Why can't the government put a limit on car sizes? | Hacker News Reader

Why can't the government put a limit on car sizes?

ashlan.com

32 pointssamemail88133 comments

The government addressed this a few years ago by raising taxes on larger car chassis, making vehicles like the Hummer more expensive.

This led to the instantaneous rise in popularity of so-called "crossover" vehicles. Puffy vehicles that looked kinda SUV-ish and were elevated for higher road visibility but were built on a smaller (lower tax rate) car chassis.

The article of course wants to go to the next step, banning them outright which is just not going to happen. We don't live in a dictatorship and so absolutes like "never make an SUV" bans this don't really happen. Especially because... there are plenty of real-world non-edge-case scenarios in which having one vehicle for a lot of people and stuff is much more efficient than multiple sedans.

We could keep raising taxes on those SUV chassis though, I guess.

Another comment mentioned this, but SUVs only exist because they were a regulatory exception to energy-hogging large sedans.

> We don't live in a dictatorship and so absolutes like "never make an SUV" bans this don't really happen.

I can’t tell if you’re being hyperbolic, but banning SUVs isn’t a sign of a dictatorship, and it’s frankly a bit ridiculous to even make the comparison.

The US government has and does ban products all the time for all sorts of reasons. See: alcohol, marijuana/other drugs, incandescent bulbs, etc.

I don't think it's terribly hyperbolic. OP wants to get rid of something he doesn't use and presents a black-and-white statement for why it's rational, but SUVs have so many proponents that the govt'd have to override all of them without their opinion weighing in to get it passed as law before they had a chance to kick you out of office. (See, say, the efforts in the 1970s to get the USA to use the metric system as an example.)

Is it possible? Yes, that's why I used the weasel words of "don't really happen" instead of "don't ever happen".

I also pointed out that the more likely way to get OP's way would be to continue raising taxes on those vehicles to illicit the same result without outright making SUVs illegal to produce.

That’s fair enough, I seem to have misread your original comment as “bans on things individuals like == dictatorship”, which is a common enough sentiment, unfortunately, that the connection is all to easy to make.

If SUVs were genuinely solving a widespread problem that would otherwise involve people owning multiple cars, I suspect that we would all hear a lot from environmentalists about them.

Anecdotally, when I've met "real" people who live in remote areas, they tend to drive old, unglamourous, and often semi broken cars. Wealthy second home owners, city folk practising an outdoor activity on the odd weekend, suburbanites keeping up with the neighbours, etc. are the ones who feel the need to buy new vehicles suitable for conditions they experience once in a blue moon, if ever.

I agree. The problem with trying to regulate this is that if you can't get to the point where you get the HN classes to give up the stupid 4Runners and Model Ys they don't need for their 1.2 kids without screwing everyone else along the way. As much as it would bring me joy to halt their conspicuous consumption the collateral damage is unacceptable.

Those “real” people are likely driving those vehicles because they can’t afford anything else, not because of a conscious choice.

And the most-selling SUVs are built on car chassis, so the idea that people are buying them for some imaginary future off-roading it mostly is an outdated relic of the original SUV generation.

Most people buy them because they’re a good balance between size and cargo space, and many modern models have gas mileage comparable to a sedan.

Also, the Supreme Court recently curtailed the EPA overstepping its bounds to set regulation. In other words, regulatory authority is actually moving away from the government having the power to simply ban things.

> We don't live in a dictatorship and so absolutes [..] don't really happen.

Of course they do and their existence isn't evidence of a dictatorship. These laws come about via elected bodies.

Raising taxes is perhaps even worse in terms of the message. "You can have this thing but you'll have to be minted to afford it." It lends prestige to something which might just be unnecessary. If it is, just ban it. Certain classes of vehicle used within cities are a good first step.

Why can't they government fix my pet peeves?

This kind of thinking is what's leading us to a prison society without privacy or freedom, one little whiny step at a time.

The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level.

American government, to be fair, is hamstrung by design. It is meant to be bad at its job in order to limit the damage it might otherwise cause.

I am curious at which level vehicle safety/requirements should be regulated in your opinion?

In my household we typically use the phrase "pet peeve" to refer to things that are meaningfully below the impact threshold of killing humans

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/large-trucks-suvs-far-m...

The article did not take issue with the safety of large vehicles.

It should have.

I know some libertarians are more extreme than others, but I thought it was generally still agreed that the government has a role to play in stopping people from killing other people.

The government built the roads, to a specific specification of assumed car sizes. If cars get so big that they break these assumptions then roads start getting blocked, or you start to have streets that some cars are too big to fit through (already happens in older cities in Europe) - and this would adversely affect other people.

What next, are speed limits also leading us to a prison society, because people don't have the freedom to drive at 100mph through the city? It's a shared public infrastructure that needs rules to keep people safe and alive. You could always build your own private roads if you want to be free of these oppressive regulations on the shared public highway.

Exactly, if I can afford it, can I drive a tank around that hogs two lanes? Why is that illegal? Why is nobody protesting the government banning Juul?

As a society where we all pay for these things, we all get a say.

If you want to live in a place where large vehicles are banned, you can always go build your own private roads...

It sounds more like the older cities in Europe are outdated and need to update their aging infrastructure than us Americans need to take drastic action against larger vehicles. Nobody in the US has ever had a problem with large vehicles previously.

We didn't have large vehicles in the way we do now. Going back and looking at the sizes of trucks – real, functional, agricultural/construction use pickup trucks – over the decades shows dramatic size increases.

The cars on the road still fit these specifications, you cannot build an arbitrary large car and drive it around. If you really cared about specifications mismatch then the first thing you needed to ban would be buses, each several times bigger and heavier than the biggest SUV offered to consumers.

big trucks are so cliche and should go the way of steam engines, but the government doesn't have the right to limit how big they can be.

The registration fee's should be much, much higher.

Tragedy of the commons is a real thing, it's not a pet peeve, you disingenuous dumbass

@dang

It's not really a pet peeve, the government actually subsidizes large vehicles, many of which do a disproportionate amount of roadway damage.

So maybe not a restriction, but at least let's end the subsidies. A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well.

The US is constantly shooting itself in the foot with what I'd argue aren't too many regulations... but regulations prioritizing the wrong things.

>A tax by weight, which has been recommended by some in the past, seems entirely reasonable as well.

All for it, but this will hurt EVs quite a lot.

Then continue to subsidize EVs.

I will note though, that the EV Hummer weighs nearly 10,000lbs. We're already seeing the same problem.

Sure, a bit, which is fair. Sure maybe EV incentives make sense to burn less gas, but have them pay full share of road wear. A model 3 RWD is 3800 pounds, a somewhat similar sized Toyota Camry is 3,300 pounds. Tesla's just starting to ship the 4680 batteries with their structural battery pack which should decrease the vehicle weight for a given range, which should decrease the weight penalty further.

Nonsense, particularly in this case - the SUV is not some act of god but a result of prior necessary regulation that needs adjustment.

The SUV was basically created by the govt when CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Efficiency) standards specified higher fuel efficiency for cars vs "light trucks" (27.5 vs 21mpg, IIRC). So, instead of promoting the previously ubiquitous station wagon as a family-hauler, automakers started promoting the SUV under the "Light Truck" category.

The appropriate response is to adjust the rules to account for the unintended consequences, not to simply say "whatever - we shouldn't do anything!". Tho, TBF, the article was also missing these key historical details.

There is also the 25% "Chicken Tax"[1] on imported light trucks started in 1964 and still in force today. Domestic auto manufactures were highly motivated to get the public to buy trucks/SUVs instead of cars for the last 60 years and they did a pretty good job at it.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp#:~:text....

Is that why I can't buy a Toyota Hilux?

> The government should do as little as possible, and the least at the federal level.

Look at where that got the biggest country on the planet.

The biggest economy on the planet? The most free country on the planet?

Sure, but to be fair infrastructure should be "free" to all citizens (like public schools) or some approximation of fair/usage based.

The cost of road related infrastructure (roads, highways, parking, tunnels, bridges, etc) and the land consumed by that infrastructure is considerable. I can see flat rate being something like the wear and tear you'd expect from a normal/popular vehicle, like say a honda accord or toyota camry. But if people buy something huge (that takes up more space) and is heavier they should pay more for it to support the increased cost of the wear and tear on the infrastructure. That can be substantial, I believe the wear and tear on a road scales with the 4th power of the weight.

I might as well repeat the overprotective parent perspective. Fatalities are higher if you're in a sedan in an accident with a pickup or semi. There are a lot of trucks on the road as well. Finally, road accidents are the one of the biggest risks young people face.

So ignoring the fact that this makes it into an arms race of weight and size, a parents desire for child safety wins against someone's desire to lower carbon emissions.

You break the arms race by limiting the size.

Now limit the size of pickups and semis. They're the other side of that arms race.

And in fact, you're never going to succeed at limiting the size of either one. Not even pickups. Pickups need to be the size they are to be able to haul the things that people buy pickups to be able to haul.

So don't hold your breath at being able to limit the arms race. And that means that, to the degree that people buy SUVs defensively, to that degree limiting the size of SUVs is a really tough sell.

But are the people who are buying the big SUVs in an arms race against Semis/Big Pick ups? Everybody knows their cars can't compete in size compared to Semis/Big pick ups. I believe their arm races are against other consumers who are driving big SUVs. They're looking to have the biggest SUVs on regular roads (outside the highway).

No, you break the arms race by making people understand that size is not the only game in town.

GT cars have steel cages built around the driver, also carbon fiber reinforcements.

That's not really a helpful comparison. The safety considerations on a track are very different than on the road.

Safety devices on modern vehicles aren't independent variables -- they are designed to work together, and they're designed for particular risk cases.

Street cars have some design criteria that isn't the case for some of the safety systems on track cars: for example, the safety systems in a passenger vehicle are designed to work without a helmet or a HANS, which is often not the case with track cars.

If you are not wearing a helmet and a HANS, you are safer wrecking a car with an airbag and a 3 point belt than a cage and a harness, where you'll end up with a concussion and a basel fracture.

Also, crashes on a racetrack are overwhelmingly with barriers or with vehicles with similar vectors of motion. On the road, impacts at 90 or 180 degrees with vehicles of varying masses are much more common, and then, mass becomes a significant factor in the forces imparted upon occupants.

The conflict here is that while bigger vehicles are often safer for the occupants, they are way more dangerous for anyone not inside a vehicle that big, especially pedestrians. Namely, if you get hit by a larger vehicle, you're less likely to tumble over the roof like what would happen with a sedan and instead you get knocked over and crushed.

And of course, "the fact that this makes it into an arms race of weight and size" is absolutely not something that we can ignore. This is a perfect example of a situation where everyone acting in their own rational self interest is way worse for everyone, and is why the government should be regulating the size of cars.

You are forgetting a crucial aspect. When all cars increase in size and weight the total risk only increases!

This is not a zero-sum game, it's a net negative.

Edit: no, saying that it's an arms race does not implies it's a negative for everybody.

A larger vehicle full of passengers is often more efficient than a smaller one. Are we going to regulate minimum passengers per vehicle size? I'm not sure this proposal solves the intended problem in a meaningful way.

I'd rather see hefty taxes on fuel. This might yield better incentives toward urbanization, alternative transportation, and mass-transportation infrastructure.

What happens when people see the high cost of gas and switch to big electric cars instead?

Good point. Either way we wouldn't be any worse off, and we'd have cleaner air to boot.

The massive car sizes we see are because of government emissions regulations to begin with. That’s right, the “big truck to make up for lack of X” phenomenon was actually caused by people attempting to regulate how trucks are made without thinking through thr consequences.

People who reach for regulations tend to be bad with incentives, not always, but usually.

to add to this, there is a hilarious plague of "second order" thinking in government, while ignoring first order. We got into this mess with things like the 21 year old drinking age. The federal government doesn't have the authority to make that rule, so instead they provide a highway funding incentive to the states who offer it.

The issues is that it has become the federal government's only tool - provide incentives and try to encourage behavior which can't be directly regulated. As a result, they are basically left with cash handouts to get what they want and must fund those rules out of taxation or the deficit.

if we wanted to have a more sane system, we'd remove second order incentives in favor of direct first order regulations. but, that would require constitutional amendments which are unlikely to pass.

> if we wanted to have a more sane system, we'd remove second order incentives in favor of direct first order regulations. but, that would require constitutional amendments which are unlikely to pass.

I detest both arguments. The drinking age didn't stop under-21's from drinking. They just don't do it publicly. You're correct in that governments shouldn't use legislative carrots and sticks to influence state policies. But I disagree that direct federal control is a replacement for philosophical reasons as well as the fact that the government already tried the more honest approach of passing a constitutional amendment to regulate the consumption of alcohol only to have it blowback on them. And due to the resulting backlash and unenforcability, the government passed another amendment to deregulate it. As the old saying goes, prohibition doesn't work.

I used alcohol as an example, and should have been more clear that it was _just_ an example.

I'm sure you and I could find common ground where we believe that carrot/stick approach is dumb, but that some rule should be passed.

With regard to alcohol, the government, federal or state, shouldn't have a place in it.

With respect to other matters, it would depend on the circumstances. In the context the article at hand, I doubt writing legislation dictating that a car should be only so high and only so wide would be effective. Legally, speaking, even if such a law were passed, it would be unenforceable. It would hurt the automotive industry and kill hundreds of not thousands of jobs. And with regards to safety, smaller cars are more cramped wouldn't fit a wide-berthed family of five.

Countries with low vehicular fatalities per person make it difficult for anyone but the rich to own a car in the first place usually via high import taxes or a yearly vehicle licensing or excise tax. But that goes back to our original point in that direct policies would immediately receive pushback and legal challenges where as more indirect policies that "solve" the immediate and medium-term issue but will eventually cause economic consequences that fully aren't grasped until it's too late. Both approaches eventually lead to undesirable outcomes.

Why ban things when you could just tax them through the nose? That way, people who _really_ want them get them, and also pay to reverse whatever harm they cause.

No substance. How could the government limit the size of vehicles?

> Companies will never voluntarily reduce their SUV sizes unless outside forces pressures them to do (like $10 oil).

If oil (say, brent crude) goes to $10, something has gone very awry.

The government can levy large taxes on new big vehicles just like they did with cigarettes. If the largest SUVs had a 25% tax on it, I think most people will not buy it (basically limiting it). Or if the gas prices went to $10 a gallon, people will ditch their big vehicles.

The government can just directly subsidize the vehicles they like, as they are attempting to do with electric cars.

Define a weight and drop taxes/offer refunds for people who buy them, see more of them appear.

The government should tax/regulate things that have negative externalities, and the greater the externality, the harsher the restrictions should be.

Subsidizing smaller cars is a bad idea because they still have negative externalities, just less so. The government shouldn't be favoring driving a small car over walking, but that's exactly what a small (or electric) car subsidy does.

The reason we subsidize EVs instead of taxing gas-powered cars is because the latter is politically unpopular, not because the former is a better designed policy.

Sure. The post says nothing about that though. Just a bunch of baseless assertions about cars being bigger than ever, but the '90s versions were super comfortable. OK.

> Consumers who fear for their safety and buy big cars and rest assure nobody else will be driving an even bigger car.

Sounds like a middle-schooler banging out a 3-point persuasive essay asap so he can use the rest of the time to play drug wars on his ti-82.

> How could the government limit the size of vehicles?

Tons of ways. For instance, "a car must get at least 40 MPG". "A car can weigh no more than X". There are lots of whats to phrase the rules.

Or do you mean "how could the government possibly enforce a law against a product in a highly regulated industry with compulsory registration", in which case it seems obvious.

Certainly. I'm not saying there is no way to do something like this. This post just doesn't offer anything.

It complains about environmental matters, and then it goes on to complain about weight. Make one wonder if the author has ever weighed a car-sized battery.

> "a car must get at least 40 MPG".

This is basically how CAFE works, and it's part of the problem. Trucks are necessary for commerce and utility, and we allow people to drive them on the road. So we now have a road filled with vehicles that are technically "trucks" carrying families instead of "cars".

I mean, we could redefine "truck" to exclude SUVs.

You could. Whether or not you’d get a desirable outcome is up to the particulars of the implementation.

It’s worth remembering that the current state of things is an unintended consequence. Describing the problem generally is easy. Defining it specifically enough so that there isn’t a workaround is the tough part

A 4 door truck would probably be the new family vehicle.

Of course the govt can limit vehicle sizes, and already do, in both width and weight, at least, to fit the roads.

Within those limits, I think they should push for more environmentally friendly vehicles through taxes.

But not just fuel taxes, which might not give the desired incentive 'curve', and in any case still penalize even the most economical vehicles.

But directly; per kerb weight, per mpg, per co2/mile, etc, etc.

They can, indirectly. Put a tax on gas which will penalize low mileage and let the marketplace do the rest. Size/cost of parts and safety will be handled via the insurance business and peoples chequebook. Clean, safe big honking trucks are better than not clean not safe and would result in lower costs(payments) across the board.

There are already many incentives in place for smaller cars:

* Use less fuel

* Easier to park

* Cheaper to buy

There is generally not much point in having the government incentivize "good" things. Whatever makes them good is already the incentive, and if that's not enough, then there are probably other issues at play that some feel-good government initiative isn't going to overcome.

if statists always got their way, this thinking would be illegal. How come you use this much common sense.

* Die when hit by a lifted pick up

Perhaps regulations should require all on-road vehicles have bumper and headlight heights compatible with regular cars.

Unfortunately there are also incentives against small cars [1].

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...

Right, but make sure that all externalities are properly payed by fuel/road/vehicle taxes, so individual incentives are not distorted by not having to pay those.

1. The US federal government has relatively little ability to regulate vehicles as compared to other countries. The US government, for instance, does not license drivers or register vehicles.

2. States do have limits on vehicle sizes (i.e the GVWR) that can be driven without a commercial drivers license.

3. We do have many limits that apply differently to cars vs. trucks. The response from the auto industry has been to build more vehicles that are classified as trucks because they have more relaxed regulations. It is very difficult to allow industry to buy the utility vehicles they need while simultaneously forcing families to not buy them.

> $10 oil

You mean $10 gas? with $10 oil, everyone would drive a tank :)

I'm also curious why (required) speed limit regulators aren't a thing, especially in cities. Why are cars physically allowed to go more than 25 MPH in NYC? I thought speed limit regulators are required on some kinds of scooters and electric bikes. Cars are a lot more dangerous.

It's not that I think NYC or the US is very progressive when it comes to dealing with potential car crashes (we aren't) but I'm also curious why this hasn't shown up in other countries/cities in Europe/Asia that are more safety conscious.

Because there are scenarios where you need to go over the speed limit to keep yourself and others safe

On top of that I personally want as little "smart" in my car as possible, so I'd rather they didn't pass such regulation.

The limiters on scooters and bikes is to let them ride as a bike - many localities say that a mike that can go over X MPH is a motorbike and treated as such (requiring licenses, etc).

I'm surprised that insurance companies haven't offered discounts to people willing to limit their vehicle to certain speeds; but my guess is that the hassle isn't worth it.

> I'm also curious why this hasn't shown up in other countries/cities in Europe

It is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996148

Woah, thanks for the link!

I'm the oldest of 10 kids. My family needed a 15-passenger van to travel. Why can't the government stay out of my business?

Do you drive it on a private road?

Weird question, but they probably do from time to time.

The question is implying if they use it on government funded roads, then the government should get a say on what is allowed.

This is silly reasoning. Of course the government has the authority to dictate their life, even if they didn’t drive in public roads. This doesn’t mean that it’s good for them to do so in this case.

Does the road being public mean that my family should have been forced to drive two cars, thus polluting more, all because of some people who can't stay out of other's business?

I understand the argument here, but I think it's bad. Government does get a say in what is driven on roads: safe cars that are often inspected and pose less danger to those around and inside them. That's already a lot of restriction, now we let the gov't pick favorites too? Government is not your fairy godmother, things you don't like will happen.

>my family should have been forced to drive two cars, thus polluting more, all because of some people who can't stay out of other's business

You're depicting one side of a question with a practical example ("more pollution") and the other side as though they are simply assholes ("they just can't stay out of other's business"). There is a reasonable version of both sides.

This is true, but someone else telling you how to live your life with obviously zero practical experience in how you live your life will generally seem unreasonable to you. My bias is showing, but my bias is, I think, reasonable.

The question didn't start with trying to take reasonable stock of both sides.

Maybe the government should have been more in your parents' business. I'm not usually one to think that the government has any place in the family, but 10 children seem like too many for 2 parents to wrangle well. Unless your family has more than two adults, how were you supervised?

They're offsetting the 30 other people who are hand-wringing about having kids.

Honestly, this is a weird thing to see. My parents just... did it, while so many people wait for the perfect time, have kids into their 40s, and then have to deal with teenagers in their 60s. Perhaps not for everyone, but there are perks.

Most people's parents managed one way or another...

"seems" is doing a lot of work here, and you are presuming your worldview to be more correct than the OP's parents? on what basis do you make that judgement? are you not the descendent of someone who once had more than a single child?

So far the four of us who have turned 18 are doing great for ourselves, so it turned out pretty well. No neglect, great food, and an excellent education.

Are you saying some of us should have been put in the notoriously abusive foster care system instead of having a great family?

You mentioned education, and I assume you attended public schools, because 10 tuitions sound like a lot (and homeschooling sounds impossible). I'm amazed your parents were able to afford to feed you well, but good for them.

But how on earth were you supervised. I guess one parent must have been stay-at-home. Which means the other had to earn an income for the whole dozen of you? Did you ever see that parent (seriously, did they have to work 80+ hrs a week?)

> Are you saying some of us should have been put in the notoriously abusive foster care system

I think if you have 10 kids, then someone checking in to make sure that the kids are being fed, supervised, educated becomes a thing that probably needs to happen. If your parents were able to pull it off, great. I just doubt many parents could.

My understanding is that it is pretty common and not mysterious at all that as children get older they start to look after each other. Being the youngest of 4 kids, the older ones often watched over me.

Nope, homeschooled 100%. I did go to community college when I was 13, I guess. Lots of books (4000 in our home library), Khan Academy, and no personal electronics for the kids.

>But how on earth were you supervised. I guess one parent must have been stay-at-home.

Mom still is, and she's good at it. The real answer is that it's not any more effort past 6 or so kids. I've been taking care of kids my entire life, essentially, and it really does become self-sustaining. Turns out tweens and young teens are great at taking care of babies. There's a picture somewhere of 10-year-old me wearing my new baby sister in a carrier.

Dad's a principal engineer, he's been remote for a long time, we saw him plenty. (he's also somewhat active here, Hi Dad!)

As long as you don't spend money on things like TV, and buy in bulk to cook at home, it's really not too expensive. We'd spend about $1300 a month in groceries.

> I think if you have 10 kids, then someone checking in to make sure that the kids are being fed, supervised, educated becomes a thing that probably needs to happen.

Where's the threshold for the state examining their anuses because obviously something must be wrong here?

We did have CPS called a couple times, once because I was doing my college coursework at 14 sitting on the patio roof. I hopped down, we sat around and listened to the spiel, then I politely asked them if they could fuck off because my Sociology 204 class was about to happen.

We also scored at the top of our (good) school district in standardized testing. Like, all of us were the top score in our grade.

This is bizarre nonsense. Because you don't know how to do something successfully then the government should regulate it for everyone? People have been raising huge families for ages. Mormon families for example are known for often being massive and still successful.

I don't know how to tell you this, but other people are different from you.

The world is full of people who have families and lives and they are not just shallow copies of you.

Just because something isn't to your liking or understanding doesn't mean it's bad or wrong.

This is precisely the kind of socializing influence my 4-year elder sister brought to me! Her words are burned into my brain: "Other people don't think the way you do!"

With that simple statement she opened up a whole new world to me.

I was raised with 9 peers and can address this!

Firstly, births are (usually) spread out over time (20 years for my family). Secondly, the older children help the younger ones (in all respects: I am deeply grateful for the socializing influence of my elder (by 4 years) sister). Thirdly, there is more to life than "family" life (neighborhood children, friends, school, sports, job, etc.) and so we were often under the care of others or on our own. Consequently my friends and I roamed the woods and swamps, cycled around town, to/from school and generally, wandered everywhere within the city limits (~20-mile radius). Once we could drive a car, trips became shorter, less varied, more task- and family-oriented.

I remember the first time my mom told me to "hold down the fort!", rushed out in an emergency and left me in charge of my younger siblings. Pretty exciting to be handed such responsibility but it was easier than it sounds and a lot of fun really.

Accurate, and it sounds like you had a similar childhood experience to me: explorative, social, and educational. Nice to see another one of us!

Why is van classified as a car? It's more like a mini-bus than a car.

It's a private vehicle, not much larger than a pickup. The Ford Transit is excellent, by the way.

Technically, they're not. The SUVs that this article complains about are also technically not "cars". They're classified as trucks under many regulations.

Ignoring the folly of the automobile being the only way to travel, and that independent mobility is all but dead in the United States, you are not the target of regulations like this. The target is needlessly large vehicles that do little but to stoke the ego of the owner, or maybe simply being another step up in the SUV safety arms race.

> Ignoring the folly of the automobile being the only way to travel...

Thing is, if you drive 10 people, you drive one van. If ten people take the train or the bus, you buy ten tickets. Even if there were much better public transportation in the US, the economics push toward driving with larger family sizes.

> ... and that independent mobility is all but dead in the United States...

Not sure what you mean here?

Yes, my family is not in the mind of the people asking for pickup trucks to be banned, but generally people with that mindset don't ask for narrow, tailored legislation.

Source: we got burned by this plenty often.

> Why can't the government stay out of my business?

As I see it, the moment you leave your private property you are interacting with society and it's not your business anymore. Of course you need the option for a bigger van, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be done about the SUVs. You can't just drive around on public(!) roads and think you're not bound to the rules of society. Also, it's a private citizen proposing this and not "the government". Environmental legislation is a product of changing attitudes in society and not some deep-state, technocratic action.

> There were 35,766 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2020 in which 38,824 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.7 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.34 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The fatality rate per 100,000 people ranged from 4.9 in Massachusetts to 25.4 in Mississippi. The death rate per 100 million miles traveled ranged from 0.63 in Massachusetts to 1.97 in South Carolina. Footnote

Source: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...

This is just an overall death statistic in cars, not ones where the size of the car was actually to blame for a death. Given such a small number, I think the government can forgo regulation.

Edit: Yes this covers pedestrian deaths

But does this include pedestrians and bikers who are killed by vehicles?

Yes, at least one of the tables explicitly mentions that the statistics they use cover pedestrian deaths and the whole page is built using that single data set.

The government already has limits on car sizes.

They literally say how wide cars may be and how much size is inside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class

So really the blog should be, 'why do they limit the size of cars, but not to my own personal preferences?'

Frankly I also read this blog as a bad actor.

>This limit would truly help with the environment, reduce road damage (lighter cars mean less road damage) and be overall for drivers (people can drive a bigger car than others).

The real reasoning is revealed here. Not because 'I'm ok with a 100,000lb overloaded dump truck driving next to me but that rich person driving the escalade... it's toooo big.'

Political activism under guise.

While I applaud the motivation, it is incorrect (at least in the US) to say that government "should" limit the size and weight of cars as this suggests that it does not already do so which it clearly does. It is also incorrect to state that anyone is forced to buy a big car. Even in the US, there is a selection of sub-compact cars that are fun to drive and tend to be on the cheaper side to buy let alone drive.

I'm all for making the roads safer and reducing petrol use so perhaps we can reframe this as "Governments should continue to work toward increased efficiency and safety".

What meaningful limits does the US government put on size/weights of cars? A rivian R1T has a gross kerb weight of like 9000lbs, the new electric hummer over 10000. With the move to electric cars, especially large commercial ones, they will generally get a lot heavier as batteries plus motor is typically much, much heavier than combustion engine + gas tank.

A quick google says you can pretty much drive anything on a single axle in the US so long as its 20,000 lbs or less- thats so huge there might as well not be a limit...

Most states restrict non-commercial licensed drivers to well less than 20k an axle so I'm guessing you might have mixed up per axle limits and non-commercial license limits. Not to worry though I get your point and non-commercial licenses vs commercial ones were not part of the discussion. Perhaps it is a distraction to even mention them at this point. I only bring them up as they also serve as practical governmental restriction on vehicle size. I don't really see there being a demand for commercial driver's licenses so that one can drive a bus for fun.

I do agree that the maximum for a non-commercial driver is "a lot" in the context of everyone driving a motor coach around town. However, as you point out, there is a limit to weight and I can assure you there is also a limit to size.

We can agree that we feel that the limits are not restrictive enough but they are clearly there and I feel it would be wrong to suggest otherwise.

YMMV as they say.

If gasoline cost $10/gal like it ought to, then we'd have smaller cars.

I agree but I think consumers will jump to electric cars instead now that they're an option.

This is reminding me of the kei cars in Japan : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

Kei cars are awesome but sadly they will never be safe on American roads even if they're street legal. The speed of our roads and the sizes of our cars will basically kill you if you get into an accident in a Kei car. If our speed limits were lowered and our cars were smaller, I would love to own one of those.

I believe the government should increase yearly registration costs exponentially based on lower MPG.

If you get 10-18 MPG... you must pay 10 times the registration fee that a 40-50 MPG hybird pays.

As long as it's measured by MPG per occupied seat. Our family fills our Dodge Durango and gets better MPG per occupied seat than a single driver Smart car.

20 MPG * 6 > 42 MPG * 1

There is an environment cost to manufacturing a car, any car. Sure in the long term, more efficient is better is better for the environment, but you want to amortize the harmful costs of manufacturing (and discarding) cars by getting as much use as possible.

In other words, a policy like this would require a fair bit of balance (make sure cars stay on the road for long enough), otherwise it risks increasing pollution.

Luckily, I can move to a state where they don't do that.

I've wondered if some moving violations should have a vehicle weight multiplier. We police speeding and failure to stop mostly because those actions put others at risk. Heavier vehicles pose an increased risk, so maybe they should be fined at higher amounts?

Do vehicle insurance rates factor in car size? I would imagine that larger vehicles result in higher payouts to 3rd parties in collisions. Maybe it is canceled out by a decrease in payouts to the policy holder.

I prefer approaches that incentivize positive climate behavior, like taking the bus or bikes. Make it more convenient to charge electric vehicles in cities. Etc.

Try to limit it and tax people who buy monstrous passenger vehicles, they will turn to utility vehicles. Tax all large rides and give tax breaks to businesses to compensate, people will grow businesses just for the kick of a giant ride, or ride some rv. It will end when people realize real life impacts of their ways, probably when the day they die. Find a gentle way around that and save the world!

Counterpoint: “why can’t government limit what people can mandate out of cars … for very good safety reasons”?

they can... when they make gas and electricity used to charge cars more expensive? since they use more of it

There are limits on car size...

Government encourages businesses to buy heavy cars. Read section 179. How about we get started by removing stupid government regulations.

Why can't the government put a limit on the expression of clueless technocrats?

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, we’ll use more government regulation." Now they have two problems.

And others think: "we'll let the free market sort it out".

Now you have 3 problems.

1. There exists an entrenched monopoly with political influence

2. Customers are being price gouged as a result of monopolistic price setting

3. Regulatory capture through lobbying by the monopoly ensures there's no competition going forward.

I feel like this would fall into the "foot in the door" political pattern I've been seeing everywhere where they're just trying to get their foot in the door with some minimal legislation. Whether it's supposedly "for the kids" or "for the environment" or whatever, they're just trying to set a precedent with some legislation that's really minimal (right now) so it's hard to argue against.

However, once they get their way, once they've set their precedent, then they just spend years pushing it further and further to get to where they really want to be. Maybe one year they lower the weight limit. The next they lower the size limit. Maybe they start issuing hard to acquire "permits" to own a "large" vehicle. They they redefine what "large" means the next year. Maybe they start demanding new fees to own large car the next year. And so on, and so on.

What's the saying? Boiling the frog alive? They'll never at any point make a jump that's too far that would cause people to resist it. Every step is just one more tiny little tightening that people will begrudgingly accept. I see this pattern literally everywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com