• DevCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    There was a discussion a couple of years ago around gasoline taxes and how they are supposed to pay for roadway maintenance. The question came up about EVs. There were discussions about how to include EVs in the taxation system so they would pay for their fair share of the road. One of the options was to impose a tax attached to your vehicle registration based upon the weight of the vehicle. The greater the weight, the more wear and tear it produces on the road surface. This might be one solution to the barrier problem, namely moving the extra cost to the reason for the extra cost.

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      ah yes, another anti-environment tax. More barriers to fossil-fuel free adoption. As you would expect, Mississippi already has this tax. Don’t be like Mississippi.

      • eltrain123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Wouldn’t be anti-environmental… it would be for all vehicles including ICE and commercial, as well.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      And the heavy vehicles get classified as light cargo so are largely exempt from those taxes. They’re promoting and building heavy “cargo” vehicles specifically because they get exemptions for fuel efficiency and taxes (depending on location).

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Some states do exactly that, or did back in the day. 30-years ago in Oklahoma, an old 2-ton dump truck with an antique plate was $20, a new Corvette $600. I think Texas flipped that and charged by weight vs. value.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Every mile an EV drives is already taxed as we already tax electricity consumption. There is no reason to add a tax for something already taxed.

  • middlemanSI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s 3175 kg for non-free folk. My car has around 1600 kg. 7k pound car is a fat fat cow.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s the battery, and the support frame to carry the weight of the battery safely. Like it or not - cars are getting heavier.

  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    My first car had a curb weight of 2400 lbs. It’s absurd how fucking huge these planet-destroying, environment destroying, life destroying monstrosities have become.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    9 months ago

    This becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. If there are 7000lb passenger trucks on the highway around my compact car, I maybe start wanting to get a larger vehicle myself to protect myself from the idiots who drive them.

    • Eczpurt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      There has to be some sort of incentive either for smaller cars or against larger cars. Currently you can go into a dealer, tell them you want the biggest baddest truck/SUV that they have, and buy it all while having a normal license.

      You’d only be paying a slight premium on whatever road or fuel tax if that while having the benefit of not getting destroyed in a car accident. As it stands, there is little reason to buy a larger vehicle unless you actually don’t like driving a car that big.

  • Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Okay this makes no sense. What about semi trucks or anything commercial? Did we decide decades ago that they can just fuck off and die?

  • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    that thumbnail photo looks a lot like the guardrail on lifeguard road La Jolla farms Blacks Beach overlook switchback trail

  • x0x7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you want society to rely less on cars stop subsidizing roads.

  • Alpha71@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    Apparently the author (and some of you as well) haven’t heard about 80,000lb tractor trailers…

  • Mr_Smiley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    What a load of shit. Pretty sure roads are already used by many vehicles of Greater mass than 7000lbs. Trucks. Buses. Coaches.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      18 wheelers and other heavy vehicles are definitely not going to be stopped by a guardrail. They also disintegrate any small passenger vehicle they come in contact with at any significant speed. I’m not sure how pointing out that they are dangerous is a load of shit.

      Additionally, heavy vehicles cause upwards of 80% of road wear, which means we are subsidizing private transport companies by not forcing them to fund a proportional amount of road maintenance.

      • Alpha71@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Additionally, heavy vehicles cause upwards of 80% of road wear, which means we are subsidizing private transport companies by not forcing them to fund a proportional amount of road maintenance.

        They do. There are additional fee’s and fuel surcharges that states make transport companies pay for road upkeep.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          They pay more but not 80% of the total cost of maintenance. That’s what the distribution would need to be in order to cancel out the outsized influence they have on infrastructure degradation.

    • x0x7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      But not with nearly every vehicle being one of them and operated by people with CDLs that understand a lot of the safety features of the road aren’t going to work for them.

      • Mr_Smiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Mentions skidding on ice in first paragraph. No amount of training can reverse the laws of friction.

        Thing is, I agree and think normal consumer passenger cars are getting far too heavy. Like people.