this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
287 points (98.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9794 readers
318 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

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

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 106 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is potentially good news, but we also need to fix the mpg exemption for trucks and SUVs if we want substantive change.

[–] sparky1337@ttrpg.network 23 points 3 months ago

Allegedly the EPA is monitoring the 8500 Gross weight through 2027, so it’s on the radar.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have long thought that if it is a truck/SUV it is for use in situations where you don't care about dents and paint scratches and thus those are not factors in the value. Dealers and car rental places would quickly figure out that they cannot legally look for such things, but customers will find a reason to buy a different one and so they would stop leasing or renting trucks/SUVs. They may still lease/rent truck/SUV shaped objects, but they will count as light cars for MPG purposes and so cost a lot more.

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Other countries can be good examples of policy that functions well. First and foremost, they should be included in the average fleet mpg rating for vehicle manufacturers. This is because they are a part of the fleet of vehicles produced and contribute a good sized portion of the greenhouse gasses emitted from vehicles. They are also one of the biggest number of vehicles sold so they shouldn't be exceptional.

I like your idea but I feel it is too in the weeds for simple policy.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The idea is trucks used for work will by nature need more fuel, but they should not be used where a more efficient car would work

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Effective policy would drive the truck engines and size to be more efficient, because they can but do not. They aren't because of the exemption. Plenty of trucks globally are significantly smaller than ours and get the jobs done. Generally I agree a more efficient car is likely ideal and should be policy enforced.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 48 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Ban the crew cab and force the trucks to be used as trucks, not minivan/SUV substitutes. Suddenly a $60k+ pavement princess used for hauling a recliner once a year isn’t as appealing.

[–] Thadrax@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I'd rather force safety requirements on all cars. Like limiting blind spots at the front and everywhere else, limiting speeds of vehicles above certain weights, increasing license requirements for vehicles that have higher safety impact etc.

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Ford F250 from the year 2035

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Gonna need bigger truck nuts

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Where there's a will, there's a way

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

got to keep the family safe.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Is that bigger or smaller than an H3? I haven't seen one on the road since Hummer went bust.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 44 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Having lived out of the US for two years, returning is a shock to the system with the size and exhaust volume of the vehicles on the road. I am skeptical that these changes can get through the gauntlet of lobbyists, however.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

Car manufacturers want these changes, mostly because they can sell their cheaper cars here at a high price since the US market is so used to inflated vehicle prices. Cheaper to make, more profit on the sell.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wow. This is unbelievable.

Also, this is probably going to be a new talking point in the election campaign:

"They came for your guns, they came for your cats, now they're coming for your trucks!!!"

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 20 points 3 months ago

I'm pretty sure it already is. That's why you have assholes rolling coal to trigger the libs.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This week, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stunned safety advocates by proposing new vehicle rules that it says will help reduce pedestrian deaths in America. The new rules appear aimed directly at the trend of increasingly massive SUVs and trucks, which have been shown to be more deadly to pedestrians than smaller and midsize vehicles.

This will be really cool if it survives the SCOTUS war on the administrative state.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

then it has to survive the SCOTUS war on the people

[–] TunaCowboy@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

Please fix the fucking lights while you're at it.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They still are banning small trucks, so I think this is not the US taking aim at truck bloat but just a new tax.

Bring back tiny neat trucks!

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

Hell, in the US probably just bringing back trucks the size of a 90s Hilux would be an improvement. It's not like the payload is any smaller than the big hunks.

But I suppose that's what you'd consider "tiny" nowadays.

[–] FeatherConstrictor@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Wait, banning small trucks? Can I get more info on this please?

[–] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

EPA has never banned small trucks. This is from consistent misinformation that shifts blame from car manufacturers to the government.

EPA made a scaled plan that required improvements to emissions from smaller trucks first, then larger trucks over the years.

Car manufacturers chose to abuse that flexibility by simply not making smaller trucks, instead of making ones that meet the standards, which is why trucks have steadily inflated in size in the US as they make whatever the next unregulated size class is that year.

You can of course partially blame EPA for not having the foresight to predict that would happen - but they also make regulations under pressure from politicians and lobbyists who are themselves influenced by car manufacturers.

[–] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

The emissions laws they have in place isn't really a ban but instead just less encouraging of smaller trucks. The bigger the truck the emissions get easier to pass.

https://newrepublic.com/article/180263/epa-tailpipe-emissions-loophole

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago

I believe that the OP means the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which effectively bans kei trucks from import into the U.S. because they're not manufactured to the Act's standards.

Or, perhaps the Chicken Tax, a 25% tariff imposed on the import of light trucks in 1964 as part of trade dispute with Europe. It's still in effect, shielding American manufacturers from competition from smaller, lighter trucks.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

I recall Japan charges people more if it's over a certain weight. Do it like Japan.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 6 points 3 months ago

Thanks Obama!