this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
468 points (98.5% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 128 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.

Adding such a tax, where every vehicle paya relative to what they do to the road surface they roll on, would instantly make all SUVs unviable. It would also increase the incentives for shipping freight by rail by an incredible amount.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes please, apply the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle

The absence of it's application means you make others pay for the costly decisions of a few, incentivizing and subsidizing damaging behaviour.

The absence also often means wealth transfer from poor to rich, as you need to have some wealth to be able to cause significant 'pollution'.

It makes so much sense. "You want this? Ok, then pay for what it entails, all the consequences." Only then people make informed decisions.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Dude, we are still stuck with half of America thinking more CO2 is good because it's "extra plant food". This policy you suggest would have them countering saying they should pay less for helping to feed the forests with their vehicle's emissions.

It's a great solution, but I don't know how we could get it passed.

[–] Lifebandit666@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great idea, I hear Aramco is the world's biggest polluter, let's start there.

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

You can start from several points in parallel.
There's no need to wait for Aramco.

[–] Anekdoteles@feddit.de 19 points 1 year ago

Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.

Road wear comes from weight and power, so does pollution. Add size to the equation and you can estimate a cars dangerousness. Look only at size and you can see a cars damage to urban spaces. Hence, private vehicles should be taxed based on their size, weight and power. Bonus points for tire width, because tires are a non-recycable environmental problem and super-wide tires add nothing to the world but damage.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tesla model S is heavier than my diesel truck. Many EVs probably are

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I think it's probably likely that EVs are inherently a little heavier than ICEs, but I don't think it explains all of the weight growth trend of EVs. If we want to make sure that EVs do not become uncompetitive in relation to ICEs under this type of scheme, you could simply give them the first N kilograms off. This makes sure that the property of road wear still gets priced in for relatively heavier EVs, without making them directly uncompetitive.

[–] leaf@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dutch cars are taxed on weight, with temporary exceptions for EVs.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does it scale to the fourth power? If yes, colour me impressed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wirrvogel@feddit.de 80 points 1 year ago (7 children)

They should not be allowed in cities at all because they encourage irresponsible driving and when they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, the injuries are more deadly. Make people with these cars stop at the city border and use public transport.

SUVs are a paradox: while many people buy them to feel safer, they are statistically less safe than regular cars, both for those inside and those outside the vehicle. A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving.

I want to add that they also have greater blind spots. I got run over by an SUV driving out of a parking space, because the driver said she didn't see me. I am an old, fat woman with a walking aid with four wheels and had multiple colorful bags from shopping with me and was wearing a white, big summer hat. She would have overlooked an elephant, because her car is as huge as a tank. My walking aid saved me and I only had minor injuries, a kid would have died.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] filister@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Not to mention that they are extremely wasteful and not good for the environment and our roads. If a small car and SUV went into a head collision the chance of survival of the passengers in the smaller car are much lower.

[–] bug@lemmy.one 14 points 1 year ago

Bigger car = safer is exactly the kind of backwards thinking which causes so many people to unnecessarily buy big cars. The entire concept of Chelsea Tractors comes from middle-class parents thinking they need to do the school run in a tank so little Tarquin and Lilliput will be safe. We have Euro NCAP safety ratings for cars, judge the safety based on the actual tests!

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“The trend of “autobesity” is forcing car park providers to think of new ways to accommodate larger cars, such as introducing wider bays.”

That’s the most disgusting part of this. They are adapting the infrastructure to accommodate the child killers when the sensible approach is #fuckBigCars.

#fuckCars in general.

[–] soviettaters@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Since when do pit bulls need parking spaces?

[–] FredericChopin_@feddit.uk 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SUV drivers can’t even keep on their damn lanes. Particularly on bends with no lane markings.

If you have that poor spatial awareness perhaps don’t buy a massive eyesore. Plus you can’t see over or around them to see other traffic so they make it more dangerous for other drivers as we have less data to go on.

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My parents got a contemporary Highlander and I hate every minute of driving it. There's zero visibility out of it, the "lane assist" shit hates curves in the roads, and it feels like I'm in a giant-but-claustrophobic spaceship with all these fucking computer systems that can't be turned off. Spatial awareness is fucking hard when you can't see a goddamned thing out most of the windows, and entire cars regularly disappear behind the A-pillar.

[–] Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do they get parking fine for not fitting in the space ? It's an easy way to limit the obesity epidemic on cars

[–] bAZtARd@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago

Nope. Just wait and see then make the parking spaces bigger.

[–] jimmux@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

The building I live in has started doing this for the private parking spots. Any vehicle not within the lines is hit with $80. Their hand was forced since some started parking trucks that leave the entire bed hanging out.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


While the size of the standard parking bay has remained static for decades, cars have been growing longer and wider in a phenomenon known as “autobesity”.

There is growing debate about car size and road safety, after two eight-year-old girls, Selena Lau and Nuria Sajjad, died when a Land Rover crashed through a school fence in south-west London in July.

The research also revealed that 27 models are too wide for drivers to comfortably open their doors when parked between two other cars.

The Land Rover Discovery measures 2.073 metres wide, leaving a narrow 16.35cm space between the doors and the bay’s borders.

Often nicknamed “Chelsea tractors”, their use in city centres has long been criticised, with some road safety campaigners calling for them to be banned in busy pedestrian areas.

Campaigners have questioned why drivers need such large and dangerous cars in the city, particularly when dropping children off at school, with some going to extreme measures to get their message across.


The original article contains 603 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmmmm, sounds like these cars need to go on a diet. 😂

[–] eee@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Cats should be taxed based on their size.

load more comments
view more: next ›