I am working on research towards the goal of introducing strict federal weight penalties for consumer vehicles.
Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
If you are involved in automotive, environmental, political spaces - or know someone who is - please reach out, email in bio.
Building upon this, the light truck loophole [1] means that there is currently a sort of arms race ongoing if you are concerned about car safety.
Car manufacturers are happy to build the majority of their consumer-facing vehicles as "light trucks" so they can ignore environmental standards, and those of us that want smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicle need to compromise on safety.
SUVs need to be heavily penalized, and need to have far stricter licensing requirements. This will bring down emissions much more than some blanket move to EVs, and be beneficial for safety as well.
On the surface, weight penalties seem to be an effective way to accomplish this; I am curious if there are any examples or case studies about this that you can cite, 'bryanmgreen.
And specific to weight, it's topic that is not ignored by federal or state regulating bodies. Heck, even 10 years ago the EPA stated if reduce the weight of your vehicle by 100lbs you can achieve 1-2% fuel improvements. And weight removal is the opposite of diminishing returns, so every pound reduction yields better results.
The current generations of Hilux and Tacoma are extremely comparable. Its not like the Hilux is really that much smaller. A couple inches here, a couple inches there, and roughly the same weight.
I’d really love a hybrid maverick, but they are impossible to get. People are still waiting on their 2021 Maverick orders.
I do think the popularity of the truck has sparked something in the auto industry. I believe Toyota is working on a competitor, but we likely won’t see that for another year out two.
I'm so relieved someone is working on this. I mean, the cars of the 60s and 70s, many of them were so much lighter. Now all the sudden, cars have become fat and heavy and bloated.
Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.
It's not just the US either. My house in London was built in 1970 and has a garage that will not fit a modern hatchback/compact in it. It might just about fit, but you wouldn't be able to open the doors.
Guarantee you can’t find an American car built in 1970 that would fit either. Case in point, the 1970 Pontiac Bonneville Coup. A diminutive 2 door car that was a 18’ long by 6.5’ wide.
Many of the least efficient vehicles like the EV Hummer the steel frame is still heavier than the battery.
The efficiency game as EVs scale up will always try to get the highest range out of the fewest batteries/battery cells, so cars don't necessarily "only get heavier" because weight impacts efficiency (as does drag coefficients and overall surface area). Lower weight cars get more battery range from the same size battery.
Also, while battery cells sometimes get heavier as the charge capacity gets denser, it is not a straightforward relationship. (Look at phone batteries over the last couple of decades: they store more charge than ever but are also effectively "lighter" in weight than ever.)
Relatedly, because it is fun to speculate about other ways that battery weight may shrink in the next few decades though we don't have enough data yet: right now we're in a "range race" where manufacturers in the US, especially, are all focused on getting the highest possible range numbers (and thus more battery cells to cover it) that they can and meeting/exceeding the 300 miles per full charge "goal post" to fight Americans' current EV range anxieties.
That "goal post" itself may shift, or at least open up to be more of a spectrum of consumer choice. As more Americans get more home charging infrastructure they may grow much more comfortable with smaller range batteries. The early Nissan Leafs have already shown that some home owners can successfully live on 100 miles per full charge or less batteries (even some road trips with current charging infrastructure). It may make sense for car manufacturers to compete on EV form factors that intentionally include smaller batteries and overall are much lighter-weight cars, if for no other reason than it is a way to drive costs down towards extremely cheap low end models.
That's not entirely imaginary speculation either, because Asian markets with faster EV adoption curves than the US average already have some really interesting competition on light-weight, low-range, extremely cheap "urban" EVs. There's probably plenty of market potential in the US for sub-$10k low weight, low range EVs as at least secondary cars in households, and in some cases (some cities) would even already meet many primary car needs. It's just probably going to take a lot more infrastructure, marketing, and consumer convincing in the US market past current "range anxiety" over-concern before we see such cars common in the US, though.
Strict weight limits would be hugely beneficial for addressing environmental, safety, and infrastructure cost concerns.
A related--albeit more "out-there"--idea is to impose momentum limits in addition to speed limits based on vehicle weight classes. We have a crude version of this on highways, where speed limits for trucks are often lower than the limits for cars (e.g., 70mph for cars, 65mph for trucks).
But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.
This would make roads a lot safer, and add an additional, non-monetary, tax on heavier vehicles.
Another big benefit of imposing weight limits on consumer vehicles is that the United States would have a fighting chance of becoming energy independent, even before accounting for the shift to renewables. So we can add improved national security to the list of reasons to pursue this common-sense policy.
There is an interesting study that has shown SUV drivers tend to be overconfident, likely due to the vehicle size and their driving position, and are less able to judge the speed and capabilities of their vehicles accurately.
> But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.
This seems more dangerous, not less. Change a lane and all of a sudden you need to slam on your brakes because you didn't realize how much slower the other vehicle was going. Hopefully the person behind you can react quick enough. I see near accidents from this sort of thing fairly often with less of a speed difference.
Unfortunately you did not spell out what you were thinking. But I had a similar reaction.
I believe that cars in general had less weight 40 years ago. But it came at a cost of much worse crash safety in form of deformation zones and general sturdyness.
But I am sure the GP is also aware of these issues and can comment.
Naively that's going to end up disproportionately penalizing EVs[1], which sounds exactly backwards to me. "Weight" is not the correct factor to optimize, basically.
[1] Which are heavy, because they can't source 2/3 of their reaction mass from the atmosphere and have to keep all the reactants in the battery at all time.
Alright? It's not clear by implication what you actually do want to optimize for but the weight/particulate problem is a fairly well-known problem. For instance, from the California Air Resources Board: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/brake-tire-wear-e...
Weight should certainly be part of the calculation. Road wear, momentum at speed, and particulate emissions (including from tires) all increase with weight.
Fuel consumption? Net total particulate emissions? Net involved fatalities (regardless of fault)? It's not like this is hard. Those are the things people care about reducing.
At best, vehicle mass is a proxy measurement for those things. But the thing is, you use a proxy measurement when the things you're trying to measure are hard to measure. That stuff is easy!
Fundamentally my point is libertarian: If we want to regulate safety, we should regulate safety and not play dumb games with weight rules that then need to be tuned for EVs or whatnot. Fine-tuned rulemaking doesn't work.
> Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
Please don't. we don't need more idiots telling us how to live our lives and micro managing us on how you feel we should live.
Feel? And how do you think your post reads, as fact or sentiment?
If
a) vehicles cause pollution.
b) pollution is bad.
c) bigger vehicles cause more pollution than smaller vehicles.
than naturally it would follow that
d) if a vehicle is oversized for the owners use cases that is bad.
How can we avoid d? Taxes seem to work as deterrent, just look how angry everyone gets when you add a new one.
Literally this very form of tax is one of the main reasons why in countries where the avg. person is wealthier than the avg. american (norway is a good example) drive significantly smaller (and less polluting) cars.
Even in Norway the owner decides. If you decide you need a massive gasoline vehicle in Norway, you can buy one. It'll just cost you a lot more than a small EV.
As someone who could potentially get killed by people driving cars, I would rather not let every random moron decide whether or not their vehicle is safe enough to drive on public roads.
My chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron in an SUV are astronomically higher than my chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron on a bike.
Statistically unlikely given that SUV carries more people, which translates into higher moron encounter chance since more morons are now forced onto other mode of transport. You just increased your odds.
As for seriously, have you ever seen a bike accident?
I'd take even quintupling my odds of getting hit by a bike if it meant I eliminated the chance of getting hit by an SUV. I'd take getting hit by several people on bicycles in my life than getting hit by an SUV going 50mph once.
And yes, I've seen accidents with bikes hitting pedestrians. Most of the time the people ended up fine with minor bruises and sometimes small cuts.
I've seen pedestrians hit by SUVs. Its been rare to see people walk away from that.
I've had many friends and I get into some pretty gnarly bicycle accidents as single bike accident, a bicycle to bicycle accident, or a bicycle to pedestrian accident. Normally just bruised, scraped, and maybe minor cuts. One or two broke bones. The only people I know that have died while riding a bicycle died because they were struck by a car.
I've lost several friends and family members to car accidents.
Once again, if I'm going to be in an accident I'd probably take an accident between two bicycles at 12mph than two SUVs at 40mph.
> 12mph than two SUVs at 40mph.
12 mph is the speed of a beginner bicycler. most bikers go faster then that.
most pedestrians are hit by cars going under 40mph and SUV's only make up about 8% of the total market.
These facts don't disprove the idea that one would 'rather' get hit by a bike vs a vehicle, but the fact that you keep saying that nonsense doesn't help your argument.
> I've lost several friends and family members to car accidents.
I'm not surprised, 76% of Americans require a car to get to work. that's a lot of car trips.
If you don't like cars, don't drive one. I don't. But stop pushing your views onto others.
I didn't realize stating that I'd rather be hit by a bicyclist over a car is pushing my views on people. I guess there must be people here who disagree and would prefer being hit by a car.
I drive cars a lot. The way things are around me, I pretty much need to. I don't personally really dislike cars, I actually really like cars and enjoy driving them and riding my motorcycles. I just can't understand people arguing like bicycle accidents are practically as bad as car accidents or that having people trade their cars for bikes will make people overall less safe.
Your number of SUVs only being 8% of the market is way wrong. Try 80% in the US. It's been around 50% or so for years. The vast majority of cars around me are trucks and SUVs. The one that killed a cyclist near my kid's daycare recently was going over 50mph on a 40mph road. I'd like to see some actual statistics about "most pedestrians are hit by cars going under 40mph" statistic. It would surprise me either way.
EDIT: Some data about speeds here, and yeah under 40mph to pedestrians is definitely the majority.
I'm not going to get hit a car that I'm driving. I'm going to get by a car someone else is driving. I don't only breathe the air that is polluted by cars I drive. I don't only get flooded with the sound produced by cars that I drive. You are imposing your views on me by driving a car.
is it suvs commuting to work or all types, because you mught be cherry picking your stats if you present avg occupancy for all cars in us as an argument here
Assuming we exclude mass transport, what do you think the values would be or do you have any contrary data? I know that most people I'm aware of all drive their car by themselves to their work, there was very little carpooling.
The issue is no reliable data can easily be found ( closest for me was this -https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicle... ) suggesting that neither of us actually knows. Sounds to me like a bad reason to base an argument( or policy on ).
- I know that most people I'm aware of all drive their car by themselves to their work, there was very little carpooling.
how many of those are suvs?
and then we go bk to use case. there is a reason soccer moms exist. u focus on work commute and likely on metro areas only but fail to account for other activity types
Here some data - it's 1.5 people per vehicle in one study[1], 1.45 in another[2], department of energy says 1.67[3]. So a little higher than my assertion, but not much at all.
it depends on what you mean. I seen the hospital data (can't share it) and per capita bikes send more pedestrians to the hospital with series injury than cars - however cars have a higher kill rate.
One such woman walking down Locust Walk (University of PA) suffered severe brain damage and no longer can move all of her limbs. I can't tell you how many times I was nearly clipped by bikes speeding past me (at car speeds) and missed me by a few inches. Luckily the campus police started to prevent bicyclists from using Locust Walk.
but its a stupid argument anyways. we aren't comparing cars to bikes in this conversation. Many people can't use bikes. I'm sure in your bigoted mind (everyone should do as I see fit) that you didn't consider disabled persons, elderly, or even people with say - broken legs, but needless to say bikes are not for everyone. Thats not even taking into account bikes cant satisfy the vast majority of traveling needs of Americans. We aren't Europe. Our cities are bigger and things are further apart. Nor is bikes the one size fits all solution in the EU.
I’d rather be seriously injured than killed, yes. I think most people would pick the same.
If you observe the rush hour traffic for an hour, how many of those people have broken legs, severe disabilities or a debilitating case of elderly? The majority of people are not disabled, and the fact some people might need cars is no excuse for everyone driving a massive SUV
The tax would be an incentive to give it a good think about what you actually need to be driving.
Need and want are not the same thing. We for example need to breathe clean air. You seem to want to drive a big vehicle. If you need to drive a big vehicle then ok, just pay to offset for the added pollution.
By this same token you could argue for no licensing being necessary for operating vehicles either. Why not leave that decision to the owner as well? They know best whether they can operate the vehicle or not!
As commenters have pointed out, the big problem here is that your car can kill other people. If you want to make decisions without being bound by regulation, choose a different avenue that doesn't harm other people.
Yes. I don't care how many pedestrians need to die. Just don't take away my freedom to drive to the grocery store in a vehicle larger than a WWII tank.
Part of the reason why the United States had both a Senate and a House is to make sure that more rural states had adequate representation of their interests, which differ substantially from urban areas. Rural areas don't have pedestrians because the distances are too big.
Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas. The distance I travel to get groceries would be a net waste (financial, environmental, etc) if I had to make multiple trips rather than packing two weeks of food in one trip.
More broadly, I really wish activists / reformers (of any stripe) would recognize the limits of their own knowledge and experience and realize that the world has more diversity than dreamed of in their philosophy.
> Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas.
Why? The majority of the US population (~80%) lives in urban areas [1].
Turning your suggestion on its head, rural areas and states could fix their supposedly over-penalized residents by providing them with money or other incentives to compensate. Maybe rural local governments could subsidize door-to-door vans that deliver groceries on a route, so the rural people can drive less.
It's difficult to square urban vs rural interests without creating a tyranny of a majority/minority on either side. Dense urban areas already subsidize rural and even suburban infrastructure and use less resources. Proposing that urban areas tax themselves even more to limit pollution isn't very equitable either.
The fact of the matter is that current CO2 emissions are unsustainable, and we have no choice but to address the issue. That might mean that some may need to go to the grocery store more than bimonthly.
Want to avoid tyranny and environmental disasters? Limit the scope of laws and regulations. If a surgeon is removing cancer, does the patient want their chest cavity ripped open or a laparoscopy? In the absence of compelling additional evidence, I would go with the laparoscopy, which risks far fewer unforeseen complications. At the level of policy, I don't think history looks very kindly upon the 18th amendment to the US constitution (prohibition of alcohol) despite the very real societal problems it was intended to address.
Part of my point was that, for me, going to the store more frequently, even in a smaller vehicle, would be a net environmental negative. Is there evidence (e.g., detailed simulations) that a blunt policy would have a better outcome (using your own definition!) than a narrowly craft one?
I am pretty confident that narrow policies also have the long-term positive effect of reducing tribalism, because the average person ends up dealing with far fewer negative externalities of poorly crafted policy by "the other side".
Fill is an interesting verb. I suppose you could try to tetris it up each trip to the store, but unpacking would just as inconvenient as packing. That said, if you buy a weeksworth of food for 3 kids, sedan may easily overflow.
In their example they're buying groceries on a roughly two-week schedule. A family of four or so can go through a lot of food in two weeks. In college I'd get groceries about weekly and my roommate and I would fill the trunk of an Accord with groceries.
Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
If you are involved in automotive, environmental, political spaces - or know someone who is - please reach out, email in bio.