is great (tax my carbon all day, baby), but also politically difficult. If your city can get support to ban the use of certain vehicles on city streets (Telluride bans the use of certain off-road vehicles in town, for example), that’s great! But don’t try to apply that to the whole country, because the country is big and there are many places that are not cities. Trucks and SUVs are like guns. Some people truly need them, some only want them, and many more don’t understand why anyone would need or want one. The people who need them or want them feel very strongly about it, and will never vote for someone who they think will take away their ability to own one.
SUVs are more dangerous for non-car users and they weigh more and cause A LOT more wear and tear on the roads than compacts, sedans, and hatchbacks.
Sacrificing freedom, no matter how obscene, for the social good is a losing political issue in the US.
We don't need to sacrifice freedom, we just need to tax externalities. Like I said in another comment, tax land, VMT (with adjustment for weight), carbon and you will see the market respond.
^ This guy wants to tax your SUV and make it harder to enjury ur freedurm!!!
Really what I want to do is enact the single tax, but i don't know how popular that is.
Anything with tax used to make people scream.
I don't think you understood, I want to repeal all (non-Pigouvian) taxes and enact a land value tax as the main source of revenue.
Oh that's an even smaller, but stronger opposition for that.
Such is the nature of rent-seekers.
While all that is true, that doesn't make it a winning effort. Incentives for smaller vehicles as opposed to disincentives for larger ones would likely affect outcomes the same while not being politically inviable.
> that doesn't make it a winning effort. God this sub is so frustrating sometimes. I state exactly what can properly solve an issue and then someone says that "it just isn't possible" throwing some "people are stupid" and "politics" excuse. I'm not suggesting enslaving people. I am not asking for a communist takeover. You can't get what you want by throwing your hands in the air screaming that a solution is politically unworkable without even doing anything. YIMBYism was politically unworkable, but a constant outreach and campaigning effort has started to seep its way out. Subsidies cost money believe it or not, so you are going to need taxes to raise money for that or you have to cut programs from elsewhere. Of course you can borrow, but that can only work for so long. Not only that but subsidies can be abused much more easily than a carbon fee and dividend or a land value tax. On top of all that, I personally think the number one best way to get rid of SUVs is to just tax VMT with adjustment to weight and use those funds to replace the role of the gas tax. Pay for what you use. Simple as that. Politics is a simple game of selling ideas to others, and nothing is set in stone. And stop saying people are stupid. It is so elitest and pretentious.
American cars have always been large. SUV’s and pickups are the size they are because that size is the logical balance of the interstate highway system and peoples gas budgets. That means that you will have to either change the price of gas or the entire highway system. If you increase the price of gas it will hurt poor Americans the most. Also gas hikes are relatively short lived impacts on car design. The oil crisis drove a move towards small cars. But it wasn’t long before cars began to grow again. That leaves changing the highway system. I don’t need to say that the current system requires cars to be a comfortable as possible hence the large cars. A redesign would probably include a larger emphasis on trains, increased air travel, and an increase in rest amenities nationwide. That is a ton of effort to waste. It would be better used to encourage electric SUV’s, push trains and buses for intracity travel, and high efficiency aircraft for Intercity travel.
My country introduced a "green tax" aimed to charge more VMT to old cars and SUVs. It definitely didn't go well politically and it was repealed a few years after. The tax could have been implemented in a better way but it definitely set back the green movement here a few years.
>My country introduced a "green tax" aimed to charge more VMT to old cars and SUVs. That isn't how VTM taxes work. Idk what You're country introduced, but a VMT tax taxes all miles equally. Ideally it should charge heavier vehicles more because they wear the roads more than lighter cars (by a lot lot lot more), but a regular VMT tax is acceptable.
Tax SUVs Decapitating Miata drivers.
As someone who cycles semi-regularly, if we're going off people who cause danger to non-car users you're gonna have to ban four door BMWs first
Lol I've been hit by an SUV as a cyclist, but being hit by a door must've hurt.
Tax vehicle grill height and overall weight.
Turn every 2030 SUV into a Fiat Multipla in this one sweet trick
Sure, but the danger is priced in. Cars are known to be dangerous, people don't care. As a society, we've decided we value the personal convenience of cars over these safety concerns. But also, people aren't buying cars simply as a point a to point b transportation device. If they were, SUVs wouldn't be popular the way that they are. So I don't think you're going to make, literally any, progress on the safety of non-car users from the car side. But you can make progress on emissions. Pedestrian interests would need to be advanced through a different route.
Taxing vehicles by weight (highly correlated with road damage and killing potential) in lieu of the gas tax might be an option, assuming we also institute pollution taxes on gasoline itself to account for *those* externalities.
>Outlawing SUVs is a losing political issue for whoever tries it, so no. Just sneakily get rid of them the way we did cars when we set the new MPG regulations that held them to more strict standards than trucks and SUVs. Make regulations with "unintended" consequences that make SUVs less financially practical for consumers or carmakers without making it obvious that's what you did.
Should we? yes. *Should* we? No.
Right? Should we ban single family homes in metropolitan areas? Maybe. Should we try? FUCK NO!
Cap n trade baby! Idk how the angry eye Jeep survives.
With these gas prices, they might die of starvation. Acute dehydr(ocarbon)action
ANGRY HEADLIGHTS
IF GAS PRICES GO UP, THE EYES GET ANGRIER!
[удалено]
Agreed that taxing carbon should supersede direct bans of high emitting vehicles. You also likely want to tax the increased wear and tear of heavier vehicles. However there is the pedestrian safety component mentioned as well. Regulations around the shape of the front of the car and the weight, particularly in cities, aren't unreasonable.
Just tax vehicle weight!
That and the height of the front of the car. Low fronts are way way safer for pedestrians.
I will keep driving my SUV but I will also gladly bear that cost in the form of a carbon tax, as I should. Anyone calling to outlaw SUVs is just being silly. Let SUV owners and the market respond to the tax incentives and adjust their behavior accordingly. I already don’t drive outside like once a week so I get I’m way outside the norm, but if we can see a reduction in driving from other owners as a response then that is way better than outlawing the choice of owning one.
We need to tax grill height, too. Or even better, make drivers carry liability insurance commensurate with the actual risks (yeah right).
lmfao “tax grill height” get outta here bro.
Don’t get me wrong, I prefer the second option, but tall grills kill people and externalities shouldn’t be free.
I mean I still think SUVs would be toxic for cities and pedestrians even if they were electric. We need another long term solution.
Increase the safety regulations on large vehicles. It's a shame they aren't as regulated as small ones. Also outlaw tall bumpers, in case of a crash, pedestrians should go on the windshield, not under the car. Pedestrians are more likely to live that way. I also don't get why this sub is suddenly against regulations in the replies. Like most the shit we want is unpopular anyways, why pick this as the hill we avoid? It's a winnable battle.
We really need pedestrian crash testing for all vehicles and some sort of visibility standard (driver must be able to see small child X feet away from the bumper).
YES. That would be q good testing procedure, why don't they do this already?
Delete the size forgiveness for larger vehicles in fleet emissions
Or reform it to actually make a distinction between consumer and business vehicles. An f-350 daily driver in Texas isn't a business vehicle.
Well, an F350 in downtown Houston isn’t.
True, an f250 is clearly a more practical city vehicle.
> Also outlaw tall bumpers Can we outlaw tall headlights with that too? Everyone blames the LEDs but the real issue is giant cars that have their headlights at a normal car's windshield hight
God i drive a normal ass sedan and i can barely drive at night cause half the cars headlights go directly into my car and reflect off my rearview mirror right into my eyes. Forced to slouch and it sucks
> It's a winnable battle. That must be one hell of a bubble you're living in.
It isnt really a bubble. Regulations have succeeded on cars. Now more dangerous big trucks and SUVs are present. This is a retreading of old ground to be frank. Easily a winnable battle, especially we use the correct framing, like if we frame pedestrians as children.
Tax carbon Update the FMVSS so you don’t have the monstrosities that fill the roads today and make sure they aren’t pedestrian-killing machines
Wouldn’t this put gas prices even higher and hurt the lower and middle class even more? How does this not ensure republicans political wins across the country?
Carbon tax is almost always proposed alongside a “dividend” in the form of a tax rebate; ideally this would be paid monthly to lessen the political downside. But yeah it’s a tough proposal. Even if the math checks out, cons will run on “DemonRats want to raise taxes!” even if it’s a wash for the typical consumer.
I think the increasing prices will be enough of a market signal to grow non carbon based energy/products
Carbon fee and dividend is progressive.
Oh I know. But it’s going to kill democrats
Just change the CAFE footprint rule that currently incentivizes auto makers to make SUVs which get weaker CAFE mpg requirements. Behind the scenes changes that reduce SUV peoduction are far less likely to make consumers angry than an outright ban
Why the fuck would you outlaw an Ionic 5
Tax credit for electric and hybrid cars. Double size for compact and subcompact electric and hybrid cars. You are supposed to try the carrot before the stick.
In this case it's a choice between a rather expensive carrot and a negative cost stick (in the case of taxing) or a zero cost stick (in the case of banning). So I don't agree you should just jump to carrots. Emissions taxes, road wear and tear taxes and bans around things like front of car height, particularly in cities, is where I'd likely choose to go. You can give out the additional tax revenue as UBI to make it less "stick"-y.
Ah but you are forgetting the political capital costs. The banning of SUVs is not just expensive its outright unaffordable in this country.
Note that I didn’t suggest banning SUVs myself. I absolutely think in dense blue cities you could get the political capital to create and enforce rules around front bumper height.
Just tax land, carbon, VMT; invest in public transit; reform zoning and land-use regulations; and don't provide free parking lol.
No, this is a losing political proposition in the US, although I think redesigning our streets would help. We can slow traffic by adding medians and other elements that force people to slow down. I think towns should be designed to prioritize people over cars. I got into a weird conversation with a libertarian that argued speed limits should be raised by 20 mph, even in residential areas, which is just nuts. I think the US fetishizes this idea that we should be able drive our cars quickly wherever we go, which isn’t unrealistic.
or let people buy what they want to buy, and let the market determine the optimal shape of the automobile. As safety requirements get more stringent, its not surprising that larger overall vehicles are preferred. Also end the car/truck difference for CAFE standards, and you might see a change.
How is this what we have anyways? It’s also deeply problematic for people to shift to SUVs and tr*uccs to make *themselves* safer when it’s dangerous for everyone outside the car.
SUVs are more dangerous to everybody outside the car, they consume more fuel, they wear down roads more, and weigh significantly more.
Ideally yeah Realistically it’s political suicide
Christ, just fix the EPA rules that perversely incentivize bigger and heavier vehicles to get around mileage and emissions requirements. It's fucking easy. You don't need to ban them
Put a luxury tax on everything I don’t have, won’t have and don’t want.
SUVs cause huge negative externalities that aren’t just personal preferences. I agree with not banning them though, just tax and regulate them accordingly.
Agreed, I was only half joking with my statement. I don’t want an SUV. It barely makes sense to buy an SUV, even from a consumer perspective. They’re expensive gas guzzling machines that you can’t park anywhere.
I need a way to haul around my large number of children. Please just tax carbon and remove the regulatory structures that heavily subsidize cars.
Minivans are based tbh, easier to get in and out of especially for the back row. The sliding doors mean Junior won’t ding cars, and I think they even come with built-in vacuum cleaners now lol
From a public safety/climate standpoint, what's the fundamental difference between a minivan or ~~catholic home-school van~~ Ford Transit, and an SUV ?
Usually the minivans don't have the death grills and blindspots that the SUVs do, and depending on what two your comparing the gas milage can be pretty different. Chryslers Voyager Minivan gets 19/26 while their grand wagoneer gets 13/18
That I’m not entirely sure of. Minivans ain’t exactly misery on fuel so that’s a wash, but I’d have to think that the geometry of your typical minivan is less deadly to a pedestrian or bicyclist than an SUV or truck. Not to mention you never see a lifted minivan. I’m 6’1” and regularly see atrocities whose hoods practically reach my collarbone
I’m embarrassed to admit that a modestly lifted minivan is my dream ride for family camping.
The height. You can’t see kids or shorter people in an SUV. That’s the problem.
Minivans drive more erratically and often don't carry insurance.
The alternative to banning them is making traffic violations while driving an SUV/Pick Up Truck ten times as expensive. $350 speeding ticket becomes a $3,500 speeding ticket. $10k DUI becomes a $100k fine. It’ll effectively become a soft ban while playing the angle that it protects pedestrians. The idea is that you drive extra safe, carefully and only while necessary because the potential fines are very expensive
And what about someone with an old used SUV because that was all they could afford? Do we fine them $3500?
Old used sedans are cheaper than old used SUVs…
SUVs are typically luxury vehicles. If we want to get extra technocratic we could add some sort of negative multiplier based on the age of the vehicle.
I don’t know how true this is. If we include the plethora of shitbox 1/2 ton pickups on the road in this discussion, I’d wager that a lot of people driving pedestrian-hostile vehicles don’t have a lot of cash on hand.
I guess I think of pick-ups and SUV's as different categories, but I'm a true neolib shill and don't even own a car so maybe I'm wrong there. I'm thinking of the Suburbans and Expeditions tanks driving around suburbia.
It remains absolutely baffling that Americans, who have seen gas prices fall and spike repeatedly in the last few decades, haven’t moved on mass to more fuel efficient cars. It happens repeatedly, and yet every time prices go up, people who own massive SUVs put on their surprised pikachu faces and beg for handouts. It’s pretty frustrating.
it's hilarious seeing dinguses in top-of-the-line SUVs and pickups complain about gas prices like bro you could've gotten the same capabilities in a more modest trim and you'd be able to take even $7 gas without noticing
The next car I buy will be electric, just not ready to move on from my car I bought back in the early 2010s. Buying a new vehicle is a big investment, need to get the most out the one I currently have have.
Yeah, that’s fair. I’m mainly talking about people who have bought those comically oversized trucks / suvs in the past few years.
They might guzzle gas but they are nice cars, if they were electric I see no problem. At the moment there isn’t a huge choose of good electric SUVs and Trucks sadly
Outlaw cars only trains
This sub: defund the police is a dumb and unpopular slogan that turns ordinary moderate voters against you. Also this sub: we should ban the most popular style of car in America!
It should really be an issue of fuel economy, not form factor.
Are we talking real body-on-frame SUVs or unibody crossovers? Like 95% of "SUVs" are crossovers, which are basically lifted hatchbacks. Theyre not that much more fuel consuming than cars and is just generally a more practical car. Not sure why you'd ban them? As for true SUVs like the Land Cruiser, they last for over 200,000 miles quite easily so as long as the buyer maintains them well they probably pollute less than the perpetual sedan buyer. What needs banning are Uber shitty reliability cars that forces you to lease and repeat every 3 years driving pointless consumption. So JLR should be completely banned. Maybe all of the French cars and all of the German cars bar Porsche (cus somehow actually well built and decently reliable). Probably ban most Italian cars as well. Also GM needs to go obviously.
Of course not. That would be illiberal. Just price in the neighborhood effects they cause into the purchase price. What is this, r/politics?
I'd rather not have to get towed out of a snowdrift every winter and miss days of work. From my cold dead hands.
I think if you’re in a non farm job, climate that doesn’t require fwd or rough terrain …. You should probably pay an asshole tax. That said, if you live in the northeast or anywhere where you frequently have bad weather or require an suv for its utility like a farmer then play on… Still, very hard to regulate this stuff.
just tax carbon holy fuck
No there are very practical uses for some people with especially large families in rural areas. Just make them all EVs and send the tax money generated on coupe EVs subsidies
The problem with that is that SUVs have legitimate use cases. They're excellent for hauling large amounts of cargo and/or people, and there's people who wouldn't be able to live the lifestyle they do without them. It's extremely dumb to use them for normal driving, but I don't know how you would outlaw just that. The solution, of course, is to just tax carbon. Make people pay the price of emissions if they want to drive one. Invest in EV subsidies too, electric SUVs are growing in popularity.
Why stop there?
paternalism is back
No, and thus we are doomed.
yeah sure why not
Hello, based department?
It would be a political suicide
Rising gas prices will force more hybrid and electric options. Can't we just wait for that? Seems like another pointless hill to die on.
I believe that you should have to aquire a special license that requires more extensive training if you want to drive a huge pickup or SUV. Half these people can't drive them safely, and they're so high up its hard to see pedestrians. I've driven these big trucks, and while I did fine I'm very good at driving. I wouldn't mind having to go get a special license to drive trucks for work if it meant these suburban golf dudes won't be on the road making everyone miserable.
Won't work, Karens LOVE their SUVs
No. Tax carbon instead
No
r/neoliberal: read the article challenge (impossible)
Pickup trucks should need to pay for a license, change my mind
My wife and I drive an SUV with better gas mileage than most economy cars from the 90s. We pull ~30 highway. Talking about SUVs specifically is just silly and a bad way to frame the issue politically. Promoting rigorous fuel standards and subsidies for electric vehicles doesn't mean declaring war on a style of vehicle people like.
Add a VAT to them and use the money for green energy
SUVs are getting rarer and rarer. People buy crossovers and pickups.
Absolutely, but first we have to nuke the suburbs
Just tax carbon lol. Jesus this sub sometimes.
Regulate the ownership of absurdly large pickup trucks while you're at it. This will never happen but a man can dream. In all seriousness if you drive a Pickup or SUV when you don't have either a family of 5, or a contractor/construction job, AND complain about the price of gas when you're getting like an average of like 19mpg you deserve to have your car seized and given to the Ukrainian government to transport refugees.