▲ 128 ▼ The Deadly Rise of Giant Trucks and S.U.V.s (www.nytimes.com) submitted 1 month ago by Veserr@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world 26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Fluffy_Ruffs@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (3 children) No politician would support it because of the votes it would cost them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago Exactly. In Canada, the right wing gained 30 points promising to kill the carbon levy (they called it a tax). Government had to kill it or get voted out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago Also half the politicians are driving these monstrosities. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child) Maybe. If you pay by weight and distance, and focus it on EVs “paying their share”, you may get a lot of truck owners reacting in outrage over something they know nothing about. As an EV owner I would vote for it despite it costing me more, because it’s a fair way to do it, it might cut back in ridiculous trucks …. Although I might angle for the income to be dedicated to “transportation infrastructure “, not just roads Then again, my brother got one of those Silverado EVs. That battery is three times the size of mine and the car approaches 10,000 pounds. At some point there’s got to be a weight limit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) 80% of road damage are the semis that weigh 60,000 lbs. What do you think will happen to the price of goods if you ban the primary transportation of those goods? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago My bad, I took the shortcut of calling g pickups: trucks. Currently large trucks are treated differently from passenger vehicles and I’m sure that would continue As you say, if it were truly based on road damage, commercial vehicle would have to cover most of it. That may be fair, but yeah doesn’t seem economically sustainable permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago Exactly. In Canada, the right wing gained 30 points promising to kill the carbon levy (they called it a tax). Government had to kill it or get voted out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago Also half the politicians are driving these monstrosities. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child) Maybe. If you pay by weight and distance, and focus it on EVs “paying their share”, you may get a lot of truck owners reacting in outrage over something they know nothing about. As an EV owner I would vote for it despite it costing me more, because it’s a fair way to do it, it might cut back in ridiculous trucks …. Although I might angle for the income to be dedicated to “transportation infrastructure “, not just roads Then again, my brother got one of those Silverado EVs. That battery is three times the size of mine and the car approaches 10,000 pounds. At some point there’s got to be a weight limit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) 80% of road damage are the semis that weigh 60,000 lbs. What do you think will happen to the price of goods if you ban the primary transportation of those goods? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago My bad, I took the shortcut of calling g pickups: trucks. Currently large trucks are treated differently from passenger vehicles and I’m sure that would continue As you say, if it were truly based on road damage, commercial vehicle would have to cover most of it. That may be fair, but yeah doesn’t seem economically sustainable permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) 80% of road damage are the semis that weigh 60,000 lbs. What do you think will happen to the price of goods if you ban the primary transportation of those goods? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago My bad, I took the shortcut of calling g pickups: trucks. Currently large trucks are treated differently from passenger vehicles and I’m sure that would continue As you say, if it were truly based on road damage, commercial vehicle would have to cover most of it. That may be fair, but yeah doesn’t seem economically sustainable permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago My bad, I took the shortcut of calling g pickups: trucks. Currently large trucks are treated differently from passenger vehicles and I’m sure that would continue As you say, if it were truly based on road damage, commercial vehicle would have to cover most of it. That may be fair, but yeah doesn’t seem economically sustainable permalink fedilink source parent